The Origin and Literal Fatherhood of God

[_truth dancer]

Hey TSG...

I sense you share in my love/obsession with the universe! :-) I just can't get over it all... I can seriously ponder it for hours on end. The awe and wonder it inspires in me is beyond what I can describe!

For me, the more I learn about the universe the more my heart and mind expand... and in this I experience life and existence in a new way.

Oops... sorry to derail here a bit! ;-)

~dancer~

[_moksha]

King Follet Speech: “As man is, God once was.”
Bible: “I am the Lord, I change not.” - Malachi 3:6
Doctrine and Covenants: “There is a God in heaven...from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God.” - Doctrine and Covenants 20:17.
Book of Mormon: “He changeth not, if so, he would cease to be God.” 9:19.

[_JAK]

With historical objectivity we can trace notions of the gods and God to various cultures/civilizations. It arose from superstition and evolved into religion. Religion(s) is more organized than superstition yet remains an outgrowth of that as we consider superstition today. It is mainly a belief in a story or explanation for which no evidence gives support. Religion has that same basis.

This analysis of how religion qua religion first arose in human civilization is pure speculation, which has the unhappy property of being based on not a particle of historical evidence or fact. The origins of religion itself is buried in the past, and light is not going to be shed upon it by 19th century rationalist nostrums that reconstruct the origins of religion from bare Darwinian and Comtean philosophical premises.

The crux of the matter is not that various cultures believed in gods, but that the motifs, symbology, and patterns inherent in these beliefs were so similar across time and culture. The problem is the origin of the idea of God, not the various forms this idea took over time. The Gospel handles this nicely (and presages Joseph Campbell) by giving us a fuller understanding of the Biblical story of the Fall and the origin of mankind in which the time of Adam was the first dispensation in which the Gospel was on the earth. The many religions of antiquity we encounter in our studies are all, in one form or another then, variations on a set of themes, core concepts, and motifs, that appear and reappear throughout time and across vastly disparate cultures. This is the patternism inherent in the study of comparative religion, myth, and folklore, and is indicative of an original dispersion of ideas, patterns, and symbols from a primal religious system that was ultimately lost to history.

J

AK:
What happens here is building one assertion on top of another assertion. Since the first is not established, the second becomes irrelevant. It’s all religious dogma/doctrine. It’s unreliable, not supported by evidence, and should be disregarded.

You are not constructing logical arguments here JAK, but only making assertion upon assertion, exactly what you claim others are doing. You are also not debating the subject at hand.

It might be “uniquely LDS” which gives it absolutely no credibility. It is quite imagined, contrary to your statement. There is not the slightest evidence to support the claims in 3.

What would count as "evidence"?

A continuation to build one assertion on top of another assertion on top of another assertion. Absent clear, transparent, openly tested claim number one, all other claims predicated on the truth of claim number one are irrelevant.

What test would you have in mind?

Only by establishing each claim with the evidence required for academic reliability essential for any claim today can one build upon the first claim.

Yes, that's very true...in say, Geology.

Coggins, I’ll address your comments Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:50 pm

JAK previously:
With historical objectivity we can trace notions of the gods and God to various cultures/civilizations. It arose from superstition and evolved into religion. Religion(s) is more organized than superstition yet remains an outgrowth of that as we consider superstition today. It is mainly a belief in a story or explanation for which no evidence gives support. Religion has that same basis.

Coggins:
This analysis of how religion qua religion first arose in human civilization is pure speculation, which has the unhappy property of being based on not a particle of historical evidence or fact.

False. We have overwhelming evidence for the rise of superstition and religion within civilizations/cultures. As we study the history of human cultures, we find in general the farther back in time we probe, the greater the reliance on superstition/religion. You have no refutation here and historical record is not on your side.

You wishfully want it to be “pure speculation.” The facts don’t support that contention.

Coggins:
The origins of religion itself is buried in the past, and light is not going to be shed upon it by 19th century rationalist nostrums that reconstruct the origins of religion from bare Darwinian and Comtean philosophical premises.

You confirm my statement with “the origins of religion itself is [sic] buried in the past…” That’s correct. And religious pronouncements in the past sufficed for a non-reading non-writing masses of people. It does not suffice today for a well educated, well read and informed culture.

Coggins:
The crux of the matter is not that various cultures believed in gods, but that the motifs, symbology, and patterns inherent in these beliefs were so similar across time and culture.


The similarity is ambiguous at best. However, people observed the same sun, the same moon, the same storms, the same general environment. In seeing similar things with only their naked eyes and ears, they had similar myth constructions to explain. They knew nothing of germs and made no account for them. They experienced disease and death and constructed myths to explain both.

Today, we have specific diseases, many of which can be treated or cured. A mere 200 years ago, that capacity was severely limited. And the phrase among myth-makers: It’s Gods will was often heard and believed. Today, we have much better information.

The emergence and evolution of myths presently is giving way to more rational understanding as evidence is studied with objective analysis.

Again, you have no refutation here.

Coggins:
The problem is the origin of the idea of God, not the various forms this idea took over time.

On the contrary, it’s not a problem when we understand the invention of gods was a device to explain what was unknown. The doctrinal shift from multiple gods to a singular God was a significant shift in religious mythology. The shift today toward rational examination of evidence and away from God claims is a significant shift from religion/superstition to science with transparency and clarity. But most of all it’s a shift toward reliability of conclusion.

Coggins:
The Gospel handles this nicely (and presages Joseph Campbell) by giving us a fuller understanding of the Biblical story of the Fall and the origin of mankind in which the time of Adam was the first dispensation in which the Gospel was on the earth.

Flawed thinking. Biblical myths re-interpreted are still myths which lack credibility in the face of modern science. There was no Adam as biblical myth presents. The entire story is ancient mythology no matter how it’s tweaked by those who want to retain something from ancient stories. Like other species, the human species evolved from earlier living organisms.

See Human Evolution


See Early Man in North America

See Prehistoric Man to early Historic Man

See National Geographic on Migration

See Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 350,000 years ago

That’s sufficient evidence to discredit biblical myths or interpretations which tweak them.


Coggins:
The many religions of antiquity we encounter in our studies are all, in one form or another then, variations on a set of themes, core concepts, and motifs, that appear and reappear throughout time and across vastly disparate cultures. This is the patternism inherent in the study of comparative religion, myth, and folklore, and is indicative of an original dispersion of ideas, patterns, and symbols from a primal religious system that was ultimately lost to history.

While there is no question that much has been lost, it’s essentially irrelevant to modern discoveries and application of evidence and reason. By recognizing “religion, myth, and folklore” together, you further establish the analysis I’ve presented. None of those is reliable as fact. And any present-day religion/myth is built upon stories from the past which were masquerading as authentic explanation. They were not reliable explanation.

That’s the point.

JAK previously:
What happens here is building one assertion on top of another assertion. Since the first is not established, the second becomes irrelevant. It’s all religious dogma/doctrine. It’s unreliable, not supported by evidence, and should be disregarded.

Coggins:
You are not constructing logical arguments here JAK, but only making assertion upon assertion, exactly what you claim others are doing. You are also not debating the subject at hand.

Of course I am. Building on “folklore,” building on “myth” and building on shifting doctrines/dogmas of “religion” is building upon assertions. You helped me make the point in your statement. Such building of religious constructions of dogma is unreliable. Posturing assertions as certainties absent evidence is unreliable methodology.

It would be absurd to contend that we have factual accounts in these multiplex, contradictory myths, you have recognized in your own statement.

The argument is that myths, folklore or religion fail to provide reliable information.

JAK previously:
It might be “uniquely LDS” which gives it absolutely no credibility. It is quite imagined, contrary to your statement. There is not the slightest evidence to support the claims in 3.

Coggins:
What would count as "evidence"?

I have previously addressed that. It is reliable evidence which is at issue and how we obtain it. Today, we secure reliable evidence by clear, transparent collection of information. We test that information objectively with peer review, with double-blind tests, and with intellectually honest handling of that evidence.

We don’t get reliable evidence from hearsay. We don’t get reliable evidence from people or organizations with a partisan, biased, self-promoting agendas. Claims absent this open and transparent skeptical review do not qualify as reliable evidence generally. Please notice that word “generally.” I do not intend to rule out 100% of information which might be a part of a larger picture that fails to meet the standards which I have set forward.

Your computer works because of the kind of reliable evidence which I have described. (I use that since the computer is our common denominator in these discussions. Do computers fail? Yes. And when they fail, we immediately begin research to find out just why they failed. Religious claims are irrelevant to the answer to why our computer failed.) There are rational explanations superior to God did it. No credible evidence has established any God myths.

Now, I want to offer you a compliment not only for your question, but for your response. It is to your credit (and I have not given you much) that you pose such a question and that you use direct quotation and address that quotation with a response.

Coggins:
What test would you have in mind?

I have addressed that above. A first step to testing of evidence is to make every effort to eliminate bias, prejudice, dogma, claim absent evidence to the extent that can be achieved.

If someone (religious) claims to have seen God, who else was there? What objective observation by others with no bias in favor of the claimant observed the “event” claimed? If there were none, the claim is extraordinary and lacking in evidence which can be examined as I have previously described above.

That someone survived a tornado and the person next door or in the next room died is not evidence of miracle. Tornadoes are fast, deadly, and destructive. No credible evidence exists to prove that some imagined supernatural force (God) manipulated the winds. It is claimed. It is understandable that a person who survived but was nearly killed believes it was a miracle as in God saved ME. It’s a subjective, personal perception. The obvious question is: Why you? The answer is often: I prayed and prayed that God would save me.

Dead people don’t tell a story. That is, the dead may also have prayed: God please save me. Some could leap to a conclusion that whimsical God saved one but not another (biblical Noah story). What’s the evidence that God played favorites? There is none. There is no evidence for God. The evidence is in weather science about how, why and where tornadoes strike. God claims are irrelevant.

The “tests” (your question) must be as free of bias, as objective, and as transparent as they can be made for reliable conclusion.

JAK previously:
A continuation to build one assertion on top of another assertion on top of another assertion. Absent clear, transparent, openly tested claim number one, all other claims predicated on the truth of claim number one are irrelevant.

Coggins:
What test would you have in mind?

I have clarified the methodology for accessing reliable evidence.

JAK previously:
Only by establishing each claim with the evidence required for academic reliability essential for any claim today can one build upon the first claim.

Coggins:
Yes, that's very true...in say, Geology.

The reliability of evidence and the examination of evidence is dependent upon the objective, clear, and transparent observation. It’s no less applicable when individuals make extraordinary claims.

JAK

[_Coggins7]

The idea that "God", or whatever you want to call the supreme intelligence, if there is one (I do believe there is), would be a man-like creature, or even used to be a man at some point, is, to me, very limiting to a "God" that creates such a magnificient universe.

Why?

As you noted, we are a relatively young species. Why wouldn't "God", if he wanted to look like part of his creation, take the form of a species that has been around much longer, from, say, a much older civilization? One that's been around for 2 million years, maybe?

Upon what basis do you assume that God would, or could "take the form" of anything other than that which he is inherently (the implication being that God has no power to not be that which he is; he cannot contravene the law of identity).

Why would "God" need to have any form at all?

Perhaps to interact with the universe, including matter and energy. That which is without form, electricity say, is only of use when it takes the form of that through which it can interact with its environment; copper wire, for example. In any case, a god without form would be an alien being, wholly "other" with regard to the human species, and could never be regarded as an actual father in the manner in which God the Father is regarded in LDS theology. A formless god breaks the emotional and personal bonds between man and God that Jesus Christ was adamant is necessary to understand and approach him.

Being "God", wouldn't he (heh ... another human construct) necessarily NOT need to breathe, eat, etc.?

Why cannot something such as eating be, for a perfect being, a purely aesthetic experience? Breathing is a different condition, being necessary for physical life. Food or drink is necessary, but also an aesthetic pursuit and a joy to be experienced in life. I don't see why God not needing to do something precludes him from doing it anyway for completely different reasons (as a perfect being is capable of enjoying aesthetic experiences perfectly).

Thus negating the need for a physical form at all.

Again, not being subject to mortal physiological needs does not logically negate the idea that God is a being of perfected, glorified matter because what is necessary in mortality may be, when raised to a perfect state and experienced by a perfect being, a form of divine enjoyment; no longer necessary, but being much more refined and exquisite, eminently desirable. An organized form would be required to enjoy and experience such things, and, indeed, LDS theology does state that only when the spirit and resurrected body are inseparably united can an intelligent being receive a 'fullness of joy". Only when spirit intelligence is connected to element (matter), can can we enjoy the perfection of all our senses and faculties. Nothing that does not have form (coherent, organized structure) can have senses, faculties, perceptions, or, indeed, focused, defined attributes that can facilitate intelligent interaction with the universe.

[_Gadianton]

is to explain and settle certain concepts in the minds of God's children so that hey can understand the setting they are in and take their bearings upon the universe; it is to situate them in the universe ; to contextualize their existence as individuals within the context of a general understanding of the plan of salvation.

Again, you're just talking Mormon mythology. We could also talk about the creation as a product of a galactic butter churn and look for life orienting connections between the butter-making cosmos and the microcosm of day to day worldly chores including, making butter. I don't know what you hope to get out of a discussion like this, all you can do is state your mythos and that's that. There's really no straight-forward way to argue for or against any mythology. So what can I say, have fun, knock yourself out.

[_Jason Bourne]

1. The status of the concept of the origin of God. Specifically, the concept that God himself was at one time a human being who was born, grew, and existed on a terrestrial planet similar to this one, and who, through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel, or the eternal laws of existence, became a God, and that we are following a similar progression in our own case as mortals. Is it settled, uncontroversial doctrine for most Saints? Is it unofficial doctrine, but yet considered "orthodox" and for all intents and purposes, a fundamental Gospel principle? Is it a theory or speculation?

I agree with Stephen Robinson on this one. thought not canonized the KFD and the ideas taught are quasi official because of the level of use and reference this discourse had receieved. The basic concepts are official doctrine-God was once a man and we can become gods. Now exactly how God was a man and what it means for us to become gods I think can be debated and a number of reasonable conclusions that may differ in view can be reached. For example, my read of the KFD leads me to conclude that God was not a man just like us. Rather, he was a man like Jesus. He was the creator of a world, in my opinion, the first world ever and he was the savior of that world.

2. The concept of eternal progression; that God the Father had a father, who had a father, and so on, without beginning, and that we are all an integral part of an eternal plan (of salvation) in which there has never been a time in which gods have not existed, and mortal human beings like ourselves have not been moving through some phase of that eternal progressive endeavor, either as preexistent spirits, mortals, or post mortal beings exhibiting various levels of spiritual and intellectual development.

3. The idea that this "great chain of being", as one might put it (in a uniquely LDS context) is understood as a unimaginably vast cosmic family structure, in which, if God the father has a father, then we have a Grandfather in Heaven, a Great Grandfather in Heaven, and so on, and that in essence, all life of our kind in any universe or "kingdom" , regardless of the god who's kingdom it is, is literally connected, as a matter of familial linkage, at some point in eternity past or eternity future, to all other similar beings, whether preexistent, mortal, or post-mortal.

I believe the eternal existence of intelligences is official LDS doctrine and canonized in scripture. So yes, we have always existed in some form. The idea that there is an infinite regresson of Gods is, in my opinion, speculative and non official LDS doctrine. I do not believe it can be confirmed from LDS canon and in fact conflicts with it. Prophets and apostles certainly have taught the concept though so I may be all wet. Yet if one can set aside less pleasant teachings from Prophets that we do not like why not this one? It seems to me that God the Eternal Father was at least the first God and has existed for all eternity. He is the head God of all other gods. He created the first world and was a savior for it and started the ball rolling so to speak.

4. Our Mother in Heaven. The inextricable link between creation, our existence as coherent, organized intelligences, and the necessary union of male and female in eternity as understood in LDS theology.

The doctrine of a mother, or mothers, in heaven certainly seems necessary in the LDS scheme of eternal families and exaltation. However, your church currently seems to downplay this one. I am not sure where it stands.

[_Jason Bourne]

To be frank, I think that LDS who balk at accepting "god was once a man" are twisting LDS theology in an attempt to make it more accommodating to mainstream christian theology.

Would you think this is what Ostler is trying to do, or is his problem with the doctrine strictly philosophical in nature?

If I am honest about this I think Beastie is right. I am a fan of Ostler. I am not sure he is trying to twist and make us more main stream but maybe so and maybe do am I.

[_Jason Bourne]

To be frank, I think that LDS who balk at accepting "god was once a man" are twisting LDS theology in an attempt to make it more accommodating to mainstream christian theology.

Would you think this is what Ostler is trying to do, or is his problem with the doctrine strictly philosophical in nature?

That's exactly what Ostler is trying to do and his problem with the doctrine is "strictly philosophical" in nature. In other words, Ostler is rather taken by the building blocks of Christian theology (Aristotle and all that which is contradicted by the infinite regress of exalted men) and then looks for ways to reinterpred LDS doctrine to make it look normal within that scope.

Hiis problem with the doctrine is philosophical in nature precisely because he's convinced of the mainstream Christian theological basics.

Ostler certainly understands mainstream Christian theology and the philosophy related. Convinced of it? Hardly. His first book on Exploring Mormon Thought really dismantles a lot of traditional Christain Philosophy.

[_Jason Bourne]

I'm definitely more inclined to your way of thinking, TD!

I look in the heavens and see light coming from the middle of our own galaxy that started coming this way 26,000 years ago, in the middle of the last ice age.

I look at the Hubble Deep Field picture and see thousands of galaxies where it didn't look like there was anything.

We look as far as we can, somewhere around 14 billion light years away, and even that is probably not the real distance, because the whole time that light was traveling, everything was moving away from everything else.

The idea that "God", or whatever you want to call the supreme intelligence, if there is one (I do believe there is), would be a man-like creature, or even used to be a man at some point, is, to me, very limiting to a "God" that creates such a magnificient universe.

As you noted, we are a relatively young species. Why wouldn't "God", if he wanted to look like part of his creation, take the form of a species that has been around much longer, from, say, a much older civilization? One that's been around for 2 million years, maybe?

Why would "God" need to have any form at all? Being "God", wouldn't he (heh ... another human contruct) necessarily NOT need to breathe, eat, etc.? Thus negating the need for a physical form at all.

Anyway, that's my .02

I think God is Q. Ack!! Sorry for the smarmy comment.

[_Canucklehead]

Do I know God is infallible? Yes. How? Because I know he exists, I've experienced his power, love, and nature, and have nor reason to doubt the attributes ascribed to him in the scriptures or by his servants.

How do you know that your experience with God was an infallible one and that you are not simply misinterpreting your experience? Why should I believe you when you make assertions (which I have no objective means of verifying) regarding the nature of your god?

Despite taking up the challenge to have such an infallible experience for myself, I have not been so rewarded. Why would an infallible god reward some people with completely unambiguous experiences, not open to misinterpretation whatsoever, whilst others are not given the same privilege?

Why should those of us who have not had an unambiguous god-experience take the word of those who claim to know his nature (whether it be Mohammed, Joseph Smith, Coggins7, Charity or anyone else)?