Straw God

[_huckelberry]

I am wondering how many Mormons accept or reject Tobins unadorned adam god theology. I find it repellent but I am not a Mormon believer. I suspect he has a point that things Mr Smith said can suggest this. Brigham Young clearly thought this was the correct understanding.

Huckelberry, how do you get "adam god theology" out of anything Tobin said?

Opps. put that cat back into the bag. If we talk about an advanced creature from another planet starting the human race and do not call him Adam we are safely removed from Brigham's Adam God teaching.

[_Tobin]

Opps. put that cat back into the bag. If we talk about an advanced creature from another planet starting the human race and do not call him Adam we are safely removed from Brigham's Adam God teaching.

It's actually terribly inaccurate. God the Father was a savior, so a being like Jesus Christ would be accurate. As I've stated before, this process we are going through is a cycle repeated throughout our universe and is not peculiar to our planet. I do not believe there are human beings populating the universe nor Earths replicated throughout the universe either. That would be terribly unlikely and uninteresting. But, similar events transpire with beings that are intelligent and are evolved on their respective worlds and when ready - God intercedes and this process I described begins and culminates in the same result of exaltation and salvation of those intelligent beings.

I would also point out huckelberry - Christianity has no answer for the existence of intelligent life beyond our planet ever. At least Mormonism can be understood in a universe with other intelligent life out there.

[_huckelberry]

Tobin ,"God the father was a savior."

I do not know what you mean by that. I was referring to your previous statement above.

"In my view, I'm not imposing limitations on the traditional view of God. God's limitations arise as a consequence of his natural existence (how he came to be). Or in other words, because he is a "highly technologically advanced, evolved and eternal being" arising some billions of years ago on a different planet than ours, there are things that would be of interest to God and things that would not. Imagine we were hyper advanced monitoring the development on another world."

In particular I see the phrases," how he came to be, technologically advanced, evolved, arising on a different planet." I do not think I am misunderstanding but if I am you may explain.

[_Tobin]

Tobin ,"God the father was a savior."

I do not know what you mean by that. I was referring to your previous statement above.

"In my view, I'm not imposing limitations on the traditional view of God. God's limitations arise as a consequence of his natural existence (how he came to be). Or in other words, because he is a "highly technologically advanced, evolved and eternal being" arising some billions of years ago on a different planet than ours, there are things that would be of interest to God and things that would not. Imagine we were hyper advanced monitoring the development on another world."

In particular I see the phrases," how he came to be, technologically advanced, evolved, arising on a different planet." I do not think I am misunderstanding but if I am you may explain.

God the Father was the example for Jesus Christ. He did all he saw his father doing. Now, put in place what we get from Joseph Smith - God the Father was a man, a mortal being at one time billions of years ago, from another planet. This clearly indicates that Jesus followed his example implying that he too was a savior of his species. Also, Jesus Christ was an advanced being. The things he was able to do were viewed as miracles, the more likely answer was they were uses of advanced knowledge and technology. He also talked as if he wasn't from this world and was going somewhere else. Clearly indicating he came from elsewhere beyond the Earth.

With that understanding, I don't think your mistrust of these other worldly creatures is well-founded, since Jesus Christ himself was one of these other worldly creatures. When you see that, and understand that all of this was set up by this God-like species - including causing our existence in this biosphere and their interest in our success as a species - you arrive at exactly the same place Christianity does. But, you have a deeper appreciation and understanding of the universe and God.

[_Darth J]

Or in other words, because he is a "highly technologically advanced, evolved and eternal being" arising some billions of years ago on a different planet than ours, there are things that would be of interest to God and things that would not. Imagine we were hyper advanced monitoring the development on another world. Unless we didn't understand the biological processes of the species we were monitoring, it is highly unlikely we would monitor ever single instance they deficated. The same would be true for minor actions of individuals. We would be more interested in how they develop and might attempt to guide that alien world and mold it in productive and successful ways.

This is unsurprisingly similar to accounts of God in our own records.

Matthew 10

29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.

This aloof, quasi-deist God Tobin is proposing does not exist anywhere in the Bible or the Book of Mormon (which Tobin claims to believe in). But at least the suggested differences between Tobin's space opera God and the traditional theistic view of God are so miniscule and trivial that Tobin neither explains nor illuminates a single thing about the philosophical problems of classical theism.

However, for those who are opposed to bacon, there are always smoked and cured strips of pork belly instead. Language has magical powers, you know. By saying the exact same thing in substance with slightly different wording that adds no meaningful distinction, you can make yourself believe you have come up with a really insightful new idea.

[_Darth J]

Joseph Smith also points out these connections if you read what he has to say carefully:
1) He states God the Father was from another world.
2) That we were intelligences or programs capable of independent thought.
3) We were transformed from intelligences (programs) into spirits - probably an advanced energy form similar in appearance to ourselves that contained our intelligences (programs).
4) This world was settled - a male and female were introduced into the biosphere that both had a physical form melded with this spirit or energy form that had previously been prepared.
5) And after we exist here in physical form, we are literally saved (preserved) and as we advance are given a final eternal physical form that is an enhanced (exalted) form of this physical/spirit being that we are now.

But why should we care what Joseph Smith had to say?

He was nincompoop that made stuff up and he was a nincompoop that didn't have a clue what he was talking about. And remember that Joseph Smith was a poorly educated, 19th century man. I don't know how well he'd relate with Moroni nor how clear a picture he would have in his mind conversing with someone from such a completely different society and time. He was undoubtedly riddled with misconceptions. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=23872&start=84&hilit=nincompoop&p=588068&view=show#p588068

[_KevinSim]

Because all possible choices or options aren't available to God (or whoever else you may consider). Imposing limitations means you limit choice, that implies you aren't a free agent able to choose among all possible alternatives.

How do you conclude that "all possible choices" aren't available to my limited God? In fact, I find it interesting that you used the word possible choices. All I'm saying is that "all possible choices or options" may not be all "choices or options" that can be imagined. It can be imagined that God has the power to create intelligence out of nothing, and it can also be imagined that God has the power to cause existing intelligence to go back to not existing, can cause existing intelligence to cease to exist. Yet I say that the power to do that, to create intelligence or to destroy it, is not possible, not even for God. So God can "choose among all possible alternatives"; all I'm saying is that some alternatives may be impossible, even for God.

[_KevinSim]

Opps. put that cat back into the bag. If we talk about an advanced creature from another planet starting the human race and do not call him Adam we are safely removed from Brigham's Adam God teaching.

Well, yes we do. The only elements of Adam God that the LDS Church doesn't currently support is that Jesus is the biological son of Adam. You remove that one person, Adam, from Adam God, and you've removed the controversy.

[_Tobin]

Because all possible choices or options aren't available to God (or whoever else you may consider). Imposing limitations means you limit choice, that implies you aren't a free agent able to choose among all possible alternatives.

How do you conclude that "all possible choices" aren't available to my limited God? In fact, I find it interesting that you used the word possible choices. All I'm saying is that "all possible choices or options" may not be all "choices or options" that can be imagined. It can be imagined that God has the power to create intelligence out of nothing, and it can also be imagined that God has the power to cause existing intelligence to go back to not existing, can cause existing intelligence to cease to exist. Yet I say that the power to do that, to create intelligence or to destroy it, is not possible, not even for God. So God can "choose among all possible alternatives"; all I'm saying is that some alternatives may be impossible, even for God.

Oh, I certainly don't disagree about some choices being impossible even for God. But, if you use the traditional understanding of God you have to wonder why aren't they possible? However, if God naturally arises, the answer seems obvious. Because God is a God of nature and is constrained within a certain framework.

[_KevinSim]

Oh, I certainly don't disagree about some choices being impossible even for God. But, if you use the traditional understanding of God you have to wonder why aren't they possible? However, if God naturally arises, the answer seems obvious. Because God is a God of nature and is constrained within a certain framework.

Maybe we don't disagree after all. The traditional idea is of a deity that created all. It makes much more sense to me to believe in a deity who, as you say, "naturally arises."