I think one big difference on fundamental approaches to philosophy that Blake and I have is over the notion of vagueness. Coming from a Peircean point of view to me vagueness is essential to understanding and doing philosophy. So to his example I’d say we both can believe the assertion and know things about it. It’s just that we can at best know vaguely.

To give a “religious” example consider Ether 9:19 where we hear that Jaredites have cumoms. Are we to say that we can’t believe that? Certainly we don’t know much and, by extensions, we can’t believe much. But surely there is something to know.

Regarding intelligences that’s one place where I disagree with Blake somewhat. However I do think he would say an intelligence is synonymous in use with spirit and we know what a spirit is.

First, if it were true, it seems to me that we would end up not being able to believe much at all. For instance, I believe that “a game is a game.” Yet, according to Blake’s criterion, even though this statement is necessarily true, I cannot believe it because I don’t know what a game is. That is, I cannot give a list of the necessary and sufficient conditions of what makes something a game. Indeed, there are very few things that I can do that with. Furthermore, I don’t think my mom could do it with anything. Does this mean she literally can’t believe anything?

Second, again, if it were true, it does not seem that the LDS could believe any doctrine that has to do with intelligences; for, as far as I know, no one knows exactly what intelligences are. There are, of course, different theories of what intelligences are. In fact, Blake discusses three in his book. But, if we take Blake at his word, this will not do; for this is to only say what intelligences COULD BE, not what intelligences ARE.

Maybe you could clarify here or point me to a post that explains your view(s) of the Godhead, so that when you and Blake disagree I will know where you are coming from in your critiques. I haven’t been around Mormon Metaphysics for very long, and so it might be helpful for me to know what are the specific points of disagreement between you both. Thanks.

TYD

As to the council of Gods, Blake’s particular theology is that there is a head God who is an absolute monarch. Other beings are called gods but in fundamental senses aren’t God. Rather they share in certain attributes. So I think for Blake the relationship between God the Father and Jesus isn’t close to the Trinity but is more akin to how an Eastern Orthodox Christian sees the unity of God and a deified human. (Remember that deification is an important doctrine in the east)

I should add that this is not the typical LDS view. The typical LDS view either leaves vague the unity of the Godhead or else sees it in more nominalistic terms. Although a more ontological reading of the unity is fully compatible with LDS doctrine and is held by many people (myself included).

So part of Blake’s aim isn’t just to make the LDS conception more defensible but also to provide prima facie reasoning for why his own monarchial monotheism is correct.

I do think that Blake would agree though (and perhaps he’ll speak up). I think the argument is more that the historic understanding provides a theology more like what Mormons believe and thus provides grounding to support particular traditional Mormon exegesis of passages like Psalms 82 or Genesis 1:1. That is, I think he’s making a bit of an apologetic move. However I do think he’s probably making a move that says the ontological absolutist understanding of creation is flawed an a latter conception arising out of Greek thought. And I must confess that most of the proof texts for absolutist creation are pretty problematic. One could argue that later Platonic and Aristotilean inspired understanding was inspired but then Mormons could play the apostasy charge. In either case though one can’t point to the scriptures in their context to make the defense.

Whether that move works we’ll see as we examine Blake’s text more closely.

Next up is his exegesis of the Sermon in the Grove. I’d hoped to have that done last night but I had sick kids and a sick wife so it dropped off the charts. Hopefully today.

I think to the degree that Blake argues early Judaism is authentic and that the mainstream view that early texts reflect a plurality that it is incompatible with metaphysical monotheism, normally construed. The way out, perhaps, is for a Trinitarian to argue that these multiple persons are compatible with the notion of persons in the Trinity doctrine. (Which, of course, isn’t the same as a human person, although Mormons obviously give it that thrust)

The question will end up being what is literal versus what is figurative. And that is infamously more tricky than some take it. Since just because some or even most took something as literal entails it is literal.

The question of Heavenly Mother is all caught up in this and I’ve argued in the past poses a problem for Blake. I’ll wait until we reach those texts though. (I’d hoped to have time to make a library run since I’m fairly familiar with most of the texts Blake uses but I suspect that is not to be. So I’ll be stuck with what I have in my own library.)

“Worm”, the link in the post goes to Amazon which lists a few sellers with it. I got my copy at Confetti Books via Amazon which is still listing it for sale. I don’t quite know what is up with Kofford and Amazon.