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.”
This article is spot on because we can talk to Mormons about all of the troubling aspects of Mormonism from Joseph Smith’s proclivity for multiple wives including those women all ready married and teenage girls, the evidence that overwhelmingly discredits the BoM as a historically factual book, his multiple takes on his first vision, his treasure hunting and use of a peep stone in the occult practice of scrying and the blatant inconsistancies in the “revelations” to Mormon authorities that pushes doctrine all around the Mormon theological map.
But the crux of the issue is “Who is God?” The Mormon god shares none of the attributes of the God of the Bible. The Mormon god is a little god who used to be a man but was able to work his way up the ladder to deification in the inner rim of the Mormon Celestial kingdom. I can see why this view of God appealed to Joseph Smith. He could take his maglomania and narcissim into the spirit world and proclaim himself a god. Pretty standard stuff for a new ager steeped in the ways of the occult. What a head trip!
I have issues with worshipping just some random dude that could have been my neighbor if I was on his planet, that inherited some neat super powers.. I don’t know about you.
To a Christian, it makes God sound weak.
What will you guys think of next? God the Father is the supreme lawgiver. He is the grand symbol and arbiter of the law. Law comes from Him. End of story. But I am sure not the end of the thread. Let me guess- we will end up arguing about whether LDS lead people away from Christ to worshipping “another” God.
What a silly question, “what is more powerful-eternal Law or God.” It is meant to stir up division and debate. They are one and the same, but as somebody may have an opinion that is “out there”, an argument will ensue and will reflect little that the church actually teaches.
falcon- love ya my friend. Your claim that there is no evidence for the BOM is certainly persistent. I await the thread that allows us to discuss the book straight up. It seems the threads are usually based on obscure themes- maybe new angles are needed to debate the same topics over and over- I don’t know. But I figure the whole of the LDS church depends on the Book of Mormon being true- every claim depends on it, so I would think that would be a natural center of debate.
I am wondering what the general authorities have to say about this. I would research some quotes on the matter but I am currently acting as a secretary for the law firm I work for while the normal secretary is at lunch..
I think I need Eternal Law defined for me.
FoF,
In Mormonism there were obviously laws that even god the father had to follow in order to become who he is today. Are those laws the same that god the father has for us, his spirit babies?
FoF, please answer us, do you believe it is a historical possibility or even certainty that God the Father was taught this “eternal law” from another Heavenly Father above him in divine lineage?
As BYU professor David Paulson once put it, “God does not have absolute power… but rather the power to maximally utilize natural laws to bring about His purposes.”
Or to put it another way, is God part of the universe (in it and of it) or the creator of the universe (outside it)? The question that follows that one is: If God is truly omniscient, then how can free will exist? The Mormon concept of “finitism” actually comes mostly from the latter.
I have been asking this question for years- I have phrased it a little differently:
What came first Christ or the Light of Christ?
It is the same question, just applied to a different aspect of a different member of the Godhead.
The Light of Christ is our conscience, and it becomes available to every person born. Did Jesus create that light for us to follow, or did he just follow it for us to point the way? The D&C says he had NOT the fullness at first, but progressed grace on grace.
D&C 93:
12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;
13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;
14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.
Was he following the same light we follow?
It seems like a chicken and the egg question. Which of those came first?
I believe in a God of Truth who can not lie. Who says He can not lie? Did He make that rule and impose it on Himself? Did He write the “Eternal Law”? If He was not the author of it, He certainly knew about it, for He is all-knowing.
I believe His most important attributes are: being all-loving and all-wise.
I rather suspect that things are not just good or evil because God says so, but that He says so because that is they way they are. “Eternal Law” may be seen as the ultimate reality. “Eternal Law” may also be seen as “God’s Law” because “Eternal” is His name.
I believe there is One God deserving of our worship, He who was and is the most intelligent of all beings in all eternity, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Most High God, the Eternal Father of heaven and earth, etc.
And, Oh, yeah, I am a Mormon, who prefers the term “Latter-day Saint”, which title keeps me humble, you see. (You probably don’t see–oh, well.)
Fern RL, do you believe there are potentially trillions of beings that exist that are equally all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-wise as your own particular Heavenly Father? Mormonism of course speaks of a God who is “the one God worthy of worship”, but the jaw-dropping qualifier is “for you”. In other words, traditional Mormonism allows for beings under other Heavenly Fathers for whom their own particular Heavenly Father is the “one God worthy of worship”… for them.
See where I’m going? Try not to think about this with tunnel-vision. We are thinking outside of the tunnel in considering the other Gods, the existence of which traditional Mormonism allows for.
When we Christians say there is only one God worthy of worship, we mean it absolutely, not relatively to us.
Grace and peace!
Aaron
My question is “Do Mormons know what they’re talking about?” Now before our Mormon friends turn off, the reason I ask this is because when we read what our Mormon friends often write about concerning the nature and attributes of God, it sounds like an orthodox Christian view. So my quetion means, “Are Mormons aware of the differences, but choose not to make those differences known?” To Christians, this would be considered a sin of ommission. I really don’t know why Mormons would want to omit their clear polytheistic view unless it’s to purposely deceive people into thinking that Mormonism holds to an orthodox Christian view of God-when they clearly don’t. Why won’t Mormons say up front that they believe that in the universe there are millions of gods and that their hope is that they will also become gods and rule their own personal universe from the inner rim of the Celestial kingdom? Joseph Smith said “….the soul-the mind of man-the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessens men in my estimation….The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 352-353) Now I would think that Mormons could do no less than Joseph Smith and clearly articulate what their prophet said regarding the nature of God and His attributes. Really, Christians don’t ask much from Mormons. Simply clearly delineate your beliefs regarding the nature of God and the hope that is within you; that you to will become a god. It’s really not much to ask, is it?
The answer is “No,” so, yes, it is too much to ask.
To All: very interesting thread, and this idea of ‘eternal law, intelligence, mind/spirit/soul of man pre-dating, or co-existing, with GOD pops up again and again on MC.
The phrase from JS quoted above that stands out to me is “the very idea (of God creating out of nothing man’s intelligence and spirit) LESSENS MEN in my estimation.” emph. mine
I think what drove JS, near as I can tell was a twisted desire to raise man, and he was willing to tinker with his GOD package to see that done. His making man into a GOD would set his religion apart from most (not all), and seem ‘bigger, brighter, better….’ I think one of his fundamental errors was not being satisfied with the level of sanctification and glory that GOD does give to man as spelled out in the Bible. He wanted something more, and set out to make it, and looks as if he ‘succeeded’.
FoF: “law comes from Him, end of story..”
maybe end of YOUR story, but you are at odds with MUCH that your leaders have written. You are looking like a revisionist theologian/historian.
This is a very interesting post, because so much of the discussion isn’t clearly described in any set of scripture. God is eternal… we know that. His laws are eternal… we know that. So what is more powerful.. God or Eternal law? I would say both or neither. The idea/belief/doctrine that God obeys the eternal laws that have be determined since the beginning of times is a difficult for any of us to understand (mormon or christian or evangelical or whatever you want to be called) because I don’t think we can comprehend God/Eternity/a beginning without a beginning. Our minds simply don’t work that way…
That being said… I don’t fully understand the eternities, so I won’t participate too fully in this discussion. I will however say that we do believe that we can co-heirs WITH Christ, and this means that we can be like our heavenly father, and that means that we will have eternal progression through our spirit children, and that means that we will either (a) create “new” laws or (b) follow those that have always and will always exist. But which it will be… I don’t know.
Sometimes I wish I didn’t have the belief that I can become like God, because it life would be a whole lot easier… I wouldn’t have to do anything… just eat, drink and be merry… oh, and say I believe and I’d live with Jesus forever! Seems like a pretty chill life…
reggiewoods…I wish you could join me in my inductive Bible study of Romans this fall. We are taking three months to go thru chapters 6, 7, and 8. Our identity in Christ is so much more rich and freeing that the “easy-believism” you tend to think we believe in.
A.W. Tozer said that becoming a Christian is not being invited to a party…it is being invited to your own funeral. We must die to ourselves…we die to the Law…and we die to sin…as we are “baptized” or identified in Christ.
It is as simple as faith but it definitely isn’t simplistic. It is a “chill” life but only beccause it isn’t ours anymore. Like Scripture says “in Him we live and move and have our being.”
I am curious though why it is that since God has a body of flesh and bone…why can He only make “spirit” children? Everything else produces after it’s kind. Hasn’t that ever made you go hmmmmmmmmm? Doesn’t add up to me.
[Good question, but off topic. Please all, refrain from taking the discussion off in this direction. Let’s treat this as a rhetorical question, okay? Thanks. -Mod]
I reviewed the By Common Consent blog and noticed that David T. had made this comment:
“Perhaps this is just a popular “ism” from Gospel Doctrine back in the day, but I thought Eternal Law predated God and had worked cooperatively with other gods before Him. For this reason I voted Eternal Law.”
So, there you go, Falcon. A Mormon clearly speaking about polytheism without mincing words.
What do our LDS friends do with the very clear declaration of the one eternal God in Isaiah 43:10?
“before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me”
– I suppose this means something like no God formed in this particular universe?
Kind of like where it says “by Him were ALL things created…visible and invisible” (Col. 1:16) that means everything, I suppose, except for intelligence.
And where it talks about arrogant men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth who consent not to the doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ (I Tim. 6:3-5), it could not possibly have been referring to men like the one who said –
“We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see…In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods…and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves…The great majority of mankind do not comprehend anything…they know but little above the brute beast, or more than to eat, drink and sleep…I am learned and know more than all the world put together…I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me, if they can” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 349-361).
Thanks Jessica.
Would Mormons talk as openly about the nature of God as Joseph Smith did? Maybe to each other but not to the general population. They know their polytheism is goofy, off-the-wall and goes against the sensibilities of the average person. There’s a reason why Mormons, today, don’t lead with this foundational doctrine of their religion. Joseph Smith, however, was trying to set his religion a part from orthodox Christianity. The Mormon church, today, wants to appear as if they are a branch of the Christian family. Mormon polytheism is just a huge turn-off to the general population. It’s a lot more acceptable to paint a picture of clean cut, happy and cheerful families than it is of gods meeting in councils to discuss weighty matters like should the mortals on their planets get to drink coffee. By the way, women are not allowed at these god council meetings. Their job is to continue having babies just like they did previously on their planets. Important work none-the-less.
GRCluff wrote: It seems like a chicken and the egg question. Which of those came first?
This question assumes a rejection on your part of Lorenzo Snow’s Couplet as the entire post is a Doctrine of God question. If you reject that God was once a man or than man can become a God, then of course there is no internal dilemma here, as the “Eternal Laws” would be a reflection of the Holiness of God. As there would never had been when God was not Holy, and to express the nature of God, specifically His Holiness, when He is yet to be in existence is absurd.
However if one holds that God was once a man and grew into godhood then the “Eternal Laws” came first, and god simply expresses characteristics of holiness contingent on that which is outside of Him. The reason God is holy then is because someone or something has made him holy, not that he is holy by nature.
Lautensack
Reggie,
You said, “Sometimes I wish I didn’t have the belief that I can become like God, because it life would be a whole lot easier… I wouldn’t have to do anything… just eat, drink and be merry… oh, and say I believe and I’d live with Jesus forever! Seems like a pretty chill life…”
Christians totally believe in becoming like God; in fact, we believe this happens through the work of the Holy Spirit, and some call it sanctification. Mormonism teaches becoming a god–not just like God. There’s a big difference there. Also, as has been previously stated by non-Mormons, Christians do not believe in just eating, drinking, and being merry. That is so far from what Christianity teaches that I don’t know why you continue to claim that is the Christian approach to life. “What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?” (Romans 6:1-2).
I would kindly suggest you read Isaiah 43:10 to gain an understanding of the fact that no other god existed before or ever will exist other than the only true God who was manifest in the person of Jesus Christ.
As far as this thread is concerned, it is not a “what came first…” proposition. We are talking about the teaching that there were laws that existed prior to God, and that He somehow is subject to these laws. God is not governed by anything or anybody because He is truly God. He created all things “ex nihilo,” meaning that He created the very substance from which He created. There is no way we can wrap our finite brains around infinite truth, which makes this a faith issue. I don’t have to understand how God created everything out of nothing–but, boy, do I ever believe it! Nothing existed before Him–not even any laws because He is subject to nothing outside of Himself.
Grace and Peace
Fascinating and revealing.
While it may be hard to believe that all Mormons believe that eternal law is more powerful than God, it is interesting to note the question and that to some degree, most Mormons do think, in some way, law is greater than God.
This is hardly unfounded. Some responses here, like it being a chicken/egg situation, indicate that Mormons will not categorically state God is greater than the laws.
To me, the answer is simple: God is greater, as God IS the law. God is not subject to it, and God is not less than it. God created everything and embodies the law.
Further, God is good and perfect, and as such cannot break the law, but that is inherant in the law’s nature, and God’s nature. If he could break it, he would not be God, and if the law were not perfect, it would not be of God.
Comparing it to the chicken or egg is not accurate, as it misses the point. A chicken creates an egg, and an egg creates a chicken. Somewhere in the question is the assumption that something was created first. Eternal law was not created, nor was God. They both exist, well, eternally and eternally united and unchangeable.
Could you convince yourself that one created the other? Of course. But to do so misses the power of God, in its simple glory for all to see.
Just a thought for those who suggest we under-estimate God’s power, or that we do not fully appreciate Him:
Mainline Christianity believes God is the God of this world- planet earth (yes- and the stars, nebulae, etc). Mormons believe He is God of worlds without number- populated with His children and creations! Who is greater- a God of millions of planets, or God of one planet?
The point of this thread doesn’t change anything because you cannot say with authority which way it is. Nowhere does the Bible say that God preceded the laws of the universe. Nor does it say He was preceded by those laws. So what is the point, other than to try to make LDS look silly or blasphemous?
FoF that is just silly. There is nothing that He is not God of. There was nothing, no worlds, no planets, no stars. Then He created them all and reigns over them all. Indeed Satan is the god of this world (2 Cor 4:4). He is infinitely God and is not constrained by a physical body or a homeworld like Kolob.
Your church teaches that God is a created being, an exalted man who is different from man only in age and power. Christianity teaches from the Bible that God is nothing like man, that we are completely His creation. The mormon notion of god drags His glory through the same dust that man was created from.
FoF, I am concurring with Arthur Sido that your response is silly. On so many levels it shows your ignorance as to what we believe.
I’ve tried to challenge Mormons to understand what it is we believe, and it is because of comments like yours.
But, in the spirit of finding out why you think our God is only the God of Earth, do you have any evidence to suggest that we believe this?
Aaron, you asked: “do you believe there are potentially trillions of beings that exist that are equally all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-wise as your own particular Heavenly Father?”
I say: No.
I just wanted to be clear about what I mean when I said “God.” I did not intend to divert from the subject of this thread into a major discussion of a slightly different matter.
How can I be clearer than I have already been? This is the superlative. If there is One that is the most intelligent of all beings in all eternity, then there is not even one other who is greater than That One. I think That One is the One God before whom or beside whom we are commanded we should have no other god. That is what I also think of Isaiah 43:10-11.
I think that since Jesus included the bit in the Lord’s prayer about “Thine be the glory forever,” that even with a multiplicity of Gods, none of them would do more than add to the glory of the “Lord of Lords” and “God of Gods”.
So, in a way, I disagree with David T. who was quoted by Jessica saying: “Perhaps this is just a popular “ism” from Gospel Doctrine back in the day, but I thought Eternal Law predated God and had worked cooperatively with other gods before Him. For this reason I voted Eternal Law.” Disagreeing, because I view “Our Heavenly Father” as being the first of the genealogy of Gods, rather than the most recent, just as “Father Adam” is the first of our earthly fathers, and David T seems to be referring to our most recent. Perhaps I see things a bit differently than most Mormons, though.
What Mormons believe is very simple to determine—just read the 13 Articles of Faith, which were authored by Joseph Smith. There is absolutely no deception here. This is what we were taught as children and what we continue to teach our children.
And, Aaron, I don’t understand what you are referring to by: ‘but the jaw-dropping qualifier is “for you”.’ That must not refer to my post, or does it?
MichaelP said, ”Further, God is good and perfect, and as such cannot break the law, but that is inherant in the law’s nature, and God’s nature. If he could break it, he would not be God, and if the law were not perfect, it would not be of God.” (emphasis mine)
If God is omnipotent (ie all powerful) then why can’t He ‘break the law’? I believe He has the capability to break the law if He wants, it’s just that He chooses not to. If He did choose to break this law then He would cease being God. This means that He is subject to a law.
Your own belief states that God is the same yesterday, today and forever; He is unchanging. If He is omnipotent then He has the capacity/capability to change if He wanted. What if He decided to change? That would negate this scripture and all of our faith/belief and again He would cease to be God.
So yes, God is good and perfect, but to say that because of this He ‘cannot break the law’ means that He is subject to something. Even giving Him the ability to choose what He wants to do (ie LDS teachings) means that He is subject to something. God does have His boundaries in both the LDS and Traditional Christian cultures, these are the law with which He has to live by. This is an eternal law. Who, when and how did this law come into ‘being’ (for want of a better word) I don’t know, but if God does something outside of what He is supposed/allowed to do He will cease being God. Maybe He placed them there Himself.
Arthur and Michael P,
Actually it isn’t silly. This article brought up the whole “my dad is tougher than your dad” argument regarding the greatness of God. And those critical of LDS belief have supported this approach in the posts.
So, are you saying you believe there are other planets with God’s children living on them? I have never heard another Christian church teach such a thing. I have never read this in any literature from another group. If yes- you do believe there are populated worlds without number, great- we agree about something. If no, you do not believe that, than my point is valid.
Isn’t your argument that God is in control of more than we give Him credit for? I believe that is exactly what you are saying. And I am saying that, in reality, we believe He is God over a million times more living creations than you believe.
Again, nothing silly about this- we believe God is God over infinately more people and has saved infinately more people than you believe. I am simply carrying your argument out to its logical conclusion.
Fern,
My brain is not processing tonight I guess. Are you saying there is One God, Who is the Head of all of the other gods? I’m not getting this. Let me repeat what you said: “Our Heavenly Father as being the first of the genealogy of Gods, rather than the most recent…….” You then go on to say that perhaps you see things a bit different than most Mormons do. As to that, why not. Just call it a revelation. You have a right to it, just like Joseph Smith taught (about revelation). But here’s the deal Fern, that’s not the orthodox Christian view. Any time you start supposing more gods, you’re outside the mainstream of Christianity. My guess is that Joseph Smith had a high old time with his free flow of consciousness and loving every minute as his followers just sucked up what he taught and did without question. So don’t be concerned about not seeing things the way other Mormons do. It’s a free-for-all anyway. What you think and believe may be revealed as the new truth from Salt Lake City any day.
Ralph,
Mental gymnastics there. You can spin anything you want, as you do here. What else did I say in that post that might answer your rebut?
FoF, actually, I don’t believe there are other places in the universe with life on it. But this does not mean that God did not create the rest of the universe, does it?
Oh, and do you really believe true power comes from numbers? In the end, it is not a my dad is stronger than your dad argument. It is one that suggests my dad is really my dad and yours is but a false impersonator. But to see this, you have to know who our dad is. Do you see who our dad is?
Michael P,
Yes- I absolutely see how goofy this argument and article are, but I believe I have a valid point. The initial question was “Is God more powerful than eternal Law,” to which I say- that is a silly question. We are comparing who views God as being more powerful based on His relationship with eternal law, are we not?
And no, numbers are not insignificant. Who is more powerful- a king over an army of 100, or a king over an army of 1,000,000,000? I suppose it comes down to how you define power.
Who is more powerful- a God who can create one world, or a God who can create billions of worlds? This is NOT insignificant. I am simply using logic and our differing beliefs to answer a question posed by LDS critics. You may frame the argument in a way to make “your God” more powerful based on criteria you choose. I can do the same. Do you feel manipulated or misrepresented?
The M.O. of LDS critics it is to control the argument and definitions in the conversation. This is a simple point. If our positions were reversed in this argument over the number of worlds, etc., the EV view would be that Mormons were blasphemous for thinking God is only God over the people in this world.
My point- the one who frames the questions and arguments can often control the debate. I can employ the same methods to show that my view of God is infinitely more powerful, merciful, and just than your view. BUT this would not further anybody’s level of understanding , respect, or closeness to God.
Until next time!
It’s no big deal. It’s fine with me if Mormons want to be polytheist and believe that they too will move into the god category. It’s just not what Christians believe. That’s why Mormonism is a religion onto itself with no relationship to orthodox Christianity. Chrisitanity flows from Jewish religious tradition. Jews were known to be unusual in OT times because they were monotheists. They got in trouble with God when they started practicing idolatry; worshiping graven images and forsaking God. So Mormon polytheism has no basis in either Jewish or Christian tradition. So if Mormons want to forsake God for “a god”, they do so knowing full well what it is they are doing.
Fof,
“Again, nothing silly about this- we believe God is God over infinately more people and has saved infinately more people than you believe.”
That is indeed silly. God is not made more or less powerful based on the number of people He created or saved. If God had chosen to save not even one person, He would still be infinitely and perfectly God. Yours is the most inexplicable argument I have heard. The crux of the question is not how many planets you alllege your image of God has or can create. It is the nature of who He is that is important. Is He a created being, merely a really old mormon who created more people just like Him? Or is He infinite and eternal, omnipotent and unique? All this stuff we argue about really dances around the main issue: who is God? If you get that wrong, as mormonism does, you get mankind wrong and you get the Gospel wrong. We are not like God and we cannot become like God, because God is unique because He stands not as a superior being in creation, but is outside of and above creation. That is the true heresy of mormonism, the diminishing of God and the exalting of man.
http://fo-mo.blogspot.com/2008/10/talking-bout-my-deification.html
MichaelP,
It’s not mental gymnastics. Once something has boundaries/parameters to adhere to, these are rules/laws. As I said, Traditional Christianity believes that there are parameters on God – what He can and can’t do. If He goes outside of these parameters then He cannot be God. So there are rules there governing God’s ‘behaviour’ as it were. Some if these are He cannot do evil, He cannot change, He cannot have a physical body, etc. These are parameters/rules.
As I said though, Who, how and when these ‘rules’ came into being I do not know. Did we do that to try and understand His characteristics or did He do that or where they always there. Which ever is the answer, it still does not negate the fact that God has rules which if He breaks He will cease to be God. And no there was nothing in your post that answers my rebut; even by saying God is the law it does not answer my rebut. The main point is that if God does something ‘different’ to His character He will cease to be God. Thus He is subject to a law.
And to say that He cannot break a law, as you have, means that there is something that He cannot do. I believe that He can break the law if He wants to but chooses not to. That is true omnipotence in relation to your view.
This thread really puts on display the view of God that Mormons have, which works from a faulty premise. Because they have relegated God to an exalted man, they see God with the same limitations that we humans have. They actually have in their minds a picture of a man who was and still is subject to laws, just as we are. The arguments that God is more of a God based on volume than some other god reveals the Mormon belief that God is not the only God; and, yes, Aaron, you are correct in suggesting that the implied “to us” phrase is part of the Mormon argument they use to diffuse the effect of passages such as Isaiah 43:10. I say this because not only was this something taught me, but it was what I taught when discussing this specific passage. The entire Mormon argument is spawned from the JS teaching that man will also become “a god”; it is not based on sound biblical exegesis. We can never truly fathom the awesomeness of God with our finite minds. I believe that the attempt to do so by Mormons results in in a man-made view of God and the heretical expressions we are experiencing in this discussion. To even suggest that God could cease to be God is offensive and heretical, and yet, Mormons will claim that they believe God to be without beginning and without end. We need to remember “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen” (Romans 11:36). All things generate from Him–including His law. God is not generated or controlled by any forces outside of Himself for there are none that exist.
Grace and Peace
jackg,
Excellent post. You bottom lined the discussion. Quite frankly, I think it’s the only discussion we should have with Mormons. Joseph Smith created a god that would fit with his own magic world view. He was really an old time new ager. At some point he just tossed away his magic rock because he found he could “prophesy” without it. But the foundation of his religion remains stuck in the occult. When we look at the spiritual battle that has been fought against God since the days of Lucifer and his angels, it always has to do with supplanting God. Mormonism does it with an emotional sweeetness about forever families and heavenly mother and father god. On the surface Mormonism makes people feel good because minds are put to rest about loved ones who they may have questions concerning their eternal destiny. The devil doesn’t care if Mormons want to try and live moral lives and look wholesome and “godly”. He wants their souls and he’ll have them.
Fern Rl,
You said,
“Perhaps” you see things a bit differently than Joseph Smith too:
In future conversations, Fern Rl, I would advise you to immediately be up front with your minority, Ostlerian position. Just say something like, “On this issue, I depart from the traditional Mormon view and take an Ostlerian position which precludes the Father having a Father in a lineage of gods.” With this full disclosure, the confusion will be minimized as your position is not the standard, mainstream, or traditional position.
Fern Rl, which is greater, eternal law or Jesus Christ? In your view, would eternal law predate the moment that Jesus Christ achieved the fullness of deity?
Aaron
Fof, actually, no we are not comparing who (Mormon god vs our God) is more powerful, but whether or not God or eternal law is the more powerful.
As part of the discussion, you asserted that your god was more powerful because he controls more worlds. I asked if that was a good arbiter of true power. Is it? To answer, you said yes, because an army with more people is stronger than an army with fewer people. But again, is this true? Are you completely sure and has history proven the point 100% of the time?
Here’s the point: numbers don’t necessarily prove power. And here’s the tie in to the discussion: controlling more worlds does not make one just or right, only that it has more subjects.
You try to divert from the issue at hand by saying we control the questions. While that may be, the questions have answers, and the questions get to the heart of the matter. Others have expressed what that is, “who is God?” Who is God, really? Does he have to have millions of worlds to be all powerful, or does he have to be perfectly just and eternal (kind of like eternal law) to be all powerful? God is the unchangeable law, and God is all powerful. Therefore, the law is also all powerful and unchangeable.
Ralph, no mental gymnastics, huh? OK. I’ll let you think that, but the position you pose is a common tactic, one that fails to consider who God is, and what God does. If God is the law, as I propose, can he go against who he is? Phrased differently, if God is law, and God is perfect and just, can God act unjustly?
Now, before you say this is a limit, answer this first: do you agree with Isaiah when he says God’s ways are not our ways?
Falcon, I made no pretense at being “Traditional” or “Orthodox” Christian. If we have anything in common it is due to both believing in the Bible. If we have less in common it is probably because we understand the Bible differently, in my opinion.
I also did not mean to imply that I am in any way unique among Mormons in my view of God, which (I suppose) is why Aaron has accused me of not being “upfront” about having a “minority, Ostlerian position.” I imagine the Apostles and Prophets at the forefront of the Church of Jesus Christ today differ in some ways from what many or even “most” of us think, but they manage to reprove us in ways that are very loving and acceptable.
Aaron, I had never heard of this man, Blake Ostler, before, but thanks for the link. I read one of the many posts that were given there, namely this one.
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2005_Fallacy_of_Fundamentalist_Assumptions.html
I think it provides a very good background into Mormon Thought, and if anyone did read and understand it, they would understand us better. I didn’t find the part that you describe this way, though: “which precludes the Father having a Father in a lineage of gods.”
I will say that what Blake Ostler says in that one post about power and eternal law and Jesus Christ is something I could very well agree with. To quote it , however, would be too long for this post.
I hope that the goal of our “traditional Christian” friends—is a goal of bridge building and not one of divisiveness. This is my goal. If it is unattainable, you can just count me out, because I have no desire for argument and contention.
falcon,
Thanks for the support, brother.
I find your comment very interesting: “The devil doesn’t care if Mormons want to try and live moral lives and look wholesome and “godly”. He wants their souls and he’ll have them.”
I find it interesting because I have often thought that and then struggled with the thought because it’s a paradox. Perhaps this could be the topic for another thread; I feel that expounding on it any further will take us way off topic. Again, thanks for the support. BTW, C.S. Lewis adroitly handles this discussion of morals, etc., in “Mere Christianity,” in case anyone was interested in looking into this further.
Grace and Peace!
FernRL wrote: I hope that the goal of our “traditional Christian” friends—is a goal of bridge building and not one of divisiveness.
Unfortunately, Fern, the only reason a bridge must be build is because of divisions. Until our divisions have been clearly established through divisiveness, your belief vs. my belief, or your churches teachings vs. my churches teachings then we can not have meaningful interaction. Essentially if we do not clearly point out the divisions then we will have no starting place to begin “bridge building” rather we will reduce theology to a least common denominator that is a thousand miles wide without a millimeter of depth.
This is rather hard to do when the one thing all branches of Christians agree on, The basics of the doctrine of God, is the one thing that seems to vary so much in Mormonism.
You seem to be firmly in the BYU camp or what we could call “Neo-Mormonism.” It is a camp that is moving more toward the Christian concept in their theology of God, but to say that it is the only or even the majority camp in LDS circles would be a brash overstatement. There is a camp that one could call the Salt Lake City Camp, which holds to more traditional LDS views of God as described by Joseph Smith Jr., Bruce McConkie, James Talemage, etc. This camp holds to the concept that God Himself had a Father. I would even suggest that this view is the majority view based upon the response to this poll.
Now I am not saying that your camp is right or theirs is, what I am saying is that your view is a personal view and not one taught by your church or even alluded to. I believe that this is why Aaron presented you with the opinion that your view was in the minority.
You seem to have some intelligent things to say and I look forward to future discussions. I also invite you to read the literature put out by your Church’s Apostles and Prophets on the subject, if you have not already, not just that which flows from FAIR or BYU.
Lautensack
Fern RL, to build meaningful bridges, I hope you will join us traditional Christians in passionately repudiating and denouncing the notion that God the Father has an Eternal Father, and also join us is heralding the the beautiful and awesome truth that God the Father, Son, and Spirit have always been fully God and have always been in full relationship.
I never received an answer to,
Could you give us a succinct answer in your own words?
Grace and peace in Christ, who justifies the ungodly by faith apart from works (Romans 4:4-8, contra the JST),
Aaron
Is truth absolute or relative? Is truth just God’s opinion on a topic, or does God identify and align himself with the absolute or natural truth? Is that not roughly the same concept as this thread?
Many a person has tried to corrupt absolute truth by insisting that truth is relative. If you believe something enough, then it becomes YOUR truth.
I once met a homosexual that insisted that God will welcome his behavior because Christ was gay.
Does believing it make it true?
A pedifile will insist that HIS truth is: children need all types of love, and in the same breath say it it God’s way. Does believing it make it true?
An adulterous person will insist that HIS truth is: fooling around is not all that bad. Does believing it make it true?
A foolish young person will argue that HIS truth is: God holds single people to a different moral standard than married people. Does believing it make it true?
A foolish man will say: When God changes his mind the truth will change. Does believing it make it true?
A wise man could ask: Can God cease to be God?
I think that answer is YES– if he ceases to follow the priniples of absolute and eternal truth that made him God. He CAN, but he never WILL.
Does God follow a different standard that he asks us to follow? Can he change absolute truth by changing his mind on a topic?
Your position on this thread is inconsistent with those on polygamy, and on Mormon prophecy in general.
We say, the law(polgamy) changed because God changed his mind. You say, God is and unchanging God. He never changes his mind.
If we say that God would cease to be God if he failed to follow principles of absolute truth you say, God IS absolute truth, he can change any time he likes.
Well, which is it? You can’t have it both ways.
LDSTIT – To answer your “rhetorical” question and to clear up some LDS beliefs, we believe that God creates spirit children, but as you remember from your Primary (Valiant A) days, we also believe that Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God, in the flesh. So, God the Father created a physical being too… Maybe that will add something to your equation.
Jackg – in retrospect, I didn’t mean to say that sometimes I didn’t wish I believed I could become like God. “Like” seems to be a complicated word, and your ability to word smith things makes me want to be more clear. Sometimes I wish I didn’t believe that I could become as God is, aka, a Co-heir with Jesus Christ. That would make things so much easier… all I would have to do is eat, drink, and be merry… oh, and say I believe, and then I could live with Jesus!
Once again, as far as this thread is concerned, it’s difficult for me to discuss something that I don’t believe any of us really understand or can comprehend. I will say however, that Cluff brings up a very valid point, and I can’t be any more eloquent than he was. I can hope to add that my experience on this website has been such that just because someone says it, and believes it, that it becomes truth. And that is the great error of our times. There are laws that have been established that are eternal. God follows those laws. If He didn’t follow those laws, would those laws cease to be laws? If those laws ceased to be laws, what would then be the governing mandates of existence? A new set of laws that God creates and implements? God is one with the law as much as God and Jesus Christ are one. ONe in purpose, one in unity, one in light…etc. They can (and do) exist independently of one another, despite being described as being one. So, why does GOd have faith? Because faith is an eternal principle… an eternal law, regardless of God’s “ability” to have faith.
Heavy stuff… we need to be careful…
GRCluff Wrote: “Is truth just God’s opinion on a topic, or does God identify and align himself with the absolute or natural truth?” and “If we say that God would cease to be God if he failed to follow principles of absolute truth you say, God IS absolute truth, he can change any time he likes.
What you have set up here is a false dichotomy through a faulty understanding of the Christian Doctrine of God. It seeks to radically divide the Holiness of God from the Immutability of God. Scripture says God does not change. (Num 23:19, 1 Sam 15:29, Mal 3:6; Jas 1:17, etc) Scripture says God is Holy (Lev 11:44, Psalm 77, Isaiah 6:3, 1 Pet 1:16, etc)
Properly understood the Moral Laws are a reflection of God’s Holiness, and since God is Immutable, does not change, His Holiness does not change and the moral law does not change. Hence why when God makes an oath, He swears by Himself, as there is nothing greater to swear by.
GRCluff’s argument via polygamy fails to take into account the Holiness of God. The question that must be asked of this scenario is did God become more Holy or less Holy when He changed His mind concerning polygamy? In Mormon terms, was God progressing toward holiness or away from it?
Lautensack
Aaron asked “which is greater, eternal law or Jesus Christ?”
To quote Lautensack, “What you have set up here is a false dichotomy through a faulty” premise. Why does one HAVE to be greater than the other?
And while we are asking stupid questions, how about this one, “Can God create a rock so big that He can’t move it?”
Clearly there are some limitations on God.
Your God, for example, is incapable of procreation. He is unable to “create” another being like Himself. He cannot have real offspring, only us creatures. (or are we pets?)
He is also a changeable God. He sat in idleness for eternity and then suddenly changed into a very busy “creator”, working hard for 6 “days” and then changed again from the hard worker to a caretaker of His “creation”. And now of late He “has done His work” and we don’t hear from Him like we (mankind) used to. Will He revert to the indolant God after the final judgment?
He once was so in tune with the law of justice that He required the sacrifice of His only begotten Son as a penalty for sin, but now, His interest in justice has waned. He only requires lip service to avoid the penalty for sin.
Why didn’t He just disregard the law of justice? Or change it? Or transfer all of the guilt to the animals that were sacrificed under the law of Moses? Was He incapable of doing so?
GB,
You quote me out of context, since Jesus Christ is not eternal in LDS theology my words do not apply to LDS theology.
Also to say that God is unable to create another being like Himself is absurd, as we are created in His image a being like His, yet also unlike His.
Furthermore when we say God is immutable, that is unchangeable, this does not mean we are Stoic in our thought. Rather this immutability is an expression of His very nature. That is to say God is not going to, as GRCluff suggested, become the devil or become evil, to do so would be against His nature. Furthermore God’s relation with time is different than ours, as He is outside it and we are contained by it. Therefore because He deals with one part (or time) of the created order in a different manner than He deals with another does not imply a change in His nature or in His mind.
As for your final questions, they are built on a false platform that does not understand nor seek to understand Christian Doctrine, or Paul’s letter’s to the Romans and to the Galatians or the Epistle to the Hebrews. However rather than enter into a discussion of soteriology we could simply say that the sacrifice of animals, that is bulls and goats, was to small for the offense. (Hebrews 10:4) The question at hand is not “why” God does what He does in this sense, rather it is His relation to the “eternal law.” This is what you have refused to answer.
The answer seems clear, that if you believe mainline LDS theology as espoused by the prophets of Mormonism then you say the Eternal Law is greater than God. If one departs from the Prophets in this, believing that “Elohim” is the first God then the scenario could be a bit different.
Lautensack
Lautensack: “. . . since Jesus Christ is not eternal in LDS theology . . . ”
GB: There you go with another falsehood. You really should try to understand LDS theology before you make such stupid statements about it.
L: Also to say that God is unable to create another being like Himself is absurd, as we are created in His image a being like His, yet also unlike His.
GB: Did you purposely not understand my plain and clear meaning? Your God is INCAPABLE of creating another God like Himself. Get it?
L: Rather this immutability is an expression of His very nature.
GB: So from indolance to hard worker isn’t a change of nature?
L: God’s relation with time is different than ours, as He is outside it and we are contained by it.
GB: So if God pulls us out of our time “container”, are we then “eternal” also?
Does God have the power to remove us from our time “container”? If we are removed from our time “container” into eternity, does that mean we would be without beginning or end?
L: As for your final questions, they are built on a false platform that does not understand . . .
GB: Flimsy excuse for not answering them.
L: . . .we could simply say that the sacrifice of animals, that is bulls and goats, was to small for the offense.
GB: You mean that God COULDN’T make it big enough? Was it beyond His power? Are you admitting that God is limited in some way?
What about this Luke 1:37 ?
Oh but wait there is this, Heb. 6:18.
Is there a contradiction?
GB wrote: There you go with another falsehood. You really should try to understand LDS theology before you make such stupid statements about it.
So you are willing to deny that Jesus is the literal Son of the Father in the sense that there was a when that He came into being as a distinct person later than the Father?
GB wrote: So from indolance to hard worker isn’t a change of nature?
Who says God was idol, man may perceive Him as such but our perceptions do not dictate Him.
GB wrote: So if God pulls us out of our time “container”, are we then “eternal” also?
Does God have the power to remove us from our time “container”? If we are removed from our time “container” into eternity, does that mean we would be without beginning or end?
We will never be eternal in the sense that He is eternal. This is rather off topic as I was simply explaining the Christian Doctrine of the Immutability of God, if you wish to discuss this doctrine further email me.
GB wrote: Flimsy excuse for not answering them.
So rather than answer a false question based upon a false assumption that was off topic, I corrected the assumption.
GB wrote: You mean that God COULDN’T make it big enough? Was it beyond His power? Are you admitting that God is limited in some way?
Not at all. I am stating that God ordained it this way.
GB wrote: Is there a contradiction?
Not at all if context is allowed to speak. Luke is speaking of God’s ability to perform miracles, in this instance the Virgin Birth. The writer of Hebrews is describing God’s Promise where He swears by Himself, thus this passage actually reflects what I said earlier God swears by Himself as there is nothing greater to swear by. If said laws were greater than He, He would swear by them. This actually is a passage declaring God’s unchanging nature.
Lautensack
Lautensack,
Amen!
Reggie:
You said, “Sometimes I wish I didn’t believe that I could become as God is, aka, a Co-heir with Jesus Christ.”
When you make this statement, it seems that you are understanding the idea of becoming God-like from the premise that it is totally based on your own efforts. As I have stated before, human effort is required in a synergistic approach to understanding our role within God’s plan of redemption. We need to remember that our efforts are a response to God and evidence of our faith in Jesus Christ. With that said, I can understand your consternation and why you would make such a comment. The wonderful thing about the good news of God’s grace is that it reveals to us that the work of making us holy or God-like is His work through the power of the Holy Spirit. “May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. May your whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it” (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24). “But we ought always to thank God for you, brothers loved by the Lord, because from the beginning God chose you to be saved through the sanctifying work of the Spirit and through belief in the truth” (2 Thessalonians 2:13). I share this message of hope with you and with all non-Christians because when we understand that we can’t attain holiness on our own merits, we won’t be saying what you said. Naturally, if we feel it all depends on us, it would be quite a heavy yoke put upon our backs; however, Jesus said, “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me…for my yoke is easy and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:29-30). So, yes, all you have to do is believe in Jesus Christ. When we understand the true perspective regarding human effort, we will understand that we do not have license to sin. Our behaviors will change because of the Holy Spirit burning within us.
Grace and Peace!
Cluff said, “A wise man could ask: Can God cease to be God?
I think that answer is YES– if he ceases to follow the priniples of absolute and eternal truth that made him God. He CAN, but he never WILL.
Does God follow a different standard that he asks us to follow? Can he change absolute truth by changing his mind on a topic?
We say, the law(polgamy) changed because God changed his mind. You say, God is and unchanging God. He never changes his mind.
If we say that God would cease to be God if he failed to follow principles of absolute truth you say, God IS absolute truth, he can change any time he likes.
Well, which is it? You can’t have it both ways.”
First, NOTHING made God. God made everything. So NO, He cannot cease being God. That is just who He is. Not an exalted man, just God. (“just” –haha)
Second, you have answered your own seemingly paradoxical question. Yes, God can ‘change any time he likes’, but He never does because He “is not the author of confusion”. So I believe I can have it both ways, and eat my cake too.
More tomorrow.
L: So you are willing to deny that Jesus is the literal Son of the Father . . .
GB: NO! See John 1:14
L: . . . in the sense that there was a when that He came into being as a distinct person later than the Father?
GB: 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.
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.
L: Who says God was idol, man may perceive Him as such but our perceptions do not dictate Him.
GB: What was He doing for eternity in the dark with nothing?
L: We will never be eternal in the sense that He is eternal.
GB: Non responsive! Do you have a scripture to support your assertion? What about 1 Jn. 3:2?
L: Luke is speaking of God’s ability to perform miracles. . .
GB: So, placing the guilt for sin upon the sacrificial animals wouldn’t be a miracle?
L: Not at all if context is allowed to speak.
GB: So then, something, which on the surface is an obvious contradiction, when taken in context may not be a contradiction at all. How profound. You should keep that in mind when discussing Mormon theology.
Shall we review the questions you haven’t answered?
Can God create a rock so big that He can’t move it?
Did you purposely not understand my plain and clear meaning? Your God is INCAPABLE of creating another God like Himself. Get it?
Why didn’t He just disregard the law of justice? Or change it? Was He incapable of doing so?
So if God pulls us out of our time “container”, are we then “eternal” also?
Does God have the power to remove us from our time “container”?
If we are removed from our time “container” into eternity, does that mean we would be without beginning or end?
GB,
“Can God create a rock so big that He can’t move it?”
No but He can make people who ask stupid questions!