DiscussMormonism.com

Limnor wrote:I wouldn’t say I’m locked into that explanation. I just find that explanation more understandable than the LDS model. Having creation caused by God rather than God being one more being within an already existing reality makes more sense to me.

But I think I see the distinction you’re making, and think I understand the caution you are advising, that even saying God is the ultimate cause doesn’t quite answer the question of Being itself.

Right, and recall that Aristotle even had five causes and William Lane Craig got that down to one. The who-done-it mystery. Not that H is happy with A, but just saying. A lot is invested in a narrow question.

But the LDS model isn't actually anything different. Faulconer can get Mormons off on a technicality because you can argue that church doesn't officially try to explain God, but Chapel Mormons know that it's turtles all the way down. That's still a material cause, it's a vending machine that creates other vending machines as well as tin cans and nobody knows about the first vending machine.

The broader point I'd make with someone like Faulconer is that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Faulconer says Nietzsche would find Mormons incomprehensible -- his apologetic move is to move them out of the line of fire. But I don't think these philosophical technicalities matter. People today, Mormons included, can't claim to be "peculiar" when they are constructed by social media and politics and video games and movies the same like everyone else. The fact a southern Utah farmer happens not to believe in creation ex nihlo and may have never even heard about it and then puts on his red hat for the morning doesn't make him much different than an evangelical from Mississippi who puts on the same red hat but somewhere a long time ago one of his preachers said something about that.

I can imagine Nietzsche granted a view of the fifteen apostles in a meeting talking about the next real estate investment or whitewashed lesson manual, and Nietzsche being blown away think, "wow, these men are so much different from the clergy of tradition, my social commentary has no words for them".

Very interesting thread. Thanks to everyone who has contributed, and a special thanks to Dr. Peterson for providing the impetus for the discussion, and for bringing some additional activity to our little trailer park.

canpakes wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2026 5:26 am

Limnor wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2026 1:44 am

I’m trying to see if I’m following this. Would Mormon eternal progression actually make the Being/beings problem more complicated rather than solve it?

Years ago I remarked to my SO - after their shelf finally collapsed - that one of the biggest issues with Mormonism’s attempt to explain or answer so many questions about the basic beliefs of the faith is that those attempts end up creating even more and bigger questions and more ludicrous scenarios.

Reminds me of the study of quantum cosmology. Each new discovery brings a bevy of new questions. Truth emerges as we approach the profound.

Gadianton wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2026 2:54 pm

The broader point I'd make with someone like Faulconer is that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Faulconer says Nietzsche would find Mormons incomprehensible -- his apologetic move is to move them out of the line of fire. But I don't think these philosophical technicalities matter. People today, Mormons included, can't claim to be "peculiar" when they are constructed by social media and politics and video games and movies the same like everyone else. The fact a southern Utah farmer happens not to believe in creation ex nihlo and may have never even heard about it and then puts on his red hat for the morning doesn't make him much different than an evangelical from Mississippi who puts on the same red hat but somewhere a long time ago one of his preachers said something about that.

I can imagine Nietzsche granted a view of the fifteen apostles in a meeting talking about the next real estate investment or whitewashed lesson manual, and Nietzsche being blown away think, "wow, these men are so much different from the clergy of tradition, my social commentary has no words for them".

Does Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity map cleanly onto Mormonism at the philosophical level? There are reasons to think it doesn’t. Mormonism rejects an immaterial God outside the world, rejects creation ex nihilo, gives embodiment extraordinary theological importance, makes human beings continuous in some sense with God, treats material existence as eternally significant, and imagines salvation as increased agency, creativity, relationship, knowledge, and ultimately godhood. That’s a strange target for a critique aimed at Christianity as a flight from this world into a transcendent “true world.”

The Before wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2026 11:41 pm

Does Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity map cleanly onto Mormonism at the philosophical level? There are reasons to think it doesn’t. Mormonism rejects an immaterial God outside the world, rejects creation ex nihilo, gives embodiment extraordinary theological importance, makes human beings continuous in some sense with God, treats material existence as eternally significant, and imagines salvation as increased agency, creativity, relationship, knowledge, and ultimately godhood. That’s a strange target for a critique aimed at Christianity as a flight from this world into a transcendent “true world.”

I think this misses Gad’s point a little. Of course the critique doesn’t map cleanly onto Mormonism, because the Mormon God isn’t the God of classical theism. And that seems to be exactly what Gad is questioning about Faulconer’s move: how much does that distinction actually buy you?

The Before wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2026 11:34 pm

Reminds me of the study of quantum cosmology. Each new discovery brings a bevy of new questions. Truth emerges as we approach the profound.

I dunno. The only discoveries in quantum cosmology that I've seen have been of the form, "Well, this wild shot in the dark doesn't seem to have hit anything, either."

Limnor wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 01, 2026 2:09 am

The Before wrote: ↑

Mon Aug 31, 2026 11:41 pm

Does Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity map cleanly onto Mormonism at the philosophical level? There are reasons to think it doesn’t. Mormonism rejects an immaterial God outside the world, rejects creation ex nihilo, gives embodiment extraordinary theological importance, makes human beings continuous in some sense with God, treats material existence as eternally significant, and imagines salvation as increased agency, creativity, relationship, knowledge, and ultimately godhood. That’s a strange target for a critique aimed at Christianity as a flight from this world into a transcendent “true world.”

I think this misses Gad’s point a little. Of course the critique doesn’t map cleanly onto Mormonism, because the Mormon God isn’t the God of classical theism. And that seems to be exactly what Gad is questioning about Faulconer’s move: how much does that distinction actually buy you?

Unfortunately Mormon God isn’t a clearly defined entity. It can be many things, flexible, malleable, vague, capable of one thing one day and then not capable of it the next. There are as many versions of Mormon God as they’re are active members.Prophets and Apostles can only give you vague phrases. It’s less 2+2 =4 and more 2+2 =pick any number that will suit what it is you want to pretend is right today.

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 02, 2026 8:14 am

Unfortunately Mormon God isn’t a clearly defined entity. It can be many things, flexible, malleable, vague, capable of one thing one day and then not capable of it the next. There are as many versions of Mormon God as they’re are active members.Prophets and Apostles can only give you vague phrases. It’s less 2+2 =4 and more 2+2 =pick any number that will suit what it is you want to pretend is right today.

So is there essentially no grounding at all? Today’s truth might not be true tomorrow.

I think MG said the eternal intelligences bit, resurrection, and a couple of other things might be considered unchangeable. Maybe those fixed theological commitments are themselves the grounding? But then the question becomes what makes those things fixed while everything else remains fluid.

Physics Guy wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 01, 2026 5:51 pm

I dunno. The only discoveries in quantum cosmology that I've seen have been of the form, "Well, this wild shot in the dark doesn't seem to have hit anything, either."

The process of elimination is part of science.

Limnor wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 01, 2026 2:09 am

I think this misses Gad’s point a little. Of course the critique doesn’t map cleanly onto Mormonism, because the Mormon God isn’t the God of classical theism. And that seems to be exactly what Gad is questioning about Faulconer’s move: how much does that distinction actually buy you?

A tremendous amount. In fact, it shields Mormon cosmology from Nietzsche’s critique.

The Before wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 03, 2026 1:53 am

A tremendous amount. In fact, it shields Mormon cosmology from Nietzsche’s critique.

“Tremendous” seems a bit generous, but fair enough. Nietzsche wasn’t aiming at Mormon theology. But that doesn’t equal “therefore Mormon cosmology is saved.” It just means Nietzsche wasn’t aiming at it.

Limnor wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 02, 2026 11:45 am

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 02, 2026 8:14 am

Unfortunately Mormon God isn’t a clearly defined entity. It can be many things, flexible, malleable, vague, capable of one thing one day and then not capable of it the next. There are as many versions of Mormon God as they’re are active members.Prophets and Apostles can only give you vague phrases. It’s less 2+2 =4 and more 2+2 =pick any number that will suit what it is you want to pretend is right today.

So is there essentially no grounding at all? Today’s truth might not be true tomorrow.

I think MG said the eternal intelligences bit, resurrection, and a couple of other things might be considered unchangeable. Maybe those fixed theological commitments are themselves the grounding? But then the question becomes what makes those things fixed while everything else remains fluid.

MG is only an authority on MG’s version of Mormon God. That isn’t binding on anyone else. Try and find an unequivocal, consistent, and clear description of what God is from any official source, such that you feel it gives you a clear understanding of Mormon’s version of God - what God is/is not, what God can/cannot do etc. and which isn’t contradicted by another official source.