The Nature of God in Mormonism.

[BDawg]

You give yourself too much credit.

I know Mormons, and the methods you use for proselytizing. You know, and I know, that it involves more than getting a commitment for baptism at week #2.

Stop pretending that you aren’t.

And yes, “proselyting”, perhaps you should look it up.

Hi Beccs,

So you are saying that it isn’t anything I’ve said here, it’s my secret intentions? And since you know what my intentions are, you can make the judgment that I’m breaking some kind of rule? You’re saying that Mormons are allowed to post here, as long as they don’t secretly hope that they can persuade some Catholics to become Mormons?

Well, if I’ve broken some kind of rule, please feel free to report me to the moderators. I honestly didn’t realize that I had done anything against the forum rules.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Beccs,

So you are saying that it isn’t anything I’ve said here, it’s my secret intentions? And since you know what my intentions are, you can make the judgment that I’m breaking some kind of rule? You’re saying that Mormons are allowed to post here, as long as they don’t secretly hope that they can persuade some Catholics to become Mormons?

Well, if I’ve broken some kind of rule, please feel free to report me to the moderators. I honestly didn’t realize that I had done anything against the forum rules.

I’m saying, you are taking the usual passive-agressive approach that I have seen dozens of times from dozens of Mormons. It is only a matter of time before you are sending your missionaries to someone’s door.

 

[1holycatholic]

It is confusing. Joseph Smith said God had a Father, and most Mormons believe that if there ever was a beginning to the process of eternal lives, we don’t know anything about it. Futhermore, modern physics tells us that time and space are things that can be bent or compressed or dialated. We have no idea how God experiences time and space. How can we possibly know what it’s like to live in the eternal worlds? Would we experience all time–past, present, and future–as one eternal NOW? If that were the case, what would it mean to say that one God came before another? Are there multiple universes, so that we only experience our Father as God? I don’t know…

Time implies change which implies imperfection. God is necessarily atemporal.

I entered this thread because an LDS in another thread denied St. Thomas Aquinas’ refutation of polytheism.
St. Thomas' Summa Theologica:

If then many gods existed, they would necessarily differ from each other. Something therefore would belong to one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation, one of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one of them would be without it. So it is impossible for many gods to exist.

Q.E.D. :coffeeread:

Where BDawg wrote:

BDawg:

Why would more than one god necessarily differ from one another in any important way?

 

[BDawg]

I’m saying, you are taking the usual passive-agressive approach that I have seen dozens of times from dozens of Mormons. It is only a matter of time before you are sending your missionaries to someone’s door.

Hi again,

Please tell me, what is my “passive-aggressive” approach? I looked up “passive-aggressive” in an online dictionary, which defines it as “characterized by habitual passive resistance to demands for adequate performance in occupational or social situations, as by procrastination, stubbornness, sullenness, and inefficiency.” Whose demands for performance am I resisting, exactly? I grant that I’m stubborn, but I am usually not known for sullenness. And if I procrastinated posting here, I would think that would make you happy!

Dazzle me again.

 

[BDawg]

Time implies change which implies imperfection. God is necessarily atemporal.

Hi 1holy,

Really? Where does it say that in the Bible?

And why, exactly, does time necessarily imply change?

And why would all types of change necessarily imply imperfection? E.g., suppose a perfect carpenter built a house that was just as perfect as the last house he built. Was he an imperfect carpenter before he built his latest perfect house?

 

[1holycatholic]

Hi 1holy,

Really? Where does it say that in the Bible?

And why, exactly, does time necessarily imply change?

And why would all types of change necessarily imply imperfection? E.g., suppose a perfect carpenter built a house that was just as perfect as the last house he built. Was he an imperfect carpenter before he built his latest perfect house?

Here (Rom 1):
19 For what can be known about God is perfectly plain to them, since God has made it plain to them:
20 ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind’s understanding of created things. And so these people have no excuse:
21 they knew God and yet they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but their arguments became futile and their uncomprehending minds were darkened.
22 While they claimed to be wise, in fact they were growing so stupid
and here (Acts 17):
17 In the synagogue he debated with the Jews and the godfearing, and in the market place he debated every day with anyone whom he met.
18 Even a few Epicurean and Stoic philosophers argued with him. Some said, ‘What can this parrot mean?’ And, because he was preaching about Jesus and Resurrection, others said, ‘He seems to be a propagandist for some outlandish gods.’
19 They got him to accompany them to the Areopagus, where they said to him, ‘Can we know what this new doctrine is that you are teaching?
20 Some of the things you say seemed startling to us and we would like to find out what they mean.’
21 The one amusement the Athenians and the foreigners living there seem to have is to discuss and listen to the latest ideas.
22 So Paul stood before the whole council of the Areopagus and made this speech: 'Men of Athens, I have seen for myself how extremely scrupulous you are in all religious matters,
23 because, as I strolled round looking at your sacred monuments, I noticed among other things an altar inscribed: To An Unknown God. In fact, the unknown God you revere is the one I proclaim to you.
Study Natural Theology - you have no excuse not to.

 

[BDawg]

Here (Rom 1):19 For what can be known about God is perfectly plain to them, since God has made it plain to them:
20 ever since the creation of the world, the invisible existence of God and his everlasting power have been clearly seen by the mind’s understanding of created things. And so these people have no excuse:
21 they knew God and yet they did not honour him as God or give thanks to him, but their arguments became futile and their uncomprehending minds were darkened.
22 While they claimed to be wise, in fact they were growing so stupidand here (Acts 17):17 In the synagogue he debated with the Jews and the godfearing, and in the market place he debated every day with anyone whom he met.
18 Even a few Epicurean and Stoic philosophers argued with him. Some said, ‘What can this parrot mean?’ And, because he was preaching about Jesus and Resurrection, others said, ‘He seems to be a propagandist for some outlandish gods.’
19 They got him to accompany them to the Areopagus, where they said to him, ‘Can we know what this new doctrine is that you are teaching?
20 Some of the things you say seemed startling to us and we would like to find out what they mean.’
21 The one amusement the Athenians and the foreigners living there seem to have is to discuss and listen to the latest ideas.
22 So Paul stood before the whole council of the Areopagus and made this speech: 'Men of Athens, I have seen for myself how extremely scrupulous you are in all religious matters,
23 because, as I strolled round looking at your sacred monuments, I noticed among other things an altar inscribed: To An Unknown God. **In fact, the unknown God you revere is the one I proclaim to you.**Study Natural Theology - you have no excuse not to.

Hi 1,

I am totally at a loss to understand how the passages you quoted answer the questions I asked.

 

[1holycatholic]

Hi 1,

I am totally at a loss to understand how the passages you quoted answer the questions I asked.

You really need to take some philosophy (Natural Theology) classes.

If two things are exactly the same, then they would be one thing.

 

[BDawg]

You really need to take some philosophy (Natural Theology) classes.

If two things are exactly the same, then they would be one thing.

Hi 1,

I got a minor in philosophy as an undergraduate, and I have published about teaching the philosophy of science. And yet, I still don’t understand how the passages you quoted answer my questions. Can you explain more clearly, instead of trying to put me down? I assure you that my ego is much too gigantic to be affected by it, anyway.

 

[1holycatholic]

Hi 1,

I got a minor in philosophy as an undergraduate, and I have published about teaching the philosophy of science. And yet, I still don’t understand how the passages you quoted answer my questions. Can you explain more clearly, instead of trying to put me down? I assure you that my ego is much too gigantic to be affected by it, anyway.

There was no insult intended. The quote from Romans is effectively a mandate to know Philosophy. The quote from Acts is a discussion among Philosophers and Paul’s proclamation of one God.

The nature of God in Mormonism is absolutely incoherent in the context of Natural Theology. I would suggest that you read Boethius’ The Consolation of Philosophy.

 

[BDawg]

There was no insult intended. The quote from Romans is effectively a mandate to know Philosophy. The quote from Acts is a discussion among Philosophers and Paul’s proclamation of one God.

The nature of God in Mormonism is absolutely incoherent in the context of Natural Theology. I would suggest that you read Boethius’ The Consolation of Philosophy.

I have read Boethius. But if I am reading you correctly, it seems like your argument was:

1. Paul said that the natural world testifies, to some extent, about God.
2. “Natural theology” is a branch of philosophy that involves trying to figure out God’s nature from the natural world.
3. Paul talked with some philosophers once, so philosophy must be a good thing.
4. Therefore, “natural theology” must be true.
5. And, since Mormon theology doesn’t match up with whatever conclusions “natural theology” provides, it must be false.

There are a few holes in that, even apart from the fact that it is not proper deductive logic. For instance, did you read the part in Acts 17 where the philosophers laughed at Paul when he got to the part about the Resurrection? And did you read his direct comment about philosophy?
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)
The famous Catholic historian, Fr. Jean Daniélou (he later became a Cardinal) said this regarding how Christianity mixed with the philosophy of the day.
“If we now examine the forms of thought and philosophical systems current at the time when Christianity first made its appearance in the world, it is clear that they were by no means ready to assimilate this Christian conception: on the contrary, they were wholly antagonistic thereto.” (Daniélou, J., The Lord of History: Reflections on the Inner Meaning of History, translated by N. Abercrombie, Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1958, 1.)
And in any case, I was asking for an explanation about some of your statements about God. You said you derived them from “natural theology,” but never gave an argument for why they must be true. For example, I asked why all kinds of change necessarily imply imperfection, and gave what seemed to me to be a counterexample.

 

[1holycatholic]

I have read Boethius. But if I am reading you correctly, it seems like your argument was:

1. Paul said that the natural world testifies, to some extent, about God.
2. “Natural theology” is a branch of philosophy that involves trying to figure out God’s nature from the natural world.
3. Paul talked with some philosophers once, so philosophy must be a good thing.
4. Therefore, “natural theology” must be true.
5. And, since Mormon theology doesn’t match up with whatever conclusions “natural theology” provides, it must be false.

There are a few holes in that, even apart from the fact that it is not proper deductive logic. For instance, did you read the part in Acts 17 where the philosophers laughed at Paul when he got to the part about the Resurrection? And did you read his direct comment about philosophy?
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” (Colossians 2:8)
The famous Catholic historian, Fr. Jean Daniélou (he later became a Cardinal) said this regarding how Christianity mixed with the philosophy of the day.
“If we now examine the forms of thought and philosophical systems current at the time when Christianity first made its appearance in the world, it is clear that they were by no means ready to assimilate this Christian conception: on the contrary, they were wholly antagonistic thereto.” (Daniélou, J., The Lord of History: Reflections on the Inner Meaning of History, translated by N. Abercrombie, Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1958, 1.)
And in any case, I was asking for an explanation about some of your statements about God. You said you derived them from “natural theology,” but never gave an argument for why they must be true. For example, I asked why all kinds of change necessarily imply imperfection, and gave what seemed to me to be a counterexample.

No. Natural Theology is what can be known about the nature and attributes of God through reason alone. That the attributes of God can be known through reason (Philosophy) is affirmed in Scripture.

The St. Aquinas’ quote from the Summa shows that the existence of more than one God violates the principle of non-contradiction.

The reason that God cannot exist in time is explained in The Consolation of Philosophy. What difficulty do you have with Boethius’ explanation?

 

[BDawg]

The St. Aquinas’ quote from the Summa shows that the existence of more than one God violates the principle of non-contradiction.

Hi 1holycatholic,

The quotation doesn’t show that. It asserts it. Aquinas had an argument for that, but he was basing the argument on assumptions about the nature of God, etc., that can’t be proven. That’s why I asked those questions.

The reason that God cannot exist in time is explained in The Consolation of Philosophy. What difficulty do you have with Boethius’ explanation?

Sorry, I don’t remember where it is in the book, and I don’t have the time to read it right now. Can you provide the relevant quotation?

Thanks!

 

[1holycatholic]

Hi 1holycatholic,

The quotation doesn’t show that. It asserts it. Aquinas had an argument for that, but he was basing the argument on assumptions about the nature of God, etc., that can’t be proven. That’s why I asked those questions.

A considerable amount can be known about God’s attributes through reason alone. There are logical proofs for these attributes.

Anselm’s Proslogion has a laundry list of God’s attributes. Which ones do you disagree with?

Sorry, I don’t remember where it is in the book, and I don’t have the time to read it right now. Can you provide the relevant quotation?

Thanks!

Chapter 5.

 

[BDawg]

Hi 1holycatholic,

Thanks for your sources.

A considerable amount can be known about God’s attributes through reason alone. There are logical proofs for these attributes.

Deductive reasoning requires assumptions that cannot be proven. Therefore, there is no such thing as determining something “through reason alone.”

Anselm’s Proslogion has a laundry list of God’s attributes. Which ones do you disagree with?

Sorry, I don’t have time to read that whole thing. However, I remember that Anselm defined God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” Personally, I see no reason to believe that my ability to conceive things has any bearing on what is real. Like I said in an earlier post, “I can conceive that chicks dig me, but the fact is that I’m too much of a nerd, and a little overweight.”

[

Chapter 5

](http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/to.../modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=5&division=div)Thanks for the ref. to Boethius’s argument. I found this part particularly puzzling, on p. 148.
“But if there can be no uncertainty with God, the most sure source of all things, then the fulfilment of all that He has surely foreknown, is certain. Thus we are led to see that there is no freedom for the intentions or actions of men; for the mind of God, foreseeing all things without error or deception, binds all together and controls their results.”
Boethius seems to have argued that God must be atemporal, because otherwise his foreknowledge would be imperfect. But then he goes on to say that if God has perfect foreknowledge, then there can be no real free will. Augustine taught something similar, but I thought the RCC had rejected that doctrine, and only Protestants influenced by Calvinism buy into that kind of thing, nowadays.

 

[PaulDupre]

The famous Catholic historian, Fr. Jean Daniélou (he later became a Cardinal) said this regarding how Christianity mixed with the philosophy of the day.
“If we now examine the forms of thought and philosophical systems current at the time when Christianity first made its appearance in the world, it is clear that they were by no means ready to assimilate this Christian conception: on the contrary, they were wholly antagonistic thereto.” (Daniélou, J., The Lord of History: Reflections on the Inner Meaning of History, translated by N. Abercrombie, Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1958, 1.)

I don’t see that this quote describes “how Christianity mixed with the philosophy of the day”. Rather, it states that the philosophy of the day was “wholly antagonistic” to Christianity.

Are you putting this quote forth as proof that Christianity is “the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture”?

 

[1holycatholic]

Hi 1holycatholic,

Thanks for your sources.

Deductive reasoning requires assumptions that cannot be proven. Therefore, there is no such thing as determining something “through reason alone.”

Then you are directly refuting the Scripture passage I cited that says you can know these things through reason.

Sorry, I don’t have time to read that whole thing. However, I remember that Anselm defined God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” Personally, I see no reason to believe that my ability to conceive things has any bearing on what is real. Like I said in an earlier post, “I can conceive that chicks dig me, but the fact is that I’m too much of a nerd, and a little overweight.”

Boethius seems to have argued that God must be atemporal, because otherwise his foreknowledge would be imperfect. But then he goes on to say that if God has perfect foreknowledge, then there can be no real free will. Augustine taught something similar, but I thought the RCC had rejected that doctrine, and only Protestants influenced by Calvinism buy into that kind of thing, nowadays.
I don’t think you read Boethius correctly. Omniscience negates the ability to posses foreknowledge. Boethius writes that God is in simultaneous possession of all knowledge atemporally and that we have free will.

 

[BDawg]

I don’t see that this quote describes “how Christianity mixed with the philosophy of the day”. Rather, it states that the philosophy of the day was “wholly antagonistic” to Christianity.

Are you putting this quote forth as proof that Christianity is “the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture”?

Hi Paul,

No, 1holycatholic was trying to say that the New Testament (specifically the Apostle Paul) says we should learn philosophy. That was one of the quotations I used to show that originally, Christianity was not out there promoting philosophy.

 

[BDawg]

Then you are directly refuting the Scripture passage I cited that says you can know these things through reason.

I don’t think so… Throughout this thread I’ve been trying to provide evidence that the earliest Christians and Jews had radically different assumptions about God than modern Catholics. So if you start with different assumptions, any reasoning based on the natural world will bring you to different conclusions.

I don’t think you read Boethius correctly. Omniscience negates the ability to posses foreknowledge. Boethius writes that God is in simultaneous possession of all knowledge atemporally and that we have free will.

Where was that? Can you give me a page number?

Thanks!

 

[1holycatholic]

Hi Paul,

No, 1holycatholic was trying to say that the New Testament (specifically the Apostle Paul) says we should learn philosophy. That was one of the quotations I used to show that originally, Christianity was not out there promoting philosophy.

Not only is it written that you should learn philosophy, it is also written that you should avoid bad philosophy. It makes sense. How are you going to know bad philosophy if you don’t know good philosophy?