Those Poor Backwards Materialists

[Ahab]

Teddyaware.

Thank you. Well said. I still might develop the "nature of ideas" if there is any interest. But you have gone where I preferred to go with this as I was thinking today. I was never trying to prove you guys wrong. I only wanted to get to where we don't get to charge each other with being out of our minds.

Okay, I think this is just another case of where we are right and you just don't realize that yet. Hopefully when our Father gives you a hug or does something else to show you that he is a material being you'll be able to correctly interpret that evidence.

[Ahab]

If traditional non-LDS Christians believe God the Father, though immaterial, really exists as an actual thinking and feeling person, who is just as real, in every sense of the word, as is His Son Jesus Christ, then our disagreements are mostly semantic in nature. Joseph Smith himself admits that spirit, at very least, gives the impression of being "immaterial" in nature because it's invisible and totally undetectable to the five senses and, I presume, to the most sensitive of scientific instruments.

So without the benefit of modern revelation it would be perfectly logical for non-LDS Christians to presume that spirit, though very real, is actually composed of something other than matter as we know it here on earth and in the universe. As a matter of fact, it might be rightly said that spirit is invisible matter; and given that spirit (for now) is something that is absolutely invisible and undetectable, it isn't that too far a leap for an uninformed person to change the term "invisible matter" into "immaterial reality."

But in the end we will see it is just as the Prophet Joseph Smith said: though spirit is too refined and pure for fallen mortals to see or detect, in the end we will come to realize that even invisible spirit is just as real as anything else that exists in God's universe. I sympathize with our non-LDS brethren because I can easily understand how one might get confused about the subtle but significant difference between undetectable matter (something that actually exists) and immaterial reality (something that actually doesn't exist).

Blessed are the peace keepers. Well done.

[teddyaware]

Blessed are the peace keepers. Well done.

Thank you kindly, Ahab.

[MiserereNobis]

Okay, I think this is just another case of where we are right and you just don't realize that yet.

 

You are consistent, Ahab, I'll give you that...

[Coreyb]

So, to clarify my original question, I am asking what about worshipping an anthropomorphic God is absurd or embarrassing? I didn't intend to discuss the holy trinity or catholic doctrine necessarily, and certainly don't mean to alienate our catholic friends from the discussion. In both of my examples, neither of the opposing parties to orthodox mormon theology are catholics. They are protestant philosophers and unorthodox Mormons. Both seem to hold to ideas closer deism than the Catholic trinity. So what is so silly about a God with a body, a God with human like qualities, or even just a personal God who has a distinct identity and mind (i believe our catholic friends would say the God they understand fits into that last description). Sorry, hope that makes sense.

[mfbukowski]

If traditional non-LDS Christians believe God the Father, though immaterial, really exists as an actual thinking and feeling person, who is just as real, in every sense of the word, as is His Son Jesus Christ, then our disagreements are mostly semantic in nature. Joseph Smith himself admits that spirit, at very least, gives the impression of being "immaterial" in nature because it's invisible and totally undetectable to the five senses and, I presume, to the most sensitive of scientific instruments.

So without the benefit of modern revelation it would be perfectly logical for non-LDS Christians to presume that spirit, though very real, is actually composed of something other than matter as we know it here on earth and in the universe. As a matter of fact, it might be rightly said that spirit is invisible matter; and given that spirit (for now) is something that is absolutely invisible and undetectable, it isn't that too far a leap for an uninformed person to change the term "invisible matter" into "immaterial reality."

But in the end we will see it is just as the Prophet Joseph Smith said: though spirit is too refined and pure for fallen mortals to see or detect, in the end we will come to realize that even invisible spirit is just as real as anything else that exists in God's universe. I sympathize with our non-LDS brethren because I can easily understand how one might get confused about the subtle but significant difference between undetectable matter (something that actually exists) and immaterial reality (something that actually doesn't exist).

Agreed and well said.

 

Each of us can only use the knowledge we have available to us.

[mfbukowski]

So, to clarify my original question, I am asking what about worshipping an anthropomorphic God is absurd or embarrassing? I didn't intend to discuss the holy trinity or catholic doctrine necessarily, and certainly don't mean to alienate our catholic friends from the discussion. In both of my examples, neither of the opposing parties to orthodox mormon theology are catholics. They are protestant philosophers and unorthodox Mormons. Both seem to hold to ideas closer deism than the Catholic trinity. So what is so silly about a God with a body, a God with human like qualities, or even just a personal God who has a distinct identity and mind (i believe our catholic friends would say the God they understand fits into that last description). Sorry, hope that makes sense.

The problem is that those folks are still imbued with Platonic philosophy because it is so deep in our culture.

 

All of Protestant theology is based on Catholic theology, or a reaction to it.  The Restoration goes back to pre-Greek, Hebrew notions of the council of the Gods as seen in the Psalms and in other OT scriptures.

 

So most of Western Civilization is at its core, pardon the term while we are singing Kumbaya, apostate at least from the original Hebrew idea of God.

 

The anti-Mormons you mention are just as confused by these issues and see the original Hebrew anthropomorphism as "primitive" and therefore "silly" because they do not understand the philosophical flaws in the whole notion of God being "immaterial".  The philosophy of the last 500 years has shown the problems, but it will probably take at least another hundred years before people change their conception of reality and understand what Joseph Smith understood 150 years ago.

 

But who knows.  We could have another lapse into the medieval.

 

It's not so much that we worship an anthropomorphic God- what is important is that we ourselves are "theomorphic"- made in God's image.

 

We cannot be made in God's image if he doesn't have one.

Edited March 22, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Bikeemikey]

So, what is the big deal with worshipping an "anthropomorphic", "material" God? As I read of the early mormon theologians (Orson, Parley, John Taylor) battles with the "sectarian priests" over God's nature, I am at the same time reading and listening to the more "intellectual" Mormons of our day discuss this same issue (via Dialogue Journal, Mormon Matters podcast). What is curious is that in both discussions, "materialism" is looked down on by each of the more scholarly parties. The main line clergy of nineteenth century Britain denounce it as "absurd" and "unphilosophical", whereas the more "sophisticated" liberal Mormons of today downplay and distance themselves from it as sort of a folksy, "unnuanced" way of looking at God, without altogether denouncing it. I have noticed in both cases, reasons for the superiority of an immaterial, unknown God that is more of a "universal force" than a person, are rarely if ever given (yet the condescending remarks are given generously). I wonder why this is. Is it just the fact that the more educated about human character a person is, the more uncomfortable the idea of answering to an actual material being becomes? I am not well read in classic christian philosophy, which no doubt has hashed over all the reasons, so would someone who is please enlighten my ignorant mind. Thanks

This is an interesting question. I also think you might be surprised by what liberal Mormons think of god if you believe they are inclined to consider god a more universal force than a being. That's not the case for the majority of liberal Mormons I know. Most are more interested in the relationship between god and technology (his tools). For example does god have a space ship? Does he have enhancements implanted in his brain. Does he rely of computer processing to assist in his work.

We Mormons often want to have our cake and eat it to. If god is anthropomorphic why do we still insist that his power comes from a force like power that is universal, indescribable and unlimited? Why have we attributed all of the same pre-restoration ideas about god to our new anthropomorphic god (omniscience, omnipotence etc). Sure we added some human elements as well.

So, if god is a person, but his power is unlimited and comes from a "force like power" why not simply refer to the force like power as god?

Is it not possible that part of the debate is that we are talking about different facets of god? Pre-restoration theology focused on gods power which is seemingly unlimited and undefinable (even with in Mormonism) and post-restoration the LDS church focuses on the being using the power.

Which one is really god? The power or the person with the power? Or are the both different gods. Or is god only possible in the unifying of power and person?

I personally am inclined to consider gods power far less traditionally and would not be surprised to find out he is technologically assisted in his role as god.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[mfbukowski]

An interesting discussion of early Christian Neoplatonism

http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/cp.htm

 

This is the basis in Western Civilization for "immaterialism" and it nicely shows how pervasive it is in the culture and church.

The writer is himself a Platonist and proud of it.  Good for him.  At least he knows what he stands for and can defend it.  If one is a Neoplatonist, I would suggest one get up to speed and do so likewise and be able to deal with postmodernism on an intellectual level and have persuasive arguments in its favor.  I have yet to see any.

Edited March 22, 2014 by mfbukowski

[MiserereNobis]

But who knows.  We could have another lapse into the medieval.

 

I'm down, as long as I can have fiefdom and live in Bruges, Belgium:

 

[mfbukowski]

I'm down, as long as I can have fiefdom and live in Bruges, Belgium:

 

No way.

I am worried about your eternal welfare and you know about the rich man and the camel and the eye of the needle.

You get to be a serf-er dude. More blessings!

Edited March 23, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

So, what is the big deal with worshipping an "anthropomorphic", "material" God? As I read of the early mormon theologians (Orson, Parley, John Taylor) battles with the "sectarian priests" over God's nature, I am at the same time reading and listening to the more "intellectual" Mormons of our day discuss this same issue (via Dialogue Journal, Mormon Matters podcast). What is curious is that in both discussions, "materialism" is looked down on by each of the more scholarly parties. The main line clergy of nineteenth century Britain denounce it as "absurd" and "unphilosophical", whereas the more "sophisticated" liberal Mormons of today downplay and distance themselves from it as sort of a folksy, "unnuanced" way of looking at God, without altogether denouncing it. I have noticed in both cases, reasons for the superiority of an immaterial, unknown God that is more of a "universal force" than a person, are rarely if ever given (yet the condescending remarks are given generously). I wonder why this is. Is it just the fact that the more educated about human character a person is, the more uncomfortable the idea of answering to an actual material being becomes? I am not well read in classic christian philosophy, which no doubt has hashed over all the reasons, so would someone who is please enlighten my ignorant mind. Thanks

 

One popular Christian argument for God relies on the "first cause" argument. IE, the contingent universe came into being, it must have had a cause, so an uncaused cause brought existence into being. That necessary (not contingent) being is God.

 

However in LDS theology God is not a first cause. In fact, I don't think there IS an ultimate designer or cause in LDS theology. God is a builder but didn't create existence itself and didn't create morality. He also didn't design the human body since He is an immortal human.

 

So, in LDS theology the origin of all existence is just as mysterious as are under traditional naturalist notions. 

 

Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about  

[mfbukowski]

One popular Christian argument for God relies on the "first cause" argument. IE, the contingent universe came into being, it must have had a cause, so an uncaused cause brought existence into being. That necessary (not contingent) being is God.

 

However in LDS theology God is not a first cause. In fact, I don't think there IS an ultimate designer or cause in LDS theology. God is a builder but didn't create existence itself and didn't create morality. He also didn't design the human body since He is an immortal human.

 

So, in LDS theology the origin of all existence is just as mysterious as are under traditional naturalist notions. 

 

Disclaimer: I don't really know what I'm talking about

The cool part is that no one else does either. 100% of human knowledge consists of stories made up to fit our experiences. Some of those stories accurately predict what new data "should" look like if we think of a given hypothesis as "true", and indeed when the predicted data turns our to be "real" we pronounce it "proven" -until a better theory comes along which is a better story because it explains more.

But it all hinges on the way we experience the world.

Religious explanations are also based on what "works best" to make us understand why we are here and how we "should" live our lives, only they are based on our personal subjective emotional experience including our values and what we find important in life.

Your explanation works very well for me as well, and that's why we all are here as members.

Once you see the changing paradigms of science as similar to the changing paradigms of religion, (God is a stone, God is an idol, God is material, God is immaterial, God is a glorified man within the universe) something "clicks" inside you and you understand that all we think are ultimately humanly constructed stories, some of which work better than others.

It's fun to wonder about how differently other creatures, say Orcas, see the world. Their brains are larger than ours and have entire sections we don't have. We don't need to leave earth to find alien intelligence.

Anyway, your theory works fine for me as well.

I reserve the right to revise it, however, if I think differently after I'm out of mortality.

It'll just be difficult to post here, that's all.

[Vance]

 

But we have to agree that the body isn't what makes God the Son or God the Father or God the Holy Ghost, God. Catholics don't define it except to note that it is spiritual (to us that means non-material).

 

The problem I see is that the current meaning of the word "immaterial" is totally different from what it meant when it was first used in a theological discussion.  Back then (in the dark ages) wind, breath, and spirit were all considered "immaterial".

 

But we now know that neither wind nor breath are "immaterial". So why should "spirit" continue to be considered so?

 

I think it is past time for the theology of an "immaterial" God to be up dated.  Part of that update must include the shedding of the term "immaterial" and replace it with something more consistent with its original understanding.   

Edited March 25, 2014 by Vance

[saemo]

The problem I see is that the current meaning of the word "immaterial" is totally different from what it meant when it was first used in a theological discussion. Back then (in the dark ages) wind, breath, and spirit were all considered "immaterial".

But we now know that neither wind nor breath are "immaterial". So why should "spirit" continue to be considered so?

I think it is past time for the theology of an "immaterial" God to be up dated. Part of that update must include the shedding of the term "immaterial" and replace it with something more consistent with its original understanding.

It isn't a dark ages thing. The Biblical authors describe the Holy Spirit as the breath of God, and as God's creative action being a wind, which is also an action of the Holy Spirit. (See Genesis.)

It doesn't change because our understanding of breath and wind change. The language is figurative. The people of the time believed both breath and wind to be immaterial. That is the message being conveyed, and that message doesn't change because modern humans understand molecules.

Edited March 25, 2014 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

The problem I see is that the current meaning of the word "immaterial" is totally different from what it meant when it was first used in a theological discussion.  Back then (in the dark ages) wind, breath, and spirit were all considered "immaterial".

 

But we now know that neither wind nor breath are "immaterial". So why should "spirit" continue to be considered so?

 

I think it is past time for the theology of an "immaterial" God to be up dated.  Part of that update must include the shedding of the term "immaterial" and replace it with something more consistent with its original understanding.

I'm kind of thinking a good alternate word might be "tangible" since Joseph said the Father's body was "tangible".

That word makes it "real" and yet allows for a body that might be able to walk through walls as Jesus was able to do. Clearly his body is not exactly like ours- he can eat fish, but we cannot walk through walls. We cannot ascend to heaven as he did in the Bible, or return to earth as Christ did in the BOM

"Tangible" also skirts the distinction between "refined spirit matter" and regular matter, and yet "tangible" also can be seen as a synonym for "real".

So, especially since Joseph used it, it sounds like a great word to use to describe God's physical nature without making him exactly like our kind of physicality. AND "tangible" is definitely NOT a synonym for "immaterial" and nearly an antonym for it.

[Vance]

It isn't a dark ages thing. The Biblical authors describe the Holy Spirit as the breath of God, and as God's creative action being a wind, which is also an action of the Holy Spirit. (See Genesis.)

It doesn't change because our understanding of breath and wind change. The language is figurative. The people of the time believed both breath and wind to be immaterial. That is the message being conveyed, and that message doesn't change because modern humans understand molecules.

The people of the time believed breath, wind and spirit were synomous.  In fact, in the Greek a single word is used for all three, it is only the different contexts that guided the English translators to decide which of the three English words to use.  These three things were consided "immaterial" based upon lack of visibility and ignorance (science of the dark ages).

 

You have absolutely no basis to arbitrarily separate the material state of spirit from that of breath or wind.

 

It is time to update your theology.  It shouldn't be based upon the science of the dark ages.

[Vance]

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s" certainly precludes anything "immaterial". No matter how you look at it.

[MiserereNobis]

It is time to update your theology.  It shouldn't be based upon the science of the dark ages.

 

I don't want to enter into the philosophical discussion here, but I do want to say that the Middle Ages, when some of the greatest treasures of Catholic theology were produced were NOT the dark ages.

 

It is a pet peeve of mine.  There was nothing dark about the Middle Ages.

 

Now, if you were refering to the actual dark ages (between the fall of the Roman empire, circa 400, and the rise of Charlemagne, 800), then I would respond by pointing out the dearth of Catholic theology done in those times as compared to the Middle Ages.  That is one reason they are dark -- there was little commerce, intellectual or otherwise.

 

Thanks for indulging my Middle-Ages-are-not-the-dark-ages rant

[saemo]

The people of the time believed breath, wind and spirit were synomous. In fact, in the Greek a single word is used for all three, it is only the different contexts that guided the English translators to decide which of the three English words to use. These three things were consided "immaterial" based upon lack of visibility and ignorance (science of the dark ages).

You have absolutely no basis to arbitrarily separate the material state of spirit from that of breath or wind.

It is time to update your theology. It shouldn't be based upon the science of the dark ages.

Right, the spirit is as intangible and immaterial as breath and wind WERE believed to be. As I said, modern knowledge of molecules does not change what was believed and taught "back then". Spirit is still believed to be immaterial. Edited March 25, 2014 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

"The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s" certainly precludes anything "immaterial". No matter how you look at it.

Yup

[mfbukowski]

never mind

Edited March 25, 2014 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

It is time to update your theology.  It shouldn't be based upon the science of the dark ages.

Actually it should not be based on science at all 

[Vance]

And "back then" they were wrong about "pneuma" being really immaterial.  "Immaterial" to them does NOT mean what it means to us today.  The meaning of the word has changed because our knowledge has increased.

 

So, to put it bluntly, you are using a modern scientific definition where it doesn't belong.

 

The "immaterial" in the original theological context did NOT mean "immaterial" as we currently know it.

 

Their "immaterial" did indeed have material properties, like mass, volume, and density.

 

It is time for you to dump the word "immaterial".  It doesn't mean what it did when it was first used in a theological discussion.

[Vance]

Apparently, the science of the middle ages was no better than the science of the dark ages, especially when it comes to what is and is not "immaterial".

 

Just sayin.