The King Follet Discourse As A Neglected Hammer In Mormon Apologetics

[Bikeemikey]

Hello Mikey. Yup, in the few days I have spent on earth I, once or twice, attended Sunday School, but no more. Unless you count those teachings callings, once or twice or so. Let's start with the simple one: When Jesus was on earth, did he stop being a member of the Godhead? I am going to assume that you think he remained the Son of God, the second member of the Godhead and never forfeited that position. Now, tell me if God was a man like Jesus, was he ever not God? As someone who has been a member for a little while, served in a few positions, taught a little bit I can tell you that there is no required belief or required doctrine of LDS in this regard. If you disagree, I would appreciate a CFA to support that position.

No one said anything about required ... My comment was purely responding to whether this concept is taught in church from handbooks... It is...carnard76 provided an excellent and clear handbook quote on the subject.

As for your complex question on christology... I have no idea about when Christ became divine while on earth.

It is a complex question and one that had a direct impact on our capacity to trust in the notion that god has experienced as we have.

We are all divine. We all have the capacity for godlike character. In that sense the only distinction between us and Christ is our actions and choices.

As for the rest... The handbooks say god was once like us... Not once like Christ.

[mfbukowski]

Words like beginning and end and before and after are meaningless without space-time. So, yes, "God" does nothing and Is Void, and also fecund, infinite creation. There is obviously no such thing as Nothing. But there is non creation, which from our apprehension appears to be nothing, or Void, but obviously is not either state, since Intelligence Exists in either state. As space-time is a creation of "God's", it follows that the bigger concept allows both states, void and creation, it isn't a choice of one or the other. We exist inside of creation. "God" Exists and is the Necessary Cause of our existence. (I do not like "first cause" because it requires a state before it becomes the first cause. Only Cause is even more accurate. But Necessary Cause is best, because existence requires explanation; it is necessary to me.) How exactly does Joseph Smith's string of "God the Fathers" answer the question of existence in the first place? Rather, his cosmology opens that question and makes it even bigger, i.e. even less answered, by trying to place GtF on a human scale we can comprehend, and then asserting "that's it, that's all there ever has been"....

And I have no clue what you mean by the "question of existence" especially when you also say "there is obviously no such thing as nothing".

If there is no such thing as nothing, then there must be something- period, end of story. "Obviously", as you yourself said.

The whole question asked by some "Why is there something rather than nothing?"- which may be what you are getting at- to me begs the whole question itself- it assumes that there IS an answer by prefacing a meaningless question with "why"- implying that it has a purposeful answer.

Even asking the question implies that there COULD have been "nothing" which you already said that there was "no such thing as". So why ask the question if it doesn't describe a real option??

One could just as logically ask "why is there nothing rather than something" using words in the same way. I see it as a category mistake. One must assume a category called "nothing" is an option.

In another sense, of course, that question in a different way is answered by the Plan of Salvation which I find much more satisfying.

I have a problem with the notion of "inside" creation for the same way, since it implies there is an "outside".

I wonder how one could justify a belief in someTHING - implying reality- "outside creation".

And how can intelligence can exist in void- since by your own words there is no such thing as "nothing"?

[mfbukowski]

Hello Mikey. Yup, in the few days I have spent on earth I, once or twice, attended Sunday School, but no more. Unless you count those teachings callings, once or twice or so. Let's start with the simple one: When Jesus was on earth, did he stop being a member of the Godhead? I am going to assume that you think he remained the Son of God, the second member of the Godhead and never forfeited that position. Now, tell me if God was a man like Jesus, was he ever not God? As someone who has been a member for a little while, served in a few positions, taught a little bit I can tell you that there is no required belief or required doctrine of LDS in this regard. If you disagree, I would appreciate a CFA to support that position.

I find your personality on the other board VERY different than here.

[Storm Rider]

I find your personality on the other board VERY different than here.

What other board? I have worked on Wiki, but that was years ago. It has also been several years since I was on the Catholic Board also. Other than those two groups, I don't frequent other sites much and I cannot remember participating on anything else. I have seen other "Storm" names and one that was the same, but this has been a nickname since my mission days which is more than 30 years ago. I do play devil's advocate and apologist; I find that it helps me understand my own faith and my own weaknesses more fully. Now back to Mikey's question. Canard stated, "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God. … He was once a man like us; … God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did." Jesus did not "become divine" on earth. He was and has always been the great Jehovah, the second member of the Godhead, the creator by whom the Father directed the creation of all things. As the statement clarifies, God was once on earth like the Son. I don't interpret this to be that God was a mortal man i.e. God progressed from a mortal man to be a God. I acknowledge there are LDS who believe this, but I also acknowledge there are others who do not. My personal feelings are that God has always been God; there was not a period of progression for him. His progression is only found in the expansion of his creations, but not in a personal fashion. God dwelling on an earth like the Savior did does pose questions and there is support in scripture for this position, but there is also conflicting scripture for the logical leaps we make so easily with these few scriptures. What I know is that the scriptures do not teach me about the primary need to know the character of God. Nowhere does the Savior tell me of this importance. Is knowledge of his character more efficacious than the blood of the Lamb; does it have a greater power to save us? I apologize, but this statement of knowing the character of God has always grated when read. It sounds too much like other theologians who tell me I must believe in the Trinity to be saved. Doctrine does not save, Jesus, as Savior and Lord saves; being washed in his blood saves us sin. I guess it is a matter of degrees of priority and there are many that are a very distant second.

[Calm]

What I know is that the scriptures do not teach me about the primary need to know the character of God. Nowhere does the Savior tell me of this importance.

The reference may be to something different than what people usually think of, it may have nothing to do with knowing the history of God or what makes God God in his entire being, but more of his personality or role in regards to mankind or what makes God God solely in as far as his relation to manking.

[Questing Beast]

And I have no clue what you mean by the "question of existence" especially when you also say "there is obviously no such thing as nothing".

If there is no such thing as nothing, then there must be something- period, end of story. "Obviously", as you yourself said.

The whole question asked by some "Why is there something rather than nothing?"- which may be what you are getting at- to me begs the whole question itself- it assumes that there IS an answer by prefacing a meaningless question with "why"- implying that it has a purposeful answer.

Even asking the question implies that there COULD have been "nothing" which you already said that there was "no such thing as". So why ask the question if it doesn't describe a real option??

One could just as logically ask "why is there nothing rather than something" using words in the same way. I see it as a category mistake. One must assume a category called "nothing" is an option.

In another sense, of course, that question in a different way is answered by the Plan of Salvation which I find much more satisfying.

I have a problem with the notion of "inside" creation for the same way, since it implies there is an "outside".

I wonder how one could justify a belief in someTHING - implying reality- "outside creation".

And how can intelligence can exist in void- since by your own words there is no such thing as "nothing"?

The limitation of text. Spoken words are more facile but also limited, so other than conferring together at greater speed, we'd likely end up mystified at the other's cosmology. Too much is apprehended but not comprehended, so how can we possibly convey in spoken/written language what we apprehend? I apprehend the infinite nature of "God In Total", but I cannot comprehend it, and that's about all I can write about it. I do know that for any finite mind to put comprehensible limits on defining "God" is counter to reality, and so that forms the core of my objection toward all dogmatic religion. It does not go far enough not by a long shot. Joseph Smith's "Abrahamic" cosmology, and his doctrine set out in the Follett discourse, part of which winds up in the D&C http://www.lds.org/s...130.22?lang=eng , is very limited and comprehensible: it is intended to sweep away forever the mysticism of the ancients and apostates and replace their theology and cosmology with a comprehensible one. In that it errs on the side of conservative thought. "God" is not conservative! Infinity cannot be conservative. We must constantly entertain the biggest concepts for "God" that we possibly can in order to be moving in the direction of understanding more about "God".

So when I say there is no such thing as "nothing" that is inarguable, since we have zero evidence for a state of "nothingness". If we take the concept of "void", i.e. non creation into account, we have both states existing, creation and non creation, or to those who are already created, "nothing". But that "nothing" is merely "void", or "God" without creation. As space-time is reality to this world and we have no evidence to assume the contrary, it seems inarguable to me that reality will never be outside of space-time for us, yet God In Total is the author of space-time, so exists with all of infinitely expanding creation, and non creation, simultaneously. I use the all-caps word NOW to define "God's" state of mind as Existence In The First Place; all things are NOW with "God", including non creation. For us to imagine that "God" has not the power and the will to command non creation is to put a finite limit on "God" as all-powerful, which is de facto mistaken.

As I have said many times, the apparent conundrums that our finite minds can conceive of should tell us of the incomprehensibly infinite nature of "God", for if we can twist our concepts into apparent knots, and yet our minds are finite, it is impossible for us know "God" in any comprehensible way unless "God" reveals to our minds more of "God's" nature. The only time we get into conundrums is when we start talking about "God". A venerable device to illustrate the irrational belief in God is asking the question, "Can God create a rock that is too big for him to lift?" Either answer produces conundrum, ergo, to the atheist, God does not exist as an all-powerful being. Yet the obvious answer is "yes and no". This drives the non believer to distraction, because the answer MUST BE yes or no, not "yes and no". But the reality is "yes and no". The answer is always "yes and no". After that we move forward on faith that "God" is playing a consistent "game" with us, not one that changes over the eons of space-time that we inhabit....

Edited April 28, 2013 by Questing Beast

[ChristKnight]

What I know is that the scriptures do not teach me about the primary need to know the character of God. Nowhere does the Savior tell me of this importance. Is knowledge of his character more efficacious than the blood of the Lamb; does it have a greater power to save us? I apologize, but this statement of knowing the character of God has always grated when read. It sounds too much like other theologians who tell me I must believe in the Trinity to be saved. Doctrine does not save, Jesus, as Savior and Lord saves; being washed in his blood saves us sin. I guess it is a matter of degrees of priority and there are many that are a very distant second.

This is interesting. When I read this, I immediately thought of the various LDS books, usually apostasy related, that talk about the difference between the Godhead vs. the Trinity, and that it is important to know the true character or nature of God, usually while referencing John 17:3-"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Just a thought.

[ChristKnight]

Have there been GAs that have taught the belief that the Father progressed to Godhood?

[Questing Beast]

Yes, but I don't have references immediately to hand or the time/interest to go looking at the moment. BY said words that effect. I don't see how God the Father could have once been a mortal man "as we are".

But it doesn't say "as Christ was", but "as man now is God once was". If "man" is "the Son of man", then it is a non statement, a redundancy, to say that Christ and the Father were and are alike. The entire "couplet" is about we mortals, not about GtF once being a "man" as Christ was once a man, i.e. mortal but perfectly sinless and always a God that does not progress. So early teachings definitely supported the idea that GtF was once a mortal as we are and progressed to godhood. Once attained, godhood does not progress, it only increases in glory. In other words, God in Mormonism knows all that there is to know, so has attained to perfect, total knowledge and power....

(edit to add: Oh, I see that you meant "General Authorities" in the contemporary sense, oh well)

Edited April 28, 2013 by Questing Beast

[mfbukowski]

What other board? I have worked on Wiki, but that was years ago. It has also been several years since I was on the Catholic Board also. Other than those two groups, I don't frequent other sites much and I cannot remember participating on anything else. I have seen other "Storm" names and one that was the same, but this has been a nickname since my mission days which is more than 30 years ago.

Sorry- got you confused with another one who is a critic of the church!

[mfbukowski]

So when I say there is no such thing as "nothing" that is inarguable, since we have zero evidence for a state of "nothingness".

Well that goes for the whole post- so what's the difference?

I'm not into metaphysics I guess.

[mfbukowski]

The limitation of text. Spoken words are more facile but also limited, so other than conferring together at greater speed, we'd likely end up mystified at the other's cosmology.

Yep that's why I don't bother with it. It's Wittgenstein's fault- "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

[volgadon]

Yep that's why I don't bother with it. It's Wittgenstein's fault- "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

You would, I think, enjoy Elliot Wolfson's writings, both his scholarly works and poetry. He ventures into a lot of those themes.

[mfbukowski]

You would, I think, enjoy Elliot Wolfson's writings, both his scholarly works and poetry. He ventures into a lot of those themes.

I will check it out- thanks for the lead!

[Lightbearer]

Have there been GAs that have taught the belief that the Father progressed to Godhood?

Yes we are studying in PH & RS this year the following:

"Through a continual course of progression our Heavenly Father has received exaltation and glory and he points us out the same path and, inasmuch as he is clothed with power, authority and glory, he says, “walk ye up and come in possession of the same glory and happiness that I possess.” (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Lorenzo Snow 2011: Chapter 5 The Grand Destiny of the Faithful)

I have heard this taught countless times in Church and it is explained very well in the KFD. As far as when was the "first cause" or "first God" that has not been revealed. I suggest the words of the hymn "If you could hie to Kolob"

("If You Could Hie to Kolob" Hymn no. 284)

"1. If you could hie to Kolob

In the twinkling of an eye,

And then continue onward

With that same speed to fly,

Do you think that you could ever,

Through all eternity,

Find out the generation

Where Gods began to be?

2. Or see the grand beginning,

Where space did not extend?

Or view the last creation,

Where Gods and matter end?

Methinks the Spirit whispers,

"No man has found 'pure space,'

Nor seen the outside curtains,

Where nothing has a place."

3. The works of God continue,

And worlds and lives abound;

Improvement and progression

Have one eternal round.

There is no end to matter;

There is no end to space;

There is no end to spirit;

There is no end to race.

4. There is no end to virtue;

There is no end to might;

There is no end to wisdom;

There is no end to light.

There is no end to union;

There is no end to youth;

There is no end to priesthood;

There is no end to truth.

5. There is no end to glory;

There is no end to love;

There is no end to being;

There is no death above.

There is no end to glory;

There is no end to love;

There is no end to being;

There is no death above."

The teachings and spirit of this hymn is the spirit of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It does not bother me that God the Father has a Father any more than Jesus is the Son of God. It is not robbery to state that we have a potential to become even as our Father in Heaven. In fact it is a beautiful concept that we are a race of Gods, that it is part of a grand plan instead of the plan of salvation being mere "damage control". We are in the image of God for a reason, we are a part of Him and our ultimate destiny is to become one with Him.

[Storm Rider]

This is interesting. When I read this, I immediately thought of the various LDS books, usually apostasy related, that talk about the difference between the Godhead vs. the Trinity, and that it is important to know the true character or nature of God, usually while referencing John 17:3-"And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

Just a thought.

This is a really good scripture, but when I read it is the knowing God that is important, the vital piece, not the possessing of a doctrine. I think of Christ when he said, "depart from me....I never knew you"; it is the relationship and the subservient role of Master and disciple that is so important to us. If we can hear his voice, recognize the still, small whisper amongst the storm of influences in the world and follow him, then surely we will endure to the end and rejoice in the day that we may see him again. If I can parrot that God had a father, but have no understanding, then what is the benefit? I do not want to portray to anyone that I believe this concept is untrue; it may be, but I am clear in that it makes no sense to me. All saying that God had a father does is open the question to who was the first father? There is no answer and saying there is no beginning for one such as I does not enlighten and does not provide an answer. I see no value in creating such a conundrum for us here. What is of absolute importance is to know that God has created a way for us to become like him. Again, I try to keep things simple. There is a reason that the prophet and the apostles so consistently talk fundamentals; if we each actually get the true meaning of faith and repentance and do it, that we understand baptism, that we understand the Gift of the Holy Spirit, how does one go wrong? There are things that are vital to salvation; I dare say understanding how there is no beginning or that God had a father or that he did not have a father, has little merit or value.

[Questing Beast]

@Storm Rider: Then I dwell on what is to you of little merit or value. To me it makes sense to use the utmost powers of imagination that I can muster to conceive of "God". I should not dogmatically compartmentalize "God" into someone else's paradigm, if my imagination is continually trying to reach for more. That is where I Am....

[mfbukowski]

@Storm Rider: Then I dwell on what is to you of little merit or value. To me it makes sense to use the utmost powers of imagination that I can muster to conceive of "God". I should not dogmatically compartmentalize "God" into someone else's paradigm, if my imagination is continually trying to reach for more. That is where I Am....

Do you actually think you will complete this quest in this lifetime? That God is so puny that we could comprehend it all?

I gave that up years ago and only deal with finding the best explanation I can, knowing it will never be totally "right".

[mfbukowski]

Yes we are studying in PH & RS this year the following:

I have heard this taught countless times in Church and it is explained very well in the KFD. As far as when was the "first cause" or "first God" that has not been revealed. I suggest the words of the hymn "If you could hie to Kolob"

The teachings and spirit of this hymn is the spirit of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It does not bother me that God the Father has a Father any more than Jesus is the Son of God. It is not robbery to state that we have a potential to become even as our Father in Heaven. In fact it is a beautiful concept that we are a race of Gods, that it is part of a grand plan instead of the plan of salvation being mere "damage control". We are in the image of God for a reason, we are a part of Him and our ultimate destiny is to become one with Him.

Just for the record I want you to know that I agree completely and gave you a rep point for this. We are really not as far apart as you might think.

[Questing Beast]

Do you actually think you will complete this quest in this lifetime? That God is so puny that we could comprehend it all?

I gave that up years ago and only deal with finding the best explanation I can, knowing it will never be totally "right".

Good heavens no by Jove! Imagination is the most godlike attribute we possess, being the most like something infinite. Imagination is underrated or misconstrued. It is denigrated as childlike and a waste of good work time. I was accused constantly in public school of daydreaming and not concentrating on the lessons, etc. Concentration is all well and good, but it is demanded to excess. We don't allow enough time in a day for imagination. And hard, working life grinds imagination into something almost dead if you live long enough.

Of course any "explanation" is incomplete and changeable. I don't seek explanations. Existence simply Is, and infinity too. I will never finish questing. Nobody ever finishes. There is no ultimate destination, or place. But there Is more Joy, always more Joy. Mystery and Joy are inseparable....