I have recently written a post in which there has been dialog discussing differences in Mormon and Christian theologies. On my post calledMore Dialog on Mormonism Part 1 - Responses
I was pointed to the following article by Blake T. Ostler. The article is supposed to be a refutation to a work by Paul Copan and William Lane Craig in which they argue that Mormons are wrong and that God created the universe out of nothing. It turns out that many Mormons believe that God made the universe out of pre-existing chaos. Who knew? What amazed me at the article was the professional polish and detail displayed in it. Craig and Copan argue that the Bible and Physics teach that all of the universe was created out of nothing - "creatio ex nihilo" in latin. Ostler takes offense. He argued that the Bible teaches "creatio ex materia"- latin for creation out of material. I think Ostler fails to prove his case for five reasons:1. He asserts that "creates" in Genesis 1:1 does not mean "out of nothing" but never explains why. Instead he spend his time in the New Testament trying to show that the earth was created out something. Genesis 1:1 says
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2. Craig and Copan, and for that matter myself, do not argue that the earth was created out of nothing -- no all of matter, time, and space was created out of nothing. Using scripture pointing out that those things were organized into the configurations we see today is moot
3. He seems to confuse "make" with "create". There is a difference. You "make" something out of what's available. You create something that is new.
4. There was no refutation of the "ex nihilo" argument from the ground of Physics as William Lane Craig always uses when he defends the truth of God's existence against atheists and skeptics.
5. Ostler never explained where the "chaos" out of which the Heavens and earth were made came from.
From what I understand "ex nihilo" undermines Mormon Theology because it automatically points to a transcendent and timeless God...while Joseph Smith had taught that God was once a man who had a god but became a god himself - infinitely regressed backward.
LDS Prophet Joseph Smith taught that God was once a mortal man:
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. ...I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil,...
It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, ...and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; ...you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another,... from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings. and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power" (History of the Church, Vol. 6, Ch. 14, p. 305-6).
Sorry, I might not have picked the best article to start with. Ostler has done several articles on this issue. You can find a whole series of them here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fairlds.org/New_Mormon_Challenge/index.html
The distinction between "make" and "create" is purely an English distinction. And in any case, "create" very much can mean an arranging of available materials - even in English.
You "create" a painting. But not out of nothing.
Whether you put the ex nihilo at the creation of earth - as ancient Jews assumed it to be, or at the creation of the universe, it makes no difference. The same argument applies.
Infinite regression of causes is an utterly artificial argument that proves nothing one way or the other. The link I've posted has a detailed article on the "Kalam Infinity" argument. Kalam Infinity fails as an argument because it artificially segments what need not be segmented in the first place. Infinite sets behave differently than finite ones.
I will look at his series. Thanks. The distinction between "make" and "create" is not purely English distinction. They do not mean the same thing, although in English today they are often equated. It's not semantics but philosophy. In Ostler's article that I responded to the scriptures he pointed to talked about the earth being formed out of depths of the deep...not time, space, or realtiy - the term in Greek is "Cosmos". His arguments more than fall short...I sure hope the other articles are better.
ReplyDeleteI found a link explaining more about what I mean about the difference between "create" and "make". If sometrhing created out of nothing would be "new" and never would have existed before. This is what God would do as the ultimate creator.
When I commented on Infinite regression, I was arguing against it. So it seems like we do agree on something. Unfortunately, if you are mormon, Joseph Smith disagrees. Unless of course you wanna agree that he was wrong about infinite regression of gods.
Also, Seth R., you had said that you don't agree the the Bible is infalliable, so why do you care if it says that universe was created out of nothing or not? If the Bible has errors how do you know if it's right or wrong - to say nothing of your own interpretation? I have the assurance at least the the Bible is right and always right even if my understanding is wrong. I'll look at the links to see if I can find anything that will show me that my interpretation of scripture is wrong. Thanks again.
Just because I don't consider the Bible infallible doesn't mean I consider it irrelevant. This isn't an all-or-nothing equation.
ReplyDeleteIf you are going to assert that the Genesis account only refers to creation of this isolated planet, then it seems to me you have removed creation ex nihilo from any biblical foundation at all and moved it purely into the realm of philosophy. The ancient authors of Genesis felt themselves to be describing the creation of everything period. And they felt it was from a pre-exisiting chaos.
As to were the chaos came from. It didn't come from anywhere. It was always there. Mormonism holds that matter is eternal - this squares well with the Genesis account.
I don't agree with you on the Kalam Infinity argument. I consider that argument to be founded in circular reasoning and artificial assumptions. You cannot refute Mormonism by appeal to infinite regress of causes, because infinite sets do not need to be segmented into cause-and-effect portions in the first place.
There is absolutely no logical reason why the universe can't be just as eternal as God is. It doesn't need a "First Cause."
Besides, your arguments of God being the "First Cause" don't get rid of infinite regress of causes anyway. What caused God to wake up one day and decide to create the universe out of nothing?
Was he bored? If he was already so complete, and so perfect, why bother messing up that lovely situation by creating a universe? What caused creation ex nihilo? And what caused that cause.
So really, your entire Kalam Infinity argument is no answer to the problem of infinite regress of causes. All it does is punt the problem out of the known universe into the unknown realm of God. Maybe that's a good theological coping mechanism, but it isn't really logic.
Even under Joseph Smith's view of the universe, there is only will governing the universe. Joseph called on us to become like God just as Jesus Christ called us to in his great Intercessory Prayer ("that they may be one Father, even as you and I are one").
The Eastern Orthodox tradition calls this process "theosis." It is the means by which man becomes one with God or divinized. The Father and the Son share a profound unity and oneness in Mormon thought. A perfect union of thought, will, purpose and love. We - God's children - are invited to participate in that union the same way Jesus Christ does.
So in that sense, yes - we all aspire to "become God." But it is always taught as a God of unity - by all Mormon prophets and scripture.
There is no Mormon doctrine that posits that I will fly off to some isolated corner of the universe with my wife/wives and start up a new planet on my own without reference to God the Father. Any power I attain in the hereafter, any glory, will be contingent on the One God. I will not have any power and glory in and of myself. It will all depend on my participation in God.
Incidentally, Blake Ostler is a Mormon scholar who argues that there was never a time when God the Father was anything less than "God." He feels that Joseph Smith's statements which you quote are misread.
You don't have to agree with him on this point to be a Mormon. I'm not sure I agree with him. But the viewpoint is there, and growing within Mormonism.
I personally don't consider an infinite regression of gods to be a logical problem in the first place. Just because eternity lies behind us, does not mean we can never arrive at "now."
The Bible's infallibility is all or nothing. How do you know what is true and what isn't? Maybe all of the talk about salvation is wrong. How do you know, Seth R, that there really is a heaven. That there really is a moral code that God is expecting from us? Everything comes under scrutiny if the bible is wrong. Personally, I can find no error in it.
ReplyDeleteFor science we know that the universe had a beginning. No astronomer or physicist would disagree with that. I can find nothing in the Bible that tell us that the universe is eternal. It had a beginning and we can even show that it will have an end. Just like what the Bible says. "In the beginning..." remember?
God did not create the universe because he needed anything. God is perfect and complete. The Bible says he sustains himself with himself. So what do Mormons believe is the reason why God created the universe? The Bible says he did it because he wanted to...pure and simple. He wanted you, me, and everyone how has or ever will existed because He wanted to.
From Genesis 1:2 on, there is no reference to any of the nine planets in the solar system or galaxies all of which we know exist without question, therefore I can say that the creation narative only applies to earth.
No where does the Bible say that we will ever be exactly like Jesus and share the exact same relationship with the Father. It is at this point that a discussion of the trinity is in order but I think that you reject the trinity so I will skip it for now. As for what we become in heaven, I'd like to know where you find your ideas in the Bible, here I quote you:
"The Father and the Son share a profound unity and oneness in Mormon thought. A perfect union of thought, will, purpose and love. We - God's children - are invited to participate in that union the same way Jesus Christ does.
So in that sense, yes - we all aspire to "become God." But it is always taught as a God of unity - by all Mormon prophets and scripture."
Also what did you mean when you wrote: "Any power I attain in the hereafter, any glory, will be contingent on the One God. I will not have any power and glory in and of myself. It will all depend on my participation in God." What power and what glory are you looking to possess?
When you wrote:"You don't have to agree with him on this point to be a Mormon. I'm not sure I agree with him. But the viewpoint is there, and growing within Mormonism." I did not understand who you are disagreeing with: Ostler or Smith? If I am misunderstanding Smith or taking his words out of context, please explain what he meant in the quote I quoted. Thanks
Oh and by the way, if Mormons don't believe that mormon men get to rule their own planet with their several wives, I think Joseph Smith missed the memo because he apparently wrote the following:
Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.2, p.48:
The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fulness of his kingdom. In other words we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fulness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring. We will have an endless eternity for this.
I didn't say that we don't rule planets and peoples. I just say any dominion I will have is contingent, not inherent.
ReplyDeleteTo answer another question, I seek to gain all perfections that the Father has through a personal Father-Son relationship with him. To clarify - what I meant is that I cannot attain these perfections by my own inherent qualities. I can only attain them through participation in the one true God of the universe. So Mormonism remains monotheistic. There is only One God in guiding and shaping the infinite and eternal universe.
Responding to your comment:
"From Genesis 1:2 on, there is no reference to any of the nine planets in the solar system or galaxies all of which we know exist without question, therefore I can say that the creation narative only applies to earth."
About a thousand years of Christian theology disagrees with you. Most Christian scholars I've encountered take Genesis to be saying something about how God created the universe - not one planet.
Ask around sometime.
Another point - I was stating that I didn't necessarily agree with Ostler's interpretation of what Joseph Smith said. I merely brought it up to highlight that there are different ways of thinking about things.
As to your question as to how we can have a 100% guarantee of whether a particular part of the Bible is true or not... the answer is - we don't.
Isn't it wonderfully exciting?
I disagree not all Christian scholars think Genesis 1:2 on refers to describing the entire universe in detail. Name one who does. It tells us how the earth came to be...not Venus or Pluto. Or the Andromeda galaxy. Or even Kolob. God's purpose in giving us Genesis 1 was nto tell us everything however it does tell us specifics of the earth.
ReplyDeleteSo I guess you are saying that Joseph Smith is correct. Now please tell me where you can find that in the Bible.
Why don't you have 100% guarantee that the bible is correct, whether we understand it all or not? Why doubt? And if you can't completely trust it then why does it matter?
I like a little excitement in life.
ReplyDeleteAnd since the Bible is not all God has to say, I don't see why I need be limited by it.
Okay, Seth R. Let's grant your assertion for a minute. How do you know that the Bible is not all that God has to say? How do you know what He has said and what He has not said? What if other "revealed knowlege" conflicts with what we have in the Bible?
ReplyDeleteWhoa, hold the phone.
ReplyDeleteNo one said anything about conflicting with the Bible.
Even Joseph's most radical departures from traditional Christian orthodoxy do not arguably "conflict" with the Bible. I've never been convinced that any Mormon teaching is entirely without Biblical support.
True, some of our doctrines are not explicitly found in the Bible. But that's not the same as saying they don't conflict.
Now, your question - How do I know the Bible is not all God has to say?
Because I've read the Book of Mormon and believe it also to be God's word. I've read sermons and revelations from Joseph Smith and also believe them to be God's word. Therefore the Bible is not all there is.
This also seems consistent with God's grand pattern for dealing with people.
It doesn't really make much sense to me why God would be constantly speaking to his people through prophets and then suddenly stop just because Jesus arrived. I don't buy typical Christian explanations that Jesus was the "final revelation," so all we need now is the Bible.
Even if Jesus was the "final revelation," we would still need modern prophets to declare it to the people. And God would still need to speak to people to declare his will according to the changed circumstances of his children.
2009 is so utterly different than 600 BC, or 50 AD. We face completely different challenges and contexts. Of course we need new modern guidance from God on the new challenges.
And if God's pattern of old was speaking through prophets, why not today?
I agree that God does use prophets today. There is no problem with that. The problem is that God will not reveal something that is conflict with a revelation He has already given. Therefore if the Book of Mormon or any prophet or teacher gives a gospel or message different than what God has already revealed then that messages is lie.
ReplyDeleteLet's go back to Joseph Smith and I quote
"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. ...I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil,...
It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, ...and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; ...you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another,... from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings. and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power" (History of the Church, Vol. 6, Ch. 14, p. 305-6)."
I wanna know how this does not conflict with what is in the Bible. Bring your best argument. Because I can't find any agreement with what the Bible says in this statement. I really want to know what you do when there is conflict between what a prophet says and the Bible.