In The Beginning, There Was No Beginning.

[dougtheavenger]

The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds assert three things that are not obviously consistant with each other.

1. Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with God the Father.

2. Jesus was begotten by the Father before the creation of the world.

3. There is a difference in meaning between begotten and created; that is, Jesus was begotten, not created by God the Father.

Reading Bruce R McConkie's signature work, "Mormon Doctrine" recently I have found that McConkey seemed to believe the following about Jesus or God the Son.

1. Jesus was created.

2. Jesus became God before His mortal birth.

3. There is no "ultimate beginning".

4. God the Father is the Supreme being of the Universe.

5. Jesus is co-equal with God the father.

6. Basic elements are eternal; having no beginning and no end, no creation and no ultimate destruction.

Now I know McConkie's famous book is not a standard work. However, if we view LDS doctrine as complete and having no mysteries, then we have a problem. Because our doctrine sometimes seems to be muddled just as the doctrine of Catholics, Episcopalians, Presberterians, Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists and others is muddled?

In our favor, we acknowledge that our doctrines are unfinished because God will yet reveal many great and important things relative to the kingdom of heaven. So that is our redeeming feature aside from priesthood authority. Nevertheless we need not be so smug in thinking that we have it all figured out and Catholics and Protestants are hopelessly muddled in their thinking about God.

PROBLEM ONE

An infinite series of events by definition cannot be completed.

I am here writing this post as the result of a finite series of events. Since I would not be here without our Heavenly Father, that series of events must include the entire history of our Heavenly Father. Nor does it help to speculate that He had a Father. Nor does this provide any comfort to our religious foes. If God the Father had a beginning, then He is not eternal as they say nor is the problem resolved by eliminating God altogether; ie, atheism.

Some hope is provided by the teachings of Joseph Smith wherein he modeled Eternity as a ring; using his wedding ring as a visual aid. This means that at the end of time, we go back to the beginning of time or to put it another way, if we continue to move forward in time we will eventually end up in the past.

So I have to hold to the following principles.

1. God was alway who he is; ie, the person He is. Ergo, He was always God because His Godhood is indivisible from His identity or character.

2. The same goes for Jesus.

3. The same goes for me except that I am not God.

4. The meaning of the word "begotten" when applied to Jesus as begotten by the Father before all worlds cannot be equivalent to creation. Jesus was begotten of the Father and this was an event in Jesus' existence, not the beginning of His existence.

5. God the Father may or may not have a Father, but there cannot be an infinite series of Fathers.

6. We have to acknowledge mysteries when we talk about God. We don't know it all. Our articles of faith say so. In other words, anything I have said could be wrong and future revelation could shed new light on everything.

[rameumptom]

But we don't see the gospel as without mysteries. The doctrine is NOT complete, as we have continuing revelation. We do not know much about how the atonement works, how resurrection will work, or about the next life. We don't really know much about whether evolution is a fact or not. So there are many mysteries and doctrines yet to be revealed.

Elder McConkie was an apostle with many opinions. Some of those opinions have already been proven wrong. So, I would stick with what the gospel actually now teaches us, until we receive more clear revelation.

Your understanding about the ring/circle is problematic, as it is not how LDS view it. The gospel teaches us of eternal rounds. It does not mean we end up back at the beginning, as in an infinite loop. Time is not linear, as modern man sees it. Therein lies your problem. It is cyclical. Scriptures were written in a time when people saw cycles of time. Seasons of sowing, growing, harvesting, and winter go in cycle, but they do not go back to the beginning in a loop. Instead, each of us goes through a cycle that leads us into our eternal selves. Obtaining godhood requires an eternal round, wherein eternal matter is formed into intelligence, then spirit, then mortal, and finally god/exalted. Then, as with the harvest cycle, we begin a new cycle with a new group of players being formed.

I do not see a problem with infinity. When infinity is set up as cyclical projects, then those projects can be completed while still within infinity. On earth, we mortals do this all the time - dwelling within infinity, but still accomplishing.

[TAO]

I am here writing this post as the result of a finite series of events. Since I would not be here without our Heavenly Father, that series of events must include the entire history of our Heavenly Father. Nor does it help to speculate that He had a Father. Nor does this provide any comfort to our religious foes. If God the Father had a beginning, then He is not eternal as they say nor is the problem resolved by eliminating God altogether; ie, atheism.

I don't think you can make the assertion it is finite, really. Rather, our perspective is finite, and we can only see as far as our perspective carries us.

Some hope is provided by the teachings of Joseph Smith wherein he modeled Eternity as a ring; using his wedding ring as a visual aid. This means that at the end of time, we go back to the beginning of time or to put it another way, if we continue to move forward in time we will eventually end up in the past.

That's definitely a good possibility. But what if he was referring to the cycle of Godhood... that keeps repeating over and over again? That we are destined to become like our parents, and our children are too? I don't know what he is referring to, tbh.

So I have to hold to the following principles.

6. We have to acknowledge mysteries when we talk about God. We don't know it all. Our articles of faith say so. In other words, anything I have said could be wrong and future revelation could shed new light on everything.

A good piece of Wisdom is said right here =). Like President Monson says, when God speaks and a man obeys, that man will always be right =D.

[blackstrap]

Perhaps the flow of events is like a 'slinky' in that there are repeating cycles in a progression.Such cycles can be compressed or stretched.

[dougtheavenger]

What we know from official doctrine.

There is a substance or element called "spirit" that is eternal.

What we do not know from official doctrine.

Is this eternal element called spirit infinitely divisible or does it consist of indivisible units?

If the answer to the above question is Yes, then when a spirit is begotten does this begatting involve one indivisible unit of the spirit element or multiple units?

[mfbukowski]

What we know from official doctrine.

There is a substance or element called "spirit" that is eternal.

What we do not know from official doctrine.

Is this eternal element called spirit infinitely divisible or does it consist of indivisible units?

If the answer to the above question is Yes, then when a spirit is begotten does this begatting involve one indivisible unit of the spirit element or multiple units?

My, how Greek of you.

That's hardly how it is. You do realize of course that what you say are "just words", don't you? They can be understood different ways you know. In fact the way we understand them is all we have.

Words like "eternal" and "substance" and "spirit" and "element" are just a tad ambiguous wouldn't you agree?

Oh and look! Those include all the words you used in that first sentence, except that pesky word "is" that Bill Clinton had such fun with.

I think somehow there is some room there for alternate interpretations, but what do I know?

Oh yes, and then there is "offical doctrine". That makes it perfectly clear of course. Sigh.

Edited July 7, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

My, how Greek of you.

How philosophical of you!

[mfbukowski]

How philosophical of you!

I seem to be very good at ending threads.

[Calm]

There are some threads you are needed on if so.

[inquiringmind]

What we know from official doctrine.

There is a substance or element called "spirit" that is eternal.

What we do not know from official doctrine.

Is this eternal element called spirit infinitely divisible or does it consist of indivisible units?

If the answer to the above question is Yes, then when a spirit is begotten does this begatting involve one indivisible unit of the spirit element or multiple units?

I think you made a mistake here.

The question "Is this eternal element called spirit infinitely divisible or does it consist of indivisible units?" is multiple choice, and cannot be answered with a yes or no.

Perhaps you meant to ask whether the begetting of a spirit (assuming that spirit element consists of multiple indivisible uniits) involves more than one indivisible unit?

Whatever the answer to that question, I find the multiple choice question more interesting.

"Is this eternal element called spirit infinitely divisible or does it consist of indivisible units?"

What are your thoughts on that?

If it's infinitely divisible, wouldn't that mean that every human spirit is an outgrowth of One infinite Spirit?

Edited July 16, 2012 by inquiringmind

[CASteinman]

Reading Bruce R McConkie's signature work, "Mormon Doctrine" recently I have found that McConkey seemed to believe the following about Jesus or God the Son.

1. Jesus was created.

call for reference. What are you talking about here?

[mfbukowski]

If it's infinitely divisible, wouldn't that mean that every human spirit is an outgrowth of One infinite Spirit?

Why?

How do we even know that spirit has dimensions? Wouldn't that be necessary to be "divisible"? Is electricity "divisible"? Is any energy divisible? How does this all relate to string theory, for example?

[inquiringmind]

I just posted this on a Christian (non LDS Christian) Forum, it seems to relate to this topic heading, and I'd be interested in your thoughts here.

I read this a long time ago, and always found it helpful (from "Trinitarian Help," by C.S. Lewis):

I begin this chapter by asking you to get a certain picture clear in your minds. Imagine two books lying on a table one on top of the other. Obviously the bottom book is keeping the other one up-supporting it. It is because of the underneath book that the top one is resting, say, two inches from the surface of the table instead of touching the table. Let us call the underneath book A and the top one B. The position of A is causing the position of B. That is clear? Now let us imagine - it could not really happen, of course, but it will do for an illustration -let us imagine that both books have been in that position for ever and ever. In that case B's position would always have been resulting from A's position. But all the same, A's position would not have existed before B's position. In other words the result does not come after the cause. Of course, results usually do: you eat the cucumber first and have the indigestion afterwards. But it is not so with all causes and results. You will see in a moment why I think this important.

I said a few pages back that God is a Being which contains three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube contains six squares while remaining one body. But as soon as I begin trying to explain how these Persons are connected I have to use words which make it sound as if one of them was there before the others. The First Person is called the Father and the Second the Son. We say that the First begets or produces the second; we call it begetting, not making, because what He produces is of the same kind as Himself. In that way the word Father is the only word to use. But unfortunately it suggests that He is there first-just as a human father exists before his son. But that is not so. There is no before and after about it. And that is why I think it important to make clear how one thing can be the source, or cause, or origin, of another without being there before it. The Son exists because the Father exists: but there never was a time before the Father produced the Son.

But this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia (on "Divine Providence"):

God beholds all things together in one comprehensive act (I, Q. xxii, a. 3, ad 3 um), and by the same act produces, conserves, and concurs in all things (I, Q. civ a. 1, ad 4 urn).

If "God beholds all things together in one comprehensive act, and by the same act produces, conserves, and concurs in all things," wouldn't it be just as true to say that God eternally creates the universe, as it is to say that He eternally begets The Son?

Wouldn't it be just as true to say that there never was a time when God was without the universe, as it is to say that there never was a time when The Father was without The Son?

Doesn't Pantheism make more sense than Trinitarianism?

That's how I ended my post there, but I'm wondering how LDS would view this in light of the OP, Joseph's ring annalogy, and particularly D&C 29:33.

^aSpeaking unto you that you may naturally understand; but unto myself my works have no ^bend, neither beginning; but it is given unto you that ye may understand, because ye have asked it of me and are agreed.

Edited July 18, 2012 by inquiringmind

[ERayR]

But we don't see the gospel as without mysteries. The doctrine is NOT complete, as we have continuing revelation. We do not know much about how the atonement works, how resurrection will work, or about the next life. We don't really know much about whether evolution is a fact or not. So there are many mysteries and doctrines yet to be revealed.

Elder McConkie was an apostle with many opinions. Some of those opinions have already been proven wrong. So, I would stick with what the gospel actually now teaches us, until we receive more clear revelation.

Your understanding about the ring/circle is problematic, as it is not how LDS view it. The gospel teaches us of eternal rounds. It does not mean we end up back at the beginning, as in an infinite loop. Time is not linear, as modern man sees it. Therein lies your problem. It is cyclical. Scriptures were written in a time when people saw cycles of time. Seasons of sowing, growing, harvesting, and winter go in cycle, but they do not go back to the beginning in a loop. Instead, each of us goes through a cycle that leads us into our eternal selves. Obtaining godhood requires an eternal round, wherein eternal matter is formed into intelligence, then spirit, then mortal, and finally god/exalted. Then, as with the harvest cycle, we begin a new cycle with a new group of players being formed.

I do not see a problem with infinity. When infinity is set up as cyclical projects, then those projects can be completed while still within infinity. On earth, we mortals do this all the time - dwelling within infinity, but still accomplishing.

[inquiringmind]

Your understanding about the ring/circle is problematic, as it is not how LDS view it. The gospel teaches us of eternal rounds. It does not mean we end up back at the beginning, as in an infinite loop

Then Joseph didn't say that anything that has a beginning has to have an end?

Once again.

I just posted this on a Christian (non LDS Christian) Forum, it seems to relate to this topic heading, and I'd be interested in your thoughts here.

I read this a long time ago, and always found it helpful (from "Trinitarian Help," by C.S. Lewis):

I begin this chapter by asking you to get a certain picture clear in your minds. Imagine two books lying on a table one on top of the other. Obviously the bottom book is keeping the other one up-supporting it. It is because of the underneath book that the top one is resting, say, two inches from the surface of the table instead of touching the table. Let us call the underneath book A and the top one B. The position of A is causing the position of B. That is clear? Now let us imagine - it could not really happen, of course, but it will do for an illustration -let us imagine that both books have been in that position for ever and ever. In that case B's position would always have been resulting from A's position. But all the same, A's position would not have existed before B's position. In other words the result does not come after the cause. Of course, results usually do: you eat the cucumber first and have the indigestion afterwards. But it is not so with all causes and results. You will see in a moment why I think this important.

I said a few pages back that God is a Being which contains three Persons while remaining one Being, just as a cube contains six squares while remaining one body. But as soon as I begin trying to explain how these Persons are connected I have to use words which make it sound as if one of them was there before the others. The First Person is called the Father and the Second the Son. We say that the First begets or produces the second; we call it begetting, not making, because what He produces is of the same kind as Himself. In that way the word Father is the only word to use. But unfortunately it suggests that He is there first-just as a human father exists before his son. But that is not so. There is no before and after about it. And that is why I think it important to make clear how one thing can be the source, or cause, or origin, of another without being there before it. The Son exists because the Father exists: but there never was a time before the Father produced the Son.

But this is from the Catholic Encyclopedia (on "Divine Providence"):

God beholds all things together in one comprehensive act (I, Q. xxii, a. 3, ad 3 um), and by the same act produces, conserves, and concurs in all things (I, Q. civ a. 1, ad 4 urn).

If "God beholds all things together in one comprehensive act, and by the same act produces, conserves, and concurs in all things," wouldn't it be just as true to say that God eternally creates the universe, as it is to say that He eternally begets The Son?

Wouldn't it be just as true to say that there never was a time when God was without the universe, as it is to say that there never was a time when The Father was without The Son?

Doesn't Pantheism make more sense than Trinitarianism?

That's how I ended my post there, but I'm wondering how LDS would view this in light of the OP, Joseph's ring annalogy, and particularly D&C 29:33.

^aSpeaking unto you that you may naturally understand; but unto myself my works have no ^bend, neither beginning; but it is given unto you that ye may understand, because ye have asked it of me and are agreed.

Edited July 18, 2012 by inquiringmind

[dougtheavenger]

I think you made a mistake here.

The question "Is this eternal element called spirit infinitely divisible or does it consist of indivisible units?" is multiple choice, and cannot be answered with a yes or no.

Perhaps you meant to ask whether the begetting of a spirit (assuming that spirit element consists of multiple indivisible uniits) involves more than one indivisible unit?

Whatever the answer to that question, I find the multiple choice question more interesting.

"Is this eternal element called spirit infinitely divisible or does it consist of indivisible units?"

What are your thoughts on that?

If it's infinitely divisible, wouldn't that mean that every human spirit is an outgrowth of One infinite Spirit?

My Opinion is

That time, space and matter; both spirit and physical matter, are not infinitely divisible and consist of indivisible units. Obviously I am not the originator of this idea. I have borrowed heavily from Liebnitz and his theory of monads or primitive minds. Liebnitz believed all matter to be composed of consious entities. Some minds in this theory are more aware than others. Nevertheless, each mind, however primitive can be presumed to have an eternal character. I'm not sure that I now adhere to the idea of eternal minds existing at different levels of consiousness, but I haven't completely abandoned the idea either. As I have grown older, I have come to believe, and regard as important, that God the Father is and always was the supreme intellegence of the universe with Jesus and the Holy Ghost as His only equals and that the godhead will never change in its membership. Of course it is all, or almost all, a mystery. If we needed to know the history of our Heavenly Father for salvation, then Jesus would have provided that history. That fact that He remained largely silent on the subject indicates that it is not required knowledge. We know what we need to know to progress as far as we can progress.

[dougtheavenger]

Then Joseph didn't say that anything that has a beginning has to have an end?

Once again.

Joseph Smith said that anything that has a beginning may have an end. However, not everything that Joseph Smith said made it into the D&C and thus became official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter Day Saints. I take comfort in that. It is a rebuttal to all those you attempt to claim that this is the church of Joseph Smith rather than the Church of Jesus Christ.

[dougtheavenger]

In response to Inquiringmind and C. S. Lewis, I am quite certain that the idea of God existing outside of time is not the LDS explanation of how Jesus is coeternal with God the Father and also begotten of the Father. I don't think it is extrapolation to say that being begotten before the creation of the world must be an event in Jesus' existence, not the beginning of His existence. I think any explanation beyond that is theory not doctrine. When general authorities say "We believe..." instead of "We know..." or "Thus sayeth the Lord..." they are clearly not teaching official doctrine, not that I have an issue with George Albert Smith or any general authority saying this in general conference or any other teaching venue.

Edited July 19, 2012 by dougtheavenger

[inquiringmind]

In response to Inquiringmind and C. S. Lewis, I am quite certain that the idea of God existing outside of time is not the LDS explanation of how Jesus is coeternal with God the Father and also begotten of the Father.

What about us?

Could it be an explanation of how all these conscious entities you spoke of are coeternal with a Being who "is and always was the supreme intellegence of the universe with Jesus and the Holy Ghost as His only equals"" and why that "godhead will never change in its membership"?

In your words "An infinite series of events by definition cannot be completed," and "at the end of time, we go back to the beginning of time or to put it another way, if we continue to move forward in time we will eventually end up in the past."

If that's true, doesn't it follow that there could be no infinite series of events (or segments of time) prior to creation, that we're all on our way back to the future, and that linear time (and all these monads, or conscious entitties) are generated by that One Supreme Intelligence you spoke of?

In our favor, we acknowledge that our doctrines are unfinished because God will yet reveal many great and important things relative to the kingdom of heaven. So that is our redeeming feature aside from priesthood authority. Nevertheless we need not be so smug in thinking that we have it all figured out and Catholics and Protestants are hopelessly muddled in their thinking about God.

So could Lewis have almost gotten something right here?

Edited July 19, 2012 by inquiringmind

[mfbukowski]

Well I will stick my head in there one more time, mutter something under my breath, and leave at least for a while.

Even if God WAS "outside time" in some sense we cannot even intelligibly talk about it because our language is not built for it. We cannot even really understand what "outside time" could mean. Has anyone here ever experienced timelessness? I guarantee that if they had, they could not speak about it intelligibly since we cannot even describe the difference between the sound of a violin and a trumpet intelligibly- and we have ALL experienced that difference and can identify the difference in a second.

<unintelligible muttering fades into the distance>

Edited July 19, 2012 by mfbukowski

[dougtheavenger]

What about us?

Could it be an explanation of how all these conscious entities you spoke of are coeternal with a Being who "is and always was the supreme intellegence of the universe with Jesus and the Holy Ghost as His only equals"" and why that "godhead will never change in its membership"?

In your words "An infinite series of events by definition cannot be completed," and "at the end of time, we go back to the beginning of time or to put it another way, if we continue to move forward in time we will eventually end up in the past."

If that's true, doesn't it follow that there could be no infinite series of events (or segments of time) prior to creation, that we're all on our way back to the future, and that linear time (and all these monads, or conscious entitties) are generated by that One Supreme Intelligence you spoke of?

So could Lewis have almost gotten something right here?

I have only read a couple books by C. S. Lewis; "The Screwtape Letters" and "The Great Divorce" and it has been a while; decades. They were thoughly enjoyable. However, if memory serves me right, Lewis or one of his characters made a statement something like this "...as if God had nothing better to do than exist." Also Wormwood and his uncle Screwtape were busily engaged in doing things. Going back to the Bible, God and Satan were acting to effect the lives of human beings like Job. My point is that events take place in the eternal world in which our Heavenly Father lives. Events equal the passage of time. I realize the passage of time can be different in different places. Nevertheless, God acts and creates and thus has a history. So I think that other C.S. Lewis allusions like the chessboard that represented time with God standing out of it looking down has some problems.