LDS approach to the problem of contingency

[pugiofidei]

Hello!

I may be asking this question under the burden of a mistaken notion of LDS doctrines of divinity. If my understanding is correct, the LDS teach that while God the Father is the cause of this particular world, He is not the cause of "ishood", or existence as such. Which is to say, He is Himself in some sense contingent, at least to the degree that he has composition. Since each of the various parts of a composed thing actualize each other, this would seem to move the problem of contingency somewhere beyond this particular world and its God.

Assuming my understanding is right, though, what is the official position of the LDS on why there is something rather than nothing?  

[Guest]

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.

[Just_A_Guy]

From an "official" standpoint, Mormonism just doesn't really do theology at the philosophical level you seem to be talking about. There are lots of individual Mormons who have the philosophical background to engage on these sorts of issues; but as an institution the church generally prefers to emphasize the text of the scriptures received to date and the practical applications thereof.

[pugiofidei]

That depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Generally speaking, my definition would correspond to some hypothetical statement spoken to me, such as, "This horse is kicking you in the face", if, at the moment, a horse happened to be kicking me in the face.

Likewise, say the same person approached me after the fact, as I lay in the mud, and said: "It is right to place the proposition 'a horse has kicked you in the face' into the category 'true things'."

I would accept this statement as well.

[pugiofidei]

From an "official" standpoint, Mormonism just doesn't really do theology at the philosophical level you seem to be talking about. There are lots of individual Mormons who have the philosophical background to engage on these sorts of issues; but as an institution the church generally prefers to emphasize the text of the scriptures received to date and the practical applications thereof.

I see. Would that then place the question into the same sort of position that Thomist and Molinist approaches to the problem of predestination have within my own communion? That is, some two Mormons might, in their probing of the problems involved, come to two mutually incompatible conclusions, and yet still both remain safely within the bounds of LDS orthodoxy?

[Just_A_Guy]

That is, some two Mormons might, in their probing of the problems involved, come to two mutually incompatible conclusions, and yet still both remain safely within the bounds of LDS orthodoxy?

 

In theory, yes.  For example, I know some Mormons who believe that God's power comes from His perfect knowledge, and ability to work within, pre-existing and independent natural laws.  I know other Mormons who steadfastly believe that God Himself is the author of all such laws and that without Him there is--literally--nothing.  Obviously, both Mormons cannot be right.  But as an institution, the Church isn't particularly interested in figuring out (and correcting) whichever Mormon is wrong on this particular issue.  The Church sees itself as primarily concerned with more immediately pressing matters. 

Edited July 26, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

From an "official" standpoint, Mormonism just doesn't really do theology at the philosophical level you seem to be talking about. There are lots of individual Mormons who have the philosophical background to engage on these sorts of issues; but as an institution the church generally prefers to emphasize the text of the scriptures received to date and the practical applications thereof.

 

I would take this a step further. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appears to actively avoid such philosophical activity. I am guessing it is because philosophy of this stripe is actually antithetical to the basic principles of the gospel. We do not believe because we see; we believe because we have faith, and then we see because we believe.

 

Individual members are, of course, free to philosophize to their hearts' content. Philosophy, like science or food preparation or movie making, is a human endeavor. But the Church will not be sending out encyclicals of philosophical treatises, any more than it will specify scientific models to support or which chocolate chip cookie recipe tastes best or how to most effectively direct a film.

[Jane_Doe]

Hi pugiofidei, and welcome to the forums!

 

Before I answer your specific questions, it will be of benefit to touch on some Mormon history / philosophical background--

 

The entire modern Mormon church was founded by an uneducated 14 y.o. farm boy who took God at His word when He said "If any of yea lack wisdom, let him ask of God." (James 1:5).  The farm boy then went out to the woods, and has Christ and the Father literally appear before him in answer to his sincere question (more on that: http://www.mormon.org/faq/the-first-vision).   

 

These simple beginnings influence modern-day Mormon philosophy in that--

 

1) Official Mormon theology favors simple words used by the people, rather than a collegiate approach.  It is sincerely held that the great things of God are simple, and can understood by the young, uneducated, and college educated equally.  While you can get a college degree in Mormon theology (and this could be quite a good thing), it makes you no more greater than the janitor (who might actually be your local bishop).

 

2)  Mormons do believe in continuing public revelation to all-- that God has yet "yet [to] reveal many great and important things to the Kingdom of God" (link: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1.9?lang=eng).  There is no official Mormon catechism covering every little detail, because we simply don't know everything.  And if a Mormon does have a question, they are encouraged to pray and take that query directly to the Lord Himself.

 

 

Hello!

I may be asking this question under the burden of a mistaken notion of LDS doctrines of divinity. If my understanding is correct, the LDS teach that while God the Father is the cause of this particular world, He is not the cause of "ishood", or existence as such. Which is to say, He is Himself in some sense contingent, at least to the degree that he has composition. Since each of the various parts of a composed thing actualize each other, this would seem to move the problem of contingency somewhere beyond this particular world and its God.

Assuming my understanding is right, though, what is the official position of the LDS on why there is something rather than nothing?  

 

The exact nature of God is not something we fully understand at this time (background point #2).  Truthfully, it's something I doubt we can fully understand as finite creatures grasping at the infinite.  So there is no official statement specifically on this issue. I can refer you to the official Mormonism 101 manual on the subject (https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-1-our-father-in-heaven?lang=eng).  Note, in this case I say "official" in that the manual is written/published by the Church for teaching of classes; I do not say it's "official" in any sense of infallibility.  

 

I would like to address your question specifically (speaking just as myself), but I confess I am a bit confused on your specific direction.  I will say that God did create this entire world, first spiritually and then temporally (this is official Mormonism).  Also, all this are done according the His will and His eternal principles/truths (also official Mormonism).  Beyond that... could you rephrase your question?

 

I see. Would that then place the question into the same sort of position that Thomist and Molinist approaches to the problem of predestination have within my own communion? That is, some two Mormons might, in their probing of the problems involved, come to two mutually incompatible conclusions, and yet still both remain safely within the bounds of LDS orthodoxy?

 

There are official Mormon beliefs, but again many things we don't know.  When it comes to those things we don't know, individual Mormons are free to have individual interpretations, and just agree to disagree (as there is no official revelation on the matter).   

 

Ironically though, predestination (in the Calvinist sense) is a topic that is covered by official Mormon doctrine and thoroughly rejected: all men will have equal opportunity to accept Christ (in this life or the next) and whether or not a person accepts the Good News is 100% their choice.  God does not pre-assign a person to reject Him.

[pugiofidei]

Hi pugiofidei, and welcome to the forums!

Many thanks!

 

Before I answer your specific questions, it will be of benefit to touch on some Mormon history / philosophical background--

 

The entire modern Mormon church was founded by an uneducated 14 y.o. farm boy who took God at His word when He said "If any of yea lack wisdom, let him ask of God." (James 1:5).  The farm boy then went out to the woods, and has Christ and the Father literally appear before him in answer to his sincere question (more on that: http://www.mormon.org/faq/the-first-vision).   

 

These simple beginnings influence modern-day Mormon philosophy in that--

 

1) Official Mormon theology favors simple words used by the people, rather than a collegiate approach.

 

Understandable. Part of the issue is not that the ideas are complicated, but the words. Take, for example, the statement I made above about the parts of a thing with composition actualizing the whole. This is really an idea that a child can understand--my 6 year old son does, after all. Say we are talking about a cat. A cat is a body made of more than one part, spread out in space. Its head is in one place, its tail in another. In the middle is the body. Take that middle part away, and the whole thing stops being a cat. The parts cause the cat to be a cat.

My own manner of speaking, however, is second nature to me; it is what I grew up with

 

 

 It is sincerely held that the great things of God are simple, and can understood by the young, uneducated, and college educated equally.  While you can get a college degree in Mormon theology (and this could be quite a good thing), it makes you no more greater than the janitor (who might actually be your local bishop).

 

This is a point of difference, certainly, though not a vast one. My own tradition would with gusto agree that a devout unread hunter-gatherer walking in the light of faith may be holier than the most erudite haunter of theological tomehalls. In this paradigm, much of who and what God is can be known, and known with certainty without a deeply theological approach. On the other hand, God's brightness is deep, and the light of His pure intellection can dazzle even the sharpest mind among the Seraphim.

 

2)  Mormons do believe in continuing public revelation to all-- that God has yet "yet [to] reveal many great and important things to the Kingdom of God" (link: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1.9?lang=eng).  There is no official Mormon catechism covering every little detail, because we simply don't know everything.  And if a Mormon does have a question, they are encouraged to pray and take that query directly to the Lord Himself.

 

Aye, approaching a sublime question about God without having recourse to his companionship would be highly inadvisable.

 

The exact nature of God is not something we fully understand at this time (background point #2).  Truthfully, it's something I doubt we can fully understand as finite creatures grasping at the infinite.  So there is no official statement specifically on this issue. I can refer you to the official Mormonism 101 manual on the subject (https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-1-our-father-in-heaven?lang=eng).  Note, in this case I say "official" in that the manual is written/published by the Church for teaching of classes; I do not say it's "official" in any sense of infallibility.  

Many thanks!

 

I would like to address your question specifically (speaking just as myself), but I confess I am a bit confused on your specific direction.  I will say that God did create this entire world, first spiritually and then temporally (this is official Mormonism).

Could you describe to me the distinction between "spiritually" and "temporally" in this particular context?

 Also, all this are done according the His will and His eternal principles/truths (also official Mormonism).  Beyond that... could you rephrase your question?

 

Imagine standing in front of a line of gears, all turning. This is, for the sake of this illustration, "existence" in its entirety. Each gear turns the next, and the whole line seems to extend forever in both directions. If you look at the gear closest to you, you can easily explain why it is turning. So, too, the next, and so, too, the one before. Now, whether one follows this line to the end and finds a giant gear (call it the "God Gear") that seems to be the first in line, or whether the whole gearline actually extends infinitely in both directions, an unanswered question still remains. To wit: why is there a row at all? Why isn't there nothing? If there is a giant gear causing the movement of the rest, the cause of the movement might seem to come from within the "existence" in question, but that would be an illusion, since the movement and sheer existence of the large gear remains irrational. If there is no such gear, and the gearline goes on forever to the left and to the right, it is more immediately obvious that the cause of the motion of the whole is utterly and irrevocably outside of visible system.  

 

There are official Mormon beliefs, but again many things we don't know.  When it comes to those things we don't know, individual Mormons are free to have individual interpretations, and just agree to disagree (as there is no official revelation on the matter).   

 

Ironically though, predestination (in the Calvinist sense) is a topic that is covered by official Mormon doctrine and thoroughly rejected: all men will have equal opportunity to accept Christ (in this life or the next) and whether or not a person accepts the Good News is 100% their choice.  God does not pre-assign a person to reject Him.

In my own tradition, there are only two posited as known here: (1) a person is fully free to choose or reject the Gospel, and (2) God has predestined those who make the positive choice. Double predestination is rejected; none are predestined for hell. Beyond this, the method of making the paradox sensical is an open arena. 

[Finrock]

Intelligence, spirit, and element exist. They do not exist because of something, they exist because there is existence. These are the essential properties of existence. The necessary conditions of existence or of there being something, are intelligence, spirit, and element. That there is existence is the only thing that can be. There is not such a thing as no existence. "Nothing" is absurd.

 

-Finrock

[pugiofidei]

Intelligence, spirit, and element exist. They do not exist because of something, they exist because there is existence. These are the essential properties of existence. The necessary conditions of existence or of there being something, are intelligence, spirit, and element. That there is existence is the only thing that can be. There is not such a thing as no existence. "Nothing" is absurd.

 

-Finrock

Many thanks for the reply! Other than not knowing what you mean by "element", I think I agree. The question, though, is why "nothing" is absurd. Upon what grounds does one posit its absurdity? I have my own way of answering the question, but was interested in what the Mormon way is. It seems that there are a diversity of views here, which fact answers well to my interest.

Edited July 27, 2015 by pugiofidei

[Jane_Doe]

 

 

I would like to address your question specifically (speaking just as myself), but I confess I am a bit confused on your specific direction.  I will say that God did create this entire world, first spiritually and then temporally (this is official Mormonism).

Could you describe to me the distinction between "spiritually" and "temporally" in this particular context?

 

 

Humans are made up of two parts: the physical (or temporal) and the spiritual.  Together they are united to make a soul.  Before this Earth, all of our spirits were created and nurtured by the Father.  It was then decided to create a physical Earth so we could all have body's like the Father's.  So then when you were born, your spirit and new body were united.   After death they will be separated temporarily, and then reunited again at the resurrection (with a great perfection of both body and spirit).

 

All other creatures follow a similar path, albeit more as a "creation" of God, rather the an literal child.

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine standing in front of a line of gears, all turning. This is, for the sake of this illustration, "existence" in its entirety. Each gear turns the next, and the whole line seems to extend forever in both directions. If you look at the gear closest to you, you can easily explain why it is turning. So, too, the next, and so, too, the one before. Now, whether one follows this line to the end and finds a giant gear (call it the "God Gear") that seems to be the first in line, or whether the whole gearline actually extends infinitely in both directions, an unanswered question still remains. To wit: why is there a row at all? Why isn't there nothing? If there is a giant gear causing the movement of the rest, the cause of the movement might seem to come from within the "existence" in question, but that would be an illusion, since the movement and sheer existence of the large gear remains irrational. If there is no such gear, and the gearline goes on forever to the left and to the right, it is more immediately obvious that the cause of the motion of the whole is utterly and irrevocably outside of visible system.   

 

 

Ah, now I understand!  Unfortunately I'm still graphing on how to best answer...

 

If you're looking for the "engine" behind it all (i.e., the one turning the cogs), then yes, God is the creator of all: the wellspring of Goodness, life, creation, and joy.

 

If you're looking for the "why" behind why turning the cogs in the first place, it is that the children of God might have joy, becoming perfected, and hence glorify God.  He 

 

If you're looking for "why the cogs exist" in the first place-- i.e. why God exists in the first place... He Is.  I mean, how would there be an other?  And if there was only "nothing" then you won't be hear to ask about it, would you?  The presence of God is completely rational.

 

 

 

 

Ironically though, predestination (in the Calvinist sense) is a topic that is covered by official Mormon doctrine and thoroughly rejected: all men will have equal opportunity to accept Christ (in this life or the next) and whether or not a person accepts the Good News is 100% their choice.  God does not pre-assign a person to reject Him.

In my own tradition, there are only two posited as known here: (1) a person is fully free to choose or reject the Gospel, and (2) God has predestined those who make the positive choice. Double predestination is rejected; none are predestined for hell. Beyond this, the method of making the paradox sensical is an open arena.  

 

 

Speaking from Mormon doctrine here--

 

The first option is a key foundation why the Earth was created, the Atonement, and the very nature of God.   

The second option is the ultimate hearsay and lie of the devil, promising fake "perfection" while robbing one of choice.

[Connie]

If you're interested in a more philosophical approach to Mormonism, i'm told that Wrestling the Angel by Terryl Givens is quite a good one.

[Guest]

Ish-ood could be a cool name for a race in a Sci-Fi story.

[theSQUIDSTER]

Ish-ood could be a cool name for a race in a Sci-Fi story.

It partially is... Ish... Not the ish part but the ood part. ----- > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ood

And now we return you to our regularly scheduled topic...

[Guest]

I know the Ood well. Dang. I thought I was being original.

[theSQUIDSTER]

I know the Ood well. Dang. I thought I was being original.

Hmmm... If originality is really just obscuring your sources then... Sorry to pull away your duck blind.

[Finrock]

Many thanks for the reply! Other than not knowing what you mean by "element", I think I agree. The question, though, is why "nothing" is absurd. Upon what grounds does one posit its absurdity? I have my own way of answering the question, but was interested in what the Mormon way is. It seems that there are a diversity of views here, which fact answers well to my interest.

 

Element is the physical matter we see and interact with.

 

As far as the absurdity of "nothing". First, we can't even invoke the concept of "nothing" without it falling apart. What I mean is that by trying to define nothing, it is something, which is absurd. There is no coherent way to know, understand, imagine, or conceptualize "nothing". If "nothing" were real, then we could never have this discussion. The fact that we are having this discussion, means that "nothing" is absurd.

 

-Finrock

[cdowis]

Generally speaking, my definition would correspond to some hypothetical statement spoken to me, such as, "This horse is kicking you in the face", if, at the moment, a horse happened to be kicking me in the face.

Likewise, say the same person approached me after the fact, as I lay in the mud, and said: "It is right to place the proposition 'a horse has kicked you in the face' into the category 'true things'."

I would accept this statement as well.

 

Most Mormon philosophers would point out that you are ignoring what the horse would say in this situation.  

 

You now understand why we don't have many Mormon philosophers.

Edited August 14, 2015 by cdowis

[brothermason]

Hello!

I may be asking this question under the burden of a mistaken notion of LDS doctrines of divinity. If my understanding is correct, the LDS teach that while God the Father is the cause of this particular world, He is not the cause of "ishood", or existence as such. Which is to say, He is Himself in some sense contingent, at least to the degree that he has composition. Since each of the various parts of a composed thing actualize each other, this would seem to move the problem of contingency somewhere beyond this particular world and its God.

Assuming my understanding is right, though, what is the official position of the LDS on why there is something rather than nothing?  

 

I think there is a lot of difficulty that converts have with this issue because of the traditional understanding that Christianity has of God being the only "necessary existent". However, I don't think LDS thought is necessarily that different.

 

Obviously we have a different understanding of the Godhead - the "trinity" is actually three distinct persons in our theology, and there are also other Gods in existence that precede our own God and will proceed from Him. So, while our Heavenly Father might not be the cause of 'ishood', as you put it, divinity of some sort is still 'ishood'. The Prophet said that divinity is one eternal round, so in some sense LDS do believe that Divinity is the necessary existent, we just don't view divinity as being restricted to this one God who is somehow also three different people.

 

Basically, I think many LDS still view the Divine as having always existed (that is, 'ishood') and being that necessary existent, our understanding of what makes up the divine is just a little bigger than others :)

Edited October 9, 2015 by brothermason

[Crypto]

Simple laws of thermodynamics - conservation of mass, conservation of energy, conservation of everything - everything has always existed, there is no beginning, there was never a time of nothingness.

There always was something, eternal.

The abstract idea of nothingness, is literally empty, doesn't exist, something exists therefore at least as far as is observable a single thing of something in a sea of mostly nothing, makes nothingness not anything at all. 

[Guest]

Pugi,

 

I think you need to define your question better.

 

... He is not the cause of "ishood", or existence as such. 

 

Existence... there is something with its own thread waiting to be had.  What I mean is that a person has existed, does exist, and will exist.  Action only exists in one time referent.  That could go on.

 

He is Himself in some sense contingent, at least to the degree that he has composition... this would seem to move the problem of contingency somewhere beyond this particular world and its God.

 

Who said that?  Prior to earth life and after the cycle of this earth, we have eternities.  The phrase is "from all Eternity to all Eternity".  This does not simply mean an extended period of time that we cannot imagine.  It means that "each of those Eternities" (as I understand it) is a state of existence where time doesn't mean what it means to us.  Time is a creation for this life only.  And what we read in scriptures of the pre and post earth life is only phrased in a way that we can relate to.

 

That said, how can you say He was ever "created".  To do so requires that there is "time".  And we simply don't know enough to address the issue.

 

what is the official position ... why there is something rather than nothing?  

 

"Why" tends to mean 

 

     1) What is the purpose?

     2) What is the cause?

 

We do talk about our purpose.

 

As to cause:

 

God, man, intelligence, spirit, element are all eternal.  Nothing eternal was brought into existence therefore there was nothing before to cause it.  How can we explain eternal in this time-limited existence?

[Traveler]

Hello!

I may be asking this question under the burden of a mistaken notion of LDS doctrines of divinity. If my understanding is correct, the LDS teach that while God the Father is the cause of this particular world, He is not the cause of "ishood", or existence as such. Which is to say, He is Himself in some sense contingent, at least to the degree that he has composition. Since each of the various parts of a composed thing actualize each other, this would seem to move the problem of contingency somewhere beyond this particular world and its God.

Assuming my understanding is right, though, what is the official position of the LDS on why there is something rather than nothing?  

 

Greetings pugiofidei

 

As an Engineer/Scientist and a "Mormon" I find it a bit strange that of all things to be considered at any level you are concerned about the cause of things.  Both from the stand point of religion as well as science - I am concerned with individuals that enter into conversations with notions about anything that they cannot prove or have proof of.  Though I am not an expert in particle physics I have a grasp on the subject and have been amazed at my scientific colleagues that believe completely in electrons and electrical theory but refuse to consider the possibility of G-d.

 

I do not understand scientist that believe anything random actually happens - rather I am of the notion that randomness is deemed possible only when contributing parameters are not know or understood.  

 

It is my view that anything that can be controlled or made to happen are things that occur because of G-d - generally speaking that defines the origins of our universe.  But Mormon doctrine goes beyond that of most religions and interjects that there are thing eternal that G-d cannot cause or create.  The example in Mormon doctrine is the eternal spirit intelligence of man.  Exactly what an eternal spirit intelligence is - has yet to be defined and proven scientifically.  Perhaps the reason this is so difficult to define and prove is because that essence is not dimensional (as also is G-d) to our physical universe.  Or in other words empirical parameters may not be all the necessary parameters to understand that actual existence of things.

 

I very much enjoy being a Mormon - not just because of our unique covenants with G-d (temple worship) but because Mormon doctrine embraces all truth and the idea that we as human have much more to learn (like the things of creation and G-d that as yet remain unknown) and that as we human should evolve religiously in truth and that our covenants with G-d will allow us to learn the truth of all things - and perhaps many additional things while experiencing mortal lives that have never been know by mankind.

[LeSellers]

[W]hat is the official position of the LDS on why there is something rather than nothing?

First, your name: "faith boxer"? I 'm intrigued.

Why is a rock? There is no "why"? The rock just is. It has always been (in some form or other).

It is curious how much time people spend wanting to know the unknowable. Others have explained that "nothing" does not exist. But that is only one side of the coin. Without "nothing", we are still left with "everything". Your question, like that of millions of others, is "what is infinity/eternity?"

Just as we cannot comprehend nothing, we cannot comprehend everything. And, unless you enjoy headaches, it is not worth the effort to try.

There was no "before", there will be no "after". Matter, including spiritual matter, has always existed. It did not come from anywhere, it will not go anywhere. It always was, it always will be. And there is an infinity of it.

We, as individuals, have existed since the "beginning", that is, we have always existed. God, our Father, changed us from one form to another, or higher state by adding "spirit" to our beings, but the essences of you and of me were there before this change. Then came our earthly fathers who added temporal matter to our spirits and we moved to yet a higher state. In the future, God will add yet another kind of element to us, and we will become "as He is", immortal, and advance to another state, higher than this, higher than any other we know about.

There is no such thing as immaterial matter. It sounds like a truism, but most Christians believe (as far as I can tell) that "spirit" is some sort of immaterial stuff, and that this stuff is "better" than real stuff. (Of course, this derives from hellenistic philosophy, not from scripture, so it is the philosophy of men, swished around in a scriptural batter. The resulting cake may look great, it may even taste good, but it is not angel food cake.)

It is from this ersatz doctrine that the notion of creatio ex nihi arose. To us saints, the idea expressed in the Hebrew bara is one of organizing, not of calling into existence from nothing, the nothing that does not and never did exist. This is true to the orginal meaning of bara, for it means to shape, as with an axe, at least according to Strong's Exhaustive Concordance.

Now, all of this is not my opinion. It is the result of men, prophets, talking with God, of their receiving His word through inspiration by the Holy Ghost. I have received this same kind of witness to its truth. Our Father in heaven is God, and He is our God because He is our Father. His plan for us is the plan of eternity, and He wants us to be like Him in every way. He wants it because He loves us, and, like earthly fathers, He wants what is best for us.

Lehi

Edited November 12, 2015 by LeSellers