Orson Pratt On The Oneness Of God

[wayfarer]

I am fascinated by Orson Pratt's explanation of the nature of pre-existent Gods, found in "The Seer", Volume 1, Number 2, "Preexistence of Man", paragraph 22:

22. All these Gods are equal in power, in glory, in dominion, and in the possession of all things ; each possesses a fulness of truth, of knowledge, of wisdom, of light, of intelligence ; each governs himself in all things by his own attributes, and is filled with love, goodness, mercy, and justice towards all. The fulness of all these attributes is what constitutes God. "God is Light." "God is Love." "God is Truth." The Gods are one in the qualities and attributes. Truth is not a plurality of truths, because it dwells in a plurality of persons, but it is one truth, indivisible, though it dwells in millions of persons. Each person is called God, not because of his substance, neither because of the shape and size of the substance, but because of the qualities which dwell in the substance.

Persons are only tabernacles or temples, and TRUTH is the God, that dwells in them. If the fulness of truth, dwells in numberless millions of persons, then the same one indivisible God dwells in them all. As truth can dwell in all worlds at the same instant ; therefore, God who is truth can be in all worlds at the same instant. A temple of immortal flesh, and bones, and spirit, can only be in one place at a time, but truth, which is God, can dwell in a countlessr number of such temples in the same moment.

When we worship the Father, we do not merely worship His person, but we worship the truth which dwells in His person. When we worship the Son, we do not merely worship His body, but we worship truth which resides in Him. So, likewise, when we worship the Holy Ghost, it is not the substance which alone worship, but truth which dwells in that substance. Take away truth from either of these beings, and their persons or substance would not be the object of worship.

It is truth, light, and love that we worship and adore ; these are the same in all worlds ; and as these constitute God, He is the same in all worlds ; and hence, the inhabitants of all worlds are required to worship and adore the same God. Because God dwells in many temples. He frequently speaks to us, as though there were many Gods : this is true when reference is made to the number of His dwelling places ; but it is not true, and cannot be true, in any other sense.

Therefore, in all our future statements and reasonings, when we speak of a plurality of Gods, let it be distinctly understood, that we have reference alone to a plurality of temples wherein the same truth or God dwells. And also when we speak of only one God, and state that He is eternal, without beginning or end, and that He is in all worlds at the same instant, let it be distinctly remembered, that we have no reference to any particular person or substance, but to truth dwelling in a vast variety of substances.

Wherever you find a fulness of wisdom, knowledge, truth, goodness, love, and such like qualities, there you find God in all His glory, power, and majesty, therefore, if you worship these adorable perfections you worship God.

Discuss.

[Nofear]

Usually we mean the word "God" to mean a specific and unique entity. Here it seems Orson Pratt is defining God to mean the characteristics possessed by the aforementioned unique entity and hence any entity possessing the fulness of those characteristics.

While I don't necessarily oppose such an approach or concept, I see confusion in communication when approaching the topic in this non-traditional with others (LDS or otherwise).

[Maidservant]

I am fascinated by Orson Pratt's explanation of the nature of pre-existent Gods, found in "The Seer", Volume 1, Number 2, "Preexistence of Man", paragraph 22:

22. All these Gods are equal in power, in glory, in dominion, and in the possession of all things ; each possesses a fulness of truth, of knowledge, of wisdom, of light, of intelligence ; each governs himself in all things by his own attributes, and is filled with love, goodness, mercy, and justice towards all. The fulness of all these attributes is what constitutes God. "God is Light." "God is Love." "God is Truth." The Gods are one in the qualities and attributes. Truth is not a plurality of truths, because it dwells in a plurality of persons, but it is one truth, indivisible, though it dwells in millions of persons. Each person is called God, not because of his substance, neither because of the shape and size of the substance, but because of the qualities which dwell in the substance.

Persons are only tabernacles or temples, and TRUTH is the God, that dwells in them. If the fulness of truth, dwells in numberless millions of persons, then the same one indivisible God dwells in them all. As truth can dwell in all worlds at the same instant ; therefore, God who is truth can be in all worlds at the same instant. A temple of immortal flesh, and bones, and spirit, can only be in one place at a time, but truth, which is God, can dwell in a countlessr number of such temples in the same moment.

When we worship the Father, we do not merely worship His person, but we worship the truth which dwells in His person. When we worship the Son, we do not merely worship His body, but we worship truth which resides in Him. So, likewise, when we worship the Holy Ghost, it is not the substance which alone worship, but truth which dwells in that substance. Take away truth from either of these beings, and their persons or substance would not be the object of worship.

It is truth, light, and love that we worship and adore ; these are the same in all worlds ; and as these constitute God, He is the same in all worlds ; and hence, the inhabitants of all worlds are required to worship and adore the same God. Because God dwells in many temples. He frequently speaks to us, as though there were many Gods : this is true when reference is made to the number of His dwelling places ; but it is not true, and cannot be true, in any other sense.

Therefore, in all our future statements and reasonings, when we speak of a plurality of Gods, let it be distinctly understood, that we have reference alone to a plurality of temples wherein the same truth or God dwells. And also when we speak of only one God, and state that He is eternal, without beginning or end, and that He is in all worlds at the same instant, let it be distinctly remembered, that we have no reference to any particular person or substance, but to truth dwelling in a vast variety of substances.

Wherever you find a fulness of wisdom, knowledge, truth, goodness, love, and such like qualities, there you find God in all His glory, power, and majesty, therefore, if you worship these adorable perfections you worship God.

Discuss.

Love it. This is the God I know and understand and have found in the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ and in his Church.

My main question here would be the challenge or investigation of the word and concept of worship. I also might wonder exactly what Bro. Pratt imagines truth to be and how he automatically makes a binary between a body and some pure essences, which I consider to be an artifact of paradigm. But "truth, light, love" . . . hard to dismiss the grandeur and reality of that.

But overall, lovely, and this is how I understand God as I have been taught it.

[wayfarer]

Usually we mean the word "God" to mean a specific and unique entity. Here it seems Orson Pratt is defining God to mean the characteristics possessed by the aforementioned unique entity and hence any entity possessing the fulness of those characteristics.

While I don't necessarily oppose such an approach or concept, I see confusion in communication when approaching the topic in this non-traditional with others (LDS or otherwise).

As did Brigham Young.

I think Pratt demonstrates that the universal attributes of God are what makes any given god God. This idea, that the universals are what constitute the unchanging attributes of god make it possible to speak of God as being one, while in fact a god-being is instantiated in the many. The fundamental premise is that the universals are truly the eternal Godness, and not the being of God.

This solves a number of problems in Mormon Theology, and I think that was what Pratt was trying to do. First, if we say that God the Father was once a man like us, then it begs the question, in at least one iteration, who was God's Father/God? Who was, then, the actual "First Cause" that philosophers and apologists (like William Lane Craig) proclaims as the original, necessary being? Was Elohim simultaneously a God who was once man and also the First Cause? Does that even remotely make sense?

Pratt makes the point that there cannot be disunity if any number of god beings are united with the God universals. They, by definition, operate as one. One can say "God is One", knowing that at the same time, any being in possession of the universal attributes is one in mind and purpose with all that is. It isn't to say that this is a monad, nor is it pantheism, but rather, that the God attributes are indeed ubiquitious, but the beings that are gods are individual in both time and place.

To me it's a fascinating view.

[volgadon]

All these Gods are equal in power, in glory, in dominion, and in the possession of all things ; each possesses a fulness of truth, of knowledge, of wisdom, of light, of intelligence ; each governs himself in all things by his own attributes, and is filled with love, goodness, mercy, and justice towards all. The fulness of all these attributes is what constitutes God.

Ironically, this somewhat undermines the proffered reasoning for using lowercase god.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The Pratt boys were awesome. E pluribus unum! At-One-Ment!

Personally, I think the entire idea of a "first" cause is nonsensical, and therefore most traditional Western arguments trying to defend an incorporeal God as the ultimate ground-of-all-being domino are useless. If all Intelligences have always existed, it doesn't matter who happened to be embodied first, since we're all eternal and ultimately part of the same "family" of life. (A grandparent is no more -- and no less -- important than a newborn.) Whichever way we look at it, if God Himself could not create Himself, there had to be some process by which physical bodies evolved on multiple worlds by combining elements into more and more complex patterns over multiple iterations; phagocytosis, radical panspermia, etc. I don't honor a singular God because He alone created all bacteria from nothing; I honor God the Father and God the Mother (capital-G) and their Child because they're representing the plurality of Elohim, the ones who loved us first. "God", then, is a title that we invoke; worship, worth-ship, is directed towards whoever or whatever we esteem most worthy, and I think good humans -- or "conscious entities", if we want to get nitpicky about what Intelligences from other worlds should be classified as -- and the truth and goodness and beauty they create and share with each other are the best things to give worth to.

[wayfarer]

Ironically, this somewhat undermines the proffered reasoning for using lowercase god.

well, as I said, i had my reasons, but hadn't really thought about them. Would you prefer "hashem"?

[Darren10]

Wayfarer;

All these Gods are equal in power, in glory, in dominion, and in the possession of all things ; each possesses a fulness of truth, of knowledge, of wisdom, of light, of intelligence ;

Truth is not a plurality of truths, because it dwells in a plurality of persons, but it is one truth, indivisible, though it dwells in millions of persons. Each person is called God, not because of his substance, neither because of the shape and size of the substance, but because of the qualities which dwell in the substance.

Another reason why I'm very grateful that The Seer was never adopted as official LDS doctrine.

PHEW!!!

[wayfarer]

(orson pratt quote) Truth is not a plurality of truths, because it dwells in a plurality of persons, but it is one truth, indivisible, though it dwells in millions of persons. Each person is called God, not because of his substance, neither because of the shape and size of the substance, but because of the qualities which dwell in the substance.

Another reason why I'm very grateful that The Seer was never adopted as official LDS doctrine.

PHEW!!!

When we accept LDS principles on the nature of God, that he has an exalted human body, that there are a plurality of god beings, that we have an inherent, uncreated divine nature -- literally a substance (since all spirit is substance), that is uncreated, and that we may ultimately become gods, then coming to an understanding of how that might be the case is an effort worth pursuing.

Pratt was remarkably consistent in his understanding of Sections 88 and 131 of the Doctrine and Covenants. It's all there in the D&C.

[CV75]

<snip>

When we worship the Father, we do not merely worship His person, but we worship the truth which dwells in His person. When we worship the Son, we do not merely worship His body, but we worship truth which resides in Him. So, likewise, when we worship the Holy Ghost, it is not the substance which alone worship, but truth which dwells in that substance. Take away truth from either of these beings, and their persons or substance would not be the object of worship.

It is truth, light, and love that we worship and adore ; these are the same in all worlds ; and as these constitute God, He is the same in all worlds ; and hence, the inhabitants of all worlds are required to worship and adore the same God. Because God dwells in many temples. He frequently speaks to us, as though there were many Gods : this is true when reference is made to the number of His dwelling places ; but it is not true, and cannot be true, in any other sense.

<snip>

Discuss.

I think that the truth, light and love spoken about in this essay speaks to Who, and not What, these Personalities (the Father, Son and Holy Ghost) really are. We do not profit by worshiping things any more than we profit by worship personages, bodies or substances. The Personality we worship is more than the personage, body or substance; it is what the personages, bodies and substances (each a form of element) do in tandem with each other as governed by Their individual and united Spirits to become a Who (God), and I would say that this is where truth, light and love come from. To me, this essay speaks to the subjective nature of truth, meaning God presents Himself to us before He presents truth(s) to us, and that truth from our perspective is dependent on Him revealing Himself, and not that God is dependent on truth we can have without Him or His tacit involvement.

[Darren10]

When we accept LDS principles on the nature of God, that he has an exalted human body, that there are a plurality of god beings, that we have an inherent, uncreated divine nature -- literally a substance (since all spirit is substance), that is uncreated, and that we may ultimately become gods, then coming to an understanding of how that might be the case is an effort worth pursuing.

Pratt was remarkably consistent in his understanding of Sections 88 and 131 of the Doctrine and Covenants. It's all there in the D&C.

I accept the priciples you outlined above and D&C 88 & 131. But, first, we DON'T know the eternal nature of what all those principles mean and second, I worship the *being* God because He is God. How is that not LDS dcotrine?

[Darren10]

I also reject that the gods were equal in intelligence as you cited from Pratt on the open thread.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Darren10

[wayfarer]

I accept the priciples you outlined above and D&C 88 & 131. But, first, we DON'T know the eternal nature of what all those principles mean and second, I worship the *being* God because He is God. How is that not LDS dcotrine?

Pratt would agree, that in worshiping the being and/or his attributes, we worship the 'one God'. No issues there.

I also reject that the gods were equal in intelligence as you cited from Pratt on the open thread.

by what basis?

Edited February 19, 2013 by wayfarer

[Darren10]

While I may "adore" the attribute of God I don't "worship" them. I worship God Himself and am very grateful for the attributes which come from Him.

As for the basis that the gods (pre-mortal man & the Son & the Father - and by extention - the Holy Ghost) hadthe same intelligence is the following:

18 Howbeit that he made the greater star; as, also, if there be two ^aspirits, 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 ^bgnolaum, or eternal.

19 And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am ^amore intelligent than they all.

24 And there stood ^aone among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and ^bwe will make an earth whereon these may ^cdwell;

Abraham 3

Here we read that a) spirits are more intelligent one from another, b) the Father is the most intelligent of all the intelligences, and c) the Son of God is like unto God, the most intelligent of all.

Hardly all being equal in intelligence.

Edited February 19, 2013 by Darren10

[wayfarer]

Here we read that a) spirits are more intelligent one from another, b) the Father is the most intelligent of all the intelligences, and c) the Son of God is like unto God, the most intelligent of all.

Hardly all being equal in intelligence.

At the time (1853) that Orson Pratt wrote the above, the Book of Abraham was not considered scripture. the BoA became canon in 1880.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but I wonder if the Book of Abraham were evaluated as scripture today, I'm not sure it would make it into canon, with the provenance problems in the papyrus. I don't accept the translations of the facsimile as being revelation, I don't accept the Kolob cosmology, and I certainly don't accept the idea of a strict linear intelligence hierarchy in the quote you mention above. The idea of an intelligence hierarchy flies in the face of "equal in the bonds of heavenly things" (D&C 78:5) and "one heart and one mind" of Zion.

There is a fundamental paradigm difference between us -- important to remember so that we don't confuse things. I see all revelation happening within the mind and heart of the prophet, with an imprecise, evolutionary growth of knowledge over time. This necessarily means that all scripture must be received through inspiration as well, and indeed some of it could be ... in a word... wrong. We are not 'gods' in the sense that Orson Pratt referred to the premortal gods (although I see potential to apply the same to us in the moment). Thus, we cannot be expected, even among our prophets and scripture writers, to get it all 'right'.

That's why it's important to remember that scriptures "were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known" (D&C 1:24-25).

[Darren10]

At the time (1853) that Orson Pratt wrote the above, the Book of Abraham was not considered scripture.

It is now and The Seer ain't. And thank goodness for both.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but I wonder if the Book of Abraham were evaluated as scripture today, I'm not sure it would make it into canon, with the provenance problems in the papyrus. I don't accept the translations of the facsimile as being revelation, I don't accept the Kolob cosmology, and I certainly don't accept the idea of a strict linear intelligence hierarchy in the quote you mention above. The idea of an intelligence hierarchy flies in the face of "equal in the bonds of heavenly things" (D&C 78:5) and "one heart and one mind" of Zion.

I'm in complete accord with you on this...that I don't agree with you. In fact I think you're spiritually nuts rejecting so much of the Book of Abraham. Since the first time I've read it the Spirit has testified to me strongly that it is true and I love its deeper accounts on the nature of God, man, and the creation than from Genesis.

Isn't D&C 78 about a storehouse? Just because we all pitch in doesn't mean God isn't greater than us all. Nor does it mean some have not progressed more than others towards God. And we can all be of one mind and heart and have some within that circle closer to God than others. Or maybe I can simply reject D&C 78 and not bother to deal with sorting it out. That way I can relax in my own world of thought and self aggrandize until death. Seems to work for some.

There is a fundamental paradigm difference between us -- important to remember so that we don't confuse things. I see all revelation happening within the mind and heart of the prophet, with an imprecise, evolutionary growth of knowledge over time. This necessarily means that all scripture must be received through inspiration as well, and indeed some of it could be ... in a word... wrong.

Dude, you've watch The Matrix one too many times.

We are not 'gods' in the sense that Orson Pratt referred to the premortal gods

Well, so much for your post.

Thus, we cannot be expected, even among our prophets and scripture writers, to get it all 'right'.

Now you seem to be arguing that some among us get things wrong more than others. Isn't that what you say doesn't exist in regards to progressing towards God? (I'm totally confused).

That's why it's important to remember that scriptures "were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known" (D&C 1:24-25).

I don't believe scriptures are infallible, nor the prophets.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

wayfarer;

I can across this via the most recent blog post by Dan Peterson over at Patheos. I think this video's worth a look.

Evidences: Book of Abraham Challenge 8

Dan's post: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/02/mormon-challenges.html

[altersteve]

Each person is called God, not because of his substance, neither because of the shape and size of the substance, but because of the qualities which dwell in the substance.

Boom. Nailed it.

[altersteve]

Dude, you've watch The Matrix one too many times.

Not possible.

[wayfarer]

I'm in complete accord with you on this...that I don't agree with you. In fact I think you're spiritually nuts rejecting so much of the Book of Abraham. Since the first time I've read it the Spirit has testified to me strongly that it is true and I love its deeper accounts on the nature of God, man, and the creation than from Genesis.

True, we disagree. That, alone, doesn't make me 'spiritually nuts', for I have had an equally strong spiritual feeling that the artifacts in the Book of Abraham are just that. I'm nuts for a lot of different reasons, but the fact that I disagree with you isn't one of them.

wayfarer: There is a fundamental paradigm difference between us -- important to remember so that we don't confuse things. I see all revelation happening within the mind and heart of the prophet, with an imprecise, evolutionary growth of knowledge over time. This necessarily means that all scripture must be received through inspiration as well, and indeed some of it could be ... in a word... wrong.

Dude, you've watch The Matrix one too many times.

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.

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

Edited February 20, 2013 by wayfarer

[wayfarer]

Boom. Nailed it.

Please elaborate.

[CV75]

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.

[Gillebre]

I am fascinated by Orson Pratt's explanation of the nature of pre-existent Gods, found in "The Seer", Volume 1, Number 2, "Preexistence of Man", paragraph 22:

22. All these Gods are equal in power, in glory, in dominion, and in the possession of all things ; each possesses a fulness of truth, of knowledge, of wisdom, of light, of intelligence ; each governs himself in all things by his own attributes, and is filled with love, goodness, mercy, and justice towards all. The fulness of all these attributes is what constitutes God. "God is Light." "God is Love." "God is Truth." The Gods are one in the qualities and attributes. Truth is not a plurality of truths, because it dwells in a plurality of persons, but it is one truth, indivisible, though it dwells in millions of persons. Each person is called God, not because of his substance, neither because of the shape and size of the substance, but because of the qualities which dwell in the substance.

Discuss.

This paragraph right here nails it completely. On the mark. Correct amundo. Big truth sign right there. There's so much truth in that paragraph I need to open a window and let some of the truth out.

Thank you.

[wayfarer]

The prevailing LDS (and Christian) paradigm of God is that "THE God" is the First Cause of all that is, either through organization (LDS) or ex nihilo (mainstream Christian). The reason for using the term paradigm is that this core concept becomes the basis of the entire ontology of that which we call god, and from that ontology, how we interpret prophecy, scripture, and priesthood.

Orson Pratt's statement in the Seer defines an alternative paradigm from the mainstream Christian god-concept. The universal attributes he describes as being 'God' are what makes a god, God. Therefore the universals are eternal, as is matter. When a being embodies the universals, that being is God, both "One" in the sense of common universal attributes, as well as distinctive in terms of a single god in time and space.

The alternative paradigm in Orson Pratt's statement is that the universals create the being of God, not the other way around. The collective aggregate of these universals, that is to say, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, is to be the fully-realized being of God: the I AM. We can say that these collective universals are "The Way", as that is what the original followers of Jesus Christ called themselves: Followers of the Way. And, by following the Way, gradually developing the universal attributes of Life, Truth, and Intelligence, the follower can "be" a god in this life in the moment (Jn 10, Ps 82), and become a god in the life to come. Thus, as God was and perhaps is also a 'follower of the Way', then the being that we know as God became God at some point in time and space.

This creates a fundamental, paradigmatic question: Does the Way preceed God or does God preceed the Way? Another way to put it: which came first, God? or The Way?

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). He created all things, all law, all attributes "from nothing"/"ex nihilo". To the mainstream definition of God, God is beyond being, and was the First Cause of all that is, including the Way (whatever that is in Christian thinking, is unclear).

LDS theology (whatever that may be) materially (pun intended) differs from this point of view. God does not create ex nihilo. Elements are eternal, and 'The Gods" (as in the Book of Abraham) organized these elements. Mankind has both contingent as well as necessary being, in that at least a portion of man -- his intelligence, is uncreated and eternal.

Importantly, the term "intelligence" is singular in all of scripture EXCEPT in the book of Abraham. In section 93, intelligence is defined as both "Light and Truth" as well as being the glory of God. This defines "intelligence" clearly as a universal, not as a particular. When Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Abraham, he fundamentally added to the meaning of "intelligence", creating a particular instance of the universal "intelligence". This has profound theological implications as to the divine nature of mankind. If man is an etermal possessor of intelligence, than man is a necessary and not a contingent being.

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?

Edited February 20, 2013 by wayfarer

[Darren10]

Not possible.