Sunday, May 12, 2019

The Philosophical Incoherence Of The Mormon God

        The Mormon church professes belief in a plurality of gods. It teaches a concept called eternal progression, which is the idea that men can work to attain godhood. The Mormon understanding of deity can not only be easily refuted from a biblical point of view, but also suffers due to being by its very nature logically incoherent.

        The problems arise from the fact that Mormons believe God to have once been a mortal man who needed to reach a standard of perfection in order to be considered divine. The propositions of God being uncreated and God once being formed are mutually exclusive.

        If God is not without beginning or end, then He must be subject to an additional transcendental truth (which cannot exist without an infinite mind). He must be held accountable to a standard higher than Himself. He must be under the dominion of some other gods. It would be self-contradictory to argue that God has always been eternal and unchanging while at the same time believing that He had to become a perfect deity. Yet, that is what the Mormons proclaim as truth.

        The Mormon concept of God leaves us with numerous questions. Who was the first god? Who within the infinite succession of gods set the universe into motion? On what basis could there be moral absolutes? How did the Mormon god obtain omniscience in the first place (appealing to infinite regression does not get us anywhere)? If all Mormon gods are supposed to have mortal human bodies, then what about the Holy Spirit who does not have one and is considered a god?


Glenn E. Chatfield said...

As an alert to readers, the LDS has two primary (at least it appears that way) apologetics sites defending Mormonism, and neither are official. One is called "Fair Mormon," and the other is FARMS (Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies.)

Both are full of themselves. Their arguments often go against actual Mormon teachings. E.g.,Mormons have always taught the infinite regression of gods. Smith taught that God the Father had a father who was a god and that continued back. Yet FairMormon and FARMs deny this. They are what too many LDS people go to for help because they will hear what makes them feel good. They have long been known to apologists to be quite deceitful.

For example, FARMS discounts Brigham Young's Adam-God teachings as to all Mormons today because it is embarrassing. But Brigham Young was the prophet/president of the church at the time and stated unequivocally that he got the teaching by God.

The Men of Usury said...

Perhaps the details are an argument of semantics. They may use the word "god" just because that seems most fitting to describe the level of power that humans reach. This definition would be closer to Greek gods who were obviously not eternal, perfect, or omnipotent. But if Mormons are to contend that this former definition, and the more correct definition of God, that is an unchanging, all-knowing creator of the universe are both simultaneously true we will have problems, for they are mutually exclusive.
There is also paradoxical problems with infinite regression, for if there are an endless series of steps that go back, that means there's an endless series of steps to take to get to the present. Impossible. There must be one establisher.
So if they concede that God was never omnipotent, omniscient, and eternal, then we have the regression problem, and the issue of finding a source for such a belief.