A Thought Experiment: Is Mormonism Ultimately Non-Theistic?

[_mfbukowski]

Similarly, while Mormonism is henotheistic in that it teaches that there are many gods besides the three Gods that are explicitly worshipped in Mormonism (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost), is there really any ultimate supreme being over the multiverse in Mormonism? It does not appear so, as this thought experiment may illustrate. And if that is the case, isn't Mormonism, like Jainism, "polytheist, monotheist, nontheist and atheist all at the same time"? (Mormons would be henotheistic, not polytheistic, however.)

That's the problem with having to put everything into a box. It is what it is. If you want to put it in all those boxes, fine, but ultimately so what?

Shouldn't the "one true religion" encompass and explain all other categories of religion?

One might see all those other categories as pale models of portions of the whole encompassed by Mormonism.

[_mfbukowski]

MfBukowski rejects Platonic ideas about God and I think he has a point. The God defended today by Philosophers is not the God of the Bible, he's some sort of abstract Neo-platonic thing that sits outside the universe. Mormons are not bound by this formulation of God and so I think it's unfair to chain them to it, and wildly stupid when they chain themselves to it.

The problem is, Mormons care so much about what other people think, they throw their hat into the Theism circle without really understanding it. Modern explanations of God by Non-Orthodox Jews simply do not meet the criteria of Theism, and how could it after the Holocaust? No one really calls Harold Kushner out for not meeting all the criteria of Theism.

I think this nails it. That is pretty much my position.

[_Jason Bourne]

Darth

I don't think you are arguing at all. This is a great thread.

As for Ostler, I have quite liked him in the past. However his comments of a year or so ago that the church has little official doctrine diminished him some to me. Perhaps I liked him more as a hobby apologist because what he said appealed to me personally. However, I think it was when I heard him debate Van Hale about the KFD that I realized he was really out of synch with what the church has taught about God being a man.

[_Darth J]

Similarly, while Mormonism is henotheistic in that it teaches that there are many gods besides the three Gods that are explicitly worshipped in Mormonism (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost), is there really any ultimate supreme being over the multiverse in Mormonism? It does not appear so, as this thought experiment may illustrate. And if that is the case, isn't Mormonism, like Jainism, "polytheist, monotheist, nontheist and atheist all at the same time"? (Mormons would be henotheistic, not polytheistic, however.)

That's the problem with having to put everything into a box. It is what it is. If you want to put it in all those boxes, fine, but ultimately so what?

Shouldn't the "one true religion" encompass and explain all other categories of religion?

One might see all those other categories as pale models of portions of the whole encompassed by Mormonism.

No, I see no compelling reason to assume that the one true religion would encompass all other categories of religion. Although adding some more volcano worship would bring some much-needed pizazz to the LDS Church.

But I am not the one who is so obsessed with labels. The self-professed defenders of the Church are the ones preoccupied with how the LDS Church is categorized by others, as a quick tour of the FAIR wiki and the article I discussed on my "FAIR: Contradicting the Church" thread demonstrate.

As MrStak has correctly observed, Latter-day Saints are way too worried about what other people think of them. bcspace also helped proved the point by being so concerned with being called "henotheistic." In fact, the LDS Church teaches that the spirit children of those who are exalted have the same relationship to them that we have to Heavenly Father. This means that while we only worship three gods (which makes us polytheistic), we acknowledge that there are other gods whom other people can worship with equal truth. That is henotheism.

I specifically said in the thread you are currently reading that Mormons should take the attitude that they don't care what other people think about their beliefs regarding the nature of God.

[_mfbukowski]

The "problem," if you view it is a problem, is that in Mormonism, God is relative. Elohim is God relative to us, but not relative to the multiverse because there is a mechanism by which a human becomes a god. By definition, a god in Mormonism is a human who has successfully completed this process. God being "eternal" is relative, not absolute. No matter how big you want the number to be, at some point there had to be a first god because gods are not self-existing. Matter is self-existing in Mormonism, as are spirit and intelligence.

Yes and spirit and intelligence are transforming and growing organically.

You are looking for Adam as a first man, when you can only find him as our most primitive ancestor- some blob of protoplasm.

So what if God is the "relative" absolute of all that we can know or think or experience?

Your notion of the absolute becomes some unknowable undefinable "thing" I guess, which is out there- where? Doing what?

What is your absolute good for? It is in itself a theistic notion - "The Absolute"! You postulate the existence of such a thing and then want us to fall down and call our God "relative".

We are back to a god on the top of a topless throne.

[_mfbukowski]

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

My honest assessment: No it is not off base at all. It establishes a symbolic picture reference for your sense of infinity- and I think it is not a bad picture at all.

It just doesn't add any information. It' says "Look!"

And yes, it is a good picture.

[_mfbukowski]

No, I see no compelling reason to assume that the one true religion would encompass all other categories of religion. Although adding some more volcano worship would bring some much-needed pizazz to the LDS Church.

But I am not the one who is so obsessed with labels. The self-professed defenders of the Church are the ones preoccupied with how the LDS Church is categorized by others, as a quick tour of the FAIR wiki and the article I discussed on my "FAIR: Contradicting the Church" thread demonstrate.

As MrStak has correctly observed, Latter-day Saints are way too worried about what other people think of them. bcspace also helped proved the point by being so concerned with being called "henotheistic." In fact, the LDS Church teaches that the spirit children of those who are exalted have the same relationship to them that we have to Heavenly Father. This means that while we only worship three gods (which makes us polytheistic), we acknowledge that there are other gods whom other people can worship with equal truth. That is henotheism.

I specifically said in the thread you are currently reading that Mormons should take the attitude that they don't care what other people think about their beliefs regarding the nature of God.

Well "henotheism" has many meanings, and some may apply and some don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism

Honestly I don't care if we are or are not "henotheistic" in someone's opinion. And I agree that yes, we are too concerned about that.

[_Darth J]

Yes and spirit and intelligence are transforming and growing organically.

You are looking for Adam as a first man, when you can only find him as our most primitive ancestor- some blob of protoplasm.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea where this came from or what you are getting at.

So what if God is the "relative" absolute of all that we can know or think or experience?

You are conflating two different things. Elohim is not relative to "knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" (D&C 93:24). Elohim's status as God is relative to us. Whether this is orthodox Mormon doctrine is not a matter of opinion. The concept of Elohim having progressed to a state of being God relative to us just as we will be God relative to our own spirit children permeates the Church's teachings about exaltation.

Your notion of the absolute becomes some unknowable undefinable "thing" I guess, which is out there- where? Doing what?

What is your absolute good for? It is in itself a theistic notion - "The Absolute"! You postulate the existence of such a thing and then want us to fall down and call our God "relative".

Again, I don't know where you are coming from or where you are going with this. "The absolute" is a concept separate from the identity of Elohim, who is God to us, and this is crystal clear in LDS teachings. You might want to take another look at 2 Nephi 2, also.

We are back to a god on the top of a topless throne.

You appear to think that Joseph Smith did not know what the nature of God is. Elohim has a father who is God relative to him, just like Elohim is God relative to us. Let's look at what he said he learned from translating the papyrus he got from Michael Chandler:

[_Darth J]

Well "henotheism" has many meanings, and some may apply and some don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism

Since we're going to Wikipedia:

Monolatry is not the same thing as henotheism, which is the belief in and worship of one god without at the same time denying that other persons (of different nations on this earth) can with equal truth worship different gods.

As, for example, Elohim worshiping his own father as God relative to him, or the spirit children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob worshiping them as God relative to them, which we acknowledge while only worshiping the three gods that pertain to us (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). And if you look at this Wikipedia entry, the reference for the quote I have here is.......Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie.

[_Darth J]

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.

Have you thought about how close this is to the Adam-God doctrine?

And it was a doctrine, not a "theory," as we can see in the official church publication, The Millennial Star.