I think Harold Bloom reads my posts

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Apparently Hinckley is on record rejecting deification (was it ever a doctrine?). I haven't done more than scan this so correct me if I'm wrong.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/ind...howtopic=24463

SU, I've always read that interview as a rejection, non-endorsement, or an admission of the limited understanding in Mormon doctrine of an "infinite regress of gods," and not a rejection of deification. But maybe my own biases are clouding my judgment.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

SU, I've always read that interview as a rejection or at least a non-endorsement of an "infinite regress of gods," and not a rejection of deification. But maybe my own biases are clouding my judgment.

I'm not sure what infinite regress means as applied to gods but it doesn't sound good.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by pelagius

SU, I've always read that interview as a rejection or at least a non-endorsement of an "infinite regress of gods," and not a rejection of deification.

Is a member wrong to take Joseph Smith at his word, instead of endorsing the pooh-poohing of modern prophets?

As more controversial doctrines are underplayed, minimized, or retracted, it will be interesting to see how members deal with this.

Did the light shine greatest with Joseph Smith, or does it shine equally brightly now? In other words, was Joseph Smith closer to God than the prophets of the last 30 years? Or did he just occupy a different role?

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Is a member wrong to take Joseph Smith at his word, instead of endorsing the pooh-poohing of modern prophets?

As more controversial doctrines are underplayed, minimized, or retracted, it will be interesting to see how members deal with this.

Did the light shine greatest with Joseph Smith, or does it shine equally brightly now? In other words, was Joseph Smith closer to God than the prophets of the last 30 years? Or did he just occupy a different role?

It's been a while since I read the King Follett discourse or the Sermon at the Grove, but I never thought Joseph Smith went as far as the Lorenzo Snow couplet (which is what Pres. Hinckley was responding too; actually, isn't he really responding to the first part of the couplet?). So I should reread those sermons.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

I'm not sure what infinite regress means as applied to gods but it doesn't sound good.

The first part of Lorenzo Snow's couplet implies an infinite regress of gods,

As man is now, God once was

God must have had a God when he was a man, and God's God must have had a God when he was man, etc. An infinite regress.

The question asked President Hinckley was,

The exact question asked was:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

A: Yeah.

Q: ...about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

Thus, I think President Hinckley was responding to the first part of the couplet (infinite regress of gods).

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Is a member wrong to take Joseph Smith at his word, instead of endorsing the pooh-poohing of modern prophets?

As more controversial doctrines are underplayed, minimized, or retracted, it will be interesting to see how members deal with this.

Did the light shine greatest with Joseph Smith, or does it shine equally brightly now? In other words, was Joseph Smith closer to God than the prophets of the last 30 years? Or did he just occupy a different role?

That's the key issue in 90% of the debates we have here.

I think a member is not wrong to take Joseph Smith's word over a modern prophet's ambiguous rejection. But a member is equally not wrong in going with the modern prophet.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by pelagius

The first part of Lorenzo Snow's couplet implies an infinite regress of gods,

God must have had a God when he was a man, and God's God must have had a God when he was man, etc. An infinite regress.

The question asked President Hinckley was,


Thus, I think President Hinckley was responding to the first part of the couplet (infinite regress of gods).

Stupid question: Why isn't it called infinite progress? Offhand that seems a more accurate description.

Seems to me infinite regress (as you all put it) and deification must go hand in hand. Can you have one without the other?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Stupid question: Why isn't it called infinite progress? Offhand that seems a more accurate description.

Seems to me infinite regress (as you all put it) and deification must go hand in hand. Can you have one without the other?

Isn't the term similar to a linear regression? We're regressing to the final source, which with infinites is impossible.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Stupid question: Why isn't it called infinite progress? Offhand that seems a more accurate description.

I'm fine with the series pointing either direction. Progress or regress is fine with me.

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Seems to me infinite regress (as you all put it) and deification must go hand in hand. Can you have one without the other?

I am probably the only one around here that uses the phrase "infinite regress of gods" so you may be incriminating people (with the use of "as you all put it") who would rather not be associated with the use of the phrase.

To your main point. I do think that the two concepts have often been connected in Mormon thought and Mormon teachings, historically. It is not obvious to me how that they are mechanically connected in some way so maybe I am missing your point.

[Indy Coug]

Recursion?