LDS doctrine of God

[Gray]

43 minutes ago, snowflake said:

If I understand LDS theology correctly, god was once just a man somewhere, just like me. This just logically makes no sense.  No beginning, no starting point and no first cause, just a long chain of endless gods going back for ever? This god does not sound like a very powerful god to me.

In LDS theology, God is contingent rather than necessary. It appears that only existence itself is necessary. 

As to whether you feel such a being is worthy of worship, a lot of atheists have similar questions about God as described in the Bible. 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

46 minutes ago, snowflake said:

 

46 minutes ago, snowflake said:

All things are in a state of constant growth and progression, including God himself. God has knowledge now that he did not have previously. He is, thus, not all-powerful, but only appears to be so to human creatures who are not as far along in such progress. God is to be worshiped, not because he is a different kind of being, but because he is much farther along in his progression than we are.

¹⁹ God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good? Numbers 23:19

Can you see the contradiction here?

Does he progress or not?

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

If I understand LDS theology correctly, god was once just a man somewhere, just like me. This just logically makes no sense.  No beginning, no starting point and no first cause, just a long chain of endless gods going back for ever? This god does not sound like a very powerful god to me.

 

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

If I understand LDS theology correctly, god was once just a man somewhere, just like me. This just logically makes no sense.  No beginning, no starting point and no first cause, just a long chain of endless gods going back for ever? This god does not sound like a very powerful god to me.

As Paul taught, Jesus Christ entered the state of mortality in a state of weakness; and in that state of weakness he fought against -- and utterly defeated -- the combined forces of evil in a fair fight to the finish. In Mormonism, Christ fought and won this great battle in order to prove that love and goodness are more powerful than hate and evil. To the Latter-day Saints, Christ is a conquering hero who proved he is worthy of our worship, honor, praise and adoration by conquering evil through the exercise of mighty faith in God the Father. In Mormonism, the Latter-day Saints worship Christ because he proved, through great acts of heroism, he is worthy of worship.

In addition to the above, it is most significant to the Latter-day Saints that while he dwelt in mortality Christ said he would do only those things which he had seen the Father do before him. To us, this means that at one time the Father also dwelt in a state of mortality and that he too, in a fair fight to the finish, also waged war against -- and utterly defeated -- the combined forces of evil. So in Revelation 4, where we see God the Father seated on a blazing throne as he is being worshiped for being such a mighty and wonderful God, he is being worshiped as a conquering hero and not just because he was always perfect and never had to prove he could defeat evil while in a state of weakness. So the Latter-day Saints worship a God who chose, through his own free will and choice, to become the embodiment of all that is good. Meanwhile you appear to worship a God who is a sort of prisoner of his own perfection because he has no choice other than to be good. I, for one, will worship a God who chose to be good,  and has succeeded in doing so against very great odds, with much more enthusiasm than I would to worship a God who has no other choice but to be good.

 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

In the beginning, God created..................this would be the beginning of time.  the heaven............this would be space.   and the earth.............matter.  Genesis 1:1

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Rev, I'm just basing my take on what the good book says.  

When you are familiar with the way God talked to the Hebrews, you will see that the first verse is merely a description of the chapter - in other words it is a summary of what the chapter is going to be about - the chapter then goes on to describe how God went about this. If your interpretation was correct, then God would not say next that the earth was void and without form if it was already created and with final form in the first verse...

Again you are giving your interpretation of the Bible. God never says that the beginning was the beginning of time. I interpret it as the beginning of this solar system or world. The heavens don't really seem to be a description of the creation of space to me either, nor do they seem to be accomplished in the first verse as you believe, since the creation of the stars is described later. I interpret these verses as a description of the stars of our galaxy becoming visible on the earth as it began to form. Stars of of the many other galaxies were not visible from the earth - at least to the naked eye. You also have God using it as an allegory to creating the hosts of heaven. In other words in the scriptures the followers are the stars. You also have the problem that in Isaiah 65-6 God says He will make a new heaven and a new earth. Do you believe that He will recreate the universe at that time, and if so do you believe man will be on this new earth? If not, your interpretation breaks down.

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

As Paul taught, Jesus Christ entered the state of mortality  in a state of weakness;  and in that state of weakness he fought against -- and utterly defeated -- the combined forces of evil in a fair fight to the finish. In Mormonism, Christ fought and won this great battle in order to prove that love and goodness are more powerful than hate and evil. To the Latter-day Saints, Christ is a conquering hero who proved he is worthy of our worship, honor, praise and adoration by conquering evil through the exercise of mighty faith in God the Father. In Mormonism, the Latter-day Saints worship Christ because he proved, through great acts of heroism, he is worthy of worship.

In addition to the above, it is most significant to the Latter-day Saints that while he dwelt in mortality Christ said he would do only those things which he had seen the Father do before him. To us, this means that at one time the Father also dwelt in a state of mortality and that he too, in a fair fight to the finish, also waged war against -- and utterly defeated -- the combined forces of evil. So in Revelation 4, where we see God the Father seated on a blazing throne as he is being worshiped for being such a mighty and wonderful God, he is being worshiped as a conquering hero and not just because he was always perfect and never had to prove he could defeat evil while in a state of weakness. So the Latter-day Saints worship a God who chose, through his own free will and choice, to become the embodiment of all that is good. Meanwhile you appear to worship a God who is a sort of prisoner of his own perfection because he has no choice other than to be good. I, for one, will worship a God who chose to be good,  and has succeeded in doing so against very great odds, with much more enthusiasm than I would to worship a God who has no other choice but to be good.

 

Brilliant stuff.

Many through the ages have seen Christ as weak because he allowed himself to be crucified. Not even close.

[RevTestament]

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

In LDS theology, God is contingent rather than necessary. It appears that only existence itself is necessary. 

As to whether you feel such a being is worthy of worship, a lot of atheists have similar questions about God as described in the Bible. 

Maybe you could describe what you mean here. Being LDS I certainly feel God is necessary - at least to the extent that I need His knowledge to have a body, etc. It seems Satan has intelligence but is not able to have a body without the Father. 

[mfbukowski]

18 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Maybe you could describe what you mean here. Being LDS I certainly feel God is necessary - at least to the extent that I need His knowledge to have a body, etc. It seems Satan has intelligence but is not able to have a body without the Father. 

He is using those terms in another sense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency_(philosophy)

IN this context, I think what he is saying is that for us God is subject to natural law and therefore "contingent" or subject to, those laws.

I resolve the dilemma by believing that God created the natural laws and then voluntarily submits himself to them, perhaps like we might go on a diet and then make ourselves subject to the maxim "Thou shalt not eat chocolate cake".

In that way , God remains an actor as opposed to what is acted upon

The old categories of necessary and contingent do not apply really to God, imo.

That is changed in DC 93

Quote

 30 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.

The operative three most important words in the gospel- TO ACT FOR ITSELF

That removes God from the category of "contingent" and makes intelligence itself an active agent which CREATES.

Through his intelleigence God creates and defines worlds.  He is IN the universe and immanent, yet THE ACTOR, as one who acts.  Without that intelligence, there is no existence, because God defines matter into existence through intelligence.  And we do as well to a lesser- infinitely lesser degree.

IMO that is what that scripture says.  Totally amazing stuff that stupid old Joe made up- huh?

And perfectly in tune with all we know about quantum physics, the Copenhagen Interpretation etc.  AND process and other contemporary thologies. That old Joe with his extensive education and Harvard multiple degrees was onto something.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

Edited May 10, 2016 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, BCSpace said:

Official LDS doctrine summarized:

God the Father is an exalted, glorified, married Man (homo sapiens).

The Lorenzo Snow statement is also official LDS doctrine.

We are not polytheistic because we only worship (pray to) God the Father.

The scriptures encourage you to think that you can be equal with God (Philippians 2:5-6).

You will have the same power and authority as God (Revelation 3:21).

God will always be your God (John 20:17).

Etc. Etc.

I really like this.  Very straightforward explanation.

Even if there are many who disagree or have more sectarian leanings, this is pretty much Mormonism.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, snowflake said:

In the beginning, God created..................this would be the beginning of time.  the heaven............this would be space.   and the earth.............matter.  Genesis 1:1

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Rev, I'm just basing my take on what the good book says.  

No, you are basing this on your own interpretation of the Bible.

There is no more reason to think that the beginning refers to all time everywhere, or that heaven refers to all space everywhere, than there is to think they refer to a specific creationary period, not exclusive of other creationary periods.

It's a little arrogant to think this is the first and only time God has created the heavens and the earth, and Mormonism doesn't accept that according to the words of Moses.

[RevTestament]

13 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

So the KJV are the good to use versions?

Well, as I have said I don't consider the KJV to be absolutely perfect. It's translators mostly used the Masoretic Text for the OT, and I believe it suffered at least a handful of changes either intentionally or by unintentional scribal error. For instance it seems to leave out a verse which is contained in the Greek Septuagint in the Psalms.145. What's more this chapter is an alphabetic acrostic, so without the verse it is missing one letter of the alphabet from the acrostic, which is additional evidence that the verse was either intentionally deleted or unintentionally omitted by the masoretic scribes. see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_145

I prefer to use a Restored Name KJV for study, but one must realize that in its NT sometimes the restored name is a guess. The JST adds insight to the KJV, but here one must realize it is best used for interpretation than as a "correction" of what was initially written. For instance in Revelation 12, I believe the text properly reads "days" but its prophetic interpretation is "years" which is what Joseph Smith gives. The Lord had ample opportunity to correct the KJV through JS, but we simply don't have much besides the Book of Moses. His Matthew 25 can be arrived at by combining the original Matthew 25 with the Luke account to gain the original understanding of the full account. Without the Bible there is no stick of Judah to add to the stick of Joseph to become one. Again I tend to believe that the warnings of the Book of Mormon were already somewhat addressed by the Gentiles when they tossed aside their Catholic Bibles and translated the KJV directly from Hebrew and Greek. Unfortunately, they retained many of the errant doctrines such as the doctrine of original sin. The Catholic Bibles changed Genesis to read "she shall crush thy head," along with other either intentional or errant changes which seem to accommodate its doctrine, and yes, eventually went through more translating than the English KJV.

[Bobbieaware]

41 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Brilliant stuff.

Many through the ages have seen Christ as weak because he allowed himself to be crucified. Not even close.

Thanks, Mark. I could add that this process of intelligences choosing to conquer evil through faith -- in a fair fight where supreme faith and courage are required in order to overcome -- has been going on forever in one eternal round. And though it is now beyond our comprehension, we will one day come to realize that there never was a time when there was no heroic God who leads his people into the light by walking the walk and not just effortlessly talking the talk. It's no wonder the saved in heaven fervently shout praises to God for being worthy because he actually proves through heroism that he is worthy.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Maybe you could describe what you mean here. Being LDS I certainly feel God is necessary - at least to the extent that I need His knowledge to have a body, etc. It seems Satan has intelligence but is not able to have a body without the Father. 

See mfbukowski's comments. I'm referring to necessary and contingent from the cosmological argument, an argument often used by Christians for the existence of God. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. Things that begin to exist are not necessary, but contingent upon what caused them to exist. They argue that only God is uncaused, and is the "necessary" cause of everything that exists. 

In Mormon theology, in essence we're all uncreated (we've always existed in some form), but God was not always God. His Godhood was contingent upon other factors. We always existed but Gods were not always Gods. 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Gray

[mfbukowski]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

No, you are basing this on your own interpretation of the Bible.

There is no more reason to think that the beginning refers to all time everywhere, or that heaven refers to all space everywhere, than there is to think they refer to a specific creationary period, not exclusive of other creationary periods.

It's a little arrogant to think this is the first and only time God has created the heavens and the earth, and Mormonism doesn't accept that according to the words of Moses.

If it is outside of time there are no "beginnings".  The very word "beginning" implies something BEFORE the beginning.  But of course this is a translation anyway so all this goes out the window into the realm of semantics.  "The story begins...." means there was something BEFORE the story began

The reality is we cannot even imagine what it is to be outside of time.  We can't talk about it because language itself is temporal.  Every word is a succession of letters, every sentence is a succession of words.  "Before time" is a temporal phrase- there is no before without time. Our brain processes work in time.

"Outside time" is totally unintelligible, literally.  Time is one of the necessary categories without which we cannot even reason.

So if God is outside time, fine, but it is worthless to mention or even talk about.  That makes him a mystical experience which is unspeakable.  So let's shut up and contemplate our navels then.

Edited May 10, 2016 by mfbukowski

[RevTestament]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

D&C 130:10 Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher order of kingdoms will be made known;
11 And a white stone is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word.

Clearly there are kingdoms higher than the Celestial Kingdom.  Once we become Celestial beings (like God) it is time to learn of higher kingdoms.
And frankly, the only difference between the KFD and D&C 130 is a vote to accept them.

The "problem" with the KFD I suppose is that there is not one single version, but I agree, I consider it scripture or very close thereto - not so sure about the berosheit thing. 

However, I don't see how this scripture shows in any way that God is not omnipotent or that the Father "progresses." We have nothing to teach us that the Father inherits anything. Jesus inherits all the Father has, but the Father seems to already have everything...so He seems to have nothing to progress to with the possible exception of slowly including more as the Father. I don't see an order of kingdoms higher than the Father...He is the Most High.

Edited May 10, 2016 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

16 minutes ago, Gray said:

See mfbukowski's comments. I'm referring to necessary and contingent from the cosmological argument, an argument often used by Christians for the existence of God. Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. Things that begin to exist are not necessary, but contingent upon what caused them to exist. They argue that only God is uncaused, and is the "necessary" cause of everything that exists. 

In Mormon theology, in essence we're all uncreated (we've always existed in some form), but God was not always God. His Godhood was contingent upon other factors. We always existed but Gods were not always Gods. 

Ok, Thank you. We have the question of the first Father still to puzzle out. I suppose we elected Him our Father because of His greatness sometime in the distant worlds. But I plainly agree that Christ becoming the Father is contingent upon His obedience and strength of agency.

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Thanks, Mark. I could add that this process of intelligences choosing to conquer evil through faith -- in a fair fight where supreme faith and courage are required in order to overcome -- has been going on forever in one eternal round. And though it is now beyond our comprehension, we will one day come to realize that there never was a time when there was no heroic God who leads his people into the light by walking the walk and not just effortlessly talking the talk. It's no wonder the saved in heaven fervently shout praises to God for being worthy because he actually proves through heroism that he is worthy.

Opposition in all things, yin and yang, good and evil, etc etc.  Overcome by intelligent and courageous action.  Entropy conquered by intelligence.

Love this stuff!!  THIS is actually the essence of what they call "process philosophy".  EVERYTHING is an eternal round- an eternal process, all "temporal".  Heraclitus a Greek philosopher said that the world was like a great river, eternal in its flow yet ever changing.  You cannot step into the "same" river twice because the river itself has changed since the first time.  So it is eternal in its change.

When they make callings sometimes I have heard someone say "Well the only constant is change, so today we need to release....  and call......."

I wonder if they think for a second how profound that is!!

[snowflake]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

When you are familiar with the way God talked to the Hebrews, you will see that the first verse is merely a description of the chapter - in other words it is a summary of what the chapter is going to be about - the chapter then goes on to describe how God went about this. If your interpretation was correct, then God would not say next that the earth was void and without form if it was already created and with final form in the first verse...

Again you are giving your interpretation of the Bible. God never says that the beginning was the beginning of time. I interpret it as the beginning of this solar system or world. The heavens don't really seem to be a description of the creation of space to me either, nor do they seem to be accomplished in the first verse as you believe, since the creation of the stars is described later. I interpret these verses as a description of the stars of our galaxy becoming visible on the earth as it began to form. Stars of of the many other galaxies were not visible from the earth - at least to the naked eye. You also have God using it as an allegory to creating the hosts of heaven. In other words in the scriptures the followers are the stars. You also have the problem that in Isaiah 65-6 God says He will make a new heaven and a new earth. Do you believe that He will recreate the universe at that time, and if so do you believe man will be on this new earth? If not, your interpretation breaks down.

There simply has to be a beginning of time, and a beginning of all matter. Not simply because the Bible says that's how it happened but with science and logic as well. Philosophically, why do we have something here rather than nothing at all? If the universe had a beginning, then it must have a cause and therefore cannot be eternal. (Even if you say "this universe" or belive in other universes, this problem still exists). The "radiation explosion" discovered in the sixties by Bell(? can't remember) dealt a death blow  the universe being in a steady state.  The universe is expanding as well which was confirmed by the Hubble space telescope. This idea of matter and the universe being eternal is old science and has long been disregarded as incorrect. Einstein's theory of relativity suggests a beginning and Einstein himself bowed to the fact the universe and matter is not eternal.  So this endless progression of gods creating their own universe takes a lot of faith, (faith without a lot of evidence in my opinion).  There had to be a "first God" outside of the known "universe", outside of time space and matter. The LDS god is trapped in a body, in time, in space and has a god father, god grandfather...etc. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'm pretty sure the Lord said in scripture "I have always been." That must mean something.

[RevTestament]

51 minutes ago, snowflake said:

There simply has to be a beginning of time, and a beginning of all matter. Not simply because the Bible says that's how it happened but with science and logic as well.

Then I posit you are saying there has to be a beginning to God as well.

And I disagree. There doesn't have to be any known beginning to all matter or time. I strongly disagree with your conclusions that the Bible says so. You simply are stating so as a matter of your fitting God and the earth in your paradigm. I gave you several verses from the Bible which disagree with your paradigm, which you glaringly omit from your response.

While it does seem the law of entropy dictates a beginning and an eventual end to the universe, there are plenty of scientists which disagree with the big bang model of the universe. What's more even if you accept them, then it disagrees with your literalist interpretation of the Bible that the earth and universe were created 6000 years ago. They say they speed of galaxies and so forth dictate an age of at least thirteen billion years...

I personally see too many problems with the big bang model to readily accept it, and many plasma astrophysicists do not. When trying to account for "dark matter" and "dark energy" two Indian physicists came up with a new constant which suggests the universe has no known beginning.

Quote

Philosophically, why do we have something here rather than nothing at all? If the universe had a beginning, then it must have a cause and therefore cannot be eternal. (Even if you say "this universe" or belive in other universes, this problem still exists). The "radiation explosion" discovered in the sixties by Bell(? can't remember) dealt a death blow  the universe being in a steady state.  The universe is expanding as well which was confirmed by the Hubble space telescope. This idea of matter and the universe being eternal is old science and has long been disregarded as incorrect. Einstein's theory of relativity suggests a beginning and Einstein himself bowed to the fact the universe and matter is not eternal.  So this endless progression of gods creating their own universe takes a lot of faith, (faith without a lot of evidence in my opinion).  There had to be a "first God" outside of the known "universe", outside of time space and matter. The LDS god is trapped in a body, in time, in space and has a god father, god grandfather...etc. 

Not trapped in a body. I believe He chooses to reside in a body because that gives certain advantages that being a spirit doesn't have, but it doesn't mean His Spirit is limited to His body. You are simply projecting ancient philosophical ideas onto God, which came about with the likes of theologians like Aquinas. When Christ shall be called the Father will He have a body or not?

Edited May 10, 2016 by RevTestament

[Thinking]

32 minutes ago, snowflake said:

There simply has to be a beginning of time, and a beginning of all matter.

It's easy to think of time continuing indefinitely, but the human mind struggles with the thought that there was no beginning of time. If time can go "forward" (whatever that means) forever, why can't it extend "backward" forever also?

[VideoGameJunkie]

I can't wait until the veil is lifted and we can understand eternity better.

[RevTestament]

18 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I can't wait until the veil is lifted and we can understand eternity better.

Remember the veil was ripped with the death and resurrection of Christ.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

There simply has to be a beginning of time, and a beginning of all matter. 

There simply does not. That is a similar statement denying yours, and neither really makes sense.  

There is no such "thing" as "no-thing".  That should be obvious. The idea is even unimaginable.  To even imagine it we have to negate the idea of "thing" in the first place.  "Things" we understand- "no-thing" is simply putting a negative in front of existence itself.

 That there IS some-thing is also fairly obvious."Things" just are.  Further jibberish trying to frame these sentences as logical is literally non-sense - it doesn't make sense to even try to speak about these things in this way.  It is of no practical consequence to anyone or anything.

Hume deflated the idea of causation in such matters hundreds of years ago and his ideas still stand. http://www.iep.utm.edu/hume-cau/

These sorts of grammatical confusions are called "category errors".  They are like arguing that courage is red rather than blue.  Because we can use the words , that does not mean that the words strung together make sense.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Then I posit you are saying there has to be a beginning to God as well.

And I disagree. There doesn't have to be any known beginning to all matter or time. I strongly disagree with your conclusions that the Bible says so. You simply are stating so as a matter of your fitting God and the earth in your paradigm. I gave you several verses from the Bible which disagree with your paradigm, which you glaringly omit from your response.

While it does seem the law of entropy dictates a beginning and an eventual end to the universe, there are plenty of scientists which disagree with the big bang model of the universe. What's more even if you accept them, then it disagrees with your literalist interpretation of the Bible that the earth and universe were created 6000 years ago. They say they speed of galaxies and so forth dictate an age of at least thirteen billion years...

I personally see too many problems with the big bang model to readily accept it, and many plasma astrophysicists do not. When trying to account for "dark matter" and "dark energy" two Indian physicists came up with a new constant which suggests the universe has no known beginning.

Not trapped in a body. I believe He chooses to reside in a body because that gives certain advantages that being a spirit doesn't have, but it doesn't mean His Spirit is limited to His body. You are simply projecting ancient philosophical ideas onto God, which came about with the likes of theologians like Aquinas. When Christ shall be called the Father will He have a body or not?

Then we have the question of what came "before" the big bang, or "before" time

Some postulate the BB was a singularity exploding.  So did that singularity exist before time?  Is it singularities exploding all the way down?

It might as well be turtles or gods.

I like the God story better.   That's about what it amounts to.

It's not like there is a possible resolution to this problem either way- it's just picking the story you like better in the long run.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Opposition in all things, yin and yang, good and evil, etc etc.  Overcome by intelligent and courageous action.  Entropy conquered by intelligence.

Love this stuff!!  THIS is actually the essence of what they call "process philosophy".  EVERYTHING is an eternal round- an eternal process, all "temporal".  Heraclitus a Greek philosopher said that the world was like a great river, eternal in its flow yet ever changing.  You cannot step into the "same" river twice because the river itself has changed since the first time.  So it is eternal in its change.

When they make callings sometimes I have heard someone say "Well the only constant is change, so today we need to release....  and call......."

I wonder if they think for a second how profound that is!!

Do unchangeable principles of eternal truth have a role to play in process philosophy? Or do even the principles of truth change? I'm wondering how close process philosophy is to the theology of the Restored Gospel.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Bobbieaware