Where is it written that God obeys laws?

[Hemidakota]

I just started wondering, HD, are you Ray or are u a relative of Ray (from this site a long time ago)?

Not even but like minds do think alike.

[Hemidakota]

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.

Reread Genesis for the answer - "LET US form MAN [chicken] in OUR IMAGE." There's your logic.

[Dr T]

haha ok, thanks HD. :) Do you prefer HD or Hemi (as a shortened name sir?)

[Hemidakota]

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.

3 Nephi 19:35-36 it reads:

And it came to pass that when Jesus had made an end of praying he came again to the disciples, and said unto them: So great faith have I never seen among all the Jews wherefore I could not show unto them so great miracles, because of their unbelief.

Verify I say unto you, there are none of them that have seen so great things as ye have seen; neither have they heard so great things as ye have heard.

As great as were the miracles performed by Jesus among the Jews during his mortal ministry, they could not compare with the marvelous things seen, heard, and experienced by the Nephites. The great miracles and spiritual manifestations to which the Nephites were witnesses came as a result of their faith. Where there is greater faith there are greater miracles and spiritual outpourings (see Mormon 9:15-19; Mark 6:5).

It serves only to glorify GOD.

[Hemidakota]

haha ok, thanks HD. :) Do you prefer HD or Hemi (as a shortened name sir?)

Hemi or HD, it was a nickname given by others but you do know my real name already.

[Hemidakota]

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'.

Miracles could not be performed without the others faith being involved. I had been in situation, priesthood blessings only work through the faith of others when performing what people believe are miracles.

Even this morning, raining hard and very cold, I manage to make a quick call home when leaving two blocks away to remind my beloved spouse that the garbage needs to be taken to the curb. At a main intersection light, since no one was there, I answered a incoming call when the light turned green. When at that moment, a person flew through the intersection on a red doing 55-MPH. Was that a miracle or prevention of my life to live another day?

Finally, looking across both ways on my green, moved across the intersection I managed to gain my composure and pulled over to see what the incoming call was. She called at that precise moment in preventing me from entering that intersection where bending of metals and another person carelessness of life would cause my life to abruptly come to a end this morning. It was a divine intervention...in turn, I do glorify GOD for this experience and miracle. :)

Edited February 10, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Moksha]

Call it the miracle of mercy.

Hey, I really like that. There is a great need for more Miracles of Mercy.

[Dr T]

Hemi or HD, it was a nickname given by others but you do know my real name already.

hahaha ok HD/Hemi

[Hemidakota]

I think we covered the many miracles in a previous thread [do an advance search] that the Lord perform and what was required in completing that miracle, whether materials was needed to heal, faith of the person, or done by the mercy and love of the Savior for His brethren [sisters].

If we look at each miracle, we can deeply appreciate the awesome power of the priesthood and honor that GOD bestowed upon HIS Son.

[threepercent]

to answer your original question, it is the atonement more than any other act that shows us that god must follow law.

if god COULD have taken another route, and still provided us with agency, and not had to pay such a price, they would have.

but there was no other way.

the level of law we choose to obey marks the glory and truth we can inherit. God the Father is obedient to the highest levels of law. What came first the law or the law giver is moot, as the point is that God is subject to law as we all are, although it is interesting to note that all laws given to us are spiritual, and for our good, like gravity.

Miracles are done through and by laws. for example, the greatest miracle any of us will ever experience, forgiveness, comes through the application of the laws of mercy to the law of justice.

to understand law is to understand the nature of God. I highly recommend you study it.

[Dove]

Wow, Maxel, Sergg,

Intense threads. Hemi, you're getting up there too!! , I'm trying to wrap my puny little brain around the points that are being made and said.

I'm with Ceeboo about what he delcared in his first few posts. Sergg, I believe I know where one of your scriptural references are, and you quoted the verse in part only....I am thinking of Abraham 3:19~ "And the Lord said unto me: These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all."

God the Father has no qualm about declaring His greatness and Deification throughout the Book of Mormon. It is all over the place. Perhaps more so in the Doctrine and Covenants. I don't know where this idea that God is not eternal and infinite has come from. I believe the scriptures are explicit in declaring Who He is and what He is about...

Sergg, I know you don't believe in God, that you are an atheist; however, I do hold Him in the highest of esteem and yes, do believe in Him. There is nothing trite about this to me.

No, I don't believe that there is a cyclical pattern in the governance of truth....But, I may be wrong. I also think of the scripture in the Doctrine and Covenants.... D&C 93:29, 30, "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence."

Reading these posts and everyone's opinions, and then reading the scriptures gives me an important lesson. To rely on the scriptures!

[Justice]

to answer your original question, it is the atonement more than any other act that shows us that god must follow law.

if god COULD have taken another route, and still provided us with agency, and not had to pay such a price, they would have.

but there was no other way.

the level of law we choose to obey marks the glory and truth we can inherit. God the Father is obedient to the highest levels of law. What came first the law or the law giver is moot, as the point is that God is subject to law as we all are, although it is interesting to note that all laws given to us are spiritual, and for our good, like gravity.

Miracles are done through and by laws. for example, the greatest miracle any of us will ever experience, forgiveness, comes through the application of the laws of mercy to the law of justice.

to understand law is to understand the nature of God. I highly recommend you study it.

You beat me to this. I pondered and prayed about this last night and all day today as I could. I was seeking what might act as proof, not just evidence, to those who believe God does not have to follow law.

Matt. 26:

39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

It was not possible because God must abide by eternal law.

There is an important point to consider after you understand this.

If you believe God brought everything into existence from nothing, and that He can do as He wishes and suffer no consequence, then this understanding of Christ's Atonement MUST change your understanding of God. The God who had to send His Son to suffer and die for mankind is the God who must follow law. If there was another way He most certainly would have brought it about.

If you believe God wanted His Son to suffer and die, you don't understand the loving nature of God. It was God's will only because it was the only way.

This proves God must follow law.

It also proves that God did not/could not bring the universe into existence from nothing, because He is subject to law, and must create using those laws. So, those laws had to exist before Him.

Genesis teaches that God created the heaven and earth in 6 days. This is not willing into existence from nothing. This is a process of creation where God spoke and elements obeyed, just as Christ did while on earth.

If this does not alter your understanding of God then you are being decieved by a false notion of God that has existed in Christianty from antiquity. Further, you have no place for truth in you, because Christ's Atonement proves that God must follow law, and it must fundamentally alter your view of God to consider He could not accomplish it any other way.

I suggest you seriously ponder and pray about the consequences of the Atonement.

God is who Joseph Smith said He is. The fact that God had to send His Son to Atone for mankind proves it.

Edited February 10, 2009 by Justice

[Dymmesdale]

I would just like to weigh in here. I believe that God is eternal, existing from everlasting to everlasting, that he created the Law, and the concept of law in general. He is not subject to laws that he himself made. He created Man in order to bring glory to himself, because he is perfectly righteous. He created the Law for man to follow, but when they did not, that sin created a separation between God and Man. This is because he is holy, and because the chief end of Man is to bring glory to him. If there were no separation even after Man had become tainted by sin, because God cannot sin it would be contrary to his nature. I believe that God's own nature is the only "law" that he is subject to. Certainly not any natural law, or celestial law, since all natural and celestial laws are subject to the Everlasting God. He had to send his Son to suffer death upon the cross in place of Man, offering himself as a sufficient sacrifice to redeem those who believe in him.this is because the nature of God is to abhor sin, to have nothing to do with it, not because there is some law higher than God that says he had to.

[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'?

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.

Well, I was refering to the only posts and members who (Tom and Vanhin*) have quoted D&C in regard to this notion of 'Laws' celestial. I thought you were following the thread. Then again...

Well, of course it is stretched, lol. That's the point of a logical joke. But it must be acknowledged though, that if the premises are taken at face-value (as those who regard the "celestial Primordial-to-the-gods Laws" theory to be true may do) the conclusions (if ironic) remain valid.

But of course, either you do not subscribe to the premises and the "Primordial-to-the-gods-Laws" theory, or you do but are unwilling (after glimpsing at consequences...) to accept the joke.

[Sergg]

Anyways, returning to the main question, I think that unless one is willfully resistant to give its proper way the following (already quoted) scripture, its teachings are clear(if hurtful to some):

D&C 88: 13, 40

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

• • •

40 For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; mercy hath compassion on mercy and claimeth her own; justice continueth its course and claimeth its own; judgment goeth before the face of him who sitteth upon the throne and governeth and executeth all things.

Here, in one same chapter, two things are EXPLICITILY said:

a) that some Laws (concerning the 'Light' of...) make possible and GOVERN all things, even God's power

b) that God who sits in His throne ALSO governs 'all things'

These are not contradictory; in most cosmologies of ancient cultures, the Gods revered some Ultimate Laws which generated them in some way, while in the very respecting of the such Laws -by result- they could be powerful enough to govern the rest of things (almost everything else).

So, as to the main topic of the Thread, I believe the such scripture is clear beyond all reasonable doubt, that Joseph Smith believed in Laws that were beyond the Godhead, in the sense that the very power of teh Godhead depended on them; while other terrestrial laws could in fact be created and given at will by these bound Gods to mortals or nature.

[Justice]

I believe that God... created the Law, and the concept of law in general. He is not subject to laws that he himself made.

He had to send his Son to suffer death upon the cross

Do you understand that both cannot be true?

Can't you see the contradiction?

Did you read any of my post in an attempt to understand?

The only way your that both your statements can be true is if The Father wanted Christ to suffer endless punishment and die. If God made the rules then He could have said "living a sinless life is enough to redeem man." He had no choice but to send His Son because He did not make the law that required He send His Son to suffer and die. He had to follow what law already existed.

You see, if God made law and is not bound by it then He did not have to send His Son to die on the cross.

This is truth in it's purest form. I hope that you ponder and pray about this. The God that you have been taught about cannot exist. It is important that you give this some serious contemplation.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Justice

[Maxel]

Well, I was refering to the only posts and members who (Tom and Vanhin*) have quoted D&C in regard to this notion of 'Laws' celestial. I thought you were following the thread. Then again...

I was following the thread- you did not implicate their examples as the scripture you were referring to. I do not pretend to mind read; I had no idea you were referring to specific member's specific citations of scripture. I had a hunch that's what you meant, but I did not wish to assume your stance when you have proven yourself more than capable of articulating and defending it yourself.

Well, of course it is stretched, lol. That's the point of a logical joke. But it must be acknowledged though, that if the premises are taken at face-value (as those who regard the "celestial Primordial-to-the-gods Laws" theory to be true may do) the conclusions (if ironic) remain valid.

But of course, either you do not subscribe to the premises and the "Primordial-to-the-gods-Laws" theory, or you do but are unwilling (after glimpsing at consequences...) to accept the joke.

I still don't see how your 'joke' is humorous, as to accept the premise of the joke (that accepting self-extant 'Primordial-to-the-gods Laws' makes one an 'atheist') requires an idiosyncratic understanding of 'atheism' that is misleading and, from human perspective, largely inaccurate. I feel your association of 'humor' with the situation stems from your belief that our faith mirrors your own apparent non-faith through similar reasoning.

And, it is not out of line to suggest; nay to assume that God understands the laws of the Universe to the point that He understands the laws' origins. There is no reason to assume God shares our own ignorance, if He exists- which I emphatically declare he does. Your entire premise assumes God knows no more about existence than Man does; and that is entirely false.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Maxel

[Sergg]

Lets go easy on this:

D&C 88: 22,

22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.

What is the meaning of this for you all?

Think on it, but while you do, take into consideration the other 'granted' points of 'nonofficial' doctrine in mormon communities: that Elohim Himself progressed through complying to laws(say, was exalted through 'gospel' acceptance as 'we' will).

Then it follows that whatever 'law' thi sverse refers to(which is, as verse 13 says, that law -light- that governs all things, 'even the power of god') cannot be one of Elohim's creations(for it is anterior to Him). What would beg the question as to -then- by which Laws did previous Gods became gods, and so on. We will end up with Laws that are ultimately previous to individual gods. Just as we end up with RAW unorganized "intelligences" that are precious to their actual organization as 'individuals' -which again, begs the question...

So, -apart from faith- how can it be solved? It is a sort of 'chicken or the egg' question.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Sergg

[Sergg]

I still don't see how your 'joke' is humorous, as to accept the premise of the joke (that accepting self-extant 'Primordial-to-the-gods Laws' makes one an 'atheist') requires an idiosyncratic understanding of 'atheism' that is misleading and, from human perspective, largely inaccurate.\.

But who's posts have you been reading? What I said, was that given the premises, the GODS themselves would be rightly defined as ATHEISTS. Not us! In such irony is that the joke (a rather profound one...) strives.

Again, if you do not understand it, keep to yourself whatever value-judgements you might have on my person. It would not be of importance at all. The very value of ironic, funny and random comments(that can often be profound) is that they just 'flash', and if people get them, they become iconic, if not, no harm.

[Justice]

I'm afraid plain truth isn't enough to convince anyone. If people really want to know the truth they are going to have to seek the spirit for inspiration.

What has been spoken about the need for the Atonement is truth. Everything it implies must be, also. To ignore truth because you prefer your belief in God over truth is being as the "Scribes and Pharisees."

The only reason we can have complete trust and confidence in God is because He follows laws perfectly and does not deviate from truth.

John 14:

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Christ followed law perfectly. The Father follows law perfectly.

[Sergg]

Do you understand that both cannot be true?

Can't you see the contradiction?

Did you read any of my post in an attempt to understand?

The only way your that both your statements can be true is if The Father wanted Christ to suffer endless punishment and die. If God made the rules then He could have said "living a sinless life is enough to redeem man." He had no choice but to send His Son because He did not make the law that required He send His Son to suffer and die. He had to follow what law already existed.

You see, if God made law and is not bound by it then He did not have to send His Son to die on the cross.

This is truth in it's purest form. I hope that you ponder and pray about this. The God that you have been taught about cannot exist. It is important that you give this some serious contemplation.

At least somebody sees the point others tried to make.

Now, what is of importance, is that this belief in 'Laws' saves God's acts from becoming 'arbitrary', but arise other questions: his ontological status, his epistemological status, and his moral status. What possible 'position' can he hold that prevents Him from being completely arbitrary; What possible conditions and status is he in in terms of knowledge -if he ignores the origin of such Laws-; What moral status does he enjoy, if he's ultimately constrained by compliance to laws.

And many more.

[Dr T]

The only reason we can have complete trust and confidence in God is because He follows laws perfectly and does not deviate from truth.

John 14:

7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

Christ followed law perfectly. The Father follows law perfectly.

I'd say He follows his Nature and that's all He's subject to personally.

[Dr T]

But who's posts have you been reading? What I said, was that given the premises, the GODS themselves would be rightly defined as ATHEISTS. Not us! In such irony is that the joke (a rather profound one...) strives.

The only reason that would be funny is because it's a contradiction in terms or "ironic" as the word u used Sergg. Deity saying there is not such thing as a deity...

[Maxel]

Lets go easy on this:

D&C 88: 22,

22 For he who is not able to abide the law of a celestial kingdom cannot abide a celestial glory.

What is the meaning of this for you all?

To me, this means that a person who does not hold themselves to the moral rigidity required by the celestial law cannot handle the amount of glory and knowledge that comes with inheriting celestial glory. Just as a person who loves the darkness abhors the light and is made uncomfortable by its presence, so too does an unrighteous man abhor true knowledge and is made uncomfortable by its presence.

So, -apart from faith- how can it be solved? It is a sort of 'chicken or the egg' question.

Until someone solves the chicken and the egg dilemma, I see no need for understanding the origin of the natural laws.

But who's posts have you been reading? What I said, was that given the premises, the GODS themselves would be rightly defined as ATHEISTS. Not us! In such irony is that the joke (a rather profound one...) strives.

I see your point. Having read back over your entire post history on this topic, I do see how you said the 'gods' would be atheists. My confusion arose over the manner in which you presented your final case on post #49, in which you separated the final conclusion ("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.") by two carriage returns; when the preceding usage of even one carriage return signified you moving on to explain the next part of your series of syllogisms. I thought your final statement was to be read as your capstone on the argument, and that we humans should be seen as atheists. The final sentence stating that 'only humans are bound to theism' left my puzzled; I chalked it up to another characteristic of your unconventional writing style.

Again, if you do not understand it, keep to yourself whatever value-judgements you might have on my person. It would not be of importance at all. The very value of ironic, funny and random comments(that can often be profound) is that they just 'flash', and if people get them, they become iconic, if not, no harm.

My value-judgment was an attempt to find the implied truth with which you imputed your statements; your logic required the knowledge of the thought processes of God- which I doubt you will admit to knowing. Looking back and knowing you are calling the Gods atheistic, I still find no valid irony in the syllogism- as I stated earlier, its conclusion requires far too much logical stretching.

My dissatisfaction arises from the fact you are joking at the expense of something I hold sacred, not so much from the fact you are stretching logic itself, which you have pointed at as grounds for your joke's humor and 'profundity'. I readily admit that if one were to take your arguments at face-value they might see the 'humor' presented, but I again stress this is something very sacred to me and not something I take lightly when I see another making jokes at its expense. I disagree that 'no harm' is done, as you have treated lightly something very sacred to most of the posters on this forum.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Maxel
Clarification

[Maxel]

The only reason that would be funny is because it's a contradiction in terms or "ironic" as the word u used Sergg. Deity saying there is not such thing as a deity...

He's saying, that's where the humor stems from. The application of such an 'anti-God' phrase (atheism) to God Himself. Now that I understand what he's saying (despite it taking 3 posts...) I agree there is irony present- but only if one accepts his arguments, which I do not on the grounds that we cannot know how the mind of God works.