The Nature of God in Mormonism.

[Catholic_Dude]

I’m new to this thread so I don’t know if someone already corrected you on this, if so I beg your pardon (I don’t have the patience to read through 10 pages of posts)…

Cool. Just add whatever you can. It always helps to have former LDS in these discussions because they fill the rest of us in on issues we often overlook.

You seem to be confusing Jesus for God in Mormonism (remember that Mormons are not trinitarians and as such believe that God the Father and God the Son are two completely separate people of separate substance).

For this reason, it is incorrect to say that Mormons believe in “creation ex materia” at least in the way to which you are alluding.

This actually brings up a good point which I forgot about. If Jesus is a “spirit child” of God, then obviously ex nihilo is out of the question for Jesus. But an even more interesting twist is that wouldn’t Jesus be included in the ex materia category? God in a sense created Jesus ex materia…right or wrong?

In Mormonism it was Jesus Christ (or as he was known in his pre-existence: Jehovah) and “the Archangel Michael AKA Adam the first man” who were commanded by God the father to go down and organize the matter that Elohim created into the planets, stars, orbiting systems, galaxies, etc that we see today.

This adds a very interesting twist to this discussion.

Quite possibly, if there is a theoretical “first God” who is the God of the God of the God of the God of the God… of Elohim, maybe this primitive God created all the universes with all the matter and is homesteading them to the “exalted beings”?



Ugh. Enough with the confusing theology… I’m off to go break the Word of Wisdom :coffeeread:

BWAHAHAHAAHAHA!
Isn’t there a movie or quote or something like, “Go West Young Man!”

p.s. what does xixxvmcm stand for? Roman numerals dont seem to work.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Just a note to BDawg (and Zerinus), I will be out of town the next few days so I wont be able to get back to anything you post now. I am pretty sure I have caught up with all the posts at this point.

 

[Nan_S]

By the way, I’ve done a little digging into the dating of The Shepherd of Hermas (qoted by me earlier as evidence for First Century belief in creation ex nihilo). The date for this document has been disputed by scholars. Some (particularly Catholic sources) date it around 80 AD; others (particularly Mormon sources) date it one hundred or more years later, in the 2nd or even 3rd century.

It doesn’t help that no copies of The Shepherd remain to this day, leaving us reliant upon extracts and quotations which were included in later works. We’re not even sure which Hermas had the visions that the work references. It could be the Hermas who was personally known to St. Paul, or it could be another Hermas who lived later.

 

[AMDGtoo]

It always helps to have former LDS in these discussions because they fill the rest of us in on issues we often overlook.

It really does help. It helps to know that some definitions of words are not the same, and that affect our understanding of each other. It helps to know about certain “tactics” like many (not all) not really answering the question posed but instead answering “the question that should have been asked”. (I think it’s called “distraction”.) And that "non-Mormon is an “anti-Mormon” thing (and how “anti-Mormon” information is all lies) that we have run into at times. (I still can’t get over the fact that even after years of dialogues with the Mormon Missionaries, I did not know about that Michael the Archangel being Adam and I would have if I had the good sense to read that “anti-Mormon” literature that is supposed to be “all lies”.)

 

[BDawg]

The issue of this thread isn’t really about Christological heresies. The fact is there are theological teachings that are hard to explain without compromising the Truth. Heresies are nothing more than someone trying to oversimplify a Truth which is ultimately a Mystery. People can give various explanations, some heretical, some merely sub-satisfactory, some very satisfactory. This thread shouldn’t turn into an ECF or historian quote war.

Hi CDude,

The fact is that we come at these theological questions with some radically different assumptions about the nature of reality. For instance, your one argument for why God must have created ex nihilo is that this would make him “objectively greater” than a God who cannot do that. Your argument seems to assume Anselm’s definition of God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” But to me this seems like a faulty assumption, because I can “conceive” of all kinds of things that don’t seem to have anything to do with reality. I can “conceive,” for instance, that chicks dig me. But the fact is that I’m too much of a nerd, and sort of overweight.

It’s hard to stick to strictly philosophical arguments when we can’t agree on the assumptions to start from . In this situation, why not throw in some historical arguments? I thought mine was a pretty decent one. That is, your definition of WHAT GOD IS, doesn’t mesh well with early Christian Subordinationism. But mine does. And since R.P.C. Hanson said that “every single theologian, East and West” before Athanasius taught some form of Subordinationism, it seems pretty clear that it was probably the original teaching. My argument regarding the original type of Christology taught is of the same form.

And it isn’t as if philosophical argumentation has to be divorced from the historical. I read lots of “philosophy of science” literature, for instance, and that stuff is steeped in historical argumentation.

When we agreed to discuss the topic on this thread, I didn’t know that I would be limited in what kind of arguments were permissible. I’m just trying to put forward the best arguments I can.

 

[BDawg]

By the way, I’ve done a little digging into the dating of The Shepherd of Hermas (qoted by me earlier as evidence for First Century belief in creation ex nihilo). The date for this document has been disputed by scholars. Some (particularly Catholic sources) date it around 80 AD; others (particularly Mormon sources) date it one hundred or more years later, in the 2nd or even 3rd century.

Hi Nan,

Which Mormon sources said that? The latest I’ve seen Hermas dated was about 100-140 A.D.–by anyone.

 

[BDawg]

Except that your answer is naked polytheism. And there are clear passages of Scripture saying there is one God, and “three gods with one purpose/will” type language doesn’t cut it because gods (plural) is already used.

And, also redefining traditional Christian terms like Trinity to mean something else. A Mormon should never go around (at least around Christians) saying they believe in the Trinity.

Muslims say that Trinitarianism isn’t good enough to be called “monotheism.” Certainly their concept of God is more “mono” than yours.

I would reply that a Mormon should never go around saying they believe in the Trinity without explaining the similarities and differences with the traditional belief.

The fact is that different people use the same terms in different ways. It’s nothing sinister. But if people want to actually communicate, rather than pat each other on the back because everyone really believes the same things (Majick’s pet peeve,) then they should be careful to define terms.

Z was careful to define terms, so quit your bellyaching!

 

[BDawg]

This actually brings up a good point which I forgot about. If Jesus is a “spirit child” of God, then obviously ex nihilo is out of the question for Jesus. But an even more interesting twist is that wouldn’t Jesus be included in the ex materia category? God in a sense created Jesus ex materia…right or wrong?

Right. Spirit and matter are eternally existent.

 

[BDawg]

It doesn’t because it turns into my scholar can beat up your scholar. Conservative Catholic and Protestant scholars would not say creation ex nihilo is not found in Scripture or in early Christian thought.

Well, bring them in. But please not that I’m not just “quoting scholars.” I’m trotting out some of the evidence they point to, and then quoting them to show that I’m not the only one who interprets things that way. So if you want to quote some Conservative scholars, be my guest. Scholarship never proves anything with absolute finality, so it is natural that there would be differing opinions, but the evidence they bring is the crucial part. Every argument is not equal.

The proposal you make would be as fair as if I went to the leading secular archaeologists who said there is no historical or archaeological basis for the Mormon civilizations. Mormon scholars would not agree with that assessment.

CDude, I quoted Catholic scholars, Anglican scholars, Methodist scholars, and others. These are people who actually believe in your definitions of God and the Trinity. They just read the historical record and came to believe that these concepts were not there to start, but had to develop over time.

So no, my proposal was not analogous to the situation you mention. What I have been doing is more analogous to you trotting out Mormon archaeologists who said there is no historical or archaeological basis for the Book of Mormon civilizations. Maybe some of them might be a little bit on the liberal side of Mormonism, but still Mormon believers.

That 2 Enoch quote was questionable, and I noted my reservations because of the fact it was not a full quote (it had “…”) and not to mention my reading of it I saw what could clearly be evidence for ex nihilo.

No problem. I’ll just let people read it and judge for themselves.

Why is it impossible to create and sustain material in existence? Is there really stuff that God has no control over?

Because that’s the way the Universe is. There is no a priori reason to believe this, any more than there is an *a priori *reason to believe that matter can be created out of nothing. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the only philosophical reason you seem to have for believing this is that you believe God can do anything that is conceivable. But this is nothing more than an assumption.

But isnt the “bigger” God obviously the more correct one?
One that can create material out of nothing is objectively superior to one who cannot.

I’d say that the God who actually exists outside of the human imagination is the one who is “objectively superior.”

Catholics say all matter is good, that is because it comes from the source of all good, God. Evil is the corruption and abusing of God’s creation. Mormons cannot say all matter is good because they would be saying something is good apart from God’s goodness. At most they could only say it is “neutral”, which would preclude the idea of a truly good creation because neutral is not equal to good.

Huh? Mormons say that matter JUST IS. What does “good” or “bad” have to do with it?

You above admit Jesus is truly God and man, now do you think this is something that is explained simply and easily? Werent you the one who said you arent sure if God the Father had a Father? You cant expect full and immediate comprehension of great Mysteries (mystery in Christianity means something we can only partly grasp due to its infiniteness and our finiteness)

It is explained easily if human nature and divine nature are closely related things. If they are totally different, incommensurable things, then it is difficult to explain.

You are right, however, that Mormons have our own things that are difficult to explain. That’s why I have tried to be careful to point out that I am making arguments for my point of view, not providing some kind of absolute proof.

You havn’t proven anything though, in fact you are now left explaining these same issues. You can’t equate philosophy with “bad,” or “wrong.”

I haven’t ever claimed to prove anything. I made arguments. I think my arguments are stronger than yours. That’s it.

And I never said that philosophy was “bad,” or “wrong.” I got a minor in philosophy in college, after all. But philosophical reasoning requires one to start reasoning from certain axioms, or assumptions. If we can’t agree on those assumptions, then it becomes difficult to agree on anything. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me to make historical arguments about whether the first Christians assumed the same things as you or I.

 

[zerinus]

Except that your answer is naked polytheism. And there are clear passages of Scripture saying there is one God, and “three gods with one purpose/will” type language doesn’t cut it because gods (plural) is already used.

And, also redefining traditional Christian terms like Trinity to mean something else. A Mormon should never go around (at least around Christians) saying they believe in the Trinity.

From the LDS Articles of Faith, article 1:

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

That is the Trinity. The fact that Christianity apostatized, and got a lot of doctrines wrong, including the Trinity, is not our problem.

zerinus

 

[AMDGtoo]

From the LDS Articles of Faith, article 1:

We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

That is the Trinity. The fact that Christianity apostatized, and got a lot of doctrines wrong, including the Trinity, is not our problem.

Umm–you didn’t define what you meant. I think it’s more like–two separate personages and one nonbody type. Is is not the same thing that Christians mean when they say “Trinity”. And and it’s not what they hear either (but you already know that.) And since you do already know that, why confuse the two beliefs?

And as far as your claim that Christian’s apostasized, well, you haven’t come up with any evidence. No proof that it ever happened–just some opinions concerning a Gnostic or Arian heresy (that was condemned at various of the Councils of the Catholic Church, which was the only Christian Church around at the time!)

 

[BDawg]

And as far as your claim that Christian’s apostasized, well, you haven’t come up with any evidence. No proof that it ever happened–

This is a general problem with these kinds of discussions. “Evidence” is not the same thing as “proof.” There can be legitimate “evidence” for a false conclusion, but you can only “prove” true conclusions.

I’ve been accused several times here of trying to “prove” things, when I thought I was being careful to only claim to be presenting “evidence.” As far as I’ve seen, Z has been similarly careful.

 

[RebeccaJ]

This is a general problem with these kinds of discussions. “Evidence” is not the same thing as “proof.” There can be legitimate “evidence” for a false conclusion, but you can only “prove” true conclusions.

I’ve been accused several times here of trying to “prove” things, when I thought I was being careful to only claim to be presenting “evidence.” As far as I’ve seen, Z has been similarly careful.

lost me

 

[BDawg]

lost me

Hi Beccs,

Think of a courtroom during a civil suit. The lawyers for both sides present “evidence” for their points of view. That is, they present various facts, documents, and testimonies, that seem to fit with how the story they are telling. Maybe neither side will ever have anything that constitutes “absolute proof” of their case, but the court still has to make a decision. Given the evidence that was presented, whose side can explain more of it? How trustworthy is the evidence? Is there any trustworthy “evidence” that one side or the other just can’t explain? The judge and/or jury asks all these questions, and gives a ruling.

So “evidence” is just a pile of facts, etc., that fit well with a certain story. It is “evidence” for that story because it gives the story credibility. To “prove” a story, on the other hand, is to provide so much hard evidence that no reasonable person could doubt seriously doubt that it is true.

Does that make more sense?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

There’s no evidence for either view of the Trinity.

You just have to have faith in what you believe.

Catholics believe one way, Mormons the other.

Case closed.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hi Beccs,

Think of a courtroom during a civil suit. The lawyers for both sides present “evidence” for their points of view. That is, they present various facts, documents, and testimonies, that seem to fit with how the story they are telling. Maybe neither side will ever have anything that constitutes “absolute proof” of their case, but the court still has to make a decision. Given the evidence that was presented, whose side can explain more of it? How trustworthy is the evidence? Is there any trustworthy “evidence” that one side or the other just can’t explain? The judge and/or jury asks all these questions, and gives a ruling.

So “evidence” is just a pile of facts, etc., that fit well with a certain story. It is “evidence” for that story because it gives the story credibility. To “prove” a story, on the other hand, is to provide so much hard evidence that no reasonable person could doubt seriously doubt that it is true.

Does that make more sense?

Oh, I see, then majick was right, you’re going for reasonable doubt.

Have you seen the film “12 Angry Men”?

 

[BDawg]

Oh, I see, then majick was right, you’re going for reasonable doubt.

Well, reasonable doubt for your position, and reasonable confidence for mine, at least.

Have you seen the film “12 Angry Men”?

When I was in high school. I forgot the plot, though.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, reasonable doubt for your position, and reasonable confidence for mine, at least.

When I was in high school. I forgot the plot, though.

I have been through all of this, and no, there is no reasonable confidence. Not unless you call cherry picking quotes from Christian writings and scholars reasonable.

The whole picture has to be looked at and writings in context. Otherwise, you are living in a house that is built on sand.

Watch the film again.

 

[majick275]

if you are siding with z then you pretty much just lost all credibility. why not just make a blog and refer all questions to your blog. there you can link to jefflindsay and fairlds and quote the articles of faith all day. if this is just going to be bearing and sharing of testimonies it won’t accomplish anything here.

i see the style of hugh nibbley now (which you might consider a compliment).

 

[RebeccaJ]

i see the style of hugh nibbley now (which you might consider a compliment).

At least we haven’t seen any bogus footnotes yet.