Is God The Basis For Morality? Why I say No. (Protestant Vs Latter-day Saint)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 июн 2024
- Oscar Dunlap (Reformed Protestant) and Jacob Hansen (Latter Day Saint) Discuss how could God be the basis of morality.
#mormon #lds #Religion #apologetics #christianity #exmormon #comefollowme #atheism #morality #subjective
Can I just say I really appreciate the kind way you guys discuss these topics? It’s such a breath of fresh air to see disagreements be handled respectfully without mud slinging or angry words. Even if you don’t see eye to eye, you try to find common ground.
I’ve found that many want to rely on contention to demonstrate hard ‘love’ instead of allowing the Holy Spirit to minister to the hearts of the hearers.
That isn’t to say you can’t defend your faith when people rail against you; you just don’t want to fight the same way they do.
Harsh words and ‘gotcha’ moments don’t change hearts; especially when the argument is over an understanding of scripture. If there is a disagreement, then those in the disagreement should seek after God, learn to hear his voice to the point that they understand his words and then let that be the final word on the matter.
If anything other than God is the standard of truth (including a person’s understanding of the words) then it will be reflected in their actions.
What I’m saying is this: your life will be a testimony.
Thank you for the video!
This is the best kind of debate. Respectful of each other. Listening carefully. No yelling or name calling. Thank you both.
Great dialogue! Very respectful and informative on both sides. Keep up the great work Jacob!
I feel Oscar is starting to realize that Trinity brings in problems for the case of Christianity because it opens the door to divine simplicity and more fundamentally absence of free will due to abstraction.
Lol my guy I'm a Calvinist... I don't have a problem with the absence of free will. I see no problems with the Trinity at all.
@@Oscardunlap I am not saying the realization is whether you are alright with it or not. I am saying the realization is that it is a problem for the case of Christianity. The absence of free will (abstraction of God) gives no reason to follow Christ one way or another. Atheists use absence of free will and abstraction of God mentality to essentially remain atheists with little care of that decision affecting morality since Gods will is arbitrary or subjective as well. This argument on morality is really just an argument on free will. If God predetermined everything from the beginning he also made a concession for everyone's natures to exist regardless of choice. A murders nature was predetermined so whether that persons decision to change his nature or even for Christ to change his nature has fundamentally nothing to do with any choice that person makes or will make. This abstraction of God was fundamentally formed by the equally abstract Trinity and Divine Simplicity theory so I think Calvinism is a branch that recognizes that abstraction of Trinity more than other Christians, yet ultimately it exposes that Christianity is not a choice or option anyone should morally take.
The Trinity is a true doctrine and does not have anything to do with predestination. I'm Oriental Orthodox (Armenian), and we believe whole heartedly in free will.
So many Mormons don't understand the Trinity. Mormons try to say that those who believe in there Trinity are illogical.
The truth is the holy Trinity is almost exactly what Mormon's believe. I'm Mormon, but believe Oriental Orthodoxy.
Trinity is simply 1 God in 3 separate persons.
Mormons believe in 1 God in 3 different persons. Mormons don't believe in more than 1 God.
So, all this upheaval is for nothing.
We're all in the Universal Christian Church.
God has a history of making lemonade out of lemons. Just like the golden calf in the Old Testament, every church has some degree of imperfect practices, yet most teach a similar goal: to come onto God through Christ. Christ taught in his ministry that he was the only perfect one, and this includes teaching gospel doctrines & practices. No man or woman can teach or act as perfect as Christ.
@@Zorroinstillingorthodoxy No friend. The problem with the Trinity is it removes the identity of God as this abstract being with no parts and passions. Also it distorts the scriptures since nowhere is the Trinity mentioned but presupposed. The Trinity is a incorrect interpretation which belittles creation. LDS don't believe what you said. We believe one God in much more than 3 persons. We believe every covenant maker who believes in Christ will be in God. God is not just 3 but inclusive of every son and daughter of God. Your Trinity limits this to three which belittles God's creation of humanity. The scripture plainly teach that those who are faithful to the end will be coheirs to God's kingdom. Does that sound like we will be lower than the 3 persons your Trinity suggests? No. We will be COHEIRS. EQUAL. PERFECT. KINGS. Your Trinity belittles this truth and rejects the divine creation. There is so much more I can say, but suffice to say it is not LDS who misunderstand, it is the other way around. You friend do not understand our beliefs.
That was really interesting, and it was cool seeing you essentially agreed on the problem at hand. I think there is a kind of argument for an objective morality from an atheistic standpoint that aligns somewhat strongly with LDS theology based on evolution and natural selection. If one believes that morality is based on what their conscience tells them is right or wrong, and there are objective principles/ and objective goal that governs what their conscience tells them is right and wrong, then they can believe that morality is objective. According to the theory of evolution and the idea of natural selection, as time approaches infinity, every feature a living creature posesses essentially serves a universal, principled purpose: to best ensure they have offspring and their offspring survives (if a feature does not do this, its host will fail to reproduce, and it is not carried on genetically). This means that every person’s conscience, while possibly imperfect, follows the principle of recommending things that lead to the success of their offspring and vice versa. Essentially, if morality is based on one’s conscience, and one’s conscience’s purpose is to help them produce offspring with the best odds of survival, then it implies that raising children and providing for them is one of the highest moral goods and most important roles, and it implies that relationships with others are important, even after we die. There are many other conclusions similar to LDS doctrine you arrive at as you pursue this idea.
He is asking a good question… How do you know the nature of ultimate well-being? What makes you think that following the commandments will bring you to ultimate well-being?
I think the obvious answer is you don’t. That’s exactly what the word faith is describing. You have faith in God, that his commandments will bring you towards well-being. You don’t know it, but you place your bet there. (Faith)
Then you start to live your life oriented to that new conception of well-being that you placed your faith in.
I think that’s what the word faith is describing, where you put your bet. Everyone has faith. It’s what you believe will bring you to well-being. Is it gonna be the commandments of God or money or pleasure or popularity?
Everyone has placed their bet of faith on something or some path. That whatever it is will bring them to well- being.
In the case of morality and ultimate well-being, I think it’s uncertain. You have to place your faith in something. Its faith.
And that’s why faith is instantiated in action. Literally everything you is in pursuit of what you have faith in or believe will bring you to well-being. The only question is, where are you going to put that faith? In Mammon or God?
What a great conversation.. finally instead of bashing each other.. bashing out the ideas to better understand each other and ourselves.
It seemed the major difference between Oscar and Jacob's view is which came first, God or Goodness: does goodness follow God, or does God follow goodness.
Also I thought someone would bring up that we have a conscience (not conscious).
Whats "Good" has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone's subjective God
Disagreement:
Protestant- God is THE source of good
LDS- Gospel is OUR source for good
Agreement: Atheists are wrong.
And what is the source of the Gospel?
Gospel should have been God. Should read 'God is OUR source for good'.
@@dantate7528LDS apologists place the “eternal” label on anything except God himself suffices as superior (and coherent) enlightenment…
Christianity: God is the only uncreated being-He is being itself, everything flows through him.
Mormonism: we’re all uncreated intelligences, but later organized(??) by co-eternal but a sufficiently progressed god who according to uncreated principles achieved godhood by following his god and we’re all gods if we follow the right steps because the right steps are *eternal* (but also change, develop, reform, disavow, etc.)
As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I find this distinction so convoluted that I find myself siding with the protestant because his description of morality makes more sense, I feel like Jacob's making things more complicated than it needs to be
It's philosophy for the sake of philosophy. It doesn't really matter in the end. Just love God.
@57:00 yes, Jacob. Thats why it’s called subjective. Every person has a different destination that constitutes ultimate well-being for them. Just like everyone has a food that is ultimately the most delicious for them. That’s what makes it subjective. It varies from subject to subject.
Great job Oscar! It is always the will of God that changes you regardless of your behavior, if you believe in Jesus Christ, His WILL works through you, He gives you discernment, righteousness, wisdom, love, etc, and through that love, we want to please Him and so we obey Him because you want to please Him. When we do sin, we repent, and we ask him to make us aware of our sinning nature, so we can repent and he will make us holy, Jesus is sufficient, He makes us like Him. I wish we could have heard from you more.
Excellent conversation
45:16 @Thoughtful faith Jacob you’re saying that there is objective truth and that God himself is subject to the Objective truth/Law and Oscar is saying that there is Objective truth but that God makes sets the Standard, Jacob has a problem with that because then God could just move the bar around, do I understand that correctly??
A good question to ask to answer your question is:
Can God tell a lie?
Jerry Grover went from my favorite scholar for all of his great research to the best scholar in the world due to playing D&D
This was great! Feels like the first time I've ever heard an inter-faith conversation that uses bigger words but speaks slowly enough for me to articulate it, even though many of the words can be broad in their definitions. To give my own LDS perspective here, without the big words: my understanding is that all people can have their own moral standard on earth, but that doesn't trump or negate eternal law. It is still wrong. The law of justice will always be enforced 100% for an action that doesn't conform with eternal laws and principles that govern the character of God. That said, the degree to which mercy will have claim depends on the degree of knowledge the person had about the wrongfulness of their actions at the time, the circumstances at the time, and the extent to which they were people of covenant.
How telling that if Christian soteriology is correct the most important factor that differentiates those deserving eternal paradise and those deserving eternal torment is the geographical location one is born into.
If one is born in Saudi Arabia there is about a 95% chance that you will belive in the "wrong" God and reject jesus and thus receive eternal damnation in a lake of fire. However be born into America and magically there is about a 95% chance that you will believe in the "right" God and thus receive eternal salvation. 👏👏
Allegedly this is the justice of a perfect omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient loving God. The fact that many people who reject jesus often lead devout pious lives and follow very strict and demanding religious practices with regards to worship, diet, clothing and relationships is not a factor, these people seemingly reject jesus because they *"want to sin"* 🤔🤫 Some live lives of isolation and quiet contemplation taking vows of celibacy and silence but the loving jesus still deems these people unworthy of anything other than eternal torment.
Conversely however a murderer so long as he truly repents and accepts Jesus on his death bed he can spend an eternity in paradise with those he murdered. Unless of course those people also found the "evidence" for your God unconvincing, in which case the murderer would be looking down from paradise on the people he killed as they too suffered for eternity with me 😡
@@trumpbellend6717Jesus will be our judge. He will judge fairly, based on one's actions and the intention of those actions at the time, the circumstances in which they lived, the knowledge they had obtained, whether they were people of covenant in their mortal life, etc. There are different levels of sin and accountability for such, e.g. sin and transgression are not entirely the same in context. That said, what you call heaven and hell, we add detail to it. We say that heaven is any degree of glory, and hell is Outer Darkness, where those to whom Christ appeared to in all of His glory, and then turned 100% against Him, will reside. Otherwise, there will be a degree of glory, and the judgment bestowed on each person will be fair and just.
@@heatwaveo8
Lol demonstrate objectively the veracity of all the above piffle dear. What does "justice" actually mean to you my friend ? 🤔 You see for me justice is all about "fairness", responsibility, equality, accountability, and consequences all of which can be negated under Christian soteriology by one's acceptance or rejection of extraordinary supernatural claims and a willingness to pass the buck. Under Christian soteriology ones eternal salvation or damnation is not determined by their actions in life but by their membership of the "belief club"
*John 5 24*
_“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and _*_"BELIEVES"_*_ in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and _*_SHALL NOT COME INTO JUDGMENT,_*_ but has passed from death into life"_
Our societal conception of "justice" in in direct conflict with the *unequal punishment* based on the accused "beliefs" ( something they have no more control over than the colour of their skin at birth ) prescribed by Christian theology. Moral properties such as responsibility are supervenient on actions and attributes of moral agents, and cannot be transferred between them. As such vicarious redemption ( scapegoating ) could never and should never be regarded as either logical or moral.
The idea of sin, or morality however you define it, being a tradeable commodity is at odds with how I define morality. Particularly when it involves the suffering of an innocent. I am responsible for my good and bad actions, people can't 'take' my bad deeds any more than they can my good nor should they.
@@heatwaveo8
Let's structure this in the form of a logical syllogism with premises and a conclusion, then you can indicate which specific premises you disagree with that would invalidate the derived conclusion ........
*Premise one*
The Christian God is said to be morally perfect, loving, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.
*Premise two*
Belief in this specific god is required to prevent an eternal torment and attain salvation.
*Premises three*
The Christian God wants all to know of his existence and thus be saved.
*Premise four*
The Christian God would have both the ability and desire to demonstrate his existence to all.
*Premise five*
Almost three quarters of the world population do not think the Christian God exists.
*Conclusion*
The Christian God as described does *NOT* exist
This sounds intriguing 🧐
I think one answer to Oscar’s question about why it matters that God and the eternal laws are separate has to do with Euthyphro’s dilemma. If God is both the being and the laws combined, then what is “good” is arbitrary and up to the whims of God (but see below). However, if the law is separate from the being, then God cannot be arbitrary in action since he is bound by the same eternal consequences as every other being.
A response by Oscar might be: “Well, another aspect of God is his unchangeableness. Therefore he is fully trustworthy and will never change the starboards of the Good.” But I think this creates a problem regarding Jesus. Jesus was not completely unchangeable. The scriptures say he grew in wisdom and stature and his relationship with God and man. I’m not saying that this refutes Oscar’s position, but it requires far more assumptions. For the Latter Day Saint, we can point to the trustworthiness of God because he is also bound by the eternal laws.
Great 👍 so if morality is separate from "God" then it most certainly is not derived from or dependant upon a "God"
In my myopic and fallible state and with full acknowledgement that such a state means I could be both misunderstanding and/or miss-articulating what I'm about to say...I think I'm coming close to accurate in saying that the LDS perspective on morality/goodness/truth is first that morality/goodness/truth is all part of each other and you can't have an understanding of one if you don't understand any of the others. It us also my understanding that truth/goodness/morality is manifest in eternal laws or realities that exist independent upon us or even God having discovered or defined them as such and that God is God because, in an eternal progression sense as He has existed from all eternity to all eternity, has discovered or been made aware of the eternal nature of the laws of morality/goodness/truth and through the application of the pertinent laws has mastered them to such a degree that He has received His exaltation which includes a perfect knowledge of the existence of and the practice or application of these laws and this places Him in a state of exaltation or, as He puts it in scripture, a fullness of joy and peace or what Jacob is calling "ultimate well-being". We who believe in God as revealed by scripture not only believe Ge exists but also that He is good because we believe that He is trying to teach us or reveal to us the nature of the eternal laws that lead to this state of exaltation He enjoys. He wants to share these with us as an invitation to participate with and enjoy this state as He does. He wants us to arrive at or receive what He has received and enjoys. We believe this process actually began long, long before this world was formed and we were placed into our mortal bodies having what we call a mortal experience. We are co-etetnal with God. We are as eternal as He is. We existed before this world and will continue to exist into the rest of eternity. The only question is what type of state of existence we will participate in. God saw us and we saw God before we had bodies and we saw that we were different than Him in the level of Glory, Joy, and Jacob's "well-being" and He saw that we were likewise less than Him at that stage of our eternal progression so He began actually way back into the eyrrnities to invite us to begin to follow the path He has a perfect knowledge and understanding of in order to join Him eventually in that same state of Glory and joy. Many of us were willing to take that path. That path has ultimately led to the creation of this world and the mortal experience we are currently having including a daily hourly, moment-to-moment reality of agency to follow or reject the path He has outlined for us by way if His commandments which, if we continue to follow as closely as possible to the prescribed way He has shown He continues to guide us towards the joy and exaltation He exists within and enjoys as heirs and co-heirs with Christ of "all that The Father hath".
Where I take a little issue with Jacob's explanation of the dichotomy of ultimate suffering vs ultimate well-being is that, at least prior to our deciding to accept and follow the plan God showed us to become like Him prior to our being here in our mortal state, I'm not sure we were in an actual state of ultimate suffering. I think that we could have chosen to be where we were and been content with that state perhaps for the rest of eternity. However, it seems that there is an eternal law associated with the reality that once we begin on that path, especially the further we go along that path, possibly because of an increased awareness that comes with participation in the path ofwhat we would gain if we continue and therefore what we would lose or give up if we abandon that path, his, then, becomes the "ultimate suffering" that is being referred to. It is knowing what we could have had and that we rejected it and a lack of fulfillment and a certain discontent that accompanies that awareness that we would call "ultimate suffering".
One more piece. Because we are not yet like God and haven't arrived at that state of perfect knowledge anf understanding He is inviting us to come into, we will fall short and stray from the prescribed path and there is an eternal law of justice that then demands we no longer get to be candidates for that ultimatevexaltation and joy. Without a commensurate "price" if you will, to satisfy the demands of eternal justice, once we sin or miss the Mark, we are lost. God knew this. Christ knew this. We knew this before we ever came to this earth. So a covenant was entered into between God, Christ, and those of us who accepted God's plan before we ever came here, that Christ would come to this world and be the embodiment of the perfect example of following the plan (commandments) which involved a full alignment of His will with that of His Father including sacrificing Himself for those of us who would nor be able, in this mortal life, to live perfectly as Christ did, which sacrifice would pay the "price" for the sins of all who accept Christ as their Savior, repent, and live a life of obedience including learning at increased levels how to align our will (agency) with the will of God and then the blood of Christ, because of his grace, could bring to bear the law of mercy to satisfy the demands of the law of Justice and we could continue our path towards God's exaltation and state of ultimate joy and "well-being".
There's my $.02 on the matter.
So, I just listened to a bit more of the discussion and Jacob just acknowledged that the LDS perspective is basically what I just said in that there are eternal laws that are outside of God and that God is the perfect "embodiment" of a being who has discovered and is living by and within and utilizing these laws and that is what makes Him God and able to do what He is able to do AS God....in so many words.
I find the Being of God as the source of truth as being a problem because good sourced in a person makes that person the arbiter of truth. Meaning we are all just pawns in his game. He decides what is right and wrong (the rules) and you just have to play or not exist. It therefore appeals solely to a vague subjection to a persons concept of reality rather than a reality in it of itself.
If we say that God cannot lie or He ceases to be God, then it sounds like God is bound to that principle, or that such principle is outside of God and He must abide by it.
This is what Jacob IS saying.
@@Oscardunlap I agree with Jacob's position. God is the epitome of goodness because He aligns Himself with all good principles and knowledge and creates using that knowledge and those principles with all mastery.
I see. I don't say God cannot lie and if he does he ceases to be God. I say God cannot lie because he cannot sin. He can ot sin because it is the opposite of nature. God is perfectly consistent. The potentially of your God to sin says something about you God and that is he is not the creator. Which Jacob freely admits as do most Mormons.
@@Oscardunlap To sin is the opposite of God's nature, not man's. Yes, God is perfectly consistent, and that is what He wants from His children. Did I miss Jacob saying that God is not the creator? If so, I don't believe that.
@@OscardunlapBrother, please be respectful. We don’t want to be called “mormons”. We are Latter-Day Saints. Furthermore, Jacob’s opinions are solely his and not definitive of the Doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints or any other Latter-Day Saints, for that matter, so please do not get it twisted.
By the way you have never spoken to MOST Latter-Day Saints so you bear false witness claiming to know what most of us believe. 🙏🏽
There is a great gulf fixed between the Christian and Mormon view of God. And by the way, who is the lawgiver for this so-called Eternal Law of Goodness which exists outside of God and to which he attained? Or is the Eternal Law of Goodness itself an ontological entity?
Great question
there is no lawgiver. we regard the structure and order of the universe, spiritual and physical matter, and intelligence as eternal, and the Plan of Salvation as the best way of dealing with things
@@may-el5vt so you have law with no law giver? That's incoherent.
@@Oscardunlap the human mind struggles to conceive that something could exist eternally, but it's truth
@@may-el5vt You need to do a word study of ta panta in the New Testament.
Jacob is making a niche argument about the Trinity called divine simplicity where God has no attributes, but not every protestant understands nor accepts this niche aspect of the Trinity thougj it is ultimately its conclusions.
Request for the next conversation: calvinism. It is oft criticized but not well understood. Jacob, have you seen Ortlund's video on Calvinism? (p.s. I'm not a calvinist)
This would be interesting as the doctrines of Total Depravity and Irresistible Grace seem to contradict many Bible passages
@@sean9854 and align with others... right?
@@pigetstuck I don’t believe they do. Can you provide scriptures that support regeneration preceding faith?
@@sean9854 I don't know much about Calvinism. Do they say regeneration proceeds faith?
Calvinism I believe really take into heart Romans 9-10.
Wonderful discussion, and so great to have something on the interwebs discussing morality from an LDS perspective. However, Jacob, I feel like you conflate "atheism" with "utilitarianism" a lot (for example the cheating on wife). And I strongly doubt that Sam Harris would agree that cheating on your wife is moral.
Maybe this is weird to say, but I feel like you can believe that God is the standard of goodness by being fully good but he also follows eternal law that he fully embodies, can I say I follow agree with both or am I missing something. God is ultimate goodness because we have nothing else to compare him to, but there is eternal law.
I agree with you, Jacob is a little off on this I think
I think the question here is not whether God is OUR basis for Morality, but if God is THE basis for morality. In other words is he is complete and did He predetermine what good is before creation? If he made the law of what good is or morality than he is outside the law. But we see he is not, he is bound by these legal definitions. Now maybe he simply chooses to remain within the Law. That requires another law outside him called choice. So I would say this argument addresses that which is absolutely complete, God or the Law? If God is complete and the Law, why would God choose to create? Or did he even choose? Can God increase in knowledge and favor in man or is He already all knowing and all favorable? If God can increase then this would explain his desire to create. He would want children to share his love. Every child adds to his Love. Anything that adds to something increases it. Anything that increases something suggests that that something is not complete. Because the law is a principle and doesn't have flesh and bone, it IS complete. It can't be amended or added to. It doesn't get sad or happy. In other words, it is not a person and therefore governs everything in completeness. God is the judge that is able to perfectly able to interpret the law and use it to create from choice not out of uncontrolled outpouring of love spilt through the universe. That is the difference between the two sides if that made sense.
@@jacobsamuelson3181 Dude that was incredible
This a very difficult conversation to have without first establishing who God is. The LDS and Protestant perspective of that is completely different. Also, I’m guessing he’s a Calvinist therefore having a talk about morality is tough off the bat. I’m non lds nor Protestant.
Lol having a conversation about theistic morality without first establishing the existence of ANY god would not only be "dificult" but also intellectually dishonest
I would offer this-you need to prove a god first then you could begin an argument of morality.
The greatest cause of suffering is the belief that one can obtain happiness in spite of or while in persuit of willful wickedness. A person without a clear conscious cannot reach the same level of wellbeing as one without. They cannot enjoy the same quality of relationships, the same level of relationship with the divine, they cannot feel at peace with themselves in the same way. many people are tormented or haunted by the ghosts of poor decisions even when no one else is aware of their evil choices. Some suppress such feelings of remorce or justify their actions to such a degree that they convince themselves that they are not in the wrong. Some harken to the presepts of others to aliviate the damnation they feel. A person who is convinced that they can develope honest loving relationships while being dishonest is in the ultimate self deception. Redemption from the harrows is available in the savior Jesus Christ who can relieve one of the burden of their own rebellious nature.
Who was it alledgedly created man with this _"rebellious nature"_ ?? 🤔 Moral properties such as responsibility are supervenient on actions and attributes of moral agents, and cannot be transferred between them. As such vicarious redemption ( *scapegoating* ) could never and should never be regarded as either logical or moral.
The idea of sin, or morality however you define it, being a tradeable commodity is at odds with how I define morality. Particularly when it involves the suffering of an innocent. I am responsible for my good and bad actions, people can't 'take' my bad deeds any more than they can my good nor should they.
God created Satan to do exactly what he did or is continuing to do. If Good/God does not need him then why create him and base his plan on the emnity between them.
The real question is why god needs us if he is waging a cosmic battle with Satan?
27:26 Religion does not have a monopoly on virtue ethics. This should be obvious.
I think the LDS position (as articulated by Jacob) has differences from the atheist position, but it has the same foundational problem. Where is the moral law? Where does it reside? How can it be known? Jacob would say that God communicates it to us, but how does God know it? We can know and demonstrate the abstract principles of math, logic and physics, but how can morality be measured? How is it that God just happens to conform to this law? Did He do so by agency, or by nature?
For a moral realist, I see only two options. One is Oscar’s position. It is in God’s nature, and God reveals it to us. He creates us to live within His good design. When we don’t live within that design, we experience brokenness, death, and separation from God. Also, God is objectively the being most worthy of honor, glory, and honor, so Satan’s rebellion was evil because it was an attempt to steal those things from their rightful owner.
You can say that that “borrows” from Neo-Platonism, but the only other solution available is something like traditional Platonism, where “The Good” resides in the eternal world of forms. This has hardly convinced anybody since antiquity, I think, because he really has no reason to think these forms exist, they are a noble but ad hoc theory to account for the moral law that we are aware of.
Jacob is saying that Morality is measured by experiential data. LDS believe God is not a being that just existed already possessing the law, but that the Law was obtained through experience. In other words, God chose to be God. This free agency was provided to all of his creations with the same intended outcome. Just as we have choice, God is able to choose with absolute freedom as well. However, since God is good and desires good to all His creations, he is bound by the definitions of the Law that ultimately makes him God. God has the liberty to destroy all of his creations and cease to be God, but because He wants to remain God, he doesn't. The truth of life after death relies on the truth that God is good. The obvious flaw in Oscars argument is that God has no such choice. He is good because he just is. His existence was not founded on any choice and therefore our choice to be good is ultimately voided as well since he would be our source. The argument of morality is really just an argument of free agency.
@@jacobsamuelson3181 If the law is just learned through experience, isn't it really just pragmatism, or what we've discovered and "just works", instead of morality? There's no ultimate design and purpose to the universe? That seems to me to be the problem that atheism has.
I would rather that goodness be rooted in something unchanging and personal, that could not be otherwise. If God learns by experience, isn't possible that He still has things to learn about what is good?
@@brenthardaway3704 The Law itself is complete. It cannot change because it isn't anymore living than gravity is. The design of the universe IS the discovery of the Law in which God has mastered. What we humans discover is much smaller than what God has discovered but is taught to us by God through our experiences. Something important, Our experiences are not God's experiences. If they were then God would be a sinner as we are. He is not. And for every intent and purpose never was as there is no record of him never not being God. The problem with trinitarian theology is that you cannot mix living and unchanging together completely, just as you cannot seperate person from being. It is not possible. It would be just as possible as saying a circle has a corner or a bachelor is married. They are nonsensical statements. Yet if you were to say God lives and has chosen to remain God, then you see that an everlasting rule is in place that is unchanging in which lived by grants one God's powers. It is a law that would be available and assessible to every person that can progress.
@@brenthardaway3704 BTW I don't believe God is complete. If God were complete, he would have no need for creation.
Ok, thanks for the explanation. But if the design of the universe is just based on what God discovers, the meta-universe that(which includes all of reality) that we found ourselves in during the pre-existence itself has no design or purpose. And the moral law would be technically amoral - no more moral than the law of gravity.
I think the opposite of living is dead, not timeless or unchanging. In our view, God never "needed" the creation, but rather created it to make himself known. Not a need, but a gracious act so that we may have the joy of knowing Him.
A thought from the Protestant peanut galley:
I personally don’t see how morality could be abstract, because morality is a standard of preferred behavior, or a law. I don’t see how a law could exist without a law giver, and therefore I would say the moral code does originate from the Creator, rather than the creator being the creator simply because he obeys it perfectly.
If God is God because he obeys a law, who is performing the checks and balances to make sure God is staying perfect?
If no one is checking on God to make sure he is staying perfect, but rather he simply loses his Godhood naturally somehow, who created that stipulation to happen automatically?
---
In every instance, when we see any law, design, or standard, there must be a law giver, a designer, or an authoritative entity that decrees it.
If morality is abstract, good really isn’t good and bad really isn’t bad… it’s just two sides to the same chaotic coin, or two football teams. One can’t be better than the other, one is simply more empathetic and long suffering while the other is more self centered.
Divorcing God from position of Law Giver destroys the “ought” of our decision making. Because if at the end of the day, all we’re doing is making decisions based on long term ultimate well being… is that not just being self centered with patience?
---
If our purpose is simply to “get to ultimate well being” and “avoid ultimate suffering” it’s self centered at its core. To me this is no different than the point that was made that an altruistic atheist is only altruistic because it selves him better than going on his own.
This isn’t a basis that has any solid foundation. Morality cannot be in the same conversation as prioritizing self preservation. Morality has always been “what is the RIGHT thing I OUGHT to do”, not “what decision ultimately avoids suffering”.
Another final thought…
Who made heaven and hell? What purposes were they created for?
If morality is abstract, meaning it is some ultimately eternal concept that is self evident and pre-exists God himself, I would assume that this means heaven and hell must also pre-exist God since the basis of this type of morality is avoiding the “suckiest place”.
--
If the ultimate standard or basis of morality existed before our God and before the heaven and hell He created, then there was a time when being immoral did not bare any risk of going to hell.
At this point, there is not right or wrong, no place of ultimate well being to pursue and no ultimate place of suffering to avoid.. It was simply to be moral or immoral inconsequentially.
---
I understand Mormonism has a belief that Gods have existed before our God. I believe Mormonism must say that the very first God must have decreed the moral standard because you can have a moral law without a law Giver that affixes a reward or punishment with it.
----
Our only disagreement should be who the first God was, our God or some other God… morality simply cannot exist without an authoritative being behind it.
You mentioned not being able to see a law existing without a Law giver. Can you answer this, Where did choice come from? Did God make the law of choice or free agency? Was it his choice to do so? Did God create because he chose to or because he had to?
@@jacobsamuelson3181 Hey there my guy, Good questions.
"Where did choice come from"
-All things come from God, creator of all things. He created us, and gave us a capacity to make choices. This choice that he gives us is not ultimately determinate though, meaning our agency is not immune to God's sovereignty, omnipotence, or control. We have evidence of this in the death of Jesus and those who crucified him. God did not roll the dice and leave the atonement to the chance of men choosing the actions that led to it...hoping man figured it out or did the right thing... it was not up to chance that Pilate would have released Jesus to the jews and their decision to crucify him. It was all planned. Omnipotence implies all-knowledge. Past present and future. Meaning God knew what decisions you would make before he even created you. With this foreknowledge, God can plan the scope of the world and orchestrate the most efficient / effective means to his ultimate goal
"did God make the law of Choice or Free Agency?"
- I haven't personally ever seen any *Law* of Agency. You would have to describe where you have read this, and what are the principles of this law. For example the Moral Law has the Mosaic law in it for example, the ten commandments. Those are concrete bullet points that specify exactly what this law entails. What law of agency are you referring to, and what exactly does this law say?
"Was it God's choice to do so"
-Branching off your other questions, I would say yes absolutely it was God's choice to give us the ability to choose that we do have. I would say God was ultimately more interested in having genuine relationships with his creation, and you cannot have a genuine relationship if agency is not the root of that relationship. If the relationship was coerced, forced, or if we were just robots for example... that's like having a relationship with a computer. Love isn't love without the option to hate. It's the "choosing" that makes love what it is, and that's what I believe was God's original propagative
"Did God make the law of Agency"
-I'm still not quite sure on this exact law but I would absolutely say God did created us with a purpose, and our choice was a part of his grand design. and Yes absolutely it was his choice to do so. And to your last quick question, yes God created because he chose to. God is the great "I AM". There is no condition, law, or higher deity that he must obey. If God is ever bound by anything, it is because he is bound by his own nature/desire/will.
@@dantate7528 Thanks for your reply. The Law of choice is a crucial one. It is the core of every law known to man and is the fabric of design. Laws of morality are simply branches from the choices people make. One of the Laws of choice can be defined as this. When two opposing options are present, only one is possible. Jesus refers to this as "You cannot serve God and Mammon." It is simply impossible. What you said yes to in which God chose to create means that he could have chosen not to create but didn't. Its impossible for Him to do both. This is one of the Laws of Choice. Now here's where I'm going to press on your answers because I think you did so without knowing the implications. If God chose to create, he also would in that choice have to choose to be God. Just as it is impossible to be a married bachelor, it is impossible to be the god of yourself. It is contradictory to what the essense means. Now, trinitarians try to brush this contradiction under the rug by saying God was simultaneously able to be God of himself by being three coeternal persons. But the issue is not between that which is uncreated to the uncreated, but between the uncreated to the created. God to the Not God. The separation between is held by a choice. The choice to invent something that didn't exist before. Don't you see how fine of a line that would be if God was perfectly complete? Don't you see how impossible it would be for God to invent choice after being God? If God chose to not create, by what standard would he be God? His persons would worship themselves? I cannot see how God or any existant thing can exist without choice. For this reason, God ultimately chose and chooses and will continue to choose to be God or else he didn't. If he didn't then does He even have choice at all? If he doesn't have choice at all, we certainly don't and love isn't real. Nothing would be real or genuine because they would be more mote than gears on a cog, functioning with no actual purpose. God would just be the biggest gear of us all..... without choice.
@@jacobsamuelson3181 hey again, I would respectfully disagree that God could not be “a” God without people to worship him. For example I became a dad when I had kids, I don’t believe God became what he is now (a God) after creation. I also don’t believe he became God after deciding to create.
I believe the error I respectfully see is that you’re stating that God had a choice to be a god or not be a god before he created, and this godhood relied on individuals to be a God for. I reject that entirely because this implies God was not a God before he created, which contradicts the scriptures.
1. Revelation 1:8 (KJV):
“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”
2. Psalm 90:2 (KJV):
“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.”
3. Isaiah 46:9-10 (KJV):
“Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:”
If God has been God from everlasting to everlasting, I don’t see how God in any way inherited his Godhood. He is the uncreated creator, and as such, it’s the law giver to the moral law.
Debate Jay Dyer
Everything God does is “good” so we assume that “He” is ultimate goodness and we’d probably feel good to be in his presence. Okay?
I’m 33 minutes in and I’m not yet catching what Jacob’s trying to throw out here. My hunch is that he’s attempting to simply, God.
If I believed in a God, Id have to admit is that “it” is greater than my capacity to comprehend as a human being. 🤷♀️
// "Good is God and God is Good" //
*"Roll up roll up"* around and around we go on the theistic wheel of circular reasoning, a place where tautology becomes reality. I'm getting so dizzy I feel sick 🤮
If the spirit of God is the holy Ghost, then this would make sense in the trinitarian context. Mormons have become confused as to whether they're monotheist or polytheists. True christianity is monotheist. See Armenian apostolic.
I also think that without God there is no law
Oscar - why is God’s nature the standard of goodness and not Satan’s? Because the Bible says so? Isn’t that what your argument would boil down to?
No. Because God is the creator and Satan is not.... Evil is a privation of good and not somthing in and of itself.
@@Oscardunlap
Why can’t the creator be evil?
@@thekolobsociety In the video I explain that evil is ontologically dependent on good. For evil to exist, good must precede it, providing the necessary foundation. Evil, in essence, exists parasitically on the good, meaning it can only manifest in relation to the presence of good.
@@Oscardunlap And vice versa. They must coexist at exactly the same time; one does not precede the other.
@@michaelnicholas5587 false. Good has no foundational dependence on evil. Goodness as in God is ultimate reality.
It seems strange to have a debate where both people agree what and who god is (for the most part).
You are simple debating for a portion of the pie and not the whole pie.
You may lay out your understanding of the world according to your Christian worldview but ignore billions of non Christians with no understanding of god, his goodness, or his divine revelation.
All your arguments fall flat in the face and of the whole of the world.
Morality is simply the study of behavior. People can get together and by evidence of their collective public behavior identify a pattern of behavior or “morality”, they for the most part seem to be living by. However, we all know that in private people will behave in a way that would not be acceptable behavior if open to the public at that time and place.
Morality is simple the mapping of behavior.
People do no claim to be moral, they profess to behave in a certain way but we all know that public and private behavior can be quite different.
Morality, ultimate well being and suffering are so subjective you will only be able to speak around them and never define any of them.
Having a standard or ideal in order to govern our behavior can be valuable, but to make any claim the god or a creator gave them to us is beyond anyone’s ability to prove. So there is some collectivism that sets the standard and in this case it is Christianity and not a god or creator.
Natural laws are different than a standard or what you are calling morality.
God or a creator did/does not even reveal the consequences of violating natural laws to us, we discover them. To say then that god reveals morality or standards that change and shift with time is beyond ridiculous.
We do not agree on who and what God is. To say that, is to show a great lack of understanding of one or both of our positions.
@@Oscardunlap your push back on my point makes my point. You both come as Christians and yet God from whom comes this morality cannot even be agreed upon by the two of you living in America as Christians. You agree God is a Christian god. You both cannot comprehend any other world view that does not have the Christian God controlling everything.
Your dogma or Jacobs dogma is still simply your best guess vs his best guess or mine when it comes to god.
If one considers the makeup of world population then they must consider god is bigger than Christianity.
lol this debate is rediculous. I love it at the same time though. Look God=creation Satan= destruction. Let’s stop using words like good and bad and replace them with constructive or destructive. What makes gods actions good? Well I define good as constructive and Gods ways are constructive. lol
Wow good on you Jacob. Me in my pride refuse to engage with anyone from apologia. They have shown in the past nothing but bad faith and mischaracterizations of our faith. They turn the God we worship into some weak, limited, evil, dead, powerless, sexist, sex crazed fiend.
Interesting... I mean no offense by this but if you claim your God used to be a man, has the ability to win but chooses not to, follows the good but is not the source of goodness itself, lacks omniscience and omnipotence, etc. it is not us making your God weak but you.
I would ask you one thing to hope to highlight this... Is your God the creator of all things visible and invisible? Of the answer is no as it is with everyone Mormon I've interacted with, then definitional at least, your God is inferior to the protestant perception of God.
I mean no offense simply wanted to point out that our view of what you worship comes from what you confess about your God, not from what we simply come up with.
@@Oscardunlap I’m a bit confused by your comment. To us, God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and that His Spirit can be felt by all people, everywhere. He possesses an absolute perfection of all good attributes; He is merciful, loving, patient, truthful, and no respecter of persons.
He does win and has won. He is the ultimate victor and deliverer
@@Oscardunlap God is the creator of all things that we know of or even can comprehend. :)
@@germanmarine6582 do you know there were other God's before him? Seems so... Which would make your statement untrue.... Did he create or organize? Again your answer to these question would contradict your earlier statement.
More than an hour in and neither of these dudes has mentioned the existence of universals. Also, Jacob obviously does not know the difference between an ought and an is. Well being is a description whereas morality is prescriptive so they are not the same. This is basic stuff.
That's a problem because? Please elaborate.
@oscardDunlap you did start the discussion by explaining to Jacob what universals are. Forgive me if you did much later in the video but this would have cut to heart of the matter. Morality like logic must be an immaterial reality that is independent of any particular human mind or experience. If it were not so it could not be appealed to in law, debate, etc. Because morality is immaterial it can only be grounded in the divine mind which is universal not finite. This is the Augustinian proof for God and it is a solid defeater for materialism, nominalism, and conceptualism. Jacobs description of morality is him just describing what the individual will ultimately experience which is an is not an ought and a particular not a universal.
@@contraheresy I agree with this all but followed the flow of the conversation as he lead it. I tried to emphasize the absolute nature of morality but couldmonly dive in so much in a short time.
@occasional not really faulting you here just thought it would have been a good opportunity to enlighten the lds audience on basic epistemology and metaphysics. I was lds for 30 years and then became orthodox Christian. One of the many reasons I made the big transition was because universals/ moral realism could not be accounted for in the lds worldview.
@@contraheresy copy
I’m not sure that creation ex nihilo gives Oscar another option. If God created everything from nothing, all morality would have to spawn from God’s nature and from his initial design of the universe.
A pre-existing universe would bring with it pre-existing laws. God would have to conform to those laws and teach us to do the same. His son Jesus Christ is the embodiment of those laws, but not the reason they exist.
"A pre-existing universe would bring with it pre-existing laws"
Where do these laws reside? What is their source? How can God know them?
In what sense does this law exist and how does one become aware of its existence? Does this eye Al law of sentience? Can it communicate?
@@brenthardaway3704 if God is working with pre-existing eternal materials and pre-existing eternal intelligences, he doesn’t make the rules on how they behave. He does however provide the concering power that allows the elements to express their natural properties. He also organizes the existing elements so they can move from a state of entropy to a state of design.
God works within pre existing natural law accordiing to the physical nature of the pre-existing materials. The law isn’t a being or entity, it’s a physical reality that God understands and complies with.
@@brannonburton5494 So it's possible for scientists to detect chastity or covenant path in sand, dirt, ocean water, etc?
@@brenthardaway3704 thanks for the sarcasm. What I’m getting at is the at God understands what leads to our ultimate well being within the universe he organized. God understands how to maximize our happiness within this universe and perfectly demonstrates and teaches how to do it. He understands all true principles and directs us to follow them. However, they are true principles because they work and God only follows what works. God cannot follow an incorrect principle and make it work simply because he said so.
God is just, if He ceases to be just He ceases to be God. So God is bound by the laws of the kingdom in which he resides. What is heaven to one person can be hell to another. If having same sex attraction stops you from entering heaven and it's your number one priority and you have no plans to have children then where God is, is not heaven to you. So you would be placed in a kingdom of your choosing which allows that. We can only decide what's right for ourselves because it's only us that knows our priority list, the must haves. For most people wickedness or evil brings misery if your the oppressed rather than the oppressor. It's when a law or a person tries to force you to do something that you don't want to do. Instead of encouraging you to try something different with different consequences and see how you feel about it. Demons in hell for instance feed on fear and other negative energy. So they constantly try and keep you in fear because it's what they get off on. Like an addict, constant fear is not a pleasant feeling but in hell there are no laws so you can do whatever you like, who are you going to complain to? The other degrees of glory have laws but not so many and not so strick as the Celestial Kingdom. Do we need laws to protect our happiness? For instance a woman may hate being raped but the person doing it maybe having the time of his life, laws may protect the woman and her happiness but stops the rapist's happiness so eternally they cannot reside together a split is necessary to keep both happy. Right and wrong in my opinion is when force is used to acquire something that the other party has not agreed to. To cheat lie or deceive. It's all about feelings if it hurts in anyway we call it bad. If we feel joy or happiness we call it good providing our happiness don't cause someone else's misery. I suppose that's what heaven is, hell is I don't care about your feelings as long as I am happy!
Selfishness it's all about me! Where heaven takes everyones feelings into consideration, not allowing you to harm others for your benefit or personal gain.
How telling that if Christian soteriology is correct the most important factor that differentiates those deserving eternal paradise and those deserving eternal torment is the geographical location one is born into.
If one is born in Saudi Arabia there is about a 95% chance that you will belive in the "wrong" God and reject jesus and thus receive eternal damnation in a lake of fire. However be born into America and magically there is about a 95% chance that you will believe in the "right" God and thus receive eternal salvation. 👏👏
Allegedly this is the justice of a perfect omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient loving God. The fact that many people who reject jesus often lead devout pious lives and follow very strict and demanding religious practices with regards to worship, diet, clothing and relationships is not a factor, these people seemingly reject jesus because they *"want to sin"* 🤔🤫 Some live lives of isolation and quiet contemplation taking vows of celibacy and silence but the loving jesus still deems these people unworthy of anything other than eternal torment.
Conversely however a murderer so long as he truly repents and accepts Jesus on his death bed he can spend an eternity in paradise with those he murdered. Unless of course those people also found the "evidence" for your God unconvincing, in which case the murderer would be looking down from paradise on the people he killed as they too suffered for eternity with me and you call this _"JUSTICE"_ ?? 🤮
@@trumpbellend6717 we as LDS don't believe in heaven and hell, even in the Bible it talks about 3 degrees of Glory and outer darkness which is hell.
God is just so even just one sin breaks God's law and then justice steps in and demands payment. We can pay for it, or Christ can, if we don't hear about Christ in this life then in the spirit prison we can hear about it and accept or reject. God gives all of His children that opportunity whether this life or the next.
1 Peter 3:19-20
19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
@@Hawkquill
Lol hilarious 🤣 😂 What does "justice" actually mean to you my friend ? 🤔 You see for me justice is all about "fairness", responsibility, equality, accountability, and consequences all of which can be negated under Christian soteriology by one's acceptance or rejection of extraordinary supernatural claims and a willingness to pass the buck.
*John 5 24*
_“Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and _*_"BELIEVES"_*_ in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and _*_SHALL NOT COME INTO JUDGMENT,_*_ but has passed from death into life"_
Scholars of ethical philosophy such as national humanities medal winning moral and legal philosopher John Rawls described "justice", and especially distributive justice, as _"a form of_ *FAIRNESS"*
The dictionaries define it as follows...
*M Webster*
JUSTICE _noun_
*1* _the maintenance or administration of what just especially by the_ *impartial* _adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments_
*2* _The quality of being just, impartial, or_ *fair*
*Cambridge English*
JUSTICE _noun_
( _FAIRNESS_ ) ... _the condition of being morally correct or fair_ _He accused the police of false arrest and demanded justice_
Our societal conception of "justice" in in direct conflict with the *unequal punishment* based on the accused "beliefs" ( something they have no more control over than the colour of their skin at birth ) prescribed by Christian theology. Moral properties such as responsibility are supervenient on actions and attributes of moral agents, and cannot be transferred between them. As such vicarious redemption ( scapegoating ) could never and should never be regarded as either logical or moral.
The idea of sin, or morality however you define it, being a tradeable commodity is at odds with how I define morality. Particularly when it involves the suffering of an innocent. I am responsible for my good and bad actions, people can't 'take' my bad deeds any more than they can my good nor should they.
@@Hawkquill
Lol why don't you elaborate on this _"spirit prison"_ for us all dear
@@trumpbellend6717
Ok fairness, would you say if someone is robbed of all their stuff, that the person who done it should repay back what he stolen plus if it consisted of tools which stop someone from working and feeding his family, what would you describe as being fair or Just? That the person should at least pay for all the stuff plus the loss of work. In the Bible it suggests you pay back four-fold. If what you done took a life what's happens to the thief if he cannot pay? Fortunately if we admit our wrongs and strive to live a better life, keep the commandments etc, Christ will pay the debt. The judge or God don't care who pays as long as the debt is settled, and therefore fairness done.
Prison, the word itself means when your in a prison your held back you cannot advance. So in this life if you are approached by someone who asks if your interested in living a life of loving thy neighbour as thyself as Christ suggests and keeping the commandments and living in harmony all seeing eye to eye and being of one heart and mind. As Christ said to be one with him as He is one with the Father. Then no arguments no difference of opinion therefore no wars. If you reject this then you cannot advance into the light or truth and are held back in darkness or ignorance by your own choice . Because what you believe you have is better than what God is offering you. So where will you be placed at the last day? In the world you chose a world like this with people who think like you. If you lived a hellish life no one drag you kicking and screaming to do it, you chose it so hell is where you end up , not because God punishes you, you chose it when you had agency or free will. Same with heaven, you have to live a heavenly life to live there otherwise your going to cause trouble and be a problem, so rather than have you ruin that, just place you in a kingdom that has laws that your happy to live. God is love! The more loving you become the closer to God you become. We all are happy when we are around people that are like us.
1 John 3:1-3
1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
If we follow Christ example in this life when He appears we will be like Him therefore comfortable in His presence rather than uncomfortable!
I love these debates - We get to see why both sides are wrong.
Lame
You think so? Please elaborate.
@@Oscardunlap yes.
Jacob highlighted that your standard is arbitrary. You’re unable to say why Satan can’t be the standard instead of God. In order to determine which SHOULD be the standard, you’d need a standard outside of God and Satan.
You highlighted that Jacob’s standard is subjective. And the many challenges that accompany a well-being based standard.
Reminds me of how you both proved each other wrong during your Sola Scriptura debate.
Jacob i was watching pastor Jeffs podcsst on the book of mormon it wasnt bad but i know it wouldnt be right to broadcast what other religions believe there is good in all religions and God blesses people in all religions we are told not to judge we can convert people by just preaching our own religion there were just a few awful comments about our church and it incourages bad as well as good on both sides and then Gods word is mocked what satan wants even non like a battle and dont care what religion they hurt
34:31 Jacob, Thank You for saying that those of us who are on the 80 years plan can be good moral beings.
I struggle when you insert your own assumptions and rational on others who aren’t playing life by the same rubric.
Your claim that someone could be happy having an affair as long as no one finds out…. That is perhaps how a narcissist thinks. Hell, maybe that really works for them. Yikes. Hard to imagine.
The truth is that most people chose to be and do good because it creates a good, peaceful, honest existence. Who on earth wants to carry something like that around? That would so much shame and pain. I can only imagine trying to play two different characters. 😖
It’s sad to me that you believe so little of us who no longer believe in God and are just grateful to be alive, love, laugh, learn whilst causing the least harm to others.
Your concept of us sounds like a living HELL!
MORMONS’ IMPOSSIBLE GOSPEL
Moroni 10:32
“ **IF** you deny yourselves of **ALL** ungodliness… **THEN** is his grace sufficient for you.”
Did you notice the IF / THEN statement?
That’s a conditional statement.
So - how much ungodliness do you need to get rid of? Some? Most of? 60%? 90%?
Moroni 10:32 states you need to deny
“ *ALL* ungodliness.”
What are you if you get rid of *ALL* ungodliness?
Answer: Perfect.
According to this Mormon scripture: grace doesn’t start until **AFTER** you are perfect.
This means grace is unattainable for Mormons.
-
The Book of Mormon has other passages which support this:
2 Nephi 25:23
“We are saved by grace, **AFTER** all we can do.”
When do you get the grace?
Have you done all that you can do?
Have you ever had 1 day in your whole life where you did all you could do?
You couldn’t have prayed another minute?
So - can anyone ever be saved???
-
Mormon scripture is consistent about this:
Alma 11:37
“And I say unto you again, that HE CANNOT SAVE THEM IN THEIR SIN. For I cannot deny his word, and ye have said no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven. Therefore how can you be saved except you enter the kingdom of heaven? Therefore YOU CANNOT BE SAVED IN YOUR SINS.”
That’s like saying you’ve got to get out of the water before I’m going to save you from drowning.
In contrast, the Christian Jesus isn’t a swimming coach - He’s a lifeguard.
I’ve seen Mormons say, “it just means do your best” - but the Book of Mormon directly contradicts them and makes it explicitly clear that it does not mean that:
First Nephi 3:7
“And it came to pass that I nee-phi said unto my father , “I will go and do the things which the Lord has commanded. For I know that the Lord giveth no commandment unto the children of men save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commanded them.””
Is it possible for the Mormon god to give you a command you can’t keep?
Did he tell you to deny yourself of ALL ungodliness?
Did he tell you to do all you can do?
Did he tell you you can’t be saved in your sins?
If they say, I’m doing the best I can - then ask - does it say Do the best you can?
So - can anyone be saved?
Read the whole chapter of Alma 34.
Which says you have to have repented of ALL sin before you die, otherwise you will be sealed to Satan.
AND:
a reminder:
Moroni 10:32
“IF you deny yourselves of **ALL** ungodliness… **THEN** is his grace sufficient for you.”
2 Nephi 25:23
“We are saved by grace, **AFTER** all we can do.”
-
This is confirmed by:
Doctrines and Covenants 82:7
“And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; BUT UNTO THAT SOUL WHO SINNETH SHALL THE FORMER SINS RETURN, saith the Lord your God.”
Doctrines and Covenants 82:9-10
“I give unto you directions how you may act before me, that it may turn to you for your salvation. I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; BUT WHEN YE DO NOT WHAT I SAY, YE HAVE NO PROMISE.“
Under those conditions - who can be saved???
Also:
"Trying is not sufficient. Nor is repentance complete when one merely tries to abandon sin,"
Spencer Kimball 12th President and PROPHET of the LDS Church, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p150
The book just quoted, ‘THE MIRACLE OF FORGIVENESS,’ by Spencer Kimball (12th President and **PROPHET** of the LDS Church) is approved and recommended by multiple LDS leaders:
Ezra Taft Benson (13th President and **PROPHET** of the LDS Church) urged all church members "to read and reread President Spencer Kimball's book."
(from ‘In His Steps’ 1988).
LDS Church apostle Richard G. Scott called ‘The Miracle of Forgiveness’ a "masterly work" (‘Peace of Conscience and Peace of Mind, 2004) and “a superb guide.” (Finding Forgiveness, 1995).
Jesus's impossible gospel. Matthew 5:48 Be ye perfect even as your father in heaven is perfect. John 14:15 IF you love me, keep my commandments. Psalms 91:14-16. If ye love me you are saved. Matthew 19:26. All things are possible to God.
It would be imposible if we are expected to reach perfection before death. LDS faith teaches that we will continue to progress after this life and it teaches that Christ's atonement is eternal and it covers all the way to Adam and all the way into the future for eternity. Eventually Christ himself asked us to be perfect as His Father is perfect. But He did not say it needs to be done before we die. Final Judgement does not happen at the day of death for each of us. Let me know if this makes sense.
@@jacobsamuelson3181Try reading the whole of the New Testament:
“For by one offering He has **PERFECTED** for all time those who are sanctified.”
Hebrews 10:14
And a literal word for word translation of Matthew 5:48:
“Therefore you **SHALL** **BE** perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
Matthew 5:48 NASB2020
-----
Your comment is very strange.
It starts by mocking Jesus and then tries to use the Old Testament to justify the Mormon religion which contradicts and denies what the Old Testament teaches:
“Before Me there was no God FORMED, And there will be none after Me.”
Isaiah 43:10
“I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.”
Isaiah 44:6
“Is there any God besides Me, Or is there any other Rock? I know of none.’ ””
Isaiah 44:8
““I am the Lord, and there is no one else; There is no God except Me… there is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no one else,”
Isaiah 45:5-6
“from everlasting to everlasting, You are God.”
Psalms 90:2
@@SpielbergMichaelStill trying with this? Doesn't it get tiring being an agent of Satan?
I literally spanked you in an debate and refuted everything you brought up and you still want to go on and copy and paste this debunked argument?
@@SpielbergMichael Psalm 82:6
I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High
Psalm 82 is in fact “the textbook passage” to “demonstrate that the Hebrew Bible assumes and affirms the existence of other gods.” This psalm opens with a depiction of God taking “his place in the divine council [עדת-אל; ‘ădat ’ēl]” and holding judgment “in the midst of the gods [אלהים; ’ēlōhîm]” (Psalm 82:1). After reprimanding these gods for failing to uphold their divine mandates (Psalm 82:3-4), God then issues a warning: “I say, ‘You are gods [אלהים; ’ēlōhîm], children of the Most High [בני עליון; bĕnê ‘elyôn], all of you; nevertheless, you shall die like mortals, and fall like any prince” (Psalm 82:6-7).
Some have gone to great lengths to argue that these “gods” in Psalm 82 are mortals, perhaps judges or magistrates, but this argument fails for many reasons. Besides the insurmountable linguistic and exegetical absurdities in such a reading, when the imagery of Psalm 82 is compared with other Psalms, such as Psalm 29:1 (“Ascribe to the Lord, O heavenly beings [אלים בני; bĕnê ’ēlîm; literally “sons of gods”], ascribe to the Lord glory and [Page 167]strength.”) and Psalm 89:5-8 (see below), it becomes clear these gods cannot be humans but must be divine beings.
.
Latter-day Saint vs protestant Pharisee gatekeeper!
Didn’t seen that way to me. Gate keeping infers bad faith. They both engaged in good faith conversation.
someone's gotta tend to those gates