Orson Pratt On The Oneness Of God

[Tacenda]

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.

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.

Maybe it just means none of us should relegate to the state of God being a man once. Maybe, just maybe that puts God lower than he should be. Maybe he is capable of more?

[CA Steve]

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.

I suggest this book for a good overview of the Young/Pratt relationship. Conflict in the Quorum by Gary James Bergera.

.http://www.amazon.co...t in the Quorum

From the book pg 139 quoting Brigham Young.

"Brother Orson Worships the Atributes of God but not God. I worship not the Atributes but that God who holds and dispenses [them]. If Eternity was full of atributes and No one to dispens them[,] they would not be worth a feather."

[wayfarer]

I suggest this book for a good overview of the Young/Pratt relationship. Conflict in the Quorum by Gary James Bergera.

.http://www.amazon.co...t in the Quorum

From the book pg 139 quoting Brigham Young.

"Brother Orson Worships the Atributes of God but not God. I worship not the Atributes but that God who holds and dispenses [them]. If Eternity was full of atributes and No one to dispens them[,] they would not be worth a feather."

Brigham was a self-made man and brilliant leader. He did not understand Orson's position in the least, and mischaracterizing it, went off to condemn it. In a very important way, he was right to do so. Orson's position cannot be understood in the traditional God/Deist/Theist paradigm, and thus causes extreme confusion to those who will not set that aside.

[chochmah]

Orson Pratt’s concept of truth is fascinating. May I throw in a few random thoughts on truth. Some of us are sometimes apt to think of truth narrowly, as mere information or data. Truth, however, is much more than a collected list of facts. It is a surprisingly rich concept we discover as we look at it closely in the scriptures that describe truth.

For our definition of truth we usually first turn to D&C 93:24 "And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were and as they will be." Innocently some assume that truth encompasses facts from the past, present and future. But there is more to truth. We don’t, however, usually read the preceding and following verses to put that verse in its proper context. Terry Warner, BYU professor of philosophy, in his entry for Truth in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, claims that this scripture in section 93 of the Doctrine and Covenants is usually quoted out of context. But if we see it in the proper scriptural setting we will begin to discover that truth is more than the sum of facts from the past, present and future.

What precedes this verse that Dr. Warner thinks is of value to our comprehension of the nature of truth? The preceding verse 20 in Section 93 talks about receiving grace for grace. If the Lord is leading up to the nature of truth, it follows then that truth also is a power, just as grace is the power of the atonement.

The preceding verse, 23, talks about the Father being the Spirit of truth. A spirit is a force or source of power. Therefore, we have further evidence that truth is a source of power.

What do the passages teach us that follow this verse?

Verse 28, which follows the verse quoted for the definition of truth, says that he that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth. Facts alone don’t sanctify or glorify, but the power to receive them does. Keeping the commandments consequently allows us to have the spirit of Truth which is the source of receiving knowledge. (D&C 107:71 which clearly refers to the Spirit of truth as being a source of knowledge.)

Verse 30 of section 93, which provides further context for verse 24, states: "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also, otherwise there is no existence." Truth has an existence and is independent. Truth appears to be far more than a source to facts. It has an independent existence.

Verse 36: "The glory of God is intelligence, or in other words, light and truth." Here truth is equated with the power of light and intelligence. This will be a seminal verse to understanding the essence of truth in its broader meaning.

Verse 39: informs us that the devil can cause us to lose truth. Since it seems difficult to imagine losing a recall of facts (the adversary himself is in the possession of many facts), it seems that truth is something far more profound.

Returning to the early part of the section, D&C 93:9-10 equates the spirit of Truth with God himself, or perhaps equates truth with the broader sense of the power of godhood.

v9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and in him was the life of men and the light of men.

v10 The worlds were made by him; men were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and of him.

According the writings of the Jewish and early Christian mystics on the topic of the celestial ascent the objective of the celestial ascent in the temple to God is to learn the celestial mystery which is "What is above the earth, what is below the earth, what was before time and what is after time." This definition is eerily close to that of D&C 93:24, but these Christian and Jewish mystics make clear that truth is a power and that truth is the celestial mystery, which we seek. These are not just facts of the past, present and future, but a power that is without beginning or end. It is a power which reaches everywhere.

Consider what elder Neal A. Maxwell taught, "Before using terms like truth, knowledge, intelligence, education, and wisdom, I stress at the outset that the scriptural insights concerning these terms or definitions of them give us, as Latter-day Saints, an added understanding of these concepts. These differ from those of the world — markedly, in some respects. Each is "added upon" by the relevant revelations." [The Inexhaustible Gospel, by Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Ensign, April 1993, 68] Truth is one of those words that has a markedly different meaning than we may assume.

He offers a hint: "Truth includes, but is not limited to, knowledge which corresponds to reality — things as they were, things as they are, and things as they will be. (See Jacob 4:13; D&C 93:24) (C. Terry Warner, in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, ed. Daniel H. Ludlow, New York: Macmillan, 1992, volume 4:1490) Jesus said He is ‘the way, the truth, and the life.’ (John 14:6.) He has ‘received a fulness of truth.’ (Doctrine & Covenants 93:26) Hence, we are to seek to have ‘the mind of Christ.’ (1 Corinthians 2:16) Furthermore, as to the ‘manner’ of people we are to become, it is clear we are to strive to become even as Jesus is. (Third Nephi 27:27; see also Second Peter 3:11) If we keep His commandments, the promise is that we will receive ‘truth and light’ until we are ‘glorified in truth and knoweth all things.’ (D&C 93:28)" The Inexhaustible Gospel, by Elder Neal A. Maxwell, Ensign, April 1993, 68.

One of the dictionary definitions of Truth is that it is loyalty to something. As we become more one with the Father and the Son we are more true or have more truth. Webster’s 1828 dictionary also defines truth as virtue. If this understanding of the root of truth is accurate, then truth embraces attributes as well.

We accept that our language limits our comprehension of certain divine doctrines. While the English language is in most aspects the richest language, there are heavenly concepts that don’t have adequate words to describe themselves to us.

Since our daily discourse causes us to use words in certain connotations, we may easily overlook some divine denotations God has designed for the clumsy words we have. Truth is one such concept.

In the April 1938 general conference elder John A. Widstoe said that "It often happens that a person of limited knowledge, who earnestly and prayerfully obeys the law, rises to a higher intelligence or wisdom...." Since intelligence is equated with truth, we see that absorbing our lives in finding and following the Father, will result in our having more of this truth, as a power of intelligence.

Later in this 93^rd section "intelligence" is equated with the "light of truth." see D&C 93:29. Since Truth is here and elsewhere often used synonymously with intelligence, it is more than mere a set of facts. Truth is not just knowing facts but knowing God and having a relationship with him that empowers us to serve others. It is in part having a truer and closer relationship with him.

Todd Compton in By Study and Also Faith Volume 1, page 622, notes that the word which the Mandeans use for truth is Kusta which also means the force which binds us all together. Kusta also refers to the ritual handshake which helps accomplish this unification between individuals. The force which binds us together is of course the atonement or grace. This explains why the Lord would have talked about grace in D&C 93:20 before the definition of truth is given later in verse 24. This also helps us to understand our endowments and sealing better as a process of drawing mortals and Gods closer together.

It is interesting that in John 14 verse 17 we read "Even the Spirit of Truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be IN you." and then in verse 20 it says that "At that day ye shall know that I am IN my father, and ye IN me and I IN you." The Spirit of Truth can also be in us and is the power which binds us together with the God head.

The spirit of Truth is also referenced in D&C 93:9-11: "The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and IN him was the life of men and the light of men. The worlds were made by him; all things were made by him, and through him, and OF him."

The root of the English word "Intelligence" which is equated with truth in the Doctrine and Covenants as we have seen, is the power to see the relationships between things. More than a list of facts, truth is also the power it appears to find more truth and knowledge. It is also to recognize our relationship with God. It is a force which draws things together, us and God, us and us. The 1828 Webster dictionary suggests that the word "intelligence" derives from "in," "inter," or "intus" which mean "within" and from "lego" which means "to collect." On a deeper level intelligence is to collect the divine power from a source from within us, or to connect with it.

Other sources indicate the root meaning is to see relationships between as noted above. "Inter" also means "between," so intelligence means to collect or receive or see relationships between other matters.

The Hebrew conception of knowledge or intelligence has the same core meaning as the Latin root for the word intelligence of finding interrelationships or connections. Knowledge, truth, light, intelligence then are all the antithesis of chaos, which breaks down order or connections. Truth not only makes us feel closer to each other and God, but it is a form of order as well.

The body we have suggests connections and per the Jewish sages, symbolizes our need to acquire greater knowledge. Perhaps we can look at the blessings of the washing and anointing in a new light. It may cause us to look at the embrace in a new light as well. It impels us to learn, which is the best way to worship in the endowment ceremony, we are taught.

According to Terry Warner’s article in the Encyclopedia on Truth states that the Oxford English Dictionary has as one of truth’s meanings the same meaning accorded the related word "troth" - a covenant. Covenants also suggests closer connections with God. They also invite a greater order from heaven down to this decaying earth. Since covenants connect us with Christ, Truth, then further refers less to a correctness of statements, but of a way of life typified by the Savior. In John we read "I am the way, the life and the TRUTH." Christ was true and faithful to the life required of Him.

When we realize that one Hebrew word for truth also is the word for "sure place" does this add insight into our sacred worship?

Does this imply truth as connecting us inseparably with God? Does it further suggest a truth pierced into us?

Madsen in Radiant Life wrote, "Truth is the substratum of all reality, and also of all intelligent awareness of reality." Truth is in all things. It forms the essence of all things. Having truth in us in a sufficient degree will begin to connect us to all things and allow us to be aware of all things. This helps us to begin to get a glimpse of the nature of God as an omniscient and omnipotent being. Truth allows our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother to have power over and be aware of all things in existence.

Per D&C 84:45-46, "The WORD of the lord is truth." This scripture reads in full:

v45 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

v46 And the Spirit giveth light to every man that cometh into the world; and the Spirit enlighteneth every man through the world, that hearkeneth to the voice of the Spirit. [emphasis added]

Here we have further confirmation of how truth is more than facts.

Truth then encompasses: The word of the Lord, Light, and Spirit.

Einstein stated "The distinction between past, present and future is only an illusion, however persistent." We recall our familiar D&C section 93 definition of truth as "And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were and as they will be." Is truth the force or result of the melding of those periods of time?

The temple is a place where the past, present and future come together in that the preexistent temple, earthly temple, and heavenly temple are superimposed literally upon one another. Truth is found in the temple principally as it is the linking place between the telestial realm of this fallen mortal world and the celestial realm of the heavenly temple. There we also learn there are two temples that occupy the same space as our temples. The temple of the past and future. How can the unity of the three temples bless us or allow us to bless others? Perhaps the sealing can work there where we pray and do ordinances for those in other spheres.

Note also how the Hebrew word for "man" is close to the word "remember." The Jews consider this significant, and suggest a related meaning. The sacred symbols thus allow us to recall as a result of those sacred settings who we are.

Note in John 8:12 Jesus proclaims himself the truth in the temple at the festival of lights. Truth is bound with the temple. Light and truth are bound in countless ways.

One of the names of God in Hebrew, YHVH is a combination of Hayah (was), Horeh (is) and Yiheyeh (will be). This helps us understand the words in Hebrews 13:8: "JESUS CHRIST IS THE SAME YESTERDAY, TODAY AND FOREVER. From these we get the yod, heh and heh. The letter vav which comes between the last two hehs means "and."

This is of some interest as in many languages per my linguist friend, the word for "truth" is related to the word "to be." The focus is less on facts as they were, are and will be, but perhaps on God and us.

YHVH

, it is confirmed by Arthur Green, dean of the Hebrew College Rabbinical School, and professor of Jewish Thought at Brandeis, essentially means the past, present and future tense of the verb "to be" all at the same moment.

Jesus Christ is the Jehovah-YHVH of the Old Testament. Jesus Christ is to be found in his temple, the House of the Lord. There through his atonement we can find a connection through him, who is "the way the Truth and the light" to the past, present and future.

Philo taught that God had caused the Temple to be constructed as a symbol of the truth. Who is the Heir, 112 cited in Seaich, A Great Mystery, page 83.

In the temple there are symbols which will connect us to the past, present and future and their influences.

Nibley while discussing those who are tested at the temple veil writes, "And these are the councils of the spirit for the sons of truth while they are on the earth, and which will be the testing [pequddah is a testing or visitation; somebody comes and checks up on you, etc.] of all those who walk in this way." Hugh Winder Nibley, Teachings of the Book of Mormon - Semester One: Transcripts of Lectures Presented to an Honors Book of Mormon class at BYU, 1988-1990 [Provo: FARMS], page 154. [bracketed information by Nibley] (Parenthetical added) [italics added]

Here we see the concept of the truth associated with the temple rites.

The Hebrew word for truth is "emet" or around the three consonants E-M-T. The word begins with the first letter of the Hebrew Alphabet, aleph, and ends with the last letter Tav. The middle letter, mem, is the exact middle of the alphabet. Truth therefore encompasses all, from A to Z. It is also centered around the Messiah, which is the most common meaning of the letter mem. Truth demands total accuracy from start to finish, including every point in the middle as well, the Jews teach. This can be distilled from the messages of the word structure.

Per the Egyptian Grammar of Joseph Smith (and there are some faithful members who dispute that Joseph authored it) the aleph stands for Adam, the first father. This should not surprise us as aleph is the first letter in Adam’s name; Mem stands for the bird, or the hawk or the protecting wing of the Messiah, who will come at the meridian of time and who is in the midst of all things; and the Hebrew letter tav is the scale of justice and mercy, and is the final judgment of man at the end of time. This would suggest truth spans from the beginning with Adam to the final judgment and is centered around the Messiah and his protective atonement.

This further reminds us of the temple where we start as Adam (aleph) then we approach the altar in covenants and in prayer which altar represents the sacrifice of the Messiah for which mem is the representative letter, then we approach the veil where we are tested and receive judgment (tav) from the father. The Savior-mem is the intermediary between us-Adam and the father-tav behind the veil.

Maat to the Egyptians means truth and represents the notion of truth.

The opposite of Maat is interestingly is not falsehood but "light mindedness" which is less laughter than failing to take the sacred seriously, and wasting time on the trivial. It is a failure to concentrate on sacred matters and have a great drive to delve into them. Nibley, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, see pages 219+. Hamblin in his lectures in his World history 201 course indicates that the opposite of Maat is chaos. This too resonates with us. We have seen that truth can be described as order that overcomes chaos. Therefore, the main role of the Egyptian pharaoh-king is to uphold Maat and keep the forces of chaos at bay.

Maat as we have noted is indispensable to scenes of transmission of power and authority. Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, pages 133+.

Maat "has a place not only in the coronation rites but in all ordinances, where her presence is necessary to vouch for the correctness, legitimacy and authority of all that is done. Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment, see pages 166+.

In the psychostasy, or the weighing of the heart in the Egyptian Book of the Breathing per Nibley, the heart at the veil is weighed against the feather of Maat.

This judgment may be not just to see how free we are from sin, but whether we have our lives in balance with Maat, the nature of truth. They are in balance by definition, if they are made of the same stuff

Brigham Young taught that God continues to grow in knowledge and truth. JD 8:10. See especially JD 1:349. Wilford Woodruff in JD 6:120; Lorenzo Snow CR April 1901; George Q. Cannon MS 61:117 for more on this. How might God grow in truth?

An initial answer lies in the nature of truth. God is connected to truth or the primal intelligence. This divine force which has no beginning, which is described as light more than anything else, allows God the father to access the divinity of this primal intelligence. This primal intelligence is connected to all other gods, exalted beings to a lesser extent and righteous recipients of the truth through their temple ordinances to an even lesser extent. In this way God the Father has access to the light, knowledge, attributes and power of all of these beings. When it is said therefore that God progresses as we progress, it is not a metaphor, but a very real process. We thus glorify him.

The word "Truth" as used in the scriptures is far more rich a concept than a collection of accurate facts. If one views all of the scriptures and other sources truth is in part: A creative, life giving force or source of power; found in the temple, which sanctifies; which binds us all together more closely with God, through covenants requiring us to be loyal to God and each other,

which force has an independent existence and agency, which is glory, intelligence, or light; and which is the Christ like way of living that will bring about an at-one-ment with him and with each other.

[semlogo]

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

I would also add abortion to this list, as the only mention of it in scripture is not condemnatory.

[wayfarer]

Verse 30 of section 93, which provides further context for verse 24, states: "All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also, otherwise there is no existence." Truth has an existence and is independent. Truth appears to be far more than a source to facts. It has an independent existence.

Verse 36: "The glory of God is intelligence, or in other words, light and truth." Here truth is equated with the power of light and intelligence. This will be a seminal verse to understanding the essence of truth in its broader meaning.

Verse 39: informs us that the devil can cause us to lose truth. Since it seems difficult to imagine losing a recall of facts (the adversary himself is in the possession of many facts), it seems that truth is something far more profound.

Returning to the early part of the section, D&C 93:9-10 equates the spirit of Truth with God himself, or perhaps equates truth with the broader sense of the power of godhood.

I have to say it was impossible to read your message at size=2 and courier font -- I had to cut and paste into a document to read. It was well worth the read.

I like where you're going with this -- very, fascinating material. Did this reasoning come from somewhere? I see your references and quotes of Nibley, et. al, and your allusions to the Temple -- it was really an interesting read.

Question for you -- as I have asked before. Does the existence of truth and intelligence, or even, as you equate it, to the "Power of God" -- does this imply that the Power of God precedes the existence of "a God"?

[semlogo]

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.

The scriptures are completely silent on the issues you mention, except the issue of women in the priesthood, where women are actually serving in what we would call priesthood functions in the New Testament.

[semlogo]

yes and yes.

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.

Can you give me a specific revelation, ratified by the members of the church, that homosexual monogamy and homosexual marriage are unrighteous? Can you further provide a revelation that states that LDS doctrines should be enforced on non-LDS people?

[semlogo]

The Word of Wisdom was very much presented tothe Church membership to vote (sustain).

My understanding is that it was that the current version was never voted upon (that is, the version that makes following it mandatory rather than voluntary - the current version that forbids mild barley drinks).

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.

Can you quote a scripture that says women are barred from the priesthood? Is sustaining a leader symonamous with sustaining a revelation? If so, everything Joseph Smith revealed is doctrine, including the KF discourse.

Can you quote a scripture or specific revelation barring masturbation? The phrasing you use is absent from the temple endowment and is much more specific than the broad "sexual practices"

Edited February 21, 2013 by semlogo

[chochmah]

I have to say it was impossible to read your message at size=2 and courier font -- I had to cut and paste into a document to read. It was well worth the read.

I like where you're going with this -- very, fascinating material. Did this reasoning come from somewhere? I see your references and quotes of Nibley, et. al, and your allusions to the Temple -- it was really an interesting read.

Question for you -- as I have asked before. Does the existence of truth and intelligence, or even, as you equate it, to the "Power of God" -- does this imply that the Power of God precedes the existence of "a God"?

*****************************

I am literally walking out the door for a trip, so I do not have the time to pull the sources together for a few days. However, it seems, that before God the Father was a god, there was a primal light-primal intelligence-power of divinity that has always existed and that now resides within all Gods. Thank you for the kind comments. If this thread is still active in a few days I will pull my notes together.

[mfbukowski]

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.

One in the way "mankind" is one. One as a family is one. Not much more- or less- than that as I see it.

But I think we really don't want to go down the Neoplatonic "first cause" road traveled by Craig and Aquinas. That way of thinking was why the restoration was necessary in the first place.

Edited February 21, 2013 by mfbukowski

[wayfarer]

One in the way "mankind" is one. One as a family is one. Not much more- or less- than that as I see it.

But I think we really don't want to go down the Neoplatonic "first cause" road traveled by Craig and Aquinas. That way of thinking was why the restoration was necessary in the first place.

I don't disagree...there...that's twice I've agreed with you in as many days... i don't like at all Pratt's position on the cosmological argument, for exactly the reason you say. but it's not the topic of this thread: do you find orson pratt's discussion of the posession of universal attributes defining what makes a god a god useful?

[wayfarer]

My understanding is that it was that the current version was never voted upon (that is, the version that makes following it mandatory rather than voluntary - the current version that forbids mild barley drinks).

Can you quote a scripture that says women are barred from the priesthood? Is sustaining a leader symonamous with sustaining a revelation? If so, everything Joseph Smith revealed is doctrine, including the KF discourse.

Can you quote a scripture or specific revelation barring masturbation? The phrasing you use is absent from the temple endowment and is much more specific than the broad "sexual practices"

Darren has left the thread, for now, and these aren't on the topic.

[Ahab]

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:

I'll add some notes on a few points that stand out to me, points which show how each individual is the one entity even if each individual does NOT possess a fulness of glory in his own person at a particular moment in time.

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.

This is from a collective perspective, but consider how each individual who is that type of being may still be developing those traits in his (or her) self while not possessing a fulness of glory. Equal, collectively, but individually some may still be progressing toward a perfection of all of those attributes while being able to benefit from the collective.

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.

Thus, if an individual person who is God knows some truth and can benefit from the collective to know all of it, he has at least the access to all of the truth dwelling in all

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.

Thus, the most supreme kind of being in all of existence is God because God is the supreme kind of being in all of existence.

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.

Thus, God can be in more than one place at one time because God is not limited to being only one person.

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.

Thus, they would not be the most supreme kind of being in all of existence (God) in regards to having all truth and intelligence dwelling within them, neither individually nor collectively, and thus we would not be worshipping that kind of being as the most supreme kind of being, and instead we would be worshipping some kind of being other than us, collectively.

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.

As long as our kind of being is the most supreme kind of being, that is, and yes that is so.

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.

Vast variety of substances referring to a vast variety of persons possessing a variety of substances. It is all of us, at our best and in our most supreme condition, as good as we can be, and not only those who have attained a fulness of perfection.

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.

True, and even for those who don't realize or recognize that is what God truly is.

[inquiringmind]

I am literally walking out the door for a trip, so I do not have the time to pull the sources together for a few days. However, it seems, that before God the Father was a god, there was a primal light-primal intelligence-power of divinity that has always existed and that now resides within all Gods. Thank you for the kind comments. If this thread is still active in a few days I will pull my notes together.

And it seems to me that it would have to be personal in some sense (even if it's more than personal.)

Asian Indians are said to believe in a thousand gods, but they also view all of them as a manifestation of the One, so polytheism and pantheism (or panentheism) aren't mutually exclusive.

Why should henotheism and pantheism (or panentheism) be mutually exclusive?

But I think we really don't want to go down the Neoplatonic "first cause" road traveled by Craig and Aquinas. That way of thinking was why the restoration was necessary in the first place.

I thought the teaching of the Church was that the restoration was necessary because the keys of the priesthood were lost, and because those without priesthood authority made unauthorized changes to the rites and ordinances of the Gospel?

And doesn't The Book of Mormon itself go down that route (more than once)?

...if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2:13.)

...if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation...(2 Nephi 11:7.)

Most Mormons today seem to disagree with Lehi and Jacob here, and seem to believe there could be some kind of creation, with things to act (intelligences capable of becoming spirits, capable of becoming Gods), and things to be acted upon (material elements capable of being made into the spirit bodies of Gods) without any pre-existing Creator (or even a creative principle.)

Does it really make any sense to believe that, and then point to creation as evidence of God (as Lehi and Jacob do)?

How were Lehi and Jacob any different from Craig and Aquinas in this?

What's interesting about Orson Pratt, is that he seems to almost pull the henotheistic concept of God, and the idea of God as the underlying cause of creation together.

Edited February 22, 2013 by inquiringmind

[Bart Burk]

And it seems to me that it would have to be personal in some sense (even if it's more than personal.)

Asian Indians are said to believe in a thousand gods, but they also view all of them as a manifestation of the One, so polytheism and pantheism (or panentheism) aren't mutually exclusive.

Why should henotheism and pantheism (or panentheism) be mutually exclusive?

I thought the teaching of the Church was that the restoration was necessary because the keys of the priesthood were lost, and because those without priesthood authority made unauthorized changes to the rites and ordinances of the Gospel?

And doesn't The Book of Mormon itself go down that route (more than once)?

...if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2:13.)

...if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation...(2 Nephi 11:7.)

Most Mormons today seem to disagree with Lehi and Jacob here, and seem to believe there could be some kind of creation, with things to act (intelligences capable of becoming spirits, capable of becoming Gods), and things to be acted upon (material elements capable of being made into the spirit bodies of Gods) without any pre-existing Creator (or even a creative principle.)

Does it really make any sense to believe that, and then point to creation as evidence of God (as Lehi and Jacob do)?

How were Lehi and Jacob any different from Craig and Aquinas in this?

What's interesting about Orson Pratt, is that he seems to almost pull the henotheistic concept of God, and the idea of God as the underlying cause of creation together.

The Book of Mormon almost always agrees with 19th century Protestant Christianity, especially that preached by the Disciples of Christ of Alexander Campbell. Sidney Rigdon was a Disciples of Christ minister so it is no wonder he wound up joining the Mormon Church. Edited February 22, 2013 by Bart Burk

[CV75]

but it's not the topic of this thread: do you find orson pratt's discussion of the posession of universal attributes defining what makes a god a god useful?

As for me, yes--as well do the scriptures speak of these attributes, and it is good to explore and discuss them. The discussion of "how/in what ways do we correctly worship (or do not correctly worship) these attributes" is also useful.

[inquiringmind]

I am literally walking out the door for a trip, so I do not have the time to pull the sources together for a few days. However, it seems, that before God the Father was a god, there was a primal light-primal intelligence-power of divinity that has always existed and that now resides within all Gods. Thank you for the kind comments. If this thread is still active in a few days I will pull my notes together.

And it seems to me that it would have to be personal in some sense (even if it's more than personal.)

Asian Indians are said to believe in a thousand gods, but they also view all of them as a manifestation of the One, so polytheism and pantheism (or panentheism) aren't mutually exclusive.

Why should henotheism and pantheism (or panentheism) be mutually exclusive?

But I think we really don't want to go down the Neoplatonic "first cause" road traveled by Craig and Aquinas. That way of thinking was why the restoration was necessary in the first place.

I thought the teaching of the Church was that the restoration was necessary because the keys of the priesthood were lost, and because those without priesthood authority made unauthorized changes to the rites and ordinances of the Gospel?

And doesn't The Book of Mormon itself go down that route (more than once)?

...if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2:13.)

...if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation...(2 Nephi 11:7.)

Most Mormons today seem to disagree with Lehi and Jacob here, and seem to believe there could be some kind of creation, with things to act (intelligences capable of becoming spirits, capable of becoming Gods), and things to be acted upon (material elements capable of being made into the spirit bodies of Gods) without any pre-existing Creator (or even a creative principle.)

Does it really make any sense to believe that, and then point to creation as evidence of God (as Lehi and Jacob do)?

How were Lehi and Jacob any different from Craig and Aquinas in this?

What's interesting about Orson Pratt, is that he seems to almost pull the henotheistic concept of God, and the idea of God as the underlying cause of creation together.

Any thoughts on that?

Edited February 22, 2013 by inquiringmind

[CV75]

And it seems to me that it would have to be personal in some sense (even if it's more than personal.)

...if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2:13.)

...if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation...(2 Nephi 11:7.)

What's interesting about Orson Pratt, is that he seems to almost pull the henotheistic concept of God, and the idea of God as the underlying cause of creation together.

Any thoughts on that?

I think this is exactly what is happening. We worship the Person of one God, even as we become gods ourselves, as everything we have (which is all creation) to become gods relies on Him and His involvement.

I think Lehi and Jacob are talking about “all things” and “creation” in terms of what we are given of God in our pre-mortal, probationary, and immortal estates; He creates all things as far as we are concerned. It is the same principle, to me, that if I didn't have an earthly father (or the same earthly father) that prepared a body and "a world" for me, I wouldn't have been born in the time and place that I was.

We can surmise that there are other Gods that we do not worship, and that they (as our God) came to be in the same manner as we expect to become gods (by becoming involved with their respective God that was involved in their progress).

We can also surmise as co-eternal beings with God, that each person is his or her own “first cause” and that He only created the opportunity and granted us the means to progress as He did, just as biological parents in mortality do.

[Ahab]

I think this is exactly what is happening. We worship the Person of one God, even as we become gods ourselves, as everything we have (which is all creation) to become gods relies on Him and His involvement.

It's not just him or his involvement we rely on, though. We all play a part in this collective process, in some way. No man is an island unto himself, and all that jazz. Even those who do us harm are helping us to become even stronger, as we all need obstacles to overcome.

And please modify your words to reflect the fact that we are already "gods" in the sense that we are already the same kind of being as our Father in heaven. We are all God, whether we are good or evil, because that's the name we use for the kind of the being we already are. Don't get sucked into the idea that God and Humans are different kinds of beings. Satan has been trying to pull the wool over our eyes on that issue for thousands if not millions of years.

I think Lehi and Jacob are talking about “all things” and “creation” in terms of what we are given of God in our pre-mortal, probationary, and immortal estates; He creates all things as far as we are concerned. It is the same principle, to me, that if I didn't have an earthly father (or the same earthly father) that prepared a body and "a world" for me, I wouldn't have been born in the time and place that I was.

When you see the word "God" don't just limit that to only our Father in heaven, though. It's about more than just him. When Lehi said if God didn't exist we would not exist, I understand that to mean no person who is the same kind of being God is would exist, because that is all included in his concepts.

We can surmise that there are other Gods that we do not worship, and that they (as our God) came to be in the same manner as we expect to become gods (by becoming involved with their respective God that was involved in their progress).

God is the word we use to refer to the most supreme kind of being in all of existence. I know some people in the past have said Gods in the context you're using it, but it would be better to clarify that a lot more, to help those who don't understand what we already are. We're not as perfected as our Father is yet, but we're already the same kind of being he is and we always will be, whether we are good or evil. From the highest heights to the lowest depths of what we are and can be, we are all God, as the kind of being we are.

We can also surmise as co-eternal beings with God, that each person is his or her own “first cause” and that He only created the opportunity and granted us the means to progress as He did, just as biological parents in mortality do.

No, we each needed parents, and there have always been parents for all of us, all through eternity. There was no grand first moment when the first one of us sprang up out of nowhere, or from a lower life form. Life has always existed, in various kinds of beings, and the kind of being we are has always been God, the most supreme kind of being in all of existence.

[mfbukowski]

I don't disagree...there...that's twice I've agreed with you in as many days... i don't like at all Pratt's position on the cosmological argument, for exactly the reason you say. but it's not the topic of this thread: do you find orson pratt's discussion of the posession of universal attributes defining what makes a god a god useful?

If you really would analyze it you would find that we disagree on almost nothing except your self-identification as "middle way".

I would not find any discussion of universal attributes useful for anything, except as used in this sentence. How would one know if any of these kinds of propositions were true? The very notion that anything has "universal attributes" is found only in Neoplatonism.

If you get spiritual confirmations of such ideas, and they make your life better, then I have no problem with them. How's that for a smart-aleck answer?

[mfbukowski]

I thought the teaching of the Church was that the restoration was necessary because the keys of the priesthood were lost, and because those without priesthood authority made unauthorized changes to the rites and ordinances of the Gospel?

Yes that is true- one of the reasons for the apostasy was the adoption of Neoplatonic philosophy- the idea that God is an unmoved mover. Priesthood authority has nothing to do with that philosophical idea

And doesn't The Book of Mormon itself go down that route (more than once)?

...if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2:13.)

...if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation...(2 Nephi 11:7.)

No that is talking about creation being interactive- that there are agents (multiple agents) and things to be acted on. That is in fact incompatible with the idea of God being an unmoved mover. God could not be our "father" if he is "unmoved"- he would not be responsive to prayer.

Most Mormons today seem to disagree with Lehi and Jacob here, and seem to believe there could be some kind of creation, with things to act (intelligences capable of becoming spirits, capable of becoming Gods), and things to be acted upon (material elements capable of being made into the spirit bodies of Gods) without any pre-existing Creator (or even a creative principle.)

I dsagree. I dont think most Mormons think that at all.

The idea that God used pre-existing material to organize the universe is incompatible with ex nihilo creation as found in Neoplatonic philosophy.

How were Lehi and Jacob any different from Craig and Aquinas in this?

Vast differences. Show me any reference to an unmoved mover in the BOM. Aint there

What's interesting about Orson Pratt, is that he seems to almost pull the henotheistic concept of God, and the idea of God as the underlying cause of creation together.

Any thoughts on that?

If it floats your boat go for it.

[CV75]

It's not just him or his involvement we rely on, though. We all play a part in this collective process, in some way. No man is an island unto himself, and all that jazz. Even those who do us harm are helping us to become even stronger, as we all need obstacles to overcome.

That goes without saying, but I must remind you that we should not be worshiping each other

And please modify your words to reflect the fact that we are already "gods" in the sense that we are already the same kind of being as our Father in heaven. We are all God, whether we are good or evil, because that's the name we use for the kind of the being we already are. Don't get sucked into the idea that God and Humans are different kinds of beings. Satan has been trying to pull the wool over our eyes on that issue for thousands if not millions of years.

I don’t need to. Are we not also gods becoming gods? I spell “God” with a capital “G” not because we are fundamentally unrelated beings, but because we, and not He, are only gods. Likewise, He is a Being and we are not; only beings.

So we call ourselves God--speak for yourself!

When you see the word "God" don't just limit that to only our Father in heaven, though. It's about more than just him. When Lehi said if God didn't exist we would not exist, I understand that to mean no person who is the same kind of being God is would exist, because that is all included in his concepts.

I think you’re taking a Lehi a bit too far, but if it works for you, enjoy! Here, try this: do a word search and everywhere in the Book of Mormon, substitute "God" with your name and preach that to the choir!

God is the word we use to refer to the most supreme kind of being in all of existence. I know some people in the past have said Gods in the context you're using it, but it would be better to clarify that a lot more, to help those who don't understand what we already are. We're not as perfected as our Father is yet, but we're already the same kind of being he is and we always will be, whether we are good or evil. From the highest heights to the lowest depths of what we are and can be, we are all God, as the kind of being we are.

Except for the part that we are all God, that is why I call Him “Heavenly Father” and refer to no one else by that term, good or evil.

No, we each needed parents, and there have always been parents for all of us, all through eternity. There was no grand first moment when the first one of us sprang up out of nowhere, or from a lower life form. Life has always existed, in various kinds of beings, and the kind of being we are has always been God, the most supreme kind of being in all of existence.

And we each need God. Granted, we are as much a part of Him (or vice-versa) spiritually as we are part of our earthly parents biologically. We are also co-eternal but not enmeshed, otherwise there would be no boundaries, no probation, and no progress.

[Bart Burk]

I have a feeling the LDS Church as an institution would be very uncomfortable with preaching anything about God beyond Father, Son and Holy Ghost. And I'm not sure in this day and age the LDS Church would want its members speculating about anything beyond Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I don't think they would want the members to go beyond the lesson manual. I believe that's a good thing.

[Ahab]

That goes without saying, but I must remind you that we should not be worshiping each other.

How about the best in all of us? How about any good in any of us? If there is any good in us, we got it from God, or at least he helped us to develop it in us. Even if we don't realize it or think of it this way, when we see anything praise worthy in anyone, we are praising God for it because it is God working in us which makes us as good as we are, and were, and will be.

I don’t need to. Are we not also gods becoming gods?

We are already "God" by virtue of beinge the same kind of being as our Father in heaven. You can use your little g if you want to, as if it makes any difference, but really it doesn't affect what we are and will be at all.

I spell “God” with a capital “G” not because we are fundamentally unrelated beings, but because we, and not He, are only gods. Likewise, He is a Being and we are not; only beings.

Such silliness. Please excuse me for being frank and calling it as I see it.

So we call ourselves God--speak for yourself!

I always do, and I was telling the truth, which is the same truth you will hear from God on this issue.

I think you’re taking a Lehi a bit too far, but if it works for you, enjoy! Here, try this: do a word search and everywhere in the Book of Mormon, substitute "God" with your name and preach that to the choir!

Well, I suppose I could do that, to some extent, but thenI'd be thinking of myself at my very best self in my ultimate state of existence while knowing I can someday be exactly like our Father in heaven. I'd still want to be careful to give the credit to our Father or Lord or the Holy Ghost for what he or they did, though.

Except for the part that we are all God, that is why I call Him “Heavenly Father” and refer to no one else by that term, good or evil.

Yes, I agree that we need some way to distinguish each person who is God from all the others persons who are God, too. We are all the same kind of being as he is, though, even if we're not all the same kinds of persons since some of us are good and others are evil.

And we each need God. Granted, we are as much a part of Him (or vice-versa) spiritually as we are part of our earthly parents biologically. We are also co-eternal but not enmeshed, otherwise there would be no boundaries, no probation, and no progress.

Enmeshed? What do you mean by that? You mean how our spirit can still be separated from our mortal body, while his body is no longer mortal and his spirit can never be separated from it? Yes, I can see that as a difference, but I prefer to think about how we are and can continue to be more and more like him.