Monday, March 11, 2019

God, LDS Metaphysics, and the Development of Doctrine - Blake Ostler: "all things indwell in God and God indwells all things"


In the combox of the previous thread, Tom has been postulating that a doctrinal development concerning the nature God found in the writings of the majority of the early Church Fathers was a corruption rather than a true development. In the first comment post of the thread, Tom wrote:

...I thought to claim that “preservation of type” was lacking in the CHANGE from an embodied God to a totally incorporeal God.

And in a later post, we read:

Now perhaps more important to this discussion you said,
Rory:
Development cannot be used as a cover for contradiction.
TOm:
What could be a more perfect example of contradiction? Where once Jews and Christians believed God was embodied, latter they DEMAND it is ridiculous to believe God is embodied and He in fact is totally incorporeal.

In this thread, I am going to propose that the phrase "totally incorporeal" lacks a certain degree of clarity when describing the person and or persons termed "God", as found in the Bible, writings of the early Church Fathers—and importantly for this thread—in the LDS Triple Combination.

Before moving forward with my proposition, it is necessary to delineate how the term "God" will be used throughout this thread. I will be relying heavily on a number of descriptions utilized by Blake Ostler in his,  Exploring Mormon Thought - The Attributes of God (2001).

First and foremost, "God" will refer to a "class or kind of being", which "kind K" has a certain set of properties that are:

"essential properties of a natural kind" because anything that lacks such properties would not belong to the kind...for anything to count as God, it would have to have properties of a perfect being such as omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence etc. Moreover, God is understood to be that being who possesses all great-making properties in their fullest. No other being could be more powerful, or more wise, or more good...

The monotheistic use of "God" presupposes that God must have each of his properties in a special sort of way, i.e., perfectly and uniquely. Thus, the term God is such that the individual that bears those properties must be the unique and exclusive member of a unique and exclusive class. The notion that God must be absolutely one seemed to be supported in the earliest years of Christianity by both Jewish monotheism and Greek metaphysics. Despite the obvious subordination of the Son to the Father in the Christian scriptures, the Jewish scriptures contained statements of monotheism which did not permit any real competitor to Yahweh: "I am Yahweh, and there is none else, there is no God beside me" (Isa. 45:5, 21, 22). In addition that, the notion that God is incomparable, literally in a class by himself, required that all contenders are merely pretenders to divinity: "thou shalt have no other gods but the Lord thy God." Here "gods" refers to beings who aspire to belong to "God's" class, but there can be only one legitimate being in the class, the God Yahweh. This usage is more or less equivalent to the Hebrew meaning of Elohim and the English expressions such as "deity," "the Godhead," "the Almighty," "the Lord," "the Supreme Being." or "the Most High." These terms for deity imply that there is a single, supreme member of the class "God Almighty." (2001 - pp. 6, 7)

In the next page, Ostler acknowledges another use of the term God, and its plural, Gods:

The very term "God" has seemed to include in it the notions of supremacy and perfection. Nevertheless, "God" or "Gods" is found in the Hebrew scriptures referring to beings that are not supreme. For example, there are divinities who are inferior or subordinate or divinities only by permission of the head God. (2001 - p. 8)

The rest of this opening post will focus on the "class or kind of being" identified in the KJV and Triple Combination as the 'eternal God', 'everlasting God', 'one God', 'true God', 'Lord God', 'Lord Omnipotent', 'Lord God Omnipotent', 'LORD', 'Jehovah', 'Most High', "Most High God', 'Almighty God', 'God of Gods', 'Lord of Lords', etc.

Moving forward, note the following from Oslter:

In 1832, Joseph Smith received a revelation which elucidated God's immanence—the doctrine that God is present to but is not identical with all realities. Immanence is more than omnipresence or being present at all places.  Immanence includes the notion that God is: (1) present in terms of power and awareness at all places; (2) able to effectuate his will at all places without intermediary; and (3) the experience or information of every reality is included within God's experience and knowledge. Put another way, all things indwell in God and God indwells in all things. Immanence, as conceived by Joseph Smith, is preeminently a reciprocal relation, for it is true that God is in and through all things as that all things are in and through God. A revelation to Joseph Smith referred to God's power and knowledge in terms of supreme relatedness and immediacy to all aspects of the physical universe" "He comprehended all things, that the might be in all and through all things, the light of truth. . . . Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space" (D&C 88:6, 12).

God is aware of or "comprehendeth" all things because they are before him. However, things are not merely present to God, but God is also to all things. He is not merely present to, but actually through all things. (2001 - pp. 75, 76 - bold emphasis mine)

And just a bit later, we read:

This revelation, and others received by Joseph Smith use the terms "spirit," "intelligence," "power," "light." and "law," as synonyms and mutually reinforcing notions. (2001 - p. 76)

With Ostler's reflections in mind, I will now turn to a number of verses from the Bible and Triple Combination which describe the attributes and nature of God:

Jeremiah 23:24 - Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD.

1 Kings 8:27 - But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Chronicles 2:6 - But who is able to build him an house, seeing the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain him? who am I then, that I should build him an house, save only to burn sacrifice before him?

Isaiah 66:1 - Thus saith the LORD, The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest?

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

1 John 5:7 - For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

2 Nephi 31:21b - ...this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.

Alma 11:44b - ...and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.

3 Nephi 11:36 - And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one.

Mormon 7:7 - And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.

D&C 20:17 - By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

D&C 20: 27, 28 - As well as those who should come after, who should believe in the gifts and callings of God by the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and of the Son; Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

D&C 88: 11-13 - And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space. The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who  sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

The descriptions of God in the above passages strongly suggest to me that those attributes which make God 'eternal', 'everlasting', 'infinite', 'one God', 'fill heaven and earth', 'fill the immensity of space', 'in all things', 'Spirit', etc., are descriptions of God's divine nature; a divine nature that sure seems to be identifying a "class or kind of being" who has a spiritual, infinite essence, rather than a corporeal, finite one.

I can now delineate why I believe that the phrase "totally incorporeal" lacks a certain degree of clarity when describing the person and or persons termed "God". Though God's divine nature is essentially "Spirit", this does not preclude Him from taking on corporeal form. With that said, I cannot help but maintain a correct reading of Scripture demands that we acknowledge God has in fact done so.

If the above assessment of mine is an accurate one, it then seems to follow that the development of the doctrine of God—via the reflections of the early Church Fathers—constituted a “preservation of type”, and was not a corruption.

But then, this beachbum may have missed somethnig...


Grace and peace,

David

17 comments:

Berhane Selassie said...

It lack the sources at the moment, but from LDS I've talked to and materials I have seen the "light of Christ" aka the "holy spirit" (as the light of Christ used to be referred to) is omnipresent, however, the godhead is not. Also, note in traditional LDS theology, Holy Spirit is not the Holy Ghost. Only the Holy Ghost is a personage, while the Holy Spirit is more of a force controlled by Heavenly Father--most LDS do not know about this old distinction.

David Waltz said...

Hi Berhane,

If memory serves me correctly, your comments over the weekend represent your initial interactions here at AF—welcome!

You wrote:

==... from LDS I've talked to and materials I have seen the "light of Christ" aka the "holy spirit" (as the light of Christ used to be referred to) is omnipresent, however, the godhead is not.==

I cited LDS philosopher and theologian Blake Ostler's list of attributes that define the "kind of being" that God is, which include:

>>...omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence etc. Moreover, God is understood to be that being who possesses all great-making properties in their fullest. No other being could be more powerful, or more wise, or more good...>>

D&C 88:1-13 seems to define for Mormons how it is that God is, "omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence etc.". The question for me, is the light/power/Spirit which "proceedeth forth from the presence of God" essential to the very being/essence of God? Is it literally part of God's being/essence?

Further, LDS doctrine teaches that Jesus Christ was fully God before taking on a human body. This clearly means that a physical body is not essential to divinity. Such observations (among others) led me to write the following in my opening post:

>> The descriptions of God in the above passages strongly suggest to me that those attributes which make God 'eternal', 'everlasting', 'infinite', 'one God', 'fill heaven and earth', 'fill the immensity of space', 'in all things', 'Spirit', etc., are descriptions of God's divine nature; a divine nature that sure seems to be identifying a "class or kind of being" who has a spiritual, infinite essence, rather than a corporeal, finite one.>>

You also wrote:

==... in traditional LDS theology, Holy Spirit is not the Holy Ghost. Only the Holy Ghost is a personage, while the Holy Spirit is more of a force controlled by Heavenly Father--most LDS do not know about this old distinction.==

Very interesting...your experience with Mormons concerning the above is different than mine; I have yet to interact with a member of the CoJCoLDS who has not been aware of the above distinction.

Thanks much for your contributions; looking forward to future participation from your pen...


Grace and peace,

David

Berhane Selassie said...

Thank you David, I read you blog for years, I may have commented before, perhaps under my old usernames.

D&C 130 seems to reject the idea the Father is omnipresent himself, though through the Light of Christ he can be.

It states the Father and Son cannot dwell in a man's heart, and then states the Holy Ghost can only do so because he has no flesh and bones.

John 14:23—The appearing of the Father and the Son, in that verse, is a personal appearance; and the idea that the Father and the Son dwell in a man’s heart is an old sectarian notion, and is false.--D&C 130:3

The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us. A man may receive the Holy Ghost, and it may descend upon him and not tarry with him.--D&C 130:22-23

The LDS have debated whether the Holy Ghost is a person, JS and Orson Pratt has made statements to the effect that its not a person at all, but part of the godhead. Also, as you can see on the boap website that compares the D&C 130, this chapter was greatly edited after Joseph's death, since Joseph seemed to say the Holy Ghost cannot dwell in anyone either because its a person.

This BYU article discusses the matter. https://byustudies.byu.edu/file/4133/download?token=I4nLMKRT

The writer here tries to harmonize the two readings by saying the Holy Ghost does not actually dwell in individuals, but only the church collectively.

There are several more examples in LDS history where Scripture--D&C especially was edited over time to fit the church's new doctrine, even when the doctrine is a 180 like the early edition's denial of polygamy, to the modern's affirmation and defense of it.

David Waltz said...

Hi Berhane,

Thanks much for your continued interest and participation. LDS commentary/thought concerning the Holy Ghost has been, and still is, varied—if not confusing. I am thinking of devoting a new thread to this topic. For now, I would be very interested in getting your feedback on the following question:

Do you believe that current edition of the LDS Triple Combination contains explicit, non-reconcilable, statements concerning the Holy Ghost?

Grace and peace,

David

TOm said...

Hello David,
I am sorry I haven't responded sooner. I am not sure I have enough to respond then or now or ...
I will offer you a few thoughts.

Would it be correct to summarize your position as follows:
LDS do not believe that embodiment is essential to divinity.
Catholics do not believe that embodiment is outside the power of a non-corporeal divinity (not outside the power of God the Son who absolutely took on a body and not outside the power of God the Father or God the Holy Spirit who probably are not involved in any theophanies (with the possible exception of Stephen's theophany which is I should say is FREQUENTLY perhaps ALWAYS explained away rather than embraced as a view of God the Father and God the Son).
So, if embodiment is not essential and not outside of God's power, then the GULF is really not as large as one might postulate.
Furthermore, if this is the state of Catholic Christianity, the DEVELOPMENT is not a rejection of the possibility of divine embodiment (not a position that is "totally incorporeal") but rather a recognition that divine embodiment is not ESSENTIAL to divinity.


1. I very much agree that embodiment is not essential to divinity in LDS thought.
2. I believe Ostler probably in his second volume developed that antithetical attributes that necessitated a radical two-nature Christology. I think body and no body were among them.
3. The arguments against divine embodiment present in Origen and Augustine IMO are not being made with the idea "that which is essential to divinity is incorporal." It seems to me the arguments against embodiment are that to suggest God the Father has a body is to be a fool and to degrade God into an idle.


These are my quick initial thoughts. Sorry for not responding sooner. I feel like I am being contrary. I might invite a couple of contrary Catholics here if you would like. I doubt either will come, but if one of the two does I think he might have some Catholic thoughts he might share.

Hope all is well in Washington. I am becoming an Eastern fellow. I am about to have a home and a second home in the East! It looks like I will not be uprooting / returning to the southwest anytime soon.
Charity, TOm

TOm said...

"Idol" argh!!!

David Waltz said...

Hi Tom,

So good to see you back; Rory and I have missed your contributions.

Your summarization of my position concerning the LDS Triple Combination's presentation of God and the divine nature as related to Catholic theology and the development of doctrine is accurate. At this point in our discussion I would add that LDS thought tends to begin and emphasize those attributes of God that are not essential to the divine nature that makes God GOD, while Catholic theology begins and emphasizes those attributes of God that makes God GOD.

After your summation, you wrote:

==I believe Ostler probably in his second volume developed that antithetical attributes that necessitated a radical two-nature Christology. I think body and no body were among them.==

I cannot help but think that the incarnation of the Son of God demands some form of "two-nature Christology"—though I hesitate to construe formalized Catholic "two-nature Christology" as "radical". Catholic theology affirms that man is created in the 'image of God'; as such, I cannot in good conscience affirm "a radical two-nature Christology".

As for the issue of a "two-nature Christology", does not the Book of Mormon demand it? Note the following:

>>Mosiah 3:5a - For behold, the time cometh, and is not far distant, that with
power, the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity, shall come down from heaven among the children of men, and shall dwell in
a tabernacle of clay...>>

Changing gears a bit, did you notice the book that Berhane recommended in the combox of this thread?

While looking into that book online, I found a number of books written by James Kugel that I am quite sure you will find interesting:

jameskugel.com


Grace and peace,

David


P.S. Now that you settled into your East coast life, V and I need to plan to visit you. 2019 is 'full', so I am thinking of 2020...

Mak said...

Hello sir david waltz

do you know who is "villanovanus" ?

David Waltz said...

Hello Mak,

Had never heard of of the name; but a Google search came up with the following:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15429c.htm



Grace and peace,

David

Mak said...

Im sorry im wrong, i mean, do you know this"villanovanus" in the comments of dale tuggy's article ?

https://trinities.org/blog/trinitarian-or-unitarian-1-irenaeus/

David Waltz said...

Hello again Mak,

Thanks for the clarification. No, I do not know the identity of the actual person posting under the name, "villanovanus" in Dale's Trinities blog.


Grace and peace,

David

Mak said...

Thank you


Because i dont know if "villanovanus"(commentator on dale tuggy's article) is unitarian or trinitarian


Is "villanovanus"(commentator in dale tuggy's article) a unitarian or trinitarian ?


Sorry if my question is like a kid

I hope you respond tnx Godbless

leeseykay said...

Tom, hi.

I have to chuckle at your concerns about being contrarian. If we did not have contrary points of view, it would be a much different, and I think, less vigorous discussion. For my part, I value your opinion as one who has demonstrated an unusual candid willingness to try to understand the opposing viewpoint.

What Dave said in my behalf about missing your participation was an understatement. In the previous thread, which came to be focused on whether a belief that God the Father was corporeal, to a belief that He is incorporeal, was a contradiction. As a possible example of contradiction, I had remarked that if the Church tried to legitimize homosexual activity, once taught to be a grievous sin against nature, and presumably proclaim that it is within "marriage", sacramental, that it would be an obvious corruption. You took the position that it would be equally contradictory with the change from a corporeal to an incorporeal Father.

For sake of argument I allowed that historically, the Jews as well as the Christians that came later, by a strong consensus, held that God was corporeal. I tend to think that this historical point remains to be established. But I still would like know to what how you found my rebuttal. I don't ask for a book. We are all busy.

After four or five posts trying to establish the Catholic understanding of Christ's activity in the "Temporal Creation" as I called it. I proposed that while the Jew might have held that God was corporeal, it was impossible to say that the Jew understood the distinction between God the Father, author of "Eternal Creation", and God the Son who was revealing Himself primarily as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The Jews could not have held that God the Father was specifically revealed as corporeal.

Finally, I asked what seemed to me to be a modest concession from you, that the doctrine of a corporeal God the Father, to one that is incorporeal, seems less contradictory by a consideration of the arguments I provided. I think I said something along the lines of it having a lot more going for it than a flip flop on sodomy. Please say if you perhaps found my effort to be completely unpersuasive. But I still hope to have softened your previously stated position a little.

Heh. I will give you multiple choice! No need for time consuming commentary. Your assessment of my argument leaves you...

A) completely unpersuaded.
B) slightly persuaded.(more difficulty to assert as contradiction than a sodomy flip flop)
C) moderately persuaded (you are reconsidering whether it is fair to assert contradiction)
D) wondering if I know any good Catholic priests in Baltimore.

Thanks.

Rory

leeseykay said...

David, hello.

I came across something in the today that seems like a probable source of Apostolic Tradition. The reading for the third Saturday of Lent is taken from Daniel 13, the story of Susannah, who was placed in a position where either death or adultery were her options. As it happens, she chose death and was eventually delivered from both.

The commentary that I mention so often here, The Liturgical Year, by Dom Gueranger, remarks about how the early Christians interpreted this text: "In this history of Susanna, the early Christians saw a figure of the Church, which in their time, was solicited by the pagans to evil, but remained faithful to her divine Spouse, even though death was the punishment of her resistance. A holy martyr of the third century, St. Hippolytus, mentions this interpretation. The carvings on the ancient Christian tombs, and the frescoes of the Roman catacombs, represent this history of Susanna's fidelity to God's law in spite of the death that threatened her, as a type of the martyr's preferring death to apostasy..."

---vol. 5, p. 309, emphasis mine

This period of the Liturgical Calendar is very rich with Old Testament stories interpreted as figures of the events which unfold in the New Testament. If St. Paul hadn't told us that the Rock from which the water came after Moses struck it, was a type of Christ, who would have ever have thought of it?

I am beginning to think more and more that a great legacy of the Apostolic revelation is about how we are to understand the Old Testament. The disciples on the Emmaus Road were amazed, and their hearts burned, as our risen Lord spent much of a day expounding the Old Testament as foreshowing Himself, and His presumably, His kingdom, the Church. Undoubtedly, the Apostles were also armed with this knowledge.

It seems to me like the catacombs can be a rich source to see how the early church interpreted both the Old and New Testament revelations. Also, if the report of Dom Gueranger is verified, would it not help support the probability that the early Christians held that Daniel 13 was Sacred Scripture? I was perusing the internet a little, and was bemused to see some Protestant, apparently Baptist scholarship benefitting from much of the instruction that can be obtained from the catacombs. It warned however, that one should be careful to realize that these underground Christians were already going off the rails. He was scandalized by the artwork depicting prayers for the dead, and baptisms using the mode of pouring.

During this period before Lent, the catechumens were being prepared for the battles that they might face. Knowing that one might be called upon to "commit adultery", baptism is a very serious step since it espouse one to Jesus Christ, and one must enter in to that union knowing that a wicked world will try to make one betray our faithfulness to Him. Threats that often ended in death. Stories like that of Susanna must have been most enlightening and unforgettable, to those, especially in Rome, who would receive their baptisms at Easter.

But these catechumens are being led in to apostasy by people who are necessarily "apostate adulterers" according to non-Catholic/Orthodox Christianity.

Rory

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Thanks much for the commentary from Dom Gueranger and your further reflections. The following you wrote especially stood out to me:

==I was perusing the internet a little, and was bemused to see some Protestant, apparently Baptist scholarship benefitting from much of the instruction that can be obtained from the catacombs. It warned however, that one should be careful to realize that these underground Christians were already going off the rails. He was scandalized by the artwork depicting prayers for the dead, and baptisms using the mode of pouring.==

It never ceases to amaze me that Protestant apologists are so quite to appeal to the CFs concerning the doctrine of God and the Trinity, but then virtually ignore those same folk when it comes to less complex issues like ecclesiology, the sacraments, soteriology, et al.

Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Good morning Mak,

I cannot say for sure, but think the gent posting under "villanovanus" is most likely unitarian and not trinitarian. He seems to be arguing that it is inaccurate to term forms of Arianism as unitarian.

I would also add that the image he provides with his posts is a photo of Michael Servetus, which suggests to me that he is unitarian.


Grace and peace,

David

Nick said...

I am way late to this party, but if I'm reading Blake Ostler's comments properly, he's expressing a generally acceptable understanding of God/Divinity. Aside from equivocating with terminology (e.g. having "eternity" simply mean "a long time" and "all knowing" simply meaning "has memorized the entire encyclopedia"), I will say the 'danger' of LDS sounding too much like mainstream Christianity is that it would cease to make LDS sufficiently different for people to even notice them.

If Jesus was eternally divine, meaning prior to the Incarnation, then this undermines the dogma of Eternal Progression. It seems to me that EP is the chief doctrine in the forefront of the mind of all of the most devout LDS. If you don't have the chance to become a God, just like the Father did via EP, then what's so new and unique about the LDS view? It would amount to a mere form of Protestantism. The Book of Mormon would merely be the Book of Acts Part II, chronicling the adventures of the Apostles preaching in America, without any substantial change in theology.

I'm not well informed of the Book of Mormon, but what is the real underlying benefit of teaching there were ancient Jews in America if there isn't any new theology to reveal? What benefit or credibility does this give to the LDS? I've heard from different people that the Book of Mormon isn't actually incompatible with Christianity, it's just it's own historically narrative without much controversial theological claims. They say the real incompatibilities come from later LDS Revelation, such as D&C and such, not the BoM itself.