Where is it written that God obeys laws?

[Dr T]

It find it funny that people say "We cannot use logic to define God." It seems to me that they are using some which they say they cannot use...

[JohnBirchSociety]

Even Atoms have quarks and quarks have lesser intelligence than it. :)

Noting again the highlighted reference, what is mentioned is something Brigham Young spoke on [paraphrase it]: "…there are many kingdoms below us ad there are many kingdoms above us..." We need to learn humility in digesting the creational account of its limitation content, about our origins and destiny; to include the reference passages by both Giant_son and Tom, that even GOD is bound by Celestial Laws and not the author thereof.

The Scriptures fundamentally disagree with your assessment.

GOD is the law-giver. He created law. He has decided to obey the laws he has created for us.

He is the author of law.

[JohnBirchSociety]

36 All kingdoms have a law given;

37 And there are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space, either a greater or a lesser kingdom.

38 And unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions.

If I think of atoms -- is this not true? Atoms have certain "laws" which they obey. There are certain bounds and conditions.

Since atoms are the foundation (actually, intelligences are the foundation) then everything that builds upon that framework also follows the same laws, even God. We are not a different species than God. We are His children. Children grow to become like their Father (their Parents).

So when God reveals something to us -- what is He revealing? Not a set of arbitrary laws and commandments which have no purpose or meaning.... but rather, they are THE WAY to becoming as He is!!!! We need a roadmap, and He has provided it!!!!

Wow, I cannot believe that you've said we are the same "species" as GOD.

This is absolutely, and astoundingly contrary to scripture.

GOD is our creator. We are fundamentally different than GOD in that we are created beings. He is not.

We are not the same specie as GOD. In fact, GOD has no equal, being the only GOD.

[JohnBirchSociety]

I believe God is subject to eternal laws of justice and righteousness.

I don't believe He's subject to the laws of nature. I think it's quite clear in the scriptures that nature is subject to God. (See here, for instance)

However, I've had massive debates about this, spanning multiple YSA gatherings, so I'll stop there.

Since GOD is the creator of all things, he being the only thing eternally existent (without beginning or end), he is most certainly not subject to that which he has created, unless he so chooses (I think he has, in a limited sense).

GOD is our creator. Laws have no independent existence. They are created things. GOD created them.

[JohnBirchSociety]

The word HONOR [means power given by others to that individual] has great meaning for those intelligences that are here to ACT. Knowing GOD resides under conditions placed upon HIM, as it with all creation, from the lesser to the most complex, HE works with HIS own creation through laws and knowledge of that state of being.

Anyone who is holds the priesthood can do the same as you mentioned, including raising the dead. :) Hence, what did Peter do after seeing the Lord walk on the water? Later in Acts as he went about doing the Lord's work?

GOD is above all things. He is under no law, because he created all law.

[Maxel]

With all due respect, JohnBirchSociety, coming in and quoting others' comments, claiming others' views are contrary to scripture, and citing some basic ideas without scriptural citations is not a nice thing to do. In a thread such as this, you cannot simply bypass all previous conversation, cherry-pick previous comments, assert your own position's authority and move on as if you were sweeping a dirty floor clean.

[JohnBirchSociety]

Even this universe has boundaries that it cannot cross.

Prove it.

[JohnBirchSociety]

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 is a physical impossibility for man to have always existed.

[Maxel]

With all due respect, JohnBirchSociety, coming in and quoting others' comments, claiming others' views are contrary to scripture, and citing some basic ideas without scriptural citations is not a nice thing to do. In a thread such as this, you cannot simply bypass all previous conversation, cherry-pick previous comments, assert your own position's authority and move on as if you were sweeping a dirty floor clean.

Hey, this guy has a point.

[Dymmesdale]

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.

God having to Send Christ to die on the cross was not submission to any law. Rather, it was in keeping with his own nature, so as to not be tainted by sin, and still be glorified by Man.

Certainly he could have simply NOT sent Christ, in which case Mankind would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. But that would deny any glory brought to him by Man, nullifying the very reason he created us. God cannot act contrary to his own nature. If you wish to call that a law, fine; otherwise, he is not subject to any law.

[threepercent]

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?

like I said:

the level of law we choose to obey marks the glory and truth we can inherit.

ok, so here is how this works, lets say i want to fly, and i am on earth. to do so I have to break the laws of gravity right? nope, just apply the laws of aerodynamics and thrust and bingo, i got flight, course I need an atmosphere, and that is held in place by gravity, right. and so lets say I leave the atmosphere? now what, now applying the laws of aerodynamic aint helping at all, but still understanding the laws of gravity allows me to archive a geosynchronous orbit.

this is how law works.

its two things

action and outcome.

I can chose an action (this is what most of us do) and the outcome in now dictated to me. or I can chose an outcome, and the action is now dictated. this is a HUGE key to understanding all law.

EVERY law given to us is to help us understand this concept. EVERY law we have (from God) teaches us how to choose the action that will have the outcome of joy.

In old Anglo-Saxon law, to be an OUTLAW meant you were not just someone who broke the the law, but that you were cast out of the protection of law, or you became OUTside of the LAW.

by failing to abide a social law, you were cast out of the protections of it. in ancient times this was a near death sentence.

this is kinda what this is saying, but more than that, you will not WANT to live in a celestial law kingdom if you do not love and understand its laws. you will feel restrained and fettered.

ergo the freedom we have to choose the level of law we will abide. its not freedom of consequence, its freedom of choice, to choose action or outcome.

[Maxel]

A logical argument about the Nature of God, without the Holy Ghost manifesting the truth of it one way or the other, only leads to contention- as is witnessed by the heated debates at the Council of Nicea. I think both sides have shared their views, and there's a thread about this in the 'Christian Beliefs' forum.

[Dymmesdale]

this is kinda what this is saying, but more than that, you will not WANT to live in a celestial law kingdom if you do not love and understand its laws. you will feel restrained and fettered.

ergo the freedom we have to choose the level of law we will abide. its not freedom of consequence, its freedom of choice, to choose action or outcome.

I would imagine that that could apply to any kingdom or social construct, celestial or otherwise.

[threepercent]

justice, I am glad to see you understand this.

[threepercent]

God having to Send Christ to die on the cross was not submission to any law. Rather, it was in keeping with his own nature, so as to not be tainted by sin, and still be glorified by Man.

Certainly he could have simply NOT sent Christ, in which case Mankind would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. But that would deny any glory brought to him by Man, nullifying the very reason he created us. God cannot act contrary to his own nature. If you wish to call that a law, fine; otherwise, he is not subject to any law.

It was not submission, it was choosing the outcome of redeeming man and his deep love for us his children that was the deciding factor.

it is quite clear that the price of the atonement sucked big time. it hurt. it caused pain beyond what we can comprehend.

it is quite clear that Christ, if there had been another less painful way, would have taken the route that did not require such vast pain.

but it is also clear that there were not other options available, while retaining the desired outcome of providing us a route back to our Father.

it is beautiful beyond words. it is love. it is the fulfillment of the law.

the law is simple, come follow me, do this and receive joy.

[Dymmesdale]

It was not submission, it was choosing the outcome of redeeming man and his deep love for us his children that was the deciding factor.

it is quite clear that the price of the atonement sucked big time. it hurt. it caused pain beyond what we can comprehend.

it is quite clear that Christ, if there had been another less painful way, would have taken the route that did not require such vast pain.

but it is also clear that there were not other options available, while retaining the desired outcome of providing us a route back to our Father.

it is beautiful beyond words. it is love. it is the fulfillment of the law.

the law is simple, come follow me, do this and receive joy.

Very nicely put. I could not agree more.

[Sergg]

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.

Again, I do not subscribe to those premises on which the whole logical irony was built. It was intended to be read by those who subscribe to it, to let them see**** what logical conclusions could**** be derived from them****. Of course, I didnt expect that you would take it to be directed at you, and that you would (in a way I dont understand) take them to be what I**** believe.

It was not a joke* in the sense of a common joke. It was an intellectual irony, which I have translated as 'joke' for the sake of remaining, you know, down to earth. But in fact it was a serious matter. Just presented colorfully, as a comment*** not an argument****(you do know the diference...).

So it is not offensive in any way (for lets be honest and serious now, the God of the Bible -independently of what you as mormon may want* to believe, represents Himself as the ONLY God, so He, in regard to what co-exists around Him, is an atheist, for He himself does not believe in any Laws or Gods that made Him or his cosmos), it could be offensive though (but again, you would -like me- take it as childish) to call the God of theh Bible 'one among many', that 'once was a man', to other christians.

So do not get sensitive over something that was a matter to give thinking to(plain 'jokes' are meaningless in the end, my comment was not) and part of what others may believe(as Tom, Justice or Vanhin), and you should just keep up to it, disregard it, prove it wrong, or not. But unless the manner**** of presenting some topic is*** unrespectful, whatever the content, if intellectual, must be regarded seriously and you must learn to live with it. Just as I live with your ideas.

Edited February 11, 2009 by Sergg

[bytor2112]

God having to Send Christ to die on the cross was not submission to any law. Rather, it was in keeping with his own nature, so as to not be tainted by sin, and still be glorified by Man.

Certainly he could have simply NOT sent Christ, in which case Mankind would be up the proverbial creek without a paddle. But that would deny any glory brought to him by Man, nullifying the very reason he created us. God cannot act contrary to his own nature. If you wish to call that a law, fine; otherwise, he is not subject to any law.

Christ came to do the will of the Father...... his atonement wrought at Gethsemenee and at Golgotha satisfied the demands of justice and made mercy available to all on conditions of repentance. His purpose.......his "work and his glory" is to "bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."

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

“And he who cannot abide the law of a terrestrial kingdom cannot abide a terrestrial glory.

“And he who cannot abide the law of a telestial kingdom cannot abide a telestial glory. …

“That which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same. …

“All kingdoms have a law given. …

“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.” (D&C 88:22–24, 34, 36, 40.)

[bytor2112]

"Priesthood is power like none other on earth or in heaven. It is the very power of God himself, the power by which the worlds were made, the power by which all things are regulated, upheld, and preserved.

It is the power of faith, the faith by which the Father creates and governs. God is God because he is the embodiment of all faith and all power and all priesthood. The life he lives is named eternal life." -Elder Bruce R McConkie, The Doctrine of the Priesthood

[bytor2112]

He himself does not believe in any Laws

God is perfect....he is our Father and just as we are governed by a set of eternal laws and truths, so too is God. To live as he lives, to attain his attributes, to become like him, we must master these set of laws that he has given us in order for us to be able to abide the Celestial law.......his eternal laws in his kingdom......... to"ascend to those heights beyond the skies where gods and angels dwell forever in eternal glory."

[bytor2112]

Wow, I cannot believe that you've said we are the same "species" as GOD.

This is absolutely, and astoundingly contrary to scripture.

GOD is our creator. We are fundamentally different than GOD in that we are created beings. He is not.

We are not the same specie as GOD. In fact, GOD has no equal, being the only GOD.

Not according to Joseph Smith.....and our relationship to God is one of Father and child.

[Justice]

It is a physical impossibility for man to have always existed.

Only to one who thinks finite.

If there ever was a "time" when man did not exist, tell me why did God decided, after an entire eternity, to finally "create" him?

What was God's paradigm shift; what did He learn that made Him think to create man? Did He always plan to create man, just wanted to wait for an eternity to do it?

Surely the God you believe in didn't "learn" something that made Him decide to create man.

No, it can't be so. Man has always existed. Don't get hung up on God "creating" man on this earth "in the beginning."

Moses 1:

35 But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you. For behold, there are many worlds that have passed away by the word of my power. And there are many that now stand, and innumerable are they unto man; but all things are numbered unto me, for they are mine and I know them.

36 And it came to pass that Moses spake unto the Lord, saying: Be merciful unto thy servant, O God, and tell me concerning this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, and also the heavens, and then thy servant will be content.

37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.

38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

40 And now, Moses, my son, I will speak unto thee concerning this earth upon which thou standest; and thou shalt write the things which I shall speak.

41 And in a day when the children of men shall esteem my words as naught and take many of them from the book which thou shalt write, behold, I will raise up another like unto thee; and they shall be had again among the children of men—among as many as shall believe.

He has always done this.

It's a difficult thing, maybe impossible, to comprehend eternity. But, I can understand it enough to see that either man has always existed, or he doesn't exist at all. Since man exists, then the race of man has always existed. Open your mind, your heart, and your eyes. God did not will man, or anything else into existence. You are His child, just as He calls Moses, and He is about His business of trying to perfect you.

[bytor2112]

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.

The chief end of man.......is to become like unto God. His.....Heavenly Father's work and his glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

"In Eden we will see all things created in a paradisiacal state—without death, without procreation, without probationary experiences.

We will come to know that such a creation, now unknown to man, was the only way to provide for the Fall.

We will then see Adam and Eve, the first man and the first woman, step down from their state of immortal and paradisiacal glory to become the first mortal flesh on earth.

Mortality, including as it does procreation and death, will enter the world. And because of transgression a probationary estate of trial and testing will begin.

Then in Gethsemane we will see the Son of God ransom man from the temporal and spiritual death that came to us because of the Fall.

And finally, before an empty tomb, we will come to know that Christ our Lord has burst the bands of death and stands forever triumphant over the grave.

Thus, Creation is father to the Fall; and by the Fall came mortality and death; and by Christ came immortality and eternal life.

If there had been no fall of Adam, by which cometh death, there could have been no atonement of Christ, by which cometh life." (Purifying Power of Gethsemene)

Edited February 11, 2009 by bytor2112

[Guest tomk]

Wow, I cannot believe that you've said we are the same "species" as GOD.

This is absolutely, and astoundingly contrary to scripture.

GOD is our creator. We are fundamentally different than GOD in that we are created beings. He is not.

We are not the same specie as GOD. In fact, GOD has no equal, being the only GOD.

If you hold to a Trinitarian view of the Godhead -- nothing I say will make sense to you. So it does not surprise me that you feel this way.

Christians have never held a Trinitarian view of the Godhead. That was an invention of the Council of Nicea, 300 years after Christ prayed to the Father to "forgive them, for they know not what they do."

So any criticism that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not hold the contemporary Christian view of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost is not a comment about our commitment to Christ but rather a recognition (accurate, I might add) that our view of the Godhead breaks with post–New Testament Christian history and returns to the doctrine taught by Jesus Himself. Now, a word about that post–New Testament history might be helpful.

In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils)4 as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, . . . and I know not whom to adore or to address.”5 How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”?6

It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?7

We declare it is self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings, noting such unequivocal illustrations as the Savior’s great Intercessory Prayer just mentioned, His baptism at the hands of John, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the martyrdom of Stephen—to name just four.

These 2 talks by Elder Holland state our position quite well. You are free to disagree. Just as I am free to disagree with your views, as well:

The Only True God and Jesus Christ Whom He Hath Sent

and:

?My Words . . . Never Cease?

I would encourage you to really study these talks.

Tom

Edited February 11, 2009 by tomk

[Justice]

God having to Send Christ to die on the cross was not submission to any law.

If you wish to call that a law, fine; otherwise, he is not subject to any law.

Look where your position leads you.

Of course it's a law. It is by Christ that all flesh is justified. If Christ did not take upon Himself the sins of the world then all mankind would remain lost and fallen. There was nothing God could do about it. No revoking of law, no changing law, no finding another way around the law that had to be satisfied. Yes, God was subject to this law.

The law says that mercy can only be extended by virtue of an infinite and atoning sacrifice.

God had no way around it.

How open is your mind? Is it open enough to seriously read these words from the Book of Mormon? Or, do you turn off once you know the source?

These are the words of a great Book of Mormon missionary, Amulek:

Alma 34:

8 And now, behold, I will testify unto you of myself that these things are true. Behold, I say unto you, that I do know that Christ shall come among the children of men, to take upon him the transgressions of his people, and that he shall atone for the sins of the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it.

9 For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.

10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.

16 And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.

How much clearer is the Book of Mormon?

How much does the world need the Book of Mormon?

I hope that you seriously ponder these words. These words do not say anyting you do not already know. They do not contradict anything the Bible teaches. But, they do make it a little clearer why Christ had to atone for the sins of the world.

Not just because "God said so," but because it was necessary according to eternal law, or the law of justice. God is just and will do nothing that does not satisfy this law, or to bring about mercy that can answer the law... even if it means sending His Only Begotten Son to suffer and die for man.