Is anyone else curious to see what a religious scholar would think of the Cosmere?

[MasterK-Bob]

I'm a doctoral student and have been an instructor and adjunct professor in Religion and I've got backgrounds in Theology, World Religion (especially Buddhism, but I've worked with most traditions), but I'm primarily a scholar of traces of more ancient myth, like Mesopotamian, West Semitic, Anatolian, and maybe occasionally Egyptian or Myth in the Bible, especially Genesis 1-11. With respect to background I'm a Catholic who is heavily informed in my belief by ideas from other religions which seem to capture things about reality my own tradition has overlooked or at least failed to emphasize. I have to say I think Sanderson does an awesome job thinking about religion, and the concept of religion clearly seems to be one he thinks about, and not just from an LDS perspective. I think a vague monotheism transcending everything else does lie behind most of his work, but it's really interesting where shards fit as like, planetary powers, but have themselves a non-divine origin (I don't think Adonalsium is really God who has been split into 16 shards, but an incredibly potent creative force with many attributes that transcends the realms of reality we perceive and those higher than we are). We have to see, I guess, what Adonalsium really means before I can say more. I need to talk to more members of the LDS tradition because what I know I think is oversimplified, and my LDS friend who I most admire has basically told me that he thinks that his tradition's theology is still very much in its infancy, like Christianity was in its first few centuries. Maybe he's a little biased since he's a biblical scholar too and I think he's often concerned about being taken seriously as a secular scholar despite his faith commitment, but who knows.

[Fanghur Rahl]

5 minutes ago, MasterK-Bob said:

I'm a doctoral student and have been an instructor and adjunct professor in Religion and I've got backgrounds in Theology, World Religion (especially Buddhism, but I've worked with most traditions), but I'm primarily a scholar of traces of more ancient myth, like Mesopotamian, West Semitic, Anatolian, and maybe occasionally Egyptian or Myth in the Bible, especially Genesis 1-11. With respect to background I'm a Catholic who is heavily informed in my belief by ideas from other religions which seem to capture things about reality my own tradition has overlooked or at least failed to emphasize. I have to say I think Sanderson does an awesome job thinking about religion, and the concept of religion clearly seems to be one he thinks about, and not just from an LDS perspective. I think a vague monotheism transcending everything else does lie behind most of his work, but it's really interesting where shards fit as like, planetary powers, but have themselves a non-divine origin (I don't think Adonalsium is really God who has been split into 16 shards, but an incredibly potent creative force with many attributes that transcends the realms of reality we perceive and those higher than we are). We have to see, I guess, what Adonalsium really means before I can say more. I need to talk to more members of the LDS tradition because what I know I think is oversimplified, and my LDS friend who I most admire has basically told me that he thinks that his tradition's theology is still very much in its infancy, like Christianity was in its first few centuries. Maybe he's a little biased since he's a biblical scholar too and I think he's often concerned about being taken seriously as a secular scholar despite his faith commitment, but who knows.

Yeah that's a good point too. Because in Mormonism, 'God' technically speaking is more akin to one of the Shards or of Adonalsium than a traditional big-G God in a philosophical sense. It's an ascended human being exalted to godhood. Like I said, I think his Mormon background probably does influence a lot of his ideas. Though admittedly, it's hard to tell whether such parallels are deliberate or incidental. 

[LiquidBlue]

59 minutes ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

Yeah that's a good point too. Because in Mormonism, 'God' technically speaking is more akin to one of the Shards or of Adonalsium than a traditional big-G God in a philosophical sense. It's an ascended human being exalted to godhood. Like I said, I think his Mormon background probably does influence a lot of his ideas. Though admittedly, it's hard to tell whether such parallels are deliberate or incidental. 

I am certainly not well equipped to address what exactly a big-G God in a philosophical sense means. It does seem like some of Brandon's themes are perhaps motivated by a mormon vision of apotheosis, but those themes are perhaps more generally in contrast to both traditional philosophical monotheism and the mormon viewpoint.

I don't want to disrail the thread, but for the curious, may I share a little mormon theology. I think that my explanation is common mormon thought. However, if you want official doctrine, the best place to get it is probably in a publication from the church called "Gospel Principles", anything that I share beyond that might be my own personal elaboration, or incorrect cultural traditions.

God is omniscient. There isn't anything that he doesn't know. Nothing will surprise him. There is no additional knowledge that invalidates or modifies any of his knowledge, motivations, or actions.

God is omnipotent. It isn't helpful to get into a discussion of an impossibly hot burrito. If it is possible, God can do it.

God is not omnipresent. He is aware of everything. His power and authority suffuses everywhere. He is not physically/bodily everywhere.

God has a body. God has a physical tangible body, localized in a single location, and able to interact physically with the world. He is immortal. He suffers none of ravages of mortality and cannot die.

God the father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are all God, but distinct beings.

Jesus is the firstborn of God's spirit children and distinct from the rest of God's children in one very important way: Jesus would never fail and would never require a redemption. As a being of spirit before his mortal birth, Jesus created the world. He is the God with whom all of the prophets interacted. When he was born, it was as the physical child of a mortal (Mary) and a God (God the father). Jesus was mortal, yet could not die without his own consent. When he resurrected, it was to a perfect, immortal body identical in nature to that of God the father.

The Holy Ghost has a spiritual body. Beyond that not much else is known. To be honest, we don't even know if he is another of God the Father's spiritual children (in which case, I think that we would have to conclude that Jesus is not the only child who would never fail), or what his ultimate destiny is. All we really know is what he does and how we interact with him.

God the Father once had a mortal existence and become God through a method identical to the current plan of salvation. I think that there is some evidence that he was the savior in that iteration, fulfilling the role that Jesus' does here. God is not alone. Gender is an eternal characteristic that has meaning for us as pre-mortal spirtual beings, in mortality, and in the eternal immortal state. God the father is married to a God the mother. Together they made all of their spirit children. I see some speculation, that persists somewhat today, that God must have many wives in order to have all of the children that he does. However, I think it is more doctrinally sound to recognize that everybody that is part of this instance of the plan of salvation are children of the same Father and Mother. If God has multiple wives, then their children are part of a different instance of the plan, with their own Savior.

The ultimate promise of the plan of salvation is to become as God is. The power and authority of God cannot be wielded except by those who are like him. As such it's glory will only come after progressing from principle to principle.

So mormon apotheosis, but you aren't going to see gods at odds with one another. You don't get the worship of more than one god (mormons don't really distinguish between the worship of God the Father and Jesus). And there is no such thing as a being with power that they are ill-equipped to handle (except, I suppose for mortal beings and the power to choose for themselves.) I think that this is quite distinct from any of the gods in Brandon's works; none of whom are omniscient, omnipotent, infalible and can be at odds with one another, can act with deception, and can have power that is beyond their own understanding and temperament.
 

[animalia]

Aslo he is claerly aware of Plato's Theory Of Forms from how the physical realm, the cognitive realm, and the spiritual realm work.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2018 by animalia
CHANGED LINK

[MasterK-Bob]

On 8/6/2018 at 2:44 PM, LiquidBlue said:

I am certainly not well equipped to address what exactly a big-G God in a philosophical sense means. It does seem like some of Brandon's themes are perhaps motivated by a mormon vision of apotheosis, but those themes are perhaps more generally in contrast to both traditional philosophical monotheism and the mormon viewpoint.

I don't want to disrail the thread, but for the curious, may I share a little mormon theology. I think that my explanation is common mormon thought. However, if you want official doctrine, the best place to get it is probably in a publication from the church called "Gospel Principles", anything that I share beyond that might be my own personal elaboration, or incorrect cultural traditions.

God is omniscient. There isn't anything that he doesn't know. Nothing will surprise him. There is no additional knowledge that invalidates or modifies any of his knowledge, motivations, or actions.

God is omnipotent. It isn't helpful to get into a discussion of an impossibly hot burrito. If it is possible, God can do it.

God is not omnipresent. He is aware of everything. His power and authority suffuses everywhere. He is not physically/bodily everywhere.

God has a body. God has a physical tangible body, localized in a single location, and able to interact physically with the world. He is immortal. He suffers none of ravages of mortality and cannot die.

God the father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost are all God, but distinct beings.

Jesus is the firstborn of God's spirit children and distinct from the rest of God's children in one very important way: Jesus would never fail and would never require a redemption. As a being of spirit before his mortal birth, Jesus created the world. He is the God with whom all of the prophets interacted. When he was born, it was as the physical child of a mortal (Mary) and a God (God the father). Jesus was mortal, yet could not die without his own consent. When he resurrected, it was to a perfect, immortal body identical in nature to that of God the father.

The Holy Ghost has a spiritual body. Beyond that not much else is known. To be honest, we don't even know if he is another of God the Father's spiritual children (in which case, I think that we would have to conclude that Jesus is not the only child who would never fail), or what his ultimate destiny is. All we really know is what he does and how we interact with him.

God the Father once had a mortal existence and become God through a method identical to the current plan of salvation. I think that there is some evidence that he was the savior in that iteration, fulfilling the role that Jesus' does here. God is not alone. Gender is an eternal characteristic that has meaning for us as pre-mortal spirtual beings, in mortality, and in the eternal immortal state. God the father is married to a God the mother. Together they made all of their spirit children. I see some speculation, that persists somewhat today, that God must have many wives in order to have all of the children that he does. However, I think it is more doctrinally sound to recognize that everybody that is part of this instance of the plan of salvation are children of the same Father and Mother. If God has multiple wives, then their children are part of a different instance of the plan, with their own Savior.

The ultimate promise of the plan of salvation is to become as God is. The power and authority of God cannot be wielded except by those who are like him. As such it's glory will only come after progressing from principle to principle.

So mormon apotheosis, but you aren't going to see gods at odds with one another. You don't get the worship of more than one god (mormons don't really distinguish between the worship of God the Father and Jesus). And there is no such thing as a being with power that they are ill-equipped to handle (except, I suppose for mortal beings and the power to choose for themselves.) I think that this is quite distinct from any of the gods in Brandon's works; none of whom are omniscient, omnipotent, infalible and can be at odds with one another, can act with deception, and can have power that is beyond their own understanding and temperament.
 

There is a lot here. What I really don't understand, and what I think I need to to understand Mormon theology period in order to understand how it could apply to Sanderson's work, is whether or not there is an ultimate reality, if God became God through living a life like ours, but perhaps as a Christlike figure, and presumably the God who was God's God did the same, etc. etc. is there a terminus? Is there a prime mover, or an uncaused cause as it were that is like a true one monotheistic God, from which we are just very far removed, or is there not?

[earthexile]

Following that concept, was Adonalsium a Shard of something even greater?

[Fanghur Rahl]

7 hours ago, MasterK-Bob said:

There is a lot here. What I really don't understand, and what I think I need to to understand Mormon theology period in order to understand how it could apply to Sanderson's work, is whether or not there is an ultimate reality, if God became God through living a life like ours, but perhaps as a Christlike figure, and presumably the God who was God's God did the same, etc. etc. is there a terminus? Is there a prime mover, or an uncaused cause as it were that is like a true one monotheistic God, from which we are just very far removed, or is there not?

To my knowledge Mormon theology doesn’t address that question; honestly, I don’t think Smith and the early Mormons thought that far ahead. That said, mormonism is considered to be a monotheistic religion along with the other denominations of Christianity, so perhaps I’m just ignorant of some of the details.

As for Adonalsium being a Shard of something even greater, that’s definitely a possibility, or at the very least a creation of something else. Honestly, part of me suspects that Adonalsium may have actually been some kind of post-physical transcendent human being in some sense; something analogous to post-physical ascension in Peter F. Hamilton’s Commonwealth Saga only by means of Investiture rather than applied quantum phlebotinum, but that’s pure speculation on my part. The way I look at it is, if this truly is the uppercase-G God of the Physical Realm,  why does it appear to have been localized to some insignificant dwarf galaxy, or more accurately a small region of an insignificant dwarf galaxy? Shouldn’t it have been universal? But who knows.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Fanghur Rahl

[Shaukan-son-Hasweth]

kindMaybe it was self confirming bias or something but as an atheist myself i was rather baffled to find out BS was a devote Mormon and not an atheist.

When Sazed became harmony during the final ascension only the rational, scientific aspects of all the religions in the metalminds were actually usefull to rebuild the world. The gods where irellevant.

Harmony was just a human with great power and not at all omni-anything. so were Ruin and Preservation. Honor could be killed. And the Elantrians thought the same way about the Korati as we do of ancient paganism.

Nothing in his books ever seemed to support the notion that ther is meaning in actual believe or worship.

When i found out he was mormon of all things ( no offense)i was .... confused to say the least. 

But two characters had a really strong message to me about religion.

Sazed and Jasnah.

Sazed's realization that you shouldn't judge a religion purely on its text and messages. You have to take into account the people that believe.

And jasnahs statement about wise people in every religion and good people in every nation is something that i try to live by ever since.

 

I don't know if this fits in this topic bit it just came to mind.

 

 

[animalia]

16 minutes ago, Shaukan-son-Hasweth said:

kindMaybe it was self confirming bias or something but as an atheist myself i was rather baffled to find out BS was a devote Mormon and not an atheist.

When Sazed became harmony during the final ascension only the rational, scientific aspects of all the religions in the metalminds were actually usefull to rebuild the world. The gods where irellevant.

Harmony was just a human with great power and not at all omni-anything. so were Ruin and Preservation. Honor could be killed. And the Elantrians thought the same way about the Korati as we do of ancient paganism.

Nothing in his books ever seemed to support the notion that ther is meaning in actual believe or worship.

When i found out he was mormon of all things ( no offense)i was .... confused to say the least. 

But two characters had a really strong message to me about religion.

Sazed and Jasnah.

Sazed's realization that you shouldn't judge a religion purely on its text and messages. You have to take into account the people that believe.

And jasnahs statement about wise people in every religion and good people in every nation is something that i try to live by ever since.

 

I don't know if this fits in this topic bit it just came to mind.

 

 

I think that just speaks to his strength as an author.

[Fanghur Rahl]

1 hour ago, Shaukan-son-Hasweth said:

kindMaybe it was self confirming bias or something but as an atheist myself i was rather baffled to find out BS was a devote Mormon and not an atheist.

When Sazed became harmony during the final ascension only the rational, scientific aspects of all the religions in the metalminds were actually usefull to rebuild the world. The gods where irellevant.

Harmony was just a human with great power and not at all omni-anything. so were Ruin and Preservation. Honor could be killed. And the Elantrians thought the same way about the Korati as we do of ancient paganism.

Nothing in his books ever seemed to support the notion that ther is meaning in actual believe or worship.

When i found out he was mormon of all things ( no offense)i was .... confused to say the least. 

But two characters had a really strong message to me about religion.

Sazed and Jasnah.

Sazed's realization that you shouldn't judge a religion purely on its text and messages. You have to take into account the people that believe.

And jasnahs statement about wise people in every religion and good people in every nation is something that i try to live by ever since.

 

I don't know if this fits in this topic bit it just came to mind.

 

 

Same with me, on all counts. Suffice it to say, his books are orders of magnitude better written than the Book of Mormon. lol. 

Edited August 8, 2018 by Fanghur Rahl

[Ammanas]

11 hours ago, Fanghur Rahl said:

To my knowledge Mormon theology doesn’t address that question; honestly, I don’t think Smith and the early Mormons thought that far ahead. That said, mormonism is considered to be a monotheistic religion along with the other denominations of Christianity, so perhaps I’m just ignorant of some of the details.

People talk about "Mormon Doctrine" but there are very few things in the church that qualifies for that. A lot of what people consider doctrine are just influential members ideas that catch on and become popular; some stick and some don't. "Doctrine" that tried to be implemented, but failed over time include Blood Atonement and The Adam-God theory plus many others.  Even staples of the religion has undergone a metamorphosis like the Words of Wisdom which was only thought of to be good advice for a long time. It wasn't until after the move to Utah that it became categorized, strictly enforced and a temple interview question. Much of what Joseph Smith taught on exaltation is contained in the King Follet Sermon. It is important to remember that this came about in the Nauvoo era of his ministry and he was killed before he could really elaborate on a lot of his beliefs. Other prophets, and influential members agree with idea and "carry the torch" so to speak. Here is the most relevant bit concerning exaltation:

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with Him, as one man talks and communes with another.

In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

Eternal Life to Know God and Jesus Christ

I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The scriptures inform us that Jesus said, as the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do you believe it? If you do not believe it you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrectionof the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power. And I want you to know that God, in the last days, while certain individuals are proclaiming His name, is not trifling with you or me."

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

[Fanghur Rahl]

Religion evolves over time just like everything else. The only real difference between Mormonism and the older religions is that its history is sufficiently well-documented to not hold up to even a trivial amount of scrutiny; I believe I once heard it described by a Mormon scholar as effectively being 'Biblical fanfiction'. Regardless, this conversation strikes me as being decidedly out of place on this forum; I love debating subjects like this, but this doesn't seem like the appropriate place for theological debates between believers and non-believers.

[Ammanas]

All religions, in Brandons books and the real world, come down an act of faith; to believe in something  perhaps rationality tells you cannot be. I personally have taken that act of faith to believe and worship, but do not fault anyone who disagrees. Apologies if my previous post came across as agressive in any way.

Edited August 8, 2018 by Ammanas

[Fanghur Rahl]

Don't worry, it didn't.  But yeah, for the purpose of disclosure, like Shaukan I too am either an atheist, an agnostic, or both depending on which definitions of those terms you subscribe to. And I was also very surprised to learn than Sanderson wasn't as well, because he certainly sounds like one in his writing. 

[bmcclure7]

1 hour ago, John203 said:

You spelled it correctly in the post title. 

Shardblades are not able to Magically cut aluminum, but they are supernaturally sharp swords, so if the armor was thin enough...

https://wob.coppermind.net/events/115-general-twitter-2017/#e1442

 

On 8/3/2018 at 10:30 AM, Ammanas said:

I think Brent Weeks writes about religion in a similar way to Brandon. I talked about it more in depth elsewhere on the shard, but will copy and paste it in case anyone is curious:

 "I have found Brent Weeks books to be deeply spiritual. I know that a person without a belief in God can read them completely different than I did, but I think the subtlety and my own personal interpretation makes it all the more powerful. 

There is a lot of fakers and abusers of religion in his books including: the Prism, the God King and Kali's real identity. There is also a lot of sorrow and unhappiness because of religion. But there is also a sense of Providence that runs throughout his books and how everything seems to be guided almost miraculously to work out for the best. I think that despite everything there is a ton of evidence that The "One God" and Orhalem exist (in his worlds) and take a interest in human affairs. There is a lot of themes throughout his books redemption, sacrifice, and forgiveness as well. One moment that comes to mind is Ironfist, upon witnessing a miraculous shot, regains his belief in God and cries about how he is forgiven despite his mistakes. Another is Irene seeing a vision of how she would save the world despit how imposdible it looked in book one. Also Count Drakes conversion story. A lot of readers could shrug these occurences off to coincidence, but I love how Weeks leaves it open to interpretation."

 I haven't read his night angel series yet but I really like his portrayal of religion and religious figures, unbelievers and believers in lightbringer

[Fanghur Rahl]

Another really interesting take on much of this kind of stuff is Peter F. Hamilton’s ‘Night’s Dawn’ Trilogy. In some sense, it’s actually like Desolations in space, in which one of the ‘Fused’ than comes back is none other than Al Capone... IN SPACE!!!

[animalia]

Speaking of... Mistborn I always the themes if Trust through Vin and Faith through Sazed as running concurrently. As though they are really just the same thing on a different scale. Even if the thing you have faith in isn’t a God so much as Game theory/Human nature/what have you.

Edited August 15, 2018 by animalia

[animalia]

Another thought. I just noticed today that the word for the followers of Harmony’s religion is PATHIANS and Taoism based on Yin and Yang, two opposite but interconnected forces is also known as THE WAY.

Knowing Brandon I doubt this is a coincidence.

 

That being said I would love to hear others thoughts.

 

Edit: of course I doubt it’s a one to one thing either. I could be wrong. But Brandon seldom does one to one. BUT he does seem to borrowing from it.

Edited September 27, 2018 by animalia
Corrected minor details

[Wyndlerunner]

I believe that there is definitely some influence from Brandon's LDS faith, however as LDS myself, I'm inclined to believe that a person's beliefs are going to leak through in their writing no matter if it was international or not, because moral beliefs are such a significant part of who we are as people.

[Borio Singaldi]

Let me just say, I love where this discussion has gone. Oftentimes, discussion of religious topics on 17S end up getting locked because they're too contentious, but not so here. This might be the most polite and non-derailed religion-based conversation I've seen on the forums. I'm proud of all of you. That's all I have to say here, though there is more I guess I could say, being LDS myself.

I just want to thank all of you for being respectful of one another's opinions and showing a unity of kindness on the Shard. Over and out.

[Fezzik]

3 hours ago, Firerust said:

unity

I see what you did there...

[Borio Singaldi]

2 minutes ago, John203 said:

I see what you did there...

Uh... yeah... toootally intentional...