Did God Ever Sin?

[Spammer]

No, it's not as simplistic as that. My statement that the Spirit does not have a body may have been misleading. First of all, the phrase "transcend time and space" is not part of to LDS doctrine. No Latter-day Saint would describe it that way. The way we would describe is that God is present in all parts of the universe by and through the Light of Christ, which is understood to be the influence of God which permeates His entire creation. It is through this that the Spirit manifests itself and reveals truth to us. The Father and the Holy Spirit are one, just as the Father and the Son are one. I don't like to separate Them like you're doing when it comes to things like this.

In other words, the Father can "transcend time and space," but not in the way you're thinking. We don't believe Him to be literally everywhere all at once, but we do believe He is always present through His creations, power, glory, light, influence, etc.

Ok, I understand better where you're coming from. I guess my point was to ask whether it matters within LDS theology whether there needs to be a ground of being above and behind any and all material systems. I've never heard this discussed in a lifetime of church membership. I discovered Aristotle and Aquinas only after becoming an atheist. They brought be back to Christ, especially since evolutionary theory and quantum theory offer reasonable explanations for why we and the universe exist without the need to invoke a god. I see the Catholic philosophical tradition as the sole best means to combat that conclusion. Anyway, I wonder how church members might respond to Aristotle when he observes the nature of change in the universe (his premise) and concludes through a chain of reasoning that such a ground must exist for anything to exist at all (formal, final ,essential, material causes, etc.). If Aristotle is right, then Mormon theology is incomplete. If he's wrong (matter really is eternal), then I'm curious if any Mormon philosophers have ever shown how he was wrong using metaphysical arguments like Aristotle's and Aquinas's - without appealing to either Joseph Smith or their testimony. I'm guessing no.

[Storm Rider]

Essentially Spam you are looking for the answer to what was the First Cause, the first "God". LDS Theology does not answer that question; Brigham felt like it would be easier for ants to know the number of grains of sand in the world than for us to understand God and how he became such. Some who hear about God being man immediately do a logical deduction (first error - remember that man cannot understand God) and conclude that God must have had a Father, who must have had a father, into eternity. You cannot approach this topic in that manner unless you want to twist your head out of joint (yep, there are joints there, guess how many? No, not 42, guess again.).

What we know through scripture is that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone. We know that everything that Jesus did he saw the Father do. Where did Jesus see the Father do those things? We don't know and may never know. How did God obtain a body of flesh and bone? We don't know, but we know he did. Did God have a Father according to LDS theology/doctrine? No, we have no doctrine that addresses that.

Spam, the mysteries of God are there for all to ponder, speculate, consider, contemplate, and chew on. Some leaders have shared their opinions, but they remain just opinions. For me, I believe that God was always God and Jesus was always a member of the Godhead. He created the earth and all the universe without the use or need of a physical body. However, I know that a body is eternally important because of the resurrection; if it were not so, there would be not need for the body and the spirit to be rejoined.

As aside, Trinitarians stand on their heads when they hear the old refrain, "As man now is, God once was and as God now is, man may become." The think I have never quite understood is that they believe Jesus/God was a man just as we are. They also believe (the orthodox, the vast majority of Christianity) that man may become gods. (see CC 460 - "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.") It appears they believe the same thing, but boy is it a good way to sensationalize what the LDS believe.....just hide all the doctrinal books from their adherents. It is amazing how they fall all over themselves to deny that Jesus was a man and that we may become gods.

[Spammer]

Essentially Spam you are looking for the answer to what was the First Cause, the first "God". LDS Theology does not answer that question; Brigham felt like it would be easier for ants to know the number of grains of sand in the world than for us to understand God and how he became such. Some who hear about God being man immediately do a logical deduction (first error - remember that man cannot understand God) and conclude that God must have had a Father, who must have had a father, into eternity. You cannot approach this topic in that manner unless you want to twist your head out of joint (yep, there are joints there, guess how many? No, not 42, guess again.).

What we know through scripture is that God the Father has a body of flesh and bone. We know that everything that Jesus did he saw the Father do. Where did Jesus see the Father do those things? We don't know and may never know. How did God obtain a body of flesh and bone? We don't know, but we know he did. Did God have a Father according to LDS theology/doctrine? No, we have no doctrine that addresses that.

Spam, the mysteries of God are there for all to ponder, speculate, consider, contemplate, and chew on. Some leaders have shared their opinions, but they remain just opinions. For me, I believe that God was always God and Jesus was always a member of the Godhead. He created the earth and all the universe without the use or need of a physical body. However, I know that a body is eternally important because of the resurrection; if it were not so, there would be not need for the body and the spirit to be rejoined.

As aside, Trinitarians stand on their heads when they hear the old refrain, "As man now is, God once was and as God now is, man may become." The think I have never quite understood is that they believe Jesus/God was a man just as we are. They also believe (the orthodox, the vast majority of Christianity) that man may become gods. (see CC 460 - "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.") It appears they believe the same thing, but boy is it a good way to sensationalize what the LDS believe.....just hide all the doctrinal books from their adherents. It is amazing how they fall all over themselves to deny that Jesus was a man and that we may become gods.

Stormy,

It's a simple logical deduction to conclude that if God was once a man and became a god that some other entity enabled that transformation. But it's also logically possible that God was eternally a man but also possessed in his nature the ability to evolve independently into a god - not like us, who depend on God to divinize us. King Follett fits either model. As for God's body, the Christian scriptures are ambiguous and can support both trinitarian and LDS views.

Regardless, if Aristotle is right and a first cause/ground of being is categorically prior to matter, then by definition God the Man is a created being. The only way God as man can be uncreated is if Joseph Smith was correct when he said matter is eternal. But that would make Aristotle wrong. My earlier question still stands: is Aristotle right or wrong when he says there must be a ground of being, a first cause and prime mover for anything material to exist at all? Has any Mormon thinker ever addressed this issue using philosophical arguments? I know Joseph Smith's revelations declare matter to be eternal, but I don't recognize that authority. I'm just curious whether any Mormons have ever addressed this issue without referring to JS or their testimony. As an aside, quantum theory states that matter is not eternal. Particles can and do wink in and out of existence randomly. That's not to say that those particles emerge out of nothing, however (contra Lawrence Krauss in his recent book "A Universe from Nothing". The 'vacuum-state' quantum field within which those particles emerge does exist. So, it's not really nothing after all. But I digress...

Regarding theosis, the orthodox view is not remotely the same as the LDS view. The disagreement is rooted in the LDS notion that God is a man. The orthodox view is triniarian, as you said. But what that means is that men become gods by grace not by nature or essence. Jesus is God by nature; the Father is God by nature; the Holy Spirit is God by nature. They are all eternally God in essence. We humans are human by nature and in essence. We are finite, created beings; they are infinite, uncreated beings. There's no way created beings can be transformed into uncreated beings. Only God is uncreated. That is the proper way to interpret the passage from the CC you posted. Men remain forever human in their essence, albeit divinized in their humanity. The matter of human bodies becomes divinized, i.e. permeated by grace and light - that is the meaning of theosis in the orthodox tradition. Their essences will forever remain human. One nature - fully human - lit from without by God's power. Jesus has two natures - both human and divine, fully human and fully divine, no half man/half god kind of being. The divine Son, eternally God, took on human nature, became matter. The Father's essence is divine with no intermingling of matter whatsoever. The same goes for the Holy Spirit. That's the orthodox view. That's also the view of the early church fathers who wrote about theosis (the most notable are Iranaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origin, and Athanasius). None of those men believed god is a man. It's therefore incorrect to say they taught what mormons believe. They were all trinitarians and their writings on theosis must be interpreted in that light.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Spammer

[KevinG]

There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong. -H. L. Mencken

Edited July 10, 2012 by KevinG

[Spammer]

There is always a well-known solution to every human problem--neat, plausible, and wrong. -H. L. Mencken

Sounds to me like you're appealing to the 'don't rely on the arm of flesh' ploy aka "we don't need philosophy, we have modern revelation". Yes? If so, does that mean no Mormon thinker has ever tried to respond to Aristotle on Aristotle's own terms? That's what I'd like to know.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Spammer

[KevinG]

Ploy?

Nah, the only thing I'm planning on appealing this morning is a banana.

[Spammer]

Ploy?

Nah, the only thing I'm planning on appealing this morning is a banana.

Bah-domp-bomp!

[KevinG]

Bah-domp-bomp!

Use this: www.instantrimshot.com

Edited July 10, 2012 by KevinG

[Spammer]

Use this: www.instantrimshot.com

Nice.

[Storm Rider]

Stormy,

It's a simple logical deduction to conclude that if God was once a man and became a god that some other entity enabled that transformation. But it's also logically possible that God was eternally a man but also possessed in his nature the ability to evolve independently into a god - not like us, who depend on God to divinize us. King Follett fits either model. As for God's body, the Christian scriptures are ambiguous and can support both trinitarian and LDS views.

Regardless, if Aristotle is right and a first cause/ground of being is categorically prior to matter, then by definition God the Man is a created being. The only way God as man can be uncreated is if Joseph Smith was correct when he said matter is eternal. But that would make Aristotle wrong. My earlier question still stands: is Aristotle right or wrong when he says there must be a ground of being, a first cause and prime mover for anything material to exist at all? Has any Mormon thinker ever addressed this issue using philosophical arguments? I know Joseph Smith's revelations declare matter to be eternal, but I don't recognize that authority. I'm just curious whether any Mormons have ever addressed this issue without referring to JS or their testimony. As an aside, quantum theory states that matter is not eternal. Particles can and do wink in and out of existence randomly. That's not to say that those particles emerge out of nothing, however (contra Lawrence Krauss in his recent book "A Universe from Nothing". The 'vacuum-state' quantum field within which those particles emerge does exist. So, it's not really nothing after all. But I digress...

Regarding theosis, the orthodox view is not remotely the same as the LDS view. The disagreement is rooted in the LDS notion that God is a man. The orthodox view is trinitarian, as you said. But what that means is that men become gods by grace not by nature or essence. Jesus is God by nature; the Father is God by nature; the Holy Spirit is God by nature. They are all eternally God in essence. We humans are human by nature and in essence. We are finite, created beings; they are infinite, uncreated beings. There's no way created beings can be transformed into uncreated beings. Only God is uncreated. That is the proper way to interpret the passage from the CC you posted. Men remain forever human in their essence, albeit divinized in their humanity. The matter of human bodies becomes divinized, i.e. permeated by grace and light - that is the meaning of theosis in the orthodox tradition. Their essences will forever remain human. One nature - fully human - lit from without by God's power. Jesus has two natures - both human and divine, fully human and fully divine, no half man/half god kind of being. The divine Son, eternally God, took on human nature, became matter. The Father's essence is divine with no intermingling of matter whatsoever. The same goes for the Holy Spirit. That's the orthodox view. That's also the view of the early church fathers who wrote about theosis (the most notable are Iranaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origin, and Athanasius). None of those men believed god is a man. It's therefore incorrect to say they taught what Mormons believe. They were all trinitarians and their writings on theosis must be interpreted in that light.

My we do think highly of ourselves. Let's work in reverse. What does the 460th paragraph say in the Catholic Catechism: "so that he, made man, might make men gods." Now tell me, great one, what does MAKE MEN GODS mean except THAT WE ARE MADE GODS. Full stop; no, don't add anything to the text. This is what is written. May men become gods? YES. No, go ahead and hem and haw and explain what become gods really means. And yes, spammy, more than you have read the early Church Fathers and understand the different between Catholic divinization, Orthodox Theosis, and LDS Exaltation. It's okay, take a seat and relax, I know I am popping the proverbial bubble, but it needs to be popped soundly today. By the way, remotely similar? You may need to go back and read again. There are a high number of areas of similarity and they are different, but I digress.

I have never, nor have I ever heard anyone else allege, that Aristotle was the end all of knowledge and truth. Which comic book are you reading? I never got that memo and it seems to be throwing a wrench the cogs of thought here. Humm, Joseph is out, but Aristotle is in....nope, never heard that even in Philosophy classes. Worse yet, I never heard anyone say that the Big A was THE authority for anything. They just never addressed authority like that, but I did not take the short bus to university.

Yup, those assumptions will do it every time; they make an *** out of u and me. I understand your desire to make logical deductions. I also understand that you feel compelled to believe your logical deductions. Unfortunately, all you are going to get is what your finite brain can come up with. It is part of the problem of being sensual, carnal, and devilish; you are I mean not the rest of us.

Again, let's go back to your beginning statement ath God is a man; nope, not what I believe. I don't know of any other God, but the Father. He is my God, always has been and always will be. You may speculate with the rest, but do not tell me what I believe or what the LDS Church teaches---you could throw in a few more accomplishments to that list when it comes to me (that is bragging, which only the arrogant men do I am the most humble man you have ever had the opportunity to meet).

Spam, I have been writing tongue in cheek and I hope you are not offended. However, you and I have a very different understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I think I can understand why, but the take away from this discussion, is to realize you may not have had a handle on the gospel that you think you did. I am more of a skeptic and if it is not int he scriptures, it is not doctrine and remains speculation. No go back to that comic book and laugh a little.

[altersteve]

If Aristotle is right, then Mormon theology is incomplete.

Mormon theology would be incomplete even if he was wrong. We claim to have the fullness of the gospel, but not the complete truth. No religion, group, or individual has truth in its completeness.

[altersteve]

Also, Spammer, it seems to me that you misunderstand what Joseph Smith meant when he said that "matter is eternal." It would add clarity to say that we already know that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so it stands to reason that the elements from which God created the world have existed in some form or another for at least as long as God has. God did not create them. One of your earlier statements ("if all there is is matter...") doesn't make much sense and is irrelevant to LDS doctrine, as I am unaware of a doctrinal source which says this. You also wrote that quantum theory states that matter is not eternal. I'm no expert by any means, but I don't think that's true, and you even admit later in that same paragraph that those particles which, you say, "wink in and out of existence randomly" don't do so out of nothing. They don't just stop existing, nor do they start existing with no cause.

There's no way created beings can be transformed into uncreated beings. Only God is uncreated.

This is also where we'll have to agree to disagree, because we don't believe any of the sons and daughters of God are "created," and the notion of something created being transformed into something uncreated is irrelevant to LDS doctrine. We will agree with you that such an idea is completely nonsensical. We believe that each of us have existed in some form for eternity (in the form of what some call "intelligences," though what that means is not entirely understood from my perspective). God didn't "create" us, He brought us into existence by giving us a purpose, and it's in that way that we became His children. And He did the same with this universe, and in that way it became His creation. It's like painting a portrait or composing a song. You don't just make a portrait or song out of nothing, you take pre-existing materials, give them a purpose, and organize them into something beautiful, which then becomes your "creation." Make sense? That's how I believe God works and that's what I love about my understanding of God. He's not a God who magically created all this with a snap of His fingers, but a God who saw chaos and made order from it. I think that's a much more beautiful and touching concept than the orthodox Christian view, because I find it perfectly consistent with the nature of God that we learn about in the Bible and other scriptures and what we learn about how He is involved in the world. Notice that God doesn't do hardly anything in this world directly; more often than not, He has His children (who are imperfect but somehow are loved by Him anyway) do it in His place. We are His hands and feet. He works through us to change the lives of others and make the world a better place for His children to live in. And I think that's such a wonderful concept to think about since it really speaks to me about the loving nature of our Father and it's all so consistent with everything else I've learned about Him.

So it seems to me, Spammer, that you're approaching LDS doctrine through a traditional Christian lens, a mistake far too many people make. LDS doctrine won't fit together as well as it should with that perspective and there's a reason for that: LDS doctrine is not orthodox and it's not supposed to be.

Edited July 10, 2012 by altersteve

[Spammer]

My we do think highly of ourselves. Let's work in reverse. What does the 460th paragraph say in the Catholic Catechism: "so that he, made man, might make men gods." Now tell me, great one, what does MAKE MEN GODS mean except THAT WE ARE MADE GODS. Full stop; no, don't add anything to the text. This is what is written. May men become gods? YES. No, go ahead and hem and haw and explain what become gods really means. And yes, spammy, more than you have read the early Church Fathers and understand the different between Catholic divinization, Orthodox Theosis, and LDS Exaltation. It's okay, take a seat and relax, I know I am popping the proverbial bubble, but it needs to be popped soundly today. By the way, remotely similar? You may need to go back and read again. There are a high number of areas of similarity and they are different, but I digress.

I have never, nor have I ever heard anyone else allege, that Aristotle was the end all of knowledge and truth. Which comic book are you reading? I never got that memo and it seems to be throwing a wrench the cogs of thought here. Humm, Joseph is out, but Aristotle is in....nope, never heard that even in Philosophy classes. Worse yet, I never heard anyone say that the Big A was THE authority for anything. They just never addressed authority like that, but I did not take the short bus to university.

Yup, those assumptions will do it every time; they make an *** out of u and me. I understand your desire to make logical deductions. I also understand that you feel compelled to believe your logical deductions. Unfortunately, all you are going to get is what your finite brain can come up with. It is part of the problem of being sensual, carnal, and devilish; you are I mean not the rest of us.

Again, let's go back to your beginning statement ath God is a man; nope, not what I believe. I don't know of any other God, but the Father. He is my God, always has been and always will be. You may speculate with the rest, but do not tell me what I believe or what the LDS Church teaches---you could throw in a few more accomplishments to that list when it comes to me (that is bragging, which only the arrogant men do I am the most humble man you have ever had the opportunity to meet).

Spam, I have been writing tongue in cheek and I hope you are not offended. However, you and I have a very different understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I think I can understand why, but the take away from this discussion, is to realize you may not have had a handle on the gospel that you think you did. I am more of a skeptic and if it is not int he scriptures, it is not doctrine and remains speculation. No go back to that comic book and laugh a little.

Let's put it this way. I have a great handle on what the gospel used to be - until things began changing. The church I was raised in is not what the church is today, the same as how the church I was raised in is not the church as it was when my pioneer forebears were alive. These days, pinning down Mormon doctrine is like nailing jello to the wall in the cultural hall after the stake road show. The problem is that with the "seek the witness of the Spirit" approach to testing the teachings of the prophets, individual church members have constructed their own Burger King version of mormonism and can simply and condescendingly say "you may not have had a handle on the gospel that you think you did" when someone comes along who was raised in the church and offers a different spin. Well, I have great Mormon credentials. I can just as easily say (and will) that you evidently haven't been paying proper attention in church if you think the church doesn't teach that God was once a man.

Regarding Aristotle, I'm only saying that IMO the church's (Joseph Smith's) interpretation of matter lacks proper grounding. I just happen to like what Aristotle did by observing change in nature and building a metaphysics from those observations. It's a compelling argument. That doesn't mean I'm not open to other interpretations and think Aristotle is THE authority in anything. All I think is that, in my reading, his metaphysics makes a stronger case than either the modernists or the post-modernists. I just wonder if anyone in the church has ever bothered to respond to the classical Catholic philosophical tradition, meeting it on it's own terms, rather than just mocking philosophy (as you seem to do) and/or bearing a testimony. I happen to think reason and philosophy are important, but whatever. To each his own.

As for who can properly interpret what Catholics mean by the statements you quoted in the CC, go ask a Catholic - namely someone like ME. I have the benefit of 28 years of faithful, active LDS church membership AND current membership in the Catholic Church under my belt. I think I'm minimally qualified to at least be granted the courtesy of not being mocked like I'm some ignoramus. Which is a typical Mormon ploy, in my experience. And getting back to what you think the CC is really saying, you're dead wrong. I'm a Catholic and am trying to educate you about what Catholics really believe and how they interpret the statements in the CC. If you think the CC statements about theosis mean the same thing as Mormon exaltation (as you seem to think), then I'd say you need to burst your own bubble and recognize your profound ignorance in this matter.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Spammer

[Spammer]

Also, Spammer, it seems to me that you misunderstand what Joseph Smith meant when he said that "matter is eternal." It would add clarity to say that we already know that energy cannot be created or destroyed, so it stands to reason that the elements from which God created the world have existed in some form or another for at least as long as God has. God did not create them. One of your earlier statements ("if all there is is matter...") doesn't make much sense and is irrelevant to LDS doctrine, as I am unaware of a doctrinal source which says this. You also wrote that quantum theory states that matter is not eternal. I'm no expert by any means, but I don't think that's true, and you even admit later in that same paragraph that those particles which, you say, "wink in and out of existence randomly" don't do so out of nothing. They don't just stop existing, nor do they start existing with no cause.

This is also where we'll have to agree to disagree, because we don't believe any of the sons and daughters of God are "uncreated," and the notion of something created being transformed into something uncreated is irrelevant to LDS doctrine. We will agree with you that such an idea is completely nonsensical. We believe that each of us have existed in some form for eternity (in the form of what some call "intelligences," though what that means is not entirely understood from my perspective). God didn't "create" us, He brought us into existence by giving us a purpose, and it's in that way that we became His children. And He did the same with this universe, and in that way it became His creation. It's like painting a portrait or composing a song. You don't just make a portrait or song out of nothing, you take pre-existing materials, give them a purpose, and organize them into something beautiful, which then becomes your "creation." Make sense? That's how God works and that's what I love about the "LDS version" of God. He's not a God who magically created all this with a snap of His fingers, but a God who saw chaos and made order from it. I think that's a much more beautiful and touching concept than the orthodox Christian view.

So it seems like you're approaching LDS doctrine through a traditional Christian lens, a mistake far too many people make. LDS doctrine won't fit together as well as it should with that perspective and there's a reason for that: LDS doctrine is not orthodox and it's not supposed to be.

I understand what you're saying and I know the LDS approach. One comment - just because a paradigm is beautiful doesn't mean it's true. That must be demonstrated on other grounds. Moving on....All I'm saying is that for someone like me, who does not view Joseph Smith as a prophet, and only has metaphysics and physics at his disposal to try to figure out whether there is a god, Joseph Smith's ideas of the eternality of matter violate both systems. That's why I'd like to read what some Mormon philosopher has to say about the ontological argument or Aquinas's Five Ways demonstrating the existence of God. If God exists, that's the only kind of god that makes sense to me. That's why I opted for Catholicism. Against classical metaphysics (which i find persuasive), the idea of a deified holy man with flesh and bones walking around on some planet near Kolob, or perhaps floating around space in his throne, like Abraham Lincoln in Star Trek, and always just being that way eternally, makes no sense. As I said, there are good philosophical reasons to think that without some ground of being and first cause, matter could not exist. But that's a complicated argument. There's no time for it. I'm just curious (I'll say it again) whether any Mormon writers have dealt with these issues using the tools of philosophy.

[KevinG]

And God said unto them... you shall know me through your philosophers.

[Storm Rider]

Oh yes, the old Mormon doctrine is changing routine. Boy, if anti-Mormons weren't so consistent I would be surprised at times. Tell me, Spam, has God every had a static religion, at any time? Please prove that when you come up with your answer.

[KevinG]

I think I'm minimally qualified to at least be granted the courtesy of not being mocked like I'm some ignoramus. Which is a typical Mormon ploy, in my experience.

Remember the common link in all your dysfunctional relationships is YOU!

[Spammer]

Remember the common link in all your dysfunctional relationships is YOU!

Ok, whatever. If anyone has any info on a Mormon treatment of classical metaphysics let me know. Now back to your regular programming....

[Spammer]

Oh yes, the old Mormon doctrine is changing routine. Boy, if anti-Mormons weren't so consistent I would be surprised at times. Tell me, Spam, has God every had a static religion, at any time? Please prove that when you come up with your answer.

A funny thing happens when you become an atheist. Everyone's religious justifications appear ridiculous. I'm just trying to make sense of the only thing that seems to kind of keep me believing a god exists. Mabye. Every argument is full of holes. Your smug rudeness is definitely not making me want to give Mormonism a try again. Ok...I'll leave y'all alone. Later.

[altersteve]

I understand what you're saying and I know the LDS approach.

The problem is that you don't seem to be trying to look at this from the LDS perspective. I believe doing so helps one understand how it all fits together. Seeing the beliefs of others from their own points of view is the most effective way of learning about God from others, whether they belong to your religion or not. I believe we have a lot to learn from God's non-LDS children, but to do so we have to strive to know how they understand their own doctrines. It strikes me how little non-Mormons try to understand how we understand our doctrines; they only tell us how they understand it, but that doesn't get anyone anywhere and only leads to criticism (from both parties). In other words, we understand that LDS doctrine doesn't make sense to you, but please try to understand how it makes sense to us.

One comment - just because a paradigm is beautiful doesn't mean it's true.

I do not equate "beautiful" with "true," I just was trying to say that I have thought about these ideas and doctrines and they make sense to me. Gautama Buddha taught, "Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true." I take that advice to heart.

All I'm saying is that for someone like me, who does not view Joseph Smith as a prophet, and only has metaphysics and physics at his disposal to try to figure out whether there is a god, Joseph Smith's ideas of the eternality of matter violate both systems.

I think the most effective method of determining whether there is a God is by asking Him yourself, by doing good, and by looking at and learning from the good that other people do. All that is good testifies of Him. I assume the Catholic Church, it being a Christian religion and all, teaches the same thing.

Against classical metaphysics (which i find persuasive), the idea of a deified holy man with flesh and bones walking around on some planet near Kolob, or perhaps floating around space in his throne, like Abraham Lincoln in Star Trek, and always just being that way eternally, makes no sense.

Those ideas don't make much sense to me, either. I've never believed God literally lives "near" Kolob, nor am I really able to make much sense of the idea that God lives on some planet somewhere, or even in this universe and dimension at all. Our understanding of the nature of God is made up of mostly rather vague bits of information He has revealed about Himself, and He probably lives on some other plane of existence that we can't even begin to comprehend. That's why it makes more sense to me to interpret the Book of Abraham's statement that Kolob is "near unto [God]" not as a literal description of God's whereabouts, but rather as a symbolic description of Kolob (whatever and wherever it is) as the most powerful governing body in the universe, to help us better understand how God rules over us. The discussion on astronomy in the Book of Abraham (including Facsimile 2) is full of this kind of symbolic imagery about God's governance over the entire universe and I doubt much of it is meant to be taken literally. Those who do so are missing the point.

Also, regarding God having a body of flesh and bones, it's necessary to understand that it's obviously not a body like ours, and maybe not even a body in the same way we would understand it. All we really know it means is that God has physical dimensions in time and space and that He looks like us. But His body is perfect, immortal, powerful, glorified, and probably incomprehensible to us for the most part. He can obviously do things that we, in our imperfect, weak, mortal bodies, can only dream of doing (i.e., appear in a room with closed doors, etc.), and certainly things that no one has ever or will ever be able to imagine. So simply calling Him "a deified holy man with flesh and bones" may technically be accurate, but I think it's still a very insufficient description.

Please try asking me what I believe rather than assuming.

As I said, there are good philosophical reasons to think that without some ground of being and first cause, matter could not exist.

That's fine, but I simply don't find those arguments to be very reasonable, logical, or persuasive.

And for the record, I acknowledge that the Catholic doctrine of theosis and the Mormon doctrine of exaltation are profoundly different. The biggest difference to me is that exaltation is entirely a family matter (families are exalted, not individuals), whereas family doesn't seem to play a role in the other. I could be wrong, though.

Edited July 10, 2012 by altersteve

[KevinG]

Your smug rudeness is definitely not making me want to give Mormonism a try again.

Sounds like you want someone to blame? You spend too much time protesting the ignorance of others then cry mightily when they return the same smug rudeness you display.

Edited July 10, 2012 by KevinG

[Calm]

Ok, whatever. If anyone has any info on a Mormon treatment of classical metaphysics let me know. Now back to your regular programming....

Have you read Blake Ostler's work? Sounds like he may be the closest to what you want.

[Spammer]

The problem is that you don't seem to be trying to look at this from the LDS perspective. I believe doing so helps one understand how it all fits together. Seeing the beliefs of others from their own points of view is the most effective way of learning about God from others, whether they belong to your religion or not. I believe we have a lot to learn from God's non-LDS children, but to do so we have to strive to know how they understand their own doctrines. It strikes me how little non-Mormons try to understand how we understand our doctrines; they only tell us how they understand it, but that doesn't get anyone anywhere and only leads to criticism (from both parties). In other words, we understand that LDS doctrine doesn't make sense to you, but please try to understand how it makes sense to us.

This is quite hard. I'm coming to you from the 28 years I spent as an active, sixth-generation Mormon. What I'm saying about the LDS view of God's nature is not my invention. It's what I was taught by my parents, church leaders and teachers, and the GA's when I was growing up, through my mission and beyond, it's what I taught, what every family member believed and taught, every single active church member in my life - until Gordon B. Hinckley's interview with Mike Wallace back in 1997 began changing things. I understand what you're saying about what it all means to you and other church members today. I'm just struggling in communicating since to me since the ambiguity about God's nature within Mormonism today seems to me to be a radical innovation. My dad, for instance, is one of the old guard. He would be completely confused by this conversation. He would say - "of course I hope to get my own planet and be just like Heavenly Father." My patriarchal blessing, for pete's sake, tells me that if I'm faithful God himself will tutor me in the creation of worlds. I received that in 1979. How many mormons believe and expect that these days?

I do not equate "beautiful" with "true," I just was trying to say that I have thought about these ideas and doctrines and they make sense to me. Gautama Buddha taught, "Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true." I take that advice to heart.

Ok, I get that and I agree. i want to clarify that even though I don't think beautiful=true, I do think if it's true, then it will be beautiful. I like that statement by the Buddha. I was a practitioner of Zen for a while, too.

I think the most effective method of determining whether there is a God is by asking Him yourself, by doing good, and by looking at and learning from the good that other people do. All that is good testifies of Him. I assume the Catholic Church, it being a Christian religion and all, teaches the same thing.

Yea, there's the rub. I tried the pray and ask God to illumine you approach and it failed miserably. I have zero faith in that approach anymore. I can't even bring myself to utter the words "Dear Heavenly Father" anymore. When I pray, I have to use different words. Weird, huh? But that's the way it is. I so desperately wanted to feel something and failed so utterly that the Mormon approach to prayer was completely burned out of me, total scorched earth. That one's gone forever. When I decided to give Christianity a try again, the only way I could do it was through philosophy. Not prayer or looking for a special spiritual feeling (which is not to say that i still don't catch myself in that mood). Catholicism considers faith not rooted in reason and the evidence to be a heresy - called fideism. I like that a lot. Yes, Catholicism does that all good testifies of God. But everything needs to be grounded in reason and the evidence or you can be misled by emotion. In the old days, it used to be that harmonic music was banned since emotions can be manipulated so easily through music. I agree that emotionalism is a danger. That's exactly how I have come to view Mormon spirituality and the emphasis on spiritual feelings when seeking a testimony. But I realize that most Mormons likely don't view it that way.

Those ideas don't make much sense to me, either. I've never believed God literally lives "near" Kolob, nor have I really made much sense of the idea that God lives on some planet somewhere or in this universe, even. Our understanding of the nature of God is made up of only glimpses and vague bits of information He has given us about Himself, and He may very well live in a dimension or on some other plane of existence that we can't even begin to comprehend. That's why it makes more sense to me to interpret the Book of Abraham's statement that Kolob is "near unto [God]" not as a literal description of God's whereabouts, but rather as a symbolic description of Kolob (whatever and wherever it is) as the most powerful governing body in the universe, to help us understand how God rules over us. The discussion on astronomy in the Book of Abraham (including Facsimile 2) is full of symbolic imagery about God's governance over the entire universe and I doubt much of it is meant to be taken literally. Those who do so are missing the point.

Again, every single member of my family and every one of my seminary teachers and mission companions (assuming we're back in the '80s) would be confused by your belief. "But, what about King Follett???"

Please try asking me what I believe rather than assuming.

Sorry, like I said, I'm going by what every mormon in my experience believed that the church taught back when I was still an active, believing member, back in '93 and prior.

That's fine, but I simply don't find those arguments to be very reasonable, logical, or persuasive.

That's your perogative, of course, but I can only be persuaded that classical metaphysics is wrong on philosophical grounds - by showing where the chain in the argument breaks down - without recourse to scripture or prayer or testimony. I won't make a good Mormon at all. That's why I went Catholic (which is not to say that's how all Catholics do it. There are plenty of Catholics in my experience who go solely by prayer and whether it feels right).

And for the record, I acknowledge that the Catholic doctrine of theosis and the Mormon doctrine of exaltation are profoundly different. The biggest difference to me is that exaltation is entirely a family matter (families are exalted, not individuals), whereas family doesn't seem to play a role in the other. I could be wrong, though.

That's an entirely new issue that warrants yet another new thread - what's the difference between the Christian heaven, where all Christians are in heaven with God and each other with all relationships perfected in Christ, and the LDS sphere of exaltation. In both places, I'm standing next to my earthly wife. Will my feelings for her and relationship with her be qualitatively distinct in the two types of heaven? I see it the same as if we were to suddenly discover that through a glitch when we were married in 1990 that we're not really married after all and never have been. Not a single thing would change for me.

[Spammer]

Sounds like you want someone to blame? You spend too much time protesting the ignorance of others then cry mightily when they return the same smug rudeness you display.

You know nothing about me but called me out on all of my supposed dysfunctional relationships, with me at the center. You are a paragon of charity, that's for sure. Not to mention mind reading.

[Spammer]

Have you read Blake Ostler's work? Sounds like he may be the closest to what you want.

Thank you!!! I really appreciate that reference.