Orson Pratt On The Oneness Of God

[Alan]

For something that has not already been revealed in the scriptures (ancient or modern) to be binding on the church, and considered doctrine, it must been presented through the quorums, and to the church as a whole, for the exercise of common consent. In much the same way as the solumn assembly was conducted when the First Presidency was reorganised following the death of president Hinckley.

I would argue that the scriptures already clearly state doctrine on such things as gay marriage, women and the priesthood etc.

[Darren10]

The Proclamation is a revelation? Was it sustained by the general membership as a new revelation? Honest question.

yes and yes.

The current stance against gay marriage did not come with an accompanying revelation/sustaining of the type described by Harold B. Lee. Quite a lot of doctrine seems to be interpretation of scripture rather than new revelation, with no sustaining vote.

Opposition to gay marriage is a long standing position of the Church and has long been revealed to oppose. Homosexual activity is inherently unrighteous and inherently against God's Plan of Salvation. By reason alone one can use biblical doctrines against homosexual behavior and thus oppose a country from accepting it on a legal premesis. also, the church did take an official position against it but it obliged no member to oppose it as it has already been the accepted position ofthe church to allow its members to vote according to their conscience.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

That's perfectly legitimate. I wouldn't dream of telling you what to believe.

But I can think of doctrine (ie teachings of the church) that has not been voted upon by the general membership:

Gay marriage stance

Stance on masturbation

Current Word of Wisdom interpretation

Ban on women having the priesthood

The Word of Wisdom was very much presented tothe Church membership to vote (sustain). There is no need to ban women from the priesthood since they never had it. And Church members regularly vote to sustain their current priesthood leaders. Also, women do administer priesthood ordinances in the temple. Masturbation is according to he law of chastity and faithful members even make covenants in the temple to contain their sexual practices only with whom they are legally and lawfully married. Gay marriage is a current event and, as I said, no member has ever been obligated to oppose it. They may decide as a citizen to oppose or support it.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

semlogo;

We're really derailing this thread. Make your own thread on this topic if you want ot continue this. I'll join in if you do. but as for this thread, I'd like to cease this topic so far as it is not pertaining to Pratt's comments on the nature of God and worship.

[altersteve]

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.

Well, what I meant is that watching The Matrix "too many times" is impossible, but that's true too.

Edited February 21, 2013 by altersteve

[inquiringmind]

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.

This is the only way Mormon Theology really makes any sense to me, but wasn't "The Seer" condemned by the first presidency when Brigham Young was President, and didn't Orson Pratt have to issue some kind of retraction of what he had written in it?

[wayfarer]

A word on Church Doctrine before I continue this dialogue. Church Doctrine is "what is taught" within the Church. The "Doctrine of Christ" is a subset of "what is taught", consisting of the fourth Article of Faith coupled with "enduring to the end" as reflected in Book of Mormon (3 Ne 11, 2 Ne 30). I am not suggesting that this discussion of a theological statement of Orson Pratt supplant any aspect of "what is taught", nor does it rise to the essential level of the "Doctrine of Christ".

It's important to bear in mind what Alma said on this topic:

It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

And therefore, he that will harden his heart, the same receiveth the lesser portion of the word; and he that will not harden his heart, to him is given the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

(Alma 12:9-10)

The "portion of his word that he doth grant unto the children of men" is found in the Standard Works of the Church, supplemented and interpreted by the current teachings of the Prophets. Of this there can be no question or debate. It is what we "impart" or teach to the children of men. It need not limit us as to what we believe or understand to be true. We may well have an increased understanding of the "mysteries" of God, but to enforce this on others, to "impart", as in "teaching for doctrine", is not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable to enforce that the standard teachings are all we are to believe and know. Joseph Smith said,

"The most prominent difference in sentiment between the Latter-day Saints and sectarians was, that the latter were all circumscribed by some peculiar creed, which deprived its members the privilege of believing anything not contained therein.

Latter Day Saints have no creed

, but are ready to believe

all true principles existing

, as they are made manifest from time to time."

(Joseph Smith, History of the Church, v5 p215)

With respect to the Lorenzo Snow coupled, "As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become." we can dispute what this means or whether it is "doctrine of the church". As President Hinckley said, particularly with respect to the first part of the couplet, implying that God was once a man like us -- "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it ... I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it." President Hinckley also has said, many times, "God the Father is the creator of all that is", and that is "what we teach" - Church Doctrine.

So in the spirit of "understanding the philosophical background behind it", I suggest that we suspend a discussion as to whether this is "church doctrine" and grant that it isn't what we impart, teach or emphasize in our Church Doctrinal teaching today. Since we don't know a lot about it, as President Hinckley alluded, it seems incumbent upon us to explore what the concept means philosophically. If such philosophical discussion bothers readers, then please feel free to not participate. We are not trying to establish Church Doctrine here, only to come to understand, as President Hinckley apparently did, the philosophical background behind the statement.

Edited February 21, 2013 by wayfarer

[wayfarer]

This is the only way Mormon Theology really makes any sense to me, but wasn't "The Seer" condemned by the first presidency when Brigham Young was President, and didn't Orson Pratt have to issue some kind of retraction of what he had written in it?

I understand that as well from Sterling McMurrin's The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion. But I haven't been able to locate the original quote from Brigham Young.

The problem with Orson Pratt's statements are that Theology -- a philosophical discussion of what we believe -- is not easily absorbed by the majority of members. Pratt suggested a radical abstraction: that the attributes of God are eternal and one (universals), that "a God" is by definition a man who has become one with those universals. He also implied that we worship those abstract attributes -- as a few who have come to this thread have quickly observed. This is not what we teach. We teach a worship of God the Father alone, and thus the abstraction, which does not actually diminish that worship, can confuse if someone doesn't understand the purpose of Orson Pratt's theological discourse. Given that it can confuse, I believe that Brigham Young prudently put a stop to teaching this in a Church setting as Church Doctrine -- but I don't have the actual reasoning.

If you can find the BY statements on this, I'd appreciate it.

[wayfarer]

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.

Well, what I meant is that watching The Matrix "too many times" is impossible, but that's true too.

I probably should have separated my statement into "that's not possible." and then put a paragraph break thereafter. I agreed with you about that it's impossible to see The Matrix too many times... The first movie (only) is an interesting exploration into reality.

Separating the metaphysical concept that we are living within a dream, the more important normative value is the extent to which submitting ourselves to a dogmatic system creates a tyranny over the mind. Do we have the responsibility to think for ourselves, to learn through our own experience good and evil? Or, are we simply to turn our thinking over to God and await his commandments, and then follow them with exactness?

There are no quick and easy answers here. This is why I laid out a discussion of the paradigm into a separate post. The paradigm, for this discussion, is the fundamental worldview upon which we base our decisions of what we accept as possible, plausible, or true. One paradigm is that there is a God (being), the source of all, who designed everything by his personal will, and is operative today in a way that demands our submission to that will and nothing else. Essentially, this God (being) declares the laws of the universe and operates a priori to and independently of that law. This "law" can be considered "The Way", "The Truth", "Intelligence"... all the glorious universal, ideal attributes Orson Pratt describes.

If there is this unique being that declared, through his will, that all things BE, and all law IS -- the uncreated source of being and law, then, there is no remote possible way that any other being can become "God" in the way that makes true the couplet "As man is, God once was, as God is, man may become." Man cannot become like, as, or even anything remotely equivalent to 'The God', nor is it reasonable that "The God" was once a man.

It may well be that the couplet referred to Christ becoming man, as early Christian theologians said, "God became man so that man might become God[-like].

But Orson Pratt does NOT say that any beings that were god were subordinate to "The God". He said that they are one in all the attributes and therefore equal. (someone notes here in Abraham there is a linear "intelligence" hierarchy of the premortal spirits destined for this world -- this is irrelevant to Orson Pratt's comments, because he was referring to Gods who had fully realized exaltation in the flesh -- a status not applying to anyone destined for this planet -- including Jesus Christ -- at the time of the premortal council).

The fact that there is a fundamental paradigm here -- one cannot even begin to address Orson Pratt's statement unless one is open to the idea that the eternal attributes preceed the being of God and not the other way around. The conversation cannot continue as long as a reader exclusively holds on to the idea that "God the Father" is forever "the other" from us -- He is "The God" -- who is fundamentally different from what man can ever be, who operates outside of any law and a priori to law, uncreated God who is "above being" from which both being and law proceed forth by his Will.

Not to take away from this absolute definition of God, it is possible, and it fits within "what is taught". But to say that this is the only way to interpret the being of God -- ("Paradigm" means in this context "the way to interpret" something) -- then Orson Pratt's discourse is completely incomprehensible, because it doesn't fit the paradigm.

[inquiringmind]

President Hinckley also has said, many times, "God the Father is the creator of all that is", and that is "what we teach"

Is that an exact quote?

And would "all that is" include the elements of matter?

Edited February 21, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Tacenda]

We as a church can't back out of the doctrine of being Gods, not going to happen. What was polygamy for if not to get started on their worlds? If you take being Gods out then the church is like any other Christian church. Or it was said men must live polygamy because it was better than visiting a brothel. I think it was BY who alluded to this once, I'd need to find the quote. Which reason for polygamy sounds better? And it certainly wasn't to take care of the widows, you can do that without marrying them.

[wayfarer]

Is that an exact quote?

And would "all that is" include the elements of matter?

So I went searching...and in a 1999 talk, Pres Hinckley quotes Mosiah:

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the

Creator of all things from the beginning

; and his mother shall be called Mary” (Mosiah 3:5, 8 ).

And who is this referring to? Jesus Christ. Now, if Jesus Christ, who was at a point in time a spiritual child of Heavenly Father like us (only first and "more intelligent"), then how is it possible that Jesus Christ could be the "Creator of all things from the beginning". Or even more to the point, how could Jesus Chrit be "the Father of heaven and earth", unless there is an "equivalence" or "congruence" relation between Jesus, the Father, and the Creator in a way that says that the "being" of Jesus inherits such an attribute. And if so, it is the divine attribute, not the being, that makes Jesus "the Christ", "the Son of God", "the Father of Heaven and earth", and "the Creator of all things from the beginning".

Orson Pratt's proposed theology fits in this case -- how else could Jesus Christ be considered the creator of all things from the beginning?

Edited February 21, 2013 by wayfarer

[Darren10]

I probably should have separated my statement into "that's not possible." and then put a paragraph break thereafter. I agreed with you about that it's impossible to see The Matrix too many times... The first movie (only) is an interesting exploration into reality.

Reality is all in the mind, yo.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Darren10

[Darren10]

you can do that without marrying them.

/PHEW!!!

[CV75]

So I went searching...and in a 1999 talk, Pres Hinckley quotes Mosiah:

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the

Creator of all things from the beginning

; and his mother shall be called Mary” (Mosiah 3:5, 8 ).

And who is this referring to? Jesus Christ. Now, if Jesus Christ, who was at a point in time a spiritual child of Heavenly Father like us (only first and "more intelligent"), then how is it possible that Jesus Christ could be the "Creator of all things from the beginning". Or even more to the point, how could Jesus Chrit be "the Father of heaven and earth", unless there is an "equivalence" or "congruence" relation between Jesus, the Father, and the Creator in a way that says that the "being" of Jesus inherits such an attribute. And if so, it is the divine attribute, not the being, that makes Jesus "the Christ", "the Son of God", "the Father of Heaven and earth", and "the Creator of all things from the beginning".

Orson Pratt's proposed theology fits in this case -- how else could Jesus Christ be considered the creator of all things from the beginning?

His theology can be made to fit, of course. But another way that Jesus Christ can be considered the creator of all things from the beginning is to allow that "beginning" is a temporal term and pertains to the point that time began for us in our probationary state, which includes the physical creation that Jesus led under the Father's direction.

Edited February 21, 2013 by CV75

[Darren10]

...another way that Jesus Christ can be considered the creator of all things from the beginning is to allow that "beginning" is a temporal term and pertains to the point that time began for us in our probationary state, which includes the physical creation that Jesus led under the Father's direction.

That's how I see it.

[wayfarer]

His theology can be made to fit, of course. But another way that Jesus Christ can be considered the creator of all things from the beginning is to allow that "beginning" is a temporal term and pertains to the point that time began for us in our probationary state, which includes the physical creation that Jesus led under the Father's direction.

agreed -- one can see it multiple ways. Hence, an open-minded exploration is always in order.

[Darren10]

wayfarer;

But Orson Pratt does NOT say that any beings that were god were subordinate to "The God".

Correct. That's a significant error on his part. All spirits / intelligences are subordinate to The God...even Christ the God.

(someone notes here in Abraham there is a linear "intelligence" hierarchy of the premortal spirits destined for this world -- this is irrelevant to Orson Pratt's comments, because he was referring to Gods who had fully realized exaltation in the flesh -- a status not applying to anyone destined for this planet -- including Jesus Christ -- at the time of the premortal council).

I was under the impression that Pratt was speaking of premortal man. Are these premortal (to us in our timeframe) Gods who are already exalted to worship the Father? That's what pratt seems to be saying because the Father contains all eternal attributes to justify worshipping Him, even exaltesd beings who, by reason of your clarification above, must have had another God or that the Father created worlds and executed the Plan of Salvation upon them before the creation of all things (for us apparently). Is thiswhat Pratt was saying cuz I'm now totally lost on this discussion.

Oh, and if these Gods have all the attributes of the Father (and, yes, I do think that's what exaltation results in), is it worthy to worship them as well as the Father? Is any of this what Pratt was saying?

Edited February 21, 2013 by Darren10

[Tacenda]

wayfarer;

Correct. That's a significant error on his part. All spirits / intelligences are subordinate to The God...even Christ the God.

I was under the impression that Pratt was speaking of premortal man. Are these premortal (to us in our timeframe) Gods who are already exalted to worship the Father? That's what pratt seems to be saying because the Father contains all eternal attributes to justify worshipping Him, even exaltesd beings who, by reason of your clarification above, must have had another God or that the Father created worlds and executed the Plan of Salvation upon them before the creation of all things (for us apparently). Is thiswhat Pratt was saying cuz I'm now totally lost on this discussion.

Oh, and if these Gods have all the attributes of the Father (and, yes, I do think that's what exaltation results in), is it worthy to worship them as well as the Father? Is any of this what Pratt was saying?

There are many scriptures in the BOM that show worship of the Saviour as God. And here's a little tidbit I read once, some people in the early church believed JS was on his way to Godhood and worshipped him or that notion. Edited February 21, 2013 by Tacenda

[wayfarer]

I'm now totally lost on this discussion.

With all due respect, that is not surprising. I told you before, that if your paradigm is locked into the traditional definition that "the God" is prior to all that is, then this discussion will entirely elude you.

I totally respect those who have a simple, straightforward understanding of the cosmos as defined in the scripture and LDS cultural understanding. This discussion is not about that, but may be for us defective mortals who want to sort out in our minds what the philosophical implications of Orson Pratt's discussion are.

[Darren10]

There are many scriptures in the BOM that show worship of the Saviour as God. And here's a little tidbit I read once, some people in the early church believed JS was on his way to Godhood and worshipped him or that notion.

Absolutely Jesus Christ is worshipped. That is very Christian. Jospeh Smith is NOT to be worshipped under any circumstance so far as I understand.

[Darren10]

With all due respect, that is not surprising. I told you before, that if your paradigm is locked into the traditional definition that "the God" is prior to all that is, then this discussion will entirely elude you.

I totally respect those who have a simple, straightforward understanding of the cosmos as defined in the scripture and LDS cultural understanding. This discussion is not about that, but may be for us defective mortals who want to sort out in our minds what the philosophical implications of Orson Pratt's discussion are.

Yet this simpleton asked some straghtforward questions. Is Pratt saying that the Gods are worthy of our worship just as the Father is worthy of our worship? Also, do these Gods not worship the Father since you apparently disconnected their being subordinated to Him?

[wayfarer]

This is the only way Mormon Theology really makes any sense to me, but wasn't "The Seer" condemned by the first presidency when Brigham Young was President, and didn't Orson Pratt have to issue some kind of retraction of what he had written in it?

So, I've done some more research on this. There is an 1865 Deseret News article, signed by "a majority of the first presidency and council of the twelve", repudiating Orson Pratt's discourse entitled "The Great First Cause", and mentioned the Seer. BH Roberts explores this repudiation in the context of Orson's point of view of "First Cause" being inconsistent with Brigham Young's Adam God theory, something that BH supported at the time. The repudiation by Young is interesting, in that his own doctrine of divinity that was not supported by Orson Pratt, was later repudiated by the Church. Obviously, repudiating the repudiation of some doctrine does not automatically make that doctrine valid again.

[wayfarer]

Yet this simpleton asked some straghtforward questions. Is Pratt saying that the Gods are worthy of our worship just as the Father is worthy of our worship? Also, do these Gods not worship the Father since you apparently disconnected their being subordinated to Him?

Pratt says that we worship the "One God", and the idea of unity is all in the paper -- you're not following the topic at all. If your paradigm says that the "One God" is God the Father, then that is what you should take away from this. If your paradigm is otherwise, you may understand something more. One is not better than the other, only different. Simple is not 'simpleton' but rather, a more elegant and effective way to live than those of us who are condemned to think things through. I commend you on your type of faith. While I have faith, it differs significantly than yours. You have a gift. Let's leave it at that and keep to the topic which is Orson Pratt's paper and the implications it has on an understanding of the Unity of God.

Edited February 21, 2013 by wayfarer

[Darren10]

Of the following does not take you to the cited portion of Pratt's Preexistence of Man as per wayfarer's thread than after you go to the site below, go to the right side, click on "volume 1, number 2" and scroll to the correc paragraphs. Starting on paragraph 20, Orson Pratt indeed is speaking about beings already exalted which dwelled in the preexistence of man. These exalted beings already resided in mortality on their own respective worlds which worlds were eventually "redeemed and glorified" and "made a heaven". Here pratt is clearly speaking about Gods exalted as the Father is exalted ad that these Gods are equal to the Father. I guess if these Gods are equal ot the Father than they may be worshipped just as the Father is worshipped. Also, this doctrine opens up possibilities to the existence of other Gods not The God. So, is The God whom we worship God because He possesses whatever attributes the Gods should have? Are they one because they are of the same virtues?

This all conflates with official doctrines and no wonder Brigham Young, and Heber C. Kimball denounced The Seer and stated that man should not preach that which he does not really understand. I don't even think Brigham young preached like this when braistorming his Adam-God theory.

Anyway, if the purpose of this thread is to philosophize on the exiestence of Gods qual to but not subordinate ot The God (Our Heavenly Father) and avoid simpleminded dtraightforward doctrines which set one on a direct course to become like The God than this thread is definitely not for me. I'll probably read some posts but maybe not comment on them.

One is not better than the other, only different. Simple is not 'simpleton' but rather, a more elegant and effective way to live than those of us who are condemned to think things through.

Statements like these drive me crazy. Implying that I do not think things through is so far off the truth it's absurd. The mere fact that I can think through anything shows danger in unlimited "thinking things through". For example, Since the Gods qeual to theFather could not be exalted without their wives, we should worship an infinite number of heavenly mothers as well as the Father. But if the Father incorporastes all the virutes of the heavenly mothers than essentially we are by worshipping the Father only. Since the Gods could not be exalted without being good parents, than we should worhip the virtue of parenthood and since the father incorporates parenthood, we need only worship the Father. This is thinking ad infinitum. Maybe I can eventually think through accepting the scriptures.

Regardless, good luck with your thread wayfarer.