God and Right/Wrong - Bad argument for Mormons

[_Sethbag]

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.

I think that a Mormon theologist would have to answer your concerns thusly:

1) it's not possible fully to obey Celestial law unless one is clean and pure

2) once dirty, one can only become clean and pure through Jesus Christ's atonement

3) therefor one can only fully obey Celestial Law with the aid of Christ's atonement

4) also you have to know some secret masonic handshakes, and

5) Joseph Smith has to give you the nod too... ;-)


I think that Nehor's view is not conventional Mormon theology. My understanding of conventional Mormon theology is that God obeys "Celestial Law", not that he is Celestial Law. Remember, a lot of other Gods are also obeying Celestial Law. It's Mormon Gods all the way down. Sure, we could say that God is Celestial by nature, but that is not the same thing as there being laws which govern the Celestial Kingdom, to which laws God has subjected himself.

This is related to RenegadeOfFunk's thread. RoF said that he doesn't see how the "is" of God's existence (if indeed it "is") still does not imply any "ought". EVs and Catholics and others we see arguing against atheism using the "what's the sense of saying there's a Right and a Wrong if there's no God?" argument always seem to take it for granted that if a God exists, he created Right and Wrong, and that's why they're Right or Wrong. But I agree with RoF that this still doesn't follow. And for Mormons, the argument is wrong to begin with, since Mormons never even claim that God created or invented Right and Wrong. They were just there.

[_The Nehor]

I think that Nehor's view is not conventional Mormon theology. My understanding of conventional Mormon theology is that God obeys "Celestial Law", not that he is Celestial Law. Remember, a lot of other Gods are also obeying Celestial Law. It's Mormon Gods all the way down. Sure, we could say that God is Celestial by nature, but that is not the same thing as there being laws which govern the Celestial Kingdom, to which laws God has subjected himself.

This is related to RenegadeOfFunk's thread. RoF said that he doesn't see how the "is" of God's existence (if indeed it "is") still does not imply any "ought". EVs and Catholics and others we see arguing against atheism using the "what's the sense of saying there's a Right and a Wrong if there's no God?" argument always seem to take it for granted that if a God exists, he created Right and Wrong, and that's why they're Right or Wrong. But I agree with RoF that this still doesn't follow. And for Mormons, the argument is wrong to begin with, since Mormons never even claim that God created or invented Right and Wrong. They were just there.

I fully confess that what I said is not conventional LDS theology. I don't think there is a doctrinal explanation given by the Scriptures or modern day leaders. At least one that I've read. I was just giving some musings I'd come up with. One of the joys of the Gospel is trying to figure out things like this.

[_Canucklehead]

I think that a Mormon theologist would have to answer your concerns thusly:

1) it's not possible fully to obey Celestial law unless one is clean and pure

2) once dirty, one can only become clean and pure through Jesus Christ's atonement

3) therefor one can only fully obey Celestial Law with the aid of Christ's atonement

4) also you have to know some secret masonic handshakes, and

5) Joseph Smith has to give you the nod too... ;-)

Yeah, but it's #1 that is never explained. If there is a set of Celestial laws that exist independent of God's adherence to them, why do I need that God's permission in order to follow them? Christ could become a son of perdition tomorrow; would that mean that I am now unable to follow these laws which exist independent of Christ?

This is related to RenegadeOfFunk's thread. RoF said that he doesn't see how the "is" of God's existence (if indeed it "is") still does not imply any "ought". EVs and Catholics and others we see arguing against atheism using the "what's the sense of saying there's a Right and a Wrong if there's no God?" argument always seem to take it for granted that if a God exists, he created Right and Wrong, and that's why they're Right or Wrong. But I agree with RoF that this still doesn't follow. And for Mormons, the argument is wrong to begin with, since Mormons never even claim that God created or invented Right and Wrong. They were just there.

I'm actually preliminarily inclined to think that one can get from Is to Ought by appealing solely to rationality. I'm still trying to think about whether my reasoning is good or not, so I don't want to pronounce myself on that issue at the moment. However, the idea in Mormonism that Right and Wrong exist objectively independent of God always appealed to me. I just don't think that it logically fits with the doctrine of Christ's atonement. I even had problems with this as a TBM.

[_Sethbag]

I think the belief would be something like this. If you're dirty because of sin, it will not be in your nature to obey the full extent of Celestial Law. In order to be able to obey the Celestial Law, you must cleanse yourself so that your nature can become Celestial. Only someone Celestial by nature could fully obey the Celestial Law. And that change to one's nature could come only through Christ's atonement. I don't believe this, but it's my understanding of the Mormon theology of it.

So, according to (my view of) Mormon theology, achieving perfect obedience to Celestial Law, outside of Christ's atonement, would be an oxymoron.

I'm interested in hearing how you think one can derive "ought" from "is" via rationality. I don't share that view, but I'm curious what your argument is.

[_Canucklehead]

I think the belief would be something like this. If you're dirty because of sin, it will not be in your nature to obey the full extent of Celestial Law. In order to be able to obey the Celestial Law, you must cleanse yourself so that your nature can become Celestial. Only someone Celestial by nature could fully obey the Celestial Law. And that change to one's nature could come only through Christ's atonement. I don't believe this, but it's my understanding of the Mormon theology of it.

So, according to (my view of) Mormon theology, achieving perfect obedience to Celestial Law, outside of Christ's atonement, would be an oxymoron.

There's something in there that still doesn't quite make sense, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is. It's as though these Celestial Laws are ambiguous - they're objective of God, but they're still subjugated to Christ. I'm trying to more accurately pinpoint the contradiction, but my brain is a little tired tonight.

[_Scottie]

To play apologist here, and as God is so oft compared to ourselves as parents, I'd offer the following counterpoint...

We, as parents, are subjected to the laws of the land. Our children are also subjected to these laws, plus whatever laws we as parents demand that they obey. As parents, we can drink beer, watch rated R movies and have sex. Our children can not, at least until they themselves are adults.

The same goes for God. He is bound by the Celestial law. We are also bound by the Celestial law, and whatever other laws God has chosen to impose on us.

So, God is allowed to lie and kill and perform things that appear horrific to us, but these are normal things for Him. We can't.

[_Scottie]

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.

CFR on this.

[_Sethbag]

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.

CFR on this.

I agree with Nehor's position on perdition. I believe that LDS theology on this would have to be something like that they could always repent, but with a "perditious" nature they will never choose to.

[_The Nehor]

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.

CFR on this.

I have no reference. This is a guess backed up by logic and what little revelation I've had. Many agree with me. However, it is not 'doctrinal' in the sense of being taught in scripture or from the pulpit.

[_EAllusion]

There is an epistemic version of Divine Command Theory that takes the more limited stance that in order for humans to know the content of moral truth, they must receive it from God. While what is right and wrong is not determined by the will of God, humans can only know what is right and wrong by knowing God's view on the matter. This is still open to LDS who adopt the standard theological view and want to assert some of the implications of DCT without being inconsistent.