Plato'S Demiurge

[dtorge26]

Does it "come to be"?

Do you consider that a possibility (or is it ruled out by some modern revelation that Brigham Young and Orson Pratt didn't have in their day)?

Yes, I do think that individual identity comes to be, or it does have beginning. I see it as a threshold level of consciousness, like the differing degrees of consciousness exhibited by humans as compared to most other animals. You either see yourself as separate from the rest of the universe, or you do not. If you do not, it is still possible for you to gain that perspective in the future, leading to the "beginning" of your individual identity.

[inquiringmind]

Yes, I do think that individual identity comes to be, or it does have beginning. I see it as a threshold level of consciousness, like the differing degrees of consciousness exhibited by humans as compared to most other animals. You either see yourself as separate from the rest of the universe, or you do not. If you do not, it is still possible for you to gain that perspective in the future, leading to the "beginning" of your individual identity.

Then it would seem that Brigham, Parley, and Orson were right, and (if you're a faithful LDS) their views aren't just relics of the past.

You yourself seem to agree with them.

Edited April 7, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Cobalt-70]

Is this restatement is accurate? "If there is a boundary, limitation, or condition on God's power, then there exists power that God doesn't have, but that he could have but for the limitation."

If so, consider the following.

It is impossible to square the circle. Thus, there is at least one limitation on God's power; specifically, He can't square the circle.

Your reasoning implies that there exists power to square the circle that God doesn't have, but that he could have but for the fact that it doesn't exist.

Sure he can. All he has to do is to create a Gauss-Bolyai-Lobachevsky space, and he can perform the squaring the circle operation there. In fact, humans can do that. When you start talking about powers in the imaginary mathematical universe of human creation, even humans are omnipotent.

[Log]

That requirement represents a limitation or condition or boundary to his power, and so the incoherency of your reasoning remains.

[Chris Smith]

Setting aside semantics for a moment, my understanding is that Mormon theology views God as subject to the laws of nature (presumably including things like gravity, thermodynamics, etc.). Whereas the term "omnipotent" generally means God can do anything except a logical contradiction, and maybe even that. So there does seem to be a tension in LDS theology in this respect.

[Log]

I think such a definition of omniscient is inherently problematic, and is why I avoid using that word; moreover, I do not think any LDS subscribe to any such view of God's power - it is inconsistent with D&C 93.

Here's a link to a relevant paper by Blake Ostler. I don't agree with everything in this paper, but it's worth reading.

Edited April 7, 2012 by Log

[Cobalt-70]

I think such a definition of omniscient is inherently problematic, and is why I avoid using that word; moreover, I do not think any LDS subscribe to any such view of God's power - it is inconsistent with D&C 93.

Here's a link to a relevant paper by Blake Ostler. I don't agree with everything in this paper, but it's worth reading.

The problem is that the Book of Mormon uses the word omnipotent (see, e.g., Mosiah 3:5). Thus, it is part of our early theology. Yet true omnipotence is impossible in a theology with multiple Gods and no ex nihilo creation. Therefore, various Mormons have taken various approaches in reconciling God's omnipotence with his non-omnipotence. The most popular approach today seems to be to re-define the term "omnipotent" to mean something like "superpotent."

[Log]

The problem is that the Book of Mormon uses the word omnipotent (see, e.g., Mosiah 3:5). Thus, it is part of our early theology.Yet true omnipotence is impossible in a theology with multiple Gods and no ex nihilo creation. Therefore, various Mormons have taken various approaches in reconciling God's omnipotence with his non-omnipotence. The most popular approach today seems to be to re-define the term "omnipotent" to mean something like "superpotent."

Indeed. As there does not exist a Nephite dictionary, we don't know what content applied to whatever word was used by King Benjamin. It is problematic, however, to presume that what he meant by "omnipotent" is what the Greeks meant by "omnipotent." On the other hand, reading it as "all-powerful" causes no problems.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Log

[Cobalt-70]

Here's a link to a relevant paper by Blake Ostler. I don't agree with everything in this paper, but it's worth reading.

I also disagree with much of his article. I think he creates a few strawmen to describe traditional Christian theology, and then claims that these strawmen are incoherent. Traditional Christian theology may be incoherent (and intentionally so), but not for the reasons he suggests. Plus, the current predominant Mormon theology is not exactly coherent, either.

[Cobalt-70]

Indeed. As there does not exist a Nephite dictionary, we don't know what content applied to whatever word was used by King Benjamin. It is problematic, however, to presume that what he meant by "omnipotent" is what the Greeks meant by "omnipotent." On the other hand, reading it as "all-powerful" causes no problems.

Joseph Smith chose the Latin-based word, and you can be certain that Smith knew what it meant to the ears of Christians reading the Book of Mormon.

[Log]

Joseph Smith chose the Latin-based word, and you can be certain that Smith knew what it meant to the ears of Christians reading the Book of Mormon.

How can I be certain? Does anyone suppose Joseph was versed in classical theology?

[inquiringmind]

Joseph Smith chose the Latin-based word, and you can be certain that Smith knew what it meant to the ears of Christians reading the Book of Mormon.

How can I be certain? Does anyone suppose Joseph was versed in classical theology?

What difference does that make if the Book Of Mormon was translated by the Gift and Power of God?

Wouldn't God know Latin, be familiar with classical Theology, and know all the connotations that the word "omnipotent" would have to 19th century Christian ears?

Edited April 10, 2012 by inquiringmind

[TAO]

Inquiring mind, I think we have to be kinda careful in this case in assuming what they meant. We know that the word endless was used to stress how long a time period some things were, even though endless wasn't being used in the usual way aka 'without end'. I don't know if there is or is not a similar case here. There might not be too, so yeah... not sure.

[Cobalt-70]

How can I be certain? Does anyone suppose Joseph was versed in classical theology?

Lots of people know what omnipotent means without being trained in classical theology. Smith was familiar with the idea of omnipotence. See Mosiah 4:9 which says that God has "all power, both in heaven and earth." See also Alma 26:35, Ether 3:4, Mormon 5:23, D&C 61:1, D&C 93:17, D&C 100:1 ("for in me there is all power"), etc.

[Log]

Lots of people know what omnipotent means without being trained in classical theology. Smith was familiar with the idea of omnipotence. See Mosiah 4:9 which says that God has "all power, both in heaven and earth." See also Alma 26:35, Ether 3:4, Mormon 5:23, D&C 61:1, D&C 93:17, D&C 100:1 ("for in me there is all power"), etc.

Which is, of course, what I said would be the non-problematic interpretation of Benjamin's use of the omnipotence. There's no indication it meant anything other than "all-powerful," in context.

What difference does that make if the Book Of Mormon was translated by the Gift and Power of God?

Wouldn't God know Latin, be familiar with classical Theology, and know all the connotations that the word "omnipotent" would have to 19th century Christian ears?

That's not how it works, typically. Unfortunately, nobody knows exactly how the translation of the Book of Mormon was performed. I would guess whatever word Benjamin used, and in the context it was used, the closest conceptual container in Joseph's vocabulary was whatever he understood by the word "omnipotent," which seems to have been synonymous with "all-powerful."

Edited April 10, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

Just for kicks, let's say I affirm God is (1) eternal, supreme, possessing all possible power and all possible knowledge, and is (2) progressing, temporal, limited, and respectful of free will.

How paradoxical is that? 'Cause I'm not feelin' it.

Good for you. It isn't paradoxical at all unless you are a Platonist.

[mfbukowski]

Unchanging: Remaining the same; showing or undergoing no change.

Progressive: Moving forward; proceeding onward; advancing; evincing progress; increasing; as, progressive motion or course; -- opposed to retrograde. [1913 Webster]

So?

[mfbukowski]

Setting aside semantics for a moment, my understanding is that Mormon theology views God as subject to the laws of nature (presumably including things like gravity, thermodynamics, etc.). Whereas the term "omnipotent" generally means God can do anything except a logical contradiction, and maybe even that. So there does seem to be a tension in LDS theology in this respect.

To set aside semantics, we must set aside language.

Good luck with that one. No tension. God accepts rules for himself much as you might swear off of chocolate cake while on a diet. It's the idea of "self-determination".

Were he to "cheat" on observing the laws he has accepted for himself, he would cease to be God. His immanence is a decision so that he can interact with his children. Were he truly transcendent, that would not be possible.

This notion I think coheres well with the idea of Adam intentionally causing the "fall" because of the benefits it conveys (true moral agency and because of that, exaltation)

Both ideas include the principle of sacrifice - giving up one good to achieve another greater good.

God, I believe, chooses to be immanent and limit himself to scientific principles that we find "work" precisely so he can interact with other immanent beings.

Edited April 11, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Indeed. As there does not exist a Nephite dictionary, we don't know what content applied to whatever word was used by King Benjamin. It is problematic, however, to presume that what he meant by "omnipotent" is what the Greeks meant by "omnipotent." On the other hand, reading it as "all-powerful" causes no problems.

Which is, of course, a literal translation of "omni-potent", and the way "most people" interpret the word, except for Christian theologians and their camp followers who are steeped in the Neoplatonic definitions and dogma.

Edited April 11, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Chris

I am sure you are familiar with Isaiah Berlin's famous distinction between "negative liberty" which I suppose we could identify with "libertarian freedom"- (the absence of constraints) and "positive liberty" which comes from obedience to laws which we have made for ourselves. (self-determination)

Self determination is ultimately a social liberty which society gives one- and I believe that relates well to the idea of a Social Trinity- that God resides in a family relationship. He is the ruler of the "city of God" (metaphorically) with its own laws and ordinances which he has accepted for himself and thus remains "all-powerful" in the sense that he has all power which the law gives him.

To violate the law for him would be a contradiction so great that the law would cease to exist and there would be no freedom for anyone.

Suppose the supreme court of the US was actually an office given to one person who decided intentionally to violate and abuse the laws of the United States. Chaos would result and there would be no law and no "freedom". Anyone could violate anyone else's rights, kill, murder and plunder without consequences. That would not be freedom, it would be chaos. In fact we would live in constant fear - and our choices would be seriously limited, just as if there were no traffic laws. You couldn't drive down the street.

So that is the sense in which I think that God's acceptance of law, even for himself, is what indeed MAKES him "omnipotent" in the sense of "all-powerful" within the limits of non-contradiction, since to contradict the law makes choice impossible.

Edit: added link to Berlin's essay: http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/walton/Berlin2Concepts.pdf

Edited April 11, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Chris Smith]

To set aside semantics, we must set aside language.

Oh, geez. Speaking of semantics...

[mfbukowski]

Oh, geez. Speaking of semantics...

[mfbukowski]

I think this quote from Berlin's essay makes it abundantly clear how what he calls "positive liberty" coheres with a Christian perspective and even more specifically a Mormon one, with its emphasis on "be ye therefore perfect even as God is perfect" and "the natural man is an enemy to God".

Our culture itself is a social collective which creates and defines laws, like it or not. And in my belief system, God himself has voluntarily submitted himself to this immanence in his creation so that he can participate in that culture through personal revelation

One way of making this clear is in terms of the independent momentum

which the, initially perhaps quite harmless, metaphor of self-mastery

acquired. ‘I am my own master’; ‘I am slave to no man’; but may I not (as,

for instance, T. H. Green is always saying) be a slave to nature? Or to my own

‘unbridled’ passions? Are these not so many species of the identical genus

‘slave’–some political or legal, others moral or spiritual? Have notmenhad the

experience of liberatingthemselves fromspiritual slavery, or slavery to nature,

and do they not in the course of it become aware, on the one hand, of a self

which dominates, and, on the other, of something in themwhich is brought to

heel? This dominant self is then variously identified with reason, with my

‘higher nature’,withthe selfwhich calculates andaims atwhatwill satisfyit in

the long run, with my ‘real’, or ‘ideal’, or ‘autonomous’ self, or with my self ‘at

its best’;which is thencontrastedwith irrational impulse, uncontrolled desires,

my ‘lower’ nature, the pursuit of immediate pleasures, my ‘empirical’ or

‘heteronomous’ self, swept by every gust of desire and passion, needing to be

rigidly disciplined if it is ever to rise to the full height of its ‘real’ nature.

Presently the two selvesmay be represented as divided by an even larger gap:

the real self may be conceived as something wider than the individual (as the

term is normally understood), as a social ‘whole’ of which the individual is an

element or aspect: a tribe, a race, a church, a state, the great society of the living

and the dead and the yet unborn. This entity is then identified as being the

‘true’ self which, by imposing its collective, or ‘organic’, single will upon its

recalcitrant ‘members’, achieves its own, and, therefore, their, ‘higher’ freedom.

I apologize for the formatting errors- it is a cut and paste which did not turn out too well, but is still understandable.

But I think it is clear how this idea coheres with a "true church" and "true set of values" which, in order to liver properly, we must "repent" to reach our "true selves" which include perfection in God- at which time we become one with him, "bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man".

I don't know how it could be clearer, Of course the idea has been abused. Communism is a corruption of the Law of Consecration. But that doesn't make the principle itself untrue.

[Cobalt-70]

Good luck with that one. No tension. God accepts rules for himself much as you might swear off of chocolate cake while on a diet. It's the idea of "self-determination".

Were he to "cheat" on observing the laws he has accepted for himself, he would cease to be God. His immanence is a decision so that he can interact with his children. Were he truly transcendent, that would not be possible.

I think you are misinterpreting Smith's Book of Mormon theology. The Book of Mormon never seriously entertains the possibility that God could cease to be God. It merely says that God is by definition perfectly just, and a situation where God is unjust would be a logical contradiction. Except for the modalism, Book of Mormon theology is pretty consistent with traditional Christian theology, including the influence of Plato.

What you are saying is quite different. You are apparently saying that if God choose to be unjust, he would descend from the throne of his godhood. That's not what the Book of Mormon says at all, and the Joseph Smith of 1829 would strongly disagree. The 1829 Mormon God could not descend from his throne, because that is a logical contradiction in the Book of Mormon universe, where there was an omnipotent and eternally unchanging God. That's not to say that he might not have had a different view in 1844.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[inquiringmind]

I think you are misinterpreting Smith's Book of Mormon theology. The Book of Mormon never seriously entertains the possibility that God could cease to be God. It merely says that God is by definition perfectly just, and a situation where God is unjust would be a logical contradiction. Except for the modalism, Book of Mormon theology is pretty consistent with traditional Christian theology, including the influence of Plato.

What you are saying is quite different. You are apparently saying that if God choose to be unjust, he would descend from the throne of his godhood. That's not what the Book of Mormon says at all, and the Joseph Smith of 1829 would strongly disagree. The 1829 Mormon God could not descend from his throne, because that is a logical contradiction in the Book of Mormon universe, where there was an omnipotent and eternally unchanging God. That's not to say that he might not have had a different view in 1844.

So you don't believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, or that the Book of Mormon is scripture?

(I don't ask to be antagonistic, I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from, what you're trying to say here, and what you Theological beliefs are.)