The “relatively infinite” God of Latter Day Saint
(LDS) theology is incommensurate[i] with the infinite God of
classical theism (CT).
To illustrate the notion of incommensurability,
imagine that you have a topographical map of, say, Dubuque Iowa. It would be
possible to take a map of the streets of Dubuque and lay it over the topographical
map, and expect things to line up. You could further add a population density
map of the city, a map of the locations of the city parks, a map of the rivers
and lakes, and a map of all the Taco Bell restaurants. As you overlay each map
on top of the other, you would continue to expect each to line up. They line up
because, although they might be representing different aspects of Dubuque, each
of them still describes the same town.
If you were then to take a topographical map of Paris
France, and then overlay maps of streets, parks, Taco Bells, etc., of Paris Texas, would you expect them to similarly
line up? You would not—you might find a restaurant in the middle of a lake, or
a park on the runway of an airport. The reason is that, in this second case,
the topographical map and the street map are not describing different aspects
of the same city.
Paris France and Paris Texas are not the same thing.
Because they are not the same thing, if one were to try to overlay a map of one
over top of the other, there would be no correspondence. They are
incommensurate[ii].
They are “unlike and incompatible, sharing no common ground.”
In this essay, I intend to argue that the maps of the LDS God and the maps of CT God do not line up, as it
were, indicating that the classical conception of God and the God of LDS
theology are likewise incommensurate.
While there are arguments that purport to prove the
existence of God, they do not apply to the God of LDS theology; even if the
arguments for the existence of God succeed in proving His existence, they do not
likewise demonstrate the existence of the LDS God. Furthermore, if it is true
that the LDS God exists, and it is
true that the arguments for the CT God succeed, those arguments still don’t prove the existence of the
LDS God, thus lending credence to the contention that the God of CT and the God
of the LDS faith cannot be one and the same.
To make this case, I shall try to nail down the LDS
conception of God, define classical theism, then briefly describe two arguments
for the existence of God (from St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas—the list is
not intended to be exhaustive, only illustrative). Finally, even though by that
point it will probably be redundant, I will explicate why these arguments do
not apply to the God of Mormonism.
This argument is not intended to back either horse in
the race, and takes no position with regards to whether both, one, or neither
of these versions of God actually exists.
First, a quick aside into the first decades of
Mormonism reveals that this divide between the LDS and CT conceptions of God
has not always been quite so wide, as the LDS conception of God underwent a
fairly significant evolution in the early days of the movement, with the
earliest conceptions being rather more consistent with the God of wider
Christendom.
The Early LDS understanding of God.
The views of God in early LDS thought are far more
consistent with tritinitarian thought than are those of later LDS theology. Some
observers have (correctly, I think) suggested
that the original Book of Mormon (BoM) and LDS conception of God is closer to modalism than it is to traditional trinitarianism,[iii] however, the distinction
between modalism and trinitarianism will not be pursued here as it is not
germane to the larger argument.
Joseph
Smith’s First Vision is reported to have occurred in the
spring of 1820. There is, however, literally no evidence whatsoever that the
prophet Joseph made any mention of it until at least a decade after it is
alleged to have happened[iv], that any version of it
was published until almost two decades after it is reported to have happened[v], nor that anyone else was
aware of said vision during that time[vi]. The official iteration
of the first vision was recorded in 1838, and published to the Church in 1842 (and
eventually canonized in 1880).[vii] Sources from the time period
prior to this authoritative version of the First Vision paint a picture of the
early Saints conception of God that is rather different than the one the Church
would come to adopt starting in the late 1830’s.
The Book of Mormon, first published in March of 1830, includes
a number of passages that describe God in terms not too far removed from the Trinity.
In 2600 BC, Jesus asserts that “I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the
Son.” (Ether
3:14). Abinadi, for example (in Mosiah
15: 1-5), explains
…that God himself shall
come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because
he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected
the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son — The Father,
because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the
flesh; thus becoming the Father and the Son.[viii] (sentence structure as
found in BoM[ix])
As the story goes, after the completion of the BoM,
the angel Moroni collected the gold plates (Joseph
Smith-History 1: 60)[x] from which it was
translated. Consequently, all revisions to the BoM were made without recourse
to source material. Had they been restricted to grammar, spelling and
punctuation, such revisions would raise few eyebrows. There were, however, some
revisions that made substantial differences to the meaning of some passages. In
a few cases, these differences were theological significant.
In the first edition of the BoM[xi], an angel tells Nephi (in
the midst of a vision) that “the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of God,
after the manner of the flesh” (1st Nephi 11: 18). The angel
repeatedly refers to “the Lamb of God” as “the Eternal Father” and “the
Everlasting God.” (1st Nephi 11: 21, 32, 1st Nephi 13:
40). Revealingly, without reference to the authority of source material, later
editions (starting in 1837, one year before the revised and official version of the first vision was constructed) inserted “the son of” into each of the above passages (changing, for
example, “the mother of God” to “the mother of the son of God”) significantly changing the meaning. Although later
revised, the salient point here is that the 1830 edition—the original—BoM had
passages aplenty that were consistent with trinitarianism and inconsistent with
the later LDS tripartite conception of God.
In September 1830 the revelation that would become Section
29 of the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) (in particular verses 1,
5, 12, and 27) clearly indicates that the speaker is Jesus Christ, but the same
speaker (42, 46) describes redemption as being “through mine only begotten,”
indicating that the speaker in D&C 29 considers Himself both the Son and
the Father.
The first (known) mention of Joseph Smith’s (ostensibly
1820) First Vision was recorded (but not published) in 1832 by the Prophet in
his own handwriting.[xii] This first account made
no mention at all of there being two distinct individuals—God the Father and
God the Son—present in the vision.
…while in (the) attitude
of calling upon the Lord (in the 16th year of my age) a piller of fire
light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and
rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the (Lord) opened
the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord and he spake unto me saying Joseph (my
son) thy sins are forgiven thee. (crossed out words were crossed out in
original, grammar and spelling in the original; words in parentheses were
inserted above the main text in original).
To the faithful Latter Day Saint, Joseph’s First
Vision is “the greatest event that has occurred in this world since the
Resurrection of the Master,” (Benson[xiii]) it “…answers all the
[questions] regarding God and His divine personality…” (McKay[xiv]) because “…in the few
minutes that Joseph Smith was with the Father and the Son, he learned more of
the nature of God the Eternal Father and the risen Lord than all the learned
minds in all their discussions through all centuries of time.” (Hinckley[xv]). As such, it is among
the foremost reasons for the LDS rejection of the Athanasian and Nicene
Creeds—in other words, the reason for rejecting the Trinity.[xvi]
After being told by the
Lord Himself that the entirety of Christendom is corrupt and an abomination in
His sight (JS-H
1: 17-20), and having first hand knowledge disproving such a
foundational tenet of Christianity, is it plausible to accept that young Joseph
would fail to mention—for 18 years—that the Father and Son appeared to
him as two distinct individuals[xvii]? Or is it more
reasonable to accept that, consistent with the BoM and D&C (and with the
Joseph Smith Translation of some Bible passages, see below), Joseph Smith
actually believed and taught something quite akin to the Trinity?
Another source of unique LDS scripture is the Inspired
Version of the Bible, also known as the Joseph Smith Translation (JST), which
was mostly completed by 1833. In revising Luke 10: 22 and Matthew 11: 27 (also without
referring to the authority of source material[xviii]) the JST makes them even
more trinitarian, not less so. Luke
10: 22, for example, replaces “…no man knoweth who the Son is, but the Father;
and who the Father is, but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him…”
with “…no man knoweth that the Son is the Father, and the Father is the Son,
but him to whom the Son will reveal it.”
I don’t intend to belabor this point as it is only
ancillary to the forthcoming argument. I just want to highlight that there is
appears to be very little[xix] in the formative decades
of LDS thought to suggest that the initial Mormon conception of God is so far
removed from the God of CT that traditional arguments for the existence God
would not apply.
LDS apologists counter that those who suggest that the
early Mormon understanding of God was closer to trinitarianism/modalism are
mistaken. The reader who is so inclined can evaluate the strength of the
apologetic by following links in the footnotes[xx].
The LDS Conception of God.
As seen above, by 1838 the Prophet Joseph had
distinguished God the Father and God the Son as separate personages. Then, as early
as 1839 he was clearly entertaining the possibility of a plurality of Gods (D&C
121: 26-28), and seemed to fully embrace the notion by 1842 when he
published the creation account found in Chapters
4 and 5 of the Book of Abraham, which refers to plural Gods some 45
times.
A central aspect of LDS theology is that God was once
a man, and that we will likewise become Gods. He has a tangible physical body
of flesh and bone (D&C
130: 22). We are, as it were, “Gods in embryo.”[xxi] The reader will likely
be familiar the oft-repeated statement from Lorenzo Snow (who would go on to be
the 5th President of the Church): “As man now is, God once was; As
God now is, man may be.” President Snow unambiguously interpreted this famous
couplet as a revelation from God:
…the Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me—the eyes of my
understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with
wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. I formed the following
couplet which expresses the revelation, as it was shown me… “As man
now is, God once was; As God now is, man may be.” I felt this to be a sacred communication...” (italics
added). [xxii]
There was a time, according to President Snow’s
revelation, when our God was not God (not even a God), but existed “as man now is…”
According to his son[xxiii],
in 1843 Snow reported his epiphany to the Prophet Joseph, who replied “that is
a true gospel doctrine, and it is a revelation from God to you.”
The following April (1844) Joseph Smith[xxiv]
publicly introduced his view of theosis
(the deification of man), expanding on what President Snow had previously summarized so
pithily:
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, so that you may see.
… It is the
first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and
to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and
that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us
all, dwelt on an earth.... Here,
then, is eternal life - to know the only wise and true God; and 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... (bold face and italics
added)
And in June of that same year, Smith elaborated
further, revealing that he had learned this doctrine from his translation of
the writings of Abraham, and that God the father has a father:[xxv]
I want to reason a little
on this subject [that God himself has a father]. I learned it by translating
the [Book of Abraham] papyrus that is now in my house. I learned a testimony
concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven...If Abraham
reasoned thus — If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father,
you may suppose that He had a Father also.
(italics added)
One might infer from such a statement if God had a
Father, then that Father had a Father in turn, and that, in the words of
Fairmormon[xxvi]
“the "Heavenly Grandfather" would likewise have needed to undergo a
mortal experience under the patronage of yet another divine Father, and so on.”
This implied infinite regress is described by our apologist brethren at
Fairmormon as “seemingly the dominant
[position] in LDS thought.”
Infinity and eternity, by definition, have no start
date[xxvii]. But if He moved from
mortality to Godhood, then the LDS God does
have a start date. Apostle Bruce R. McConkie:
We have an authentic
account, which can be accepted as true, that life has been going on in this
system for almost 2,555,000,000 years…Presumably this system is the
universe (or whatever scientific term is applicable) created by the Father
through the instrumentality of the Son…Suffice it to say, the passage of time
was infinite from man's view point.[xxviii] (italics and
underline added)
Why anyone should suppose
that an infinite and eternal being who has presided in our universe for almost
2,555,000,000 years…why anyone would suppose that such a being has more to
learn and new truths to discover in the laboratories of eternity is totally
beyond my comprehension.[xxix]
The source of Elder McConkie’s “authentic account” that
reveals this putative start date for our relative
infinity (2.555 billion years), is, according to a letter from W. W. Phelps[xxx] to Joseph Smith’s
brother William, the same papyri as the Book of Abraham.
If infinity only appears
infinite because of our limited perspective, it detracts somewhat from the
gravity normally connoted by use of the term “infinite;” so in LDS thought “infinite”
does not necessarily mean infinite, and the “infinite regress” of the chain of
Gods (the dominant position in LDS thought as per Fairmormon) doesn’t
necessarily mean an infinite regress,
per se…
For an analogy, I refer the reader to the genius musings
of Bob and Doug McKenzie. In following dialogue they are discussing the making
of their (vinyl) album:[xxxi]
Bob:
The idea of the whole album was our lawyer’s, eh…and ‘cause like he told us he
could pay us ten bucks…
Doug:
Each!
Bob:
Right.
Doug:
So we’re not morons.
Bob:
yeah! And, uh…
Doug:
Like he must have put up like at least another ten.
Bob:
For what?
Doug:
To make the albums.
Bob:
Why?
Doug:
Well like where do they make ‘em eh? Doesn’t it cost money?
Bob:
He said he was making them at his place.
Doug:
You figure then that it was like free?
Bob:
For him, yeah it is.
Doug:
Where do they get that black stuff that makes the album?
Bob:
From old albums.
Doug
(in amazed voice): …they take a old album and like put new people on it?
Bob:
yeah…well, they erase it, right.
Doug:
Could we do that?
Bob:
Yeah.
Doug:
Oh boy. We got hosed. We coulda done that ourselves eh.
Bob:
no.
Doug:
Why not?
Bob:
I don’t know how.
Doug:
That’s a good point.
(grammar
and syntax as they appear on album[xxxii])
Accepting, for the sake of the analogy, that Bob is
correct in his presumption that the source of the black stuff from which to
make their albums is indeed old albums, and that the black stuff from which
those old albums were made was sourced from yet older albums that existed prior
to the beginning of Bob and Doug’s experience, this (i) explains nothing about
nature of black stuff, (ii) does not imply an infinite regress of black stuff,
and so (iii) still leaves the question of where the black stuff comes from in
the first place unanswered.
I will return to this idea later in the essay, as the
analogy points the way to a potential, albeit partial reconciliation between
the theology of CT and the theology of Mormonism.
A revelation received in 1843 (D&C
130 7-9) implies that McConkie is mistaken in his assertion that the
LDS God has nothing left to learn. “The place where God resides is a great Urim
and Thummim…a globe like a sea of glass and fire…” And one benefit of living on
a planet size Urim and Thummim is that it acts as a source of information: “…all
things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order,
will be manifest to those who dwell on it…” If God has a source of information,
at least some of His knowledge is contingent upon that source, and consequently,
His knowledge is not infinite.
Further to the place where God resides, LDS scripture
actually names the location. Defenders of the faith will try to object that “Mormons
do not believe that God lives on Kolob”[xxxiii] but I do not share
their confidence in such an off handed dismissal for two reasons.
First, the apologetic response is due to the fact that
Abraham
3: 2-3, 16, and Facsimile
2 describes Kolob as the star
nearest the throne of God, not the planet. But to be frank, the perceived
quirkiness of the “God lives on Kolob” issue is not due to whether Kolob is the
name of the planet as opposed to the star, but due to the fact that God lives
at a specific, named, location in time and space.
Additionally, I think that the apologist hand waving is too quick to dismiss the idea that Kolob is the name of God’s
planet. The above mentioned Abraham 3: 2-3 which calls Kolob a star, also describes
“that upon which thou standest” (i.e. the Earth) as being in the same category of
things as Kolob. Facsimile
2: 1 indicates that “[o]ne day in Kolob is equal to a thousand years
according to the measurement of this earth…” because (Abraham
3: 4) Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times
and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the
Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to
the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest.” This is read by LDS
Living (I know, I know. Not an official source of doctrine) as
meaning that “Kolob rotates more slowly on its axis.” Defining seasons and days
in terms of revolutions/axis rotation is a description of planets, not stars.
In order for there to be “days” on Kolob, Kolob would be rotating relative to a
light source (its star). Facsimile
2: 2 describes a figure standing next to Kolob, and “holding the key
of power also, pertaining to other
planets…” (italics added).
It is only peripheral to the central point of this
essay, but my reading of Abraham is that it does not distinguish between stars
and planets, and uses the terms interchangeably. LDS friendly authors have come
to similar conclusions,[xxxiv][xxxv] thereby leaving enough
wiggle room to make it difficult to conclude with any measure of confidence
that Kolob is not the name of God’s planet.
LDS God would be non-infinite in His sovereignty. As
one of a number of Gods, He cannot be absolutely sovereign over a realm that
another God has sovereignty over. As one link in a chain of Gods, our God
cannot be sovereign over the realms of those who came before Him, nor of the
domains of those of us who will yet learn to be Gods in the future.
In the words of Joseph Smith, God had to learn to be God: “You have got to learn
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…”[xxxvi]
Having achieved Godhood, He cannot be
described as omnipotent nor omniscient as His power and knowledge are
contingent upon obedience and a learning process.
Not only did the LDS God start being God at some point
in the past, but, according to some interpretations (including the most
straight forward reading) of Alma
42 (13, 22, 25) LDS God could actually stop being God, indicating
that He is subject to external constraints of some description.
His morality was learned from a source outside of Him
(His Father-God), and is constrained by learned moral principles that existed
before He did. There is scriptural authority for the view that God is
constrained by moral considerations found in D&C
82:10, and in Alma
42. So another reason that LDS God cannot be described as infinite
is that principles of morality/virtue/moral are independent of and prior to Him.[xxxvii]
In sum, according to the dominant view in LDS
theology, God is not infinite in morality, power, sovereignty, or knowledge,
and in terms of being an eternal being, is infinite only relative to man’s limited
point of view.
The God of Classical Theism
The simplest way to summarize classical theism (CT) is
that it is a variety of monotheism as conceived by (most of) the central
philosophical and theological traditions, and identifies God with the infinite,
as the metaphysically ultimate reality. “Christian, Jews, and Muslims have
historically maintained that there is one divine being who is the source of all
reality and has the attributes of simplicity, immutability, impassibility,
omnipotence, omniscience, eternality, and omnibenevolence.”[xxxviii]
Although the term was relatively recently coined[xxxix], classical theism has
a long history, and is associated with such notables as Plato and Aristotle
(Greece), Philo of Alexandria and Maimonides (Judaism), al-Kindi (Islam),
Clement of Alexandria, Augustine, Anselm, and probably most significantly in
the popular mind, Thomas Aquinas (Christianity). Classical theism is largely a
synthesis of Aristotelean philosophy into Christian Theology by Aquinas[xl], following the Recovery
of Aristotle.[xli]
God, in the view of CT, is…
-
both immanent and transcendent. He is
manifested in the material world and at the same time is independent of it.
-
a
se:
God depends only upon Himself, is prior to anything upon which to depend.
-
simple: If God had parts, His existence
and nature would depend upon them. But being a se, He depends on nothing, and is therefore without parts
-
immaterial: If God were made of matter, He
would be made of parts. A God who is a se
must therefore be immaterial.
-
not spatially extended. If He filled up
any volume of space, God would be material
-
without accidents. All attributes of God
are necessary. God has no attributes that are distinct from Himself, therefore
God’s attributes = God. There are no characteristics that He just happens
to possess.
-
…and therefore Immutable. It is impossible
that God could undergo any intrinsic change.
-
impassible. Because He is a se, God cannot be affected or
influenced by anything other than Himself
-
eternal/timeless. God exists in a timeless
present, otherwise He would be lacking in both His past and His future
-
necessarily existent. If God’s existence
were not necessary, i.e. was contingent, He would able to not exist, and a
being who cannot not exist is more perfect than one who can not exist.
-
omnipresent. God must exist in (but not be
contained in) all space and time. If He were not at every place and every time
He would be limited and less perfect than a God who is at every place and every
time.
-
omniscient. God has perfect intellect
(rationality and knowledge). His knowledge is not dependent upon learning or
observation.
-
omnipotent. God could bring into existence
any state of affairs that is not logically impossible.
St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of
God[xlii]
My purpose here is not to defend Anselm’s most famous argument.
In this essay I only offer my best overview of the argument. To the reader
interested in a more thorough reconstruction and defense, I recommend Plantinga,[xliii]
Malcom,[xliv] and
Google.
The Ontological Argument was initially formulated by St.
Anselm in the 11th century (similar arguments were later proposed by
others including Descartes[xlv]
and Leibniz[xlvi]).
The term “Ontological Argument” is not his, it was initially applied to the
idea by Kant[xlvii]
in his critique of Descartes and Leibniz. Although Anselm provided other
arguments for the reality of God, the Ontological Argument is his own creation,
consequently his name is closely associated with it.
There is a category knowledge
referred to as a priori knowledge. A
proposition is known a priori if it
is known prior to and independent of the knower having learned it empirically
(through sensations and experience). You don’t need, for example, to measure
and compare different lines to know that the shortest distance between two points
is a straight line, nor to examine all of the different instances of squared
numbers to know that two times any whole number is an even number, and you
don’t need to compare all of the instances of circles to discover that none of
them have four equal sides. Once you understand the concepts of straight lines,
whole and even numbers, multiplication, and circles, you can unpack those
ideas, so to speak, and know that the above propositions are true.
The Ontological Argument is supposed to be a priori in that, once you understand
the concept of God as the metaphysically ultimate being, and unpack all that is
contained within that idea, it ought to be as illogical to believe that God
does not exist as it is to believe in a four sided circle.
Being a believer, Anselm phrased his argument in the form of
a prayer, thanking God for making the proof available to him. Although phrased
as a prayer, it is clearly meant to be a philosophical argument. It does not
presuppose any belief in God, only that one has the ability to have the idea of God in one’s mind as “a being
than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists.” So defined, God is
not just the smartest or kindest or most powerful being. He has all of these
characteristics to an infinite degree.
Now, exercise your intellect. Imagine this being. Remember,
it does not matter to the argument whether you are a believer or not, just that you grasp the idea of a being possessing
all perfections to an infinity.
Got it? Is the idea of “a being than which no greater can be
conceived” in your mind?
Now, for the sake of the argument, let’s allow that God
doesn’t really exist in external reality, but exists only in the intellect.
You still have the above defined conception of God, right? He
still exists in your intellect, and has all the infinite attributes
(compassion, knowledge, power…), except one, He lacks existence in external
reality.
Now compare—which being is greater? Something that exists in
the mind alone, or something that exists in the mind and in external reality? The answer is obvious—a thing that exists
is greater than a thing that does not exist.
To conceive of “a being than which no greater can be
conceived” but to hold that it does not exist is a logical impossibility; if it
lacks external reality, it is not that which nothing greater can be conceived
because you can think of something greater—something that exists.
So if you have the capacity to have the idea of “a being
than which no greater can be conceived” in your intellect, you cannot even
conceive of Him not existing, because if you do, you are not thinking of “a
being than which no greater can be conceived.”
Once you fully grasp the concept of a circle, you cannot
conceptualize a circle with four equal sides. Likewise, once you grasp “a being
than which no greater can be conceived” you cannot conceptualize God not
existing.
According to Anselm, anyone who understands the concept of
God cannot doubt His existence, hence his statement at the start of his prayer:
“Truly there is a God, although the fool hath said in his heart, there is no
God.”
As I said above, my purpose here is not to defend Anselm’s
argument, so I will leave it to the judgment of the reader to decide whether
only the fool can say that there is no God.
St Thomas Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument
St Thomas is, in my ever so humble opinion, the most
important and influential theologian[xlviii] in
Christianity with the lone exception of St. Paul.
He famously offered five proofs for the existence of God in
his expansive (but unfinished) Summa Theologica.[xlix]
Whereas Anselm’s argument assayed to prove God’s existence by examining the
contents of the mind alone, Aquinas looks to the Universe for evidence. So
instead of being prior to evidence (i.e. a
priori), Aquinas proposes proofs that follow from evidence (are a posteriori).
In this essay I will consider the first two proofs, but they
are almost identical. Aquinas’ arguments are referred to as “Cosmological”
arguments because they say, in essence “The universe didn’t just accidently
happen.” Here Aquinas is being quite Aristotelean in his reasoning because Aristotle
was rather concerned with explaining things in terms of their purpose.
First proof: The argument from motion. The logic is simple--if
something moves, something else made it move. Well, what made that “something
else” move? Something before it? And what made that something before it move?
Something before it…ad infinitum?
Aquinas reasons that this sequence of movers cannot go back ad infinitum
because if there was no first mover, there was no second motion, and if there
was no second motion there was no third motion, then no fourth motion…and there
is consequently no motion in the present. Since that is absurd, there must have
been a first mover.
God. The unmoved mover. The prime mover.
Second Proof: The argument from efficient causation. An
efficient cause was one of Aristotle’s four causes[l]. It is
that which brings about a change or that brings an event or object into being.
Aquinas accepts it as axiomatic[li] that nothing
is the cause of itself[lii]
otherwise, to have any causal efficacy it would have to exist before it
existed. Absurd. Every object or event has to be caused by a previous state of
affairs, which in turn was caused by a previous state of affairs. And so on
into infinity? The causation chain runs into the same difficulty as the motion
chain in the first proof. If the universe has always existed, then there was no
first cause. If there was no first state of affairs to cause the second state
of affairs, then that second state could cause the third…leading to no events
or objects in the present. Reductio ad
absurdium. There therefore had to be a first cause.
God. The uncaused cause.
I want to emphasize once again that I am offering only the
briefest of treatments, and am in no way defending the arguments. Once again I
will leave it to the good judgment of the reader to decide the extent to which
these arguments work.
I would further remind the reader that in no way am I
representing Anselm and Aquinas as an exhaustive list of arguments for the
existence of God. I only offer them as exhibits to illustrate a point.
A brief point about infinity:
One cannot reach infinity by adding more numbers, because
infinity plus one is infinity, and two times infinity is infinity. It is an error
to put actual numbers and infinity into the same category. CT God did not reach
infinite knowledge by adding one more
bit of information to one more bit of
information until He reached infinite knowledge, because if it was learned by
experience, there is always a possibility of further experience that could add
more knowledge, or even falsify previous “knowledge.” CT God is not infinitely
benevolent because He kept getting kinder and kinder, nor infinitely powerful
because He kept getting stronger and stronger. Rather God simply possesses all
perfections/attributes to an infinite degree.
By adding one more to one more, one does not eventually
reach infinity. Yet if we are to attribute infinite attributes to LDS God, this
is precisely what we are expected to do:
…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, and from a
small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to
exaltation…[liii]
LDS God is not infinite in the same sense as CT God. LDS God
is more infinite relative to mankind’s
point of view, as per Elder McConkie.[liv] Knowledge
derived from possibly 2.5 Billion years of experience[lv] might
appear infinite relative to you and I, but it is not infinite in the proper
sense of being beyond enumeration.
The God of Classical Theism v. The God of LDS Theology
CT: immanent and transcendent. He is manifested in the material
world and at the same time is independent of it.
LDS: At a specific location in space and time
CT: a se: God depends only upon Himself, is prior to anything upon which to depend.
LDS: depends on a causal chain of Gods before Him
CT: a se: God depends only upon Himself, is prior to anything upon which to depend.
LDS: depends on a causal chain of Gods before Him
CT: simple: If God had parts, His
existence and nature would depend upon them. But being a se, He depends on
nothing, and is therefore without parts
LDS: God has a tangible physical body of
flesh and bone
CT: immaterial: If God were made of
matter, He would be made of parts. A God who is a se must therefore be
immaterial.
LDS: God has a tangible physical body of
flesh and bone. Is material.
CT: not spatially extended. If He filled
up any volume of space, God would be material
LDS: God has a tangible physical body of
flesh and bone; is in a specific location in time and space
CT: without accidents. All attributes of
God are necessary. God has no attributes that are distinct from Himself,
therefore God’s attributes = God. There are no characteristics that He just
happens to possess.
LDS: God achieved His status through
obedience and learning. His attributes are not intrinsic to Him, but are predicates
added to Him
CT:Immutable. It is
impossible that God could undergo any intrinsic change.
LDS: God became God (2.5 Billion years
ago?), and can learn from the planet size Urim and Thummim on which He lives
CT: impassible. Because He is a se, God
cannot be affected or influenced by anything other than Himself
LDS: God could cease to be God, is bound
to act when we act obediently
CT: eternal/timeless. God exists in a
timeless present, otherwise He would be lacking in both His past and His future
LDS: At a specific location in space and
time
CT: necessarily existent. If God’s existence
were not necessary, i.e. was contingent, He would able to not exist, and a
being who cannot not exist is more perfect than one who can not exist.
LDS: His existence is contingent on
obedience and learning, contingent on the prior chain of Gods, could cease to
be God.
CT: omnipresent. God must exist in (but
not be contained in) all space and time. If He were not at every place and
every time He would be limited and less perfect than a God who is at every
place and every time.
LDS: At a specific location in space and
time
CT: omniscient. God has perfect
intellect (rationality and knowledge). His knowledge is not dependent upon
learning or observation.
LDS: Gods knowledge is dependent on
learning through experience and obedience; God continues to learn through the
planet He lives on.
CT: omnipotent. God could bring into
existence any state of affairs that is not logically impossible.
LDS: God is only relatively omnipotent,
but His authority does not apply to the domains of those in the chain of prior
Gods, or of other Gods, or of the domains of those of us who will yet become
Gods. God’s power is circumscribed in some way in that He could cease to be
God, and His actions are constrained by our obedience
Now let’s bring this back to the applicability of the
arguments of Anselm and Aquinas to the LDS God.
Anselm’s Ontological Argument requires one to conceptualize “a
being than which no greater can be conceived.” When one imagines the LDS God,
He is not the greatest possible being. There are the prior generations of Gods
who are greater. He is not omniscient nor omnipotent, as His knowledge and
power are both contingent. “Our” God may be the greatest relative to our jurisdiction,
but He is by no means a being greater than which nothing can be conceived.
So if, for the sake of argument, Anselm has proven
that it is impossible to doubt that God exists, the LDS thinker cannot take solace
in thinking that the existence of the LDS God has been proven. The LDS thinker
necessarily falters at the first essential premisses of Anselm’s argument
because by conceptualizing “a being than which no greater can be conceived” he
is thinking of a being that is wholly different than the non-infinite,
contingent God of LDS Theology.
The LDS conception of God flat out rejects the premisses
and conclusions of Aquinas’ Cosmological Argument. By positing an infinite
regress of Gods, LDS theology simply contradicts, without argument, Aquinas’
conclusion that there needs to be a prime mover and uncaused cause. LDS God is
not the first cause, the unmoved mover because “our” God is simply one in that
sequence of events and causes.
So even if Aquinas has proved that God exists, the
argument sheds no light on the probability of the existence of LDS God.
The cosmological argument might convince us that there
was a first God in the generations of Gods, but that’s not a question that is
seriously discussed in LDS theology. In the LDS theology that apologists
describe as the dominant position in LDS thought, there is no first cause, no
unmoved mover, just a chain of God’s stretching back into eternity.
The
arguments of Aquinas and Anselm do not negate the possibility that the LDS God
exists, but they do not offer any support for Him either. Arguments for the
existence of God as found in classical theism simply refer to a different being
than the LDS God.
Finally let’s revisit the discussion of Bob and
Doug McKenzie’s question of the source of the “black stuff” from which to make
vinyl albums. You may recall that Bob’s confident answer was that the black
stuff came from old albums. I inferred from this that the black stuff to make
the old albums must have been derived from even older albums. And I drew an
analogy between the regress of album black stuff to the chain of Gods reaching
backward into infinity.
I suggested that even if Bob is correct in his presumptions
about the black stuff, his answer (i) explains nothing about nature of black
stuff, (ii) does not imply an infinite regress of black stuff, and so (iii)
still leaves the question of where the black stuff comes from in the first
place unanswered. The reason is not mysterious, even if it was prior to the
time of Bob and Doug’s experience, the first black stuff for the first albums
had to come from somewhere in order to start the chain. There had to be a first
mover/first cause black stuff to get the sequence rolling.
In Mormonism, since infinity is sometimes redefined as
being relative to our limited mortal experience, an “infinite” chain of Gods
does not automatically preclude an unmoved mover God, an uncaused cause God standing
at the beginning of the chain of Gods, prior to "our" frame of eternity. So understood, the infinite and necessary
God of Classical Theism and the contingent limited God of LDS theology need not
necessarily be mutually exclusive.
Frustratingly, there is a significant limit to this
attempted reconciliation. That is the question of who Fathered Jesus. Wider Christendom
will likely not be willing to allow that Jesus was fathered by anybody other
than that being argued to exist by Anselm and Aquinas, while the defender of
the LDS faith will not allow that Jesus was fathered by someone other than “our”
God.
Conclusion
As I said up front, I have no horse in this race. To
be clear, I am not trying to prove one system of theology false by supporting a
different system.
If the arguments for the existence of God do indeed
succeed, they fail to offer any support whatsoever for the existence of the God
of LDS theology. If an argument proves that A exists, but fails to prove that B
exists, it adds weight to the notion that A and B do not refer to the same
thing. The observation that arguments for the existence of the God of classical
theism cannot even be applied to the God of LDS theology indicates that there
is not any overlap of the conceptual “maps,” and the metaphorical maps of each cannot be lined up. The God of
Classical Theism and the God of Mormonism are incommensurate.
[i]
Incommensurability (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incommensurability/#RevParThoKuhInc)
refers to the idea that two things (concepts, theories, objects…) are so
different that they cannot be measured in the same way. In other words, their
conceptual frameworks do not have sufficient overlap that they can be described
in the same language, or if they use the same language, that language would
have different meanings in each case. In simpler terms, two things are
incommensurable if they are “unlike and incompatible, sharing no common
ground…, or…are very disproportionate, often to the point of defying
comparison...” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incommensurable).
Lindgren,
A. Bruce (1986), "Sign or Scripture: Approaches to the Book of
Mormon", Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, 19 (1): 72-75.
[iv] The earliest
unambiguous reference is 1832 ((Dean C. Jessee, "The Earliest Documented
Accounts of Joseph Smith's First Vision," in Exploring the First Vision,
ed. Samuel Alonzo Dodge and Steven C. Harper (Provo, UT: Religious Studies
Center, 2012), 1–40. ). Online here.)
There are potential (though doubtful) debatable references as early as 1830
discussed here.
[vi] …according to
Assistant Church Historian James B. Allen. Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought,
Autumn 1966, Vol. 1, No.3, pp.29 - 45.
[viii] See also 2nd
Nephi 21:31; Mosiah 16:15; Alma 11:38-40; Helaman 14:12; 3rd Nephi
1: 14; Mormon 9: 12’ and Ether 4: 7-12.
[ix] …perhaps it
reflects the syntax of Reformed Egyptian…
[x] A few reports
have Joseph Smith returning the plates to a giant cave in the Hill Cumorah
(Brigham Young, June 17, 1877, Journal of Discourses 19:38.), possibly in the
company of Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer (Packer, J. Cameron (2004),
"Cumorah's Cave", Journal of Book of Mormon Studies, Provo, Utah:
Maxwell Institute, 13 (1): 50–57, archived from the original on 2006-12-07).
[xiii] Ezra Taft Benson
(1964). https://www.lds.org/study/new-era/2004/04/the-greatest-event-in-history?lang=eng
[xiv] Gospel Ideals (1954),
85.
[xv] Church News, 24
Oct. 1998, 6
[xvi] Gordon B.
Hinckley (1998). https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/what-are-people-asking-about-us?lang=eng,
[xvii] An 1835 version
in Joseph Smith’s diary mentions two personages, but gives no indication that
they are God the Father and God the son. Found in Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, compiled by Dean C. Jessee, pp.
75-77
[xviii] BYU (i.e. Church
friendly) researchers suggest that the primary source material for the JST is a
Methodist Bible Commentary by Adam Clark. Wilson, Haley; Wayment, Thomas, BYU
Dept. of Ancient Scripture (16 March 2017). "A Recently Recovered Source:
Rethinking Joseph Smith's Bible Translation". Journal of
Undergraduate Research. Provo, Utah, US: Brigham Young University.
[xix] The only exceptions
that I can think of (at least when the scope is limited to the first decade of
the Church) comes from Alma
42 which says that God could cease to be God, and D&C
82:10 that says that God is bound when we are obedient, both implying
external constraints. If God is subject to external constrains, He is not
omnipotent.
[xxii] Eliza R. Snow, Biography
and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, Salt Lake City: Deseret News Co., 1884,
pp.46-47
[xxiii] LeRoi C. Snow, Improvement
Era, June 1919, p. 656., found in “I Have a Question” in The Ensign, November, 1982. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1982/02/i-have-a-question/is-president-snows-statement-as-man-now-is-god-once-was-as-god-now-is-man-may-be-accepted-as-official-doctrine?lang=eng
[xxiv] Teachings of
the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book, 1938, pp. 345–46.
[xxv] History of the
Church, 7 vols., 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1950), 6:473-479.
[xxvii] I will leave the
actual definitions to the search preferences of the reader. Standard
definitions include the notion of being beyond
natural numbers, and to assign a
start date would be to assign a natural number. Synonyms include “boundless”
and “limitless” and to admit of a start date indicates a boundary or limit.
[xxviii] Bruce R.
McConkie, Mortal Messiah 1:29-30
[xxx] Times &
Seasons 5 no. 24 (1 Jan. 1844), 758.
[xxxi] Moranis, F.,
Thomas, D. (1981). Gimme a smoke. On Bob
& Doug McKenzie: Great White North. Toronto: Anthem Records of Canada.
[xxxii] Grammar and syntax
perfectly acceptable in Canada, eh.
[xxxiv] Gee, John;
Hamblin, William J.; Peterson, Daniel C. (2006), "And I Saw the Stars—The
Book of Abraham and Ancient Geocentric Astronomy", in Gee, John; Hauglid,
Brian M. (eds.), Astronomy, Papyrus, and Covenant (1st ed.), Provo, Utah:
Brigham Young University, p. 161.
Alvin
R. Dyer, "BYU Speeches", April 7, 1964, pp. 14–15.
[xxxv] Yes, I am
actually citing Denial C. Peterson.
[xxxvi] Teachings of
the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph
Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, p. 346
[xxxvii] My views on of
the (ir)relevance of God to morality are contained in Zeus’s
Thunderbolt, Euthyphro’s Dilemma, and the Eliminative Reduction of Sin
(and an edited version of it in Sunstone),
and CTR
Rings: The Embodiment of a Misguided Categorical Imperative.
[xxxix] Hartshorne, C.
(1948), The Divine Relativity. New
Haven: Yale University Press
[xl] St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First
Part, Question 2, Article 2. See also I, Q. 1, art. 8.
[xli] Greek Scholarship
was largely lost to the west until the time of the Crusades. About that time,
many documents were translated from Greek (or sometimes Syriac, Arabic, or
Persian) into Latin. Western
Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society, Marvin Perry, Myrna Chase,
Margaret C. Jacob, James R. Jacob, 2008, 908 pages, p.261/262
[xlii] Anselm, St., Proslogion,
in St. Anselm’s Proslogion, M. Charlesworth (ed.), Oxford: OUP, 1965. [Available online, in the Internet Medieval Sourcebook,
Paul Halsall (ed.), Fordham University Center for Medieval Studies, translation
by David Burr].
[xliii] Plantinga, A.,
1967, God and Other Minds, Ithaca: Cornell University Press;
Plantinga,
A.,1974, The Nature of Necessity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[xliv] Malcolm, N.
(1960). Malcolm’s Statement of Anselm’s Ontological Argument. The Philosophical
Review, LXIX.
Malcolm, N.
(1963). Knowledge and Certainty: Essays and Lectures. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
[xlvi] Leibniz,
Gottfried Wilhelm: Philosophical Papers
and Letters, 2nd ed., ed and transl. by L. E. Loemker
(Dortrecht, Holland, 1969), p. 386.
[xlvii] Kant, Immanuel
(1958) [1787]. Critique of Pure Reason.
Norman Kemp Smith (2d. ed.). London: Macmillan @ Co. Ltd. pp. 500–507. (first
edition, pp. 592–603; second edition, pp. 620–631)
[xlviii] Tolomeo da Lucca.
Historia Ecclesiastica (1317): "This man is supreme among modern teachers
of philosophy and theology, and indeed in every subject." Historia Eccles.
xxiii, c. 9.
[xlix] St. Thomas
Aquinas, Summa Theologica, First Part, Question 2, Article 2. See also I, Q. 1,
art. 8.
[l] Aristotle.
Physics 194 b17–20;
Aristotle.
Posterior Analytics 71 b9–11; 94 a20.
[li] An axiom is a
self evident truth.
[lii] Sidebar.
Scientologists would reject this seemingly self evident truth as they believe
that “thetans” willed themselves into existence.
[liii] Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel.
Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1938, pp. 345–46.
[liv] Bruce R.
McConkie, Mortal Messiah 1:29-30
No comments:
Post a Comment