This is fundamental to MY idea of Mormon Theology. I think the early Christians may have had too vocal of an idea of what The Universe was, and it got comingled with What God is, and resulted in the nonsense God of “orthodoxy”, but the Universe principle is important, and is taught by Joseph Smith in his teachings on the immortality of the spirit, intelligences, and all spirit being pure matter.

I know I’ve been believing in it as a universal which God is bound by for some time, although I can’t remember where I got the idea. Nowadays I’m not so comfortable with that practice.

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. The first principles of man are self-existent with God. [...] God Himself found Himself in the midst of spirits and glory. Because He was greater He saw proper to institue laws whereby the rest, who were less in intelligence, could have a privilege to advance like Himself and be exalted with Him, so that they might have one glory upon another in all that knowledge, power, and glory. So He took hand to save the world of spirits.

Joseph speaks of two different kinds of laws, both those he calls principles which are self-existent with God and not created by God or any other agent; as well as those which were created by God for the express purpose of elevating us to His stature. I’m not sure if you’d call the God-created laws universals or particulars, because for us they might as well be universals. Although our intelligences are as eternal as God’s, the orginization of our spirits and bodies from eternal materials is the work of God and thus we would not have our current state of existence without His laws to go along with it. Perhaps the neo-orthodox brethren understood this too and many of the conflicts are only semantic.

The overall point Joseph makes is where I come back to my first point. God is worth worshipping not because He is THE source of ALL things (which if you believe Joseph, clearly He is not), but because He was greater and yet cared to bring us to Him. Save the world of spirits, as it were. He could have just left me behind and relished His superiority, but He didn’t. Thus, I worship Him.

p.s. The King Follett Discourse gets undue shelving in the modern church, probably for ecumenical reasons. Joseph’s teachings that day were revolutionary, both scientificly and theologically. Personally, I have my testimony of Joseph’s rightness, and not so absolutely of successive authorities (how could I with so many conflicts?), so I think Joseph trumps them all.

I agree about universals but I think it is beyond our definitions of the beginning-less universals that are somewhat synonymous with philosophical values (Truth, Justice, Love, Goodness…).

It seems as thought there were two conflicting ideals, but a universal foundation, and God had a choice when we were presented the plan at the council of heaven. He chose one law, and that seems to be what binds him, and creation.

D&C seems to also suggest that both truth and intelligence are independent in its sphere to act on its own according to the law, or as I always understood it, the measure of creation. Tht the chaotic matter and intelligence of the universe was “organized” to fill the measure of its creation.

All truth is independent in its sphere. It seems that right/wrong, good/bad, truth/lies, is dependent on God’s definition for that sphere. But what would you call the essence of eternal reality and consistency, because if you loose that essence you cease? Well, truth is good, but still depends on a parameter, so D&C calls it the light of truth. The light of, or quintessence, foundation, standard, core, etc. Kind of like the essence of a real thing as it is defined itself. How does one emanate that?

For me on my simple terms, that is what made God who He is, the whole nature of the creation resting on the truth relative to the intelligences in their sphere. Since I don’t speak His language, I go off of what JS put in the D&C. That it was His honor that was His power, the power Lucifer wanted. Honor being defined as well, a good reputation, (the ultimate, really), the ability to act freely in God’s name and command His creations unimpeded. Using that reputation is a great stamp of approval, and Christ used it to do God’s will. So, as it was His purpose, Satan chose the easiest way to try to get both done, and 1/3 the host liked his idea. The great lie was that we could get something out of it.

It seems that before it all, God had a choice in how to define the terms, then the terms made him God, and then, an opportunity for ceasing to have honor, or change the terms would exist, and so he could cease to be God. This seems to be independent of Him. He could compel every creation to follow without choice and meet the terms, as Lucifer presented, and never experience self-determination. Or, give them a choice, and that opportunity might, to cease to be God, be to let disobedient, imperfect beings, receive glory, while glory was supposed to be for those obedient. So, an agreement would need to be made, that beings satisfying the terms of Atonement, Christ’s presentation, could be glorified, the ones that don’t, can’t. Maybe that is not the universal, but the solution, because I think God enjoys agency as much as any of us. He has the trump power, but I think that is only when dealing in the spheres of influence. There is a lot of room when brining about eternal purposes. But no room to sway, either to the right or the left, lest you lose honor and justice be offended. The idea that God could cease (whatever that is) suggests a bigger fundamental nature.

regarding laws, if we are assigning a defination to just that you do in the final sentence, i.e., an “unjust law.” That seems to me to be a definition of fairness. It would seem that this definition disintegrates if there is only one person living in the world or no people. Is reality just? I don’t think so, I think that it simply is. The laws of nature simply are, they are neither just nor unjust. Governments can be just or unjust inasmuch as they balance the competeing interest of indaviduals.

I do think though that the issue of truth as reality is problematic. It at a minimum for most senses of truth confuses the property of sentences or propositions with what the sentences refer to. The most popular theory of truth is that it is the correspondence of propositions to reality. Thus it can’t be reality, although clearly it would be related. (For the record I reject the correspondence theory of truth, but it’s a very popular theory)

Geoff, I don’t think you need universals to combat relativism. Consequentialists (the good or justice is in terms of the consequences of an act) often reject universals. (Not always, but often) I don’t think many really take relativism seriously. Typically, I think, the burden of proof is on the relativist and they often have a hard time meeting it. (IMO)

Jonathan, one way to consider the relationship between law and justice is to ask what makes a law just. If justice is in terms of laws, then why pick the laws we do. And if justice is in terms of laws, does it make any sense to speak of an unjust law?

How can you have justice without law?

I can imagine something that is “right” independantly of God, however, you yourself have repeatedly claimed that God can trump every claim to right or wrong.

I may not have this exactly right either, but I think the idea is that even in the absense of God or any just acts, the universal, “Justice”, would still exists and be real. I think the corrolary to that is that just acts all are just because they approach or partake in the universal and unchanging “Justice”.

In practical terms this is mostly useful in combatting relativism I think. But that can be done even if universals exist in the mind of God. So in theological terms it is a question of whether they are independent of God or not (assuming they exist of course).