Ethics Of Love And Lds Theology

[Serg]

Ostler in his second volume of Exploring Mormon Thought: The problems of theism and the love of God, answered to the Ostlings. While reading Mormon America, I too noticed a statement made by them, concerning our metaphisichs of morals, our theory of ethics, this is, they said that other christians had a perfect God who was teh source of all GOOD(ethics), while they recognize that they have no way of justifying the devil's existence, moreover we had the perfect explanation for evil in teh world without compromising our God's soverignity, but we had no ethical source, no good source in God, as he was contingent himself.

Ostler proposed the Agape Theory of Ethics, based on a new way of reading mormon scriptures. In it, he gave reasons to defend teh lds notion of freedom of will, goodness as something that may be exterior to God(i.e., He is not the source but a follower), but retook it to propose a system of ethics that depended on relationships of love, anything that impared a relationship of true love(of an I and a Thou) among Men or Gods, it was, unethical, it was sin. Love then, is Law. Of which justice, mercy and godness derive themselves. Love isd the only abstarct notion that is exterior to God in that He doesnt govern it but lives it.

my concern with you is, Ostler also dismissed Kant's imperative, but in doing this do you agree? The notion of kant about the Good Will, is it necessary for us to abandon it?

Also, have any read I and Thou of Martin Buber? It is a splendid treatsie on love and the relationship of teh I and the You in the universe, ethics as teh law of Love.

Regards,

[MaidservantX]

This is wonderful to bring up; however I am not as well read in philosophy as you and cannot speak to Kant or Buber, etc.

However, I would say that in Lectures on Faith, I believe, Joseph Smith spent some time on the attributes of God, and his perfection, and that our trust in him can only hinge on the fact that his nature is perfect (he listed specifics). It's been awhile since I read it, so it may be worth a re-read on my part.

Also, throughout the scriptures, but there are some particularly lovely ones in Isaiah, I read and was able to realize in my heart that God (the Savior, but also Heavenly Father) NEVER gets weary of helping us a redeeming us. We judge him as a man but we don't realize that he is beyond mortality and has complete power and desire and love to help us.

However, this person (Ostler's) thoughts may hinge on the concept of God's progression, which is a worldview I accept -- 'a follower', I like that. I do imagine that celestial forces are forces that are 'accessed' by 'progression' -- external, as said. As well, in the opposing, the scriptures teach us that we can overcome all and have all (lower) kingdoms subject to us -- this also refers to forces in the universe (of which we have dim understanding in mortality and of which the gospel and it's commandments are the crucial Cliff's notes). There are two other thoughts to add to this, though, and I am not preaching doctrine, only sharing where my thoughts have led. First is that, there are 'points of no return' at either end of the good and evil spectrum. Here in mortality we have some very specific (and unstable!) conditions that allow us to have a probation in contact with both good and evil and yet eventually still come out clean (so much more could be said about that!). But the rest of the universe doesn't operate like that. The practical application of what I mean is that the devil is never going to repent and become good, and Heavenly Father and the Savior are never going to fall or choose evil -- those kinds of available conditions are in mortality. God is past the point of no return. Although his agency is retained, he doesn't choose on a moment to moment basis whether he is good -- he has become God, and his godness will never be undone. I don't know if I'm expressing myself well enough but this does lead into my point number two -- whereas in mortality we can only be AGENTS of good or evil (manifest these forces, channel them, place them into the physical world by our acts), God in his eternal, exalted, celestial condition (that we are all seeking for as well), has indeed become a source and generates light and other forces -- from his body and spirit melded together (the exalted soul).

Having said that, I like the explanation you and Ostler bring forward of why love is the law. I like it just how you said it.

Happy thinking

[MaidservantX]

I was doing a little reading this evening and came across this cool scripture. D&C 88:41. But then go to D&C 88:68. So there is no contradiction for a 'body' God concept and a 'omni' God -- we just haven't got to where we understand yet how that all goes together. Also back up a bit and now read D&C 88:66-67. This whole section is awesome. Also now read D&C88:46 (trying to help us understand) thru 50. "Nevertheless the day shall come when you shall comprehend even God." D&C 88:12-13. Sweet stuff.

[Traveler]

Most theoloigists define G-d in terms of power as the basis of what is divine. The LDS theology is that G-d’s power is only understood through experiencing G-d’s capacity for love, mercy and compassion. I see this as more as a which is first, the chicken or the egg thing. One assumes that G-d’s power makes his love, mercy and compassion possible through his desire. The other (LDS) purports that divine power is accomplished through sacrifice for others because of love, mercy and compassion.

The Traveler

[Serg]

Inded you have all been thoughtful;

I particularly believe, that Love is a reality beyond the Self, and yet only comprehended(and virtually given existence to) through the former.

The Lord loves in all comprehension, he a-prehends all into his very Being, He loves by nature as much as he has chosen through this loving attitude, to live . He is free, he may be said that in each moment decides to retain his goodness, but as the other brother said, not likely to mortality, not as if he were tempted as much to do otherwise, but because he Is a Self, and properly free, but then again, if we recognize in humans(free) a commitment that sometimes lasts a lifetime, in which no variation occurs, as in belief in something, how much more should we celebrate God's commitment that is unvarying and yet free? Isnt that the great paradox of Love? Free and bonded? Bonded freely?

It is so beautiful to contemplate Morality not as a requisit to be a God, no, but a freely chosen nature, a commitment that arises from an already loving self...

Real conversion, as Brown said comes from within*.

a QUOTE in Bubers I and Thou, reads:

"God is the mysterium tremendum that appears and overthrows, but he is also the mystery of the self-evident, nearer to me than my I... How would man exist if God did not need him, and how would you exist? You need God in order to be, and God needs you— for that is the meaning of your life."

Also: "Some would deny any legitimate use of the word God because it has been misused so much. Certainly it is the most burdened of all human words. Precisely for that reason it is the most imperishable and unavoidable. And how much weight has all erroneous talk about God's nature and works (although there never has been nor can be any such talk that is not erroneous) compared with the one truth that all men who have addressed God really meant him? For whoever pronounces the word God and really means Thou, addresses, no matter what his delusion, the true Thou of his life that cannot be restricted by any other and to whom he stands in a relationship that includes all others.... Whoever abhors the name and fancies that he is godless— when he addresses with his whole devoted being the Thou of his life that cannot be restricted by any other, he addresses God."

Regards,