Help With Mormon Question

[Gabelma]

Hi Sarah,

You said,

And...why would creating matter be impossible?I would like to think that the God I worship is above our logic. What seems impossbile to us isn't to him, his ways are not our ways.

I agree that God created the world from nothing (spoke it into existence) vs. organizing something that he did not create. God is bound by logic. He is bound to certain things. I wish I could spend more time but it will have to wait. By saying "the God I worship is above our logic" does not follow. By describing God, we use logic which you are saying does not bind him. He is the greatest, most powerful, perfect, etc. being. He is beyond normal laws of physics as can be seen through the miracles. He presented as a burning bush that did not consume, came back from the dead, walked on water, etc. That is not the issue. I'll post more later.

ok i don't believe God is above laws of physics, I just believe we don't entirely understand them. He created us there is some of him in each of us. They are his laws.

[Dr T]

Thank you Gabelma,

As I said in the examples. Fire consumes. That's what it does. People cannot, unaided, walk on water-God did both. He is above those laws in my opinion.

[a-train]

Isn't it funny how much flack the traditional christians give the LDS for belief in extra-biblical doctrine meanwhile they cling so stubbornly to the ex nihilo doctrine which is found nowhere in scripture? The LDS have extra-biblical scripture to look to for their extra-biblical doctrine. They believe that God has revealed those things. The traditional christians simply made up ex nihilo and act as though those who don't believe it are worshipping a totally different god than they are. The doctrines of men mingled with scripture.... Hilarious.

-a-train

[sarah_22]

"Isn't it funny how much flack the traditional christians give the LDS for belief in extra-biblical doctrine meanwhile they cling so stubbornly to the ex nihilo doctrine which is found nowhere in scripture?"

I think the "flack" given from "traditional" christians to LDS members for belief in extra-biblical doctine isn't about ex nihilo creation, it's about beliefs in eternal progression, Heavenly mother, spirit children, Gods exaltation, God having a father etc (most of these are not in your scripture.)... anyway,I'm not here to talk about that.

"The traditional christians simply made up ex nihilo and act as though those who don't believe it are worshipping a totally different god than they are. The doctrines of men mingled with scripture.... Hilarious."

Yes...hilarious. 2.1 billion christians believe in creation ex nihilo and a further 1.5 billion muslims. How silly we all feel.

[CrimsonKairos]

And you should.

Man, talk about the lemming phenomenon...not just Christians but Muslims jumped on the false doctrine wagon!

"C'mon guys! Over the edge of this doctrinal cliff with me, it'll be fun!!!" they say as they hurl themselves into an unsupportable position.

*cue the sounds of hundreds of lemmings splatting on the rocky beach below*

[a-train]

God having a father

I have never known Christians who had a problem with this one. Don't ALL Christians believe Christ is God and that He has a Father?

I think the "flack" given from "traditional" christians to LDS members for belief in extra-biblical doctine isn't about ex nihilo creation

This is an interesting statement from someone giving us flack for this very matter of ex nihilo, or at least our lack thereof.

So, since you are throwing up numbers of people instead of verse numbers, are you admitting at least that ex nihilo is NOT scriptural?

You still didn't answer my question. Was there ever a time that God did NOT govern a universe?

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

I suppose ex nihilo is an assumption. However, it's a wide-spread one. Before all else, there was God. He started creating, and substance came into being. Humans can mold matter, only God can create it out of nothing.

When Genesis 1 starts "In the beginning, God--I take that quite literally. Before all else--including time, there was God.

It would be interesting to see what ancient Jewish authorities thought on this matter.

[a-train]

It was suggested that the idea that God has always been the Governor of the Universe rather than creating the Universe from nothing at some point asserts that God is somehow lightly esteemed. It is said that God is therefore less powerful because He did not create everything ex nihilo, but always had a Universe to govern.

Wouldn't this mentality also suggest that the creative powers in Genesis are somehow more glorious than the saving powers in the New Testament? In other words, what is more important, how God gets stuff, or what He does with it once He has it?

Of course, to the LDS, this is a pointless question because God already owns an infinite Universe and is not limited by any need to obtain things.

Besides the obvious implication, if God created everything from nothing, then He was once the God of nothing. I guess, in this model, He worked His way up from the God of nothing to the God of something through creation ex nihilo. WOW! THE EX NIHILISTS BELIEVE IN ETERNAL PROGRESSION TOO!

-a-train

[Doctor Steuss]

I guess I don't want to abandon "traditional" thinking. I feel at peace with Gods' power to create and very uncomfortable with the mormon idea of God. I can't help but feel hurt (for lack of a better word) when I hear mormons reduce God to an organizer.

the ogre: I can assure you that I have no intent of "ruffling feathers". I am just interested in mormon theology and am trying my best to understand it better.

I get a bit hurt when people reduce him to a nebulous cloud of plutonic philosophical thought.

"Mormon gods do not have the ability to create out of nothing, but only organize existing material into other commodities, so the material must predate the Mormon gods."

Are you going to give Gary A. Hand credit for this dribble? IMO, plagiarism isn't acceptable, even anonymously on the internet.

[Doctor Steuss]

eternal progression,

Also known as theosis, which is quite biblical.

Heavenly mother

Wouldn't it be crazy if ancient Jews believed in YHWH having a consort?

, spirit children,

Book of Enoch?

Gods exaltation

This belief has a place in antiquity.

God having a father etc (most of these are not in your scripture.)...

I know this is not in our scriptures because it isn't doctrine. At most, it's speculative doctrine that comes from the logical progression of the docrines given. In the end though, it isn't doctrine.

anyway,I'm not here to talk about that.

Then why did you bring them up?

Yes...hilarious. 2.1 billion christians believe in creation ex nihilo and a further 1.5 billion muslims. How silly we all feel.

Glad to know you base your own personal beliefs off popular opinion. I'll keep this in mind before I seek the words of the ancients... I have a lot of respect for many who believe in ex nihilo; however, none of the people I respect ever felt the need to commit the above logical falacy to bring about my respect.

[the Ogre]

Yes...hilarious. 2.1 billion christians believe in creation ex nihilo and a further 1.5 billion muslims. How silly we all feel.

Yep, absolutely hilarious considering ex nihilo is found no where in scripture.

Ex nihilo being a completely pointless doctrine invented by people. PEOPLE. It is not scriptural. That is the point that needs to be made here.

Pandenominationals around the world (the 3.6million you mention) refuse to get beyond the point that one of the central tenants of their faith can not be found in scripture and then in the same breath condemning the rest of humanity who does not believe in this most bizarre form of chutzpah.

And as yet, no one has tried to point out why even the debate matters. As far as I can tell the entire concept is a red herring designed to lead people away from knowing how to find salvation.

Connect the point (ex nihilo) to eternal salvation by quoting scripture and you will have lifted yourself beyond the level of being completely superfluous in content and intent.

[CrimsonKairos]

Ex nihilo is as absurd to me as the "Big Bang" theory (as I understand it), to wit:

"In the beginning there was nothing...which exploded."

Now the ex nihilo debate does have eternal ramifications. If our consciousnesses have not always existed (the "intelligence was not created nor made, neither indeed can be" thing from the D&C), then we truly are just "creations" of God and not spirit children, and this in turn limits our destiny or potential "theosis" to merely thinking like God and having our character perfected, but never able to truly be like God (joint-heirs with Christ).

[the Ogre]

Ex nihilo is as absurd to me as the "Big Bang" theory (as I understand it), to wit:

"In the beginning there was nothing...which exploded."

In the big bang there was a something which exploded. The question is: what was it? I think the fun question for big bangers should be: who made it?

The reason for this is the postulate that says nothing can be created or destroyed.

Now the ex nihilo debate does have eternal ramifications. If our consciousnesses have not always existed (the "intelligence was not created nor made, neither indeed can be" thing from the D&C), then we truly are just "creations" of God and not spirit children, and this in turn limits our destiny or potential "theosis" to merely thinking like God and having our character perfected, but never able to truly be like God (joint-heirs with Christ).

Okay, I can see potential in this, but could you refine your thoughts a little. I think a little more work has to go into what you're thinking.

[Doctor Steuss]

Ex nihilo is as absurd to me as the "Big Bang" theory (as I understand it), to wit:

"In the beginning there was nothing...which exploded."

There was a primordial atom of sorts within the BBT; it doesn't support ex nihilo creation. It doesn't necessarily support LDS concepts, but it does dictate that there had always been "something" there.

[prisonchaplain]

Apparently Orthodox Judaism subscribes to God creating the world out of nothing. http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabb...ns_creation.htm

Thus, when it's said that "traditional Christians" pull the theory out of nowhere, it seems rather that the belief was an assumption going back over 3000 years.

[CrimsonKairos]

I know, I was just contrasting two similarly absurd theories...in my opinion. B)

ogre, I don't know what you want me to refine in my statement. It's pretty much self-sufficient:

1.) If you are a literal spirit child of God, you contain the seeds of godhood within you and can become as He is (but never independent of Him); or...

2.) You are a creation of God--not a descendant--and as such can never become as He is any more than a Furby can become like its human creator.

[the Ogre]

ogre, I don't know what you want me to refine in my statement. It's pretty much self-sufficient:

1.) If you are a literal spirit child of God, you contain the seeds of godhood within you and can become as He is (but never independent of Him); or...

2.) You are a creation of God--not a descendant--and as such can never become as He is any more than a Furby can become like its human creator.

This is fine. Thanks.

I was hoping someone was going to link the importance of the creation mystery to eternal salvation.

Wait, maybe not fine. In ordering your statement in a pair with an inserted conjunction (or) do you mean these two statements are binary opposites?

[CrimsonKairos]

Yes, they are mutually exclusive. It's an either/or situation.

LDS theosis is fundamentally different from non-LDS theosis (see the Ante-Nicene Fathers' writings sometime).

[the Ogre]

Apparently Orthodox Judaism subscribes to God creating the world out of nothing. http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabb...ns_creation.htm

Thus, when it's said that "traditional Christians" pull the theory out of nowhere, it seems rather that the belief was an assumption going back over 3000 years.

When was this opinion issued? Does it really go back three thousand years, or was it even at that date a mater of contention. Or could it be another one of those brilliant doctrinal metamorphosis by the RAMBAM not actually based on scripture, but on Greek theo/philosphy . . ? Rabbi Simmons does not quote his antecedent source.

Gen 2:3

And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

This section of Genesis does not support what you are claiming. Do you have access to the ibn Ezra commentary and also the commentary on the commentary and then some of the subsequent debates? Be cautious when quoting a Rabbi about opinion from three thousand years ago unless you claim also to be a descendant of their progenitors the Pharisees and would then actually favor the interpretation of law over the law and word of the L-rd's prophets.

[Doctor Steuss]

Apparently Orthodox Judaism subscribes to God creating the world out of nothing. http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askrabb...ns_creation.htm

Thus, when it's said that "traditional Christians" pull the theory out of nowhere, it seems rather that the belief was an assumption going back over 3000 years.

For a view from prominent members of Jewish Studies (and what scholars of Judaism are finding):

Nearly all recent studies on the origin of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo have come to the conclusion that this doctrine is not native to Judaism, is nowhere attested in the Hebrew Bible, and probably arose in Christianity in the second century C.E. in the course of its fierce battle with Gnosticism. The one scholar who continues to maintain that the doctrine is native to Judaism, namely Jonathan Goldstein, thinks that it first appears at the end of the first century C.E., but has recently conceded the weakness of his position in the course of debate with David Winston.

Peter Hayman, "Monotheism - A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?", Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991), 1-15.

The Talmud also supports a creation from the "chaotic waters" (not ex nihilo). Also, the verb foudn in Genesis presupposes the use of material. There are many Midrashic homilies that can be interpreted to mean a creation from nothing, but most of them have some form of pre-existent substance, even if it is something as abstract as "G-d looking into the Torah."

I don't doubt that there are many within Judaism that hold to this belief. But it is hardly a solid doctrine that has always had firm roots in Judaism. It gained it's foothold around the same period it did in Chrisianity (while the Christians were battling the Gnostics).

[CrimsonKairos]

The magic is that ex nihilo as a theory was created out of nothing itself...nothing scriptural, that is. B)

[prisonchaplain]

When was this opinion issued? Does it really go back three thousand years, or was it even at that date a mater of contention. Or could it be another one of those brilliant doctrinal metamorphosis by the RAMBAM not actually based on scripture, but on Greek theo/philosphy . . ? Rabbi Simmons does not quote his antecedent source.

This section of Genesis does not support what you are claiming. Do you have access to the ibn Ezra commentary and also the commentary on the commentary and then some of the subsequent debates? Be cautious when quoting a Rabbi about opinion from three thousand years ago unless you claim also to be a descendant of their progenitors the Pharisees and would then actually favor the interpretation of law over the law and word of the L-rd's prophets.

It is my contention that Old Testament writing assumes an creation that was out of nothing, and that there would have been few defenses of the view, because there was scant dissension. In other words, where there is overwhelming consensus, very little has to be said about it. With that as my premise, I cited an Orthodox rabbi who, in discussing the issue of whether creation is final or continuous, makes reference to the very assumption I speak of--ex nihilo creation. He makes no articulate defense of the assumption, because, for his community, it is a given point.

The magic is that ex nihilo as a theory was created out of nothing itself...nothing scriptural, that is. B)

IMHO, the idea that God created the world out of nothing requires no defense. It is a basic assumption, a given, in nearly all of the Abrahamic religious communities. On the other hand, the belief that Moses really meant that God remodeled the world...that innovative belief requires some 'splaining.

[CrimsonKairos]

God didn't "remodel" the world. God created the world out of eternal elements.

No offense, but ex nihilo makes about as much sense to me as the Nicene Creed's depiction of the Trinity. But that's just me.

[the Ogre]

It is my contention that Old Testament writing assumes an creation that was out of nothing, and that there would have been few defenses of the view, because there was scant dissension. In other words, where there is overwhelming consensus, very little has to be said about it. With that as my premise, I cited an Orthodox rabbi who, in discussing the issue of whether creation is final or continuous, makes reference to the very assumption I speak of--ex nihilo creation. He makes no articulate defense of the assumption, because, for his community, it is a given point.

I understand what you are saying, however Stewie (Dr. Steuss) has shown that indeed there is some contention in the Jewish community. Not only that, there is only one point in the Jewish tradition that is considered given, and that is that there is one G-d, however there has been some back and forth about this as well.

I like reading about the Jewish community and was at one point considering it for grad school (Jewish Literary Studies that is), but one can never assume that there is any type of consensus. If Rabbi soandso says something be assured his best friend is going to say, "Realy, prove it", and his neighbor is going to say both are wrong and even if the L-rd were to interupt, they would tell H-m to wait H-s turn and to make sure whatever H- has to say better have precedent.

I know the pandenominational Chr-stians think LDS are heretical over this idea as well as the trinity or triune or three-in-one concepts based on Niciea. Wouldn't this be one of the best reasons for a prophet, to clear up the babble and silliness? ONe of the things the Gnostics did to Chr-stianity was rob it of its basic apprehensiblness. The explanations are a lot simpler than the pandenominationals would make it out to be. This confusingness takes the truth out of the hands of ordinary people making it important to have professional clergy so that the incomprehensible concepts of the trinity and ex nihilo can be explained. What about making things simple.

Creation: The L-rd hasn't let us know yet, because it really doesn't matter.

[a-train]

I'm just trying to figure out how a god who was once the god of nothing is an eternal god.

-a-train