From the forum thread, Orson Pratt On The Oneness Of God, started by wayfarer (retrieved July 3, 2024):
A wayfarer posts the following (words in brackets are my own):
Posted February 19, 2013
I am fascinated by Orson Pratt's explanation of the nature of pre-existent Gods, found in "The Seer", Volume 1, Number 2, "Preexistence of Man", paragraph 22:
22. All these Gods are equal in power, in glory, in dominion, and in the possession of all things; each possesses a fulness of truth, of knowledge, of wisdom, of light, of intelligence; each governs himself in all things by his own attributes, and is filled with love, goodness, mercy, and justice towards all. The fulness of all these attributes is what constitutes God [compare Lectures on Faith #5]. "God is Light." "God is Love." "God is Truth." The Gods are one in the qualities and attributes. Truth is not a plurality of truths, because it dwells in a plurality of persons, but it is one truth, indivisible, though it dwells in millions of persons. [Compare D&C 88, 93, and 131:7-8] Each person is called God, not because of his substance, neither because of the shape and size of the substance [of the Holy Spirit or Great First Cause], but because of the qualities which dwell in the substance.
Persons are only tabernacles or temples, and TRUTH is the God, that dwells in them. If the fulness of truth, dwells in numberless millions of persons, then the same one indivisible God dwells in them all. As truth can dwell in all worlds at the same instant; therefore, God who is truth can be in all worlds at the same instant. A temple of immortal flesh, and bones, and spirit, can only be in one place at a time, but truth, which is God, can dwell in a countless number of such temples in the same moment.
When we worship the Father, we do not merely worship His person, but we worship the truth which dwells in His person. When we worship the Son, we do not merely worship His body, but we worship truth which resides in Him. So, likewise, when we worship the Holy Ghost, it is not the substance which alone we worship, but truth which dwells in that substance. Take away truth from either of these beings, and their persons or substance would not be the object of worship.
It is truth, light, and love that we worship and adore; these are the same in all worlds; and as these constitute God, He is the same in all worlds; and hence, the inhabitants of all worlds are required to worship and adore the same God. Because God dwells in many temples. He frequently speaks to us, as though there were many Gods: this is true when reference is made to the number of His dwelling places; but it is not true, and cannot be true, in any other sense.
Therefore, in all our future statements and reasonings, when we speak of a plurality of Gods, let it be distinctly understood, that we have reference alone to a plurality of temples wherein the same truth or God dwells. And also when we speak of only one God, and state that He is eternal, without beginning or end, and that He is in all worlds at the same instant, let it be distinctly remembered, that we have no reference to any particular person or substance, but to truth dwelling in a vast variety of substances.
Wherever you find a fulness of wisdom, knowledge, truth, goodness, love, and such like qualities, there you find God in all His glory, power, and majesty, therefore, if you worship these adorable perfections you worship God.
Wayfarer follows this up with his view saying:
I think Pratt demonstrates that the universal attributes of God are what makes any given god[,] God. This idea, that the universals are what constitute the unchanging attributes of god[s] make it possible to speak of God as being one, while in fact a god-being is instantiated in the many. The fundamental premise is that the universals are truly the eternal Godness, and not the being of God.
This solves a number of problems in Mormon Theology, and I think that was what Pratt was trying to do. First, if we say that God the Father was once a man like us, then it begs the question, in at least one iteration, who was God's Father/God? Who was, then, the actual "First Cause" that philosophers and apologists (like William Lane Craig) proclaims as the original, necessary being? Was Elohim simultaneously a God who was once man and also the First Cause? Does that even remotely make sense?
Pratt makes the point that there cannot be disunity if any number of god beings [who] are united with the God universals. They, by definition, operate as one. One can say "God is One", knowing that at the same time, any being in possession of the universal attributes is one in mind and purpose with all that is. It isn't to say that this is a monad, nor is it pantheism, but rather, that the God attributes are indeed ubiquitious, but the beings that are gods are individual in both time and place.
To me it's a fascinating view. ...
... When we accept LDS principles on the nature of God, that he has an exalted human body, that there are a plurality of god beings, that we have an inherent, uncreated divine nature -- literally a substance (since all spirit is substance), that is uncreated, and that we may ultimately become gods, then coming to an understanding of how that might be the case is an effort worth pursuing.
Pratt was remarkably consistent in his understanding of Sections 88 and 131 of the Doctrine and Covenants. It's all there in the D&C.
This adds confirmation to my post here on how Orson Pratt himself was who made D&C 131:7 into canonized scripture! Wayfarer then says later:
The prevailing LDS (and Christian) paradigm of God is that "THE God" is the First Cause of all that is, either through organization (LDS) or ex nihilo (mainstream Christian). The reason for using the term paradigm is that this core concept becomes the basis of the entire ontology of that which we call god, and from that ontology, how we interpret prophecy, scripture, and priesthood.
Orson Pratt's statement in The Seer defines an alternative paradigm from the mainstream Christian god-concept. The universal attributes he describes as being 'God' are what makes a god, God. Therefore the universals are eternal, as is matter. When a being embodies the universals, that being is God, both "One" in the sense of common universal attributes, as well as distinctive in terms of a single god in time and space.
The alternative paradigm in Orson Pratt's statement is that the universals create the being of God, not the other way around. The collective aggregate of these universals, that is to say, the Way, the Truth, and the Life, is to be the fully-realized being of God: the I AM. We can say that these collective universals are "The Way", as that is what the original followers of Jesus Christ called themselves: Followers of the Way. And, by following the Way, gradually developing the universal attributes of Life, Truth, and Intelligence, the follower can "be" a god in this life in the moment (Jn 10, Ps 82), and become a god in the life to come. Thus, as God was and perhaps is also a 'follower of the Way', then the being that we know as God became God at some point in time and space.
This creates a fundamental, paradigmatic question: Does the Way preceed God or does God preceed the Way? Another way to put it: which came first, God? or The Way?
In the mainstream Christian ontology of God, an uncreated God decreed the universals and thus caused (Cosmological argument) all things in the universe according to his design (Teleological argument). He created all things, all law, all attributes "from nothing"/"ex nihilo". To the mainstream definition of God, God is beyond being, and was the First Cause of all that is, including the Way (whatever that is in Christian thinking, is unclear).
LDS theology (whatever that may be) materially (pun intended) differs from this point of view. God does not create ex nihilo. Elements are eternal, and 'The Gods" (as in the Book of Abraham) organized these elements. Mankind has both contingent as well as necessary being, in that at least a portion of man -- his intelligence, is uncreated and eternal.
Importantly, the term "intelligence" is singular in all of scripture EXCEPT in the book of Abraham. In section 93, intelligence is defined as both "Light and Truth" as well as being the glory of God. This defines "intelligence" clearly as a universal, not as a particular. When Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Abraham, he fundamentally added to the meaning of "intelligence", creating a particular instance of the universal "intelligence". This has profound theological implications as to the divine nature of mankind. If man is an etermal possessor of intelligence, than man is a necessary and not a contingent being. ...
... To say that the universal attributes exist independently of the person, and thus can be worshiped outside of the person indeed doesn't make sense, and that is not what Pratt is saying. Love is not a thing or a being that we can worship by itself. Pratt suggests we worship the attribute only as it exists within the person. As well, "intelligence" is not a thing (although the Book of Abraham conflates the term a bit), but rather an attribute of a being. When a being posesses the attributes of Love or Intelligence in large measure, we respect the being not because of the being itself, but the fact that the being possesses that attribute.
Pratt takes this to the ideal of the attribute. When a being possesses Love, Intelligence, etc., in infinite measure, then that being is God. He says the ideal attributes (to use another name "universals") are eternal and absolute. He says that a being can become a possessor of the universal, ideal attributes. In so doing, the being 'becomes' God, and is thus worthy of worship by virtue of the attributes alone.
Likewise, we honor the [LDS] Prophet -- we don't worship him, because we don't worship "men" in that way. We honor and respect, even to the point of exact obedience, when the Prophet does what prophets are supposed to do: Prophesy -- that is, speaks for the Lord. At that moment, when the Prophet is speaking for the Lord, he is essentially equivalent to the Lord. He possesses all the attributes necessary to speak for the Lord.
But unlike Gods who are inseparably connected between body and spirit, and inseparably imbued with the universals that make them gods, the Prophet, or any mortal man, is only able to be equivalent to the Lord in the moment -- there is no persistence of godness in man ...
... If...we have a paradigm that there are eternal attributes, collectively called "The Way", and that godness, indeed, all goodness, prophecy, priesthood, and structure in this life emerges from a harmony with the Way, then a host of things make sense:
- Scripture is not "top-down" declared, but rather, the light of the gospel emerges as holy men discover it through inspiration. Scripture is necessarily incomplete and insufficient to save us, as Jesus pointed out in John 5:39: "(Ye) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (The "Ye" at the beginning is most important, is implied in the greek text, and completely changes this from the LDS interpretation of a commandment to "Search the Scriptures" to the fact that the Pharisees and Saducees did that all day long and missed the entire point: The tesimony of Jesus Christ emerges from the scripture.)
- Structure in the church is not a completed effort, but rather, emerges and evolves over time as we come to understand truth better and better.
[Compare D&C 1:24 where the Lord says His commands in scripture are given unto the reader in "their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding."]
- A snapshot of beliefs at one point in time (i.e. "The New Testanent", or "The Book of Mormon") is never going to be the definitive "gospel", because over time, our understanding improves as we learn.
- A single definition of the Gospel is never definitive, but rather, the gospel light may emerge from all expression of scripture to the extent that the writers of those scriptures are in harmony with the universal attributes of God. Hence the necessity of ongoing revelation in any church that carries the attribute 'true'. (As well, we define the "Rock" not as "Peter", but rather, as "Revelation of Jesus Christ". Paul defined this as the essential way to receive the Gospel - through revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ in Galatians 1).
- The oneness of God does not depend upon a dictatorial top-down structure, but rather is defined by the unity of being congruent with the Way. If God the Father and Jesus Christ both define themselves as congruent to the Way, then, mathematically, spiritually, and actually, God the Father = Jesus Christ = The Way in the unity of being God.
- Gospel truths are progressive rather than conservative. As Jesus progressed beyond the ritualistic aspects of the Torah and taught a new law, Paul went a step further to push toward an anti-nomian Church that the original 12 apostles were not initially capable of accepting. Likewise, Joseph not only restored the Church, but progressed it beyond where it was in the time of Christ. Such progressive increases in understanding and growth seem lacking today in a prevailingly conservative, dogmatic Church.
And most importantly, as we recognize that the divinity of our Prophets, Scriptures, priesthood, institutions are emergent rather than "designed", we can realize that many of the faults of our history, scripture, and current leadership are all inevitably part of being human. It's meaningless to say, for example, that "God wouldn't allow the prophet to lie," because God does not mandate. Agency, the ability to emerge order through learning from our own experience to discern the Way, becomes the fully operative model of this world. We can stop trying to defend a history that needs no defense. We can embrace the humanity of the Church and scriptures for what they are.
Wayfarer however, does make other comments in this thread that I disagree with, like him not thinking the Book of Abraham in The Pearl of Great Price should be canonized scripture. But I agree with what he has to say as quoted above.
