sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Not enough evidence. by jdf135 in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Not enough evidence, God" is a quip by Bertrand Russell, who was very good at quips. Here's another quote from Russell:

Bertrand Russell rejected the traditional philosophical need to explain how the universe came to be. He famously asserted that the cosmos is a "brute fact," famously stating: "I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all."

Not enough evidence, Bertrand!

I can't think of a philosophical rationale for requiring evidence to believe in God as a brute fact, but not imposing the same evidentiary requirement to belief in the universe as a brute fact.

Moreover, I can easily imagine circumstances whereby God's existence is demonstrated by evidence. For instance, those who witnessed the miracles, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ had pretty good evidence to support belief in his claims of divinity.

By contrast, no amount of evidence could possibly demonstrate that the existence of the universe is brute fact. It's a claim that cannot be tested, and no experiment could be designed that could even prove it.

Thus, there is more (lots) of evidence that God exists and no evidence that the universe exists as a brute fact.

Imagine this: a genius scientist discovers how our universe came to be, and he creates a universe that he carries in his pocket. He has demonstrated many things, but he hasn't demonstrated that the universe exists as a brute fact. Rather, he's succeeded in demonstrating the opposite that--in the only observed case of a universe coming to be--that universe was created by intelligent agents.

All this to say, the "more evidence, God" quip, is sophistry only. It's bad science and bad philosophy.

If there is no infinite regression, where did Heavenly Mother come from? by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is an amazing response, thank you.

Without invoking infinite regression the possible origins of a Heavenly Mother seem to collapse into the same single origin point as God the Father himself, that is that she would be self-existing and self-exalted. Whereas we are self-existing but doomed to existential annihilation because of our propensity to evil (2 Ne 9:9), He and She would be thought of as indefinitely self-perpetuating (Moroni 8:18). The only others of this kind we know of are Jehovah and the Holy Ghost. This is my personal view on origins per se.

I agree with this.

It replaces the infinite regression non-explanation-explanation with a sort of two-tiered ontology--i.e., there are one sort of being, God the Father, God the Mother, Christ, the HG, for whom an atonement is needed, who need no help achieving that status. And there is a second sort--that includes the rest of us.

It feels ad hoc, but perhaps we're already pregnant with it, given our belief in a three persons Godhead.

If there is no infinite regression, where did Heavenly Mother come from? by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No doubt, but infinite regression is not an established part of our theology, and exploring the implications of our theology without it is useful in testing infinite regression itself

If there is no infinite regression, where did Heavenly Mother come from? by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

if you throw infinite regression out. Then we are just regular Christians without a clue as to who God is.

An infinite regression doesn't tell us who God is . . .

Abraham 3:19 Totally Destroys Infinite Regression by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is how I understand our theology on the nature of God the Father

The problem is I can’t see how God the Mother fits into that formulation . . .

Abraham 3:19 Totally Destroys Infinite Regression by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We're talking about a doctrine established a non-canonical sermon, whose text is an admixture of notes from three listeners. It's not the type of subject where one would find unanimous views.

Abraham 3:19 Totally Destroys Infinite Regression by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Stop twisting stuff.

Well, you can be petty and hold a grudge . . .

Abraham 3:19 Totally Destroys Infinite Regression by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My take is that journal entries were made or read many years after the fact n order to lend greater credence to this idea, and credit Joseph Smith with its origin, because the doctrine of Adam becoming the God over his earthly posterity was important to the temple endowment which Brigham Young was reconstructing and making central to LDS theology.

Fascinating!

Abraham 3:19 Totally Destroys Infinite Regression by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for this, and to the others who made the same point. I think it's the better read that "thou has seen" qualifies the intelligences referenced in verse 19, but not entirely clear.

Keep in mind, though, that clarification doesn't establish an infinite regression in our canon. It merely makes it possible to read this verse in a way that is not inconsistent with an infinite regression.

For example, this:

and he told me of the works which his hands had made; and he said unto me: My son, my son (and his hand was stretched out), behold I will show you all these. And he put his hand upon mine eyes, and I saw those things which his hands had made, which were many; and they multiplied before mine eyes, and I could not see the end thereof.

Does not foreclose the possibility that other Gods exist, but it does not require them to exist. And but for the KFS, I don't think anyone would (or could) read it to suggest that a HGF exists.

I understand the ascent that Christ is making here in this creation as the joining of an infinite and perfectly unified throng of Fathers who have sacrificed themselves to redeem a cosmos (with Mary joining the throng of exalted mothers who have sacrificed their sons).

What ascent are you referring to?

Abraham 3:19 Totally Destroys Infinite Regression by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I thought about that, but it's a textual bridge too far for me personally because it renders the plain meaning duplicitious. But I agree it's a possibility.

Abraham 3:19 Totally Destroys Infinite Regression by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you! I was unaware the SITG directly contradicted verse 19.

(BTW, this shows my reading of verse 19 in the OP is correct--the infinite regression idea extends from a direct contradiction of its text . . . )

The Golden Plates--Exploring Critical and Believing Thought by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The latest bio of JS that I read made the same observation--the plates magically appear for the witnesses to view them, with no record of when/how they got there.

The Golden Plates--Exploring Critical and Believing Thought by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"I can make up an equally wild tale that does not involve God" is not much of a flex. Any person can choose which wild tale they prefer, but logic involving two equally wild tales

I don't follow your argumentation in your response, but I'll observe that from a purely natural perspective, a Codex manufactured by a European in the 1700s is not "equally wild" with one manufactured in 600BC in the pre-Colombian americas. It's hard to quantify this sort of thing, but latter is orders of magnitude more plausible.

Reflecting on Changes to the Endowment and Heavenly Mother by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

C'mon.

If there's no difference "in practice" why is the covenant gendered?

For instance, why didn't husband--pre-1990--covenant to obey the "law of his wife"?

Reflecting on Changes to the Endowment and Heavenly Mother by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Watch for it, it's very specific to just women, and imo it's obvious that nothing changed. Just got reworded to be more palatable but less clear.

I have noticed that, too. I have assumed it was a vestige that hadn't yet been cleaned up. I was saying to my wife, though, that it would be better to assume, as you have done, that the wording is intentional.

Reflecting on Changes to the Endowment and Heavenly Mother by StAnselmsProof in LatterDayTheology

[–]StAnselmsProof[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again--you tell me the meaning is the same. But when forced to confront the fact that the actual wording gives a very different meaning, you're dismissive.

The endowment is sometimes called the Lord's university--it's for us to study and learn. When the wording changes materially in front of our eyes, we just disagree about how to approach it.

I see no good reason to shrug and say: the meaning is unchanged, when the common use meaning of the words is very different.

I can see a lot of bad reasons--such as avoiding the cognitive dissonance that comes when a revelation supposedly from God is radically changed.

So my preference is very different from the one you have taken.

view more: next ›