Justice Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Well, since man has always existed, that's like saying "What came first, the chicken or the egg?" But, yes, all who have been perfected have been perfected in the same way. It cannot be otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tomk Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 God has Agency. God has choice. So yes, technically, He could break eternal law and suffer the consequences. But, He knows how to avoid it. It is against His nature to do such a thing. It makes me love Him and respect Him all the more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 So you think God can be punished? By whom could God be punished Tom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
applepansy Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Hi, I'm Deb and I'm new here.Does anyone know what prophet said that God the Father is subject to law (like laws of nature, etc.) I need it for a talk in church next Sun. I thought it was in D&C or Lectures on Faith, but I've searched both and can't find it. I know I've heard or read it somewhere... do you know?Any help is appreciated!Thanks,DebIn Elder M Russel Ballard's article in the Ensign, May 1995, "Answers to Life's Questions", he said:"God has put his plan in motion. It proceeds through natural laws that are, in fact, God's laws. Since they are his, he is bound by them, as are we." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Then that would make me ask, "So what do we do with miracles?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Well, since man has always existed, that's like saying "What came first, the chicken or the egg?"But, yes, all who have been perfected have been perfected in the same way. It cannot be otherwise.It was the Chicken... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 In Elder M Russel Ballard's article in the Ensign, May 1995, "Answers to Life's Questions", he said:"God has put his plan in motion. It proceeds through natural laws that are, in fact, God's laws. Since they are his, he is bound by them, as are we."Looking at the creational story given by Abraham, that is the conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 I just started wondering, HD, are you Ray or are u a relative of Ray (from this site a long time ago)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergg Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 Then that would make me ask, "So what do we do with miracles?"For such lds members as Tom and others, there would not exist true miracles, but illusions and 'tricks' or 'bendings' of the laws that a Supreme Intelligence perpetrates (if out of 'love') to astonish (for whatever reason) lower 'intelligences', or 'men'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergg Posted February 9, 2009 Report Share Posted February 9, 2009 It was the Chicken...tsk,tsk,tsk: following your logic from the start of the topic, it would be the LAWS that make possible both the chiken or the egg, lol.For 'before' the very Gods there were the..."Laws"...and so, before and after men also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah18 Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 the punishment for sin, is unhappiness; it's the natural result of sinning, or doing the wrong thing, it leads us to an unhappy or lowered state of being. If God sinned he would lower his glory or nature, and no longer be a godly being. Sin is us punishing ourselves, not some guy in the sky throwing us in a lake of fire, but us jumping in it ourselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergg Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) The only sincere and non-circular question (though its answer will* be circular), out of all the development of this topic is: whence the 'Laws'? How did the Laws came to exist or to operate without an Intelligence to put them in motion? Or if we were taking Hume at face-value, Ifwe content ourselves with the 'fact' of "Laws' that constitute the very gods(and hence also their work: us) why do not settle with the "laws' of nature while explaining the consitution of this universe? Do you see where I am heading? The typical protestant would say: 'laws' of nature(or any other kind) are unsound and useless by themselves: they also need a creator. But mormons agree with gratuitous acceptance of selfsufficient laws (as well as the scientific-minded atheist), only that such Laws are of celestial order, and account for the Gods as well. So, if we were the gods, we would actually be ATHEISTS, lol. Edited February 10, 2009 by Sergg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah18 Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 "Laws" is a very dirty word. My mind can't work around what I want to say with that word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanhin Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 The only sincere and non-circular question (though its answer will* be circular), out of all the development of this topic is: whence the 'Laws'? How did the Laws came to exist or to operate without an Intelligence to put them in motion? Or if we were taking Hume at face-value, If we content ourselves with the 'fact' of "Laws' that constitute the very gods(and hence also their work: us) why do not settle with the "laws' of nature while explaining the consitution of this universe?I think you will like the answer.If the scriptures are to be our guide, it is God, who is the source of truth and light (John 14:6). The Prophet Joseph Smith taught:The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits (LDS.org - Relief Society Chapter Detail - The Great Plan of Salvation)Regards,Vanhin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxel Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 The only sincere and non-circular question (though its answer will* be circular), out of all the development of this topic is: whence the 'Laws'? How did the Laws came to exist or to operate without an Intelligence to put them in motion? Or if we were taking Hume at face-value, Ifwe content ourselves with the 'fact' of "Laws' that constitute the very gods(and hence also their work: us) why do not settle with the "laws' of nature while explaining the consitution of this universe? It is no less illogical to assume one or the other, speaking from a purely logical standpoint- in fact, it seems more logical that a higher power would exist to make use of the extant laws of the universe to shape and create lesser beings that could not fully understand their origins. Something, somewhere, had to have existed by itself before all other entities in the universe.You also answer your own question with the statement that 'mormons [and scientific-minded atheists] agree with gratuitous acceptance of selfsufficient laws'. Most scientific-minded Mormons I have heard speak on the matter, and that includes General Authorities, agree that the laws governing the universe are self-sufficient and have always been extant. My personal understanding is that the higher laws consist of the principles of the Priesthood.Do you see where I am heading? Yes; same place you've taken other conversations.So, if we were the gods, we would actually be ATHEISTS, lol. Would you mind explaining how, if one is a god, that makes him/her an atheist- which by definition 'denies the existence of a supreme being or beings'? (Dictionary.com) Wouldn't that make such a person in denial of one's own existence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 For such lds members as Tom and others, there would not exist true miracles, but illusions and 'tricks' or 'bendings' of the laws that a Supreme Intelligence perpetrates (if out of 'love') to astonish (for whatever reason) lower 'intelligences', or 'men'. Dunno, I believe in miracles. Although, my lower intelligence is easily astonished. The question as to "What about miracles?" still seems valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Thanks Moksa. It seems valid to me too but I'm just me... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah18 Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Sorry if this is confusing; trying to work it out in my head by writing it I guess. Well God's work is to bring immortality and eternal life to man, or increase our intelligence, and nature. There is a certain process that must be followed to reach that level. We need to grow into it. He cannot change that fact, and neither can Satan who thinks it's possible. God knows that laws are in place for us to reach this level, increase to new levels, and the most important part to be happy. When we stop increasing, we give ourselves up to a fixed intelligence with it's own laws to abide and work within that level. God has shown us what these laws are, and what we need to do and be to be at the level he wants for us, which is under Celestial Glory and Laws which will help us to continue to increase, and to be able to be a part of God's work. That work, or state of being is true eternal happiness, to be with our families for eternity, to increase our families, intelligence, creativity, and ability to help lower intelligence increase. This is when we get to the part where we can't understand without understanding eternity first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah18 Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 To put it more into our current situation; We need to follow God's laws in this life. If we follow those laws, and stay faithful to them we will be able to pass into the spirit world knowing exactly where we are going, and what we need to be doing. Unlike most people who will likely be lost and confused, and it's our job to help them understand who they are ( children of God), and what laws they need to follow to be ready for judgment, and a receiving of Glory . A Glory which we cannot fully understand at this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Then that would make me ask, "So what do we do with miracles?"Walking on water, changing water into wine, or doing anything that requires that the elements obey are VERY different than sin.When we say God cannot break a law, we are talking about the law of justice, which demands consequence for sin. This has nothing to do with performing physical miracles.To me, the greatest miracle of all is that any man can become born again and follow after Jesus.Call it the miracle of mercy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 No, he or she (whoever said it) was talking about "physical laws" that God must obey. That's why I asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 Ahhh, well even still... God really does obey physical laws as well, He just understands them in a much more profound way than we do. Together with His Glory and Intelligence, which requires the elements to obey Him, He can do things that seem to go against natual law as we see it. But, the laws do exist and He does abide by them. I was just trying to say that it's not the natural laws that led to the comment "...or God will cease to be God." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 hmmm...I'll just leave it at that then Thanks. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergg Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) Would you mind explaining how, if one is a god, that makes him/her an atheist- which by definition 'denies the existence of a supreme being or beings'? (Dictionary.com) Wouldn't that make such a person in denial of one's own existence?Not at all. :)What I am saying (in a funny way), follows from the premises of some members that defended the notion of a god(or gods) who follows LAWS. "Laws" that were instituted (as D&C beautifully and clearly says) in the midst of the Throne of God or the Heavens BEFORE He came to be exalted. If such a description (as unavoidable from a reading of the such verse od D&C) is to be taken at face-value, then it follows that the reasoning involved (in taking it as true) is thus:a) there is the 'Godhead'b) there are laws that according to Scripture produce, guide, constitute or SUSTAIN(that's the word) the power or exaltation or divinity of the Godhead(or its members, or other infinite Godheads and their members, -its irrelevant)________________________c) it follows that such Laws are evidently prior and constitutive of the power of the gods, and thus, THEY explain the FACT that a 'cosmos-order' (if Heavenly*) exists and that gods inhabit it -and honor it, for the sake of 'remaining' and 'not ceasing' to be 'gods'- as Scripture says.But if this reasoning of some members (and the verses read) is so (and I am just pulling consequences here -not making any value-judgements), then, it reminds me of the procedure that atheists have undergone to reach their conclusions regarding (not 'heavenly' eternal 'order' as these members) but this present 'order'(earth). In the following manner:a) Oh! How beautiful this earth! It seems to me that the earth exists,b) Oh, it also seems that Laws precede the conditions of physical reality and sustain earth,________________________________c)it seems that Laws (of nature -but, let us remember, they are mathematical* anyways) are sufficient to explain the FACT that the earth and the cosmos exists.So, taking up again our first 'sillogism', if it were the Gods talking among them (as we here), given the premises of the first sillogism(that Laws are prior to gods), it would procede as thus:a) [Gods talking]: Oh, how true that we we exist! For we have been tested on earth, been born of Celestial Parents before that, and been exalted now.b) But we must remember that we were exalted, not so much by the laws of our Fathers, but by the Laws that allowed our Fathers before that (and so on...) be exalted. So it is these Laws to which we Gods(all) must comply. They are most sacred, just as we are(through compliance with THEM).____________________________________________________c) It follows that whatever this (eternal)cosmos that we inhabit and rule (and are*; for intelligences are so eternal), is, is governed and sustained by these Laws, and no other Intelligence Most Sublime than they, suffice or are needed; for none of our Fathers from eternity down have created these*(for, they might have created those of orders 'bellow', but not these that allowed their very being to exist). So we must conclude that no other-sort-of-God is needed for these. There are no Gods other than us (creatures ruled by Laws prior to them), and thus our Cosmos(the real* one, the heavenly and misterious, and eternal) is without "Cause". For, drawing from the saying of our friend, Elohim, to Abraham, (That everywhere there is an Intelligence, there is another superior, and another superior to both, etc.) can only be circular, for any 'more Intelligent Intelligence' in any case will have drawned its superiority by compliance to Laws that are not subject to scrutiny by any of them that subscribe to it.Hence, we must confess ourselves atheists of any divinity that created these Laws that in turn created us. Only Laws exist, then we exist, and only humans are bound to theism. Edited February 10, 2009 by Sergg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxel Posted February 10, 2009 Report Share Posted February 10, 2009 (edited) What I am saying (in a funny way), follows from the premises of some members that defended the notion of a god(or gods) who follows LAWS. "Laws" that were instituted (as D&C beautifully and clearly says) in the midst of the Throne of God or the Heavens BEFORE He came to be exalted.Sergg-In the future, would you mind citing scriptural references in a more precise manner than 'in the D&C' or 'the saying of our friend, Elohim, to Abraham'? It would make following your argument easier; and I cannot pinpoint which verse(s) you are referring here (or anywhere in your post, actually) and therefore cannot judge your use of logic against my understanding of the scriptures as well as I might. Also, I am having a difficult time following some of your writing style- especially the use of asterisks ( '*' ) in your writing. If I misread you, I apologize but I find it difficult to follow your writing.Regardless, I'm going to assume your preceding comments as providing valid premises for your following arguments; my assessment will be of the internal logic you provide and not judging it against external criteria (as I know not what to judge it against).If such a description (as unavoidable from a reading of the such verse od D&C) is to be taken at face-value, then it follows that the reasoning involved (in taking it as true) is thus:a) there is the 'Godhead'b) there are laws that according to Scripture produce, guide, constitute or SUSTAIN(that's the word) the power or exaltation or divinity of the Godhead(or its members, or other infinite Godheads and their members, -its irrelevant)________________________c) it follows that such Laws are evidently prior and constitutive of the power of the gods, and thus, THEY explain the FACT that a 'cosmos-order' (if Heavenly*) exists and that gods inhabit it -and honor it, for the sake of 'remaining' and 'not ceasing' to be 'gods'- as Scripture says. Not knowing the premises I can't fault the logical sequence used here, and taking this section at face-value I mostly agree with it. However it should be noted that the existence of the natural laws of the cosmos does not guarantee exaltation of any being to godhood any more than the natural laws of physics guarantee every man can be a professional athlete- those eternal laws merely provide the possibility of Godhood to the human family.So, taking up again our first 'sillogism', if it were the Gods talking among them (as we here), given the premises of the first sillogism(that Laws are prior to gods), it would procede as thus:a) [Gods talking]: Oh, how true that we we exist! For we have been tested on earth, been born of Celestial Parents before that, and been exalted now.b) But we must remember that we were exalted, not so much by the laws of our Fathers, but by the Laws that allowed our Fathers before that (and so on...) be exalted. So it is these Laws to which we Gods(all) must comply. They are most sacred, just as we are(through compliance with THEM).____________________________________________________c) It follows that whatever this (eternal)cosmos that we inhabit and rule (and are*; for intelligences are so eternal), is, is governed and sustained by these Laws, and no other Intelligence Most Sublime than they, suffice or are needed; for none of our Fathers from eternity down have created these*(for, they might have created those of orders 'bellow', but not these that allowed their very being to exist). So we must conclude that no other-sort-of-God is needed for these. There are no Gods other than us (creatures ruled by Laws prior to them), and thus our Cosmos(the real* one, the heavenly and misterious, and eternal) is without "Cause". The glaring hole in your conclusion is that it presumes to understand far, far more than is actually supported by the premises (which are also lacking in terms of being backed by adequate scriptural authority). It's a nice bit of logical sequencing, but largely unfounded, as we don't know the mind of God, nor do we know what He knows. We know what we need to know to pass this mortal probation, but not much other than that. You may not believe in God, but you cannot claim to know the mind of a supposed omniscient deity, unless you can claim omniscience yourself. A person with no prior knowledge about the 'outside world' who one day catches a glimpse of the 'outside world' through a small hole in a tent, knows more about the 'outside world' than we mortals know of the sum of existence (including Godhood).For, drawing from the saying of our friend, Elohim, to Abraham, (That everywhere there is an Intelligence, there is another superior, and another superior to both, etc.) can only be circular, for any 'more Intelligent Intelligence' in any case will have drawned its superiority by compliance to Laws that are not subject to scrutiny by any of them that subscribe to it.Hence, we must confess ourselves atheists of any divinity that created these Laws that in turn created us. Only Laws exist, then we exist, and only humans are bound to theism. Personally, I am wholly unconvinced that 'atheist' is a good term to reflect the state of mind you are portraying, although now I understand what you were saying before. The LDS cannot claim to know, on scriptural authority, what you are claiming, and your claims require a fair bit of logic-stretching to reach the appointed conclusion. Edited February 10, 2009 by Maxel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.