Plato'S Demiurge

[Cobalt-70]

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

I don't know how to break it down any further. Joseph Smith was a prophet because he was capable of speaking with divine authority. I think that's the definition of a prophet. It doesn't mean they always speak with divine authority, but by definition they have that capability.

As to Hamblin's argument, I think his logic is quite flawed. Apart from his first point, which is a statement of fact, each of his five points is a non sequitur. So his ultimate conclusion, that lying and insanity/delusion are the only two possible consequences of the Book of Mormon being a work of fiction, doesn't follow from his assumptions. Smith could be a sincere, rational, and perfectly sane prophet who struggled all his life to determine the meaning of his visions, and to remember all of their details.

The arguments in the second half of Hablin's argument are all straw men, as far as I'm concerned. I don't know who the "theistic naturalists" are that he's talking about, but I don't share their views, whoever they are.

[inquiringmind]

Smith could be a sincere, rational, and perfectly sane prophet who struggled all his life to determine the meaning of his visions, and to remember all of their details.

Why would God allow "a sincere, rational, and perfectly sane prophet" to "struggle all his life to determine the meaning of his visions, and to remember all of their details"?

Edited April 14, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Log]

I don't know how to break it down any further. Joseph Smith was a prophet because he was capable of speaking with divine authority.

What is divine authority?

As to Hamblin's argument, I think his logic is quite flawed. Apart from his first point, which is a statement of fact, each of his five points is a non sequitur.

Let's examine proposition #2: If the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document, there were no Nephites.

How is it, in your view, that the falsity of the Book of Mormon does not entail that the Nephites did not exist?

[Cobalt-70]

Why would God allow "a sincere, rational, and perfectly sane prophet" to "struggle all his life to determine the meaning of his visions, and to remember all of their details"?

Why not? When does God ever give easy answers? Why did God make Spencer Kimball beat his head against the wall for years and starve himself silly with fasting before giving him enough confidence to say that giving blacks the priesthood was the right move? Such is the nature of revelation. And how much detail can you recall from dreams you had 15-20 years ago?

[Cobalt-70]

What is divine authority?

In its most general, sociological sense, divine authority is the stamp of approval by a god. For Mormons, the god is "Elohim," and his stamp of approval is ultimately manifested by a mystical connection with the Holy Spirit.

Let's examine proposition #2: If the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document, there were no Nephites.

How is it, in your view, that the falsity of the Book of Mormon does not entail that the Nephites did not exist?

Your second question is not the negation of the first. The proposition that "if the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document, there were no Nephites" is not the negation of the proposition than "if the Book of Mormon is false, then the Nephites could possibly have existed." The second question posits that the Book of Mormon is "false," whereas the first question posits that the Book of Mormon is "not an ancient document." I would disagree that the Book of Mormon is false, and agree that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document.

However, there are many scenarios in which the Book of Mormon could be a modern document, but the Nephites could exist. After all, the "Lamanites" exist--they are by longstanding Mormon definition the Native Americans, Latinos, and Pacific Islanders, all of which certainly exist. Some Mormon apologists say that the "Jaredites" were the Olmecs, and certainly the Olmecs exist. I'm not saying that the Nephites did exist, because no contemporary Mormon apologist has been so bold as to identify them with a real Native American population--I'm just saying that point #2 is a non sequitur.

Edited April 14, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Log]

In its most general, sociological sense, divine authority is the stamp of approval by a god. For Mormons, the god is "Elohim," and his stamp of approval is ultimately manifested by a mystical connection with the Holy Spirit.

Does "Elohim" exist in "objective reality"?

I would disagree that the Book of Mormon is false, and agree that the Book of Mormon is not an ancient document.

Was there a Lehite migration circa 600 BCE from Jerusalem to the Western Hemisphere?

Edited April 14, 2012 by Log

[mfbukowski]

I'm not saying that the Nephites did exist, because no contemporary Mormon apologist has been so bold as to identify them with a real Native American population--I'm just saying that point #2 is a non sequitur.

Guess again. Mark Wright at least does, he believes Nephites were integrated into Mayan culture in much the same way LDS are integrated into their various cultures.

What evidence of "LDS Civilization" would exist in a post-apocalyptic culture? Maybe a few foundations of a few temples overgrown in the jungle and assumed to be buildings used for some other purpose.

[inquiringmind]

Getting back to the topic of the OP.

I think that all Mormon theologies...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...

I agree.

Does anyone else feel there is such a ground?

Would anyone agree with Orson Pratt's statement that TRUTH is the ultimate God?

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[mfbukowski]

Getting back to the topic of the OP.

I agree.

Does anyone else feel there is such a ground?

I thought we already did this- didn't we?

I have no idea what the question even means.

Edited April 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Does "Elohim" exist in "objective reality"?

Well I guess we could send up a rocket or something to take his picture....

But of course then we would have to replicate the results a few hundred times.....

[inquiringmind]

I thought we already did this- didn't we?

I have no idea what the question even means.

I don't think we did (and even if we did, you're not the only one here--I'm not just interested in your POV.)

If you "have no idea what the question even means," why do you find it necessary to post on this thread?

I get that you don't like the question, but I'd still like to know if any faithful, active LDS feels there is some ultimate ground of all being?

If Orson Pratt claimed Joseph taught him that all men were "parts" of God, is there anyone here who would agree with him?

inquiringmind,

Here's a quote you may find interesting, from an article by Charles Harrell in BYU Studies:

Parley P. Pratt's earliest recorded views on the derivation of man's spirit correspond remarkably to the classical doctrine of emanation, which uses the analogy that man emanates from god the way a spark is emitted from a fire. Verging on pantheism, the doctrine of emanation emphasizes that all men are parts of God, a notion Orson Pratt claimed was taught by Joseph Smith. Emanation differs from creation in that it implies that man's existence is derived from God's being or essence rather than being merely a creature of his making. This notion is not to be confused with spirit birth, however. Man is seen more as being an offshoot of God rather than his offspring. Emanation was the most common form of preexistencism in the early Christian church. This Platonic concept regarded the soul as a part of the divine nature from which it proceeded and to which it will again return. Pratt chose to use similar language in 1838 when he wrote that mortals are "animated by the spirit of life" and, at death, will "return to the fountain and become part of the great all from which they emanated." Pratt's teachings clearly evidence an early belief that the human spirit was merely an individual expression of God's uncreated, inexhaustible intelligence.

Might Heavenly Father be part of one Great God (who really is the ground of all being), kinda like Plato's Demiurge?

(That was the topic of this thread before it was derailed.)

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

Another way of asking the above question is as follows:

Do billions of (individual, conscious) intelligences, physical elements, time, and space exist as independent brute facts (with no mind or purpose behind their existence)?

And is God Himself just one of these uncreated, uncaused, and unrelated entities (who just happens to be more intelligent than the others--who just happen to exist)?

Or is it all related somehow?

Could it all be part of some greater mind, or intelligence, or something?

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Cobalt-70]

Does "Elohim" exist in "objective reality"?

Elohim is text to me, just as you are text. Since I have met neither of you, I'd say the existence of both of you is about on equal terms at this point.

Was there a Lehite migration circa 600 BCE from Jerusalem to the Western Hemisphere?

Could there have been a man named Lehi that floated on a boat from Arabia to the Americas in the 500s BC? Maybe. Is the Book of Mormon a history of that person? No.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

What evidence are you interpreting as conclusively falsifying the historicity of the Book of Mormon?

[Cobalt-70]

Guess again. Mark Wright at least does, he believes Nephites were integrated into Mayan culture in much the same way LDS are integrated into their various cultures.

That sounds like a pretty weak, unfalsifiable claim. Show me a population verified to have existed--not some hypothetical subculture that is archaeologically indistinguishable from a surrounding culture and left no trace. The Nephites are hypothetical enough on their own, without Wright's help.

What evidence of "LDS Civilization" would exist in a post-apocalyptic culture? Maybe a few foundations of a few temples overgrown in the jungle and assumed to be buildings used for some other purpose.

There would be writing everywhere. Hundreds of inscriptions on monuments, buildings, and statues would mention us. There would also be writings owned by individual Mormons, and writings about Mormons written by non-Mormons. Thousands of houses in Utah would have vinyl letters on their walls expounding the church's most profound doctrines. When they excavated the church's large granite vaults, they'd know more about Mormons than even Mormons know.

[Cobalt-70]

Would anyone agree with Orson Pratt's statement that TRUTH is the ultimate God?

I like Joseph Smith's word for this ground: intelligence. Though Smith equated intelligence with "light and truth," intelligence captures the idea of information. Today's hippest physics theories propose that the universe is the information it contains. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_physics). I also like that theory because information is a kind of text; thus, you could say that the universe is text, which is also a conclusion of the humanities.

[mfbukowski]

Might Heavenly Father be part of one Great God (who really is the ground of all being), kinda like Plato's Demiurge?

We don't believe in a God who is a Platonic transcendent God, therefore the answer is "no". Such a being is not a "Father" nor could it be. Our God is a social being who interacts socially- the two concepts are incompatible.

[mfbukowski]

That sounds like a pretty weak, unfalsifiable claim.

Yes, in that sense.

So is the existence of God.

What difference does that make?

[mfbukowski]

There would be writing everywhere. Hundreds of inscriptions on monuments, buildings, and statues would mention us. There would also be writings owned by individual Mormons, and writings about Mormons written by non-Mormons. Thousands of houses in Utah would have vinyl letters on their walls expounding the church's most profound doctrines. When they excavated the church's large granite vaults, they'd know more about Mormons than even Mormons know.

Duh.

We are talking about stone and perishable houses in a culture where most could not right. There was no vinyl in BOM times and there were no granite vaults containing microfilm

You see an "analogy" is something LIKE something else, not identical TO the other thing. It is used to make a point. If the Nephites had vinyl letters and made statues of Brigham Young however, you might have a point.

[mfbukowski]

I like Joseph Smith's word for this ground: intelligence. Though Smith equated intelligence with "light and truth," intelligence captures the idea of information. Today's hippest physics theories propose that the universe is the information it contains. (http://en.wikipedia....Digital_physics). I also like that theory because information is a kind of text; thus, you could say that the universe is text, which is also a conclusion of the humanities.

Not exactly

What your own quote actually says is this:

In physics and cosmology, digital physics is a collection of theoretical perspectives based on the premise that the universe is, at heart, describable by information, and is therefore computable. Therefore, the universe can be conceived as either the output of a computer program or as a vast, digital computation device (or, at least, mathematically isomorphic to such a device).

Note that it says it's a "collection" of "theoretical perspectives" based on a "premise" that the universe is describable by information.

And/or that it "can be conceived" this way.

I think that is true, but rather tautologous. If it is ever to be "described" and made intelligible to humans, which is the usual definition of the word "described" it had BETTER be in what humans call "information".

It seems to me that all this is, is that physicists finally realize that philosophical antirealism is the only way we can make sense of the world around us. That's good, but certainly the view is not a new one.

[dtorge26]

Another way of asking the above question is as follows:

Do billions of (individual, conscious) intelligences, physical elements, time, and space exist as independent brute facts (with no mind or purpose behind their existence)?

And is God Himself just one of these uncreated, uncaused, and unrelated entities (who just happens to be more intelligent than the others--who just happen to exist)?

Or is it all related somehow?

Could it all be part of some greater mind, or intelligence, or something?

I think the entities you note above are, in fact, related. Their relation is identified in the laws of physics (known and as of yet to be discovered). What does a rock have to do with the processes of consciousness occurring (at least partly) in my brain? Well, both share an adherence to the same laws of physics.

[mfbukowski]

When humans look into the universe, it is not at all unexpected that what we see looking out is a reflection of ourselves.

That can be seen in Mormonism and also in the newer physical theories.

We see now as in a glass, darkly, but then face to face.

Edited April 16, 2012 by mfbukowski

[inquiringmind]

I think the entities you note above are, in fact, related. Their relation is identified in the laws of physics (known and as of yet to be discovered). What does a rock have to do with the processes of consciousness occurring (at least partly) in my brain? Well, both share an adherence to the same laws of physics.

But these entities, matter, and the laws of physics have no mind or purpose behind them?

They just exist by some happy coincidence?

Leaving philosophy aside, does the God of the Bible and the Book of Mormon lie?

Does He inspire prophets to say that there could be no creation without God--that nothing could exist to act or be acted upon if there were no God--when He knows that billions of entities, the elements, and physical laws exist without there being any God (any mind or purpose) behind them?

"God" is a big word that could mean many things--to a Muslim it means one person, to a creedal Christian it means three persons of one essence, to a Hindu it means thousands of entities who are emmenations of "The One," and I'm still trying to figure out what it means to Mormons.

Must it mean nothing more than the biggest and smartest of billions (or maybe infinite numbers) of uncreated entities who exist (along with space, time, matter, and physical laws) by some happy accident (without the need for any ultimate God above them, and without any mind or purpose behind their existence)???

Is that what Orthodox Mormon Theology comes down to???

Is that what I'd have to believe to be a Mormon????

Edited April 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[mfbukowski]

But these entities, matter, and the laws of physics have no mind or purpose behind them?

They just exist by some happy coincidence?

Leaving philosophy aside, does the God of the Bible and the Book of Mormon lie?

Does He inspire prophets to say that there could be no creation without God--that nothing could exist to act or be acted upon if there were no God--when He knows that billions of entities, the elements, and physical laws exist without there being any God (any mind or purpose) behind them?

"God" is a big word that could mean many things--to a Muslim it means one person, to a creedal Christian it means three persons of one essence, to a Hindu it means thousands of entities who are emmenations of "The One," and I'm still trying to figure out what it means to Mormons.

Must it mean nothing more than the biggest and smartest of billions (or maybe infinite numbers) of uncreated entities who exist (along with space, time, matter, and physical laws) by some happy accident (without the need for any ultimate God above them, and without any mind or purpose behind their existence)???

Is that what Orthodox Mormon Theology comes down to???

Is that what I'd have to believe to be a Mormon????

Only if you are mixing yourself up with words.

[dtorge26]

But these entities, matter, and the laws of physics have no mind or purpose behind them?

They just exist by some happy coincidence?

Leaving philosophy aside, does the God of the Bible and the Book of Mormon lie?

Does He inspire prophets to say that there could be no creation without God--that nothing could exist to act or be acted upon if there were no God--when He knows that billions of entities, the elements, and physical laws exist without there being any God (any mind or purpose) behind them?

I don't think the God of scripture lies. When you are addressing the really really big questions such as you have here, and these are extremely deep waters, then I think you reach a limit of understanding as supplied 'literally' from scripture. I don't think the scriptures were even intended by God to answer the question you pose here. You are dabbling with the deep mysteries of God's kingdom, which scripture does say will be revealed in due time, and to the righteous and faithful.

I can only offer you my personal reconciliation of scripture to gospel to logic to science, which comes with that disclaimer.

I think it is fair to distinguish between 'God's' creation, and a 'creation' governed by natural uncreated processes. I think scripture addresses the former, but not the latter. Laws of physics falls into the latter, but our Earth and people falls into the former.