Is god a mormon?

[jkwilliams]

Just now, ttribe said:

Oh?  Then, by all means, explain it to me.

It’s interesting to hear discussion of natural law when Joseph Smith taught that the only absolute was doing what God commands. So, that which is “sin” is not sin when commanded by God. 

And the concept of sin is very much culturally defined. If it were “natural,” it might be more consistent. 

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh?  Then, by all means, explain it to me.

Sin is a label, but it identifies those things that are destructive to eternal life...if you believe in such.

Just like acid is a name for chemicals that cause a certain type of chemical reaction. 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Calm

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

It seems like those who think they are getting direct communication are incredibly inconsistent. Even within the same religion.  Just study the nature of God in LDS history. It has changed quite a bit.

If it didn’t change our claim to continuing revelation would be in serious question.

[Jamie]

Just now, ttribe said:

That's not a generally accepted definition, either, but thanks for playing.

It actually is the most generally accepted definition of what sin is.  Ask anybody.  Do a poll.  Take out an advertisement asking for definitions of sin.  Sure there will be some exceptions, like you, but on the whole and in the majority you'll find people say "sin is bad stuff" in whatever words they use to convey that idea.  If most people thought sin was some kind of good thing then most people would question why God would not want people to sin.

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sin is a label, but it identifies those things that are destructive to eternal life...if you believe in such.

I agree.  Natural law exists whether we like it or not and we are all observably subject to it; gravity, time, death, are all natural laws and quite definitely exist whether humans exist or not.  The adherence to laws as constructed by God or human lies outside nature.

1 minute ago, Jamie said:

It actually is the most generally accepted definition of what sin is.  Ask anybody.  Do a poll.  Take out an advertisement asking for definitions of sin.  Sure there will be some exceptions, like you, but on the whole and in the majority you'll find people say "sin is bad stuff" in whatever words they use to convey that idea.  If most people thought sin was some kind of good thing then most people would question why God would not want people to sin.

Yours is an overly simplistic argument and lacks substance.  The concepts of 'good' or 'bad' are not universal, nor are they consistent across time, nor do they exist apart from humanity's identification of them.  'Sin' takes that to another level and measures actions as 'sin' or not relative a codified divine law.  Humankind does not agree on what constitutes 'sin.'  Indeed, as @jkwilliams correctly pointed out, Joseph Smith even taught that what constitutes sin differs according to the circumstances.  Once again, not universal, not consistent across time, nor does it exist apart from their identification and codification by human or Deity.  Nature doesn't care whether I sin.  Gravity will still keep me planted to the ground, time will pass, and at some point I will die, whether I sin or not.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The adherence to laws as constructed by God or human lies outside nature

This is assuming what is being debated about sin. 
 

One could say there are constructed and natural laws of love. A natural one could be if one loves someone, one protects them if needed. A constructed one would be giving Valentine gifts. 
 

In my view there are sins that will destroy spirituality such as selfishness and pride...even if we don’t believe these experiences are sinful, I believe they do. There are other behaviours that are sins because we have chose to place them outside of our acceptable behaviours and they may not be sins for others. For example, there are people out there who if their partner forgets an anniversary, it sincerely hurts them because it is important to them. If they have informed their partner and the partner doesn’t care enough to pay attention and forgets, that is a sin. My husband forgetting an anniversary is not a sin because I don’t care. But him forgetting something I have told him over and over that is important to me, like telling me when he changes plans so I don’t worry...I believe that is a sin because it creates pain in our relationship that is unnecessary.  No doubt there are things I forget that he wants me to do, so not implying he is wallowing in sin while I am practically perfect. 

Edited June 1, 2021 by Calm

[JLHPROF]

22 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Oh?  Then, by all means, explain it to me.

"Sin" when it is truly sin, always breaks an eternal law, a natural law, a law that has always and will always exist.

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

Sin is a label, but it identifies those things that are destructive to eternal life...if you believe in such.

Just like acid is a name for chemicals that cause a certain type of chemical reaction. 

I like this Calm, I may have to use it in the future.

Ttribe, sometimes the breaking of that law is not always evident.  And I will fully acknowledge that recognizing it as such is often a matter of faith...until it becomes so self evident that it can't be denied.
But we'd have to agree on what laws are eternal and natural to match them to the action labelled sin.  And I don't see that happening.

Edited June 1, 2021 by JLHPROF

[ttribe]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

This is assuming what is being debated. 

Respectfully, it doesn't.  Any law which exists because of the will of God or man is, by definition, non-natural.  Nature's laws exist whether you and I exist, or not.  Nature's laws exist whether there is a God or not, especially in LDS doctrine which suggests that God is subject to those laws.  The concepts of sin, mercy, justice, good, bad, etc. are all constructs which we use to guide our actions, whether they were imposed upon us by God, or we created them ourselves.  No amount of sinning or not sinning by humankind will result in gravity changing in any way.  No amount of sinning or not sinning will cause our planet to change the rate at which it orbits our sun.  Those things don't exist because someone willed it; they stand apart from the will of any being.

[Jamie]

17 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Yours is an overly simplistic argument and lacks substance. 

Not at all.

17 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The concepts of 'good' or 'bad' are not universal, nor are they consistent across time, nor do they exist apart from humanity's identification of them.

Yes they are, on all 3 points.  Good is never bad and bad is never good.  What is called good often varies from person to person but good always refers to something positive and beneficial in some way while anything that is called bad is the opposite.

... not counting the bsilly people who use the word bad to refer to something they think is good, as some people use that slang speech imply. 

17 minutes ago, ttribe said:

  'Sin' takes that to another level and measures actions as 'sin' or not relative a codified divine law. 

no, same level.  calling something a sin is still simply another way to say that something is bad or not a good thing to do. 

17 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Humankind does not agree on what constitutes 'sin.' 

Humankind doesn't agree on all kinds of things, but still when most people say something is good they mean it is a positive and somehow beneficial while the word bad denotes it is the opposite kind of thing.

17 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Indeed, as @jkwilliams correctly pointed out, Joseph Smith even taught that what constitutes sin differs according to the circumstances. 

True, but even in whatever circumstances you will find yourself in something good will be something that is positive and beneficial in some way while something bad won't be that.

17 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Once again, not universal, not consistent across time, nor does it exist apart from their identification and codification by human or Deity.  Nature doesn't care whether I sin.  Gravity will still keep me planted to the ground, time will pass, and at some point I will die, whether I sin or not.

Even what you are saying now can be classified as either good or bad, or sin or what is not sin.  It is a sin to say something you know is not true but even if you don't know that what you are saying is not true it is still not good to say things that are not true.

[JLHPROF]

23 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Respectfully, it doesn't.  Any law which exists because of the will of God or man is, by definition, non-natural. 

I think you have this backwards.  Natural law doesn't exist because of God.  God exists because he has mastered natural law.  His will obeys all the eternal laws.  Which is why nature obeys him.

Quote

No amount of sinning or not sinning by humankind will result in gravity changing in any way.  No amount of sinning or not sinning will cause our planet to change the rate at which it orbits our sun.  Those things don't exist because someone willed it; they stand apart from the will of any being.

I think your view of natural law is a bit narrow.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So far as I can tell, you have neglected to take any claims in the LDS Canon seriously enough to subject them to science and logic.  Either that or you don't know how, and are unfamiliar with the literature on the subject.  

No need to be this condescending. It’s not a good look. 

Does the literature make it more plausible that there was a Hebraic proto-Christian civilization in Mesoamerica? Or that a bog-standard funerary scroll is actually an account of Abraham? 

I would bet that Teancum is as familiar with apologetic literature as I am and is as nonplussed as I am. 

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, ttribe said:

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

Respectfully, it doesn't.  Any law which exists because of the will of God or man is, by definition, non-natural. 

There are two trains of thought in Latter-day Saint theology....one is God created everything. So in this case, God created laws like gravity. If God created gravity, is it not a natural law in your view?

But there is the version in Latter-day Saint theology where there are laws relating to eternal life that exist eternally in the same sense that they are coeternal with God. Most Saints who believe this likely also believe that gravity and similar physical laws are coeternal.  In this scenario, certain of the laws of eternal life are not dependent on the will of God. 

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

There are two trains of thought in Latter-day Saint theology....one is God created everything. So in this case, God created laws like gravity. If God created gravity, is it not a natural law in your view?

But there is the version in Latter-day Saint theology where there are laws relating to eternal life that exist eternally in the same sense that they are coeternal with God. Most Saints who believe this likely also believe that gravity and similar physical laws are coeternal.  In this scenario, certain of the laws of eternal life are not dependent on the will of God. 

I would say that the latter is more consistent with the concept of Eternal Progression and that "As man now is, God once was..."

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, ttribe said:

No amount of sinning or not sinning by humankind will result in gravity changing in any way.

That is like saying no amount of adding acid to a base will result in gravity changing. Of course not, eternal laws don’t change because of actions taken and an action affected by one law won’t be affected in the same way by another law. Gravity isn’t involved in thinking racist thoughts towards someone else, but the eternal laws relating to love and human relationships can be applied (behaviour examined in terms of such laws).  Sinning doesn’t change the eternal laws of eternal life either. 

Edited June 2, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

Just now, ttribe said:

I would say that the latter is more consistent with the concept of Eternal Progression and that "As man now is, God once was..."

I agree. It is the version I believe. 

[ttribe]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I think you have this backwards.  Natural law doesn't exist because of God.  God exists because he has mastered natural law.  His will obeys all the eternal laws.  Which is why nature obeys him.

I think your view of natural law is a bit narrow.

The circular reasoning is strong.

As for Bible myths, let's just say, anyone can tell a story.

[ttribe]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

That is like saying no amount of adding acid to a base will result in gravity changing. Of course not, eternal laws don’t change because of actions taken and an action affected by one law won’t be affected in the same way by another law. Gravity isn’t involved in thinking racist thoughts towards someone else, but the eternal laws relating to love and human relationships can be applied (behaviour examined in terms of such laws).  Sinning doesn’t change the eternal laws of eternal life either. 

You have a point when it comes to the notion that conflating natural laws is a flaw in my argument.  That being said, when I stated that sin was a construct, I was accused of not believing in natural consequences; hence, my examples.

[Robert F. Smith]

47 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

No need to be this condescending. It’s not a good look. 

Does the literature make it more plausible that there was a Hebraic proto-Christian civilization in Mesoamerica? Or that a bog-standard funerary scroll is actually an account of Abraham? 

I would bet that Teancum is as familiar with apologetic literature as I am and is as nonplussed as I am. 

Scholars are less concerned with how something looks than with substantive discussion.  The problem here is that Teancum ignored several posts in which the actual alternatives were presented to him, and he completely missed them.  You seem to be missing them as well.  it is very likely on that basis alone that he is as nonplussed as you, and you are a very intelligent person.

If neither of you has any idea what it means to actually apply standard forensic analysis to a problem, then there is likely to be no such analysis.

Instead, you pose the question of the plausibility of "a Hebraic proto-Christian civilization in Mesoamerica," on the one hand, or "a bog-standard funerary scroll is actually an account of Abraham," on the other.  Put that way, one immediately avoids having to address the forensic evidence at all.  The great archeologist Mike Coe, however, made the same mistake -- something he would never have done in addressing any of the ruins of ancient America.  After all, the apriori fact was the ridiculous Book of Mormon.  No need for the use of any science or logic in such an absurd matter.  No need to repeat or address any of the data contained in his own scholarly books and articles.  After all, that would have been a waste of time.

Moreover, all discussion can be dismissed as "apologetic" anyhow, since no scholarship could possibly be involved.  Finally, no actual skill or training is needed to do such analysis, any more than brain surgery requires years of prior training.  All of that can be done on the fly.  Mere assertion carries the day.  It's all cut and dried.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Scholars are less concerned with how something looks than with substantive discussion.  The problem here is that Teancum ignored several posts in which the actual alternatives were presented to him, and he completely missed them.  You seem to be missing them as well.  it is very likely on that basis alone that he is as nonplussed as you, and you are a very intelligent person.

If neither of you has any idea what it means to actually apply standard forensic analysis to a problem, then there is likely to be no such analysis.

Instead, you pose the question of the plausibility of "a Hebraic proto-Christian civilization in Mesoamerica," on the one hand, or "a bog-standard funerary scroll is actually an account of Abraham," on the other.  Put that way, one immediately avoids having to address the forensic evidence at all.  The great archeologist Mike Coe, however, made the same mistake -- something he would never have done in addressing any of the ruins of ancient America.  After all, the apriori fact was the ridiculous Book of Mormon.  No need for the use of any science or logic in such an absurd matter.  No need to repeat or address any of the data contained in his own scholarly books and articles.  After all, that would have been a waste of time.

Moreover, all discussion can be dismissed as "apologetic" anyhow, since no scholarship could possibly be involved.  Finally, no actual skill or training is needed to do such analysis, any more than brain surgery requires years of prior training.  All of that can be done on the fly.  Mere assertion carries the day.  It's all cut and dried.

Well, you’ve perfected the straw man, if nothing else. Cheers. 

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Scholars are less concerned with how something looks than with substantive discussion.  The problem here is that Teancum ignored several posts in which the actual alternatives were presented to him, and he completely missed them.  You seem to be missing them as well.  it is very likely on that basis alone that he is as nonplussed as you, and you are a very intelligent person.

If neither of you has any idea what it means to actually apply standard forensic analysis to a problem, then there is likely to be no such analysis.

Instead, you pose the question of the plausibility of "a Hebraic proto-Christian civilization in Mesoamerica," on the one hand, or "a bog-standard funerary scroll is actually an account of Abraham," on the other.  Put that way, one immediately avoids having to address the forensic evidence at all.  The great archeologist Mike Coe, however, made the same mistake -- something he would never have done in addressing any of the ruins of ancient America.  After all, the apriori fact was the ridiculous Book of Mormon.  No need for the use of any science or logic in such an absurd matter.  No need to repeat or address any of the data contained in his own scholarly books and articles.  After all, that would have been a waste of time.

Moreover, all discussion can be dismissed as "apologetic" anyhow, since no scholarship could possibly be involved.  Finally, no actual skill or training is needed to do such analysis, any more than brain surgery requires years of prior training.  All of that can be done on the fly.  Mere assertion carries the day.  It's all cut and dried.

"Do unto others..." still applies to scholars, Robert.  Being a respectful grownup goes a long way in a discussion.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Respectfully, it doesn't.  Any law which exists because of the will of God or man is, by definition, non-natural.  Nature's laws exist whether you and I exist, or not.  Nature's laws exist whether there is a God or not, especially in LDS doctrine which suggests that God is subject to those laws.  The concepts of sin, mercy, justice, good, bad, etc. are all constructs which we use to guide our actions, whether they were imposed upon us by God, or we created them ourselves.  No amount of sinning or not sinning by humankind will result in gravity changing in any way.  No amount of sinning or not sinning will cause our planet to change the rate at which it orbits our sun.  Those things don't exist because someone willed it; they stand apart from the will of any being.

We (including God) choose the laws we live by. At the same time, “All kingdoms have a law given… And unto every kingdom is given a law” -- D&C 88: 36-39). Someone has to be doing the giving/assigning of laws to kingdoms, and He is identified in verses 5-13. He is specifically identified as “the law by which all things are governed.” The law is a personal entity.

“All things” includes what the inhabitants of one kingdom might call “natural” and those of another kingdom call “supernatural.” They range from cosmic laws (see verses 7-10) to psychic laws (e.g., verse 11^a) to spiritual laws (e.g., verses 13^d and 26-27).

God gives these laws by opening up the array choices available by virtue of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. In this way He is the Gatekeeper for the kingdoms among which we have access to choose. There is no kingdom, and no law, without inhabitants to appreciate the fruits of their choices and to abide in that kingdom and its laws.

[ttribe]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

We (including God) choose the laws we live by. At the same time, “All kingdoms have a law given… And unto every kingdom is given a law” -- D&C 88: 36-39). Someone has to be doing the giving/assigning of laws to kingdoms, and He is identified in verses 5-13. He is specifically identified as “the law by which all things are governed.” The law is a personal entity.

“All things” includes what the inhabitants of one kingdom might call “natural” and those of another kingdom call “supernatural.” They range from cosmic laws (see verses 7-10) to psychic laws (e.g., verse 11^a) to spiritual laws (e.g., verses 13^d and 26-27).

God gives these laws by opening up the array choices available by virtue of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. In this way He is the Gatekeeper for the kingdoms among which we have access to choose. There is no kingdom, and no law, without inhabitants to appreciate the fruits of their choices and to abide in that kingdom and its laws.

So, tell me then, what are the natural law consequences of sin?

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

So, tell me then, what are the natural law consequences of sin?

Death.  😉

But seriously, pick an actual sin.  I bet you can figure a corresponding natural consequence not dependent on a fickle deity.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Death.  😉

But seriously, pick an actual sin.  I bet you can figure a corresponding natural consequence not dependent on a fickle deity.

No one escapes death.

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

No one escapes death.

True.  But thanks to our Savior nobody stays dead either.