Plato'S Demiurge

[Log]

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

That's pretty much my read. Cobalt-70 has not yet made a post in which (s)he could be mistaken for an active LDS.

Let's see.

1. Alma wasn't serious when he said God could, under certain conditions, cease to be God.

2. The Book of Mormon teaches modalism.

3. Joseph Smith also did not think Alma was serious in 1829.

4. Joseph Smith might have thought differently in 1844s.

Each one of these is highly questionable on their face. Not one have I ever heard from a practicing Mormon.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Log

[inquiringmind]

That's pretty much my read. Cobalt-70 has not yet made a post in which (s)he could be mistaken for an active LDS.

I started this thread because I'd like to know if it's still possible for an active LDS to believe what Orson Pratt seems to have believe (and what I think Walker W. once said he believes.)

That there is some ontological ground of all being, but that it's not the God of the Bible and the Book of Mormon (which is why I asked if any Mormons would see their Deity as having anything in common with Plato's Demiurge)?

Whether or not you agree with that view yourself, do you think it's possible for a Mormon (who believes that JS was a prophet, and who believes in the standard works of your Church) to hold such a view?

Edited April 11, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Cobalt-70]

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.)

Yes I do, on both counts. But I believe the Book of Mormon, as the inspired word of God through Joseph Smith, is also a work of fiction like the book of Job. I also believe, and there is plenty of evidence to prove it, that Smith's theology evolved over a decade and a half of deep thought and prayer on the subject. He began as a Protestant, which is reflected in the Book of Mormon. The lay Protestant view of God as reflected in the Book of Mormon is just one of many valid ways to think about the nature of God. Scripture is necessarily multivocal.

[Cobalt-70]

That's pretty much my read. Cobalt-70 has not yet made a post in which (s)he could be mistaken for an active LDS.

...

Each one of these is highly questionable on their face. Not one have I ever heard from a practicing Mormon.

Not that it matters, but I am an active Mormon. There is no question in the temple recommend interview that asks whether you believe the Book of Mormon was a historical treatise. There is also no question that asks whether you believe that Mormon theology has never evolved or changed.

[Cobalt-70]

I started this thread because I'd like to know if it's still possible for an active LDS to believe what Orson Pratt seems to have believe (and what I think Walker W. once said he believes.)

That there is some ontological ground of all being, but that it's not the God of the Bible and the Book of Mormon (which is why I asked if any Mormons would see their Deity as having anything in common with Plato's Demiurge)?

Whether or not you agree with that view yourself, do you think it's possible for a Mormon (who believes that JS was a prophet, and who believes in the standard works of your Church) to hold such a view?

I think that all Mormon theologies (except the very early ones from the 1820s and 30s) require an ontological ground that precedes the biblical God. This is a necessary implication of the rejection of ex nihilo creation. Orson Pratt's theology was part of the basis for Modern Mormon theology after Adam-God.

[Log]

Not that it matters, but I am an active Mormon. There is no question in the temple recommend interview that asks whether you believe the Book of Mormon was a historical treatise. There is also no question that asks whether you believe that Mormon theology has never evolved or changed.

Others have said it better than I:

Both theistic and secular naturalists frequently insist that a text can be inspired or true without being "historical." For example, a parable such as the Good Samaritan can teach doctrinal or ethical truths even though the people and events mentioned in the parable never existed. The situation with the historical content of the Book of Mormon, however, is quite different. In fact, this is a fairly simple argument, which has been explained in print before. The historical argument for the necessity of the antiquity of the Book of Mormon is as follows:

1. Joseph Smith claimed to have had possession of golden plates written by the Nephites, and to have been visited by Moroni, a resurrected Nephite.

2. If the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document, there were no Nephites.

3. If there were no Nephites, there were no golden plates written by Nephites; and there was no Nephite named Moroni.

4. If there was no Moroni and no golden plates, then Joseph did not tell the truth when he claimed to possess and translate these nonexistent plates, and to have been visited by a resurrected man.

5. Hence, Joseph was either lying (he knew there were no plates or angelic visitations, but was trying to convince others that there were), or he was insane or deluded (he believed there were golden plates and angelic visitations which in fact did not exist).

If theistic naturalists wish to maintain that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document, but that Joseph Smith was somehow still a prophet, they must present some cogent explanation for Joseph's wild claims of possessing nonexistent golden plates and being visited by nonexistent angels. Thus the argument is not "If the Book of Mormon is not ancient, then it is not scripture," as Metcalfe would have us believe, but "If the Book of Mormon is not ancient, then Joseph Smith was not a prophet." I have never seen any theistic naturalist come to grips with this argument; instead they consistently sidestep the issue by denouncing the historical traditionalists for having a naive view of scripture, just as Metcalfe does in his essay.

Consider the following analogy: Suppose for a moment that Jesus never existed. The apostle Paul nonetheless claimed that on the road to Damascus he had a vision of the resurrected Jesus. The conclusion which the theistic naturalists would wish us to accept is that we should all be Christians on the strength of Paul's vision of the nonexistent Christ, because, after all, the four Gospels still make inspiring reading, just as they may also teach important ethical values, and provide us with a sense of community. The absurdity of this position is manifest, yet it is analogous to the proposition which the theistic naturalists would have us accept. I, for one, am not willing to sell my true birthright for this incoherent mess of pottage.

Of course, you might hold to the view that the Book of Mormon is both ancient and fictional, which would be another first for me to observe out of an "active LDS." Do you?

Edited April 11, 2012 by Log

[DarkScythe]

Side Note: God do value integrity a great deal. He devoted himself in being a God of Integrity. So His promise to himself and to us that he will keep his Integrity no matter what we do.

[mfbukowski]

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.

I am unconcerned with the history of how the belief developed. I can't see how it makes any difference. What is important, in my mind, is putting a unified theory together which consistently makes sense of it all.

After all, that is what theology is.

[mfbukowski]

Whether or not you agree with that view yourself, do you think it's possible for a Mormon (who believes that JS was a prophet, and who believes in the standard works of your Church) to hold such a view?

If you can pass a baptismal interview truthfully and if you can pass a temple recommend interview truthfully, you are a Mormon.

That's it. Orthopraxis.

The rest is between you and God- we all create our own worlds in accord with what he teaches us individually. Personal revelation is the rock on which the church is based.

[mfbukowski]

Yes I do, on both counts. But I believe the Book of Mormon, as the inspired word of God through Joseph Smith, is also a work of fiction like the book of Job. I also believe, and there is plenty of evidence to prove it, that Smith's theology evolved over a decade and a half of deep thought and prayer on the subject. He began as a Protestant, which is reflected in the Book of Mormon. The lay Protestant view of God as reflected in the Book of Mormon is just one of many valid ways to think about the nature of God. Scripture is necessarily multivocal.

Yet you seem dogmatic about your own views and interpretations- if there are more than one way to think about God "validly" why present any opinions at all?

In other words, why are you here at all?

[mfbukowski]

Not that it matters, but I am an active Mormon. There is no question in the temple recommend interview that asks whether you believe the Book of Mormon was a historical treatise. There is also no question that asks whether you believe that Mormon theology has never evolved or changed.

But then do you believe in a "Restoration" of primitive Christianity? That one IS a recommend question.

[mfbukowski]

Calling something "fictional" can be quite misleading. There are many ways of viewing the Bible for example which recognize the fact that it is not a book about science without labeling it "fictional". For example, one may view the Bible as legends based on something which "actually happened" in the mists of the past carried forward in verbal tradition and finally written down, or inspired stories meant to teach great moral lessons, like that of Job, perhaps (and I say perhaps because we cannot know). Did Job exist? It is unknowable and irrelevant- the lessons taught are true moral lessons.

But to say that something is "fiction" implies that it was a deliberately pre-planned story structured by intent to create a world which never was, and this creative act happened at a specific time and place and by a particular person.

The only way in which the Book of Mormon could properly be said to be "fiction"- a pre-planned constructed story about things which never happened and were known by the author to have never happened- "inspired" with moral truths or otherwise- would negate Joseph being a prophet. That would make him a "liar" because the narrative of the origin of the BOM would be an intentional lie.

That is a far cry from saying that the Book of Mormon was a work which Joseph received through the spirit of prophecy about peoples which never existed, but yet it has moral value to take it into the realm of "scripture" because of its great religious value pragmatically or otherwise. (I want to make it clear that this is not my personal belief- I believe that the BOM is historically true, that Nephites existed etc)

In the first scenario, Joseph is a liar. On the second scenario, he is a prophet with an inspired story, which he himself believed to be true, and which is unprovable, not unlike a legend, or on my view, not much different than vast sections of the Bible.

I disagree as I said with that second interpretation, but the bottom line is that one who believed the second interpretation could, in my opinion, be a faithful member of the church who saw the BOM, (though he believed that Nephites never existed any more than Job or the talking donkey did) to be inspired scripture just as the Bible is, since really the Bible's "truth" is in large part no different than the BOM's "truth" on this view.

But again, in one scenario, Joseph is a liar, in the second, he is a prophet.

Big difference.

[Cobalt-70]

I am unconcerned with the history of how the belief developed. I can't see how it makes any difference. What is important, in my mind, is putting a unified theory together which consistently makes sense of it all.

After all, that is what theology is.

There is no such thing as a unified theory of theology. Every theology is text, and every text is multivocal and fractured. The multivocality exists in Mormonism just as it exists in trinitarianism.

[Cobalt-70]

Yet you seem dogmatic about your own views and interpretations- if there are more than one way to think about God "validly" why present any opinions at all?

In other words, why are you here at all?

There are many validly-Mormon ways of thinking about God, but not all ways of thinking about God are valid Mormonism.

[Cobalt-70]

But then do you believe in a "Restoration" of primitive Christianity? That one IS a recommend question.

Absolutely.

[mfbukowski]

There is no such thing as a unified theory of theology. Every theology is text, and every text is multivocal and fractured. The multivocality exists in Mormonism just as it exists in trinitarianism.

That may be true, but the point is that it is our individual task in life to create what we think IS a unified theory about our existence and reasons for being here, whether or not it is in fact consistent.

At least that is my view of what it means to be human. Developing a consistent view of "reality" seems pretty basic.

So if every text is "multivocal and fractured" why try at all? Just go and contemplate the universe and don't speak- or post.

That's my point. Sit in a corner and contemplate "OM" - why bother arguing for a point of view if that cannot be done?

Edited April 11, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Cobalt-70]

The only way in which the Book of Mormon could properly be said to be "fiction"- a pre-planned constructed story about things which never happened and were known by the author to have never happened- "inspired" with moral truths or otherwise- would negate Joseph being a prophet. That would make him a "liar" because the narrative of the origin of the BOM would be an intentional lie.

That is a far cry from saying that the Book of Mormon was a work which Joseph received through the spirit of prophecy about peoples which never existed, but yet it has moral value to take it into the realm of "scripture" because of its great religious value pragmatically or otherwise. (I want to make it clear that this is not my personal belief- I believe that the BOM is historically true, that Nephites existed etc)

In the first scenario, Joseph is a liar. On the second scenario, he is a prophet with an inspired story, which he himself believed to be true, and which is unprovable, not unlike a legend, or on my view, not much different than vast sections of the Bible.

I disagree as I said with that second interpretation, but the bottom line is that one who believed the second interpretation could, in my opinion, be a faithful member of the church who saw the BOM, (though he believed that Nephites never existed any more than Job or the talking donkey did) to be inspired scripture just as the Bible is, since really the Bible's "truth" is in large part no different than the BOM's "truth" on this view.

I believe the second scenario is more accurate. Nobody could pull off the Book of Mormon as a deliberate hoax, while keeping that fact from even his closest assistants. The stories and teachings of the Book of Mormon came from the place where Smith's mind, in a trance, looking at stones in the bottom of his hat, met the mind of God. I think Smith genuinely believed that the words he spoke to his scribes were a real lost history of the Indians, written on the golden plates. But on that point, he was mistaken.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[mfbukowski]

Cobalt- please note the above edit

Edit to the edit: I was talking about post 166, which I edited I think while you were writing a response.

Edited April 11, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

I believe the second scenario is more accurate. Nobody could pull of the Book of Mormon as a deliberate hoax, while keeping that fact from even his closest assistants. The stories and teachings of the Book of Mormon came from the place where Smith's mind, in a trance, looking at stones in the bottom of his hat, met the mind of God. I think Smith genuinely believed that the words he spoke to his scribes were a real lost history of the Indians, written on the golden plates. But on that point, he was mistaken.

OK well that helps, I can see how one could believe that. I personally don't but I can see that as a consistent position which makes sense to me.

[Cobalt-70]

That may be true, but the point is that it is our individual task in life to create what we think IS a unified theory about our existence and reasons for being here, whether or not it is in fact consistent.

At least that is my view of what it means to be human. Developing a consistent view of "reality" seems pretty basic.

So if every text is "multivocal and fractured" why try at all? Just go and contemplate the universe and don't speak- or post.

That's my point. Sit in a corner and contemplate "OM" - why bother arguing for a point of view if that cannot be done?

I don't think it should be our goal to construct what we think is a totalizing and universal narrative of God and the purpose of life. How does it truly help us, if we are just deluding ourselves? Any way you slice him, the God of the Bible and of Mormon scripture is a fractured, schizophrenic God. Any exegesis of that text is equally fractured. I think the answer is not to try, delusionally, to glue the pieces of God together into the One True Text of God, but rather to simply be more tolerant of having many pieces that don't join together well.

[Log]

I believe the second scenario is more accurate. Nobody could pull off the Book of Mormon as a deliberate hoax, while keeping that fact from even his closest assistants. The stories and teachings of the Book of Mormon came from the place where Smith's mind, in a trance, looking at stones in the bottom of his hat, met the mind of God. I think Smith genuinely believed that the words he spoke to his scribes were a real lost history of the Indians, written on the golden plates. But on that point, he was mistaken.

In what sense, therefore, was Joseph a prophet, on your view?

[mfbukowski]

I don't think it should be our goal to construct what we think is a totalizing and universal narrative of God and the purpose of life. How does it truly help us, if we are just deluding ourselves? Any way you slice him, the God of the Bible and of Mormon scripture is a fractured, schizophrenic God. Any exegesis of that text is equally fractured. I think the answer is not to try, delusionally, to glue the pieces of God together into the One True Text of God, but rather to simply be more tolerant of having many pieces that don't join together well.

How would we know if we were deluding ourselves if even God is "schizophrenic" in your view, or at least all possible descriptions of him are?

In such a world, the truth doesn't matter or is unknowable so nothing makes a difference anyway.

Like I said- why aren't you just contemplating your navel or something? Can't you see that it is contradictory to make statements that all statements about God are "fractured" while excluding your own?

If the statement "All statements about God are fractured" (what ever that means) is true, that includes the statement that statements about God are fractured.

So why should I think you might be right? It seems you are contradicting yourself.

[Cobalt-70]

In what sense, therefore, was Joseph a prophet, on your view?

In the sense that he was capable of speaking with divine authority.

[Cobalt-70]

How would we know if we were deluding ourselves if even God is "schizophrenic" in your view, or at least all possible descriptions of him are?

In such a world, the truth doesn't matter or is unknowable so nothing makes a difference anyway.

Like I said- why aren't you just contemplating your navel or something? Can't you see that it is contradictory to make statements that all statements about God are "fractured" while excluding your own?

You would be deluding yourself if you think that a description of God is univocal. How do I know this? Because I can always find more than one voice speaking within any ostensibly univocal description of God. If you can find multiple voices within my own description of a fractured God, then you have just proven my point. This view is quite consistent with Mormonism, because Joseph Smith was adamantly against creeds. Despite their claim to be universal, totalizing descriptions of God, creeds are actually fractured and multivocal, something that Joseph Smith to his great credit recognized.

I never said, and don't agree with the idea, that truth is unknowable, or that it doesn't make any difference. However, truth is text, and text is multivocal. So if you know the truth, then you know something that is fractured and incoherent. Knowing a truth, though fractured, can still make a boatload of difference.

[Log]

In the sense that he was capable of speaking with divine authority.

What does that mean? And shall you engage Hamblin's argument?

Edited April 12, 2012 by Log