tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post4400719717754496961..comments2024-02-29T19:21:32.831-05:00Comments on Possible Worlds: A Brief Analysis of a Mormon OutlookRandy Everisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-82577868834681300972011-04-11T16:28:31.617-04:002011-04-11T16:28:31.617-04:00Thanks! I've also found that a fair number of...Thanks! I've also found that a fair number of rank-and-file Mormons tend not to focus much on what we would term 'theology proper', and as a result of that, quite a few of them have a much milder heterodoxy in that area than would be expected from the remarks of previous presidents of their church.JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13108158469007498050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-12732569596758640722011-04-10T16:17:19.074-04:002011-04-10T16:17:19.074-04:00Thanks for commenting JB! I myself have recently b...Thanks for commenting JB! I myself have recently been made aware of the recent Mormon philosophers who have, essentially, rejected the older interpretation of Lorenzo Snow's doctrine of eternal progression, and thus believe God did not have a beginning, and whatnot. However, it seems Mormon scholars differ from "regular Joe Mormons," at least in my experience. This is to insinuate nothing but that I have interacted with Mormons who take these positions but who are also unaware of any difficulties therein. Your comments are appreciated and well-noted!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-36909267863297073232011-04-10T15:40:39.018-04:002011-04-10T15:40:39.018-04:00Hello, Randy,
With a paper of this sort, I would ...Hello, Randy,<br /><br />With a paper of this sort, I would recommend relying more heavily on Mormon sources for a more balanced view of their beliefs. In particular, I'd caution against a reliance on the work of Ed Decker, which is viewed as highly problematic even by other prominent critics of Mormonism (e.g., the Tanners).<br />In particular, one thing that must be kept in mind is that Mormon thought contains a great deal of diversity, and even where some strands of thought are more historically the norm, still those may not be the most prevalent today. (For instance, although Mormonism has traditionally stressed the view that God was once a man who became a God, there are Mormon thinkers today who believe that the Father was always God but became incarnate on some planet just as orthodox Christianity maintains that the Son did on ours.) Many of the characterizations of Mormon thought in your paper only apply to certain versions of Mormonism, and a few are more questionable. For instance, the claim that Jesus is "not himself deity" in Mormon thought is problematic. Contemporary Mormonism identifies Jesus as the Jehovah of the Old Testament, and thus believes that everything affirmed in the Old Testament about God is true of Jesus, including a sense of his deity (save that, in Mormon thought, the pattern of prayer they perceive in the New Testament gives them reservations about praying directly to Christ or giving him unqualified worship of the sort rendered to the Father). Also, in Mormon thought, the majority of people are ultimately, in the resurrection, going to attain to one of the kingdoms of glory. The exception here is the "sons of perdition" (e.g., those who have received witness from the Holy Spirit that the 'restored gospel' taught by Mormonism is true, and who then go on to reject it anyway), who are consigned to "outer darkness". The remainder of humanity goes to either the telestial, the terrestrial, or the celestial kingdom, as you noted. There is some historical diversity over whether all these should be referred to as "salvation". Ultimately, only those in the celestial kingdom have direct access to the Father's presence and only they can continue to grow and develop throughout eternity; those in the terrestrial or telestial kingdoms do not have this option.<br /><br />With respect to one of your early arguments against Mormonism, it should be noted that LDS thought steadfastly denies that "man had a beginning" - see D&C 93:29. And yes, there is an infinite regress problem in certain forms of Mormonism, though I think your argument could be strengthened by linking to some of your other work that explains why this is a problem. Also, with regard to the uniqueness of God, many Mormons who adhere to traditional Mormonism are wont to say that the biblical statements on our God's uniqueness and supremacy have a somewhat local scope of view - limited to either our section of this universe, or this universe among many universes. This should probably be noted as well. Also, Mormons are not as accustomed to think of God in terms of 'essence', so some further explication of that might be helpful. Some Mormon thinkers could claim that we and Christ and the Father are all of the same essence, in the looser sense of 'essence' used by, e.g., Gregory of Nyssa, which roughly matches the notion of 'kind-essence'. Some of your other arguments touch on valuable points as well - e.g., in regard to the qualified status placed on grace in Mormon thought - but don't really interact with the positions that an actual Mormon would be likely to take on the matter. That, I think, is one of the bigger drawbacks of relying heavily on non-Mormon polemical sources rather than a more balanced blend.<br /><br />God bless,<br />JBJBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13108158469007498050noreply@blogger.com