2nd Nephi 711:

[askandanswer]

2nd Nephi 11:7 

7 For if there be ^ano Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no ^bcreation. But there is a God, and ^che is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

If this verse is true, what do you think might be some of the possible implications?

I've worded this in a deliberately vague manner so as to attract a larger number of responses. 

[zil2]

I'm wondering if you saw the post over in the revived dead thread where someone commented on this.  IMO, this is not saying what the other poster asserted.  I think the verse in question is logic working it's way backwards, à la:

The Atonement is central to God's plan, per scriptures.  Therefore, if you argue there is no Christ, you also have to argue there is no God (because Christ is central to God's plan).  And if you argue there is no God, then you also have to argue that we don't exist, since without God, there's no one to create us (apparently, the idea of evolving out of primordial soup, sans creator, hadn't occurred to anyone yet).

[Vort]

3 hours ago, askandanswer said:

2nd Nephi 11:7 

7 For if there be ^ano Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no ^bcreation. But there is a God, and ^che is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

If this verse is true, what do you think might be some of the possible implications?

I've worded this in a deliberately vague manner so as to attract a larger number of responses. 

I agree with @zil2. This is an example of reductio ad absurdum, a logical fallacy described by basically showing that the proposed argument is "If A, then B, but B is self-negating or otherwise absurd and impossible, so therefore Not A." In this case, A is "There is no Christ", and B is "we do not exist".

In this case, A and B are connected by an intermediate step, C, which is "There is no God." So the line of thought is A→C→B, "There is no Christ, therefore there is no God, therefore we do not exist." Since we do in fact exist, it must therefore follow that God exists, and so therefore there is a Christ.

Now, you may reject some premise or application of the logic. You may say, for example, that "no Christ" does not imply "no God", or that "no God" does not imply "we don't exist". But the logic is sound. The argument was apparently convincing to Jacob, who made it, and we may suppose to his hearers. 

[Traveler]

I also agree with @zil2 and @Vort

I wonder and speculate that when the scripture speaks of G-d and creation the reference is specific to our Father in Heaven.  I also speculate that Genesis and other scripture reference to creation is specific to our solar system and our earth as we are currently living on it.

I understand that our G-d has created worlds without end – but of those I do not have any understanding how those worlds are connected to G-d by covenant.  Perhaps there could be a G-d without a Messiah – but such notion is meaningless to me and my mortal circumstance.   I would not be having a mortal experience meaningful to both me and to our Father in Heaven except that there is a Messiah (Christ).  There could not be a plan of salvation – but perhaps there could be and altered plan, without agency, as was attempted by Lucifer.

 

The Traveler

[askandanswer]

I was thinking that the role of Mediator, or Messiah, only became necessary when the Plan of Salvation was settled and agreed upon. Since the plan existed before the role, and if the plan was made by God, it would then follow that God existed prior to the Meditator and that there could be a God without a Christ. 

[CV75]

On 8/31/2023 at 7:06 PM, askandanswer said:

2nd Nephi 11:7 

7 For if there be ^ano Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no ^bcreation. But there is a God, and ^che is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

If this verse is true, what do you think might be some of the possible implications?

I've worded this in a deliberately vague manner so as to attract a larger number of responses. 

He is bearing testimony, so any particular school of logic that I am aware of hasn't much to do with it, even though he does suggest he is proving the truth of the coming of Christ (verse 4). His method for proving this truth is to provide more than one witness of the coming of Christ (his, Jacob's, Moses' and Isaiah's -- verses 2 - 4). His soul delights in this testimony (per Alma 32: 28, so it is real). 

6 And my soul delighteth in proving unto my people that ^asave Christ should come all men must perish.

7 For if there be ^ano [coming of] Christ there be no God [for Christ is God and Nephi and the others only vainly imagine His coming]; and if there be no God [or Christ, there is nothing to be saved, and] we are not [for we have an end], for there could have been no ^bcreation [but just a "thing of naught" and not fulfilling the purpose of creation, which is to not have an end, i.e., resurrection and spiritual rebirth -- see 2 Nephi 2]. But [I will reiterate my testimony, that] there is a God, and ^che is Christ [and thus creates and saves by "coming down" -- as He did in creating Adam and Eve and as He will do again in the Second Coming] and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

Edited September 2, 2023 by CV75