The Destruction of God?

[The Nehor]

I was hoping based on the title thatthis thread was a Lex Luther style plot to build a laser that fires pure Kolobite that will drain God of his powers.

Very disappointed.  

[Bobbieaware]

4 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Would you say, then, that opposition is greater than God? If his existence depends on it........

No, because God has complete, absolute and ultimate control over all things that pertain to the principle of opposition in all things. In the LDS ontology, there is no separation between God and the law, for God is the law...

9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life. (3 Nephi 15)

The law doesn’t control God because the law and God’s mind and will are one and the same.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Yes there must be "opposition in all things" because that is the way we think.  No good without evil because we define one term in terms of the other.

The description "righteous" can only be explained as opposed to "unrighteous" plus of course we have the line "For that is the way Father obtained His knowledge".

Words are words, and yes there can be no black without white to describe what the word "white" does NOT describe.

Nowhere does the scripture actually include the words "God himself" that is your insertion into the scripture and your personal interpretation.  The way you have written it above appears as if those words are in the scripture and they are not.

There are no such things as "uncreated realities", adverbs and adjectives are parts of speech used to describe behaviors and mental states.  On the other hand none of reality is "created" since it is organized.  So what is an "uncreated reality"?

Just because I can coin a word or make it up does not mean I have created a thing which corresponds to it.  

It is not like there is an uncreated reality called "wickedness" - some cloud which is always physically wrestling with a different colored cloud named "righteousness"  it is more that we cannot describe one word without knowing the other.  Confusing words with entities is the cause of much confusion.

We must know good to know evil, pain to know pleasure etc.

Isn’t God one of the things that exists within reality? Or is he not a thing? 

Nowhere in Lehi’s discourse does he say that God can exist outside of reality, and the reality of existence can only be affirmed upon the immutable and all-pervasive principle of opposition in all things. In fact, he asserts that the only reason why God is God is because he is an essential component of reality, with a very specific oppositional role to fulfill, who can only  exist in any meaningful way as God because he is an integral part of the reality of a creation based on opposition in all things. Read and see for yourself...

13 And if ye shall say there is no 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 there 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. (2 Nephi 2)

Edited February 2, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I wonder what contemporary sources may have also influenced this topic.  Does anyone know if there were 19th century discussions on this idea of opposition that may have any interesting parallels with these BoM teachings on opposition?  

I find this post interesting because there are members of the Church with shaken faith syndrome who say the want to stay connected to the LDS Church because they don’t want to throw the LDS Church ‘baby’ out with the bath water. But without any apparent desire to engage in a theological discussion based on the merits of the Book of Mormon itself (certainly a most significant component of the LDS Church “baby”) in this instance the immediate impulse is to want to look outside of the Book of Mormon for 19th century evidences that might be able to demonstrate the concepts found in 2 Nephi 2 are plagiarized from some other source. The old saying that speaks of throwing the baby out with the bath water is calculated to teach us that something of significant value souldn’t be discarded as worthless just because it might be temporarily mingled with something of far lesser value. I believe the Book of Mormon is more than worthy of spirited discussion without dumping it out like so much dirty bath water.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

No, because God has complete, absolute and ultimate control over all things that pertain to the principle of opposition in all things. In the LDS ontology, there is no separation between God and the law, for God is the law...

9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life. (3 Nephi 15)

The law doesn’t control God because the law and God’s mind and will are one and the same.

Do you mean that this shows it is impossible for God to fail?

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I was hoping based on the title thatthis thread was a Lex Luther style plot to build a laser that fires pure Kolobite that will drain God of his powers.

Very disappointed.  

Hang on. It's not over yet.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

No, law is greater than God.
And in order for there to be law, there has to be obedience and opposition (ie agency).  Or else the law could not exist.

Do I understand this correctly?

The law is greater than God. For law to exist, there must be obedience, and for obedience to exist there must be agency.

Is agency greater than law? Were God to violate agency, he would cease to be God. Thus agency is the greatest of all?

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

if there is an opposition in all things, what's the opposition of you?  

That would be un-me, or my annihilation. Chaos versus order.

[Bobbieaware]

55 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you mean that this shows it is impossible for God to fail?

God is not some sort of divine machine or heavenly computer that has no choice but to invariably and inevitably choose to do good. That’s the static God of the Greek philosophy influenced creeds. Rather, God is good because of he wants to be good, finds joy in doing good and loves doing good. The reason why we should love and honor him with all our hearts is because by his own free will and choice he chooses to be good, even if it means he has to descend into the lowest regions of hell to fulfill all righteousness. For this reason he is the truest exemplar of a hero, someone who deserves our deepest love, our glad obedience and most sincerest devotion. 

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

No, because God has complete, absolute and ultimate control over all things that pertain to the principle of opposition in all things. In the LDS ontology, there is no separation between God and the law, for God is the law...

9 Behold, I am the law, and the light. Look unto me, and endure to the end, and ye shall live; for unto him that endureth to the end will I give eternal life. (3 Nephi 15)

The law doesn’t control God because the law and God’s mind and will are one and the same.

Does this statement have any meaning? It seems circular to me. 

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do I understand this correctly?

The law is greater than God. For law to exist, there must be obedience, and for obedience to exist there must be agency.

Is agency greater than law? Were God to violate agency, he would cease to be God. Thus agency is the greatest of all?

First part sounds about right.

Agency can be diminished among those who fight against law.  Law cannot be diminished by allowing agency.  So I would say agency is subject to law, and therefore not the greatest.

God would cease to be God by violating law, including the law of agency.  That was Lucifer's plan.

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Words are human inventions and not Forces of Nature or even Forces of God.

Because we can make up the description "moral agency" to describe doing what we consider to be praiseworthy or blameworthy in our behavior does not make them Forces of the Universe which have to be somehow in Balance.  Justice does not need to Balance Mercy, we just need to be fair with each other.   Justice is at the bottom, fairness.  We do something wrong, then we should try to fix it and do our best to fix it because those are the rules which allow happy living among us.  Barring the ability to fix it, the wronged person should try to compensate the person wronged insofar as it is possible, in some other way.

So THAT is the way justice balances mercy- it does so in concrete human terms that operate between people.  There are no cosmic "scales" weighing "uncreated realities" there are just people doing what they can to get along and be fair.

Are they not also eternal attributes of godliness? How else are we to comprehend them if not through our words? Mercy and justice exist on the cosmic level - according to Lehi and Alma. Without them, God would not to be God. Do they exist apart from God?

[Bernard Gui]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

First part sounds about right.

Agency can be diminished among those who fight against law.  Law cannot be diminished by allowing agency.  So I would say agency is subject to law, and therefore not the greatest.

God would cease to be God by violating law, including the law of agency.  That was Lucifer's plan.

If Satan understood this, would he not have been foolishly advocating for his own destruction?

Edited February 3, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

I find this post interesting because there are members of the Church with shaken faith syndrome who say the want to stay connected to the LDS Church because they don’t want to throw the LDS Church ‘baby’ out with the bath water. But without any apparent desire to engage in a theological discussion based on the merits of the Book of Mormon itself (certainly a most significant component of the LDS Church “baby”) in this instance the immediate impulse is to want to look outside of the Book of Mormon for 19th century evidences that might be able to demonstrate the concepts found in 2 Nephi 2 are plagiarized from some other source. The old saying that speaks of throwing the baby out with the bath water is calculated to teach us that something of significant value souldn’t be discarded as worthless just because it might be temporarily mingled with something of far lesser value. I believe the Book of Mormon is more than worthy of spirited discussion without dumping it out like so much dirty bath water.

Some non-LDS posters may wish to chime in, but I am not aware that what we are discussing is a concept shared by other Judeo/Christian faiths, at least not with this terminology. The connection with Taoist yin/yang was mentioned. Do you think that is significant or counts as plagiarism?

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Does this statement have any meaning? It seems circular to me. 

Take up your circular argument objection with the Lord. He’s the one who said “I am the law.”😏

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

Some non-LDS posters may wish to chime in, but I am not aware that what we are discussing is a concept shared by other Judeo/Christian faiths, at least not with this terminology. The connection with Taoist yin/yang was mentioned. Do you think that is significant or counts as plagiarism?

I was being oblique. The gentleman I responded to recently said although he rejects most of the teachings of the Church as being true he’s decided to stay because he doesn’t want to “throw the baby out with the bath water.” So I was wondering out loud if he considers the Book of Mormon to be some of the ‘bath water.’ I say this because rather than wanting to discuss your very interesting question on the Book of Mormon’s own merits, he immediately attempted to derail the thread (a derail you acknowledged) with questions about whether or not Joseph Smith (not Lehi) discovered and propagatied the concept of opposition in all things after learning about it from, but not giving credit to, a 19th century source. This constant looking at all things LDS from every possible negative angle makes me wonder if in this case there really is any ‘baby’ that wants to be held onto. In other words, I posted out of exasperation.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Without wisdom, purpose, power, justice, and mercy, what would remain of God that would make him God? Without those attributes, how  could his place be secured in the Council of Gods? What would happen to his relationship with the Son?

 

There is a difference between speaking of "mercy" as a word describing one of God's attributes as an entity in itself  and using that word to describe how God deals with his children.

There is no such "THING" as "MERCY" but yes of course God takes "mercy" upon us as his children.  Mercy describes how God ACTS not some vague universal force called "mercy".

Surely you can see the difference.

Were I to ask your question I would say

"If God were not wise, if he had no purpose for us, if he did treat us justly and mercifully what would remain of God's dealing with his children that would make him God?"

See the difference?

In one instance we are talking about GOD and in the other we are talking about amorphous entities floating in space as if they were independent forces not even related to God but as if they are possessions of God.  

We need to speak of the way God acts toward his children- those would be verbs and adverbs instead of nouns.

When you use "mercy" as a noun, you make it into a "THING" which makes no sense.   Where is mercy?  How much does it weigh?  What are the other attributes of mercy besides being a manifestation of merciful?

This line of thought leads to thinking in terms of "substance"  or "form" as if attributes are independent of the thing itself.  It is Platonic, sectarian thinking.  If you see attributes as different entities from the thing, you can prove the Trinity exists by three people being one in "substance" because they are filled with the same substance  and transubstantiation being true because suddenly bread can have the "appearance" of bread but in "substance really" flesh just with the appearances of bread attached.

So thinking of attributes as separate noun-things than just the way we describe the thing leads to logical confusion and is precisely why we have such errors as the Trinity and transubstantiation and alchemy, the belief in shape changers etc.  "It looks like this but it is really that" just leads to confusion.

What you see is what you get. 

You can't sit on "chairness" or the attribute of being "ergonomic".  You can't even sit on "comfort". 

God acts mercifully yet with justice- he doesn't have x tons of mercy which must balance y tons of Justice floating somewhere in the universe.

Does that help?

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Isn’t God one of the things that exists within reality? Or is he not a thing? 

Nowhere in Lehi’s discourse does he say that God can exist outside of reality, and the reality of existence can only be affirmed upon the immutable and all-pervasive principle of opposition in all things. In fact, he asserts that the only reason why God is God is because he is an essential component of reality, with a very specific oppositional role to fulfill, who can only  exist in any meaningful way as God because he is an integral part of the reality of a creation based on opposition in all things. Read and see for yourself...

13 And if ye shall say there is no 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 there 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. (2 Nephi 2)

God is a real person with a glorified tangible human body.  I would never say he is a "thing which exists in reality".  I have no understanding what any of those words mean to be honest.  Sorry.  I am not smart enough to understand that level of abstraction.  Define "reality".  Define how people are "things".   Define "exists".   Seriously.

No one has been successful in defining those words coherently in 2000 years that I am aware of.

Show me where I said God exists outside of reality?  Dunno what that means either.

I am sorry I do not believe that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon infallibly or that it is God Breathed.   I believe is an inspired translation of the writings of a prophet - a human being speaking in human words, from a previous and pre-philosophical culture who may have spoken that way.  Maybe Joseph got it right , maybe he didn't.

I think the highlighted words should simply be translated "And if God has not these as part of his character, there is no God"  Those chararacter traits DEFINE what we think God should be, so God could not fit our definition of "God" if he were not righteous etc.  An evil god just isn't "God" and would not be worthy of worship.

Anything else makes positively no sense and is sectarian thinking.  I am sure Joseph never thought of these issues, but who would suspect he would?

Hey I know we are buddies but this is just the way Thomas Aquinas would see it- in speaking about "substance".  Before he died, Thomas saw his errors and said: 

Quote

"The end of my labors has come. All that I have written appears to be as so much straw after the things that have been revealed to me."?

Reply as you like but I probably will not answer more.  It is an important distinction to me and I think our friendship is more valuable than arguing over words. 

I feel you perhaps do not understand the importance of this distinction- it is the difference between the Godhead being "One in purpose" vs being "consubstantial"  Immaterial substances are not "real" "things".

Edited February 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Are they not also eternal attributes of godliness? How else are we to comprehend them if not through our words? Mercy and justice exist on the cosmic level - according to Lehi and Alma. Without them, God would not to be God. Do they exist apart from God?

Does "chairness" exist apart from chairs?  Does human nature exist apart from humans?  Does "blue" exist apart from blue things?

If your answer is "yes" you are a Neoplatonist and probably Catholic. 

Where are they and how does "blue" exist on its own?   These are called "adjectives" they are no mysterious substances floating around somewhere.   What about size?   Where is "bigness"?  Wetness?  Heaviness? How much does heaviness weigh?

And no I do not think that is what Lehi and Alma meant at all. 

If you can explain how "blue" "exists" apart from blue things, please expound.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

There is a difference between speaking of "mercy" as a word describing one of God's attributes as an entity in itself  and using that word to describe how God deals with his children.

There is no such "THING" as "MERCY" but yes of course God takes "mercy" upon us as his children.  Mercy describes how God ACTS not some vague universal force called "mercy".

Surely you can see the difference.

Were I to ask your question I would say

"If God were not wise, if he had no purpose for us, if he did treat us justly and mercifully what would remain of God's dealing with his children that would make him God?"

See the difference?

In one instance we are talking about GOD and in the other we are talking about amorphous entities floating in space as if they were independent forces not even related to God but as if they are possessions of God.  

We need to speak of the way God acts toward his children- those would be verbs and adverbs instead of nouns.

When you use "mercy" as a noun, you make it into a "THING" which makes no sense.   Where is mercy?  How much does it weigh?  What are the other attributes of mercy besides being a manifestation of merciful?

This line of thought leads to thinking in terms of "substance"  or "form" as if attributes are independent of the thing itself.  It is Platonic, sectarian thinking.  If you see attributes as different entities from the thing, you can prove the Trinity exists by three people being one in "substance" because they are filled with the same substance  and transubstantiation being true because suddenly bread can have the "appearance" of bread but in "substance really" flesh just with the appearances of bread attached.

So thinking of attributes as separate noun-things than just the way we describe the thing leads to logical confusion and is precisely why we have such errors as the Trinity and transubstantiation and alchemy, the belief in shape changers etc.  "It looks like this but it is really that" just leads to confusion.

What you see is what you get. 

You can't sit on "chairness" or the attribute of being "ergonomic".  You can't even sit on "comfort". 

God acts mercifully yet with justice- he doesn't have x tons of mercy which must balance y tons of Justice floating somewhere in the universe.

Does that help?

I understand what you are saying. Of course justice and mercy are not things that substantially exist in space. I'm not sure about time, though.  However, it seems to me that Lehi and others in the Book of Mormon treat mercy and justice as more than just attributes, qualities,  verbs, as you indicate. I am intrigued that the Book of Mormon even entertains the notion that God could cease to be God if he did operate with the perfect balance of these things....wisdom, power, justice, and mercy. Certainly they cannot be measured by weight or breadth, but having them in sufficient quantity and quality appears to be requisite for Godhood.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

Take up your circular argument objection with the Lord. He’s the one who said “I am the law.”😏

No, I don't care to do that. I would like to hear your thoughts based on Lehi's revelation.

[3DOP]

wasn't sure I should post

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by 3DOP

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

I was being oblique. The gentleman I responded to recently said although he rejects most of the teachings of the Church as being true he’s decided to stay because he doesn’t want to “throw the baby out with the bath water.” So I was wondering out loud if he considers the Book of Mormon to be some of the ‘bath water.’ I say this because rather than wanting to discuss your very interesting question on the Book of Mormon’s own merits, he immediately attempted to derail the thread (a derail you acknowledged) with questions about whether or not Joseph Smith (not Lehi) discovered and propagatied the concept of opposition in all things after learning about it from, but not giving credit to, a 19th century source. This constant looking at all things LDS from every possible negative angle makes me wonder if in this case there really is any ‘baby’ that wants to be held onto. In other words, I posted out of exasperation.

Indeed. I share the same concerns. That's why I asked he open another thread if he wanted to pursue it. I would be game.  It would be interesting, but as you say, such an approach shuts down any serious inquiry into the deep doctrines in the Book of Mormon. 

[Bobbieaware]

21 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Indeed. I share the same concerns. That's why I asked he open another thread if he wanted to pursue it. I would be game.  It would be interesting, but as you say, such an approach shuts down any serious inquiry into the deep doctrines in the Book of Mormon. 

Thank you.

[Bobbieaware]

40 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I understand what you are saying. Of course justice and mercy are not things that substantially exist in space. I'm not sure about time, though.  However, it seems to me that Lehi and others in the Book of Mormon treat mercy and justice as more than just attributes, qualities,  verbs, as you indicate. I am intrigued that the Book of Mormon even entertains the notion that God could cease to be God if he did operate with the perfect balance of these things....wisdom, power, justice, and mercy. Certainly they cannot be measured by weight or breadth, but having them in sufficient quantity and quality appears to be requisite for Godhood.

I don’t think you actually do understand Mark. I say this because Mark would never agree with the idea that justice and mercy are things that exist outside of time and space. You see, one can visualize within the imagination that justice and mercy are abstract principles that sort of float around somewhere outside of space and time, but that’s all it would be, a visualization within the human mind that isn’t actually real apart from the thoughts of human mind. The only place that justice and mercy can actually exist is within the thoughts of an intelligent mind.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Bobbieaware

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

If Satan understood this, would he not have been foolishly advocating for his own destruction?

Moses 4:6 And Satan put it into the heart of the serpent, (for he had drawn away many after him,) and he sought also to beguile Eve, for he knew not the mind of God, wherefore he sought to destroy the world.