The Powers That Be

An interesting conversation is going on at the Mormon blog By Common Consent. On Monday poster John C. asked readers to cast their votes in a poll asking, “What is more powerful? Eternal Law [or] God?” As I write this, with 282 votes logged, 60% of the respondents believe Eternal Law is more powerful than God.

I suppose all of terms used in this poll really need to be unpacked in order to understand what Mormons mean when they say Eternal Law is more powerful than God. Does “God” mean Heavenly Father? Jesus Christ? The Holy Spirit? What, exactly, is “Eternal Law”? And what is meant by the word “powerful”?

While I admit that I don’t really know the specifics of what the poll is asking, I still see this as another area in which the Mormon faith differs widely from the Christian faith.

God’s omnipotence is one of His basic and uncompromising attributes. To a Christian, this means God holds all power; He is sovereign over all. Mormons are also taught that God is omnipotent (see Mosiah 3:5), but if Eternal Law (or anything else) is more powerful than He is, a different definition of “omnipotent” would need to be employed. What might that definition be according to LDS thought?

In Christianity, God is recognized as the ultimate lawgiver. His laws are expressions of His holiness and sovereign will. God is not accountable to anyone or anything outside of Himself, and there are no external “Eternal Laws” that God is required to obey. Furthermore, there cannot be law without a lawgiver. If God is subordinate to an external Eternal Law, as some Mormons believe, where did Eternal Law originate? Where is the First Cause? If there is none, then the Eternal Law to which the Mormon God is subordinate is ultimately abstract and impersonal, stripping away all meaning, value and purpose of life that has a personal being as its true origin.

Here’s some more food for thought. By Common Consent commenter Mark D. wrote,

“So what does it take to make God the author of all laws, including natural (timelessly inviolable) ones? Nothing short of ex nihilo creation. So either matter and intelligence are eternally self existent independent of God (as Joseph Smith taught and D&C 93 implies) or God created time, space, matter, and intelligence out of nothing as a strict reading of D&C 88 implies.

“If God did no such thing, than he can hardly be considered to be the author of natural law. As Joseph Smith said in the King Follett Discourse, God himself could not create himself. That is a classic assertion of a natural law.”

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in God the Father. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to The Powers That Be

  1. Lautensack says:

    GB wrote: GB: NO! See John 1:14
    Splitting my question in two districts it, and is deceptive. I have no problem with Christ being the literal Son of God, it is the sense in which He is the Only Son of God that we differ and to which my question was addressed.

    GB wrote: If the Father and the Son exist outside of time, how could there be a “when” there?
    Jesus Christ has ALWAYS been “a distinct person” from the Father.

    Perhaps you did not understand the question I was asking you to respond to a question about LDS theology in the LDS philosophical framework. Since in the LDS framework God and Jesus are in time has there ever been a time when Jesus was not in existence? Furthermore all Christians will agree that the Son and the Father are distinct and separate persons.

    GB wrote: The whole premise of your question reveals that you don’t know Mormon theology.
    You really should try to understand LDS theology before go about trying to convince us we are wrong. You could start by at least thinking outside your “ex nihilo” box.

    I agree questions about LDS theology must be answered in the LDS Philosophical framework which is why I am trying to get you to do. This does not mean that one cannot judge the philosophical system and find it lacking.

    GB wrote: Do you have a scripture to support your assertion? What about 1 Jn. 3:2?
    1 John 3:2 in context declares how we will be like Him, that is in His moral character.

    GB wrote: So if God pulls us out of our time “container”, are we then “eternal” also?
    We would be eternal but not like He is eternal, we will be without end but not without beginning.

    GB wrote: Can God create a rock so big that He can’t move it?
    C.S. Lewis Wrote: Can a mortal ask questions which God finds unanswerable? Quite easily, I should think. All nonsense questions are unanswerable.

    Lautensack

  2. Michael P says:

    GB,
    Your responses really are starting to look rather foolish. Sorry.
    You approach these questions like so many other critics of Christianity. Trying to put God in a box that is understandable by us humans is not going do the trick.
    God is eternal, omnipresent,and omniscient. His definition of time is so foreign to us we cannot begin to understand it. As others have said, really he’s outside of time. He’s that big and that powerful. You want to limit him to our time and space. Most of all, you want to limit your understanding of how powerful he can be.
    Let’s just say that God is powerful enough to create a rock he cannot lift, really, besides a logically impossible situation, what does this prove? You limit God. And if God was created, you’ve also limited him.
    Do you really want to do that? I mean seriously, why do you want to limit our creator? What is it that you get out of the concept? Does it make you feel better? Does it make you feel more powerful, like you’ve got more control?
    And what’s painfully clear to me is that you WANT a limited god. You want one with powers so limited that he can contradict himself, act illogically, all so you can become just like him.
    If you say our God is incapable of creating another god like himself, what is it that is gained? How much of a detriment is that, really? Again, all I can think of that it shows is that God is limited, and as such lifts us up closer to him.
    Funny thing is the Bible clearly states there is only one God. We see that this God knows all and is in all and created all. We see that he could destroy us on a whim if he chose. We see he also gave us a choice.
    I prefer to view God as being the law and the law is God. Christ came to fulfil the law. Nothing is outside of God, and nothing is outside the law. Everything we do is to be judged by the law and by God. The two have existed for eternity, and will last into eternity.
    You can limit God if you wish, but what really is gained?

  3. GB says:

    L: Since in the LDS framework God and Jesus are in time has there ever been a time when Jesus was not in existence?

    GB: Again you show your ignorance of Mormon theology and yet “claim” to know more about what we believe than we do. Why don’t you provide a reference from Mormon Scripture to support you assertion, since you “think” you “know” so much? You could start with D&C 93:29.

    L: Furthermore all Christians will agree that the Son and the Father are distinct and separate persons.

    GB: Only by changing the meaning of “person” from what it really means. To be a separate “person” means to be a separate being. I have conversed with a lot of Christians who don’t really believe that the Father and the Son are separate persons/beings. I suspect that you don’t believe they are separate beings either.

    Let’s be clear here in LDS doctrine, Jesus Christ has “ALWAYS” been a separate being from the Father. What about the word ALWAYS don’t you understand?

    If something is created/organized from eternally existing constituents, is it not also eternal? So it is possible for something to be both “created”/organized and eternal.

    L: I agree questions about LDS theology must be answered in the LDS Philosophical framework which is why I am trying to get you to do.

    GB: And being very unsuccessful because you obviously don’t really know LDS philosophy and can’t get out of your “ex nihilo” box.

    L: This does not mean that one cannot judge the philosophical system and find it lacking.

    GB: To judge fairly one must have an accurate understanding, which you obviously do NOT.

    To be continued.

  4. GB says:

    L: 1 John 3:2 in context declares how we will be like Him, that is in His moral character.

    GB: It is not limited to just “moral character”. He will have a physical body of flesh and bone because that is the way He IS.

    L: We would be eternal but not like He is eternal, we will be without end but not without beginning.

    GB: Do you have Bible verse to support this assertion that there is a difference?

    So being “eternal” doesn’t require existence backwards for eternity? That also means that for God to be eternal doesn’t require His existence backwards for eternity either. That is an interesting admission on your part.

    The question,“Can God create a rock so big that He can’t move it?”, maybe a silly but is does reveal that God has limitations on His power.

    Question you haven’t addressed yet.

    Why didn’t He just disregard the law of justice? Or change it? Was He incapable of doing so?

    What was He doing for eternity in the dark with nothing?

    You are still avoiding this issue. Your God is INCAPABLE of creating another God like Himself. Get it?

  5. Lautensack says:

    GB wrote: Why don’t you provide a reference from Mormon Scripture to support you assertion, since you “think” you “know” so much? You could start with D&C 93:29.
    So rather than answer the question you throw up a smoke screen. Fair enough. Thus from the cited passage then that as to my original question from October 20th it would be fair to say that God is not the literal Father of Jesus Christ since according to your own words Jesus and all of mankind was in the beginning with God and none of us came into being by the hand of God.

    GB wrote: Only by changing the meaning of “person” from what it really means. To be a separate “person” means to be a separate being. I have conversed with a lot of Christians who don’t really believe that the Father and the Son are separate persons/beings. I suspect that you don’t believe they are separate beings either.
    Please provide biblical support that explicitly states that a being must be monolithic.
    GB wrote: Let’s be clear here in LDS doctrine, Jesus Christ has “ALWAYS” been a separate being from the Father. What about the word ALWAYS don’t you understand?
    I agree that such is the position of the LDS Church, hence the question on who came first or if Jesus had a beginning.

    GB wrote: If something is created/organized from eternally existing constituents, is it not also eternal? So it is possible for something to be both “created”/organized and eternal.
    Yes, philosophically it is possible. Unfortunately here you are borrowing from Plato (The Timaeus) and not Scripture to arrive at this conclusion. Creatio ex nihilo is a Hebraic concept not a Hellenic one.

    GB wrote: It is not limited to just “moral character”. He will have a physical body of flesh and bone because that is the way He IS.
    Please support from the context that John is not speaking merely of God’s moral character. Also please provide Biblical support that Spirit has flesh and bones.

    Continued…

  6. Lautensack says:

    GB wrote: Do you have Bible verse to support this assertion that there is a difference?
    Do you have a biblical verse that would support the supposition that man is without beginning?

    GB wrote: So being “eternal” doesn’t require existence backwards for eternity? That also means that for God to be eternal doesn’t require His existence backwards for eternity either. That is an interesting admission on your part.
    I am not stating that God had a beginning, I do I concede that as God is from everlasting to everlasting. (Nehemiah 9:5) What I will concede is that man can be eternal in that he has no end but not in that He has no beginning.

    GB wrote: God has limitations on His power.
    Yes, God is self limited, that is He is limited by His nature, what He has sworn to do, and not subject to such absurdities.

    GB wrote: Your God is INCAPABLE of creating another God like Himself.
    I agree in that to be God is to be uncreated. However God could indeed create another being like Himself, the difference being that such a being would be created, unlike God.

    Lautensack

  7. GB says:

    L: . . . it would be fair to say that God is not the literal Father of Jesus Christ since according to your own words Jesus and all of mankind was in the beginning with God and none of us came into being by the hand of God.

    GB: You are presenting a FALSE dichotomy. Both your father and you were in the beginning with God, are you not your father’s literal son?

    L: Creation ex nihilo is a Hebraic concept not a Hellenic one.

    GB: Wrongo!!

    The concept of creatio ex nihilo
    “began to be adumbrated in Christian circles shortly before Galen’s time. The first Christian thinker to articulate the rudiments of a doctrine of creatio ex nihilo was the Gnostic theologian Basilides, who flourished in the second quarter of the second century. Basilides worked out an elaborate cosmogony as he sought to think through the implications of Christian teaching in light of the platonic cosmogony. He rejected the analogy of the human maker, the craftsman who carves a piece of wood, as an anthropomorphism that severely limited the power of God. God, unlike mortals, created the world out of ‘non-existing’ matter. He first brought matter into being through the creation of ‘seeds’, and it is this created stuff that is fashioned, according to His will, into the cosmos.” (Gerhard May, Schoepfung Aus Dem Nichts: Die Entstehung Der Lehre Von Der Creatio Ex Nihilo (Arbeiten Zur Kirchengeschichte, Vol 48) (Walter De Gruyter Inc, 1978), 63-85. ISBN 3110072041; as quoted in Robert Louis Wilken, The Christians as the Romans saw Them (Yale University Press, 2003), 88–89. ISBN 0300098391.)

    This is my last post of the day. Tired of the limitations here (size and #)? Go to; http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/mormondebate/

    and reply there.

  8. Lautensack says:

    GB wrote: You are presenting a FALSE dichotomy. Both your father and you were in the beginning with God, are you not your father’s literal son?
    Allow me to phrase the question better, in light of this view God did not create Jesus in His image as Jesus already existed, likewise He did not create man in His image since man already existed.

    GB Wrote: Wrongo!!
    I with your source, the doctrine of Creatio Ex Nihilo was not brought into Christian circles until the second century AD. However we are not debating when it was accepted by Christians, we are looking at it’s origin. I submit 2 Maccabees 7:28 “So I urge you, my child, to look at the sky and the earth. Consider everything you see there, and realize that God made it all from nothing, just as he made the human race.” 2 Maccabees is a Jewish writing from the Second Century BC. While I do not accept this work as a work from which I will take doctrine, I does contain the Hebraic concept of Creatio Ex Nihilo prior to the birth of Christianity. We do not see the Platonic concept of Matter being co-eternal with God here.

    Lautensack

  9. GB says:

    L,
    “With Basilides [a second century Gnostic philosopher], the conception of matter was raised to a higher plane. The distinction of subject and object was preserved, so that the action of the Transcendent God was still that of creation and not of evolution; but it was “out of that which was not” that He made things to be . . . . THE BASIS OF THE THEORY WAS PLATONIC, though some of the terms were borrowed from both Aristotle and the Stoics. It became itself the basis for the theory which ultimately prevailed in the Church. The transition appears in Tatian [ca. 170 A.D.]” (Edwin Hatch, The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church, 195–196.)

    “Creatio ex nihilo appeared suddenly in the latter half of the second century c.e. Not only did creatio ex nihilo lack precedent, it stood in firm opposition to all the philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. As we have seen, the doctrine WAS NOT forced upon the Christian community by their revealed tradition, either in Biblical texts or THE EARLY JEWISH INTERPRETATION OF THEM. As we will also see it was not a position attested in the New Testament doctrine or even sub-apostolic writings. It was a position taken by the apologists of the late second century, Tatian and Theophilus, and developed by various ecclesiastical writers thereafter, by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen. Creatio ex nihilo represents an innovation in the interpretive traditions of revelation and cannot be explained merely as a continuation of tradition.” (James N. Hubler, “Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy through Aquinas” (PhD diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 102;)(Emphasis mine.)

    I wonder if the same person that added to 1 Jn 5:7-8 also added those two little words “from nothing” to Maccabees.

    See footnote http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=69&chapter=5&version=31#fen-NIV-30617a

  10. Lautensack says:

    GB,
    With all due respect your source is not addressing the issue of Mormonisms Platonic roots where the Demiurge, that is the Creator, “fashioned and shaped” the universe out of pre-existing matter. This demiurge lacks the ability to create matter. I am not speaking of what Mormonism might call “the intelligences” which is the God to which Hubler and Hatch are referring to, rather the Demiurge, the one who creates out of chaos, that is pre-existing matter. Please note Plato is not using the term demiurge in the gnostic view where it is a bad god but a good one.

    He (Demiurge/God) was good, and the good can never have any jealousy of anything. And being free from jealousy, he desired that all things should be as like himself as they could be. This is in the truest sense the origin of creation and of the world, as we shall do well in believing on the testimony of wise men: God desired that all things should be good and nothing bad, so far as this was attainable. Wherefore also finding the whole visible sphere not at rest, but moving in an irregular and disorderly fashion, out of disorder he brought order, considering that this was in every way better than the other. Now the deeds of the best could never be or have been other than the fairest; and the creator, reflecting on the things which are by nature visible, found that no unintelligent creature taken as a whole was fairer than the intelligent taken as a whole; and that intelligence could not be present in anything which was devoid of soul. For which reason, when he was framing the universe, he put intelligence in soul, and soul in body, that he might be the creator of a work which was by nature fairest and best. Wherefore, using the language of probability, we may say that the world became a living creature truly endowed with soul and intelligence by the providence of God.
    Timaeus by Plato

    Provide a textual variant for 2 Maccabees 7:28 to support your claim that such was a latter addition.

  11. GB says:

    “And that you may learn that it was from our teachers – we mean the account given through the prophets – that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, hear the very words spoken through Moses, who, as shown above, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spake thus: ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. And so God said, Let there be light; and it was so.’ So that both Plato and they who agree with him, and we ourselves, have learned, and you also can be convinced, that by the word of God the whole world was made out of the substance spoken of before by Moses.” (Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 59, 1-5.)

    “Plato and THOSE OF HIS SCHOOL agree that God is ungenerated and the father and maker of all. Then, they suppose matter is divine and ungenerated and they say that it was flourishing with God. If God is ungenerated and all matter is ungenerated, no longer is God the maker of all as the Platonists say, neither is the sovereignty of God shown, by their own account. Further, just as God is changeless because he is ungenerated, so also matter is also ungenerated, it is also changeless and equal to God. For that which is generated is mutable and changeable. The unregenerated is immutable and unchangeable.
    For how is it great, if God made the cosmos from subject matter? For even the human artisan when he receives matter from someone, can make what he wants from it. The power of God is made manifest in this, that he made what he wanted from the non-existent (ex ouk onton).” [ Ad Autolycum, 2.4. Text and translation by Robert M. Grant, Theophilus of Antioch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 26.] (emphasis mine)

  12. Lautensack says:

    GB,

    Although Plato said that mind orders everything, he did not develop a theory of creation. Theories of creation typically hold, that things are created out of nothing. But Plato’s explanation of the origin of the visible world bypasses this notion of creation. Granted, Plato does say that “that which becomes must necessarily become through an agency of some cause.” However, this agent which he calls the divine Craftsman or Demiurge, does not bring new things into being but rather confronts and orders what already exists in chaotic form. We have, then, a Picture of the Craftsman with the material on which he will work. Thus, in explaining the generation of all things as we know them in the visible world, Plato assumes the existence of the ingredients of things, namely that out of which things are made, the Demiurge who is the Craftsman, and the Forms or patters after which things are made. – Stumpf, Samuel Enoch, and James Fieser. Philosophy: History and Problems [New York, McGraw Hill, 2008], 65.

    Please note that Plato did not come up with a doctrine of creation, that is how the stuff the Demiurge worked was made, rather he said “that which becomes must necessarily become through an agency of some cause.” [Noted above.] If one does not see the parallel between Plato’s creation by the Demiurge and Mormon creation is deceiving them self. Furthermore if you and your sources are asserting that Aristotle was a platonist or Neo-Platonist, who had a far closer view of creation to ex nihilo than Plato, as your source to your first post on 23, October 2008 then I concede this point because under such a definition any form of western thought falls into the category of platonic or neo-platonic thought since it is either a reaction against Plato or in agreement with him.

    Lautensack

  13. GB says:

    “And that you may learn that it was from our teachers – WE MEAN THE ACCOUNT GIVEN THROUGH THE PROPHETS – that Plato borrowed his statement that God, having altered matter which was shapeless, made the world, HEAR THE VERY WORDS SPOKEN THROUGH MOSES, who, as shown above, was the first prophet, and of greater antiquity than the Greek writers; and through whom the spirit of prophecy, signifying how and from what materials God at first formed the world, spake thus: ‘In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was invisible and unfurnished, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. And so God said, Let there be light; and it was so.’ SO THAT BOTH PLATO AND THEY WHO AGREE WITH HIM, AND WE OURSELVES, HAVE LEARNED, AND YOU ALSO CAN BE CONVINCED, THAT BY THE WORD OF GOD THE WHOLE WORLD WAS MADE OUT OF THE SUBSTANCE SPOKEN OF BEFORE BY MOSES.” (Justin Martyr, 1 Apology 59, 1-5.)

    Plato got his concept of the creation from existing material FROM MOSES!!!! Get it?

    Now you may ask, “Where did Moses get it?” The answer would be, THE SAME PLACE JOSEPH SMITH GOT IT! Revelation from God!

    Please provide the authors autograph of 2 Maccabees 7:28 to show that no changes have been made.

    Man, being in the beginning with God doesn’t preclude that man was then in the same form/image as God. Get it?

    Also “In the beginning” can mean a lot of different things. “In the beginning of WHAT?” is a good question.

    It is nice to have you finally admit that your God is incapable of creating another God like Himself.

    L: I do I concede that as God is from everlasting to everlasting.

    GB: The hills are everlasting as well. Gen. 49:26, Hab. 3:6. Everlasting isn’t the same as eternal.

    L: Also please provide Biblical support that Spirit has flesh and bones.

    GB:In the context of our discussion, you are implying that Jesus will NOT have a body of flesh and bones when He returns. Chapter and verse please!

  14. Lautensack says:

    GB wrote: Plato got his concept of the creation from existing material FROM MOSES!!!! Get it?
    Now you may ask, “Where did Moses get it?” The answer would be, THE SAME PLACE JOSEPH SMITH GOT IT! Revelation from God!

    So now you’re changing your stance to say that Plato did teach creatio ex materia? Justin would agree with your point of view, I would argue that it is his neo-Platonism synergism of Greek philosophy with Christian theology lead him to write some foolish things. Fortunately others such as Tertullian, who opposed this Platonic view and supported one based in scripture rather than Plato.

    GB wrote: Please provide the authors autograph of 2 Maccabees 7:28 to show that no changes have been made.
    This is a silly argument that assumes the manuscript evidence is not present or reliable. If such were the standard we must also seek to see the Golden Plates.

    GB wrote: Man, being in the beginning with God doesn’t preclude that man was then in the same form/image as God. Get it?
    So man was in the beginning with God in the same form and image as God, then God made man in His image… I got ya.

    GB wrote: It is nice to have you finally admit that your God is incapable of creating another God like Himself.
    As I stated before the only thing limiting to God is Himself and His nature, you are appealing to paradox asking for the creation of an uncreated being.

    GB wrote: The hills are everlasting as well. Gen. 49:26, Hab. 3:6. Everlasting isn’t the same as eternal.
    These texts do not teach that the hills are from everlasting to everlasting.

    GB wrote:In the context of our discussion, you are implying that Jesus will NOT have a body of flesh and bones when He returns. Chapter and verse please!
    Not at all, Jesus is Fully God and Fully Man. Being Fully Man, He was raised in a body. This in no way implies that God [the Father] has a body, since God [the Father] is not a man.

    Lautensack

  15. Sharon Lindbloom says:

    This thread is closed.

Comments are closed.