God and Right/Wrong - Bad argument for Mormons

[_Sethbag]

It's not uncommon for an atheist to hear from a believer, when arguing or discussing, that if there's no God, then there's no Right or Wrong. That admitting that there's a Right and a Wrong necessarily requires a God to explain why Right is Right, and Wrong is Wrong.

This is a terrible argument for Mormons to make, actually. It's terrible because Mormons don't now, and never have (as far as I know) believed that God determines what is Right and what is Wrong.

Mormon theology posits a natural, Celestial law, which God necessarily obeys. This is pointed out fairly clearly in LDS theology. God obeys laws. God indeed is God because he obeys the laws that govern Gods.

Eternal law exists, in Mormon theology, independent of any determination or decision on God's part. Eternal law exists whether God exists or not, according to Mormon theology.

In Mormon theology, God doesn't determine wrong and right, he merely tells us what they are.

The only argument Mormons could have which has much potential, in an argument with an atheist, is that listening to God is a more accurate and more reliable method of obtaining knowledge of what is right and wrong, than is attempting to figure it out by any other means. And, given the past record of revelatory performance by LDS prophets in such matters, and questionable ethical examples from scripture (to understate it dramatically), I think this would be a highly dubious claim at best.

[_Thama]

One thing that still fascinates me about the Mormon concept of God is the completely different set of philosophical problems it presents, as compared with a classical Judeo-Christian concept of God.

The classical version is, for all ethical purposes, deontological or Kantian. The laws of the universe, right and wrong, are the way they are because he made them that way. Therefore, being good necessarily draws one closer to God, because God is good, simply because God gets to decide what good is. The problem here is obviously the paradox: If the laws of the universe and of morality are resultants of God, then if evil exists it is also a resultant of God. Evil as a consequence of free will is very difficult to resolve in this system, because predestination is a necessary consequence of this sort of God. Therefore, all evil is because of God, and God is not perfect... in which case a fundamental part of the definition of God (his perfection) is broken.

The Mormon version is basically consequentialist, at least according to 2 Nephi (and much of the D&C). He himself chose to become God by doing and becoming good, and if he does not act accordingly, he may yet cease to be God. "Greatest good" in this case means what will maximize eternal progression, just as pleasure represents in utilitarianism. The problem here is that this does not tell us anything about where the concept of good comes from, and casts doubt on God's omnipotence: if he created the universe and all its laws, then why an external source of good? Is he really God, or simply a more advanced but still incomplete version of ourselves?

The Mormon concept appears to satisfy some (though not all) of the issues with suffering and free will that the classical concept struggles with, though at a serious cost to the reliability of the source. You're exactly right that the record in scripture of divine reliability is a bit sketchy. Anyone reading the Old Testament and then the New Testament (or studying modern morality) could figure that out... if you hadn't by Joshua you certainly would then.

[_Ren]

So basically:
Either God makes up morality, or he / she / it stole it from somewhere else.

Yeah - I think that pretty much covers it :)

[_Canucklehead]

Hey Sethbag, awesome post.

The one thing that I would add is that Mormon theology also postulates that one cannot ever gain their exaltation without doing so via Christ. I find these two strains of theology very difficult to reconcile.

On the one hand, you have the idea that God is God because he has learned to perfectly obey the eternal laws of the universe. This would imply that if any being could learn to master these same laws, it would become a god also. However, on the other hand, it is taught that none of us could achieve godhood without Christ intervening on our behalf. Because we have all sinned, we need to have a perfect being somehow take our sins upon himself before we'll ever achieve exaltation. It is not very well-explained why this is necessary.

If I learn the laws of physics and apply them, I can become capable of constructing airplanes, cellular phones, nuclear reactions, and a great many other marvels. It doesn't matter in the least if I make mistakes along the way. The laws of physics don't suddenly stop working for me for the rest of my life because I once tried to create a perpetual motion machine. I don't need a sacrificial Einstein or Hawking to intercede on my behalf and appease the laws of physics. Why would it be any different for a universal law of justice?

In my opinion, the doctrine that God is a god because he perfectly obeys universal and eternal laws of justice makes it much, much more difficult to justify the need for a Christ figure.

[_The Nehor]

God obeys the Law and also is the Law. He's not bound by it. In a real sense, he is it. I don't see the problem.

[_Canucklehead]

He's not bound by it.

"And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God;"

[_The Nehor]

He's not bound by it.

"And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God;"

Yes, because he would be denying his very nature. He can't which is what the scripture is saying.

[_Canucklehead]

He's not bound by it.

"And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God;"

Yes, because he would be denying his very nature. He can't which is what the scripture is saying.

Why is he, by nature, unchangeable?

[_Thama]

He's not bound by it.

"And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God;"

Yes, because he would be denying his very nature. He can't which is what the scripture is saying.

And the implication is that somewhere along the path to Godhood, free agency is taken away. We mortals can deny our nature, and the people we choose to be in mortality will apparently decide whether we reach Godhood, but apparently God himself lacks that power.

Sorry, but that doesn't jive.

[_The Nehor]

And the implication is that somewhere along the path to Godhood, free agency is taken away. We mortals can deny our nature, and the people we choose to be in mortality will apparently decide whether we reach Godhood, but apparently God himself lacks that power.

Sorry, but that doesn't jive.

It's a weird concept but I'll try to explain it how I see it. The temptation for God to sin is gone. He still has the power to do so but there is no inducement so he never will. Agency continues to exist as there are multitudes of good things to choose to do. This is why LDS say living the Gospel makes you free. It's not that they're rejoicing in the power to sin or the temptation to sin but the hundreds of wonderful options available to them.

To take the opposite approach, consider those in Perdition. They could be forgiven if they repented but they won't repent. It's still an option for them but the character they've formed for themselves will not ever take that option.

Does that make sense at all?