Why Can'T We Talk About This Topic?

[LDSToronto]

In another thread, a poster was banned from the thread for stating a common philosophical problem - if God commits genocide, should we classify him as evil and reject him? His answer was yes, we should reject God for doing so.

Is this a topic that MDD does not allow?

H.

[TAO]

I don't know why Chris was removed. But referring to Chris's comment, I do know that the reason he stated wasn't why Satan rebelled... in fact... God gives pretty much the same reason for genocides as he does when he asks Nephi to kill Laban.

[BCSpace]

God, having knowledge of the aferlife and the eternal nature of the spirit, cannot possibly commit genocide by wiping out the mortal inhabitants of any world by definition. Those people still exist relative to Him. In that case, all He's done is the equivalent of calling out "Okay, everyone out of the pool!"

And if one does not believe in the existence of God, then such a one cannot possibly accuse God of genocide in the first place or rationally use that argument.

[Ares]

The more general discussion of "can God do evil" would be permissable as long as participants remained very careful not to drift of into statements considered overtly offensive or blasphemous.

Be very careful with this one please.

[Honorentheos]

Since BC brought up trying to understand this problem from an eternal perspective, I thought it may be worth considering the implications of Alma 42 in a discussion on the nature of God's character.

The crux of the matter lies in this verse:

Alma 42:13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

The LDS faith has an interesting take on how omnipotent God really is. This verse tells us that under certain conditions, God would cease to be God. Those conditions appear to be related to justice, or mankind enduring the consequences of disobedience. We learn this in the verses prior -

11 And now remember, my son, if it were not for the plan of redemption, (laying it aside) as soon as they were dead their souls were miserable, being cut off from the presence of the Lord.

12 And now, there was no means to reclaim men from this fallen state, which man had brought upon himself because of his own disobedience;

But what does this have to do with the character of God under the logic of these verses? Remember that the fallen state described above includes both physical as well as spiritual death.

I think the chapter tells us that God could have sacrificed his Godhood in order to break the cycle of this so-called plan of happiness. Consider this from earlier in the chapter -

2 Now behold, my son, I will explain this thing unto thee. For behold, after the Lord God sent our first parents forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground, from whence they were taken—yea, he drew out the man, and he placed at the east end of the garden of Eden, cherubim, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the tree of life—

3 Now, we see that the man had become as God, knowing good and evil; and lest he should put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live forever, the Lord God placed cherubim and the flaming sword, that he should not partake of the fruit—

4 And thus we see, that there was a time granted unto man to repent, yea, a probationary time, a time to repent and serve God.

5 For behold, if Adam had put forth his hand immediately, and partaken of the tree of life, he would have lived forever, according to the word of God, having no space for repentance; yea, and also the word of God would have been void, and the great plan of salvation would have been frustrated.

The interesting thing about these verses is that it never tells us why mankind needs to die. In verse 8 it tells us -

"Now behold, it was not expedient that man should be reclaimed from this temporal death, for that would destroy the great plan of happiness."

- but as far as the actual logic of the chapter goes, there is no real happiness in this great plan. In effect, if we read the chapter as it is written, we see a picture of God caught in a cycle that apparently he could break, if He were to destroy the great plan of happiness. But the consequences appear to be grievious for him - he would cease to be God.

But it gets worse.

We also find that this concept "justice" that overshadows God in some manner also defines sin and is the real reason for suffering in this world. Again, consider -

17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.

21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

Alma 42

Edited July 10, 2011 by Honorentheos

[KevinG]

The LDS faith has an interesting take on how omnipotent God really is. This verse tells us that under certain conditions, God would cease to be God. Those conditions appear to be related to justice, or mankind enduring the consequences of disobedience. We learn this in the verses prior -

Oh wow! Please let me correct that misread of LDS doctrine. This expression does not mean that under certain conditions God would cease to be (as in a consequence of those conditions) what it does mean is that God would not break His own word and law.

In other words (paraphrasing badly here...) God being perfect and keeping His own law would not rob justice with mercy.

This statement is better understood when you consider the LDS belief that God allows us our agency and does not interfere until we fill our cup of righteousness or unrighteousness.

Just to be very clear we believe God keeps His covenants with us because He is perfect not because He is threatened by anything if He were to break His laws.

Edited July 10, 2011 by DaddyG

[Honorentheos]

Oh wow! Please let me correct that misread of LDS doctrine. This expression does not mean that under certain conditions God would cease to be (as in a consequence of those conditions) what it does mean is that God would not break His own word and law.

In other words (paraphrasing badly here...) God being perfect and keeping His own law would not rob justice with mercy.

This statement is better understood when you consider the LDS belief that God allows us our agency and does not interfere until we fill our cup of righteousness or unrighteousness.

Just to be very clear we believe God keeps His covenants with us because He is perfect not because He is threatened by anything if He were to break His laws.

DaddyG,

I appreciate the sensitivity of the subject. But what you have just said is an addition to the text of scripture, isn't it? In order to make it more clear, wouldn't it be best to use scripture to demonstrate the corrected position of another scripture? An exchange of unsupported opinions is not really going to mean much, is it?

[Libs]

God, having knowledge of the aferlife and the eternal nature of the spirit, cannot possibly commit genocide by wiping out the mortal inhabitants of any world by definition. Those people still exist relative to Him. In that case, all He's done is the equivalent of calling out "Okay, everyone out of the pool!"

And if one does not believe in the existence of God, then such a one cannot possibly accuse God of genocide in the first place or rationally use that argument.

I kind of like that explanation, BC. It's one that I hadn't considered. I've always had a difficult time with the Old Testament and all of the terrible things attributed to God. It just didn't seem that a loving God could possibly have done all of those things to his children. I have, lately, explained it away by determining that some of these things were simply man's understanding of God, at that time, and man attributing those things to God...not really of God, Himself. I still think that may be true, in some cases.

[TAO]

DaddyG,

I appreciate the sensitivity of the subject. But what you have just said is an addition to the text of scripture, isn't it? In order to make it more clear, wouldn't it be best to use scripture to demonstrate the corrected position of another scripture? An exchange of unsupported opinions is not really going to mean much, is it?

Honor, I would submit that DaddyG is referring to this verse in 2nd Nephi:

13 And if ye shall say there is ^ano law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not ^bthere is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and ^alearning; for there is a God, and he hath ^bcreated all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be ^cacted upon.

In other words, the law of justice is how God's power works, and if he doesn't obey justice, he loses his power because he has not kept his promise. He has promised to give the righteous, happiness, and so, he must keep that law, and in order to keep that law, so must the unrighteous obtain misery. He has promised that, and if he did not do that, would we really trust him? And how could he save his children then? Thus, he must execute righteousness, or he ceases to bring happiness to his children. That is his perfection... not forced... but because it is his happiness as it will be ours.

Edited July 10, 2011 by TAO

[Stargazer]

Oh wow! Please let me correct that misread of LDS doctrine. This expression does not mean that under certain conditions God would cease to be (as in a consequence of those conditions) what it does mean is that God would not break His own word and law.

In other words (paraphrasing badly here...) God being perfect and keeping His own law would not rob justice with mercy.

This statement is better understood when you consider the LDS belief that God allows us our agency and does not interfere until we fill our cup of righteousness or unrighteousness.

Just to be very clear we believe God keeps His covenants with us because He is perfect not because He is threatened by anything if He were to break His laws.

Actually, what you're saying, i.e. "God would not break His own word and law," does not contradict the statement "...under certain conditions God would cease to be [God]". This boils down to: "Under certain conditions God could cease to be God, but God will not allow those conditions to occur."

Which corresponds nicely to something I once heard Cleon Skousen say. To paraphrase him: "This verse in Nephi posits something that no other Church would dare to say, that God could cease to be God. But this is not a problem, because He knows how to avoid it."

[Honorentheos]

Honor, I would submit that DaddyG is referring to this verse in 2nd Nephi:

In other words, the law of justice is how God's power works, and if he doesn't obey justice, he loses his power because he has not kept his promise. He has promised to give the righteous, happiness, and so, he must keep that law, and in order to keep that law, so must the unrighteous obtain misery. He has promised that, and if he did not do that, would we really trust him?

First, hi Tao. It's been a while and I hope all is well with you.

I'm not sure that the scripture quoted gets at what you said, but I think your statement should be considered in light of Alma 42. There is a slight difference in your thoughts and DaddyG's.

DaddyG has posited that God can not break the law that you speak of - he is perfect and somehow is immune. He implied in his comment that it simply isn't possible for God to act in another way. I would argue this violates the very premise that Alma 42 presents. Verse 22 - "But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God."

In other words, the idea that DaddyG presented should also cause God to cease to be God. If there is no law without a punishment affixed for God, then ultimately following through we still end up with God ceasing to be God.

I contend that Alma 42 shows that God the Father could have broken a bad cycle Himself. I'm not saying this is reality, given my own beliefs on the matter. But if one is to take the BoM seriously, one should really consider the logic of this chapter.

What you had to say, while consistent TAO, still does not explain why God could not have broken the cycle by allowing mercy to rob justice or why death was really necessary. The chapter merely tells us it was expedient for the plan of happiness.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Honorentheos

[Honorentheos]

Actually, what you're saying, i.e. "God would not break His own word and law," does not contradict the statement "...under certain conditions God would cease to be [God]". This boils down to: "Under certain conditions God could cease to be God, but God will not allow those conditions to occur."

Which corresponds nicely to something I once heard Cleon Skousen say. To paraphrase him: "This verse in Nephi posits something that no other Church would dare to say, that God could cease to be God. But this is not a problem, because He knows how to avoid it."

The challenge, again, is why God shouldn't have challenged it. The consequence before death entered the world are described in the chapter in a manner that would have minimized a lot of suffering. So why not do it? Because God would cease to be God? Why is this the right reason to not stop the plan as presented in the chapter?

Honest questions. But I would seriously like to see a response using scripture since the argument is scripture-based.

[TAO]

First, hi Tao. It's been a while and I hope all is well with you.

It has =).

I'm not sure that the scripture quoted gets at what you said, but I think your statement should be considered in light of Alma 42. There is a slight difference in your thoughts and DaddyG's.

DaddyG has posited that God can not break the law that you speak of - he is perfect and somehow is immune. He implied in his comment that it simply isn't possible for God to act in another way. I would argue this violates the very premise that Alma 42 presents. Verse 22 - "But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God."

Yes, there is a difference. But I don't think it is that difference. I think DaddyG is saying that in order for God to be God, he WILL keep his promises... because that is what makes him 'godly'. To be 'godly' it to be 'perfect'. He is 'godly', therefore he is 'perfect', and thus, he will keep his promises.

In other words, the idea that DaddyG presented should also cause God to cease to be God. If there is no law without a punishment affixed for God, then ultimately following through we still end up with God ceasing to be God.

Nah, I think you and DaddyG are saying the same thing... just in the opposite directions. You are saying 'if God broke his promises, he wouldn't be godly'. He/She (I forget) is saying that 'since God is godly, he won't break his promises'. The reason why I think she has a point is because God is perfect... and he will not break his promises. Thus, the 'if God broke his promises', is more of something that isn't possible of happening.

I contend that Alma 42 shows that God the Father could have broken a bad cycle Himself. I'm not saying this is reality, given my own beliefs on the matter. But if one is to take the BoM seriously, one should really consider the logic of this verse.

I agree and disagree at the same time. I think God has a choice, yes, but in a sense, he has already made that choice, he made that choice from the day he chose to be exalted. He had chosen then... to do everything necessary to do what he was asked to. In that sense, Daddy G is right. In another, you are.

What you had to say, while consistent TAO, still does not explain why God could not have broken the cycle by allowing mercy to rob justice or why death was really necessary. The chapter merely tells us it was expedient for the plan of happiness.

The reason, my friend, is because it would break the expectations on us. If God acted ungodly (even though that will not happen), how could he ask of us to act godly? He would then not be a good example. Now why must mercy not rob justice? Because some would abuse this mercy given to them. Remember the verse that says, in D&C, to those who sin again, the former sins appear, or something along those lines? When you abuse mercy, you lose it... till you ask for it again, I think. That is why mercy cannot rob justice... because the availability would be abused, and God would not have the power to stop the ungodly from becoming Gods, unless he broke his own promise, becoming ungodly himself. Thus, he must expect from us, what he expects of himself. And he must expect of himself, what he expects of us. Sorta =P.

Not quite sure if I'm right, but eh, tis humbling to think about. =) And whatever the reason, I am sure it is a just and fair one, and that God is right =). But that be another story =D.

Best Wishes,

TAO

Edited July 10, 2011 by TAO

[BCSpace]

I kind of like that explanation, BC. It's one that I hadn't considered.

I can't take credit. It belongs to Bill Cosby who playing God in a skit, after Adam and Eve ate the fruit, called out "Okay, everybody out of the pool!". I merely made the leap in analogy.

However, being kicked out of the garden is very appropos to the subject at hand. It's the same kind of thing. Atheists should actually be complaining about being kicked out of the garden into a world like this. Also analogous then would be Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy where "Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans."

There can be much truth in humor.........

Edited July 10, 2011 by BCSpace

[Libs]

I can't take credit. It belongs to Bill Cosby who playing God in a skit, after Adam and Eve ate the fruit, called out "Okay, everybody out of the pool!". I merely made the leap in analogy.

Ah...Bill Cosby, humorist and philosopher. Love that man.

However, being kicked out of the garden is very appropos to the subject at hand. It's the same kind of thing. Atheists should actually be complaining about being kicked out of the garden into a world like this. Also analogous then would be Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy where "Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans."

There can be much truth in humor.........

Never read "Hitchhiker's Guide", but have heard a lot of about it.

Interesting, how progression seems to involve sin, yes? That's a basic tenet of LDSism that most other religions do not embrace. Perfect innocence is really just perfect ignorance. Progression (knowledge) means slogging through the mire of good and evil, before we reach the pinnacle of perfection (perfect knowledge).

So, in regards to the Old Testament, perhaps God intervened when he saw mankind bogged down in sin and no longer progressing. But, what happened to all of those souls he "cleared from the pool"? Did they get more chances to improve? How?

[BCSpace]

So, in regards to the Old Testament, perhaps God intervened when he saw mankind bogged down in sin and no longer progressing. But, what happened to all of those souls he "cleared from the pool"? Did they get more chances to improve? How?

Having had their chance, they were permanently banished from the pool and sent home with a smaller scoop of ice cream (D&C 76:71-79).

[KevinG]

Thanks for providing some references folks. I would add D&C 93 starting with verse 30 to understand the nature of God and the truth of all things.

The burden of proof in explaining some belief on the part of the LDS that God would somehow go "poof" if He broke His own laws is on the person who argues that point.

I am familiar with my own doctrines and beliefs and that is not one of them. In fact it is a misinterpretation of Alma. This is a fancy case of someone telling me what I believe in order to argue with the false belief.

[TAO]

So, in regards to the Old Testament, perhaps God intervened when he saw mankind bogged down in sin and no longer progressing. But, what happened to all of those souls he "cleared from the pool"? Did they get more chances to improve? How?

After this life =).

[Honorentheos]

The burden of proof in explaining some belief on the part of the LDS that God would somehow go "poof" if He broke His own laws is on the person who argues that point.

"But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God."

The burden is on you to provide scriptural proof that your explaination is more valid than the straight-forward reading of this verse.

[LeSellers]

Interesting, how progression seems to involve sin, yes? That's a basic tenet of LDSism that most other religions do not embrace. Perfect innocence is really just perfect ignorance. Progression (knowledge) means slogging through the mire of good and evil, before we reach the pinnacle of perfection (perfect knowledge).

Yes, in practice, but no, in terms of necessity.

Christ Himself progressed, sinlessly, from "grace to grace".

The problem, as I reflect on it, is that we are all too stupid to learn from other peoples' mistakes. Experience, as the saying goes, is a thorough teacher, but her lessons are wasted on dead men.

Jesus was not the only One who could have progressed without sinning, any of us could have. But none of us do.

Lehi

[KevinG]

"But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God."

The burden is on you to provide scriptural proof that your explaination is more valid than the straight-forward reading of this verse.

The straight forward reading of this verse is the one I explained and I am a greater authority on my belief system than you could ever be. Given that the other posters and I have given you scriptural context and our own views of OUR OWN DOCTRINES.

Your lack of comprehension does not mean we don't know our own doctrines but it is typical of the types of sophestry I've experienced at the hands of evangelicals who oppose my faith.

[Ron Beron]

In another thread, a poster was banned from the thread for stating a common philosophical problem - if God commits genocide, should we classify him as evil and reject him? His answer was yes, we should reject God for doing so.

Is this a topic that MDD does not allow?

H.

Since God is the author and final arbiter of what is good and evil I hardly think it is right to judge God for His actions whatever they may be.

[Libs]

After this life =).

I certainly hope so, because things are not looking too good for me, this time around. I am a slow learner.

Yes, in practice, but no, in terms of necessity.

Christ Himself progressed, sinlessly, from "grace to grace".

The problem, as I reflect on it, is that we are all too stupid to learn from other peoples' mistakes. Experience, as the saying goes, is a thorough teacher, but her lessons are wasted on dead men.

Jesus was not the only One who could have progressed without sinning, any of us could have. But none of us do.

Lehi

They always say the oldest is the over-achiever in the family. lol

Seriously, though, I'm not sure about "could". Seems like if we "could" we "would". But, I could be wrong. I think we sin out of ignorance, which is why I called perfection "perfect knowledge". I think, if we had perfect knowledge of the way things work and what sin really is and does in our lives, we wouldn't sin.. Somehow Jesus gained that perfect knowledge, before he even came here. Whether it was in the pre-existence or past lives, I really don't know, but he did somehow gain that perfect knowledge.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Libs

[Libs]

Orthodox Christians say he had perfect knowledge, because he was God. Others might say he was God, because he somehow gained perfect knowledge.

[TAO]

I certainly hope so, because things are not looking too good for me, this time around. I am a slow learner.

Joseph stated so, and I'm pretty sure you can trust him. Of course, this doesn't abstain us from responsibility for this life... there is still importance... but it is all depending on what the Lord God sees fit =).

I wouldn't worry so much about being a slow learner as of making sure you are doing what God wants, and if you make mistakes, to come back to him =). That will serve you much better... because a repentant spirit will always have a way to become perfect, I hope =).

Best Wishes,

TAO