Are the rules just whatever God wants?

[JLHPROF]

Two previous comments got me thinking about the idea that God can change what he allows or approves of according to his will.  These comments imply that all laws and commandments come according to what God desires at any given time.

I unsurprisingly have multiple concerns with such thinking.  Not the least among these is the troubling idea of a fickle, inconstant deity.

For context, the first poster stated God could give priesthood to anyone he wants any time he wants, even going so far to include animals.  The second poster suggested that God can issue new approval for things that have never yet existed any time he wants.  In this case SSM or female ordination.

What does everyone think - do rules and divine approval of them simply come from what God personally wants for us at any given time?  Are laws subject to God or is God subject to law?

[The Nehor]

Most laws are probably a bit of both. If you mean laws given to us right now most are probably of the ad hoc variety. They have divine wisdom but it is doubtful they are eternal.

And yeah, God could change who gets the priesthood. He could give it to women and thank men for their service and take it from them. He could restrict it based on genealogy. He could go full Set and say only redheads should get it.

We don’t know which laws we are following are eternal except for possibly a few we can pull from scripture.

[JLHPROF]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Most laws are probably a bit of both. If you mean laws given to us right now most are probably of the ad hoc variety. They have divine wisdom but it is doubtful they are eternal.

And yeah, God could change who gets the priesthood. He could give it to women and thank men for their service and take it from them. He could restrict it based on genealogy. He could go full Set and say only redheads should get it.

We don’t know which laws we are following are eternal except for possibly a few we can pull from scripture.

Thank you for a serious response! 🙂

[teddyaware]

41 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Two previous comments got me thinking about the idea that God can change what he allows or approves of according to his will.  These comments imply that all laws and commandments come according to what God desires at any given time.

I unsurprisingly have multiple concerns with such thinking.  Not the least among these is the troubling idea of a fickle, inconstant deity.

For context, the first poster stated God could give priesthood to anyone he wants any time he wants, even going so far to include animals.  The second poster suggested that God can issue new approval for things that have never yet existed any time he wants.  In this case SSM or female ordination.

What does everyone think - do rules and divine approval of them simply come from what God personally wants for us at any given time?  Are laws subject to God or is God subject to law?

As for your example of female ordinations, I don’t think it’s a good one. I say this because for nearly fifty years I’ve known that at some point in time women of the Church are going to be called up and anointed priestesses, and that there are many women who are already endowed with portions of priestesshood authority. I say this because without that priestesshood authority there’s no way women would be able officiate in the ordinances temple the way they do. So I’ve been expecting God to drop the other revelatory shoe on this contentious point of doctrine for a many years.

Edited January 22, 2022 by teddyaware

[california boy]

It has been my experience that God's laws tend to be what mankind wants them to be.  If they were all so clear cut, everyone would be following the same laws.

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Most laws are probably a bit of both. If you mean laws given to us right now most are probably of the ad hoc variety. They have divine wisdom but it is doubtful they are eternal.

And yeah, God could change who gets the priesthood. He could give it to women and thank men for their service and take it from them. He could restrict it based on genealogy. He could go full Set and say only redheads should get it.

We don’t know which laws we are following are eternal except for possibly a few we can pull from scripture.

Some LDSers are going to be so confused in the next world when women are using the priesthood right along with other gods, creating worlds.  And everyone is hoping to have some gay gods that seem to have a gift for designing the most incredible flora and fauna.  You guys will all be looking for me after your 10th flower and have run out of ideas.  

[CV75]

1: No. God gives priesthood authority only to the eternally best option available at any given time, as defined by whatever was done by His Father (and others with whom He communes in a “Church of the Firstborn”) under the same circumstances.

2. No. God can change established laws from revelation (i.e., the orders He gives His servants the prophets who have the keys to the kingdom of God on earth) only when it is eternally the best course of action (see 1).

3. God and His will are subject to no one and no thing because all He does is in eternal support of His constant communion with a “Church of the Firstborn.”

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

It has been my experience that God's laws tend to be what mankind wants them to be.  If they were all so clear cut, everyone would be following the same laws.

But everyone does follow the same laws, by and large.

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But everyone does follow the same laws, by and large.

Ah, no they don't.  Of the thousands of religious beliefs, can you give me 10 religious belief that everyone agrees upon?

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Ah, no they don't.  Of the thousands of religious beliefs, can you give me 10 religious belief that everyone agrees upon?

It only takes one (one law, not a religious belief -- you've conflated God's laws with religious belief within 2 posts!). Can you think of one?

Edited January 22, 2022 by CV75

[SkyRock]

God is God because he knows all the eternal laws and obeys them all.

All miracles from God are in conformity with eternal law. 

We do not understand all the laws of God and cannot in our current condition as mere mortals.

[strappinglad]

Can God make a law that He can't break ? 

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

As for your example of female ordinations, I don’t think it’s a good one. I say this because for nearly fifty years I’ve known that at some point in time women of the Church are going to be called up and anointed priestesses, and that there are many women who are already endowed with portions of priestesshood authority. I say this because without that priestesshood authority there’s no way women would be able officiate in the ordinances temple the way they do. So I’ve been expecting God to drop the other revelatory shoe on this contentious point of doctrine for a many years.

I have no problem with women being if ordained but can only be done when God says it is time.  My problem with the ordain women group is they decided it was time for women to be ordained and started a crusade to see that it happened.  Their movement was saturated with the sin of pride. The more I read their argument, the more I was convinced of all women in the church who are in line to get the priesthood, they we the least ready.  They made the priesthood about them  and the priesthood is never about us or you.  

[webbles]

1. I'd say the answer is really yes and no.  The priesthood is His authority.  Those in the Celestial Kingdom will have it, both male and female.  But as for this life, it depends on what God needs.  I don't believe it can be given to animals, though.  I think it can only be given to members of His species.

2. Depends on if the law is an eternal law or a mortal law.  An example of an eternal law - "No unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of God".  God can't change that or else He would cease to be God.  An example of a mortal law - "Thou shalt not kill".  We have multiple examples of where God commanded people to kill others.  As to how to determine if a law is eternal or mortal?  Ask Him.

3. Same answer as #2.  He is subject to some laws and some laws are subject to Him.

[bluebell]

I'm going to go with: 

1) I don't know.  The priesthood is the authority to act in the name of God.  Does God have the ability to decide who can act on His name?  It would be kind of weird if He didn't.

2) I don't know.  The OT called circumcision an "everlasting covenant."  But we don't do it anymore.

3) I don't  know but I think a little of both.

Edited January 22, 2022 by bluebell

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Some LDSers are going to be so confused in the next world when women are using the priesthood right along with other gods, creating worlds.  And everyone is hoping to have some gay gods that seem to have a gift for designing the most incredible flora and fauna.  You guys will all be looking for me after your 10th flower and have run out of ideas.  

Nah, I have plenty of ideas. The flower that hypnotizes you with its colors until a bear eats you, a flower that sings to entrance you until a bear eats you, a flower that grabs you with its vines and holds you until a bear eats you, a flower that eats bears to absorb their strength, a flower that bears eat that turns them into man eaters.

And I have a lot more. A few don’t even involve bears.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Can God make a law that He can't break ? 

Yes.

Law: God can do whatever he wants.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, webbles said:

1. I'd say the answer is really yes and no.  The priesthood is His authority.  Those in the Celestial Kingdom will have it, both male and female.  But as for this life, it depends on what God needs.  I don't believe it can be given to animals, though.  I think it can only be given to members of His species.

 

I am the one who brought this up.  I don’t believe animals would get the priesthood.  Just that God makes the rules, not us.  If God wanted dogs and cats to have the priesthood, that is in his domain to do so.  We don’t get a vote on these issues 

[JLHPROF]

16 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I am the one who brought this up.  I don’t believe animals would get the priesthood.  Just that God makes the rules, not us.  If God wanted dogs and cats to have the priesthood, that is in his domain to do so.  We don’t get a vote on these issues 

I don't agree.  I think God is as bound by rules he operates under as we are.

[Olmec Donald]

I'm not entirely sure that "the rules" as we know them are necessarily at the most fundamental level.  Consider for instance that many of "the rules" under the Law of Moses are no longer in effect.

My understanding is that two core principles are the foundation for "the law" AND "the prophets":  We are to love God completely, and to love our neighbor as ourself.  Thus "the law" (i.e. "the rules") and "the prophets" (the scriptures?) are presumably supposed to be the practical applications of these two core principles.  

Unfortunately I am not wise enough to always see how these two core principles directly translate into "the rules".  "Love your neighbor as yourself" sometimes seems to me to imply something different from what "the rules" say.

I have far more confidence in the permanence of these two core principles than I have in the permanence of "the rules".

Edited January 23, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[Calm]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Two previous comments got me thinking about the idea that God can change what he allows or approves of according to his will.  These comments imply that all laws and commandments come according to what God desires at any given time.

Alma 42 suggests there are things God can’t do when it comes to his law…whether because choosing to do them would change who he is or his relationship to the Universe so he no longer was God (which I am assuming means here in covenant with all to be our God) or because it is so basically contrary to his nature he actually can’t do it.  Since laws are part of his fundamental relationship with us, seems to me he can’t change them arbitrarily…..but I also believe we only see the actual laws in a very limited way and what appears to us as change could be the height of consistency in an eternal perspective just as not allowing a child to drive a car, but an adult can is consistent if one looks at it from the responsibility angle as opposed to thinking it is just a law about people (if the law was people can drive cars, then saying kids can’t drive cars would be inconsistent).

Quote

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

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

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

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

26 And thus God bringeth about his great and eternal purposes, which were prepared from the foundation of the world. And thus cometh about the salvation and the redemption of men, and also their destruction and misery.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bofm/alma/42?lang=eng

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

.  I think God is as bound by rules he operates under as we are.

I think it is possible that God created the laws we and he are bound by them just as we can make promises and yet be expected to keep them by those who trust us.  He may be bound by them because if he breaks them it would destroy what he created.

But I can think of other possibilities of how laws and God interact and I bet there are many more possibilities that I can’t think of, so I am concluding nothing save I can trust God to do what is not only right, but best for us all as individuals and as the entire race of humanity.
 

 At this point I don’t think we understand the universe even close to well enough to know its laws nor do we see God’s greater moral laws in a complete form, so drawing lines when it gets to the details saying he will or won’t…I see no way to support those types of conclusions.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

The OT called circumcision an "everlasting covenant." 

Perhaps “everlasting” means it will always be recognized as fulfilling the law that required it, that God will not ask for ‘repayment’ or a do over so to speak…an analogy of the reverse could be an American bank accepting payment with a Canadian bank’s check and telling us we had met that month’s student loan payment schedule, but then they changed their minds to only American banks only and not only do they refuse the new month’s payment, they then declare all past payments that were done with Canadian checks null and void as if they never occurred and penalized us for being late. (Not quite what happened to us, but close).  Let me tell you that bank’s credibility dropped with us big time when it accepted first and then rejected and acted like it was us who hadn’t lived up to the contract.  If God was running the bank, once the bill was accepted as paid by the teller, it would always be considered paid even if later on the bank  no longer accepted Canadian checks. 

That definition, imo, of everlasting works better with the linking of it to “new” when the covenants are not actually new in existing even if new to us, but have been used by others long before. New and everlasting here are about function and a particular type of relationship and fulfilling that rather than simple existence/knowledge of. 

I just read the first chapter of Genesis in my new study Bible which makes the observation that ancient Hebrews as well as other nations understood creation not as we do, but rather that something was created when it was given a function. No function, no existence. If this is too confusing I can quote it, but I think it helps when thinking of eternities and beginnings not to try and imagine nothing existing before, but rather the line between no function and function, no relationship and relationship, no covenant and covenant, or essentially no meaning and meaning. 

Edited January 23, 2022 by Calm

[Olmec Donald]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

The OT called circumcision an "everlasting covenant." 

 

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Perhaps “everlasting” means... that God will not ask for... a do over so to speak

I sure hope not.

[Calm]

Just now, Olmec Donald said:

 

I sure hope not.

Not exactly what I meant by do over, but perfect.