Inherenty Unethical (Sinful? Abominable?) vs. Situationally Unethical (Sinful? Abominable?)

[Darren10]

17 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I'm reminded that in First Samuel Chapter 15, one of the verses required in LDS Seminary's Scripture Mastery program (in red, below) centers around this commandment by "the voice of the words of the LORD (Jehovah)," "the LORD (Jehovah) of Hosts" to "utterly destroy" not only "both man, woman, infant and suckling," but even "all that they have, and spare them not," including their "ox and sheep, camel and ***":

 

 

 

17 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

It seems to me that, if one believes that God has authorized the atrocities outlined in Christian and LDS scriptures, then it's hard to justify that anything is "inherently" evil, since God has commanded all kinds of abominable actions, up to and including the most severe violence that anyone can inflict on someone else--the death of their entire families, including "infants and sucklings," as well as the animals of their households.

And if one can rationalize genocide as something that can be reconciled with God's will and therefore unsinful, then it seems to me that ultimately any behavior can be rationalized, as soon as one believes that God has come to authorize it, or sanctions it depending on any given situations' circumstances.

If all the above is true, it also seems challenging to explain to non-believers how Mormonism isn't founded on Moral Relativism.

 

17 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I remember that well, but I think that the verse in red can still be applicable (true) even if the story surrounding it isn't.

 

17 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Joseph believed and taught that such Biblical accounts are accurate, insofar as God actually does command things that are otherwise considered abominations... Or do you believe that  Joseph didn't teach that?  Or do you believe Joseph was also wrong?  And if so, upon what you base your objections/doubts?

 

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

There are very few physical acts that are always wrong. There are motives that are always wrong.

I for one believe i; the Biblical accounts thag God commanded His people to “utterly destory” all of its enemies in front of them. Lots of what Gid command ps His people and servants to do is a reflection of God Himself. And when Gid (Jesus Christ soecifically here) cones again for His Millenial reign he will “utterly destory” many, even children. 

Now. What daniel is arguing is that by teaching that If God commands to destroy and therefore destorying is rigjt whereas it is normally wrong then aren’t we living in moral relevtivism. I say no. I say so because whag is constant is carrying out the will of God in all things. 

To see this further, I like to refer to Nephi killing Laban. 

Quote

1 And it came to pass that I spake unto my brethren, saying: Let us go up again unto Jerusalem, and let us be faithful in keeping the commandments of the Lord; for behold he is mightier than all the earth, then why not mightier than Laban and his fifty, yea, or even than his tens of thousands?

2 Therefore let us go up; let us be strong like unto Moses; for he truly spake unto the waters of the Red Sea and they divided hither and thither, and our fathers came through, out of captivity, on dry ground, and the armies of Pharaoh did follow and were drowned in the waters of the Red Sea.

3 Now behold ye know that this is true; and ye also know that an angel hath spoken unto you; wherefore can ye doubt? Let us go up; the Lord is able to deliver us, even as our fathers, and to destroy Laban, even as the Egyptians.

From the start Nephi was convinced to go to Laban to get the plates Laban possessed. In verse 3 it says “to destroy Laban”. Here I interpret Nephi as saying that *if needs be* the Lord can destory Laban therefore why should his bretheren, Laman and Lemuel, fear confronting Laban. The truth of Nephi’s claims here are manifest in part by and angel speaking unto Laman and Lemuel. That account is given in chapter 3. An interesting chapter in that rigjt after the angel left, Laman and Lemuel began to doubt the angel’s words. My under standing is that Lamen and Lemuel both believed as did virtually the rest of Jeruselem that angels no longer apoeared to man and therefore the angel who appeared before the, simply “could not have happened” so to speak. 

Back to chapter 4. Bephi and his bretheren went unto Laban, were chased out but Nelhi returned in disguise. Here we read the following and I have placed in bold the portions I want to address:

Quote

8 And when I came to him I found that it was Laban.

9 And I beheld his sword, and I drew it forth from the sheath thereof; and the hilt thereof was of pure gold, and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine, and I saw that the blade thereof was of the most precious steel.

10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

The Old Testament makes accounts of destroying The enemies of God’s prople like “God said destroy them nd so we did. When we didn’t God cursed us.” It’s not that simple in real life. Real life is more in line of Nephi’s account in slaying Laban. Nephi initiall struggled to cary out the sill of the Lord. I like that mentioning since in real life I do to. I think we all do.  And like Nephi, there is nothing wrong with “wrestling” with the Lord over what He wants us to do.  It was only after Nephi knew for sure that slaying Laban was the will of the Lord that Nephi carried out the command to “destroy” Laban by slaying him. I’ve no doubt that in reality, such wrestling with the Divine to “destory” all, even children, was done. I’ve no doubt that God’s people had to have been reassured by God, mulptiple tines, that doing such was His will. 

I find that it is God which makes morality non relative. Whenever we say something is always wrong is not necessarily incorrect since it is probably wrong with God 99.999999999 % of he time. Like slaying children. (Cough cough, cough, ABORTION, cough cough, cough) but when God commands His people or any one of us to do something, it is wrong only to not do it. In knowing what God wants us to do, we need to sincerely (which is different from desparately) inquire God’s will in what to do. Many of to day’s morals such as cohabitation, homosexuality, pornography, laziness (it seems we are wanting so much more for nothing, much more thatn it used to be), etc., are things God has never suthorized and I do not think He ever will. If He does He does, I’m OK if He does but what we’re seeing now is simply a repetition of the past which has lead to societal destruction. So long as behaviors are embraced which run contrary to God’s will, the end will never be pleasant. So long as people seek to learn of God’s eill and live it, the end is much much much better. That’s the moral absolutism in moral choices. 

[Rain]

I see rape and especially the rape of childen as inherently wrong. Not speaking of "statutory rape" where the other person consents here because what is illegal in one state or country or time may not be in another and who has the ability to consent will vary widely from person to person. Legally things are set up to have a line drawn so people have a set thing to judge when in reality that wrong/right should judged every time. But any time a person a person doesn't choose it then it is inherently wrong. 

[Darren10]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I didn't read that thread, but here are my thoughts:

I am not persuaded that any act, in and of itself, is "inherently" unethical.  Or good.  Or evil.  Or moral.  Rather, it may be that the morality of the act is determined by the motive behind it.

In the law, there is a Latin maxim: "Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo," which roughly translates to "Your motive gives the name to your act."  Why you do X is what gives rise to the X being good or bad.  

The law also has the concept of "Malum in Se," meaning "wrong or evil in itself."  From Wikipedia:

Malum in Se is typically used principally to differentiate governmental regulations and laws that are merely Malum Prohibitum.  I think motive is pretty much baked into acts which are deemed to be Malum in Se.  Murder, for example, pre-supposes several things ("Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.").  Motive is tied up in with these presuppositions (particularly "malice aforethought").

Murder, then, is a label, a descriptor we give to the underlying act, which is the taking of a human life.  So Lee Harvey Oswald was a murderer.  And John Wayne Gacy.  And Jeffrey Dahmer.  And so on.  They took human lives unlawfully, without justification or valid excuse, and with malice aforethought.  They are murderers.

In contrast, if a police officer may draw his weapon and shoot deranged person with a gun who is on a shooting rampage, do we call that "murder?"  Nope.  No "unlawful"-ness about it.  Plenty of "justification or valid excuse."  No "malice."  The motive of the police officer is to save lives and protect public safety and order.  So he's not a murderer.  He's a hero.

Joseph Smith touched on this general subject:

Interesting stuff.

That's not a complete definition of murder.

CFR.

And "genocide" presumes malicious intent.

I don't think "sin" and "action" are synonymous.  "Sin" is, I think, defined as disobedience to God.  God is the ultimate arbiter of "right" and "wrong."  Since He's omniscient and omnipotent and perfectly just and righteous, and since He too is bound by eternal laws, He is qualified for that job. 

In other words, he's a trustworthy arbiter.  As Joseph Smith said, "the government of heaven" is conducted "by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed."  It is God doing to adapting.  It is God mandating conduct, disobedience to which is therefore "sin."

"Action," on the other hand, is any act we perform in life.  Actions are, I think, not inherently "sinful."  They are "sinful" when God says they are.

"Denying of the Holy Ghost" has motive and intent baked into it.  Per Hebrews 6:6:

And per the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

"One may speak even against Jesus Christ in ignorance and, upon repentance, be forgiven, but knowingly to sin against the Holy Ghost by denying its influence after having received it is unpardonable..."

"Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" presumes the intent of the person doing the blaspheming.  

Thanks,

-Smac

“And Jeffrey Dahmer.  And so on.  They took human lives unlawfully, without justification or valid excuse, and with malice aforethought.  They are murderers.” - But Jeffery Dahmer was just hungry. (Bad joke I know but I could not resist). 

“and since He too is bound by eternal laws” - You and Iwould probably quibble a bit on God being “bound” *by* eternal laws but I think you and I fully agree that He does live by eternal laws in an absolute sense. Everything else you wrote is superb. Have you ever considered being a lawyer?

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

“and since He too is bound by eternal laws” - You and I would probably quibble a bit on God being “bound” *by* eternal laws but I think you and I fully agree that He does live by eternal laws in an absolute sense. 

From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (emphasis added):

Quote

Latter-day scriptures and other sources do not explicitly state that eternal law exists independently or coeternally with God. This characteristic of eternal law is sometimes inferred, however, from two concepts that do have support in scripture and other LDS sources: 1. God is governed (bound) by law. Latter-day scriptures state that "God would cease to be God" if he were to allow mercy to destroy justice, or justice to overpower mercy, or the plan of redemption to be fulfilled on unjust conditions (Alma 42:13). Scriptures further state that "I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say" (D&C 82:10), implying that God by nature and definition-not by any external coercion-is righteous and trustworthy. Some Church writers have said that "[God] himself governs and is governed by law" (MD, p. 432) and that "the Lord works in accordance with natural law" (DS 2:27). They likewise speak of "higher laws" that account for providence and miracles.

This is what I had in mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 29, 2017 by smac97

[smac97]

19 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

It seems to me that, if one believes that God has authorized the atrocities outlined in Christian and LDS scriptures,

"Atrocities" presumes intent.

Quote

then it's hard to justify that anything is "inherently" evil, since God has commanded all kinds of abominable actions,

"Abominable" presumes intent.

Quote

up to and including the most severe violence that anyone can inflict on someone else--the death of their entire families, including "infants and sucklings," as well as the animals of their households.

And if one can rationalize genocide

"Genocide" presumes intent.

Quote

as something that can be reconciled with God's will and therefore unsinful, then it seems to me that ultimately any behavior can be rationalized,

Well, no.  I think God is bound by eternal laws.  See my previous quote of Joseph Smith, and also my previous quote of the EOM.

Quote

If all the above is true, it also seems challenging to explain to non-believers how Mormonism isn't founded on Moral Relativism.

Because "moral relativism" is not tied to anything.  Morality is "relative" to . . . anything.  It is arbitrary.  Capricious.  Not bound by law.  Not bound by God.

This is not what Latter-day Saints believe.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 29, 2017 by smac97

[Tacenda]

I have a hard time believing God would be as harsh on those that deny him vs. those that take innocent lives or that abuse others. Hard to believe there is no forgiveness for someone that has a faith crisis and doesn't know if they know God lives. 

[thesometimesaint]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I have a hard time believing God would be as harsh on those that deny him vs. those that take innocent lives or that abuse others. Hard to believe there is no forgiveness for someone that has a faith crisis and doesn't know if they know God lives. 

That isn't what denial of the Holy Ghost means.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

That isn't what denial of the Holy Ghost means.

You're right, I guess it means I'm not allowing the Holy Spirit to communicate that God lives, or something like that. 

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I didn't read that thread, but here are my thoughts:

I am not persuaded that any act, in and of itself, is "inherently" unethical.  Or good.  Or evil.  Or moral.  Rather, it may be that the morality of the act is determined by the motive behind it.

In the law, there is a Latin maxim: "Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo," which roughly translates to "Your motive gives the name to your act."  Why you do X is what gives rise to the X being good or bad.  

The law also has the concept of "Malum in Se," meaning "wrong or evil in itself."  From Wikipedia:

Malum in Se is typically used principally to differentiate governmental regulations and laws that are merely Malum Prohibitum.  I think motive is pretty much baked into acts which are deemed to be Malum in Se.  Murder, for example, pre-supposes several things ("Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.").  Motive is tied up in with these presuppositions (particularly "malice aforethought").

Murder, then, is a label, a descriptor we give to the underlying act, which is the taking of a human life.  So Lee Harvey Oswald was a murderer.  And John Wayne Gacy.  And Jeffrey Dahmer.  And so on.  They took human lives unlawfully, without justification or valid excuse, and with malice aforethought.  They are murderers.

In contrast, if a police officer may draw his weapon and shoot deranged person with a gun who is on a shooting rampage, do we call that "murder?"  Nope.  No "unlawful"-ness about it.  Plenty of "justification or valid excuse."  No "malice."  The motive of the police officer is to save lives and protect public safety and order.  So he's not a murderer.  He's a hero.

Joseph Smith touched on this general subject:

Interesting stuff.

That's not a complete definition of murder.

CFR.

And "genocide" presumes malicious intent.

I don't think "sin" and "action" are synonymous.  "Sin" is, I think, defined as disobedience to God.  God is the ultimate arbiter of "right" and "wrong."  Since He's omniscient and omnipotent and perfectly just and righteous, and since He too is bound by eternal laws, He is qualified for that job. 

In other words, he's a trustworthy arbiter.  As Joseph Smith said, "the government of heaven" is conducted "by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed."  It is God doing to adapting.  It is God mandating conduct, disobedience to which is therefore "sin."

"Action," on the other hand, is any act we perform in life.  Actions are, I think, not inherently "sinful."  They are "sinful" when God says they are.

"Denying of the Holy Ghost" has motive and intent baked into it.  Per Hebrews 6:6:

And per the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

"One may speak even against Jesus Christ in ignorance and, upon repentance, be forgiven, but knowingly to sin against the Holy Ghost by denying its influence after having received it is unpardonable..."

"Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost" presumes the intent of the person doing the blaspheming.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, it's clear you haven't read the thread yet, as much of what you're saying above is addressed in the thread, including the CFR and even the quotes by Joseph Smith in their full context.

Once you read it, let me know if you have any additional aspects you'd like me to clarify/respond to.

Daniel

EDIT: I see you've begun to respond to subsequent posts.  I'll start responding to those.  Thanks!

Edited November 29, 2017 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

You're right, I guess it means I'm not allowing the Holy Spirit to communicate that God lives, or something like that. 

That is not what denial of the Holy Ghost means, but thanks for playing along.

SEE https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-f-smith/chapter-8?lang=eng

The unpardonable sin is to willfully deny and defy the Holy Ghost after having received His witness.

No man can sin against light until he has it; nor against the Holy Ghost, until after he has received it by the gift of God through the appointed channel or way. To sin against the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, the Comforter, the Witness of the Father and the Son, wilfully denying him and defying him, after having received him, constitutes [the unpardonable sin].¹⁶

No man can possibly commit the unpardonable sin in ignorance. A man must be brought to a knowledge of Christ; he must receive a testimony of Christ in his heart, and possess light and power, knowledge and understanding, before he is capable of committing that sin. But when a man turns away from the truth, violates the knowledge that he has received, tramples it under his feet, puts Christ again to open shame, denies His atonement, denies the power of the resurrection, denies the miracles that He has wrought for the salvation of the human family, and says in his heart, “It is not true”, and abides in that denial of the truth, after having received the testimony of the Spirit, he commits the unpardonable sin.¹⁷

[Following the Savior’s Crucifixion,] why were [the Apostles] forgetful and seemingly ignorant of all they had been taught by the Savior respecting the objects of his mission to the earth? Because they lacked one important qualification, they had not yet been “endowed with power from on high.” [See Luke 24:49.] They had not yet obtained the gift of the Holy Ghost. …

If the disciples had been endowed with the “gift of the Holy Ghost,” or “with power from on high,” at this time, their course would have been altogether different … , as the sequel abundantly proved. If Peter, who was the chief apostle, had received the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the power and testimony thereof prior to the terrible night on which he cursed and swore and denied his Lord [see Matthew 26:69–75], the result would have been very different with him, for then he would have sinned against “light and knowledge,” and “against the Holy Ghost,” for which there is no forgiveness. The fact, therefore, that he was forgiven, after bitter tears of repentance, is an evidence that he was without the witness of the Holy Ghost, never having received it. The other disciples or apostles of Christ were precisely in the same condition, and it was not until the evening of the day on which Jesus came out of the grave that he bestowed upon them this inestimable gift [see John 20:22].¹⁸

Just before the risen Redeemer left the earth he commanded his disciples to tarry in the city of Jerusalem until they should be endowed with power from on high. They did so, and agreeable to promise, the Comforter came whilst they were met together, filling their hearts with unspeakable joy, insomuch that they spake in tongues and prophesied; and the inspiring influence of this holy being accompanied them in all their ministerial duties, enabling them to perform the great mission to which they had been called by the Savior.¹⁹

Saul, of Tarsus, possessing extraordinary intelligence and learning, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the perfect manner of the law, persecuted the Saints unto death, binding and delivering unto prisons both men and women; and when the blood of the Martyr Stephen was shed, Saul stood by keeping the raiment of those who slew him, and consented unto his death. And “he made havoc of the Church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.” [Acts 8:3.] And when they were put to death, he gave his voice against them, and he “punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, persecuted them even unto strange cities,” [Acts 26:11] and yet this man committed no unpardonable sin, because he knew not the Holy Ghost.²⁰

If any people on earth are capable of committing the unpardonable sin, you will find them among those who have, or will, come to a knowledge of the truth. … You and I have received the light. We have received the Holy Priesthood. We have received the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and have been brought from death unto life. Therefore, we are now on very safe or on dangerous ground,—dangerous if we are trifling with these sacred things that have been committed to our care. Hence I warn you, my brethren and sisters, especially my brethren, against trifling with your [priesthood]. … If you do, as God lives He will withdraw His Spirit from you, and the time will come when you will be found kicking against the light and knowledge which you have received, and you may become sons of perdition. Therefore, you had better beware lest the second death shall be passed upon you.²¹

 

 

[bluebell]

Double post.

Edited November 29, 2017 by bluebell

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

So, you believe that when Joseph said, "God said thou shalt not kill,—at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy," he wasn't confirming that God actually said the, "thou shalt utterly destroy" part (since, in your view, it was just a principle taught in a potentially untrue, non-literal story), despite the fact that in the same sentence when Joseph Smith said that "God said thou shalt not kill," it was something God actually did say, legitimately...? 

That doesn't seem like mental gymnastics to you to try to resolve your apparent discomfort with the Old Testament account by intentionally distorting what Smith actually said?

 

I honestly don't know if that's what he confirming or not.    

It's clear that JS is quoting the bible, but I don't know if he's quoting it because he believes it's a direct quote from God Himself or because he's teaching bible-believing people and the quote illustrates the point he was trying to make.  Is he using the bible as a tool to teach a principle here, or actually quoting God?  I don't know. 

I do believe that God can command people to kill and also command that we 'kill not'.  That doesn't seem like mental gymnastics to me and it's not a distortion of what Smith said either.

 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I tend to believe the same, and viewed such stories in the OT, inconsistent with a loving God. Then I read a comment by Bruce R McConkie that caused me to see it differently. He spoke of how there is no time with God, the [He] "God sees all things in one eternal round", and he went on pointing out that to God the is, "no dead or death". His point was that as God, he will give all the opportunity of salvation, as such he does not see as we see. I am sure I am raping this concept, hope enough of it got through. 

I don't believe that it is ever wrong for God to end a life because I know that death to God is different than how we understand death.  I do struggle though with God commanding other 'righteous' people to kill children.  

What would happen to you mentally and emotionally if you were commanded to kill unarmed women and children, infants and toddlers clinging to their mothers' bodies?  How many could you kill before you were scarred and damaged yourself?  And what would happen to those men who weren't all that righteous and were asked to do such things?  How would such acts impact a heart and soul that wasn't that interested in staying close to God? 

Broken people and monsters are made through such acts.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I have a hard time believing God would be as harsh on those that deny him vs. those that take innocent lives or that abuse others. Hard to believe there is no forgiveness for someone that has a faith crisis and doesn't know if they know God lives. 

My understanding of denying the Holy Ghost is that you are knowingly rebelling. And I don't mean rebelling against things you believe, but what you know. Things more along the brother of Jared knowledge. If denying the Holy Ghost is so bad then it just seems logical to me that most members do not have the knowledge necessary to do it. 

What people are judged on with a faith crises and a lack knowledge is far different. It's kind of like little children not being capable of sinning before they are 8. Without the real knowledge we are incapable of denying the Hold Ghost. 

A little child though does start to know right from wrong. At 2 she may not understand that hitting someone is wrong, but at 7 she know that. 

So it is with most of us. A faith crises is not something we do wrong. How we handle it can be wrong though. Do we try to stay close to the Lord or run away screaming? (I am talking overall, not just one time). Do we put the blame on anything and everyone out there or do we sincerely look at ourselves as well as the topics we are struggling over? If you are sincerely trying to find the truth it means you lack the knowledge to deny the Holy Ghost. 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Rain

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

From The Encyclopedia of Mormonism (emphasis added):

This is what I had in mind.

Thanks,

-Smac

While those scriptures do support the idea of God being bound by eternal laws, they are not explicit. For example, would not God “cease t9 be God” if He were purely merciful and save us all? Likewise, if He were purely jud5 and damn us all as we all deserve, would He not “cease to be Go”. In either scenario, what would it matter if we devoted ourselves to Him? No mater what we do, or how much love and devotion we offer, we would either be saved or damnaeb. That would make God irrelevant to us except for the final judgement. But a God is very relevant to us and thus becoming irrelevant He “ceases”, “to be God”, if He were to become irrelevant. But in the Atonement, which I think is what that Book of Mormon chapter is truly about, balances both justice and mercy. Neither will be sacrificed or forelorned for the sake of the other. But, that said, I think Hod is a being who leans heavily in the side of mercy but does so without neglecting justice. 

As for the Lord being bound to blessing us when we do right, I think He is a God of love and honor. He promises something He will do it. He has promised to bless us when we do what is right and so is “bound” to do so simply because He has made that promise. Also, God is very much a God of passion. 3 Nephi 17 reads in part,

Quote

4 But now I go unto the Father, and also to show myself unto the lost tribes of Israel, for they are not lost unto the Father, for he knoweth whither he hath taken them.

5 And it came to pass that when Jesus had thus spoken, he cast his eyes round about again on the multitude, and beheld they were in tears, and did look steadfastly upon him as if they would ask him to tarry a little longer with them.

6 And he said unto them: Behold, my bowels are filled with compassion towards you.

7 Have ye any that are sick among you? Bring them hither. Have ye any that are lame, or blind, or halt, or maimed, or leprous, or that are withered, or that are deaf, or that are afflicted in any manner? Bring them hither and I will healthem, for I have compassion upon you; my bowels are filled with mercy.

Out of “compassion” Jesus stayed among the Nephites. At least that’s how I read it. It is this same passion He has that God makes decisions. So when we do what is right, I think He is bound in part due to being glad we chose the right and out of that joy He feels, He blesses us, just as out of “compassion” Jesus stayed and blessed the sick and the children among the Nephites. It is God’s passion / compassion which bounds Him to bless us. 

Lastly, I do not take “some writers”, no matter what position in the priesthood they have been ordained to, as authoritative to conclude anything foundational to place my faith in. I do so for living revelation and canonical scriptures but not for “some writers” whose writings are not part of the Standard Works which include modern revelations such as the Proclamation to the World and Official Declarations 1-2. 

God the father has flesh and bone and is an exalted Being and the greatest intelligence. Law has no such characteristics. It has no coporeal body, no bone, no intelligence, and it does not even exist except conceptually and it is only as real as it is enforced by an intelligence. I do not see how a non exalted thing can have any bearing on an exalted being such as God.   I can only accept God being bound by eternal law only if there were a  previous or were previous exalted being or beings before Him enforcing those laws. I believe there is truth to this ( there bieng gids befire God) but like I previously stated, if it is noT LDS canon then I do not place my faith in it. 

Edited to add: I think there’s much truth in learning about ourselves by learning thr nature if God. God is merciful, keeps His promises, and rejoicing in people doing good, pretty much no matter who they are. I think these are good moral attributes to work on and better for ourselves. In other words, these are good, solid moralities we can improve on. It’ll held us become more like God. 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Darren10

[Rain]

51 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is not what denial of the Holy Ghost means, but thanks for playing along.

SEE https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-joseph-f-smith/chapter-8?lang=eng

The unpardonable sin is to willfully deny and defy the Holy Ghost after having received His witness.

No man can sin against light until he has it; nor against the Holy Ghost, until after he has received it by the gift of God through the appointed channel or way. To sin against the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, the Comforter, the Witness of the Father and the Son, wilfully denying him and defying him, after having received him, constitutes [the unpardonable sin].¹⁶

No man can possibly commit the unpardonable sin in ignorance. A man must be brought to a knowledge of Christ; he must receive a testimony of Christ in his heart, and possess light and power, knowledge and understanding, before he is capable of committing that sin. But when a man turns away from the truth, violates the knowledge that he has received, tramples it under his feet, puts Christ again to open shame, denies His atonement, denies the power of the resurrection, denies the miracles that He has wrought for the salvation of the human family, and says in his heart, “It is not true”, and abides in that denial of the truth, after having received the testimony of the Spirit, he commits the unpardonable sin.¹⁷

[Following the Savior’s Crucifixion,] why were [the Apostles] forgetful and seemingly ignorant of all they had been taught by the Savior respecting the objects of his mission to the earth? Because they lacked one important qualification, they had not yet been “endowed with power from on high.” [See Luke 24:49.] They had not yet obtained the gift of the Holy Ghost. …

If the disciples had been endowed with the “gift of the Holy Ghost,” or “with power from on high,” at this time, their course would have been altogether different … , as the sequel abundantly proved. If Peter, who was the chief apostle, had received the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the power and testimony thereof prior to the terrible night on which he cursed and swore and denied his Lord [see Matthew 26:69–75], the result would have been very different with him, for then he would have sinned against “light and knowledge,” and “against the Holy Ghost,” for which there is no forgiveness. The fact, therefore, that he was forgiven, after bitter tears of repentance, is an evidence that he was without the witness of the Holy Ghost, never having received it. The other disciples or apostles of Christ were precisely in the same condition, and it was not until the evening of the day on which Jesus came out of the grave that he bestowed upon them this inestimable gift [see John 20:22].¹⁸

Just before the risen Redeemer left the earth he commanded his disciples to tarry in the city of Jerusalem until they should be endowed with power from on high. They did so, and agreeable to promise, the Comforter came whilst they were met together, filling their hearts with unspeakable joy, insomuch that they spake in tongues and prophesied; and the inspiring influence of this holy being accompanied them in all their ministerial duties, enabling them to perform the great mission to which they had been called by the Savior.¹⁹

Saul, of Tarsus, possessing extraordinary intelligence and learning, brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the perfect manner of the law, persecuted the Saints unto death, binding and delivering unto prisons both men and women; and when the blood of the Martyr Stephen was shed, Saul stood by keeping the raiment of those who slew him, and consented unto his death. And “he made havoc of the Church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.” [Acts 8:3.] And when they were put to death, he gave his voice against them, and he “punished them oft in every synagogue, and compelled them to blaspheme; and being exceedingly mad against them, persecuted them even unto strange cities,” [Acts 26:11] and yet this man committed no unpardonable sin, because he knew not the Holy Ghost.²⁰

If any people on earth are capable of committing the unpardonable sin, you will find them among those who have, or will, come to a knowledge of the truth. … You and I have received the light. We have received the Holy Priesthood. We have received the testimony of the Holy Spirit, and have been brought from death unto life. Therefore, we are now on very safe or on dangerous ground,—dangerous if we are trifling with these sacred things that have been committed to our care. Hence I warn you, my brethren and sisters, especially my brethren, against trifling with your [priesthood]. … If you do, as God lives He will withdraw His Spirit from you, and the time will come when you will be found kicking against the light and knowledge which you have received, and you may become sons of perdition. Therefore, you had better beware lest the second death shall be passed upon you.²¹

 

 

I thik it is important to be careful with that last paragraph. Some, from this, will think everyone who has been ordained or been given the Holy Ghost is immediately culpable, but many don't receive the Holy Ghost or light etc right away or in full. When he talks about Paul and Peter you could see that in a sense they did have light before, just not the full light. So it is with us.

Secondly, people should notice that "the time will come when you will be found kicking against the light and knowledge which you have received, and you may become sons of perdition." So even some who are kicking may not be guilty, though I would never advise someone to try against the warning! 

Edited November 29, 2017 by Rain

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

While those scriptures do support the idea of God being bound by eternal laws, they are not explicit.

Well, God is "bound" by something.  D&C 82:10 is pretty explicit ("I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.").

I would also think that God is "bound" per D&C 130:20 ("There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated...").

That God is "bound" makes sense to me.  2+2 equals 4.  I think God is "bound" by this because it is truth, and He is the God of Truth.

I think the EOM article is a pretty good summary of how I feel about this.

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

For example, would not God “cease to be God” if He were purely merciful and save us all?

Well, God is not only perfectly merciful, he is also perfectly just.  Mercy cannot rob justice (Alma 42:25), so whatever manifestation of mercy God shows, is correct.

My thoughts:

1. Perfection, as an attribute of God, includes total mastery of will/agency.
2. Total mastery of will means total/perfect compliance with eternal laws.  
3. Total compliance with eternal laws puts the surety of God's unchanging/unending righteousness (and, hence, His status as "God") on par with those eternal laws.  So 2 + 2 (in an interval scale) will always equal 4.  Always.  No question.  No debate.  No hypothetical scenario where 2 + 2 ≠ 4 (again, on an interval scale).  God's righteousness is likewise definite.  Enduring.  Everlasting.  Quite a comforting thought, that.

Both Mormon and Alma made rhetorical statements about conditions under which "{God} would cease to be God."  However, both of them immediately clarify that these are purely rhetorical/hypothetical statements, not predictions or declarations that God might "cease to be God."  See, e.g., Mormons 9:15, 19 (emphases added):

Quote

 

 15 And now, O all ye that have imagined up unto yourselves a god who can do no miracles, I would ask of you, have all these things passed, of which I have spoken? Has the end come yet? Behold I say unto you, Nay; and God has not ceased to be a God of miracles.
...
 19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

And Alma 42 (emphasis added):

 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.
...
 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.

 

See also the numerous scriptures regarding the attributes of God, including:

• the Lord changes not: 3 Ne. 24:6 . (Moro. 8:18.)
• God is same yesterday, today, forever: Morm. 9:9 .
• no variableness or shadow of changing in God: Morm. 9:9–10 .
• God is same yesterday, today, forever: D&C 20:12 .
• God is infinite, eternal, unchangeable, from everlasting to everlasting: D&C 20:17 .

So, regarding the character of God and whether He is constrained by eternal laws, we have to look at the lexical limitations we face, such as what do we mean by "bound" and "eternal laws."  But at the end of it all, and based on the above scriptures, my answer is, essentially . . . yes, God is "bound" by some eternal laws.

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Likewise, if He were purely jud5 and damn us all as we all deserve, would He not “cease to be God”.

I'm not sure about that.  Again, both Mormon and Alma made rhetorical statements about conditions under which "{God} would cease to be God." However, both of them immediately clarify that these are purely rhetorical/hypothetical statements, not predictions or declarations that God might "cease to be God."

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

In either scenario, what would it matter if we devoted ourselves to Him? No mater what we do, or how much love and devotion we offer, we would either be saved or damnaeb. That would make God irrelevant to us except for the final judgement. But a God is very relevant to us and thus becoming irrelevant He “ceases”, “to be God”, if He were to become irrelevant.

Sorry, but I do not understand what you are saying here.

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

But in the Atonement, which I think is what that Book of Mormon chapter is truly about, balances both justice and mercy. Neither will be sacrificed or forelorned for the sake of the other. But, that said, I think Hod is a being who leans heavily in the side of mercy but does so without neglecting justice. 

I agree with that.

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

As for the Lord being bound to blessing us when we do right, I think He is a God of love and honor. He promises something He will do it. He has promised to bless us when we do what is right and so is “bound” to do so simply because He has made that promise.

The point, though, is that He is "bound."

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

Also, God is very much a God of passion. 3 Nephi 17 reads in part,

Out of “compassion” Jesus stayed among the Nephites. At least that’s how I read it. It is this same passion He has that God makes decisions. So when we do what is right, I think He is bound in part due to being glad we chose the right and out of that joy He feels, He blesses us, just as out of “compassion” Jesus stayed and blessed the sick and the children among the Nephites. It is God’s passion / compassion which bounds Him to bless us. 

Lastly, I do not take “some writers”, no matter what position in the priesthood they have been ordained to, as authoritative to conclude anything foundational to place my faith in.

I can appreciate that.  I think that there is room for disagreement on this point.  I think this is why the EOM hedges its bets a bit.

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I do so for living revelation and canonical scriptures but not for “some writers” whose writings are not part of the Standard Works which include modern revelations such as the Proclamation to the World and Official Declarations 1-2. 

In the law, there are sources of legal information which are called "mandatory authorities," and some which are "persuasive authorities."  "Mandatory (or "Binding") authorities" are sources which an attorney or judge in a given circumstance must accept and follow.  The U.S. Constitution, for example, is a mandatory authority.  Chapter 1 of Title 57 of the Utah Code is a "mandatory authority" for real estate foreclosures in Utah.  In contrast, "persuasive authorities" are "sources of law, such as related cases or legal encyclopedias, that the court consults in deciding a case, but which, unlike binding authority, the court need not apply in reaching its conclusion."

So it is, I think, with many writings about the Gospel.  There are "mandatory authorities" and "persuasive authorities."  I think people like you and I are quite at liberty to disagree with "persuasive authorities" (such as Mormon Doctrine, Doctrines of Salvation, etc.). 

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

God the father has flesh and bone and is an exalted Being and the greatest intelligence. Law has no such characteristics.

Well, apparently some laws are "eternal" (see here).

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

It has no coporeal body, no bone, no intelligence, and it does not even exist except conceptually and it is only as real as it is enforced by an intelligence. I do not see how a non exalted thing can have any bearing on an exalted being such as God.   I can only accept God being bound by eternal law only if there were a  previous or were previous exalted being or beings before Him enforcing those laws.

Okay.

14 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

I believe there is truth to this but like I previously stated, if it is no LDS canon then I do not place my faith in it. 

I respect that.

Thank you,

-Smac

[Darren10]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Atrocities" presumes intent.

"Abominable" presumes intent.

"Genocide" presumes intent.

Well, no.  I think God is bound by eternal laws.  See my previous quote of Joseph Smith, and also my previous quote of the EOM.

Because "moral relativism" is not tied to anything.  Morality is "relative" to . . . anything.  It is arbitrary.  Capricious.  Not bound by law.  Not bound by God.

This is not what Latter-day Saints believe.

Thanks,

-Smac

But if God is bound by eternal law is He not bound by morality? And if He is bound by morality does He not bound morality upon us? 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

But if God is bound by eternal law is He not bound by morality?

I think our notions of "morality" are finite and blinkered.  God's understanding of morality is infinite and perfect.  Hence the quote from Joseph Smith ("This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed. Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.").  See also Isaiah 55:8-9:

Quote

8 ¶ For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

I think God's "ways" and "thoughts" include His command of "morality."

7 minutes ago, Darren10 said:

And if He is bound by morality does He not bound morality upon us? 

Yes.  But his command of morality is superior to ours.  Hence Joseph Smith's comment ("God said, 'Thou shalt not kill;' at another time He said, 'Thou shalt utterly destroy.'  This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed.").  

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

On 11/28/2017 at 10:54 AM, Daniel2 said:

c) then is there ANY sin/action that is truly "inherently" evil? 

All sin is inherently evil.  The problem is that you are defining sin wrong.

All of the law and prophets hinge on one great commandment - to love God.  That means that all of sin hinges upon the same command.  All of sin is centered in not loving God - that is inherently evil.  How do we love God?  We do his will.

God’s commandments (the law and the prophets) may evolve or be situational, but sin (to not love God) is inherent and eternally evil.

edit to add: ...and neighbor as yourself.

Edited November 29, 2017 by pogi

[cinepro]

 

5 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I tend to believe the same, and viewed such stories in the OT, inconsistent with a loving God. Then I read a comment by Bruce R McConkie that caused me to see it differently. He spoke of how there is no time with God, the [He] "God sees all things in one eternal round", and he went on pointing out that to God the is, "no dead or death". His point was that as God, he will give all the opportunity of salvation, as such he does not see as we see. I am sure I am raping this concept, hope enough of it got through. 

If that were the case, then murder would be no big deal to God.  He could literally say "Don't worry about killing each other.  While it may seem like a big deal to you at the time, it's really quite meaningless, and it doesn't bother Me at all."

 

Edited November 29, 2017 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I thik it is important to be careful with that last paragraph. Some, from this, will think everyone who has been ordained or been given the Holy Ghost is immediately culpable, but many don't receive the Holy Ghost or light etc right away or in full. When he talks about Paul and Peter you could see that in a sense they did have light before, just not the full light. So it is with us.

Secondly, people should notice that "the time will come when you will be found kicking against the light and knowledge which you have received, and you may become sons of perdition." So even some who are kicking may not be guilty, though I would never advise someone to try against the warning! 

I'm not in a position to say who has or will deny the Holy Ghost with full knowledge of him. I try to be generous with all and let God make that determination. As to the Son's of Perdition I see them as those not willing to repent under any circumstances.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 11/28/2017 at 10:54 AM, Daniel2 said:

..............................................

If:

a) Mormonism views murder (as defined as the taking of an innocent life) as the most serious/egregious/abominable/worst sin of all, save only for 'the denying of the Holy Ghost,

b) If God has commanded the taking of innocent lives (i.e. genocide of non-Chosen peoples, as in the Old Testament),

c) then is there ANY sin/action that is truly "inherently" evil?  Would it only be 'the denying of the Holy Ghost'?

Murder is the unlawful/unjustified taking of human life.  God's command to take human life is by definition always lawful.  Inherent evil is not part of that equation.

However, disobedience to God would always be inherently evil.

The real question is, How do we determine the will of God?

[bluebell]

46 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

If that were the case, then murder would be no big deal to God.  He could literally say "Don't worry about killing each other.  While it may seem like a big deal to you at the time, it's really quite meaningless, and it doesn't bother Me at all."

 

Just because death is not death in God's understanding, doesn't mean that God has to be o.k, with other people deciding for Him when His children's earthly probation is done, though.

[CV75]

23 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

It seems to me that, if one believes that God has authorized the atrocities outlined in Christian and LDS scriptures, then it's hard to justify that anything is "inherently" evil, since God has commanded all kinds of abominable actions, up to and including the most severe violence that anyone can inflict on someone else--the death of their entire families, including "infants and sucklings," as well as the animals of their households.

And if one can rationalize genocide as something that can be reconciled with God's will and therefore unsinful, then it seems to me that ultimately any behavior can be rationalized, as soon as one believes that God has come to authorize it, or sanctions it depending on any given situations' circumstances.

If all the above is true, it also seems challenging to explain to non-believers how Mormonism isn't founded on Moral Relativism.

Mormonism is founded on the principle of agency and in choosing who to follow. Once one has chosen his ultimate or absolute authority and follows it, there is no relativism about it. When LDS reject moral relativism, it is in recognition that others do not believe in or use agency in the same way, which is far more fundamental than believing in God or not. This is where the doctrine about the light of Christ (“which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings” and which “enlighteneth every man through the world.”) is extremely valuable. See also: https://www.lds.org/topics/light-of-christ?lang=eng

People also rationalize evil without believing in God, or by refusing to believe in Him. They have just, consciously or not, chosen another ultimate moral authority to follow. Being in the position of rationalizing that which has been pointed out to them as evil, they sabotage their or another person's agency by willfully committing evil, and so they cannot build upon that foundation of agency, and moral relativism becomes a suitable substitute for them. It is thus an effective counterfeit for agency.

31 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Murder is the unlawful/unjustified taking of human life.  God's command to take human life is by definition always lawful.  Inherent evil is not part of that equation.

However, disobedience to God would always be inherently evil.

The real question is, How do we determine the will of God?

We determine the will of God through the exercise of agency in conjunction with the inherent light of Christ which is in us and all things.

Edited November 29, 2017 by CV75