Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain

[Limnor]

Gad, would removal of agency default to “Lucifer’s plan?” I’m wondering if Joseph understood the flaws in his theological innovations and then pinned the actual solutions on an adversary to scare people off understanding the problems.

[Limnor]

We imagine ourselves getting into heaven, we create one planet, then a second, and then a third.

This is another example of the unique “grammar” of Mormonism. I’ve never heard of the idea that you might create multiple worlds and not just one.

Does this mean there could be an infinite number of Jesus’ for each world without end? This is just mind boggling. Would they all have the same traits and do the same thing on each planet? Woof.

[Limnor]

I’m curious to see if you’ve further advanced your thoughts on this thread, gad.

I’ve also been wondering: If exaltation in Mormonism is accomplished through progression and following the example of the Father and Jesus, does that mean the Father died and was resurrected on some other planet? And wouldn’t that path also require that everyone complete the same kind of sacrificial role Christ performed? Sincere questions—if there is some doctrinal explanation for this I’d be interested to hear it.

[Gadianton]

To answer those last two questions, the way I believe the mythology of Mormonism goes, the way I believe my mom implied it to be, is that yes, the Father died and was resurrected on some other planet. (They have the exact same roles, which is why one can't be superior to the other, but my mom, for instance, is unlikely to have consciously considering this aspect; this is me stepping back and trying to understand the unconscious logic of the mythology)

Concerning the number of Jesuses, because every Jesus is also a Father (hence the F-S (father-savior) chain)), they are equal in number. There would be a countably infinite number of Jesuses, but NOT one per world. The Jesus we know of died for the infinitude of planets created by his Father (or created by him under the supervision of his father as the Great Architect).

Your follow-up question, wouldn't that mean everyone would need to perform this role?, is a very good one. Bill/whiskey suggested that yes, we would. I think the answer, however, is "No". In other words, it's not something people like my mom ever believed. Not even my dad. The implication is that we are left with some contradictions. On the one hand, we can become Gods, but we would be Gods that have never been saviors. if "God" means the greatest being, then we quite simply wouldn't measure up. It's like saying there are two strongest men in the world, both can do exactly a thousand pushups, but one of them can run a thousand miles while the other can barely run a single mile. We would naturally think the one with the greater achievement as well, greater than the other. The implication is that the "F-S" chain are the real gods, and anyone exalted off this chain wouldn't really be a God in that sense, that Mormons pay lip service to this idea about exaltation but at the end of the day are authoritarians like everyone else.

[huckelberry]

Delete accidental fragment

[huckelberry]

To answer those last two questions, the way I believe the mythology of Mormonism goes, the way I believe my mom implied it to be, is that yes, the Father died and was resurrected on some other planet. (They have the exact same roles, which is why one can't be superior to the other, but my mom, for instance, is unlikely to have consciously considering this aspect; this is me stepping back and trying to understand the unconscious logic of the mythology)

Concerning the number of Jesuses, because every Jesus is also a Father (hence the F-S (father-savior) chain)), they are equal in number. There would be a countably infinite number of Jesuses, but NOT one per world. The Jesus we know of died for the infinitude of planets created by his Father (or created by him under the supervision of his father as the Great Architect).

Your follow-up question, wouldn't that mean everyone would need to perform this role?, is a very good one. Bill/whiskey suggested that yes, we would. I think the answer, however, is "No". In other words, it's not something people like my mom ever believed. Not even my dad. The implication is that we are left with some contradictions. On the one hand, we can become Gods, but we would be Gods that have never been saviors. if "God" means the greatest being, then we quite simply wouldn't measure up. It's like saying there are two strongest men in the world, both can do exactly a thousand pushups, but one of them can run a thousand miles while the other can barely run a single mile. We would naturally think the one with the greater achievement as well, greater than the other. The implication is that the "F-S" chain are the real gods, and anyone exalted off this chain wouldn't really be a God in that sense, that Mormons pay lip service to this idea about exaltation but at the end of the day are authoritarians like everyone else.

gadianton, your consideration of the greatest being leads to interesting reflections but I do not remember LDS ever making that a definition of God. (,Anselm ignored) I Remember divinity being completely in possession of the eternal divine power and knowledge. Is my memory over influenced by Lectures on Faith?

I do not know if the thought is worth any thing but these reflections made me wonder if God could be present to innumerable words as a savior. Perhaps the person of God can have innumerable presences in the many galaxies and worlds.

Or may be this is a thought in reaction to my feeling that the immensity of time and the universe always helps one wonder if it is to large for God.

[Limnor]

It seems like highest form of exaltation is tied to voluntarily offering oneself as a sacrifice, a savior who dies so that others may live, which would mean anyone who didn’t undergo that act would be lesser gods. They may possess worlds or kingdoms, or even continued progression, but they have not done the thing that made Jesus (and presumably his father) unique in His worthiness to be worshipped.

Huck’s response is interesting because he seems to be describing a sense of equality by downplaying sacrifice and describing other traits of godhood, like power or knowledge. I’m not quite understanding the second part of Huck’s point, though. do you mean to say that god the father, after having gone through his own sacrifice and reached exaltation, would have to repeat that act on multiple worlds?

Maybe this is all well understood in Mormon thought, but I keep coming back to the question that if people never themselves perform that sacrifice, can they really be called gods in the same sense as the Father and Jesus?

[huckelberry]

It seems like highest form of exaltation is tied to voluntarily offering oneself as a sacrifice, a savior who dies so that others may live, which would mean anyone who didn’t undergo that act would be lesser gods. They may possess worlds or kingdoms, or even continued progression, but they have not done the thing that made Jesus (and presumably his father) unique in His worthiness to be worshipped.

Huck’s response is interesting because he seems to be describing a sense of equality by downplaying sacrifice and describing other traits of godhood, like power or knowledge. I’m not quite understanding the second part of Huck’s point, though. do you mean to say that god the father, after having gone through his own sacrifice and reached exaltation, would have to repeat that act on multiple worlds?

Maybe this is all well understood in Mormon thought, but I keep coming back to the question that if people never themselves perform that sacrifice, can they really be called gods in the same sense as the Father and Jesus?

limnor. The second half of my comment was coming from a non Mormon point of view though it might be seen as sharing some angle. Perhaps Gadianton 's view comes from a different stand of Mormon speculation than I encountered. Perhaps he has a source but the idea of divinity requiring experience of being an atoning sacrifice is outside my Mormon learning. I think he trying to fallow out a line of logical extension. I keep pointing out greatest is the fundamental power of all being nor a measured accomplishment. I say that first from a traditional Christisn view noting that LDS thinking does not really escape that .it

[huckelberry]

It seems like highest form of exaltation is tied to voluntarily offering oneself as a sacrifice, a savior who dies so that others may live, which would mean anyone who didn’t undergo that act would be lesser gods. They may possess worlds or kingdoms, or even continued progression, but they have not done the thing that made Jesus (and presumably his father) unique in His worthiness to be worshipped.

Huck’s response is interesting because he seems to be describing a sense of equality by downplaying sacrifice and describing other traits of godhood, like power or knowledge. I’m not quite understanding the second part of Huck’s point, though. do you mean to say that god the father, after having gone through his own sacrifice and reached exaltation, would have to repeat that act on multiple worlds?

Maybe this is all well understood in Mormon thought, but I keep coming back to the question that if people never themselves perform that sacrifice, can they really be called gods in the same sense as the Father and Jesus?

limnor. The second half of my comment was coming from a non Mormon point of view though it might be seen as sharing some angle. Perhaps Gadianton 's view comes from a different stand of Mormon speculation than I encountered. Perhaps he has a source but the idea of divinity requiring experience of being an atoning sacrifice is outside my Mormon learning. I think he trying to fallow out a line of logical extension. I keep pointing out greatest is the fundamental power of all being not a measured accomplishment. I say that first from a traditional Christian view noting that LDS thinking does not really escape that .it

[Gadianton]

gadianton, your consideration of the greatest being leads to interesting reflections but I do not remember LDS ever making that a definition of God. (,Anselm ignored) I Remember divinity being completely in possession of the eternal divine power and knowledge. Is my memory over influenced by Lectures on Faith?

I've never said otherwise. For Mormons, God is more of a title, it's "that guy over there" who has a big family and created the world. However, "God" in monotheism means more than that, it does mean "the greatest being" and so subconsciously, Mormons try to work out the inconsistencies that their mythological character runs into.