The Creation: Miracle or Magic?

[OtherCheek]

dang, you don't even realize that you just dissed yourself do you?

Sure I do. I burn straw every so often. It can be a useful rhetorical tool at times.

[Sparko]

Sure I do. I burn straw every so often. It can be a useful rhetorical tool at times.

uh no it isn't. It is dishonest at best. It is misrepresenting and twisting someone's views in order to "defeat" that view.

[Cow Poke]

uh no it isn't. It is dishonest at best. It is misrepresenting and twisting someone's views in order to "defeat" that view.

He meant "in a Mormon apologetics kinda way", like answering the question you SHOULD have asked.

[OtherCheek]

uh no it isn't. It is dishonest at best. It is misrepresenting and twisting someone's views in order to "defeat" that view.

Do you ever pose a straw-man argument, Sparko? Or make a straw-man statement? Or a straw-man question?

How 'bout one of your retorts that begins with the word "So"?

[Sparko]

Do you ever pose a straw-man argument, Sparko? Or make a straw-man statement? Or a straw-man question?

How 'bout one of your retorts that begins with the word "So"?

I try not to OC. If I misrepresent your or someone else's beliefs, it is out of genuine ignorance, not some "rhetoric ploy" (read: "dodge") -- or perhaps as an example to you on how it feels to have it done to you.

[Cow Poke]

I try not to OC. If I misrepresent your or someone else's beliefs, it is out of genuine ignorance, not some "rhetoric ploy" (read: "dodge") -- or perhaps as an example to you on how it feels to have it done to you.

I think you frequently "sum up" their positions in a sarcastic kind of way, but there's plenty of (IMO) indicators (that slobber face emoticon) that you're not actually presenting an argument, but illustrating the absurdity of something that was said.

[OtherCheek]

I try not to OC. If I misrepresent your or someone else's beliefs, it is out of genuine ignorance, not some "rhetoric ploy" (read: "dodge") -- or perhaps as an example to you on how it feels to have it done to you.

The BS runs thick with this post.

[JB]

Yes.



Hope that was unambiguous enough.

Yes it was; I knew you'd come through on this one.

A while ago, I came across a quote from Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration, 634, and I'd like to get your feedback on what it says in light of your answer above:

A common Latter-day Saint heresy is that we become as God through education or the mastery of laws. The notion being that God became God by identifying the laws of nature and learning to live in harmony with them and how to harness them for His purposes. Our present text [D&C 88:42-45] refutes such a notion. God is the author of law, not the co-partner with it.

In the meantime, let me give my take on the matter. (And also, note to self: get Revelations of the Restoration.) I do not believe that God is arbitrary or unprincipled. I also do not believe that God is constrained by laws or principles that come from outside himself, since I believe that God is the self-existent, metaphysically necessary source of all things that are not God (where "all" is here given a maximal scope). I do believe that God always behaves consistently with certain principles, but these are principles that find their root and origin and ground in his own essential nature, not in something else. So, for instance, basic principles of logic - e.g., A is never not-A in the same sense and at the same time - are always adhered to by God, because they find their source in his nature. God cannot not be God at the same time and in the same sense. And the rule applies for us because it is God's own truth and all reality is from him. Similarly, some moral principles - e.g., that which is valuable ought to be valued; love is good - are true because they find their ground in God's essential nature. These, too, are applicable first and foremost to God and so also to us. On the other hand, there are also 'natural/physical laws', which could perhaps be analyzed as descriptions of the overwhelming regularities in the ways in which God sustains the universe and causes it to act. So, for instance, the regular relationship between force, mass, and acceleration is one of these. It comes from God's will and does not apply of necessity. God is perfectly free to act in ways that deviate from it (say, by making an accelerating object of a given mass strike with twice the force it otherwise would), though he surely does so infrequently. Thus, the ordinary way in which God sustains nature means that water tends to remain water; on special occasions, however, God is quite free to render water into, say, a delightful alcoholic beverage. God doesn't need any particular instrumentation to achieve this; he can do it directly as a basic action, just as he sustains the universe in existence directly as a basic action. Similarly, he created the universe through a uniquely divine basic action, creatio ex nihilo, which required no material cause for what was brought into being. Hence, although God can make use of 'technology' as a secondary cause in order to carry out his plan, he has no need to do so. God, by virtue of his incommunicable divinity, has a far vaster array of such basic actions than any created thing does.

[Sparko]

I think you frequently "sum up" their positions in a sarcastic kind of way, but there's plenty of (IMO) indicators (that slobber face emoticon) that you're not actually presenting an argument, but illustrating the absurdity of something that was said.

eggzactly.

[Hamster]

So where does "good" come from in Mormonism?

[Sparko]

ooopsy. JB painted OC into a corner.

Let's watch as OC tries to tiptoe through the wet paint and claim his shoes are not dirty at all.

[OtherCheek]

Yes it was; I knew you'd come through on this one.

A while ago, I came across a quote from Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig J. Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration, 634, and I'd like to get your feedback on what it says in light of your answer above:

A common Latter-day Saint heresy is that we become as God through education or the mastery of laws. The notion being that God became God by identifying the laws of nature and learning to live in harmony with them and how to harness them for His purposes. Our present text [D&C 88:42-45] refutes such a notion. God is the author of law, not the co-partner with it.

Thanks, JB. That's a good quote to discuss.

The question you posed to me was clear and unambiguous.

OC, do you believe that Heavenly Father is subject to laws/principles external to himself?

And I answered in the affirmative. But I'm sure you also realize that the quote you provided from that book did NOT address your question. So let's not jump to make a quick tie-in of your question, my response, and the quote you provided.

(Sorry Sparko to put a damper on your yuck-yucking. And you were expressing such child-like glee, too.)

I'm sure you reserve the right to set the context for your own comments. I think we should allow Blake Ostler and Joseph Fielding McConkie to do the same. I would also claim the same privilege.

The quote that you cited:

A common Latter-day Saint heresy is that we become as God through education or the mastery of laws. The notion being that God became God by identifying the laws of nature and learning to live in harmony with them and how to harness them for His purposes. Our present text [D&C 88:42-45] refutes such a notion. God is the author of law, not the co-partner with it.

belongs to a paragraph in a chapter of a book. I have not read that book and so I cannot presume to know the context of what they are saying. I assume they are talking about our becoming as God is. And how God once became as he is now. But I wonder what they mean when they use the term "laws". (I'm sure Sparko knows for sure, but I don't )

The scriptures referenced is as follows:

Scripture Verse:

42And again, verily I say unto you, he hath given a law unto all things, by which they move in their times and their seasons;

43And their courses are fixed, even the courses of the heavens and the earth, which comprehend the earth and all the planets.

44And they give light to each other in their times and in their seasons, in their minutes, in their hours, in their days, in their weeks, in their months, in their years—all these are bone year with God, but not with man.

45The earth rolls upon her wings, and the sun giveth his light by day, and the moon giveth her light by night, and the stars also give their light, as they roll upon their wings in their glory, in the midst of the power of God. (D&C 88:42-45)

The context I see here is speaking of laws in terms of "rules" and "regulations". I agree fully that God set the parameters and rules that govern which way the earth moves around the sun, how fast it rotates on its axis, how far from the sun it is, the distance between earth and moon, the fluctuation of the seasons and the climate. All these are rules that God established in setting up this earth. And YES, God designed and implemented them. The rules that govern the movement and the times and seasons of this earth were not implemented until God implemented them. This is all true.

But it is a different context than mine. In an earlier post, I gave some examples of what I called "natural law" which I separate from "rules and regulations" law. I hope you can picture a difference between those two. The examples I gave of natural law were:

1. Opposition in all things.
2. Law of the Harvest (As ye sow, so shall ye reap, likeness begets likeness).
3. Cause and Effect.
4. Freedom and Accountability.

I don't believe these things are in the same category as rules and regulations that govern how the heavens are to behave.

For example. If you had kids, you would make rules for them. Don't run into the street to play. This is a rule you make. A law for them.
You do this because you understand a standing higher LAW that you did NOT make, that if they get hit by a truck, they could be killed.

Similarly, God makes rules and regulations to govern how our earth orbits, revolves, etc. God makes rules of "thou shalt not kill". These are made rules or laws that God makes for us. God does this because he understands the standing higher LAW that wickedness does not lead to happiness, he understands the standing LAW of the harvest, and the PRINCIPLE of Cause and Effect.

It is those laws that I believe are eternal--that existed before God was our God, and have always existed independent of God.

Hope that makes sense.

In the meantime, let me give my take on the matter. (And also, note to self: get Revelations of the Restoration.) I do not believe that God is arbitrary or unprincipled. I also do not believe that God is constrained by laws or principles that come from outside himself, since I believe that God is the self-existent, metaphysically necessary source of all things that are not God (where "all" is here given a maximal scope). I do believe that God always behaves consistently with certain principles, but these are principles that find their root and origin and ground in his own essential nature, not in something else. So, for instance, basic principles of logic - e.g., A is never not-A in the same sense and at the same time - are always adhered to by God, because they find their source in his nature. God cannot not be God at the same time and in the same sense. And the rule applies for us because it is God's own truth and all reality is from him. Similarly, some moral principles - e.g., that which is valuable ought to be valued; love is good - are true because they find their ground in God's essential nature.

This makes sense according to your concept of who God is. So, for instance the 4 examples of eternal, natural law that I postulated:

1. Opposition in all things.
2. Law of the Harvest (As ye sow, so shall ye reap, likeness begets likeness).
3. Cause and Effect.
4. Freedom and Accountability.

if these are examples of eternal, natural laws, it is because they are first and foremost a part of God's own nature. According to your viewpoint. Right?

These, too, are applicable first and foremost to God and so also to us. On the other hand, there are also 'natural/physical laws', which could perhaps be analyzed as descriptions of the overwhelming regularities in the ways in which God sustains the universe and causes it to act. So, for instance, the regular relationship between force, mass, and acceleration is one of these. It comes from God's will and does not apply of necessity. God is perfectly free to act in ways that deviate from it (say, by making an accelerating object of a given mass strike with twice the force it otherwise would), though he surely does so infrequently.

OK, Thanks.

I believe that God employs natural forces that regulate and control the earth's rotation, for example. And If he wanted the earth to roll back on it's axis in the opposite direction, it would happen. But I believe God would change the interaction of the controlling forces that exist to accomplish this, rather than his voice alone being the only controlling factor that affects this change.

Thus, the ordinary way in which God sustains nature means that water tends to remain water; on special occasions, however, God is quite free to render water into, say, a delightful alcoholic beverage. God doesn't need any particular instrumentation to achieve this;

I don't either. But I believe the molecules of water did undergo a change because he commanded it to be done.

he can do it directly as a basic action, just as he sustains the universe in existence directly as a basic action. Similarly, he created the universe through a uniquely divine basic action, creatio ex nihilo, which required no material cause for what was brought into being. Hence, although God can make use of 'technology' as a secondary cause in order to carry out his plan, he has no need to do so. God, by virtue of his incommunicable divinity, has a far vaster array of such basic actions than any created thing does.

And I believe God commands the forces of nature and the universe to combine and work together to accomplish his overarching design and will. These things are at his command. I believe even the elements know his voice, and obey it because they know that He is God.

Anyway, thanks

[OtherCheek]

So where does "good" come from in Mormonism?

Scripture Verse:

11For behold, a bitter fountain cannot bring forth good water; neither can a good fountain bring forth bitter water; wherefore, a man being a servant of the devil cannot follow Christ; and if he follow Christ he cannot be a servant of the devil.

12Wherefore, all things which are good cometh of God; and that which is evil cometh of the devil; for the devil is an enemy unto God, and fighteth against him continually, and inviteth and enticeth to sin, and to do that which is evil continually.

13But behold, that which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God. (Moroni 7:11-13)

and

Scripture Verse:

And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good; he that will not believe my words will not believe me—that I am; and he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father, I am the light, and the life, and the truth of the world.
(Ether 4:12)

Our source of good is God. He teaches us to discern good from evil by his light. But I also believe good and evil existed as opposite concepts before God became who he was.

[Hamster]

Our source of good is God. He teaches us to discern good from evil by his light. But I also believe good and evil existed as opposite concepts before God became who he was.

It seems like good and evil would have to have a foundation in a mind, rather than just in the universe. If it's just two natural forces, what makes good good and what makes evil evil?

[moreta]

... I do not believe that God is arbitrary or unprincipled. I also do not believe that God is constrained by laws or principles that come from outside himself, since I believe that God is the self-existent, metaphysically necessary source of all things that are not God (where "all" is here given a maximal scope). I do believe that God always behaves consistently with certain principles, but these are principles that find their root and origin and ground in his own essential nature, not in something else. ...

Well said, JB.