Question about LDS Teaching on Eternal Elements

[gazelam]

Thanks Gazelam. The LDS perspective seems to me insufficient. It begs the question from where did the chaos come?

Well, we may have to agree to disagree on this point. Does something eternal have to come from somewhere?

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?

The Bible teaches that there are many gods, but Jesus taught us that we should worship our Father in Heaven, i.e., the Father of our Spirits. Just because other divine beings exists, it does not necessary mean that we should adore those other gods also. I don’t have an answer to the “another cause and then another cause” question.

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?

The LDS Church teaches that God the Father is preeminent to us. But the LDS Church also teaches that we can become like God (which is what LDS believe Eternal Life is) if we keep God’s commandments. Again, as I pointed out earlier, “to create” means to improve on something that already exists. So, the “Ultimate Creator” is synonymous with the “Ultimate Improver”.

Peace,
Robert

Peace to you too!

 

[gazelam]

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:

Thanks for sharing an opposing viewpoint. Take care.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

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.

Hello Courting Tex and welcome to the discussion. My research of LDS sites supports the conclusion that the LDS church regards the elements as eternal. For example:

Addressing the issue of creation ex nihilo, Joseph Smith asserted in one of his final sermons: “Now, the word create…does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize; the same as a man would organize materials and build a ship. Hence, we infer that God had materials to organize the world out of chaos-chaotic matter, which is element…. Element had an existence from the time [God] had. The pure principles of element are principles which can never be destroyed; they may be organized and reorganized, but not destroyed. They had no beginning and can have no end” (HC 6:308-309).

The above is from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism published through BYU. Here is a link to the full discussion of the LDS understanding of “matter.”

I am coming to understand that this view seems to fit well with the LDS teaching on eternal progression and an infinite regression of gods who were “once as we are.” (per the King Follett discourse) Such a plan could only exist in an infinite universe that, by definition could not have been created ex nihilo. While the LDS understanding of the eternal nature of matter is consistent with some of the theories put forth in the 19th century scientific community, I’m still not sure how it squares with the current level of scientific understanding. My research is continuing. So far, however, it appears that the majority of the scientific community currently believe the universe had a beginning. That means the eternal progression of divinity must have a beginning, which points to the un-caused cause (i.e. monotheistic notion of God) that LDS theologians seem to reject in favor of eternal progression (… man progresses to our God who creates Earth and man, who are to progress to new Gods, ad inf…). Please let me know if I’ve jumped the tracks here on the LDS teachings. I am trying to fairly parse the correct LDS doctrine from authentic LDS sources.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Well, we may have to agree to disagree on this point. Does something eternal have to come from somewhere?

Hello again gazelam. Your assumption posits creation without a creator. To me, that is a conundrum. It begs the question, “where did the unformed elemental chaos come from?” Scientists, theologians, philosophers, and even some amateurs like me, can’t just let that question go. The implications are too great. Don’t you agree?

gazelam:

The Bible teaches that there are many gods, but Jesus taught us that we should worship our Father in Heaven, i.e., the Father of our Spirits. Just because other divine beings exists, it does not necessary mean that we should adore those other gods also. I don’t have an answer to the “another cause and then another cause” question.

I don’t know that I would agree with the way you’ve phrased it. The bible teaches there is one God (i.e. monotheism). It certainly warns against false gods, whether angelic, demonic, or more “worldly.” But I don’t see where the bible speaks of the Father in Heaven being a former man who once worshipped another true God, who was once a man who worshipped another true God, ad infinitum. If you think there is such a teaching, please point it out to me in Scripture so I may consider it.

gazelam:

The LDS Church teaches that God the Father is preeminent to us. But the LDS Church also teaches that we can become like God (which is what LDS believe Eternal Life is) if we keep God’s commandments. Again, as I pointed out earlier, “to create” means to improve on something that already exists. So, the “Ultimate Creator” is synonymous with the “Ultimate Improver”.

I would agree that your statement here is pretty close to what my own research is confirming about the official LDS position on eternal progression. Our two faiths certainly do see differences in the word “creation.” One of us is wrong, one of us is right, or we are both wrong. May we both keep looking for the truth of the matter. (Pun intended. )

About your comment, do you believe that one day, if you keep to Father-God’s commandments, you will be in the position that Father-God is in now? Is that what you mean by “becoming like God” or do you believe something different?

Peace,
Robert

 

[Tarquin]

Questions such as this thread should be answered from church headquarters ----.

Why? Mormons should know what their Church teaches. Over and over again, Mormons post here that if someone “wants to know what Mormons believe, they should ask a Mormon.”

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.

If self-awareness, conscience, reasoning, etc., are in the “intelligence,” I wonder what it is in the “spirit” that makes it possible for the intelligence and spirit to interact, and why the spirit is necessary for the body? If awareness and conscience, and even “intelligence” is already in the intelligence, why not just put the “intelligence” into the physical body. We don’t need a spirit, because the “intelligence” itself is already eternal, and the physical body will be resurrected. Why add that murky middle thing, that ever so redundant fifth wheel, that intelligence-lacking, life-lacking “spirit body”?

I greatly appreciate your insights and comments, CourtingTex.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Why add that murky middle thing, that ever so redundant fifth wheel, that intelligence-lacking, life-lacking “spirit body”?

I have no idea. There isn’t a cohesive teaching, let alone comprehensive, or even consistent authoritative opinions on the matter, within Mormonism itself. It’s one of those areas in Mormonism where each individual thinks and believes what they find personally agreeable.