Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain

[huckelberry]

A couple of points, though, on your response to me:

• I completely fail to see the point in introducing "love" as a godly attribute - for me, it doesn't seem to be in the same category as omnipotence and omniscience
• I have similar severe doubts about the usefulness of using "goodness" as a criterion, mostly because of the "god's ways are not man's ways" argument
• due to the recent relaxation of church standards on temple garments, we may now be able to tell if angels have shoulders. I'm going to look for that formerly "porn" part of the anatomy in any images of angels I come across. Elbows may be easier to discern. Of course, if angels have elbows, Canadian angels will no doubt have theirs "up", which may further reduce the available space for a stable configuration

Malkie , to try apossible starting point, I found myself thinking that the power to create order and further that order is a greater power than the ability to destroy or to push things around. I think all ideas of God start with the thought that life capable of understanding is the highest order we know. It is in the universe we know a development of the basic principles of physical existence. I think that implies that the greatest power is whatever underlies the basic principals of physical existence and its development into intelligent life.

In that context good is whatever furthers and supports that order and growth. Good is thus the same for people and God. It can be observed God's ways and ours are not the same because our sense of good is distorted and short sighted . We may choose limited goods which create disorder in the long run( think war, jealousy, cheating theft) our distortions are the opposite of love and in negation Indictated God is love, the source of life growth and positive instead of destructive relationships.

[Limnor]

Doctrine and Covenants 93 teaches that “Intelligence was not created or made, neither indeed can be”.

Abraham 3 says, "there were many of the noble and great ones” and that God was “more intelligent than they all.”

Our theology rejects ex nihilo creation. God(s) have always "organized" what already existed as eternal realities (intelligences, matter, and law). God's supremacy doesn't depend on being the "first cause" of all existence, but on perfect mastery of eternal realities. This is where LDS doctrine veers off from traditional Christian theology/doctrine.

We...all of us...share 'eternity' with God. There was a hierarchy of 'intelligences' (very little is known about this). Other can correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think there is anything in LDS scripture the requires that God became God through a prior God. Again, we are co-eternal with God. God's supremacy was within the co-eternality of intelligences, not from a prior deity.

Of course we have the doctrine which teaches that "As man is, God once was" to muddle our way through.

Modern LDS philosophic thought (again, corrrect me if I'm wrong) would say that intelligences are eternal, God's divine status is eternal...even though His embodied status had a temporal history. God has always been God in the sense of being the supreme intelligence.

By “regress” I mean the god that you describe is dependent upon something prior to itself to become god. In Christianity, God is “God” because there is nothing above Him, behind Him, or prior to Him. He’s not the strongest in a line of god, He is the source of everything, not molding or shaping, but creating from nothing.

Saying everything is eternal might explain why there’s no beginning, but it doesn’t explain what makes this god the Most High God of all eternity, but rather this god is just part of an eternal progression, almost like a temp. If “Most High” can be surpassed, or if it depends on something els (law, structure, prior gods), then it’s hard to see why that being counts as “God” rather than simply “a being who is ahead of us.”

[Limnor]

I sometimes wonder whether Joseph’s theology of progression mirrors his own life story (similar to how I see the composition of the book). He grew up in a folk-religious world seeking hidden power and upward movement, like his father before him.

Has anyone written on this from that perspective?

Edit: Brooke, Quinn, and Bushman. Maybe. I’ll have to take time to study.

[Gadianton]

For example, if intelligences are uncreated and co-eternal, and God exists among those other eternal beings, then the regress question would need to be accounted for. One of gad’s earlier comments included questions about the basis for that explanation if god is an extension of extending hierarchy into eternity past. Historical Christian thought terminates that regress in necessary being, but I saw no explanation from Mormon thought.

That was what I see as a different conversation. I don't technically see a problem with intelligences being co-eternal with God. But I think it's obvious that Mormon doctrine of the soul evolved in response to providing a physical answer to a philosophical puzzle, the mind-body problem, which led to the problem simply reappearing once swept under the rug with a new category. The spirit explains the mind. But wait, no immaterial matter allowed, so the spirit is a "spirit body" and we're back to square one of explaining the mind of the spirit. Aha! That's an intelligence. But wait, no immaterial matter. So even an intelligence is physical. So now we're back to square one. The mind/body problem is left unanswered in the form of a physical intelligence. But some believe, and I think Bruce R. may be one of them, that physical intelligence is really a kind of "spirit matter". It doesn't represent an eternal you. That matter is "organized" into a spirit body, just as dirt is organized into flesh. This is an example of where Mormon reduction logic fails. Creating a set of Russian dolls and then stopping and shrugging when you realize you're left with the same problem you started with.

what I'm calling the F-S chain I think succeeds. Not that it's true, it's nuts, but it is coherent, it basically solves the problem of "God" in an interesting way; though I think it's a cultural construct and we must flesh it out by implication.

Reality can be:

- the empty set
- a point
- a ray
- a line
- a circle
- a mobius strip?
- ? (help me out Malkie)

By making reality a ray, Christians are forced to invent categories. I'm not saying that means they are wrong, just as I'm not saying intelligence can't be co-eternal with God, but the doctrine is clumsy with category inventions and setting equivalencies. Mormons imply a line, and the reduction logic ends in saving them a category invention.

[Limnor]

what I'm calling the F-S chain I think succeeds. Not that it's true, it's nuts, but it is coherent, it basically solves the problem of "God" in an interesting way; though I think it's a cultural construct and we must flesh it out by implication.

In the early part of this thread I wondered if you were seeking to find coherence—I think you have and agree this would work. The issue, for me, is grounding, though I admit I may be inserting grounding as a necessity.

What’s also interesting to me is the “democratic” nature of the argument—I think you could say the similarity is that authority is grounded in the people.

[malkie]

...
I've been sick this week and have had a hard time breathing at night. I am extremely grateful for the gift of breathing. That requires a lot of moving parts. Before now, and in the present.
...

I hope you're feeling better now. I believe that there are few things more personally panic-inducing than difficulty in breathing.

Us old guys who are more mature in years need to take care of ourselves, and be prepared to let others take care of us too.

[MG 2.0]

...
I've been sick this week and have had a hard time breathing at night. I am extremely grateful for the gift of breathing. That requires a lot of moving parts. Before now, and in the present.
...

I hope you're feeling better now. I believe that there are few things more personally panic-inducing than difficulty in breathing.

Us old guys who are more mature in years need to take care of ourselves, and be prepared to let others take care of us too.

Sick for a period of days three times in five weeks. Missed church all three times. Is my body trying to tell me something?

My wife has been bringing my meals into the bedroom the last couple of days. What a sweetheart! Either that or she just doesn't want me to come out and spread germs. Probably a little of both.

I went out for a short walk today. I think I may live.

Thanks for your kind words, malkie. Us (we?) mature guys need to stick together even if we might disagree on some stuff.

Regards,
MG

[Gadianton]

The issue, for me, is grounding, though I admit I may be inserting grounding as a necessity

Right, the way I'm looking at it, grounding becomes necessary in the assumption that reality is a ray. That addresses the CA, but we've been talking the OA. I don't think the OA is tied to Aristotle. Example: If Aristotle is right, reality is a ray, and the stack of turtles ends with the first turtle. If reality is a line, the turtle stack never ends in either direction. The OA is agnostic to either position. Turtles are green, a highly positive property according to turtles, and color makes green possible. Color is what's necessary -- something like that. It's a different way of thinking about grounding.

You mentioned something about tracking Joseph's theology with his life events, this is a project of Shulem. I recently read this one:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=154325

Shulem makes a fascinating suggestion that Joseph began to depart from traditional Christian teachings about God after his purchase of the Egyptian papyri. The mystery of the pictures inspired his imagination.

[malkie]

Reality can be:

- the empty set
- a point
- a ray
- a line
- a circle
- a mobius strip?
- ? (help me out Malkie)

By making reality a ray, Christians are forced to invent categories. I'm not saying that means they are wrong, just as I'm not saying intelligence can't be co-eternal with God, but the doctrine is clumsy with category inventions and setting equivalencies. Mormons imply a line, and the reduction logic ends in saving them a category invention.

The next logical construct, I believe, is the Klein bottle, which, in spite of its name, may be as big as you need ( )

By Tttrung - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=960446

[I Have Questions]

I've been sick this week and have had a hard time breathing at night. I am extremely grateful for the gift of breathing. That requires a lot of moving parts. Before now, and in the present. That is, in my estimation, one facet of God's love that is given to everyone that has been blessed with the simple ability to breathe.

What a shame you didn’t consider the condition grindael was in when you stalked and trolled him, mercilessly. I have zero sympathy for whatever ails you. What goes around comes around.