I deleted virtually that entire post. It's not my intent to offend. The subject gets me worked up and I go overboard. If you'll delete your post quoting me, there will be less offense all around.
Thank you for the informative answers. Don't you think God is too great to be incapable or unwilling to see past technicalities and ordinances?
This is more asking for my opinion than that of established LDS doctrine, but my own personal opinion is that while it certainly would simplify some things in many ways - a fundamental principle found throughout LDS thought is that there are eternal laws to which God himself is also subject. And my own personal belief is that when God gives a commandment to all mankind, that all are asked to be obedient; however, I believe in an all-powerful and all-loving God that provides a way for all mankind to fulfill that which He asks. So I guess the way that I personally would rephrase your question would be "Don't you think God is too great to be subject to any laws or rules?" And while it would indeed simplify matters a great deal, my own opinion is that no, He is not. But do NOT equate this sentiment with established LDS doctrine; this is just one error-filled man's opinion. But these be deep waters.
It's an interesting question...I may have been better served to suggest that God is more the author or giver of laws or commandments. For example, if God tells a man that if he is obedient to His commandments, he will be blessed with great posterity (a common Biblical theme), can God then go back on his word if the man is obedient? Why not? Is God bound by His word or just simply by the goodness that we believe is in Him? Or is God bound at all? We have a passage of scripture that reads "I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." The idea is that God can be bound by law because he gives the law. It can also be suggested that the principle of justice must be honored in the aforementioned situation, because the man had fulfilled his portion of the agreement. The idea of covenants might illustrate the idea better than my probably-horrible example. God makes promises to man and promises certain things if man obeys. Because God dictates the terms of the covenant (even though we would often much prefer to dictate them to him, but it doesn't work that way), we have our own agency as to whether or not we will accept the terms of said covenant - but the consequences of our choices are ours alone. Mormons believe that baptism is a covenant, commanded by God....and that certain blessings are promised to those who are obedient. At least, that's how I understand things.
I have to admit this is the first time I've heard of a distinction in regard to belief in a soul between Nihlism and Atheism. I find it interesting that an atheist would believe in the metaphysical existence of a soul.
Apparently not and I am not saying they have to be. I am just intellectually curious since most of the arguments put forward by atheists have to do with empirical proof and pointing out the impossibility of proving a supernatural being through empiricism. The soul as a metaphysical construct also would seem to defy empirical proof.
