Which God is greater? Catholicisms or LDS?

[dennisknapp]

For anyone familar with philosophy, the ontological argument for God’s existence is well known. But I think it could be used in a discussion with Mormons in regards to the nature of God.

For those who are not familar with the argument I will post a modern version as found at: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument

"Anselm framed the argument as a reductio ad absurdum wherein he tried to show that the assumption that God does not exist leads to a logical contradiction. The following steps more closely follow Anselm’s line of reasoning:

1. God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.
2. The concept of God exists in human understanding.
3. God does not exist in reality (assumed in order to refute).
4. The concept of God existing in reality exists in human understanding.
5. If an entity exists in reality and in human understanding, this entity is greater than it would have been if it existed only in human understanding (a statement of existence as a perfection).
6. from 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 An entity can be conceived which is greater than God, the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived (logical self-contradiction).
7. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true)."

My chief concern here is the first premise of the argument, which states that “God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.” In Mormon theology God is not the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived. In Mormonism, God is just another god in a long line of gods going back who knows when. If God truely is as Mormons claim, the ontological argument would be mute. Luck for us we do have an understanding of a God than which no greater entity can be conveived, the God of Catholicism.

Just as a side note: Why worship that which something is greater? Why not worship the entity which no greater entity can be conceived?

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

No takers?

Peace

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I’ll take. I get tired of philosophy here where a bunch of secularists try to argue themselves out of existance so I wouldn’t mind talking a little theological philosophy.

If God is conceived of as a being that was once a mortal that “progressed” into godhood but that there are other such beings that have also progressed into godhood, then “God” is only a god-not our all powerful, all knowing, supreme being and Holy Trinity.

However, wouldn’t St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5 proofs for the existance of God come into play here? Namely, there has to be a first cause itself uncaused? Thus, all the Mormon “gods” would have to have a supreme God somewhere and it would be foolish to worship the lesser “gods”. It would seem that worshiping the Mormon “gods” would be like worshiping the angels or the saints in heaven.

Also, with St. Anselm’s arguement, God is the greatest conceivable being. God cannot have a greater, but He also cannot have an equal because then he wouldn’t be the greatest but only one of the greatest. If God is real (and of course I believe this) then He really has to be the God that the Catholic Church teaches has revealed Himself to humankind through the prophets of Old and most abundantly through Christ Jesus-God made man.

As God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Supreme being with no greater and no equal-God is greater than the “god” of Mormonism.

 

[ben_dy]

dennisknapp:

No takers?

Peace

Dennis,

Did you really expect there to be?

Were I Mormon I would simply argue that I need know proof of God: just as he has personally revealed to me the truth of the LDS church, so has he personally revealed to me his existence so I don’t need any fancy philosophical proofs to convince me or anyone else that my god(s) is/are the true god(s) who created and rule this planet - and others - and that all truth has been personally revealed to me as being personally revealed to Joseph Smith and to be further revealed, on a need to know basis, by the living prophets who succeed or have succeeded Joseph Smith when that which is revealed to them has become accepted as part of the scriptures of the LDS church or taught, when they are live prophets and until they die at which time I will believe the teachings of the new prophet, even though they may contradict the teachings of former prophets, and will believe all revelations of the living prophet after his death only if accepted into the canon of Mormon scriptures.

So there are no need for proofs - god (or one or more) has personally revealed himself/their selves to me. I am not sure why you have not been similarly contacted but I am certain that if you pray about it, you will receive your own revelation. If you don’t, I can only assume that you re not praying sincerely and/or hard enough.

As I am not LDS, I can’t present that as the definitive LDS position. But, from what I’ve heard and read, that seems a pretty straightforward encapsulation of what I have been told and of what I have read.

So I would assume that, to the Mormon, the question would be moot, or if you prefer the traditional meaning of the word, the question is not moot.

 

[dennisknapp]

ComradeAndrei:

I’ll take. I get tired of philosophy here where a bunch of secularists try to argue themselves out of existance so I wouldn’t mind talking a little theological philosophy.

If God is conceived of as a being that was once a mortal that “progressed” into godhood but that there are other such beings that have also progressed into godhood, then “God” is only a god-not our all powerful, all knowing, supreme being and Holy Trinity.

However, wouldn’t St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5 proofs for the existance of God come into play here? Namely, there has to be a first cause itself uncaused? Thus, all the Mormon “gods” would have to have a supreme God somewhere and it would be foolish to worship the lesser “gods”. It would seem that worshiping the Mormon “gods” would be like worshiping the angels or the saints in heaven.

Also, with St. Anselm’s arguement, God is the greatest conceivable being. God cannot have a greater, but He also cannot have an equal because then he wouldn’t be the greatest but only one of the greatest. If God is real (and of course I believe this) then He really has to be the God that the Catholic Church teaches has revealed Himself to humankind through the prophets of Old and most abundantly through Christ Jesus-God made man.

As God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Supreme being with no greater and no equal-God is greater than the “god” of Mormonism.

Thank you for your informative post!

You hit the nail on the head. Why worship a lesser being? Our God is the Uncaused Cause, the foundation of all reality, the great I AM. Mormons worship a god who was once…a Mormon.

I did not post the ontological argument as a means to prove God’s existence to Mormons, but to show the kind of God that must exist.

I can assume by the number of people who have viewed this thread that some Mormons have viewed it. I can also assume that they have no adequate response to what I have said. Interesting…

Peace

 

[fellicia]

Do Mormons think God was once human? am confused …can someone give me a link to a site that explains their beliefs properly?

What is LDS?

x x x thanx x x x
PS. sorry for going a bit off topic I didn’t see the point in poiting up a whole thread

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Do Mormons think God was once human? am confused …can someone give me a link to a site that explains their beliefs properly?

Go here and read all the “Distinctive Beliefs of the Mormon Church”, “The Gods of the Mormon Church” etc.

catholic.com/library/noncatholic_groups.asp

What is LDS?

Their own official name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints-thus the LDS.

 

[AnAtheist]

dennisknapp:

1. Assumption 3 is wrong, therefore God exists in reality (assuming 1, 2, 4, and 5 are accepted as true)."

My chief concern here is the first premise of the argument, which states that “God is the entity than which no greater entity can be conceived.”

That is not a premise, that is a definition.

But there is no definition of an ordering schema, so what does “greater” mean?

 

[majick275]

fellicia:

Do Mormons think God was once human? am confused …can someone give me a link to a site that explains their beliefs properly?

If only it were that easy. They have no catechism and an open canon of scripture. They do not have trained clergy either so defining their beliefs is always a challenge. However, with much study (and in my case personal experience) one can truly state that yes they believe God was once a man with his own God and that worthy mormons can “earn” exaltation in this life and become Gods themselves in the next. They believe this process has always existed and always will. It is called eternal progression and is first described in detail in Jospeh Smiths “King Follet Discourse”
Here is a link to the full talk :

helpingmormons.org/follet.htm

 

[fellicia]

how can God make man if he was once man at first now i am confused?

 

[majick275]

fellicia:

how can God make man if he was once man at first now i am confused?

Mormons believe that man is the same “species” as God and thus we humans are Gods in embryo. Some of us will never fully develop into Gods but some will. They believe that once “heavenly father” completed his “exaltation” he fully became a God with all the divine powers that come with it. They believe that while he is all powerful now and thus can’t increase in power, He will have eternal increase as his children become Gods and their children and so on so that his kingdom always increases. Kind of like a giant eternal pyramid scheme. It is an abominable heresy that originates from Satan’s first temptation “ye shall be as Gods”…

 

[BJRumph]

Just for a random thought in response to the “axiom” that the LDS require an endless line of gods; I do not think that this is necessarily true.

WHen an active member with questions, it appeared, in the more erudite talks and explanations, that it was not the choice of some god elevating another to godhood which granted/grants this exaltation, but a celestial natural “law”, ususally referred to as the “Preisthood”. Thus GAs have said that the Father attained his position through his adherance to the Preisthood, ie a grand Natural Law which, if we but follow and live, we’d become gods to. And the necessity of the Church is simply in that it, alone, teaches us this law (albiet in a veiled manner that even its own leaders do not always recognize due to lack of clear teaching and training). I wish I had referenced the talks when I first heard them, as it would be far more useful to cite now (and had I known the church would eventually hide such doctrine, then I certainly would have recorded the sources, oh well, hindsight and all that…)

OF course, such ideas are mere speculation, but I think consistent with Smith’s more “profound” doctrinal ideas, as well as the church’s subtiley “odd” ideas regarding what the preisthood is, and its importance in the scheme of things.

So, while the “simple” idea of lds god-hood suggests an endless stream of gods artificially “raising” their favored children to godhood is valid within the limits of the metaphor used, I, even as a mormon, would have pridfully snikered at such an explaination. Though, the Celestial Law concept has its own “issues” with regards to Christianity, or rather with the mormon assertion of its assumed Christianity.

 

[BJRumph]

Of course, my different take on the subject just may have been influenced by the fact that I was a Rosicrucian before joining the lds church…

But, to answer the original question, consider an alternate question:

Which “god” is greater, a random tribal god of Caanan, or Zarathrushta’s God?

I ask this, because this particular question lies at the fundamental difference in what Christians consider to be God (more akin to Z’s personal ideas, rather than the later dualistic add-ons), and what mormons consider to be god (a single god of many). The basic assumptions and conceptualizations of what God “is” is fundamentally different, even if mormons try to use Christian terminology when trying to steal the minds of man from God.

Personally, I think the answer is obvious.

 

[dennisknapp]

BJRumph:

Of course, my different take on the subject just may have been influenced by the fact that I was a Rosicrucian before joining the lds church…

But, to answer the original question, consider an alternate question:

Which “god” is greater, a random tribal god of Caanan, or Zarathrushta’s God?

I ask this, because this particular question lies at the fundamental difference in what Christians consider to be God (more akin to Z’s personal ideas, rather than the later dualistic add-ons), and what mormons consider to be god (a single god of many). The basic assumptions and conceptualizations of what God “is” is fundamentally different, even if mormons try to use Christian terminology when trying to steal the minds of man from God.

Personally, I think the answer is obvious.

Thank you for your response.

Some questions…

What is a Rosicrucian? Are you saying the God of Israel was a random tribal god of Canaan? Or are you referring to Baal and such?

I find the use of Christian terminology by Mormons to explain obviously non-Christian concepts interesting. Of course, if the Mormon missionary were to just come out a say what the church actually teaches, I think they would have a far more difficult time. For them it is better to use popular terms that have inherent meaning, have the people listening to you assume that meaning, then once they are ingrained in the system reveal the “true” Mormon meaning. Quite interesting.

Hey, I see by your profile you are a Catholic in waiting. What is your story if you don’t mind sharing it? Given the theme of this thread I would be particularly be interested in the development of the concept of God in your journey.

Peace

 

[dennisknapp]

I was hoping some Mormons would contribute to this discussion.

If any are reading this please let us know if we have in any way misrepresented your views on God. I would not want to be thought of as misrepresenting anyone.

Peace

 

[TOmNossor]

dennisknapp:

I was hoping some Mormons would contribute to this discussion.

If any are reading this please let us know if we have in any way misrepresented your views on God. I would not want to be thought of as misrepresenting anyone.

Peace

I have become a little interested in philosophy. I have no formal training, but I have read a little from some of the folks I should have read and a little more from some secondary sources.

I am of the opinion that my non-creation ex nihilo philosophy is superior to the creation ex nihilo philosophy advocated by the Catholic Church and more specifically the one advocated by Aquinas (where I Catholic at the minimum I would be a Molinist). I am of the opinion that my non-creation ex nihilo philosophy is the best read of Mormon scriptures, taking into account non-canonized by important works like the Articles of Faith AND the King Follett Discourse.

Since this is interesting, I can explain why I think it is the best systematic theology derivable from Mormon scripture and teaching. That is why I am quite comfortable as a LDS believing as I do.

I can explain why I think philosophically my non-creation ex nihilo belief structure answers more questions and has fewer problems than a creation ex nihilo structure and/or than Aquinas’s structure.

I can explain why I think my non-creation ex nihilo belief structure is more historical than a creation ex nihilo structure.

I can explain why I think my non-creation ex nihilo belief structure is more biblical than a creation ex nihilo structure.

I am of the opinion that a God above God is a problematic structure (and I would suggest that Irenaeus said we should not speculate about such things and Pres Hinckley said we do not know much about what it means to say “God was once a man.”), but I am not convinced it is either more or less problems than creation ex nihilo. I am not particularly interested in defending the philosophy of an infinite regression of Gods, because I do not generally embrace such an idea. In addition to this I think this idea creates more problems for understanding LDS scripture, the King Follet Discourse, the Articles of Faith, and even the Lorenzo Snow couplet than the solution I would propose (in conjunction, largely imitation of, some early and modern LDS thinkers).

Anyway, I might be able to participate a little here if desired.

Charity, TOm

 

[ben_dy]

TOmNossor:

I have become a little interested in philosophy. I have no formal training, but I have read a little from some of the folks I should have read and a little more from some secondary sources.

I am of the opinion that my non-creation ex nihilo philosophy is superior to the creation ex nihilo philosophy advocated by the Catholic Church and more specifically the one advocated by Aquinas (where I Catholic at the minimum I would be a Molinist). I am of the opinion that my non-creation ex nihilo philosophy is the best read of Mormon scriptures, taking into account non-canonized by important works like the Articles of Faith AND the King Follett Discourse.

Since this is interesting, I can explain why I think it is the best systematic theology derivable from Mormon scripture and teaching. That is why I am quite comfortable as a LDS believing as I do.

I can explain why I think philosophically my non-creation ex nihilo belief structure answers more questions and has fewer problems than a creation ex nihilo structure and/or than Aquinas’s structure.

I can explain why I think my non-creation ex nihilo belief structure is more historical than a creation ex nihilo structure.

I can explain why I think my non-creation ex nihilo belief structure is more biblical than a creation ex nihilo structure.

I am of the opinion that a God above God is a problematic structure (and I would suggest that Irenaeus said we should not speculate about such things and Pres Hinckley said we do not know much about what it means to say “God was once a man.”), but I am not convinced it is either more or less problems than creation ex nihilo. I am not particularly interested in defending the philosophy of an infinite regression of Gods, because I do not generally embrace such an idea. In addition to this I think this idea creates more problems for understanding LDS scripture, the King Follet Discourse, the Articles of Faith, and even the Lorenzo Snow couplet than the solution I would propose (in conjunction, largely imitation of, some early and modern LDS thinkers).

Anyway, I might be able to participate a little here if desired.

Charity, TOm

Tom,

I am genuinely looking forward to the conclusions and questions you will be bringing to this discussion and would hope that even should the endeavor turn out to be one of a decade’s duration that we are all around to see those conclusions which can be agreed upon and those which will continue to be in dispute.

Although I hate resorting to the “as I am so much older than you, allow me to give you some advice” mode (not only because I find it condescending but because, in fact, I find it dishonest as many of the people I meet half my age I also find twice as bright as myself (though not quite so good as being able to name the cabinet members during the Eisenhower terms) so realize that in presenting caution when someone suggests that he or she is new to reading philosophy and/or theology (which most would agree, I think, are one and the same, no matter how vigorously it may be denied), I always feel that I must stick my nose in (even knowing it most unwelcome) and warn against embracing with great vigor that which is currently being read without first reading at least ten times the sources that seek to disprove that being currently read. And 10x is just sort of an arbitrary limit that I set for myself - before accepting the Molinist over the Thomist, for instance, I would make certain that those remaining nine sources did nor rely at all upon Thomism - if they do, they cannot be accepted as non-Thomist unless the reference is so vague that it may as well serve as a dismissal.

Please don’t take this ‘caution’ as a suggestion that I am in possession of any great mental skills, that I’ve a world-weary knowledge that I insist upon sharing, or that I even doubt that you are not already operating under the assumptions that I am passing along as they were passed along to me. If anything, call me a stupid old fool who early in life fell into a hole and, no matter how large and obvious the hole to others, I feel it my obligation to point out lest others need spend even one minutes (or several years, in my case) in that hole.

I always look forward to your messages - I do believe you to be amongst the best and brightest that post on these boards and look forward to reading what you’ve to say.