Paradox

[inquiringmind]

I've been told that there's a difference between a paradox and a contradiction, and maybe that's part of the answer here, but one thing I've struggled with is the following.

(I'm quoting more than one passage from the BOM and the D&C from memory, and I may not be quoting accurately, so I invite correction.)

It seems to be LDS doctrine that there's one God, all creation testifies to His existence, creation would cease to exist if He ceased to exist, and there could be no existence (to act or be acted upon) without Him.

And that we've all always existed in one form or another (as intelligences, even before we were spirit-children of Heavenly Father), being (like element) co-eternal with God.

These ideas seem mutually exclusive to me, but maybe I'm missing something?

Maybe it's more of a paradox than a contradiction.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how both these things could possibly be true?

[rongo]

Our intelligence, spirit matter, and physical matter is as eternal as God, and we have "existed" as long as God has (eternally ---- no beginning and no end).

Without God organizing our intelligence, spirit matter, (and later on earth) physical matter, we would only exist as basic intelligence. He had to organize us before we could really do or be anything other than intelligence. He gave us the opportunity and ability to act.

Does that help?

[cdowis]

No contradiction here. "If there were no God" is a hypothetical statement.

"If you had three legs, you would have difficulty walking" is a hypothetical, with the extension that "since you have only two legs...etc"

[CV75]

Does anyone have any thoughts on how both these things could possibly be true?

We are co-eternal with God, and we would not have progressed from one estate into the next, as He has, without Him leading, teaching and organizing (creating) us to do so. The same principle holds for other forms of life in their element, and for the elements themselves.

[inquiringmind]

Without God organizing our intelligence, spirit matter, (and later on earth) physical matter, we would only exist as basic intelligence.

What is "basic intelligence"?

Does it think?

Is it conscious?

Is it self-aware?

And when you say "we" would only exist as basic intelligence, do you mean individual units of intelligence that think, and are conscious and self-aware?

P.S. If there were no individual, conscious, self-aware units of intelligence until God created/organized us as His spirit-children, why does Abraham 3: 17-18 say "Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; and there is nothing that the Lord thy God shall take in his heart to do but what he will do it. Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after,for they are gnolaum, or eternal."

[rongo]

We don't know a lot about "intelligence," other than what D&C 93 tells us: intelligence can't be created and has always existed. Until intelligence is combined with spirit matter (which is also eternal, per D&C), it apparently can't act. This "spirit creation" constituted our real "beginning," in any real sense (even though our intelligence has always existed). Until God "created" us by organizing us that way, we couldn't progress or make choices. Once intelligence is combined with spirit matter, choices could be made (1/3 of God's spirit children chose Satan's plan, for example). Having physical matter added on earth gives us further options for development (we are elligible to receive a fullness of joy as resurrected being, for instance, and can become like God).

[Damien the Leper]

Is the LDS church sure they aren't some form of modern Gnostics? There are peculiar similarities and trends. Not that its a bad thing.

[cdowis]

Until intelligence is combined with spirit matter (which is also eternal, per D&C), it apparently can't act. This "spirit creation" constituted our real "beginning," in any real sense (even though our intelligence has always existed). Until God "created" us by organizing us that way, we couldn't progress or make choices.

Sounds like alot of speculation here.

Edited December 31, 2012 by cdowis

[rongo]

Sounds like alot of speculation here.

What is your *alternate* take on these, then? You know, one that is "non-speculative?"

D&C 93:23 --- Ye were also in the beginning with the Father . . .

D&C 93:29 ----- Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

D&C 93:33 ----- For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy.

D&C 131:7-8 ------ There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes. We cannot see it, but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

If you don't have the stomach for speculation, you probably aren't interested in what the Brethren had to say on this matter in Journal of Discourses. It makes sense, though, and unifies what is in the scriptures.

"The organization of the human tabernacle is a great mystery; but it would not be, if we could see and understand. Could the vail between us and the spiritual existence be rent, we should behold a greater mystery in the organization of the spirit." (Brigham Young, June 12, 1859 [funeral sermon for his sister Fanny Young]. Journal of Discourses 7:172-173).

Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball both taught extensively that Outer Darkness will consist of those intelligence being ripped away from spirit and physical matter, and those intelligences starting over from the very beginning (they remain inherently evil, as intelligence cannot be created).

[ERayR]

Is the LDS church sure they aren't some form of modern Gnostics? There are peculiar similarities and trends. Not that its a bad thing.

Are you sure the Gnostics didn't have some truth in their beliefs?

[CV75]

What is "basic intelligence"?

Does it think?

Is it conscious?

Is it self-aware?

And when you say "we" would only exist as basic intelligence, do you mean individual units of intelligence that think, and are conscious and self-aware?

P.S. If there were no individual, conscious, self-aware units of intelligence until God created/organized us as His spirit-children, why does Abraham 3: 17-18 say "Now, if there be two things, one above the other, and the moon be above the earth, then it may be that a planet or a star may exist above it; and there is nothing that the Lord thy God shall take in his heart to do but what he will do it. Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after,for they are gnolaum, or eternal."

These terms are all relative, as you may be pointing out by referring to Abraham 3:16-19. If intelligence as the light of truth (D&C 93: 29, 36) can take the form of element or spirit, these verses indicate that there are various capacities for either to act and to be acted upon (2 Nephi 2:14). There would also be innumerable forms of intelligence, spirit, life and element, each at some level seeming to possess the qualities of the other.

Since the defining nature of man is intelligence in the form of spirit and not element (see D&C 93:33), and his spirit controls or acts upon the element given him (D&C 88:32), and both are eternal, man might be considered a unit of intelligence but appear to be something more complex due to the manner in which that unit behaves.

Perhaps each and every spirit that exists is a unit of intelligence but moves, acts and interacts so as to appear to be an entity of multiple units of intelligence.

[Questing Beast]

It is all "speculation here". We don't remember consciously, so speculation is all we can do.

Logical fact: for "intelligence" to be eternal and not created it must be part of the Necessary Cause. For God the Father to be the only One capable of organizing eternally existing matter and separate intelligence, into first spirit form then material form, implies that GtF is the Necessary Cause. Either that, or else the NC came up with GtF as the method by which all material creation came about. This makes the God which organized religions pray to a part of the creative process that the NC willed to be; not the Cause itself. I do not pray to the GtF concept "revealed" by Joseph Smith. Rather, I attempt all the time to expand my concept of "God", Necessary Cause, and pray to, worship, what it Is. That would mean, of course, that I am from now on trying to worship the very same "God" that God the Father (and Heavenly Mother) worship....

[ERayR]

It is all "speculation here". We don't remember consciously, so speculation is all we can do.

Logical fact: for "intelligence" to be eternal and not created it must be part of the Necessary Cause. For God the Father to be the only One capable of organizing eternally existing matter and separate intelligence, into first spirit form then material form, implies that GtF is the Necessary Cause. Either that, or else the NC came up with GtF as the method by which all material creation came about. This makes the God which organized religions pray to a part of the creative process that the NC willed to be; not the Cause itself. I do not pray to the GtF concept "revealed" by Joseph Smith. Rather, I attempt all the time to expand my concept of "God", Necessary Cause, and pray to, worship, what it Is. That would mean, of course, that I am from now on trying to worship the very same "God" that God the Father (and Heavenly Mother) worship....

If your concept is correct, did you ever consider that you may be over reaching? If you are correct then things are organized the way they are for a reason and we are instructed to worship God the Father.

Edited January 1, 2013 by ERayR

[volgadon]

Are you sure the Gnostics didn't have some truth in their beliefs?

Wow, I was going to post almost exactly the same thing.

[Rob Osborn]

Pretty deep stuff. My 2 cents-

If I understand this correctly, spirit matter is the "intelligence". Somehow, God is able to organize this eternal spirit matter into self governing comprehensible form which gives us some sort of "beginning" or birth. The greatest enigma we have is intelligence. We have no known way to understand this s phenomenon. And yet, the greatest witness there must be a God is because of the fact that intelligence exists! No known natural process in nature is capable of producing something, anything for that matter, that has intelligence. This like other posts is the great chicken/ egg debate. If God is made of intelligence but it takes a God to create comprehensible intelligence then neither existed first, one without the other!

Edited January 1, 2013 by Rob Osborn

[Questing Beast]

@ErayR: "If your concept is correct, did you ever consider that you may be over reaching? If you are correct then things are organized the way they are for a reason and we are instructed to worship God the Father."

How can a finite mind "overreach" the Infinite?

It appears that our 'satiable sapience is the most infinite quality we possess or are possessed by. For a purpose? Or just to jerk us around? Dogmatic, organized religions are more than a dime a dozen, going back "forever". Religions come and go and morph continually and unevenly. Why would Mormonism be any more valid or less valid than any that have come before or will come after? To assume that ONE dogma is "God's only way" is possibly the most classic of blunders with religion-makers.

If "God the Father" speaks to you, then by all means pray to that concept. If a "Mother Goddess" speaks to you then worship that. If the Necessary Cause feels more suitable then "God" is possibly speaking from that growing perspective. The point is that, people are not the same, no two exactly alike, ever. There is no way to break the deadlock between dogmas and all are valid or none of them are: surely evidence shows that devout believers of any dogma whatsoever obtain spirituality and are better people for it.

The religions on this planet alone number now over seven billion; and each one has the same "God", just no two perceived exactly the same. That makes sense, since "God" is Infinite: why would creation be so staid as to demand a singular "way" to communicate with "God"?...

[ERayR]

Articles of Faith # 11 We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

[mfbukowski]

Man, I'm glad I have my hip boots on....

It's all metaphors.

Edited January 2, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Maidservant]

God is life.

When we participate in life and in creating life, we are God, or if that seems like saying it too plainly, then we are part of God, or if that is still too plain, then we serve God.

Our heavenly Father is a being who has progressed to the point where he is helping other beings progress. He is a being who IS GOD because he creates and because he is good and because his progression is completed or at least is so far beyond our own at this point that it functions as being completed from the point of view at which we relate to him.

[mfbukowski]

The greatest enigma we have is intelligence. We have no known way to understand this s phenomenon.

But we have no problem talking about it endlessly, do we?

How can a finite mind "overreach" the Infinite?

Heck if I know. But we sure try a lot.

Edited January 2, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Damien the Leper]

Are you sure the Gnostics didn't have some truth in their beliefs?

I don't believe I ever made that claim.

[ERayR]

I don't believe I ever made that claim.

I didn't think you would but it wasn't that clear to me so I thought I would make a point of it. No offense meant.

[pogi]

Dogmatic, organized religions are more than a dime a dozen, going back "forever". Religions come and go and morph continually and unevenly. Why would Mormonism be any more valid or less valid than any that have come before or will come after? To assume that ONE dogma is "God's only way" is possibly the most classic of blunders with religion-makers.

Christ is the one way, by means of atonement made applicable by faith, repentance, and baptism by water and purification by fire. The gate by which we must enter is baptism into this, His church by one who has been given authority by Him. There is no other gate, and there is no other way. Does this mean that my experiences with God are real and others are false? I don't think so. Does this mean that I experience his love stronger than others who give their hearts to him (how ever they may perceive him)? I don't think so.

If "God the Father" speaks to you, then by all means pray to that concept. If a "Mother Goddess" speaks to you then worship that. If the Necessary Cause feels more suitable then "God" is possibly speaking from that growing perspective. The point is that, people are not the same, no two exactly alike, ever. There is no way to break the deadlock between dogmas and all are valid or none of them are: surely evidence shows that devout believers of any dogma whatsoever obtain spirituality and are better people for it.

The religions on this planet alone number now over seven billion; and each one has the same "God", just no two perceived exactly the same. That makes sense, since "God" is Infinite: why would creation be so staid as to demand a singular "way" to communicate with "God"?...

I agree with your last paragraph. Man does not need religion to communicate with God how ever they may perceive him. However, man does need a prophet to teach us of whom we worship and his ways, and to show us his work for us (Amos 3:7). Our perspectives and understanding of our personal experiences with God are made more clear through prophets. To worship God without a prophet is to blindly warm your hands by a fire, following it's warmth, yet having limited perspective of what it is and what it looks like, with no idea of how to actually see it and experience it in it's fullness and true glory. Even within religion, we all have different perspectives of God, but by following the prophets, our perspectives are made more clear and more perfect.

You can thank the prophets for having even a concept of God. You can also thank the prophets for the concept of personally communicating with him. Because of them, your perspective has become that much more clear.

Edited January 3, 2013 by pogi

[Damien the Leper]

I didn't think you would but it wasn't that clear to me so I thought I would make a point of it. No offense meant.

I didn't take offense, Ray. The post was more like thinking out loud.

[The Nehor]

I've been told that there's a difference between a paradox and a contradiction, and maybe that's part of the answer here, but one thing I've struggled with is the following.

(I'm quoting more than one passage from the BOM and the D&C from memory, and I may not be quoting accurately, so I invite correction.)

It seems to be LDS doctrine that there's one God, all creation testifies to His existence, creation would cease to exist if He ceased to exist, and there could be no existence (to act or be acted upon) without Him.

And that we've all always existed in one form or another (as intelligences, even before we were spirit-children of Heavenly Father), being (like element) co-eternal with God.

These ideas seem mutually exclusive to me, but maybe I'm missing something?

Maybe it's more of a paradox than a contradiction.

Does anyone have any thoughts on how both these things could possibly be true?

Start inventing new verb tenses for eternity not just being an extension of time and then you can get a colossal headache and begin to see some possible explanations.