Comments on: “Infinite Regress” or “Monarchical Monotheism” http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/ Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:20:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Clair http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/comment-page-2/#comment-3478 Clair Sun, 09 Mar 2008 05:38:06 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/#comment-3478 I am late to this thread, but no one has yet referenced B.H. Roberts' discourse entitled, "God." June 18, 1933, Salt Lake Tabernacle. reprinted in Discourses of B.H. Roberts, Deseret Book, 1948. One conclusion, "United in this Divine Essence, or Spirit is the mind of all Gods; and all the Gods being incarnations of this Spirit, become God in unity; and by the incarnation of this Spirit in Divine Personages, the become the Divine Brotherhood of the Universe, the ONE GOD, though made of many." I am late to this thread, but no one has yet referenced B.H. Roberts’ discourse entitled, “God.” June 18, 1933, Salt Lake Tabernacle. reprinted in Discourses of B.H. Roberts, Deseret Book, 1948.

One conclusion,

“United in this Divine Essence, or Spirit is the mind of all Gods; and all the Gods being incarnations of this Spirit, become God in unity; and by the incarnation of this Spirit in Divine Personages, the become the Divine Brotherhood of the Universe, the ONE GOD, though made of many.”

]]> By: smb http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/comment-page-2/#comment-3287 smb Tue, 04 Mar 2008 03:26:19 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/#comment-3287 Sure. Stapley's made me reconsider how best to treat funereal anointings, so i'm trying to think through how best to communicate the meaning of them within a Mormon context. Sure. Stapley’s made me reconsider how best to treat funereal anointings, so i’m trying to think through how best to communicate the meaning of them within a Mormon context.

]]> By: Blake http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/comment-page-2/#comment-3268 Blake Mon, 03 Mar 2008 14:30:49 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/#comment-3268 smb -- at this point you could quote vol. 2 which is already out. However, you could also quote it as: Blake T. Ostler, Of God and Gods, vol 3 Exploring Mormon Thought (SLC: Koford Books, 2008), ch. 1. However, in that book I call it "kingship monotheism." Could I also get a copy of your paper? smb — at this point you could quote vol. 2 which is already out. However, you could also quote it as: Blake T. Ostler, Of God and Gods, vol 3 Exploring Mormon Thought (SLC: Koford Books, 2008), ch. 1. However, in that book I call it “kingship monotheism.” Could I also get a copy of your paper?

]]> By: smb http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/comment-page-2/#comment-3267 smb Mon, 03 Mar 2008 13:45:26 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/#comment-3267 Blake, how would you prefer that I quote your statement of monarchical monotheism in my Chain paper? If it's from your vol. 3 would you mind emailing me a copy of the relevant portions? I'm trying to finish this paper and get it off my desk. Also, is there a preferred published justification of "infinite regress" or is it just a lot of Pratt and Young primary texts? Blake, how would you prefer that I quote your statement of monarchical monotheism in my Chain paper? If it’s from your vol. 3 would you mind emailing me a copy of the relevant portions? I’m trying to finish this paper and get it off my desk.

Also, is there a preferred published justification of “infinite regress” or is it just a lot of Pratt and Young primary texts?

]]> By: smb http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-3178 smb Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:35:50 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/#comment-3178 I'll send you my paper. I think it will make what I'm arguing clearer. I don't see a "pure" gcb, but i do see Smith using a genealogical permutation of the 19th-century gcb. I’ll send you my paper. I think it will make what I’m arguing clearer. I don’t see a “pure” gcb, but i do see Smith using a genealogical permutation of the 19th-century gcb.

]]> By: Clark http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-3177 Clark Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:26:48 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/#comment-3177 Just to put my thesis in a shorter form. The focus and emphasis of the 18th century form of the chain of being seems alien to Joseph Smith although earlier forms might be more interesting. (Such as interpreting Orson Pratt's "First Cause" in light of the chain of being from earlier epochs) But if one views Abraham or the Nauvoo sermons in light of 19th century influence of Dick, Paley and so forth we'd expect a different emphasis. Now maybe I'm wrong (and I'm curious about your paper) but it seems the more interesting parallels are those from late antiquity and certain Renaissance figures - although even there as I mentioned the parallels are somewhat problematic. Just to put my thesis in a shorter form. The focus and emphasis of the 18th century form of the chain of being seems alien to Joseph Smith although earlier forms might be more interesting. (Such as interpreting Orson Pratt’s “First Cause” in light of the chain of being from earlier epochs)

But if one views Abraham or the Nauvoo sermons in light of 19th century influence of Dick, Paley and so forth we’d expect a different emphasis.

Now maybe I’m wrong (and I’m curious about your paper) but it seems the more interesting parallels are those from late antiquity and certain Renaissance figures – although even there as I mentioned the parallels are somewhat problematic.

]]> By: Clark http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-3176 Clark Fri, 29 Feb 2008 05:14:49 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/#comment-3176 SMB, if one is appealing to Dick, Paley and company and their reading of the medieval/platonic chain of being as it entered "popular culture" (and interestingly by the time of Joseph Smith it was also largely dying as a robust idea) then it seems to me one <i>ought</i> expect to find the idea of the variety of creation being an expression of this. (Certainly an idea key in Paley and Dick) When we look at the expansions of say Genesis 1 - 2 in Moses, Abraham, and the endowment we don't really see any evidence of that. There's not even the broader concern of moving from pure possibility to actuality with the associated issues of privation. (And, I might add, an interesting solution to the problem of evil) There's also the focus in Abraham 3 on time (rotations). While there was a kind of transition towards temporalizing the spacing inherent in the earlier renaissance and medieval chain I'm not sure it really is that kind of temporal form. It's been a while since I last studied Dick but I don't recall him really offering much there either. The closest parallels I've personally been able to find are in Bruno but even there things are more problematic (and more the result of Kabblistic influences on Bruno as much as anything) The best one could perhaps say about Abraham is that the Genesis text insertions of Genesis 1 is intended to re-interpret the seven days of creation in light of the chain of being. (Hardly that unique - one can find similar approaches in various ancient and medieval Christian texts) SMB, if one is appealing to Dick, Paley and company and their reading of the medieval/platonic chain of being as it entered “popular culture” (and interestingly by the time of Joseph Smith it was also largely dying as a robust idea) then it seems to me one ought expect to find the idea of the variety of creation being an expression of this. (Certainly an idea key in Paley and Dick)

When we look at the expansions of say Genesis 1 – 2 in Moses, Abraham, and the endowment we don’t really see any evidence of that. There’s not even the broader concern of moving from pure possibility to actuality with the associated issues of privation. (And, I might add, an interesting solution to the problem of evil)

There’s also the focus in Abraham 3 on time (rotations). While there was a kind of transition towards temporalizing the spacing inherent in the earlier renaissance and medieval chain I’m not sure it really is that kind of temporal form.

It’s been a while since I last studied Dick but I don’t recall him really offering much there either.

The closest parallels I’ve personally been able to find are in Bruno but even there things are more problematic (and more the result of Kabblistic influences on Bruno as much as anything)

The best one could perhaps say about Abraham is that the Genesis text insertions of Genesis 1 is intended to re-interpret the seven days of creation in light of the chain of being. (Hardly that unique – one can find similar approaches in various ancient and medieval Christian texts)

]]> By: smb http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-3174 smb Fri, 29 Feb 2008 02:17:41 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/#comment-3174 #45, that was Smith mocking the "sectarian God." all of Smith's gods sit on thrones, "head" or not. whether our direct God is the head is just not clear from Smith's preaching. I'm not sure that Smith would have distinguished them as much as we want him to have. I have a sense of a "head" moving in and out of the OT, much as 20th cent. Mormons described Jehovah as referring variably to Jesus and then God the Father. as for gcb, early LDS were pretty clear that there was also a "head" of their gcb, just as there was for the Platonists (in the formal sense Clark describes) and the Christian neoplatonists, who very clearly understood God to exist above and supervise the chain. #46. I didn't say "just" inconsistent. I think he was marvelously consistent regarding what I have termed his "sacerdotal genealogy," a priesthood-mediated kinship network integrating a model of the patriarchal lineage with a genetic permutation of the Great Chain of Being. He was not, however, consistent about how to integrate OT narratives into sacerdotal genealogy or how to understand the Trinity. His use of the Bible, Christian history, and theology was that of an artist building mosaics out of tesselae, not a systematizer, historian, or theologian. His divine anthropology was a statement about human potential and the familialization of all existence, not a rigorous theology of the First Cause or unmoved mover. Sometimes I think he had in mind a metonymous father who, while not sharing the metaphysical essence Pratt borrowed to explain Smithian divine anthropology, overlapped with the "head." I'm preparing a critical edition of Phelps's fantasy story Paracletes, which I think does suggest an early witness in support of your argument that the "head" was Jesus's father. You're not alone in your argument, and I agree that true infinite regress is not strongly supported by Smithian documents, but I think it's important not to overstate the clarity of the materials. I can see no reason to doubt that Smith firmly believed he would greet the "head," a physically embodied patriarch and king, in person, when he ascended to heaven. It's not entirely clear whether that was Jesus's father. Incidentally, Doug Davies uses "soteriological lineage" to refer to a subset of what I call sacerdotal genealogy. #45, that was Smith mocking the “sectarian God.” all of Smith’s gods sit on thrones, “head” or not. whether our direct God is the head is just not clear from Smith’s preaching. I’m not sure that Smith would have distinguished them as much as we want him to have. I have a sense of a “head” moving in and out of the OT, much as 20th cent. Mormons described Jehovah as referring variably to Jesus and then God the Father.
as for gcb, early LDS were pretty clear that there was also a “head” of their gcb, just as there was for the Platonists (in the formal sense Clark describes) and the Christian neoplatonists, who very clearly understood God to exist above and supervise the chain.
#46. I didn’t say “just” inconsistent. I think he was marvelously consistent regarding what I have termed his “sacerdotal genealogy,” a priesthood-mediated kinship network integrating a model of the patriarchal lineage with a genetic permutation of the Great Chain of Being. He was not, however, consistent about how to integrate OT narratives into sacerdotal genealogy or how to understand the Trinity. His use of the Bible, Christian history, and theology was that of an artist building mosaics out of tesselae, not a systematizer, historian, or theologian. His divine anthropology was a statement about human potential and the familialization of all existence, not a rigorous theology of the First Cause or unmoved mover. Sometimes I think he had in mind a metonymous father who, while not sharing the metaphysical essence Pratt borrowed to explain Smithian divine anthropology, overlapped with the “head.”

I’m preparing a critical edition of Phelps’s fantasy story Paracletes, which I think does suggest an early witness in support of your argument that the “head” was Jesus’s father. You’re not alone in your argument, and I agree that true infinite regress is not strongly supported by Smithian documents, but I think it’s important not to overstate the clarity of the materials.

I can see no reason to doubt that Smith firmly believed he would greet the “head,” a physically embodied patriarch and king, in person, when he ascended to heaven. It’s not entirely clear whether that was Jesus’s father.

Incidentally, Doug Davies uses “soteriological lineage” to refer to a subset of what I call sacerdotal genealogy.

]]> By: Blake http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-3168 Blake Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:39:09 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/#comment-3168 smb: Of course if Smith is just inconsistent, as you assert, then he could assert anything. I believe it is a mistake to take each statement in isolation as if it could be a text without a context. I see him as being more consistent and much less tied to notions of an impersonal god than you are open to. smb: Of course if Smith is just inconsistent, as you assert, then he could assert anything. I believe it is a mistake to take each statement in isolation as if it could be a text without a context. I see him as being more consistent and much less tied to notions of an impersonal god than you are open to.

]]> By: Blake http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/comment-page-1/#comment-3167 Blake Thu, 28 Feb 2008 21:25:06 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/%e2%80%9cinfinite-regress%e2%80%9d-or-%e2%80%9cmonarchical-monotheism%e2%80%9d/#comment-3167 smb: So how can you square this notion of gcb with Smith's very clear statements that there is no God except one who is embodied and sits on a throne? smb: So how can you square this notion of gcb with Smith’s very clear statements that there is no God except one who is embodied and sits on a throne?

]]>