Mormon Beliefs on Creation: the Earth, the Universe?

[TOmNossor2]

A Mormon friend and I have been discussing the concept of God in Mormon vs. Catholic thought lately. He is very much opposed to the God of classical theism. He holds that space and time have existed eternally. Do you believe the same, Tom?

When I showed my friend that Thomas Aquinas never posited creation ex nihilo for his argument for an unmoved mover, he was blown away. A lot of people don’t understand that Aquinas isn’t simply making an argument for the first domino in a chronological chain of events, but an eternal acting principle that is necessary at every instant to sustain the universe. It isn’t a god that just got the ball rolling then went off somewhere else.

I believe what we experience of space and time is all created by God. Some of the pre-“creation ex nihilo” thought speaks of creating what is from what is not and the Bible speaks of, “All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.” To me this points to the idea that all that we experience is what God made.
Since I experience Space and Time, I believe God created it.

That being said, I believe God “entered” into time in a certain way not connected with bodily incarnation on the earth.

And God does not interact with our time quite like we do but He does have “God time” of some sort (Ostler dragged me kicking and screaming to this view, but it is my best guess - I certainly could be WRONG."

Creation ex nihilo was embraced by Aquinas, but he did not build upon it in his prove of God’s existence based on the existence of creation. If that is what you are saying that that is my recollection.

I think the flaw in the absoluteness of Aquinas’ argument is that God is not nothing. He has no cause.
In my thought God, eternal intelligences, and eternal matter are all unmoved until God acts to move. Does that dethrone God as the singular and supreme unmoved mover? One could say this, and I am sympathetic to it.
There are some requirements in Aquinas’ thought that God is “absolutely simple.” Clearly the unmoved in my thought is not “simple and indivisible.” But I think there are more problems with the idea that God is absolutely simple than that there is a volume of unmoved, that is then moved by God through creation (and continual lending of “concurring power” which is a place in which Aquinas and I would agree).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor2]

Also, this article on the trinity by Feser shows that Ostler is mistaken in claiming that the doctrine of the trinity is incoherent. What I would give to have them meet and debate.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/02/trinity-and-mystery.html

I embrace a Trinity. There are concepts of Trinity that are incoherent. There is a strain of Catholic thought called “via negativa” that is used to define what the Trinity is not. It seems to me that sometimes this “via negativa” is done because “what the Trinity” is will not produce a logically coherent whole.
I am a Social Trinitarian. I believe that is a coherent view.
I believe Sabellianism and Arianism are coherent views in some of their simpler manifestations.
I believe some “via negativa” are not logical.
I remember reading that blog post I think. I do not remember my thoughts.
I have written about the Trinity here under TOmNossor (without the 2).
I have long believed that God is one because the Trinity is one AND God is one because God the Father is one. My views are not much changed though I probably have a LITTLE more oneness from God the Father than I once did due to some of my friends writings about the Bible and the ECF (A Catholic would and must say, "There is only One who is unbegotten and non-proceeding).
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor2]

Just a little correction. The Catholic Church has never taught that unbaptized infants go to hell. And the concept of Limbo (not even close to hell) has never been a doctrine, but rather is a theological theory created to explain what happens to an innocent person born into original sin who is unbaptized. I believe the offical stance is that we don’t know but commend them to the all-merciful God in whom we hope and pray for their salvation. I don’t know of anyone who believes they are lost.

So you are saying that I should not reject Catholicism because of the simplistic formula I offered? I agree with you!!!
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor2]

So this is now very confusing. “God was once as we are now…” Again, was he God who became man so that he could become God again?

The simplest way for a non-LDS to understand what I am saying is to ponder on this:
In Catholic thought, God the Son was God before He was born in Jerusalem (there was no body of flesh and bone associated with God the Son at this time). God the Son was God as He walked the streets of Jerusalem (there was a body of flesh and bone associated with God the Son when he walked the streets of Jerusalem). God the Son was God after He ascended to Heaven (and there is still a body of flesh and bone associated with God the son).

I believe God the Father was God before He was born or ??? in some ???
I believe God the Father was God when He ??? on the streets (or ???) of ???
I believe God the Father is God now.

God the Father received a body like God the Son did. God the Father’s divinity did not cease and …
Now as a LDS I do not embrace the Catholic thought of hypostatic union. Indeed as a LDS there is not so much conflict between what is divine and what is human that a hypostatic union must be postulated. If you look at the first 4-5 centuries of Christian wrangling much of the problem is that Jesus Christ could not be God AND die/walk/thirst/… Instead LDS must have a different concept of divinity to explain why I am not divine (I am not) and Jesus Christ is divine. Ostler’s paper touches on a lot of this.

And are you saying that God was, in the beginning, different than all of the other “intelligences” that coexisted with him from eternity. And if he was, how so?

Our LDS scripture can be read two ways. There was one intelligence that was greater than all the individual intelligences OR there was one intelligence that was greater than ALL the other intelligences put together. I read it the second way. This creates a huge gap between God and man that has huge consequences, but not necessarily an ontological/typological gap.
We are effectively nothing without Him, and He is still omnipotent.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

So you are saying that I should not reject Catholicism because of the simplistic formula I offered? I agree with you!!!
Charity, TOm

 

[kimg901]

Tom, your lds beliefs can be read in more than just 2 ways. Ive been in Utah for 23 years now and ive been a mormon at 1 time and believe me, its all a load of whatever. Your old prophets words mean nothing when questioned about their revelations and becoming a god is what your taught. You dont believe in the bible unless its translated correctly but yet your church has used the KJ bible for decades until the mormons came out with the mormon edition of the KJ. You are trully lost and decieved by satan if you can follow “another gospel” that has never been able to be verified by anyone but mormon scholars. Its all a lie Tom that you and millions of others are/will suffer for.

 

[truthseeker32]

Tom, your lds beliefs can be read in more than just 2 ways. Ive been in Utah for 23 years now and ive been a mormon at 1 time and believe me, its all a load of whatever. Your old prophets words mean nothing when questioned about their revelations and becoming a god is what your taught. You dont believe in the bible unless its translated correctly but yet your church has used the KJ bible for decades until the mormons came out with the mormon edition of the KJ. You are trully lost and decieved by satan if you can follow “another gospel” that has never been able to be verified by anyone but mormon scholars. Its all a lie Tom that you and millions of others are/will suffer for.

In Tom’s defense, of course only Mormons verify Mormonism, just as only Christians verify Christianity, and only Muslims verify Islam. Can you imagine how silly it would be for someone to say “I am not a Christian, but I do believe in Christianity.” Do you reject the divinity of Christ because only Christians verify this doctrine?

 

[kimg901]

In Tom’s defense, of course only Mormons verify Mormonism, just as only Christians verify Christianity, and only Muslims verify Islam. Can you imagine how silly it would be for someone to say “I am not a Christian, but I do believe in Christianity.” Do you reject the divinity of Christ because only Christians verify this doctrine?

I should have clarified myself on the mormonism. Alot of other people other than mormons have studied mormonism and they cannot find anything that is credible. There are quite a few here in Utah that have lived here their whole lives. Of course I dont reject it. Its part of our core foundation.

 

[SteveVH]

So you are saying that I should not reject Catholicism because of the simplistic formula I offered? I agree with you!!!
Charity, TOm

Not simplistic. Just incorrect.

 

[SteveVH]

The simplest way for a non-LDS to understand what I am saying is to ponder on this:
In Catholic thought, God the Son was God before He was born in Jerusalem (there was no body of flesh and bone associated with God the Son at this time). God the Son was God as He walked the streets of Jerusalem (there was a body of flesh and bone associated with God the Son when he walked the streets of Jerusalem). God the Son was God after He ascended to Heaven (and there is still a body of flesh and bone associated with God the son).

I believe God the Father was God before He was born or ??? in some ???
I believe God the Father was God when He ??? on the streets (or ???) of ???
I believe God the Father is God now.

God the Father received a body like God the Son did. God the Father’s divinity did not cease and …
Now as a LDS I do not embrace the Catholic thought of hypostatic union. Indeed as a LDS there is not so much conflict between what is divine and what is human that a hypostatic union must be postulated. If you look at the first 4-5 centuries of Christian wrangling much of the problem is that Jesus Christ could not be God AND die/walk/thirst/… Instead LDS must have a different concept of divinity to explain why I am not divine (I am not) and Jesus Christ is divine. Ostler’s paper touches on a lot of this.

Our LDS scripture can be read two ways. There was one intelligence that was greater than all the individual intelligences OR there was one intelligence that was greater than ALL the other intelligences put together. I read it the second way. This creates a huge gap between God and man that has huge consequences, but not necessarily an ontological/typological gap.
We are effectively nothing without Him, and He is still omnipotent.
Charity, TOm

Part of the problem I have had in discussions with Mormons is the fact that they do not distinguish between “divinity” and “humanity”. You’re pretty much the first. From what I have gathered, God and man are of the same species, if you will. Man has the power within himself to become divine through the process of progression. In other words, God is just a man with a lot of experience.

You seem to be saying that God was different than the other “intelligences” from the beginning. This is not something I have ever heard from a Mormon. So, rather than progressing to the divine state that God now enjoys, do you believe he has always possessed his divine state?

Thanks

 

[Stephen168]

I offer the above because there are three senses of universe that are appropriate here.

1. All that exists, including God. In this case the universe is eternal because God is eternal and God didn’t create God He just exists.
2. All that exists, not including God. In this case the universe in Catholic thought is created ex nihilo by God, but in LDS thought it is “organized” in the act of divine creation.
   All that we as humans perceive with our senses and instruments and … In this case God created our universe in both Catholic and LDS thought.

I don’t understand how the third sense fits with the first two.

1. All that exists, including God. God did not create all that exists. God is not transcendent. Mormon thought.
2. All that exists, not including God. God created everything (ex nihilo). God is transcendent. Catholic thought.

One and two cover all possibilities.

1. All that is which we perceive with our senses.
2. All that is which we cannot perceive with our senses.

Three and four cover all possibilities.

Your three doesn’t make sense to me without a four and even then seems to be referring to something different.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think this is a frequent observation and it is one of the more difficult places in which Ostler and others depart from the majority of folks in the pew.
The Father is the Fount of Divinity. The Son and the Holy Spirit are eternally in communion with Him. They possess the divine properties from eternity AND were thus involved in the creation of the known universe.
The eternal intelligences that existed other than Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were not in communion with Them.

The folks in the pew are following Mormon doctrine. Ostler is following the Mormon tradition of making up whatever you like and calling it “truth”.

Ontologically there is similarity, but the disconnect from the past will FOREVER be a truth. Through the work of Father, Son (atonement) and Holy Spirit we may be brought into this communion, but it will still be true that in the past we were not part of the communion AND there is no past in which they were not in communion. We rebel; they never have and never will.
The schism between the members of the Trinity and mankind is this gap. The universe was created and Christ died to bridge this gap, but God’s action through the atonement and … is necessary to make this happen.

So, I reject the idea that God the Father is any other guy AND that God the Son and God the Spirit are just any other guys.
Charity, TOm

If you are one with God, how are you disconnected from the past?

If God is omnipresent, does God have a past?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Do you reject the divinity of Christ because only Christians verify this doctrine?

I’d say this is the Mormon paradigm.

 

[TOmNossor2]

Part of the problem I have had in discussions with Mormons is the fact that they do not distinguish between “divinity” and “humanity”. You’re pretty much the first. From what I have gathered, God and man are of the same species, if you will. Man has the power within himself to become divine through the process of progression. In other words, God is just a man with a lot of experience.

You seem to be saying that God was different than the other “intelligences” from the beginning. This is not something I have ever heard from a Mormon. So, rather than progressing to the divine state that God now enjoys, do you believe he has always possessed his divine state?

Thanks

The idea that the atonement of Jesus Christ is not absolutely necessary has IMO never been taught.
I have on the Internet seen non-LDS suggest that LDS believe that future divinity is merely the maturing of the youthful man into the mature god. I believe such a position has been offered by some LDS in isolation from questions about the importance of Christ’s atonement.

That being said, Ostler’s essay does not take the idea of deification in isolation from other much more central truths.

Abraham 3:19 says:
And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

God’s possession of this intelligence “greater than they all” (by which I take it to mean greater than the sum of all the others) explains what an eternity ago distinguished God from other eternal intelligences.

That being said there is not ontological bridge to cross. With God the Father’s concurring power, with God the Son’s atonement, and with the light and knowledge showered upon us by the Holy Spirit we are called into a communion with the Trinity. We will still recognize that it was at the initiation of God and His continued efforts that allowed us to progress, but “the only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

Anyway, in the essay I linked, you have at least one other LDS who offers some similar thoughts, but as I mentioned before LDS thought does not result in logical folks embracing Arianism because they reasoned that God the Son who walked the earth simply could not be divine because that is not what divinity is.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor2]

TOmNossor2;10084129:

I offer the above because there are three senses of universe that are appropriate here.

1. All that exists, including God. In this case the universe is eternal because God is eternal and God didn’t create God He just exists.
2. All that exists, not including God. In this case the universe in Catholic thought is created ex nihilo by God, but in LDS thought it is “organized” in the act of divine creation.
3. All that we as humans perceive with our senses and instruments and … In this case God created our universe in both Catholic and LDS thought.

I don’t understand how the third sense fits with the first two.

1. All that exists, including God. God did not create all that exists. God is not transcendent. Mormon thought.
2. All that exists, not including God. God created everything (ex nihilo). God is transcendent. Catholic thought.

One and two cover all possibilities.

1. All that is which we perceive with our senses.
2. All that is which we cannot perceive with our senses.

Three and four cover all possibilities.

Your three doesn’t make sense to me without a four and even then seems to be referring to something different.

I could say that the universe is properly defined as all that exists. I would then be consistent in saying that in Catholic thought the universe is eternal because God exists and exists eternally.
I could say that the universe is properly defined as all that exists outside of God. In which case LDS still posit an eternal universe, but Catholics posit a universe created ex nihilo by the act of an eternal God.

The third piece I offered was because I believe that God’s act of creation in LDS thought was performed upon things that possessed existence (eternal things), but that we as mere humans can only interact with the things created by God (with some exceptions like when God chooses to reveal Himself to us).
That being said, the third piece is not so important since I think universe is better defined in one of the first two senses.

If you have ever gotten into discussion with atheists about multi-verses then it becomes important to define ones terms.

While I do not like the way you put it, I think your #1 and #2 are fairly accurate. I am sympathetic to the desire to believe in a God who created ex nihilo.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor2]

TOmNossor2;10084126:

Ontologically there is similarity, but the disconnect from the past will FOREVER be a truth. Through the work of Father, Son (atonement) and Holy Spirit we may be brought into this communion, but it will still be true that in the past we were not part of the communion AND there is no past in which they were not in communion. We rebel; they never have and never will.
The schism between the members of the Trinity and mankind is this gap. The universe was created and Christ died to bridge this gap, but God’s action through the atonement and … is necessary to make this happen.

So, I reject the idea that God the Father is any other guy AND that God the Son and God the Spirit are just any other guys.
Charity, TOm

If you are one with God, how are you disconnected from the past?

I think I said that poorly.
My point is that St. Peter, invited into communion with God, will be divine. He will possess the great making properties of divinity due to his inclusion into the life of God. His “membership” in the Social communion (remember I am a Social Trinitarian) will not be some second class membership.

That being said, it will still be true that St. Peter was a sinner who required the atonement to become divine.
God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit did not require the atonement (or other parts of God’s plan) to be eternally divine.

Just as the eleventh hour servant should not be made to feel less when the rewards of the landowner are offered, the indwelling love within the social communion does not attempt to make divine former sinners remember their sins.

If God is omnipresent, does God have a past?

I mentioned that in my understanding God does have some past and some future. I reject the omnitemporality of God because I believe the consequences of such a view are too great. I could be wrong.
I embrace God’s omnipresence wholeheartedly BTW.
Charity, TOm

 

[pmccombs]

(I’m not understanding) Can someone explain what the LDS belief is on how the earth was created. How and/or who created it?

Mormons believe that Jesus created the Earth by the power of the “priesthood” under the direction of God, the Father. For Mormons, the priesthood is God’s power and authority.

How and/or who created the universe?

Mormons are less interested in this question and do not seem to have a definitive answer for it. They believe that God created “worlds without number,” however. It is not uncommon for Mormons to believe that everything in the Universe is of God’s creation.

I have some Mormon acquaintances who hold a view of God that is fairly orthodox in nature; that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and so forth. These Mormons believe that God created the Universe, albeit from existing material. Another Mormon theology casts God in a more finite context, and it is my opinion that these competing views have at times come into conflict. In current Mormon thought, the Infinite, all-powerful God of the Universe is more favored over the more finite, limited God.

Can all Gods be traced back to “one” God? Was there an original God?

While Mormons (especially early Mormons) have speculated about the origins of God and the possibility of other gods, their current theology posits that there is only One God with whom we have anything to do and about whom any knowledge is necessary. This is still an open question in Mormonism.

What is the biblical understanding for the questions above?

Mormons believe that their understanding of these matters represents additional revelation not clearly recorded in the Bible.

 

[Fatboys]

Hey Tom it has been a while since I have seen your posts as well. I don’t even remember what forum we were on. Maybe fairs. But glad you are here. I have not posted for a few days here. I get to addicted at trying to answer their questions. Which really doesn’t help them understand any differently. I just think if I can explain it a little differently the light will turn on for them.
I have enjoyed your posts, and agree with most of what you say. You do have a better way of explaining points than I do. For I have tried to say the same things, but just whizzes over their heads.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think I said that poorly.
My point is that St. Peter, invited into communion with God, will be divine. He will possess the great making properties of divinity due to his inclusion into the life of God. His “membership” in the Social communion (remember I am a Social Trinitarian) will not be some second class membership.

Considering that Mormons deny the Trinity, how are you defining “social Trinitarian”?

That being said, it will still be true that St. Peter was a sinner who required the atonement to become divine.

Why?

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit did not require the atonement (or other parts of God’s plan) to be eternally divine.

I don’t even know where to begin.

?

Just as the eleventh hour servant should not be made to feel less when the rewards of the landowner are offered, the indwelling love within the social communion does not attempt to make divine former sinners remember their sins.

Huh?

I mentioned that in my understanding God does have some past and some future. I reject the omnitemporality of God because I believe the consequences of such a view are too great. I could be wrong.
I embrace God’s omnipresence wholeheartedly BTW.
Charity, TOm

This reflects a belief in a God who exists in time, and therefore is not the Creator.

 

[Fatboys]

Considering that Mormons deny the Trinity, how are you defining “social Trinidadian”?

Why?

I don’t even know where to begin.

?

Huh?

This reflects a belief in a God who exists in time, and therefore is not the Creator.

We don’t call it the trinity, but it is a trinity. That is it includes the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost. All three become the Godhead, and become one God under the power of the Father.