Define Sin

[All-American]

Who says there needs to be a being who governs the universal law?

Everything in our scripture describing the relationship between God and Law shows that God Himself is subordinate to law. Citing the plurality of Gods will not solve the conundrum, either; it merely presents a chicken and egg problem.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by All-American

Who says there needs to be a being who governs the universal law?

Everything in our scripture describing the relationship between God and Law shows that God Himself is subordinate to law. Citing the plurality of Gods will not solve the conundrum, either; it merely presents a chicken and egg problem.

Yes, but such a discussion does not preclude the existence of God, or rather the importance of God … I am responding to Robin’s assertion that there is no need for God.

The only silly thing about a chicken and egg discussion is an unwillingness to submit to the idea that there is no beginning or end, ergo; it is folly to try and determine which came first.

What would be the point of universal law if there were no one to govern it and or be subjected to it? It exists because God and his creations exist, and God and his creations exist because the law exists … again, it is folly to try and determine which came first –one cannot exist without the other!

[tooblue]

And I am not certain why this is such a conundrum?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Yes, but such a discussion does not preclude the existence of God, or rather the importance of God … I am responding to Robin’s assertion that there is no need for God.

The only silly thing about a chicken and egg discussion is an unwillingness to submit to the idea that there is no beginning or end, ergo; it is folly to try and determine which came first.

What would be the point of universal law if there were no one to govern it and or be subjected to it? It exists because God and his creations exist, and God and his creations exist because the law exists … again, it is folly to try and determine which came first –one cannot exist without the other!

And yet, the scriptures and teachings of the prophets clearly teach that God is subordinate to laws. Twice in the Book of Mormon, for example, it is taught that God must adhere to certain laws or "he would cease to be God." The lectures on faith are a useful discourse on the characteristics God must adhere to in order for other beings to have faith in Him. If we believe, as Joseph Smith taught, that God was once a man like us and became what He now is, then there is no chicken and egg problem-- Law came first, then came God. (The Prophet has clearly engaged in folly here, as he determined which came first.)

Besides, we do teach that there is no beginning or end, if that "hie to kolob" song means anything to us. But that's another matter altogether.

I'm with you in disagreeing with Robin regarding the "necessity" of God, but the argument you're using isn't leak proof either.

[tooblue]

I would not go so far as to suggest the prophet engaged in folly, nor am I comfortable with the insinuation -please don't project my argument as pertaining to others teachings ... what's more JS did not determine what came first but merely gave credence to the idea that if God were once a man like us, he then would have been subject to a God who is subject to the law.

In other words if the law exists, God exists ;-)

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by All-American

And yet, the scriptures and teachings of the prophets clearly teach that God is subordinate to laws. Twice in the Book of Mormon, for example, it is taught that God must adhere to certain laws or "he would cease to be God." The lectures on faith are a useful discourse on the characteristics God must adhere to in order for other beings to have faith in Him. If we believe, as Joseph Smith taught, that God was once a man like us and became what He now is, then there is no chicken and egg problem-- Law came first, then came God. (The Prophet has clearly engaged in folly here, as he determined which came first.)

Besides, we do teach that there is no beginning or end, if that "hie to kolob" song means anything to us. But that's another matter altogether.

I'm with you in disagreeing with Robin regarding the "necessity" of God, but the argument you're using isn't leak proof either.

Are those that govern not subordinate to the law? Or rather, in order to govern effectively must they not be subordinate to the law?

[All-American]

Originally Posted by tooblue

JS did not determine what came first but merely gave credence to the idea that if God were once a man like us, he then would have been subject to a God who is subject to the law.

Hence the chicken and the egg problem.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Are those that govern not subordinate to the law? Or rather, in order to govern effectively must they not be subordinate to the law?

My point exactly. Law comes before lawmakers, and the power by which lawmakers receive their imperium maius is greater than themselves. We therefore cannot say that God is the source of law in the universe and more than we would say that the kitchen sink is the source of water.

As to the necessity of God, the original argument put forth by Robin: If, as I believe, God governs the heavens and earth, His necessity is self evident. If God doesn't exist, he isn't needed. The question regarding his "necessity" is a reduntant one, focusing on semantics and distracting attention from the REAL question: is there a God, and what is He like?

[Robin]

1. Most of Christiandom seems to subscribe to 'dog morality.' We obey so that we can go live again with God (the dog wants to be with its master) and if we do not obey, we will get a serious ass whooping (the dog fears the master's wrath). The LDS discussions, which are designed to appeal to 'most of Christiandom' seem to preach this message as well (the purpose of life is to live well so that we can return again to the presence of our all-loving father in heaven. To be damned means to live for eternity in the absence of God). But I agree with TooBlue on this one... the TRUE essence of LDS doctrine is ETERNAL PROGRESS FOR ALL. That has a great appeal to me, and even after years of disbelief, I continue to make choices based on some intrinsic LDS sense that the experiences we have in this life will benefit us in the existence to come. I think the LDS religion, at the core, does a better job than most Christian religions at avoid the pitfall of 'dog morality.'

2. I have to agree with All-American about the nature of a universal law. The only view that can make the least bit of sense is what Joseph Smith and AA seem to suggest -- that there exists a universal law to which even God is subject. God can NOT govern this law, unless the word 'govern' means something different to you than it means to most people.

3. Point 2 should not preclude the 'need' for God. If the universal law is as absolute as gravity, one could argue that human ignorance will subject us to the painful part of the universal law in the same way that lemmings are subject to the painful part of gravity. "All we like sheep have gone astray." We know not what we do, and so like lemmings, we are doomed. God, in this scenario, might simply be a lemming catcher with a big pillowy baseball mitt. Maybe that is the atonement, and that makes God necessary.

4. If God is necessary for the atonement (point 3) then how do we receive the benefit of the atonement? I addressed this in my previous post. It is either completely free, or it is conditional. Almost all of Christianity, including Mormons, argue that it is conditional. But condition to what?

At this point one usually believes one of the following lines:

A. The Universal law is unfathomable by mortals. We lack the tools to understand it. What this life is really about is to make sure that we meet the conditions of Grace so that we can benefit from the atonement and avoid the unknown consequences of missing out on Christ. This view, imo, is 'dog morality,' since it is a reaction against fear of the unknown in favor of some abstract sense of progress toward an unknowable end in harmony with an unknowable (at this point) universal law.

B. The atonement is universal and free. In this case, if I choose to live a virtuous life, it is simply out of my own personal love of God and/or others, and in fact doesn't even require a belief in God. Of course without a little bit of brimstone, a lot of people might choose to act out of ugly self-interest rather than choose virtue.

I tend to think that the LDS doctrine is a mix of these two beliefs, with members falling all over the map in terms of personal belief. I don't think the prophets help too much to clarify these things. My own experience with higher ups is that if you ever get the chance to discuss these kinds of unknowables with any depth, they will tend to emphasize whatever aspect of the doctrine they think will keep you coming to church.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Robin

1. Most of Christiandom seems to subscribe to 'dog morality.' We obey so that we can go live again with God (the dog wants to be with its master) and if we do not obey, we will get a serious ass whooping (the dog fears the master's wrath). The LDS discussions, which are designed to appeal to 'most of Christiandom' seem to preach this message as well (the purpose of life is to live well so that we can return again to the presence of our all-loving father in heaven. To be damned means to live for eternity in the absence of God). But I agree with TooBlue on this one... the TRUE essence of LDS doctrine is ETERNAL PROGRESS FOR ALL. That has a great appeal to me, and even after years of disbelief, I continue to make choices based on some intrinsic LDS sense that the experiences we have in this life will benefit us in the existence to come. I think the LDS religion, at the core, does a better job than most Christian religions at avoid the pitfall of 'dog morality.'

2. I have to agree with All-American about the nature of a universal law. The only view that can make the least bit of sense is what Joseph Smith and AA seem to suggest -- that there exists a universal law to which even God is subject. God can NOT govern this law, unless the word 'govern' means something different to you than it means to most people.

3. Point 2 should not preclude the 'need' for God. If the universal law is as absolute as gravity, one could argue that human ignorance will subject us to the painful part of the universal law in the same way that lemmings are subject to the painful part of gravity. "All we like sheep have gone astray." We know not what we do, and so like lemmings, we are doomed. God, in this scenario, might simply be a lemming catcher with a big pillowy baseball mitt. Maybe that is the atonement, and that makes God necessary.

4. If God is necessary for the atonement (point 3) then how do we receive the benefit of the atonement? I addressed this in my previous post. It is either completely free, or it is conditional. Almost all of Christianity, including Mormons, argue that it is conditional. But condition to what?

At this point one usually believes one of the following lines:

A. The Universal law is unfathomable by mortals. We lack the tools to understand it. What this life is really about is to make sure that we meet the conditions of Grace so that we can benefit from the atonement and avoid the unknown consequences of missing out on Christ. This view, imo, is 'dog morality,' since it is a reaction against fear of the unknown in favor of some abstract sense of progress toward an unknowable end in harmony with an unknowable (at this point) universal law.

B. The atonement is universal and free. In this case, if I choose to live a virtuous life, it is simply out of my own personal love of God and/or others, and in fact doesn't even require a belief in God. Of course without a little bit of brimstone, a lot of people might choose to act out of ugly self-interest rather than choose virtue.

I tend to think that the LDS doctrine is a mix of these two beliefs, with members falling all over the map in terms of personal belief. I don't think the prophets help too much to clarify these things. My own experience with higher ups is that if you ever get the chance to discuss these kinds of unknowables with any depth, they will tend to emphasize whatever aspect of the doctrine they think will keep you coming to church.

I wouldn't say that God is necessary for the atonement alone. We recognize the need for governing officials who are nevertheless subject themselves to a greater law. Likewise, though God is subject to universal law, he is the creator and ruler of our world. In this sense, tooblue has been right on the spot-- God is "necessary" because He instituted order in the midst of what had previously been chaos ("matter unorganized"). It's not precisely correct to say that God is the source of all law and order, seeing that He is subordinate to Law, but he does nevertheless govern.

The church does include the "dog mentality," as Robin has put it, to an extent. We love our Heavenly Father, and we want to be with Him. But a plan of salvation that forces so much effort and exertion in order to make our final state equal to our first state is a plan of redundancy, made worse by the casualties inflicted. I always taught on my mission that the plan was made for us to be WITH God, but also LIKE God. And nobody has ever objected to my teaching that concept.

As for the two lines, I can't agree completely with either of them (which could be the point Robin is making). I don't think the problem is that humans can't fathom universal law-- every intelligent being has the basic ability to discern right from wrong. The problem arises because we can't adhere perfectly to what we know to be right. Every mortal being, save Christ, has done something he knew was wrong.

But neither can one accept the atonement without an understanding or a belief of its source. Could somebody spend all eternity mingling with perfect beings, all the while not understanding why it is that he has been granted the privelage to be in their presence? The self-consciousness alone would be oppressive beyond measure. I've always believed that the final state of men would be the place they would be most comfortable. God would let everybody back into the Celestial kingdom, if they could handle it. Our obedience of the commandments and our engendering of love towards God and man, therefore, is nothing more than conditioning ourselves to understand the source of the atonement and capacitize ourselves to receive it.