The Mystery of Godliness

[_ClarkGoble]

I think fundamentally this gets back to my comments about vagueness I've made. I think we understand unity vaguely. We might speculate to what it might mean beyond how we use it, but fundamentally it's just that: speculation. I don't think we need really require much beyond the vague use. But a vague sense of unity is still important.

Personally I like thinking through the possibilities of what it might mean. But as you noted I don't take such matters too seriously.

The neoplatonic/esoteric aspects are interesting if only because they were an important social context for Joseph. But again we have to be careful since the content isn't determined by them. In the same way that a lot of people will quote Emerson or Thoreau without embracing their neoplatonism. But understanding the cultural philosophical issues is just interesting on their own terms. One just has to be careful not to assume any use engages all these connections. That's a rabbit hole of misleading chains.

As for neoplatonic conceptions of deity, again we have to be careful. I'm not asserting that's the correct view. However it was explicitly held by some early members like the Pratts. However they then changed their view when the revelation on spirit as matter (possibly influenced by early 19th century writings on Tertullian who adopted a Stoic metaphysics of matter around 160 AD). Thus you have Orson Pratt moving from a more neoplatonic conception to a more stoic conception. But the same emphasis of unity is in both. Contrast this with Brigham Young who adopts what I'd call a more physicalist conception and arguably much more nominalist.

The point I was bringing up is simply that in practice I'm not sure we can distinguish the distinction of a real unity versus a nominalistic unity. It's a pretty subtle philosophical issue and one has to work though the philosophical meanings and distinctions to understand what's at stake. Further in both cases people will largely use the same language of unity. So Orson Pratt and Bruce R. McConkie likely mean radically different things by unity but for the most part will speak in very similar religious terms.

[_bomgeography]

The way I interpret scripture to become like Heavenly Father is gradual process. I think scriptures bares this out. The punishment for rejecting Christ and his grace is eternal damnation. Basically saying that one persons eternal progression is stopped after death. While those who show that they have progressed through Christ in this life will continue during the resurrection of the righteous, Christ millennial reign.
During the millennial reign when there is no evil is when Heavenly fathers ultimate goal will be completed. Perfection equal to Heavenly children who chose to follow his only plan to perfection.
Luke 6
40 ​The disciple is not above his master: but every one ​​​that is perfect​ shall be as his master.
3NE12
48 ​Therefore I would that ye should be ​​​perfect​ even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.

[_Maksutov]

The way I interpret scripture to become like Heavenly Father is gradual process. I think scriptures bares this out. The punishment for rejecting Christ and his grace is eternal damnation. Basically saying that one persons eternal progression is stopped after death. While those who show that they have progressed through Christ in this life will continue during the resurrection of the righteous, Christ millennial reign.
During the millennial reign when there is no evil is when Heavenly fathers ultimate goal will be completed. Perfection equal to Heavenly children who chose to follow his only plan to perfection.
Luke 6
40 ​The disciple is not above his master: but every one ​​​that is perfect​ shall be as his master.
3NE12
48 ​Therefore I would that ye should be ​​​perfect​ even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.

Don Lattin (religion editor, interviewing Gordon B. Hinckley, San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997, p 3/Z1)

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs [and other Christian churches]. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?

Hinckley: I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.

[_I have a question]

The punishment for rejecting Christ and his grace is eternal damnation.

What a loving God.....

[_honorentheos]

I think fundamentally this gets back to my comments about vagueness I've made. I think we understand unity vaguely. We might speculate to what it might mean beyond how we use it, but fundamentally it's just that: speculation. I don't think we need really require much beyond the vague use. But a vague sense of unity is still important.

Personally I like thinking through the possibilities of what it might mean. But as you noted I don't take such matters too seriously.

The neoplatonic/esoteric aspects are interesting if only because they were an important social context for Joseph. But again we have to be careful since the content isn't determined by them. In the same way that a lot of people will quote Emerson or Thoreau without embracing their neoplatonism. But understanding the cultural philosophical issues is just interesting on their own terms. One just has to be careful not to assume any use engages all these connections. That's a rabbit hole of misleading chains.

As for neoplatonic conceptions of deity, again we have to be careful. I'm not asserting that's the correct view. However it was explicitly held by some early members like the Pratts. However they then changed their view when the revelation on spirit as matter (possibly influenced by early 19th century writings on Tertullian who adopted a Stoic metaphysics of matter around 160 AD). Thus you have Orson Pratt moving from a more neoplatonic conception to a more stoic conception. But the same emphasis of unity is in both. Contrast this with Brigham Young who adopts what I'd call a more physicalist conception and arguably much more nominalist.

The point I was bringing up is simply that in practice I'm not sure we can distinguish the distinction of a real unity versus a nominalistic unity. It's a pretty subtle philosophical issue and one has to work though the philosophical meanings and distinctions to understand what's at stake. Further in both cases people will largely use the same language of unity. So Orson Pratt and Bruce R. McConkie likely mean radically different things by unity but for the most part will speak in very similar religious terms.

Hi ClarkGoble,

Would you mind explicitly identifying the neoplatonic views of the Pratts you mention? I can't claim more than a very introductory understanding of neoplatonism so while I hate to ask that you fill in the gaps for me, I guess that's exactly what I'm hoping you'll do. I keep seeing in my mind's eye this vision of the early Mormons meditating on the nature of knowable reality and it's not getting past this very firm view of Joseph Smith I have that he seemed to be oblivious there was even a question to be answered let alone an answer to be sought. If there is one thing about Joseph Smith that seems to come through in the writings and revelations, it's that of a Newtonian, material world of cause-and-effect. I can't make the jump on my own to the place where I'm entertaining early Mormonism as sharing roots with the Transcendentalists.

[_bomgeography]

President Hinckly was right to say that it's deep theology but the scriptures are clear what our ultimate divine potential is if one chooses to follow Christ.

Doctrine and Covenants 132:20
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

[_honorentheos]

The way I interpret scripture to become like Heavenly Father is gradual process. I think scriptures bares this out. The punishment for rejecting Christ and his grace is eternal damnation. Basically saying that one persons eternal progression is stopped after death. While those who show that they have progressed through Christ in this life will continue during the resurrection of the righteous, Christ millennial reign.
During the millennial reign when there is no evil is when Heavenly fathers ultimate goal will be completed. Perfection equal to Heavenly children who chose to follow his only plan to perfection.
Luke 6
40 ​The disciple is not above his master: but every one ​​​that is perfect​ shall be as his master.
3NE12
48 ​Therefore I would that ye should be ​​​perfect​ even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.

Here's a question for you, bomgeography, using scripture. It takes from your statement that to reject Christ is to be damned.

The Book of Mormon (Alma 42:13) tells us this is outside of God's control. If He were to try and save everyone he would cease to be God.

13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

Why is that?

[_bomgeography]

Christ took upon him the sins of all mankind. Those who repent and accept Christ free gifts are washed cleaned through the atonement. Those who reject Christ free gift or mercy will suffere even as he suffered thus fulfilling the demands of justice at there own personal level. Those are the demands of justice. The demands of justice are fulfilled in Christ atonement for all those who follow Christ and accept his atonement.


Doctrine and Covenants 19:16-17
16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

There are two ways in which justice is satisfied through Christ atonement or the suffering of the individual.

Personal suffering in terms of being cleansed from all sins is 100% optional during this life.

[_honorentheos]

I think you mistook what I was asking there.

If we are talking about the attributes of God and the nature of godliness, what does it mean that God can't choose to be merciful? Is God all powerful/omnipotent? I think this passage says that's not true because justice is so powerful, so important that God is subordinate to it. God appears to have some agency in the matter and could possibly try and choose to save people through mercy at the expense of justice, but there are consequences for God if He does. He'd have to sacrifice his godhood to save his children.

This verse tells us something about God that is unique to the Mormon view. But it seems to raise more questions than it answers. Sure, the doctrine tells us sin has a price that must be paid by someone, and it tells us that Christ has paid that price for everyone. But, and this is a big issue, the fact the price has been paid once doesn't matter. People have to do something or else they have to pay back Jesus for what he had paid for them already. So you can't say Christ's gift is free. It has a price, too. "Here's a free gift. Don't want it? Well now you have to pay me back for having bought it for you" - that doesn't actually make much sense. The verse in the Book of Mormon suggests this is partially because Christ and God the Father have obligations to this thing called justice that seems for now to be the most important of all principles being even more powerful than God Himself.

I'm asking for you to lay out your thoughts on how this all works together in a way that helps paint a clear picture about the nature of God, godliness, and the cosmos wherein God could conceivably cease to be God.

[_bomgeography]

By choosing to follow Christ you are not paying Heavenly Father or Christ back.

The natural repercussion of repentance is to follow the way that makes you a better person that would be to follow Christ and his example.

Grace is a free gift it cannot be bought or payed for. Those who think they earning there way into heaven are sadly mistaken.

Good deeds are a natural outcome of following or trying to follow the savior. Good deeds do not cleanse a person from sin. Only the atonement can cleanse sin.

Isaiah 64:6
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.