A Thought Experiment: Is Mormonism Ultimately Non-Theistic?

[_honorentheos]

The interesting thing about this is trinitarians must account for who or what came before God much sooner than an LDS person would have to. They cannot get away with claiming God has always existed as God because of the larger infinities rule. In fact, we LDS probably don't have to account for it at all since the "first God" can fade back into infinite preceeding generations and creative periods (evolutions) which can span the infinties.

A question along the lines of what you wrote above, bcspace: rather than looking at the infinite nature of God being God, how does your theory account for intelligences being eternal? In LDS theology, everything has an eternal nature with some capacity for agency. Whether God is just code for an alien race (meaning alien to us - as He would have to be different from us in many ways and, as they say "God's ways are not our ways...") or truly God in the sense most Christians mean aside, your theory pushes evolution from our world out into a multiverse of sorts where there was no prime mover - at all still "just happened" or "just is".

It seems you are trying to solve differences between LDS theology and other faiths by putting different labels on them.

Also, it would be nice if you would clarify your ideas regarding this question-asked-as-statement earlier by Darth that you skipped over -

And so you agree that the multiverse and sentient life came into being without an original, First Cause God, which means that Mormonism is ultimately non-theistic.

[_lazygal]

In response to the OP:

Ideas like this always leads me to fractals and the incomprehensible nature of infinity. There is no beginning and there is no end. That is why you will never get to a god who didn't have a god before him. No matter how many times you zoom out on the God fractal, there is always more pattern to behold.

Is that a cop out?

So I gotta know... is my idea too simplistic and off base to even be considered? (Not being sarcastic... I'm really interested.)

[_MrStakhanovite]

So I gotta know... is my idea too simplistic and off base to even be considered? (Not being sarcastic... I'm really interested.)

It's not a cop out, it's an honest remark. Not much to comment on.

[_Jason Bourne]

Certainyl LDS canon allows for an Eternal God. The D&C talks of an Eternal God of all other gods. I think this is why Blake Ostler believes that LDS scripture does allow for an First Cause God and rejects the idea that this God was ever a man like us.

I agree.

Then Mormons do not worship God. They worship a god. Worship of Elohim then becomes analogous to the intercession of saints in Catholicism.

I am not sure I understand how you are defining theists in this instance. In my speculative analysis above I believe Mormons do worship God, or The Eternal God of all other Gods.

D&C 121:28-32
28 A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be bone God or many gods, they shall be manifest.
29 All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be arevealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ.
30 And also, if there be abounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to the dry land, or to the sun, moon, or stars—
31 All the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days, months, and years, and all the days of their days, months, and years, and all their glories, laws, and set times, shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of times—
32 According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest.

The Eternal God of all other Gods in my opinion could be the God we call Eloheim. This is the one I would label as the intelligence that was more intelligent then all the others and the one that go the ball rolling so to speak.

Also, I read the KFD to say Jesus was doing that which he saw the Father do. In other words at some point the Father was savior of a world like Jesus was doing on our earth. I can wrangle this idea this way. God, the Eternal God of all other gods, was the intelligence that was more intelligent then all others put together. He figured out for His own progression and our their needed to be a mortal experience. So he created a world, peopled it, entered mortality as that worlds savior and then got the ball rolling from there. This seems plausible in LDS thought. And remember in LDS thought Jesue already was at god level before his mortal life.

If Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost made it to godhood before even living in mortality, why not eliminate the middleman and let us do whatever they did to attain godhood before being born?

My speculative answer could be that Jesus Christ was special in that he had progressed to the point of Godhood in the pre earth life. His mortality then became and exercise of obtaining a body and fulfilling the mission of the atonement for which he was chosen for from the beginning.

If Jesus and the Holy Ghost became gods before passing through mortality, then why was it necessary for Elohim to go through mortal life to become a god?

The Eternal God of all other Gods was God already. He did not have to go through a mortal life to be what he was but perhaps he understood that to reach the pinnacle of fullfillment and progression a body was necessary. So he created a world, peopled it and obtained his body while acting a a savior to that world.

How could Elohim create a world and people it and experienced mortality so that he could progress to godhood if he was not already a god?

In my speculations I believe he was God.

by the way, BC is wrong. Jesus was fully God before His earth life. The Bible teaches this, the Book of Mormon does as does the D&C.

[_Runtu]

by the way, BC is wrong. Jesus was fully God before His earth life. The Bible teaches this, the Book of Mormon does as does the D&C.

That's pretty shocking if he really believes that. The scriptures are clear:

“The time cometh, and is not far distant, that with power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in a tabernacle of clay” (Mosiah 3:5).

Here's an excerpt from the Ensign, which last I checked represents official doctrine:

Right from the title page of the Book of Mormon we learn something about the Savior. Moroni testified thereon that “Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations.” Two things of note come out of his statement: The Savior is and was “the Eternal God.” Further, He has not manifested Himself to Jew and Nephite alone but to other people as well.

King Benjamin testified that the Eternal God would dwell in a tabernacle of clay. Yet it is important to note that the clay did not gain mastery over either the Lord’s eternal divinity or His omnipotence. Amulek recognized that in becoming mortal, Jesus was not bereft of His eternal powers. When asked by the lawyer Zeezrom, “Who is he that shall come? Is it the Son of God?” Amulek’s answer was a resounding yes. When Zeezrom asked further, “Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?” Amulek’s enthusiasm did not diminish: “Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, … and he shall come into the world to redeem his people” (Alma 11:32–33, 38–40).

The Lord’s eternal nature played a central role in His work as Redeemer. But it also made Him unique among all those born of women. Amulek brought both of these ideas together when he told his people of a great and last sacrifice that would need to be made someday. He explained that it would not be “a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice” (Alma 34:10).

Amulek’s idea seems a bit surprising. How could Jesus, born of a mortal woman like the rest of us, not be human? The answer becomes apparent as we understand how the prophet was using the terms man and human.

Amulek was not using these terms as exact synonyms for any mortal. It was true that Jesus was fully man because He, like us, was flesh and blood and could therefore die. But Amulek was not using the terms in that way. He explained that the great and last sacrifice would “not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice” (Alma 34:10). For him, the terms man and human represented all who are not infinite and eternal. Therefore, a human sacrifice would not meet the requirements of that great and last sacrifice.

Taken together in Amulek’s context, the terms man and human seem to define that which is not yet God. As King David said: “What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels [Hebrew elohim; that is, “gods”], and hast crowned him with glory and honour” (Ps. 8:4–5). Certainly man is not a second-class citizen of the cosmos, but neither is he a God. The Savior, on the other hand, is a God, as He was in mortality.

Amulek was not alone in testifying that the mortal Lord was matchless in rank and dignity. Abinadi testified to King Noah and his priests that the coming Messiah was “that God [who] should redeem his people.” He would fulfill that responsibility by coming “down among the children of men, and [taking] upon him the form of man, and [going] forth in mighty power” (Mosiah 13:33–34). Note that Abinadi did not say He would be a man, but rather, He would have the form of a man. King Limhi picked up on this nuance, explaining that Abinadi taught “that Christ was the God, the Father of all things,” and He would “take upon him the image of a man” (Mosiah 7:27). Again, the scriptures clearly distinguish between what the Savior was and what we are. Jesus may have shared our image, but He still retained His position as God.

It was because He was God and not man that Jesus could minister as He did. King Benjamin was told by an angel that the Savior would “suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death” (Mosiah 3:7; emphasis added). The reason we could not endure the Savior’s suffering, hunger, thirst, or fatigue is that we do not possess the divine power He did.

To suggest that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Eternal God, was only "a God relative to us in the Abraham 3 sense" approaches heresy.

[_Darth J]

Around this point is where I think I will interject the official church doctrine that Elohim is NOT the First Cause God.

“Chapter 4: Knowing and Honoring the Godhead,” Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young

The great architect, manager and superintendent, controller and dictator [absolute ruler] who guides this work is out of sight to our natural eyes. He lives on another world; he is in another state of existence; he has passed the ordeals we are now passing through; he has received an experience, has suffered and enjoyed, and knows all that we know regarding the toils, sufferings, life and death of this mortality, for he has passed through the whole of it, and has received his crown and exaltation and holds the keys and the power of this Kingdom; he sways his scepter, and does his will among the children of men, among Saints and among sinners, and brings forth results to suit his purpose among kingdoms and nations and empires, that all may redound to his glory and to the perfection of his work......

Many have tried to penetrate to the First Cause of all things; but it would be as easy for an ant to number the grains of sand on the earth. It is not for man, with his limited intelligence, to grasp eternity in his comprehension. … It would be as easy for a gnat to trace the history of man back to his origin as for man to fathom the First Cause of all things, lift the veil of eternity, and reveal the mysteries that have been sought after by philosophers from the beginning. What then, should be the calling and duty of the children of men? Instead of inquiring after the origin of Gods—instead of trying to explore the depths of eternities that have been, that are, and that will be, instead of endeavoring to discover the boundaries of boundless space, let them seek to know the object of their present existence, and how to apply, in the most profitable manner for their mutual good and salvation, the intelligence they possess. Let them seek to know and thoroughly understand things within their reach, and to make themselves well acquainted with the object of their being here, by diligently seeking unto a super-power for information and by the careful study of the best books.

[_Darth J]

The LDS Church equates the "Eternal God of all other gods" in D&C 121 with Elohim.

Topical Guide: God the Father--Elohim/Eloheim

Does the Topical Guide reflect what the Church thinks a scripture means?

Boyd K. Packer
"Using the New Scriptures," December 1985 Ensign

The references in the Topical Guide, like the references in the footnotes, span the whole library of scriptures.

The first references listed are from the Old Testament, followed by those in the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and finally the Pearl of Great Price.

Here, in one place, you have virtually all of the references in all of the standard works on this subject. They are tied into the footnotes and cross-references.

Already the whole library is open to you on the subject of “creation,” and you have only read the first verse of the first book in the Old Testament. The same procedure can be followed for all 3,495 subjects in the Topical Guide.

You may, of course, go directly to the Topical Guide to find information on a scriptural subject.

[_Jason Bourne]

Well Darth it looks like my speculative opinions disagree with BYs.

But I am am just discussing with you from a Mormon theological perspective and tossing in my own musings. Personally, I do not buy into the idea that God the eternal Father has to have been a man like us or a savior like Jesus.

But that leads to another mind bender for me. In traditional Christian thought God and Jesus while different personages are One and of the same substance. Does not Jesus then experience something beyond what the Father has? Or did the Father experience mortality through Christ?

Topic for another thread perhaps.

[_Darth J]

Well Darth it looks like my speculative opinions disagree with BYs.

But I am am just discussing with you from a Mormon theological perspective and tossing in my own musings. Personally, I do not buy into the idea that God the eternal Father has to have been a man like us or a savior like Jesus.

But that leads to another mind bender for me. In traditional Christian thought God and Jesus while different personages are One and of the same substance. Does not Jesus then experience something beyond what the Father has? Or did the Father experience mortality through Christ?

Topic for another thread perhaps.

Oh, I don't see anything wrong with expressly stating that you disagree with some of the teachings of the Church and that this is what you personally believe.

However, you are not claiming to be an apologetic defender of the Church who is removing "roadblocks to faith."

It is hard to see how anyone could claim to believe that the Church is true while disagreeing with its fundamental teachings about the nature and character of God. But, again, you are in a very different place from people like Blake Ostler, who thinks his heresies are promoting faith in the LDS Church.

And I agree with you that it is a non sequitur that Elohim must have been a savior on some other world like Jesus. We don't have to be saviors on this world to become like Elohim.

[_Darth J]

P.S. Jason Bourne, if it came across that I was arguing with you, then I apologize. It means I was not communicating effectively.