In 2 Nephi chapter two, Smith was building up a kind of doctrinal theses in which he wanted to demonstrate how there is opposition in everything and having understanding of both sides helps people make the right choices. He pointed out that without opposition everything would "be a compound in one" (verse 11) in which if there were no opposition then what could discriminate the difference between life and death, corruption vs. incorruption, or happiness vs. misery? The end result would be purposeless existence void of the need for a God of justice and mercy. And, above all, it would deny Smith's belief for the need of a Religious God who manages the affairs of his creations by a strict rule of law.
Now verse 13 makes several points:
1. If there is no law then there is no such thing as "sin"
2. If there is no sin then there is no such thing as "righteousness"
3. If there is no righteousness then there is no such thing as "happiness"
4. If righteousness and happiness do not exist then there can be no such thing as "punishment" or "misery"
Then comes the zinger in which under such circumstances a Religious God disappears/vanishes from the equation:
"And if these things are not there is no God."
Then:
"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;"
Notice that the circumstances being described is a blank and lifeless universe having nothing at all -- God does not exist!
But then comes the contradiction:
"wherefore, all things must have vanished away."
The above declaration is an impossibility because if nothing existed (not even God) then nothing could have vanished/disappeared because it never existed in the first place!
Gotcha!
Smith tripped up in describing an opposition in all things wherein if there is no God then nothing can appear/materialize and nothing can vanish/disappear because there is no such thing as intelligence and nothing is observed.
Smith should have said:
"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 no thing must have vanished away could ever exist."
Like I said earlier, Smith screwed the pooch! The verse cannot be defended from a logical point of view because the end result is illogical!
Question: is it illogical, or is this series of statements illogical at their core?
It isn’t that you are being illogical — the tension you’re pointing to in 2 Nephi 2:13 is real, and theologians (LDS and non‑LDS) have wrestled with it for decades. The key is that the passage is not written as a literal metaphysical proof. It’s a rhetorical reductio—a deliberately exaggerated “if not‑X, then everything collapses” argument. When read as a philosophical chain of literal propositions, it does look contradictory. When read as an ancient Near Eastern–style theological argument, it behaves differently.
To make sense of the issue, it helps to break down what’s going on.
What the text is actually trying to do
The structure of 2 Nephi 2 is not a formal syllogism. It’s a rhetorical demonstration of a single thesis:
Moral agency requires opposition, law, and God.
Everything else in the chapter is scaffolding to reinforce that point. The logic is intentionally telescoping: remove one pillar (law, sin, righteousness, agency), and the whole moral universe collapses.
This is a common ancient rhetorical pattern:
“If X were not so, nothing else could exist.”
It’s not meant to be a literal metaphysical description of a universe with no God; it’s a way of saying:
“Without God’s moral order, existence would have no meaning.”
Why the “vanished away” line looks contradictory
You’re right that, taken literally, the sequence is:
If there is no law → no sin
If no sin → no righteousness
If no righteousness → no happiness
If no happiness → no misery
If none of these exist → no God
If no God → we do not exist
If nothing exists → “all things must have vanished away”
The problem is that “vanished away” presupposes prior existence, which contradicts the earlier claim that nothing existed in the first place.
This is why, as a literal logical chain, the argument breaks.
But the text is not using “vanished away” in a literal temporal sense (“something existed and then disappeared”). It’s using it in a modal sense:
“In that scenario, nothing could exist at all.”
In other words, “vanished away” = “could not be.”
The contradiction appears only if we read it as a strict metaphysical timeline rather than as a rhetorical collapse-of-possibility argument.
Three ways interpreters resolve the tension
Different readers handle the issue differently. Each has tradeoffs.
1. Rhetorical, not literal (most LDS scholars)
The passage is hyperbolic:
“Without God, nothing meaningful could exist.”
The language is figurative, not metaphysical.
Strength: Fits ancient rhetorical style.
Weakness: Doesn’t satisfy strict logical analysis.
2. Modal interpretation (philosophical LDS approach)
“Vanished away” means “could not exist in any possible world.”
The text is describing logical impossibility, not temporal sequence.
Strength: Removes contradiction.
Weakness: Requires reading “vanished” non‑literally.
3. Joseph Smith made a logical error (critical approach)
The argument is internally inconsistent because it tries to combine:
a metaphysical claim (“no God → no creation”),
a moral claim (“no law → no sin”), and
a rhetorical flourish (“all things must have vanished away”)
These don’t cohere as a single logical chain.
Strength: Matches the contradiction you identified.
Weakness: Requires assuming the text is not inspired or not carefully reasoned.
So is the argument illogical?
If read as a literal philosophical proof:
Yes — the final clause contradicts the earlier premise. You cannot have “vanishing” in a universe where nothing ever existed.
If read as a rhetorical theological argument:
No — the contradiction dissolves because the language is metaphorical, not technical.
If read as a modal argument about possibility:
It can be made logically coherent, but only by interpreting “vanished away” as “could not exist,” not “ceased to exist.”
So the answer depends on the interpretive frame. The text itself does not operate in the precision‑logic mode you’re applying to it, which is why the tension appears.
A question to help refine the discussion
Are you more interested in whether the passage can be rescued logically, or whether it reveals something about Joseph Smith’s authorship and reasoning style?
Fits ancient rhetorical style. show how it does this
Ancient Hebrew‑style religious argumentation often uses rhetorical collapse, hyperbolic conditional chains, and modal (not temporal) negation to make a theological point. When you place 2 Nephi 2:13 into that world, the “vanished away” line stops behaving like a literal metaphysical contradiction and starts behaving like a familiar ancient rhetorical device.
Here’s how that works in detail.
How ancient Near Eastern religious texts argue
Writers in the Hebrew Bible and related traditions frequently use a pattern that looks like logic but functions as rhetorical intensification:
“If X were not so, nothing else could stand.”
“If Y did not exist, the world would collapse.”
“If God withdrew His hand, creation would melt.”
These are not meant as literal metaphysical descriptions. They are covenant‑theological warnings or wisdom‑literature exaggerations designed to show dependence on divine order.
Examples from the Hebrew Bible:
“If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psalm 11:3)
— Not a literal claim that righteousness becomes metaphysically impossible; it’s a rhetorical collapse.
“If the LORD had not been on our side… the waters would have overwhelmed us.” (Psalm 124:1–5)
— Not a historical claim that Israel would literally have drowned; it’s a rhetorical intensifier.
“Without vision, the people perish.” (Proverbs 29:18)
— Not literal extinction; it means moral collapse.
This is the same pattern Lehi uses.
How 2 Nephi 2:13 fits that rhetorical tradition
The structure of the verse is a classic reductio ad absurdum used in ancient religious discourse:
Remove law → remove sin
Remove sin → remove righteousness
Remove righteousness → remove happiness
Remove happiness → remove misery
Remove all moral categories → remove God
Remove God → remove creation
Remove creation → “all things must have vanished away”
This is not a literal timeline. It’s a rhetorical cascade meant to show:
“If you pull out the foundation (God’s moral order), the entire meaningful universe collapses.”
The “vanished away” line is not describing something that once existed and then disappeared. It’s describing the impossibility of existence under the hypothetical scenario.
This is exactly how Hebrew wisdom literature and prophetic rhetoric work:
negation of meaning, not negation of being.
Why the language sounds contradictory to modern ears
Modern readers expect:
strict metaphysical categories
temporal precision
logical consistency in the analytic‑philosophy sense
Ancient writers used:
metaphorical negation
modal impossibility (“could not be”)
rhetorical exaggeration
covenantal logic (“without God, nothing stands”)
So when Lehi says:
“all things must have vanished away”
he is not describing a literal disappearance. He is using a stock rhetorical formula meaning:
“In that scenario, nothing could exist at all.”
This is the same idiom as:
“The heavens would dissolve”
“The earth would melt”
“The mountains would flee away”
These appear throughout ancient scripture and are not meant as literal physics.
Why this matters for interpreting the “contradiction”
Your critique is valid if the passage is read as a modern logical proof.
But the text is not operating in that genre.
It is operating in:
ancient Near Eastern theological rhetoric
covenantal logic
wisdom‑literature hyperbole
modal negation (“could not be”) rather than temporal sequence (“once was, then vanished”)
Under that genre, the “contradiction” dissolves because the passage is not describing a universe in which things once existed and then disappeared. It is describing a hypothetical world in which existence is impossible.
1. “If X were not, nothing could exist” — a standard ancient rhetorical form
2. “Vanished away” as modal impossibility, not temporal sequence
3. Hyperbolic conditional chains
4. “Without God, creation collapses” — a common ancient theme
5. Why this matters for the “contradiction”
How 2 Nephi 2:13 fits that rhetorical tradition
Why the language sounds contradictory to modern ears
