Mormonism's OA and the mighty F-S chain

[MG 2.0]

And the all time record breaker...alright, second place... UK troll drops in on schedule to take a crap. I told ya' so! One of a few groupies that just can't get enough of me. Weird and somewhat discomfiting.

They are who they are. Critics who are dead set against Mormonism, its leaders, and and those that...in their opinion...have been duped and/or are dishonest and can't be trusted. Hard to have a conversation with these folks.

Oh yeah, and the vendetta...

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

And the all time record breaker...alright, second place... UK troll drops in on schedule to take a crap. I told ya' so! One of a few groupies that just can't get enough of me. Weird and somewhat discomfiting.

They are who they are. Critics who are dead set against Mormonism, its leaders, and and those that...in their opinion...have been duped and/or are dishonest and can't be trusted. Hard to have a conversation with these folks.

Oh yeah, and the vendetta...

Regards,
MG

I thought I was on your ignore list?

[I Have Questions]

Putting the thread back on track…

The closest to an unofficial theory comes from Cleon Skousen in his "personal search for the atonement". This is a lecture that exists in the realm of the mission field, where most missionaries get exposed to a copy of the lecture but it's all behind closed doors and never, ever would be allowed to be discussed by the MP.

There are two things in the world, intelligence and matter. Matter must be filled with intelligence, otherwise God couldn't command it to move. Each intelligence that inhabits a piece of matter is a person like you or I. Happily obeying God's command if called upon. Presumably, though I don't recall this being said, it's been a really long time, those intelligences that excelled at obeying commands moving pieces of matter around would get the chance to move up in the "spheres of creation" and become a higher level being, like a bug or something. Even in that talk this isn't said, but it's the only thing that would make sense. Mormons have an active belief that reincarnation is hog wash, and this likely forces the mind from thinking about the implications. The talk gives the sense that in the pre-existence, we're out there as part of the universe as an eternal "I" that perhaps took part in making the earth move into place as God formed it -- or something. At some point, perhaps luck but possibly skill, "I" was selected to be born as a spirit.

Let’s try again.

[MG 2.0]

Imagine if God rightly decided not to save anybody, and a hundred billion end up in hell, while in heaven there is only the love between three, as Augustine supposed. A thousand billion years later, nobody in hell has any idea what "love" is nor any concept of God, for that matter. That doesn't change the fact that presumably, God is still God, the brute necessity for "everything," which is analogous to two and two necessarily making four.

As a believer, however, I would look at this and say there is a basic disconnect between what you're saying and what LDS theology actually teaches.

Modern day scripture tells us that God's work is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of His children". That is His Work. That is what Gods do. It is a continual never ending cycle. How the moving parts work together or whether or not they even can is a point of speculation. Not to say it isn't interesting and insightful.

Earlier I mentioned that God's greatness is a result of "relationships". Without those relationships, which I think you've alluded to, God would not be God. I suppose at that point you could argue that He may not exist. But again, IF God's work...worlds without end...is to bring to pass the eternal progress of eternal intelligence(s)/beings...moving parts and all...THAT is His purpose. That is what makes him "greater than they all" (I think that's the right scriptural language).

I think there is a fallacy, I mentioned it earlier, in looking at things as SIMPLY greater than or less than in the traditional sense of power dynamics. It's all about relationships/progress and who or what facilitates that process eon after eon (both singular and plural).

So...God cannot be God without His children. Over the years I've maintained on this board that one of the reasons I believe in a creator God is the fact that the world seems to have purpose/meaning/order. The Book of Mormon gives the conditions under which God would cease to be God. Relationships and purpose/creation are the foundation of it all.

A teacher who never teaches is not a teacher.
A father is not a father without children.

A God who saves no one isn't the God Mormonism describes. If God is Love, as has been discussed, would not one think that this love is not love without the opportunity, in a cosmic sense, for that love to expand outward to billions of entities/intelligences/beings?

Regard,
MG

This got pushed away by the ‘crap throwers’.

Stay on topic?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Imagine if God rightly decided not to save anybody, and a hundred billion end up in hell, while in heaven there is only the love between three, as Augustine supposed. A thousand billion years later, nobody in hell has any idea what "love" is nor any concept of God, for that matter. That doesn't change the fact that presumably, God is still God, the brute necessity for "everything," which is analogous to two and two necessarily making four.

I think the parable of the wedding feast might be applicable here, though it depends less on philosophy and more on revealed concepts. When the original guests refuse the invitation, the king doesn’t cancel the banquet, he sends his servants out to invite everyone they can find, and they come, though there is still a requirement to be clothed correctly. I think there will always be those who recognize they need to be saved.

[Limnor]

So...God cannot be God without His children. Over the years I've maintained on this board that one of the reasons I believe in a creator God is the fact that the world seems to have purpose/meaning/order. The Book of Mormon gives the conditions under which God would cease to be God. Relationships and purpose/creation are the foundation of it all.

What kind of god would be dependent upon its creation to “be?”

[Gadianton]

What grounds consciousness, love, and truth?

On the language stuff, some of my thinking is influenced by Wittgenstein's observations about "private language", which I'm sure had its affect on theology. The general problem I see is there is "love" def. A, what is necessary reality, and def. B, what people think love is, culturally. A purist (necessitarian) will just say whatever God says is love, is love, so if he sends everyone to hell, then that's love. But others might take the cultural def. and try to find a way to make it work out, in order to convince people. And then say def B is really def A, and give God the credit for it. But if folks aren't convinced, they aren't convinced.

A necessitarian could go the route of saying that one day the proof will be shown. But interestingly, Anselm's argument relies on "the fool" -- the least common denominator -- understanding what God means, and so it seems important to theologians that there are not two languages, but one language, and so human conception takes part in the construction of what God is, in my opinion. I can be falsified if a theologian is happy believing God is God in a scenario where every last one of his creations is in hell mocking and hating him.

The more I think about Mormon cosmology, the more it seems like the only coherent grounding model is brute fact. Intelligence, matter, and law just exist, and gods are just part of it and refuse explanation. The necessary being is the structure itself—it just is. That response is unsatisfying within classical models but I can’t think of another

If reality is a line 2+2 =4 still. The line might be a conceptual test for correctly imagining grounding. In other words, not confusing necessity with a beginning. There isn't a time when 2+2 began to be 4.

And again, the Euthyphro. Mormons bite horn two, morality is external to God. Classic theology tends to bite horn one, though they offer arguments to avoid arbitrariness while biting. Kant would be my go-to as a Christian zealot who bit horn two.

I’m trying to wrap my head around this and intrigued—what would this look like in an explanatory statement? How do you describe what kind of universe typical observers would find themselves in?

The one they look around and see when assuming that they are a typical sample. They take their typicalness to an extreme.

The assumption that life is super rare does not go well with the Mormon universe filled with Gods. Substitute "terraforming" for "simulation".

[Gadianton]

As a believer, however, I would look at this and say there is a basic disconnect between what you're saying and what LDS theology actually teaches.

The sentences you quoted from me were not meant to say anything about LDS doctrine. The underlying theme still applies, but Mormons work out negative space in a different way.

Without those relationships, which I think you've alluded to, God would not be God

The relationships I alluded to were generally between creations and creator, the necessity of the creation acknowledging the creator.

I think there is a fallacy, I mentioned it earlier, in looking at things as SIMPLY greater than or less than in the traditional sense of power dynamics. It's all about relationships/progress and who or what facilitates that process eon after eon (both singular and plural).

I agree that it's not all about raw power, as my example of Thor and Zeus showed. How humans conceive of greatness has quite a bit of leeway.

A teacher who never teaches is not a teacher.
A father is not a father without children.

You could ask AI if God would still be God if he never created anything. I imagine theologians will say yes, but I don't know what the reasoning is. God as necessity itself seems bound to creating something.

A God who saves no one isn't the God Mormonism describes. If God is Love, as has been discussed, would not one think that this love is not love without the opportunity, in a cosmic sense, for that love to expand outward to billions of entities/intelligences/beings?

The negative space problem is worked out differently in Mormonism. To what degree Satan is allowed to disagree with God is controversial, and Brigham Young taught the 1/3 will be broken down into raw intelligence and reused for other beings. People self-consign to their kingdoms and so God is fully acknowledged.

[Marcus]

...They are who they are. Critics who are dead set against Mormonism, its leaders, and and those that...in their opinion...have been duped and/or are dishonest and can't be trusted. Hard to have a conversation with these folks.

Oh yeah, and the vendetta...

Mentalgymnast had been pushing this 'vendetta' thing for a while, but it's difficult to see it as anything other than his own projection, given his history. Here's a tidbit from his 'vendetta,' posted here by mental gymnast, nineteen years ago:

...The PP's, Scratch's, Bond's, Shades of this board have issues because they have not been able to move beyond a primary/seminary outlook towards the world and the church. They will say they have, but I honestly don't believe this to be the case. They are black/white thinkers...if you can call it thinking... They are very simplistic and naïve in their outlook towards what and who God is and how he may or may not operate in the universe. If he doesn't conform to their image, then he doesn't exist...

To find out that Mormonism was not simply what they larned in primary/seminary and reading the New Era or Ensign threw them for a loop from which they never were able to extricate themselves and recover. Thus, we find them and others like them supposedly "recovering" over at the RFM board or here...

"Larned." Lol. Now that's a vendetta!! No wonder mentalgymnast, 20 years later, is still here attacking people. He can't let go of his 'vendetta.'

[Dr. Shades]

So as a clarification after Gadianton's post...if there is a conversation that starts on the A.I. thread that has nothing to do with A.I. or using A.I. as a source...and that conversation is directly applicable/relevant to another conversation on a different thread, that conversation cannot be brought over for ANY reason, i.e., IHQ or others doing it?

[MODERATOR NOTE: In "the spirit of the law," do not copy-and-paste material from one thread into another. Where it was originally posted is where it should stay. Nobody likes re-reading stuff they've already read.]

It's black and white? No exceptions? For anyone?

[The problem with what you did is that nobody likes reading the same thing twice.]

Although I would like a determination from Shades in regards to my final question.

[Tell us: Do YOU want to read the same thing two or three different times? Does reading something ONCE restrict or curtail your thought in any way, shape, or form? Be honest.]