The Origin and Literal Fatherhood of God

[Dr. Sunstoned]

This is intended to be a discussion/debate upon some of the key themes of the King Follett Discourse, a subject that has exercised and stimulated discussions boards such as this for some years now. The primary topics I'd like to see worked through here are the following:

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?

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.

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.

NO profanity, no smarm, no smug put downs, no snide pot shots at GAs. Disagreement yes, but can we keep this serious and civil? I can't wait to see what happens. I long to be pleasantly surprised.

The pieces are on the board. Can we begin?

[_beastie]

I was always taught that God had once been a "man" like us and had worked through his salvation on another world (and there were some who speculated he was a "savior" like Jesus on that world, but that was always speculation). I considered this a basic doctrine of LDS theology, and was shocked to discover - on the internet - that some LDS believers apparently do not consider that binding doctrine. But given the fact that they DO accept eternal progression to godhood as binding doctrine, it makes no sense to reject the first idea anyway. If these LDS become gods one day in their own rights, and have spirit children and populate their own worlds, then the "god" for those people will obviously have been a human being who had to earn his/her salvation on their own former planet. Ie, us.

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.

[_charity]

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 the 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?

My opinion. Doctrine. Fundamental Gospel principle. If we go beyond the fact that God once was mortal, we are engaging in speculation.

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.

To me, this is a given. It seems basic, common sense.

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.

The human mind is not equipped to consider infinity.

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.

How can there be a Father without a Mother?

[_amantha]

God, whether capitalized or not, is a word. What that word means is subject to vast degrees of interpretation. Many people would have us believe that not only do they know what the word god means, but that they also know what this god wants. The people who make this claim ultimately default to the wholly empirical position that their subjective witness is the standard by which this the definition of god can be known as can the personal will of this being.

The offer is then made that an equally potent subjective experience may stand as evidence for the same definition.

I will show throughout my posts here that this unlikely scenario is not only highly improbable but effectually impossible due to the inherent fallibility of human nature, regardless of the supposed nature of the infallibility of a god, which is generally inferred by the definition proffered by the authors of said definition.

Those who have dared to define the term "god" have frequently been able to control the masses through their definition. This authorship of the term "god" bequeaths authority to the authors by fiat of those who want to believe the definition. A DE - FINIT - ION is "of the finite" and therefore does a poor job of describing the infinite which is what a definition of "god" attempts to do. The result is a paradox.

Paradoxes are not amenable to certainty.

It may also be argued that god cannot fail to communicate her nature to the fallible creature. This is potentially true. But it is also true that a fallible creature cannot fail to fail unless she ceases to be fallible. And if she ceases to be fallible only for the period of communing with god, she must then return to her fallible state and therefore return to the possibility of failing to comprehend the infallible communication. The only way the fallible creature can comprehend the infallible communique is to remain infallible with regard to the communique. The paradox rears its ugly head again. The fallible creature can never be certain, it must simply have faith and believe--which is a choice. The paradox is not amenable to certainty on this point. Thus the argument for permanently knowing the definition of the infinite is debunked.

There is no definition of the infinite. There is only an infinition of the infinite.

[_JAK]

One might consider these 4 points one at a time. What has been stated thus far by beastie and amantha is excellent.

Coggins:
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 the 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?

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.

The second sentence is merely a statement of religious dogma. It has no basis in fact as no God claim has been established. Beyond that all else along with that notion is speculation absent anything but assertion.

Coggins:
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.

JAK:
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:
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.

JAK:
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:
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.

JAK:
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.

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

Therefore, we have here an example of religious dogma/doctrine which is faith-based not information based. It’s unreliable.

Further, it is but one of more than a thousand dogmas/doctrines which are the inventions of various pundits for Christianity.

JAK

[_amantha]

JAK said:

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

This is why this thread must ultimately devolve into the inevitable spiritual witness discussion.

[_Coggins7]

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?

[_JAK]

JAK said:

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

amantha:

This is why this thread must ultimately devolve into the inevitable spiritual witness discussion.

“Spiritual witness” is unreliable. If your analysis is correct, amantha, the thread is dissolved now.

JAK

[_charity]

God, whether capitalized or not, is a word. What that word means is subject to vast degrees of interpretation. Many people would have us believe that not only do they know what the word god means, but that they also know what this god wants. The people who make this claim ultimately default to the wholly empirical position that their subjective witness is the standard by which this the definition of god can be known as can the personal will of this being.

The offer is then made that an equally potent subjective experience may stand as evidence for the same definition.

I will show throughout my posts here that this unlikely scenario is not only highly improbable but effectually impossible due to the inherent fallibility of human nature, regardless of the supposed nature of the infallibility of a god, which is generally inferred by the definition proffered by the authors of said definition.

Those who have dared to define the term "god" have frequently been able to control the masses through their definition. This authorship of the term "god" bequeaths authority to the authors by fiat of those who want to believe the definition. A DE - FINIT - ION is "of the finite" and therefore does a poor job of describing the infinite which is what a definition of "god" attempts to do. The result is a paradox.

Paradoxes are not amenable to certainty.

It may also be argued that god cannot fail to communicate her nature to the fallible creature. This is potentially true. But it is also true that a fallible creature cannot fail to fail unless she ceases to be fallible. And if she ceases to be fallible only for the period of communing with god, she must then return to her fallible state and therefore return to the possibility of failing to comprehend the infallible communication. The only way the fallible creature can comprehend the infallible communique is to remain infallible with regard to the communique. The paradox rears its ugly head again. The fallible creature can never be certain, it must simply have faith and believe--which is a choice. The paradox is not amenable to certainty on this point. Thus the argument for permanently knowing the definition of the infinite is debunked.

There is no definition of the infinite. There is only an infinition of the infinite.

Always learning, never coming to a knowledge of the truth..

Your parsing of words about what the word god means is silly.

God, the Person, is our Heavenly Father. Flesh and bones. Once mortal. Now immortal. There isn't any goofiness about trying to define god. And as many people who want to argue about it, and how any angels can fit on the head of a pin, you can sit there on your sit and spins and talk yourselves wobbly. It does't change a thing.

[_Coggins7]

God, whether capitalized or not, is a word. What that word means is subject to vast degrees of interpretation. Many people would have us believe that not only do they know what the word god means, but that they also know what this god wants. The people who make this claim ultimately default to the wholly empirical position that their subjective witness is the standard by which this the definition of god can be known as can the personal will of this being.

Did you just here say that the subjective witness is an empirical claim?

The offer is then made that an equally potent subjective experience may stand as evidence for the same definition.

Not in LDS theology. The witness is never claimed to be evidence for anything. Those without it are invited to experience it for themselves, but are not expected to accept the witness of another as "evidence" As indicative of something, yes, but my claims to knowlege are not understood to be evidence that those claims are true.

I will show throughout my posts here that this unlikely scenario is not only highly improbable but effectually impossible due to the inherent fallibility of human nature, regardless of the supposed nature of the infallibility of a god, which is generally inferred by the definition proffered by the authors of said definition.

Very well, and I will take the position that your cardinal point, that of human infallibility, though obviously true and pedestrian, is, as a general metaphysical mediating principle (the manner in which you have used it before) self negating, as it must logically pertain to your own claims of human infallibility. Or, in other words, if human claims are always suspect, then blanket claims of human fallibility are themselves suspect as general claims.

Those who have dared to define the term "god" have frequently been able to control the masses through their definition. This authorship of the term "god" bequeaths authority to the authors by fiat of those who want to believe the definition. A DE - FINIT - ION is "of the finite" and therefore does a poor job of describing the infinite which is what a definition of "god" attempts to do. The result is a paradox.

Who has been able to control "the masses" through what means is an interesting topic, but not particularly relevant to the concept of testimony.

Paradoxes are not amenable to certainty.

No? But can we not be certain that they are paradoxes?

It may also be argued that god cannot fail to communicate her nature to the fallible creature. This is potentially true. But it is also true that a fallible creature cannot fail to fail unless she ceases to be fallible. And if she ceases to be fallible only for the period of communing with god, she must then return to her fallible state and therefore return to the possibility of failing to comprehend the infallible communication. The only way the fallible creature can comprehend the infallible communique is to remain infallible with regard to the communique. The paradox rears its ugly head again. The fallible creature can never be certain, it must simply have faith and believe--which is a choice. The paradox is not amenable to certainty on this point. Thus the argument for permanently knowing the definition of the infinite is debunked.

This argument promises more than it delivers. This is really a complex series of inferences, predicated on some unmentioned assumptions, that is masquerading as a deductive argument, which, if followed to its conclusion, would be unassailable. However, key assertions being made here, such as that a fallible being, even if receiving infallible communications, must return to fallibly, and hence, garble the infallible communication, are pure assumptions about aspects of both human and divine nature and power that involves the argument, as stated, in deep question begging. The invitation of the Latter Day Saint to "come and see" for yourself, is intended, quite frankly to plow through questions such as this that really cannot be fleshed out in a purely philosophical manner and go directly to the source. One says "very well, I'm going to see for myself if this infallible being can make contact with an infallible being and whether or not that being can communicate with me in a manner that, while not removing general fallibility from my nature, in essence relegates it to background noise within the confines of direct communicaiton of the Spirit of God to the intelligence of a child of God".

Amantha needs really, to define the bounds, conditions, and dynamics of human infallibility such that we could get a better handle on why she thinks it looms as such on overwhelming and unmallable mediating principle in the spiritual realm, a realm she does not believe in but, and by definition cannot claim to understand, but for the sake of the argument, must meet LDS half way on.

There is no definition of the infinite. There is only an infinition of the infinite.

Here are the dictionary definitions:

1. Having no boundaries or limits.
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
3. Mathematics.
1. Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.
2. Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.
3. Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.

Involved in all of these is the idea of a vast space or term, but one that has a leading edge, or point, that is expanding and will continue to expand forever, without limit. This is different from the concept of eternity, in which there are no leading edges at all, and no extremities either past or future.