Question about LDS Teaching on Eternal Elements

[Robert_in_SD]

Hello all:

A regular LDS poster stated, in responding to a different thread question, that one must remember in LDS theology God did not create the “eternal” elements, but instead formed them into the Earth.

My question is: “Where did these eternal elements come from?”

To me, it seems that the existence of created eternal material (a Universe with elements) that pre-existed the Creator God is a contradiction. Perhaps I am missing an important aspect of LDS theology. I would like to know the LDS explanation.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Tarquin]

Joseph Smith seems to have relied heavily on Thomas Dicks’ The Philosophy of a Future State for some of his central doctrines relating to eternal existence and eternal progression. (archive.org/details/thephilosophyofa00dickuoft)

For Mormons, matter came from nowhere. It always was, is, and always will be. Nothing can be annihilated. That, too, is found in Dicks. They do have a problem when they make claims like “everything is matter, but some things are of a more fine matter,” Spirit is matter, but is more refined." The fact is, there are many immaterial things that are real, that do in fact exist, such as: Platonic ideals, mathematics generally, imaginary and complex numbers specifically, time, space.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Thanks Tarquin and Tsuzuki. Much appreciated. Thanks for the link Tarquin.

 

[gazelam]

Joseph Smith seems to have relied heavily on Thomas Dicks’ The Philosophy of a Future State for some of his central doctrines relating to eternal existence and eternal progression. (archive.org/details/thephilosophyofa00dickuoft)

For Mormons, matter came from nowhere. It always was, is, and always will be. Nothing can be annihilated. That, too, is found in Dicks.

Except that it’s not found in Dick…

None but that Eternal Mind which counts the number of the stars, which called them from nothing into existence, and arranged them in the respective stations… (Thomas Dick, The Philosophy of a Future State (New York: R. Shoyer, 1831) p. 192)

They do have a problem when they make claims like “everything is matter, but some things are of a more fine matter,” Spirit is matter, but is more refined." The fact is, there are many immaterial things that are real, that do in fact exist, such as: Platonic ideals, mathematics generally, imaginary and complex numbers specifically, time, space.

I personally have never heard of an LDS doctrine that states everything is matter. Do you have a source for that? Spirit is believed to be matter.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Except that it’s not found in Dick…

None but that Eternal Mind which counts the number of the stars, which called them from nothing into existence, and arranged them in the respective stations… (Thomas Dick, The Philosophy of a Future State (New York: R. Shoyer, 1831) p. 192)

I personally have never heard of an LDS doctrine that states everything is matter. Do you have a source for that? Spirit is believed to be matter.

Welcome gazelam. Would you please spread some light on the topic from the LDS perspective. First, is it true that the LDS Church teaches that there are Eternal Elements, and that God did not create ex nihilo, but simply rearranged matter. If so, how is God the Creator, as opposed to the Arranger of previously existing matter? And where did the pre-existing matter come from? And how do you square that with traditional monotheistic understanding?

Peace,
Robert

 

[gazelam]

Welcome gazelam.

Hey Robert

Would you please spread some light on the topic from the LDS perspective.

I am a simple person, but I’ll see what I can do.

First, is it true that the LDS Church teaches that there are Eternal Elements, and that God did not create ex nihilo, but simply rearranged matter.

Pretty much as you say but perhaps stated a bit differently.

D&C 93:33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy

LDS believe that the creation described in Genesis consisted of Christ (under the direction of God the Father) organizing the Earth from material chaos into a livable planet. Scholars of Hebrew generally acknowledge that the Hebrew text in Genesis describes the creation in such terms.

Stanley L. Jaki, a Catholic priest of the Benedictine Order, stated:

The caution which is in order about taking the [Hebrew] verb bara in the sense of creation out of nothing is no less needed in reference to the [English] word creation. Nothing is more natural, and unadvised, at the same time, than to use the word as if it has always denoted creation out of nothing. In its basic etymological origin the word creation meant the purely natural process of growing or of making something to grow. This should be obvious by a mere recall of the [Latin] verb crescere. The crescent moon [derived from crescere] is not creating but merely growing. The expression ex nihilo or de nihilo had to be fastened, from around 200 A.D. on, by Christian theologians on the verb creare to convey unmistakably a process, strict creation, which only God can perform. Only through the long-standing use of those very Latin expressions, creare ex nihilo and creatio ex nihilo, could the English words to create and creation take on the meaning which excludes pre-existing matter. Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (Royal Oak, Mich.: Real View Books, 1998), 5-6.

If so, how is God the Creator, as opposed to the Arranger of previously existing matter?

As you can see from the paragraph I just posted, the original meaning of “Creator” means to improve on something else.

And where did the pre-existing matter come from?

I do not know.

And how do you square that with traditional monotheistic understanding?

It seems to me that orthodox Christians in an attempt to ascribe as much power to God as possible invented a theology that is not contained in the Bible. I see this as a noble, but mistaken attempt to glorify God.

Peace,
Robert

Same to you!!

Here are a couple of links on creation ex nihilo from an LDS viewpoint that will keep you busy for a while.

fairmormon.org/answers/Mormon_view_of_the_creation/Creatio_ex_nihilo

fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/reviews-of-the-new-mormon-challenge/the-doctrine-of-creation-ex-nihilo-was-created-out-of-nothing

And here is the entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism on matter: eom.byu.edu/index.php/Matter

I hope this helps…

 

[Tarquin]

Except that it’s not found in Dick…

Apologies for the confusion. “For Mormons, matter came from nowhere. It always was, is, and always will be. Nothing can be annihilated. That, too, is found in Dicks.” The third sentence was a comment on the second sentence. The first sentence was a separate assertion. Hence:
Mormons believe that matter did not “come from” anywhere, because it has always existed.
Dicks says nothing can be annihilated, which belief Mormons also hold (or held).

I personally have never heard of an LDS doctrine that states everything is matter. Do you have a source for that? Spirit is believed to be matter.

I think you mean can I give a name and date, or a link to a paper. Not without more digging than I care to do at the moment. As I do a brief survey, it seems that the focus of the statement I was thinking of, is that spirit is matter, not necessarily that everything is matter.

Nevertheless, that seems to present a problem. If there are things which are neither spirit-matter nor matter-matter, what are they, and how do they relate to matter? What is their source, how can they exist as immaterial things? From matter comes more matter. Matter does not produce the transcendentals. So what is the source of transcendentals? Are they independent of God, so that God has to make effort to obtain them? Are they superior to God (and gods and mankind), or is God (and gods and mankind) superior to them? In Mormon cosmology, too many things exist at once, too many mutually independent things. A chaos of disharmony that must be forced, if it can, into some arbitrary “Plan” - but who is to say whether another God at the opposite end of the universe has a different Plan?

If God is matter, then God lacks Oneness.
If there is a oneness in the very act of being, or in anything else, then that thing is superior to God. If truth is a unity, undivisible, unrestricted, absolute, then truth is superior to God. So is God superior to truth, or truth superior to God - in Mormon theology/cosmology - and how? and, why is it that way? (I’m thinking out loud, but it would be . . . something . . . to listen to a Mormon trying to explain these things, as (in my opinion) Mormons do not have a very developed, nor a consistent, theology.

If even God himself is the product of evolving matter (“intelligence,” “spirit,” “body,” “resurrected being,” etc.), then when, where, and how are such things as self-awareness, conscience, reasoning, compassion, and so on, introduced? I’m sure no one will argue that a biochemical reaction produces logic, nor that parents (Gods) somehow put lots of compassion into one child (Jesus), but less compassion in another child (Judas), nor that matter can be imprinted with such things.

 

[gazelam]

Apologies for the confusion. “For Mormons, matter came from nowhere. It always was, is, and always will be. Nothing can be annihilated. That, too, is found in Dicks.” The third sentence was a comment on the second sentence. The first sentence was a separate assertion. Hence:
Mormons believe that matter did not “come from” anywhere, because it has always existed.
Dicks says nothing can be annihilated, which belief Mormons also hold (or held).

I think you mean can I give a name and date, or a link to a paper. Not without more digging than I care to do at the moment. As I do a brief survey, it seems that the focus of the statement I was thinking of, is that spirit is matter, not necessarily that everything is matter.

Nevertheless, that seems to present a problem. If there are things which are neither spirit-matter nor matter-matter, what are they, and how do they relate to matter? What is their source, how can they exist as immaterial things? From matter comes more matter. Matter does not produce the transcendentals. So what is the source of transcendentals? Are they independent of God, so that God has to make effort to obtain them? Are they superior to God (and gods and mankind), or is God (and gods and mankind) superior to them? In Mormon cosmology, too many things exist at once, too many mutually independent things. A chaos of disharmony that must be forced, if it can, into some arbitrary “Plan” - but who is to say whether another God at the opposite end of the universe has a different Plan?

If God is matter, then God lacks Oneness.
If there is a oneness in the very act of being, or in anything else, then that thing is superior to God. If truth is a unity, undivisible, unrestricted, absolute, then truth is superior to God. So is God superior to truth, or truth superior to God - in Mormon theology/cosmology - and how? and, why is it that way? (I’m thinking out loud, but it would be . . . something . . . to listen to a Mormon trying to explain these things, as (in my opinion) Mormons do not have a very developed, nor a consistent, theology.

If even God himself is the product of evolving matter (“intelligence,” “spirit,” “body,” “resurrected being,” etc.), then when, where, and how are such things as self-awareness, conscience, reasoning, compassion, and so on, introduced? I’m sure no one will argue that a biochemical reaction produces logic, nor that parents (Gods) somehow put lots of compassion into one child (Jesus), but less compassion in another child (Judas), nor that matter can be imprinted with such things.

These questions you raise are well above my level of understanding and I wouldn’t even know where to go to get a basic understanding as to why they’re important when it comes to the nature of God and then what issues are solved or are created by LDS theology. Are these questions from a branch of classic philosophy? I’m guessing there are one or more professors at the BYU philosophy department that have dealt with this, but that’s speculation on my part. Take care.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Nevertheless, that seems to present a problem. If there are things which are neither spirit-matter nor matter-matter, what are they, and how do they relate to matter? What is their source, how can they exist as immaterial things? From matter comes more matter. Matter does not produce the transcendentals. So what is the source of transcendentals? Are they independent of God, so that God has to make effort to obtain them? Are they superior to God (and gods and mankind), or is God (and gods and mankind) superior to them? In Mormon cosmology, too many things exist at once, too many mutually independent things. A chaos of disharmony that must be forced, if it can, into some arbitrary “Plan” - but who is to say whether another God at the opposite end of the universe has a different Plan?

There is nothing that is immaterial for LDS. There is nothing transcendental, as in, transcending the laws of physics, and/ or transcending creation.

The power and authority to command things, such as existing matter, comes from the Mormon priesthood and worthiness to use that priesthood.

For Mormons there is one Plan, and it is universally repeated. Any other Gods are Gods because they’ve gone through the same process of progression and therefore it is self evident that they are on board with the Plan.

If God is matter, then God lacks Oneness.
If there is a oneness in the very act of being, or in anything else, then that thing is superior to God. If truth is a unity, undivisible, unrestricted, absolute, then truth is superior to God. So is God superior to truth, or truth superior to God - in Mormon theology/cosmology - and how? and, why is it that way? (I’m thinking out loud, but it would be . . . something . . . to listen to a Mormon trying to explain these things, as (in my opinion) Mormons do not have a very developed, nor a consistent, theology.

I agree, and have not seen that this problem has been addressed in Mormon thought. They seem perfectly content with a God who is subject to “eternal principles” and is not omni anything.

If even God himself is the product of evolving matter (“intelligence,” “spirit,” “body,” “resurrected being,” etc.), then when, where, and how are such things as self-awareness, conscience, reasoning, compassion, and so on, introduced? I’m sure no one will argue that a biochemical reaction produces logic, nor that parents (Gods) somehow put lots of compassion into one child (Jesus), but less compassion in another child (Judas), nor that matter can be imprinted with such things.

In Mormon thought all people are eternal, infinite beings. The “intelligence” stage includes awareness, conscienc, reasoning, etc. They don’t care much about the details. Anything not known or unanswerable now, is for them, not relevant to the job at hand. That is, to pass the test of their earthly existence in order that they may progress to godhood.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hey Robert

I am a simple person, but I’ll see what I can do.

Pretty much as you say but perhaps stated a bit differently.

D&C 93:33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy

LDS believe that the creation described in Genesis consisted of Christ (under the direction of God the Father) organizing the Earth from material chaos into a livable planet. Scholars of Hebrew generally acknowledge that the Hebrew text in Genesis describes the creation in such terms.

Stanley L. Jaki, a Catholic priest of the Benedictine Order, stated:

The caution which is in order about taking the [Hebrew] verb bara in the sense of creation out of nothing is no less needed in reference to the [English] word creation. Nothing is more natural, and unadvised, at the same time, than to use the word as if it has always denoted creation out of nothing. In its basic etymological origin the word creation meant the purely natural process of growing or of making something to grow. This should be obvious by a mere recall of the [Latin] verb crescere. The crescent moon [derived from crescere] is not creating but merely growing. The expression ex nihilo or de nihilo had to be fastened, from around 200 A.D. on, by Christian theologians on the verb creare to convey unmistakably a process, strict creation, which only God can perform. Only through the long-standing use of those very Latin expressions, creare ex nihilo and creatio ex nihilo, could the English words to create and creation take on the meaning which excludes pre-existing matter. Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (Royal Oak, Mich.: Real View Books, 1998), 5-6.

As you can see from the paragraph I just posted, the original meaning of “Creator” means to improve on something else.

I do not know.

It seems to me that orthodox Christians in an attempt to ascribe as much power to God as possible invented a theology that is not contained in the Bible. I see this as a noble, but mistaken attempt to glorify God.

Same to you!!

Here are a couple of links on creation ex nihilo from an LDS viewpoint that will keep you busy for a while.

fairmormon.org/answers/Mormon_view_of_the_creation/Creatio_ex_nihilo

fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/reviews-of-the-new-mormon-challenge/the-doctrine-of-creation-ex-nihilo-was-created-out-of-nothing

And here is the entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism on matter: eom.byu.edu/index.php/Matter

I hope this helps…

Thanks Gazelam. The LDS perspective seems to me insufficient. It begs the question from where did the chaos come? What was it’s cause, and did that cause have yet another cause, etc. And if there is a greater, more powerful cause than the LDS Father-God, would that more powerful cause not be more worthy of adoration, since it holds the power of Creation ex nihilo whereas the LDS Father-God does not?

Stated another way: If matter is eternal, and God himself consists of eternal matter, then God cannot be the un-caused cause–i.e. the ultimate Creator. Thus he cannot be the One God necessary under any rational view of monotheism. He is at best a penultimate god; a creature, albeit a creature of immense intellect and power from our human perspective. I don’t think this is what LDS theology intends. Doesn’t the LDS faith profess itself to be a monotheist religion?

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Stanley L. Jaki, a Catholic priest of the Benedictine Order, stated:

The caution which is in order about taking the [Hebrew] verb bara in the sense of creation out of nothing is no less needed in reference to the [English] word creation. Nothing is more natural, and unadvised, at the same time, than to use the word as if it has always denoted creation out of nothing. In its basic etymological origin the word creation meant the purely natural process of growing or of making something to grow. This should be obvious by a mere recall of the [Latin] verb crescere. The crescent moon [derived from crescere] is not creating but merely growing. The expression ex nihilo or de nihilo had to be fastened, from around 200 A.D. on, by Christian theologians on the verb creare to convey unmistakably a process, strict creation, which only God can perform. Only through the long-standing use of those very Latin expressions, creare ex nihilo and creatio ex nihilo, could the English words to create and creation take on the meaning which excludes pre-existing matter. Stanley L. Jaki, Genesis 1 Through the Ages (Royal Oak, Mich.: Real View Books, 1998), 5-6.

fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/reviews-of-the-new-mormon-challenge/the-doctrine-of-creation-ex-nihilo-was-created-out-of-nothing

And here is the entry in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism on matter: eom.byu.edu/index.php/Matter

I hope this helps…

Hi again Gazelam.

It looks like this issue of creation ex nihilo v. eternal elements is an ongoing debate between your church and mainline Christianity. From my brief review of Fr. Jaki, he did not accept the notion of an eternal and infinite universe, despite the comment above re: the explicit language of the bible. He thought the concept of an eternal and infinite universe was an atheist cover-up: “According to Stanley Jaki, a Benedictine priest and historian of science, the infinite universe is a scientific cover-up for atheism. Mormons do not agree, though, for they need a universe which is infinite in both time and space.” See here

Also, there is strong support both from the biblical texts and history that God’s creation described in Genesis was understood as creation ex nihilo. See the following from Catholic Encyclopedia here:

That the material of which the universe is composed was created out of nothing is the implicit, rather than specifically explicit, statement of the Bible. The Scriptural teaching on God and the relation of the universe to Him unmistakably affirms creation. God alone is declared to be underived, self-existent (Exodus 3:14), and in comparison with Him all things else are as nothing (Wisdom 11:23; Isaiah 40:17). God is said to be the beginning and end of all things (Isaiah 48:12; Revelation 1:8); all things else are from Him, and by Him, and in Him (Romans 11:36; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16). God is the absolute and independent sovereign (Psalm 49:12 and Isaiah 44:24; Hebrews 1:10). That these texts equivalently assert that God is the Creator of all things finite is too obvious to call for further comment. The most explicit Scriptural statement respecting the created origin of the universe is found in the first verse of Genesis: “In the beginning God created heaven and earth”. The objects here designated evidently comprise the material universe; whether the originative act is to be understood as specifically creative, depends upon the meaning of the Hebrew verb bara. On this point the following interpretations by unimpeachable authority may be adduced. Gesenius says: “The use of this verb [bara] in Kal, the conjugation here employed, is entirely different from its primary signification (to cut, shape, fashion); it signifies rather the new production of a thing than the shaping or elaborating of the pre-existing material. That the first verse of Genesis teaches that the original creation of the world in its rude and chaotic state was from nothing while the remaining part of the chapter teaches the elaboration and distribution of the matter thus created, the connection of the whole section shows sufficiently clearly” (Thesaurus, p. 357 b). Mühlan and Volck in the new edition of Gesenius’ “Handwörterbuch” say: “Bara is used only of Divine creation and never with an accusative of the material”. Dillmann (Genesis 1) notes: “The Hebrews use only the conjugation Piel (intensative) in speaking of human ‘forming’ or ‘shaping’, while on the other hand they use only Kal in speaking of creation of God”. Delitzsch says: (Gen., p. 91) “The word bara in its etymology does not exclude a previous material. lilt has, as the use of Kal shows, the fundamental idea of cutting or hewing. But as In other languages words which define creation by God have the same etymological idea at their root, so bara has acquired the idiomatic meaning of a divine creating, which, whether in the kingdom of nature, or of history, or of the spirit, calls into being that which hitherto had no existence. Bara never appears as the word for human creation, differing in this from the synonyms asah, yatzar, yalad, which are used both of men and of God; it is never used with an accusative of the material, and even from this it follows that it defines the divine creative act as one without any limitations, and its result, as to its proper material, as entirely new; and, as to its first cause, entirely the creation of divine power.” Again Kalisch observes (Gen., p. 1): “God called the universe into being out of nothing; not out of formless matter coeval with Himself” (Geikie, Hours with the Bible, I, 16).

 

[Robert_in_SD]

(Continued from Post No. 12)

I find the comment about Mormons “needing” a universe that is “infinite in time and space” (See my post #12) to be suggestive of the concept of eternal progression. I concede that I do not understand the nuances of this LDS teaching. But if it means we humans are all progressing towards what “Father-God” is now, and Father-God is just a link in a chain of eternal progression that looks backwards and forwards within an eternal creation, then I guess it makes sense that LDS theologians would argue for their sort of creation (meaning simply organizing eternal matter). For me, however, the same problem remains.

A man who progresses to a level of divinity that I may also attain to, and which progresses towards a further divinity that we will both reach, albeit millennia apart from each other, is no more worthy of adoration than is my brother standing next to me here on Earth. He is where he is only because he was born millennia before me and not because he is different in his nature from me.

Why should such a person be acknowledged as the One True God?

And if a glorified man is the “God” of this world, or solar system, or galaxy, then who is responsible for putting him there? And why not worship that entity? And if the chain is eternal, don’t we ask the same question eternally, for each link would lead us to another greater “Creator” would it not?

Peace,
Robert

 

[CourtingTex]

Hello all:

A regular LDS poster stated, in responding to a different thread question, that one must remember in LDS theology God did not create the “eternal” elements, but instead formed them into the Earth.

My question is: “Where did these eternal elements come from?”

To me, it seems that the existence of created eternal material (a Universe with elements) that pre-existed the Creator God is a contradiction. Perhaps I am missing an important aspect of LDS theology. I would like to know the LDS explanation.

Peace,
Robert

I will continue to question anything stated my a member of my church IF it is not accurate, particularly when what was said is considered official beliefs of the church.

Catholic.com exists today and began originally because someone who was not knowledgable about Catholicism.

Questions such as this thread should be answered from church headquarters ---- on the reverse all Catholics do not know what the Catholic Church accurately believes.

 

[kimg901]

I will continue to question anything stated my a member of my church IF it is not accurate, particularly when what was said is considered official beliefs of the church.

Catholic.com exists today and began originally because someone who was not knowledgable about Catholicism.

Questions such as this thread should be answered from church headquarters ---- on the reverse all Catholics do not know what the Catholic Church accurately believes.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us what the church believes.

 

[CourtingTex]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us what the church believes.

So official LDS church headquarters endorses the Catechism? I am confident that is not accurate.

 

[kimg901]

So official LDS church headquarters endorses the Catechism? I am confident that is not accurate.

I’m not sure if you understood what I was saying. The C.C.C shows everyone what us Catholics believe, not what the LDS church believes. No one will ever know what your church believes or teaches because things change like the seasons in your church. Sorry but all the LDS I talk to all believe or don’t believe the same things. Especially those that are not from Utah.

 

[CourtingTex]

I’m not sure if you understood what I was saying. The C.C.C shows everyone what us Catholics believe, not what the LDS church believes. No one will ever know what your church believes or teaches because things change like the seasons in your church. Sorry but all the LDS I talk to all believe or don’t believe the same things. Especially those that are not from Utah.

That is applicable to the Catholics I known for years and the doctrine of Catholicism as I knew from years earlier. Where the Catholics or Latter Day Saints live does not matter.

I could say such about Italy and Rome.

 

[zaffiroborant]

My understanding growing up LDS was that Smith was working with the scientific view of the day, in particular the conservation of mass.

I thought the LDS narrative was that JS was an uneducated, virtually illiterate farm boy who wouldn’t have access or understanding of such things.

 

[zaffiroborant]

That is applicable to the Catholics I known for years and the doctrine of Catholicism as I knew from years earlier. Where the Catholics or Latter Day Saints live does not matter.

I could say such about Italy and Rome.

Your response makes no sense. No one said anything about where Catholics live, Italy, Rome or Latter Day Saints. T

he CCC says what the Catholic church teaches, there is no single such book, document or talk put out by the LDS church or any prophet of the LDS church that sets out LDS teaching.

 

[zaffiroborant]

He didn’t remain uneducated all his life.

He wasn’t uneducated through his life, his dad after all was a teacher, but that is not how he is portrayed.