A philosophical look at God

[slavereeno]

Was sent this from BIL, trying to digest it. I feel like there is entire books worth of discussion on this.

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2018/04/ ... -look-god/

This is hard for me because I can't really tell how this fits in with my current perspectives.

[Corsair]

Ah yes, Blake Ostler. I like this guy because he truly is willing to defend orthodox LDS doctrine in a fairly public way.

Have you ever noticed that sometimes we spend the least amount of time discussing the most crucial topics?

Excellent point, Brother Ostler! What is a crucial topic that we should be discussing?

If questioned, could you describe the nature of God and what it means to be God-like and embrace divinity?

Hold on, I'm detecting the first hints that spiritual claims are about to be asserted without any way to make a material test of those claims. In the linked transcript, Brother Ostler quotes Joseph Smith.

When we understand the character of God and know how to come to Him, He begins to unfold the heavens unto us and to tell us all about it.

This is right in line with Moroni 10:5 where "by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things." I really don't want to take Joseph Smith out of context, but this has some implications that put LDS prophets on a hot seat they don't want to publicly occupy. The nature of God is commonly just asserted and there is no laboratory or firm logical calculus where these ideas can be tested. This book will likely be the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. The scripture will include many ideas from LDS leaders, but I am skeptical that this will be of any interest to any divinity school anywhere in the world. That includes BYU because, ironically, the primary LDS university does not have a degree program for theology.

Philosophizing about God has been going on for thousands of years and LDS doctrine is in no position to provide a final answer to these questions. If you read and understood the entirety of Blake Ostler's book, you will not be a welcome addition to the average Melchizedek Priesthood quorum on Sunday. It will reduce the chance that you will be invited to advance in the ranks of priesthood leadership and you will end up being in a less influential position within LDS culture and doctrine. This is hilariously ironic because I am confident that Brother Ostler's books and ideas will lead you strictly to a conclusion of orthodox support for the institutional LDS church.

I have never read this book but I am confident that this will be the conclusion. There will be no instance of Brother Ostler nailing 95 theses to the door of 50 E N Temple St, Salt Lake City, UT 84150 demanding any adjustment to LDS doctrine because I am confident that this book fully supports the doctrines and policies espoused by Russell M. Nelson.

[Palerider]

He gets it halfway right here:
"...it has to be the case that one’s eternal standing is not dependent on either one’s ability to understand God or to elucidate either the character and or the nature of God."

But then he adds the very unfortunate element of Mormon false doctrine; "gnosticism".

This is really where I believe he's headed. If we study Joseph enough and follow HIS teachings we can know God in a really, really, really special way that not everyone else makes the effort to accomplish.

This is the hidden fallacy in Mormon theology. The "we're specialer than you" thread that runs through the entire religion. We have extra, superduper, rootn' tootn' access to God cuz we are a lot humbler and study harder than everyone else.

It just can't be enough to accept that there is sufficiently enough information in the New Testament to gain salvation.
Want to know about God? Just study the life of Christ.

"He who has seen me has seen the Father".

[slavereeno]

Philosophizing about God has been going on for thousands of years and LDS doctrine is in no position to provide a final answer to these questions. If you read and understood the entirety of Blake Ostler's book, you will not be a welcome addition to the average Melchizedek Priesthood quorum on Sunday. It will reduce the chance that you will be invited to advance in the ranks of priesthood leadership and you will end up being in a less influential position within LDS culture and doctrine. This is hilariously ironic because I am confident that Brother Ostler's books and ideas will lead you strictly to a conclusion of orthodox support for the institutional LDS church.

Well put. I noticed that his philosophy starts out with assumptions that God's nature is as described by Joseph Smith. Then it seems to me that he comes up with some philosophical reasoning based on those assumptions than then lead him into a couple of logical conundrums about other doctrine. I wonder his head doesn't explode trying to make LDS Nature of God try to reconcile with LDS "Doctrine." Then before coming to any real conclusion in the interview the subject gets changed, he seems to want to compartmentalize his philosophical reasoning.

But then he adds the very unfortunate element of Mormon false doctrine; "gnosticism".

This is really where I believe he's headed. If we study Joseph enough and follow HIS teachings we can know God in a really, really, really special way that not everyone else makes the effort to accomplish.

Yes I agree this is where is is trying to go but his path seems to meander around some issues relating to how the nature of God really interacts with Mormon Doctrine.

[Ghost]

I find a lot of Ostler's ideas insightful. His Exploring Mormon Thought books cover fascinating topics, even if they get a little dry at times in the way that philosophy can tend to. I've only read the first one so far, but I have all three.

I guess the basic problem for humans is that we usually end up describing God in what is the greatest idealization of who and what we are, right? I made fun of scientists who want to make God the ultimate scientist. There’s a good deal of truth to the fact that we create God in our own image.

This may be an obvious point, but I think it's always worth repeating. How often does someone say that the God he or she believes in would or wouldn't do X, or that he or she chooses to believe in a God who has a particular attribute or value?

Such statements used to bother me, but now I think it's simply inevitable that people would do this in the absence of clear and unmistakable revelation. It seems to be all we can do if we choose to believe, though we might pretend to share sort of settled-upon definition when talking about God so that we can talk about God at all.

I've always liked this line that Neal A. Maxwell quoted in General Conference years ago:

If God is finite, progressive, and Pure Love, we may as well skip church next Sunday and go to the movies. For if we have nothing to fear from this all-loving, all-forbearing, all-forgiving God, how would our worship of him constitute more than self-congratulation for our own moral standards? As an atheist, I like this God. It is good to see him every morning while I am shaving.

[Gatorbait]

First of all, it is interesting to me that when someone comes up idea or personage of God, they seem to immediately discredit anyone else's concept of God.

Yesterday I saw, as many of you have probably seen as well, an image of a few grains of salt as seen through an electron microscope. Look it up, it is interesting I think. Anyhow, not only are the salt grains cubicle, they have all sorts of interesting marks in them so that each one is distinctly different than the rest. Think about that for just a moment. Every one completely different.

Years ago, when Neal Maxwell was alive and well, he gave a talk and quoted a Bible passage somewhere that God knows when a sparrow's heart stops beating. I questioned that at the time, as I thought God would have better things to do than think about sparrows, you know, like helping someone find their glasses, or wallet or keys, or Primary necklace- important dang stuff.

Where am I going with this thread? God, the Christian God, we won't just limit ourselves to the Mormon God, is supposed to know everything about everything every moment, is supposed to know everything about everything from the beginning of time, and know in advance, mind you, about everything in the future.

That means, he knows how each grain of salt will look as soon it transforms from a liquid to a solid. Oceans full of these. And that's just salt. That's not counting sand in the Sahara and on and on. Do I believe in a God such as this? I mean I've not mentioned molecules and atoms, wind and sound waves, radio frequencies and everything else- just salt. No I don't believe in such a God. I'm not saying this God can't possibly exist. I'm just saying I don't believe in an all knowing, seeing, so on and so forth God.

I've never had an opinion of Mr. Ostler, but he is, like all of us, entitled to his opinion, man.

[IT_Veteran]

This may be an obvious point, but I think it's always worth repeating. How often does someone say that the God he or she believes in would or wouldn't do X, or that he or she chooses to believe in a God who has a particular attribute or value?

Such statements used to bother me, but now I think it's simply inevitable that people would do this in the absence of clear and unmistakable revelation. It seems to be all we can do if we choose to believe, though we might pretend to share sort of settled-upon definition when talking about God so that we can talk about God at all.

As someone that's certainly somewhere on the agnostic spectrum now, though still figuring out where, I use that line a lot - that I don't believe a just god would do XXXX. I throw that extra word in because I'm under no illusions that Mormon God can't exist, just that I don't believe he does. I don't think Mormon God is a just god though, so the two aren't in contradiction.

I leave room in my mind for the god that is a jerk. Or the one that is indifferent. I'm just not sure what the nature of god, if he/she exists, actually is. I hope that it is someone/something that cares about me and loves me, but I don't think I'll find any proof of that in this life. Same with eternal life. I can hope its true, but put it really far down on the probability scale.

[deacon blues]

Mormon Gnosticism added to the temple equals "I know more about God than you, but I can't tell you about it because it's too sacred."

[moksha]

When we approach God, we’re approaching a being whose experience is so beyond where we are that it’s not merely beyond what we imagine it’s beyond what we can imagine.

This is a good quote to keep in mind when we hear the Brethren intimate that they speak directly with God. Would an abstract concept beyond imagining stop by for a chat with a group of twelve angry men?

[wtfluff]

When we approach God, we’re approaching a being whose experience is so beyond where we are that it’s not merely beyond what we imagine it’s beyond what we can imagine.

Interesting. So the "god" that blake is talking about is even more of a jerk-face than I can imagine? Sounds Legit!

(I can think of many more words to insert in place of jerk-face, but I'll keep it rated "G". It is fairly early in the day where I'm at after all, the anger hasn't reached a boiling-point yet today.)

[slavereeno]

Thanks for all these thoughts. As I moved away from Mormon thought, I have had to address my own view of God. I am still working on what the nature of God is.

Sometimes I see God as the part of the human psyche that cares for others in the social group. That's probably the most vague and flimsy definition I have sunk to. (it goes round and round in my head) That definition however, does seem to fit my observations about the good i see in humankind. Its not very Mormony though.

I guess I believe in that concept of God (the divine within) simply because I have seen and experienced it personally time and time again. If I want proof of that God I go to the food bank and donate, or help someone feel better or make them smile and when I do, I feel something good inside. For me that is a repeatable experiment that works every time, no faith trial or waiting around eternally for a vision or whatever. I do good to someone else, even someone who doesn't deserve it and I have joy. To me that fits with some of what the NT says that Jesus' teachings were about God. (eg. we are one with God) It inspires me to develop the divine within me, and doesn't leave me guessing. I pray mostly to this God I feel within. How can I cultivate it, and get the most joy from it? Most of my prayer is to express gratitude (just recognizing the positive in my life instead of dwelling on the negative) and to try to find out what that God within wants me to do, to help me to accept stuff that isn't going to change. I ask it what I should do to make my life and the life of those I associate with better.

But that God isn't a sentient "other" singularity, its not all powerful, or all knowing, or omnipresent either. Its power and presence is limited, sometimes gross neglect from the god that should be within others inspires that God within me. I can recognize this god in others too. This God does not treat us as its puppets, we are not pawns in some celestial chess match.

I dunno, maybe there is an "other" sentience, but I would hope such a being would not chastise a desire to develop a personal moral code that is independent of its "commands"