Orson Pratt On The Oneness Of God

[wayfarer]

We do not worship the sun/moon/stars, nor anything in nature nor in our bodies, but we worship God who made them and who provides all of our sustenance. Likewise, we do not worship truth, light and knowledge, priesthood, nor any other spiritual "intangible," but God who makes them available to us.

So God presents Himself to us in ways we cannot express long before He structures and presents particular truths to us according to or understanding (D&C 88:11-13). There is no truth that we can possess independently of God, and there is no truth that we can possess that He does not already possess and share with us.

Your comment suggests that you embrace the paradigm that God is the source of the universal attributes. I'm not going to dispute this point -- it's not the same paradigm I share and interpret in Orson Pratt's writings. I am not proposing that one paradigm is better than the other, only different. The challenge is that without a common paradigm, one cannot interpret the beliefs within one paradigm on the basis of another -- it simply ends up with cognitive dissonance.

To say that the universal attributes exist independently of the person, and thus can be worshiped outside of the person indeed doesn't make sense, and that is not what Pratt is saying. Love is not a thing or a being that we can worship by itself. Pratt suggests we worship the attribute only as it exists within the person. As well, "intelligence" is not a thing (although Book of Abraham conflates the term a bit), but rather an attribute of a being. when a being posesses the attributes of Love or Intelligence in large measure, we respect the being not because of the being itself, but the fact that the being possesses that attribute.

Pratt takes this to the ideal of the attribute. When a being possesses Love, Intelligence, etc. in infinite measure, then that being is God. He says the ideal attributes (to use another name "universals") are eternal and absolute. He says that a being can become a possessor of the universal, ideal attributes. In so doing, the being 'becomes' God, and is thus worthy of worship by virtue of the attributes alone.

Likewise, we honor the Prophet -- we don't worship him, because we don't worship "men" in that way. We honor and respect, even to the point of exact obedience, when the Prophet does what prophets are supposed to do: Prophesy -- that is, speaks for the Lord. At that moment, when the Prophet is speaking for the Lord, he is essentially equivalent to the Lord. He possesses all the attributes necessary to speak for the Lord.

But unlike Gods who are inseparably connected between body and spirit, and inseparably imbued with the universals that make them gods, the Prophet, or any mortal man, is only able to be equivalent to the Lord in the moment -- there is no persistence of godness in man, although they, too, can possess the glorious attributes in that moment. See Psalms 82

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men.

(Psalms 82:6-7)

If we have a paradigm that there is only one being that is God, then how can the above scripture make sense in the least? Jesus even quoted this scripture in John 10, rendering quite relevant to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

If, on the other hand, we have a paradigm that there are eternal attributes, collectively called "The Way", and that godness, indeed, all goodness, prophecy, priesthood, and structure in this life emerges from a harmony with the Way, then a host of things make sense:

- Scripture is not "top-down" declared, but rather, the light of the gospel emerges as holy men discover it through inspiration. Scripture is necessarily incomplete and insufficient to save us, as Jesus pointed out in John 5:39: "(Ye) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (The "Ye" at the beginning is most important, is implied in the greek text, and completely changes this from the LDS interpretation of a commandment to "Search the Scriptures" to the fact that the Pharisees and Saducees did that all day long and missed the entire point: The tesimony of Jesus Christ emerges from the scripture.)

- Structure in the church is not a completed effort, but rather, emerges and evolves over time as we come to understand truth better and better.

- A snapshot of beliefs at one point in time (i.e. "The New Testanent", or "The Book of Mormon") is never going to be the definitive "gospel", because over time, our understanding improves as we learn.

- A single definition of the Gospel is never definitive, but rather, the gospel light may emerge from all expression of scripture to the extent that the writers of those scriptures are in harmony with the universal attributes of god. Hence the necessity of ongoing revelation in any church that carries the attribute 'true'. (As well, we define the "Rock" not as "Peter", but rather, as "Revelation of Jesus Christ". Paul defined this as the essential way to receive the Gospel - through revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ in Galatians 1).

- The oneness of god does not depend upon a dictatorial top-down structure, but rather is defined by the unity of being congruent with the Way. If God the Father and Jesus Christ both define themselves as congruent to the Way, then, mathematically, spiritually, and actually, God the Father = Jesus Christ = The Way in the unity of being God.

- Gospel truths are progressive rather than conservative. As Jesus progressed beyond the ritualistic aspects of the Torah and taught a new law, Paul went a step further to push toward an anti-nomian Church that the original 12 apostles were not initially capable of accepting. Likewise, Joseph not only restored the church, but progressed it beyond where it was in the time of Christ. Such progressive increases in understanding and growth seem lacking today in a prevailingly conservative, dogmatic church.

And most importantly, as we recognize that the divinity of our Prophets, Scriptures, priesthood, institutions are emergent rather than "designed", we can realize that many of the faults of our history, scripture, and current leadership are all inevitably part of being human. It's meaningless to say, for example, that "God wouldn't allow the prophet to lie," because God does not mandate. Agency, the ability to emerge order through learning from our own experience to discern the Way, becomes the fully operative model of this world. We can stop trying to defend a history that needs not defense. We can embrace the humanity of the Church and scriptures for what they are.

Edited February 20, 2013 by wayfarer

[CV75]

But back to the paradigm difference: My question is from an LDS theological viewpoint, taking Orson Pratt's statements not as scripture but as a theological treatise, which came first: the universals he describes, or a God at the top of the God hierarchy?

I do not think his treatise necessarily addresses this question, so I view his treatise in light of my understanding, which is: As far as we are concerned, God came first, since even as co-eternal intelligences, we lacked many things until He showed, led the way to, revealed or otherwise gave. From a strictly temporal and incomplete point of view, since we believe we become gods in the same way He did, someone before Him likewise must have come first, as far as He is concerned. So if the “universals” are anything, they are a Person that can be in more than one place at once (for lack of a better way to describe "eternal"), and this is how “all things” past/as they were, present/as they are and future/as they are to come is one with God.

[Darren10]

True, we disagree. That, alone, doesn't make me 'spiritually nuts',

I agree. It's your rejecton of the Book of Abraham which makes you spiritualy nuts.

for I have had an equally strong spiritual feeling that the artifacts in the Book of Abraham are just that

I will not deride you for your personal spiritual promptings and if that is what they are than you should folow them. But the spirit which is propmting you is rejecting the divine vracity of a book which provides man deeper knowledge (intelligence) as to his eternal premortal nature and relation to the Most High God and His Son than any other book save only, perhaps, the Book of Moses.

I'm nuts for a lot of different reasons, but the fact that I disagree with you isn't one of them.

Again, I agree.

As altersteve said, that's not possible.

The paradigmatic difference between us is much more vast than I think you realize. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that, or with your point of view -- it's merely different than mine, by a significant amount.

No arguing that.

I have separated discussion of the paradigm into a separate post.

Sweeeeet!!!!!

[Darren10]

I do not think his treatise necessarily addresses this question, so I view his treatise in light of my understanding, which is: As far as we are concerned, God came first, since even as co-eternal intelligences, we lacked many things until He showed, led the way to, revealed or otherwise gave. From a strictly temporal and incomplete point of view, since we believe we become gods in the same way He did, someone before Him likewise must have come first, as far as He is concerned. So if the “universals” are anything, they are a Person that can be in more than one place at once (for lack of a better way to describe "eternal"), and this is how “all things” past/as they were, present/as they are and future/as they are to come is one with God.

Correct. Pratt's treatise deals with man's premortal nature, not where God began. All LDS doctrines teach that all things began with the Father. From that stand point and that alone, the Father is the greatest of all. Also, there is an ample amunt of official LDS doctrine to veryify that belief as well as clear doctrines showing a difference in intelligence among intelligences or the gods.

someone before Him likewise must have come first, as far as He is concerned

Which is only philosophy and reason, not divine doctrine.

[Darren10]

We do not worship the sun/moon/stars, nor anything in nature nor in our bodies, but we worship God who made them and who provides all of our sustenance. Likewise, we do not worship truth, light and knowledge, priesthood, nor any other spiritual "intangible," but God who makes them available to us.

So God presents Himself to us in ways we cannot express long before He structures and presents particular truths to us according to or understanding (D&C 88:11-13). There is no truth that we can possess independently of God, and there is no truth that we can possess that He does not already possess and share with us.

I very much agree.

[CV75]

If, on the other hand, we have a paradigm that there are eternal attributes, collectively called "The Way", and that godness, indeed, all goodness, prophecy, priesthood, and structure in this life emerges from a harmony with the Way, then a host of things make sense:

Jesus is not an attribute: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14: 6)

- The oneness of god does not depend upon a dictatorial top-down structure, but rather is defined by the unity of being congruent with the Way. If God the Father and Jesus Christ both define themselves as congruent to the Way, then, mathematically, spiritually, and actually, God the Father = Jesus Christ = The Way in the unity of being God.

D&C 93: 19: “I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness.” This is about who God is and what He does with Who He is. We clearly come unto the father through Christ, so there is an order or “hierarchy” of “fullness” at work here. And D&C 93 is all about progress and emergence.

[CV75]

Which is only philosophy and reason, not divine doctrine.

Yes, which is why I prefaced it it with, "From a strictly temporal and incomplete point of view..." and why, while it might be fodder for discussion, the principle itself isn't really essential to our salvation. Learning to figure things out from an eternal and complete point of view, however is--hence the Gift of the Holy Ghost, which reveals only those things that are pertinent to our salvation!

[Darren10]

wayfarer #24;

In the mainstream Christian ontology of God, an uncreated God decreed the universals and thus caused (Cosmological argument) all things in the universe according to his design (Teleological argument).

That's in LDS ontology as well, sir.

[wayfarer]

Jesus is not an attribute: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14: 6)

Which is why I said the you cannot interpret what Pratt is saying unless it is put in the reference of the paradigm. If there is a universal, say, "godness", then what makes Jesus the Christ is the congruence with the universal. To that Jesus is the Truth or that Jesus is the Life means...what? Truth is not a person. Truth is a universal. The equation of Jesus to these universals is exactly what Pratt is saying.

D&C 93: 19: “I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness.” This is about who God is and what He does with Who He is. We clearly come unto the father through Christ, so there is an order or “hierarchy” of “fullness” at work here. And D&C 93 is all about progress and emergence.

Um... Interesting. "how to worship". "what to worship". Not "whom" we worship. Very interesting.

[wayfarer]

wayfarer #24;

That's in LDS ontology as well, sir.

which is to miss the point I made entirely about the paradigm one follows.

[Darren10]

Jesus is not an attribute: “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14: 6)

People who get caught up in this phiosophical chargin seem to forget that.

[wayfarer]

I will not deride you for your personal spiritual promptings and if that is what they are than you should folow them. But the spirit which is propmting you is rejecting the divine vracity of a book which provides man deeper knowledge (intelligence) as to his eternal premortal nature and relation to the Most High God and His Son than any other book save only, perhaps, the Book of Moses.

Uh, ok. I had that opinion, once. Spent two years at the feet of Hugh Nibley in person on that (much to my DW's chagrin). So, yes, I've been there.

I no longer say that at all. I'm back to the basics -- I'd go with "The Book of Mormon" as being the book that provides the most insight.

[Darren10]

which is to miss the point I made entirely about the paradigm one follows.

Nope. Not a bit. The Father is the uncreated being in LDS theology. Accordingly, there is no God before Him. Outside theology, according to reason and philosophy, I think there's truth to perhaps there being a God before God but that is not part of my faith nor worship. No matter what source to teach the creation: Genesis, the pearl of Great Price, the temple, and parts of the Book of Mormon, everything starts (and ends) with the Father. Period. There are no divine attributes which the Father had to follow to become God at some point. So far as LDS theology goes, God the Father always was and always will be. He was, is and will forever be the greatest of all. My counter points have nothing to do with your thinking but what seems to be as preaching them as absolute truth and The Seer is your source of authorty today. That's shaky ground and that's what I'm pointing out.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Darren10

[wayfarer]

Nope. Not a bit. The Father is the uncreated being in LDS theology. Accordingly, there is no God before Him.

CFR

[Darren10]

Uh, ok. I had that opinion, once. Spent two years at the feet of Hugh Nibley in person on that (much to my DW's chagrin). So, yes, I've been there.

I no longer say that at all. I'm back to the basics -- I'd go with "The Book of Mormon" as being the book that provides the most insight.

Now Hugh Nibley is your source for your faith and worship? Is there an end to mortal man's thinking being the foundation of what you believe? And obviously you didn't listen to Nibley regarding the Book of Abraham.

This is getting personal. Everybody take a step back.

[Darren10]

CFR

The Book of Abraham's account begins with the Father. The Book of Moses's creation account begins with the Father; the temple clearly and unambiguously begins the creation with the Father; the Book of Mormon, by choice (spitirual guidance I'd say), does not give such a full account of the creation but but it clearly testifies, as to *all* doctrinal accounts, of the creation of "all things" as being done by the Father through the Son. Did Hugh Nibley not teach you this?

Edited February 20, 2013 by Darren10

[wayfarer]

The Book of Abraham's account begins with the Father. The Book of Moses's creation account begins with the Father; the temple clearly and unambiguously begins the creation with the Father; the Book of Mormon, by choice (spitirual guidance I'd say), does not give such a full account of the creation but but it clearly testifies, as to *all* doctrinal accounts, of the creation of "all things" as being done by the Father through the Son. Did Hugh Nibley not teach you this?

you made the claim: "The Father is the uncreated being in LDS theology", and I asked for a reference. You haven't provided any.

Please explain how God is in possession of an exalted Body.

Please explain the couplet "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become."

[Darren10]

326;

Pratt suggests we worship the attribute only as it exists within the person. As well, "intelligence" is not a thing (although Book of Abraham conflates the term a bit), but rather an attribute of a being

Yeah, so reject the Book of Abraham and accept what you read from The Seer. Yeah, that'll get you closer to God.

If we have a paradigm that there is only one being that is God, then how can the above scripture make sense in the least? Jesus even quoted this scripture in John 10, rendering quite relevant to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

That conflicts with traditional Christian thinking, faith, and worship; not LDS thinking, faith, or worship.

Likewise, we honor the Prophet -- we don't worship him, because we don't worship "men" in that way. We honor and respect, even to the point of exact obedience, when the Prophet does what prophets are supposed to do: Prophesy -- that is, speaks for the Lord.

But, wait a second, I thought you reject prophets and their teachings. Haven't the prophets said that the Book of Abraham is the true word of God? As for me, I follow the prophets because the same power by which they know Gd's truth, I can know it as well. The same power will tell me that what the prophets teach is true. This filters down to local leaders in the ward as well. so, in the end, I follow God, not man.

because over time, our understanding improves as we learn

You definitely offer a good challenge to that notion.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

you made the claim: "The Father is the uncreated being in LDS theology", and I asked for a reference. You haven't provided any.

Please explain how God is in possession of an exalted Body.

Please explain the couplet "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become."

Isaiah 43:10-11...

10 ^aYe are my ^bwitnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have ^cchosen: that ye may know and ^dbelieve me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

11 I, even I, am the Lord; and ^abeside me there is no ^bsaviour.

Unless you want to or unless needed, I'll forego there being no God formed after God and for now I'll hit the relevant part of that passage. "Before me there was no God formed". This is YHWH who was Jehovah who was Jesus Christ speaking. 'Formed' is precisely how the LDS believe things were "created", including the Savior. He is eternal yet created not ex nihlo but ex materia but before Him no God was formed. To traditional Christians this means numeric monotheism but to the LDS it means (or as far as I can tell, it should mean) that Jesus was formed but the Father who was before Him was not. This also applies to before the Father. No God was formed before Jesus Christ, period. All LDS accounts of the creation fit in perfect harmony with this scriptural passage and within the interpretation I offered.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

Please explain how God is in possession of an exalted Body.

Easy. He has an exalted body. I don't know where or how He got it, neither do you.

Please explain the couplet "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become."

Tell me the story of Jesus. I like that story.

If that quote, I believe from Lorenzo Snow, refers to the Father, tell me the canonized doctrine it's in and I'll change my belief forthwith.We only have indications that pehaps, the Father was once a mortal man. I personally think its true but it is not how I worship and it is not the being I place my faith in. I place my faith in the one being where no account of being created exists so far as how my faith and worship is officially decreed. We do not know enough about the nature of the eternities to say anything near a definitive position that the Father was created and had a God.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Darren10

[ALarson]

Darren, what are your thoughts on what Joseph Smith stated?

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted Man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens. That is the great secret... It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God and to know...that he was once a man like us. Here, then, is eternal life--to know that only wise and true God, and you have got to learn how to become Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you. .. God himself, the father of us all dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ." - The Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 342-345.

[Darren10]

Darren, what are your thoughts on what Joseph Smith stated?

I think that the source is highly unreliable. What we have today is not a direct quote but words from several people who heard what he said and at some point their accounts were blended together to what we have today in the King Follett Discourse. Is there anything in Joseph Smith's own writing to collaborate this teaching I know of none. also, it's telling that this has never been adopted by the Church. It's interesting that wayfarer will outright reject the Book of Abraham but not a source like the King Follet Discourse which is inherently questionable.

[Darren10]

For the record, I think there's truth to what is reported as Joseph Smith having said but it is not part of my faith or worship. The Standard Works and the teachings of the temple are.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Darren10

[semlogo]

I think that the source is highly unreliable. What we have today is not a direct quote but words from several people who heard what he said and at some point their accounts were blended together to what we have today in the King Follett Discourse. Is there anything in Joseph Smith's own writing to collaborate this teaching I know of none. also, it's telling that this has never been adopted by the Church. It's interesting that wayfarer will outright reject the Book of Abraham but not a source like the King Follet Discourse which is inherently questionable.

It is quoted in official church materials and taught as doctrine. You're free of course to believe in a more mainstream, universal/Christian "uncreated" God. I would never dissuade you from following your heart on that. But the doctrine of the Church is still that God the Father was once a mortal man.

Edited February 20, 2013 by semlogo

[CV75]

Which is why I said the you cannot interpret what Pratt is saying unless it is put in the reference of the paradigm. If there is a universal, say, "godness", then what makes Jesus the Christ is the congruence with the universal. To that Jesus is the Truth or that Jesus is the Life means...what? Truth is not a person. Truth is a universal. The equation of Jesus to these universals is exactly what Pratt is saying.

But I do think that Truth can be a Person, and I think Pratt would agree. I understand what Pratt is saying, but if one is asking which came first, the universal or the Person, I think it would be the Person, allowing what Pratt is saying to hold truth from a certain perspective.

Um... Interesting. "how to worship". "what to worship". Not "whom" we worship. Very interesting.

Ha-ha! Yes, I knew that would get your attention! I think that “what” in this verse refers to God by acknowledging His roles and the person described in the prior verses as the light, the fullness, glory, word, redeemer, spirit of truth, life and light of men, creator, the Father/Son unit, power, etc.

"How" is easy--worship the Father through the Son, in more ways than one: 1) the Son made it possible to worship at all; 2) the Son is our Intermediary and 3) Exemplar.