From a philosophical perspective, Mormonism (Latter-day Saint theology) encounters significant ontological challenges, particularly in its cosmology and doctrine of eternal progression. These issues center on the nature of existence, ultimate foundations, and the grounding of reality itself.
The Infinite Regress of Gods
Mormon teachings, drawing from Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse and related sermons, portray God the Father as an exalted man who progressed to divinity. He, in turn, had a father—a prior God—who similarly advanced through mortality and exaltation, and so on backward through generations of divine beings. This creates an infinite regress of gods: each deity depends for its godhood on a predecessor, with no apparent starting point.
The core question arises: How did the “first” God in this chain come into existence? If every god requires a prior god to organize or beget them (often framed through eternal intelligences, matter, and laws), the chain never terminates in an uncaused, self-sufficient ground of being. An actual infinite series of dependent, contingent beings fails to explain why any gods—or anything at all—exists. It merely postpones the explanatory question indefinitely, leaving the origin of the entire system unaccounted for.
Philosophers have long critiqued such regresses (echoing arguments like those in the Kalam cosmological tradition) because they imply an actual infinity of past events or beings, which leads to paradoxes: for instance, traversing an infinite timeline to reach the present, or accounting for why the progression ever “got going” without a foundational cause.
The Problems of Space, Time, and Preconditions
A related difficulty concerns the preconditions for existence. If the first God (or any god in the regress) required a context in which to exist and progress, who or what created the space for that being to inhabit? Who established the time in which progression, mortality, and exaltation could unfold? In Mormon cosmology, matter and intelligences are often described as eternal and uncreated, with God organizing rather than creating ex nihilo. Yet this leaves the framework of reality—space, time, natural laws, and the capacity for organization—either brute facts or themselves in need of explanation. Without a transcendent source, these elements risk becoming an unexplained backdrop, undermining claims of a coherent divine order.
This mirrors critiques sometimes leveled at naturalistic accounts like evolution or abiogenesis: even if mechanisms explain development from simpler states, they presuppose an existing universe with space, time, matter, and laws already in place. The “first molecule” or initial conditions remain a mystery. In the Mormon framework, the regress of gods simply relocates this foundational puzzle without resolving it—each god operates within a pre-existing cosmic order that itself demands grounding.
Contrast with Classical Christian Ontology
Traditional Christianity, by contrast, offers a clearer ontological foundation rooted in the doctrine of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing). The Gospel of John opens with a profound declaration of primacy and self-sufficiency:“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. … All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:1, 3, KJV)
Here, God (understood as the eternal Trinity—Father, Son/Word, and Holy Spirit) is the uncaused, necessary being who exists prior to and independent of all else. He is not one in a chain of exalted beings but the absolute origin of reality. Space, time, matter, and the laws governing them are not eternal co-equals or pre-existing substrates; they are contingent creations brought into being by God’s sovereign act. Nothing exists that was not made through Him—emphasizing that God grounds all contingent existence without depending on prior conditions, matter, or predecessors.
This view avoids infinite regress by positing a necessary, timeless, spaceless cause whose essence is to exist (aseity). It provides a terminating explanation: reality exists because a self-existent, personal God willed it. Philosophically, this aligns with classical theism’s emphasis on God as the ultimate ground of being, intelligibility, and order, rather than a participant within an eternal material or hierarchical system.
Why the Christian Account Holds a Logical Advantage
Mormonism’s framework, while emphasizing human potential and eternal progression, leaves key ontological questions open-ended or circular: Why this particular chain of gods and laws rather than none? What accounts for the coherence of the system in which progression occurs? An infinite regress of contingent deities offers no ultimate anchor, rendering the explanation incomplete. Christianity’s model, by starting with an eternal, transcendent God who freely creates, delivers a more parsimonious and logically robust foundation—one that terminates the chain of “why” questions in a being whose non-existence is impossible.
In summary, while both traditions grapple with profound mysteries of existence, traditional Christianity presents a philosophically tighter ontology. It posits a first principle that is self-sufficient, creative, and explanatory without remainder, whereas Mormon cosmology risks an unresolved regress that defers rather than resolves the question of ultimate origins. This does not diminish the sincerity of Latter-day Saint faith or its ethical emphases, but it highlights why many philosophers regard the classical Christian view as logically preferable on ontological grounds.
