Seminarysnoozer

I appreciate your patience with me. To me, being vague in a question on purpose comes across as being insincere. This forum in general has made me return to searching the scriptures and prayer and I am thankful for that. I agree with your explanation of prayer and not changing God's will and aligning our will with His. But even after one's prayer aligns with the will of God, God can act and the question remains whether that action can result in the manipulation of a person's free agency? And I think yes, just like Joseph Smith's free agency expanded after he aligned his will with Gods, God acted by visiting him and thus expanded his free agency. Another, personal, example; my neighbor contracted a bad infection of the leg, a cellulitis. She knew that I was a nurse and asked for my advice on several things. As we spent time together in her house as IV antibiotics were given we had the opportunity to talk about religion. She is now going to church and considering the missionary discussions. Now I believe, maybe some would say different, that God acted. I didn't ask God to do this, I didn't ask God to force her to stay home with an infection. I think God 'manipulated' my neighbors free agency, she was forced to stay home from work and turn her heart for help which ultimately resulted in me being invited into her home and her having to listen to me talk (and believe me, that is really curtailing someones agency). She still had free will to not believe anything I said but her agency was limited (having to stay home) which allowed me to have a closer relationship with her. And ultimately, her agency will be expanding as she accepts the truth. My husband tells me that the elders quorum president has been praying for weeks to open that neighbors husband's heart before this happened and they were trying to figure out a way to fellowship this neighbor. I believe the prayer was answered, maybe aligning the elders quorum president's will with Gods was a prerequisite but my will was not changed. And God still had to manipulate something more to make that happen. I believe that, I know there will be differing opinions about Gods involvement. But I believe He acted. God did not force my neighbors will but, to me, it seems like He 'meddled' with it, as before she was not willing to listen to the gospel message and now she is. I think the confusing part in the set up of this thread is distinguishing free will from free agency. And maybe that is something that I don't have a good feel for in terms of definitions. To me, free will and free agency are separate things.

I don't really want this to turn into a discussion of whether Adam sinned or not, I misspoke, I shouldn't have used the word "sin" ... even though I said "the sin" I should have said "the fall".... anyways, the point is that Adam and Eve had shame, not just sorrow. I agree that Adam was aware of the consequences of the fall, which makes me wonder even more about feeling shameful over nakedness. So, the shame was a false sense? I guess I have a hard time with them eating the fruit to be opened to the meaning of right and wrong and yet they ended up with a sense of false shame. It makes it seem they were more enlightened before they ate the fruit .... well, I guess that is it, by eating the fruit they suddenly lost awareness. Maybe eating the fruit was a dumbing down process not an enlightening process, like pulling the veil over. Sure, it gives the potential for more enlightenment, down the road, but at that moment, immediately after eating the fruit they were probably more confused. So, I think I am arriving at the conclusion that being naked in front of your spouse was not shameful, that was a false sense of shame caused by the fall making them suddenly unaware of what was right versus wrong. Right versus wrong is something they would have to learn over time. I guess I had the impression that as soon as they ate the fruit is was suddenly enlightening when in reality it was an event that made them more unsure about right and wrong.

Satan's plan was to take away free agency all together. Your question was about manipulating free agency. What's your point? If one drives down a 2 lane highway and it suddenly turns into an 8 lane highway, free agency has been manipulated. If one is driving down an 8 lane highway that cuts into a 2 lane highway to cross a bridge, free agency has been manipulated. When Joseph Smith prayed to God for guidance as soon as he was visited by God, God directly manipulated his free agency as it opened up to many more options than what he had before. So the answer to your question, Does God meddle with free will? The answer is yes, because He can change the choices available, that's how he changes the free will of men. ... and it doesn't have to be negative, it can be in a positive direction. The next time you are driving down an 8 lane highway and it turns into a 2 lane highway, ask yourself if your free will has been manipulated (note* I'm not asking if it was taken away, just manipulated). I'm sure there are people who see it differently, but that's how I see it. Of course if you were to ask me, Does God take away free agency? I would say no, that would defeat the purpose of this life. But if you ask, what it looks like you asked, Does God meddle with free will/agency? the answer is yes. .... for me at least, until someone explains differently, which I am open for.

Even after reading the bible dictionary I still don't see how you made the jump from the title of this thread "Does God meddle with free will? and Snows summary of his question "is the idea of divine manipulation of a person's free agency in accordance with gospel principles?" to a discussion of changing Gods will through prayer. If you think that is an excellent question what would you think of the question "Does prayer change the will of God?" - - a more excellent and clearer question? I have had enough banter with Snow to realize the open-ended question approach or an obscure question before going in for the kill after we have chewed ourselves up over it. Snow's question clearly uses the words "a person's free agency" and "divine manipulation" meaning God is doing the changing to a person. It seems to me Snow was asking about the second part to that of which the Bible dictionary is talking about for prayer. If you believe God never acts on our prayers then I guess that is a different discussion. I think Snow was asking about after prayer is successful in asking the thing that God is waiting to hear and that condition of asking was met .... THEN .... could God manipulate a person's free agency? Or do you think after the conditions of prayer are met that God does nothing? Do you think Snow's waving of the hands has reached new heights by putting a title and a "simply stated ..." question pointing in another direction from the real intent of the question? ... that Snow really wanted to ask about changing the will of God? and not God manipulating agency of a person? I'm not telling you that you can't focus on one aspect of the question that you have interest in, go for it! But don't tell me because I didn't read something that I didn't perceive as the focus of the question that I don't understand the answer to a separate question. I agree with all that the Bible dictionary has to say about prayer and yet the question could still be posed that Snow posted. I think a discussion of the value of prayer and how God answers prayer is good. But one could still ask, "Does God meddle with free will (as an action that may or may not be directly related to anybody's personal prayer)?"

Well, you have a good memory then, That's why I'm saying I think 'naked' is a metaphor for being fully aware of the magnitude of the sin, there is no way to rationalize around it. When God asked why were you hiding to Adam, his answer was, in other words, was because "I became fully aware of what I did." = "I was naked" I don't think Adam would lie directly to God. He wasn't naked in the sense of not having any clothes on, he had the apron on before he hid, if you take the story as one event followed by another. At that point, I think the apron wasn't just an idea, I think he already made one and put it on, and then hid. They heard His voice and then hid. But, I guess, the stories events could have transpired in a different order than that listed in Genesis.

Yes, that is another interesting thing about the story that makes it hard to follow because the Lord asked Adam why he hid himself and he said that he hid himself because he was naked. Well, I thought he just made an apron, so he wasn't 'naked' anymore and yet he still hid himself. This, to me, suggests that there is something more to 'naked' than just not having clothes.

Maybe I said it and didn't realize it, but I wasn't trying to say that having a perfect body is a requirement for perfection as I realize the perfecting process is mostly a spiritual one. I am more talking about after judgment day. I think though the body is certainly required to reach the highest level's full potential, otherwise we wouldn't need to be resurrected. I think of it as more of a tool to perform the duties we will have in that particular kingdom, and at the highest levels that 'tool' will look just like God's as it will eventually have to perform all that God does. I suppose if one feels the body does nothing more than cover the spirit then it wouldn't matter. Or, maybe people think the body is just some reward like a trophy we get for being a part of this life that serves no purpose other than aesthetic pleasures. If that is what it is, a tool, why would one have different features than another? And, I think we have the color thing already figured out - bright beyond all description.

Genesis 1:7 "And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons." Why did Adam and Eve cover their bodies after the fall? The pat answer you would get in Sunday School is 'because they suddenly realized right from wrong.' But even then, they are husband and wife, is it wrong to be naked in front of your husband? Then people say, 'it was because they were ashamed of the choice they made to eat the fruit.' Well, if they were shamed by that, wouldn't they cover their face? That is the typical thing people cover when they feel shame, if they are going to cover anything at all. And people say, 'well, before they were naked but didn't really realize what naked was.' But again, if they really ate of the fruit then they would know that it is not wrong to be naked in front of your spouse, therefore nothing needs to be covered. Or was it their futile attempt to avoid making babies, by covering themselves up, until they discussed their act with God? Maybe Adam couldn't concentrate so insisted on covering? Or maybe this whole "naked" thing is just a metaphor and they weren't actually naked. My thought is that their bodies appearance changed. Maybe they didn't have the parts necessary to make babies and so their physical appearance suddenly was shameful. I don't know, just has always seemed odd to me that they would suddenly feel naked in front of their spouse, which is not wrong (hope its not). The other associated part of this is that it's hard to understand how they were naked before and that didn't bother them. Does that mean in the spirit pre-earthly life we were all naked? Since they were around God who has a body, I would think they would already know what naked and clothed is. They walked with God, talked with God in the garden, didn't they? They probably had to avoid tripping on his flowing robes a few times. So maybe the naked thing really is a metaphor?

God cannot realize something is done until it is actually done. I can barely wrap my head around the concept of God not restricted by time. But it seems in the scriptures that there is a value to actually bringing something to pass as opposed to God saying this will happen, or I have seen the future and it will happen. In other words, I don't think God can take the full credit for something (i.e. gain glory) for potential projects or future projects. I think this is evidenced by Gods work being to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. And I think its evidenced by there being no end to Gods work because the glory is in the actual doing the thing not just planning it. The other thing God would be limited by (but since He participates in this He is not limited) is the lack of relationships with other beings. In other words, if God was a loner, He would not be God. He requires relationships with others and in fact the more relationships the better. If He was by himself, He would not be God, just some powerful dude hanging out. This is why the true doctrine has to incorporate a belief that God was never by himself. There were always other beings around and related to God.

I agree with what some people are saying here. When God removes people from this existence it is not "killing." He is just stopping something He has started. When we try to unjustly take Gods power in our hands without His authority, then it is "killing." I think there are many times God is being benevolent by removing people from this existence, lest they damn themselves further. Kind of like, if you were administering a test and you saw one of the students marking "a" for every answer you might say, Okay that's enough, the test is over. Or if you looked over the shoulder of a student who was getting every answer right, you might say, okay you don't have to finish the rest. Or if a student was making so much noise, nobody else in the room was able to take the test, you would remove that student. With the knowledge that this life on earth is such a tiny part of our existence, I don't see anything wrong with God deciding who stays and who doesn't.

Sorry, but I thought the question was confusing. I know its just me, because it seems everyone else is seeming to understand the question and even call it an excellent question. Maybe someone can clarify the point of the question then if you would be so kind as it seems Snow hasn't responded for a bit. My impression is that the question is not asking about the nature of free agency or whether the free agency was taken away, which to me would spawn a discussion of bondage versus freedom but rather as Snow simplified in the last sentence of the original post, the question was rather God manipulates free agency and would this fit with gospel principles. And when asked that way, the answer is of course. I think a lot of responders assumed the question was whether agency was taken away. I guess I didn't see it that way, especially looking at the simplified summary of the question. If I'm wrong, sorry, I didn't understand the question. ... Maybe another way to ask the question is (Snow, tell me if I'm wrong); Can God get into someones head and make someone choose something against what they would have chosen on their own if given the same situation and options? When someone prays for the truth and they are in the darkness where their free agency is limited, God can send the missionaries to that persons door and thus manipulate the free agency of that person. Their choices were changed by Gods intervention, and therefore manipulating free agency. (note: the question was not - was free agency taken away?) So, manipulating free agency can be a good thing. Increasing the number of choices by opening their eyes or the opposite like what happened after the apostasy. This fits with the case in the example Snow gave. Maybe the resume was misplaced, the prayer was given, and the employer, through divine guidance realized there was another stack of resumes in a different location therefore reconsidering his/her choice and then picked the employee in the example. That wouldn't have happened if the employer's free agency wasn't manipulated, in other words, other options were open to the employer. There wasn't enough information given in the example to know, just saying that sure, God could have manipulated the employers agency.

If free agency is given by God how is manipulation of it by God not in accordance with gospel principles?

"Alma 11: 44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but every thing shall be restored to its perfect frame ..." I think everyone agrees that restoration means to bring back to some previous state, like when you restore a piece of furniture. If there is a restoration back to its perfect frame you would have to ask when did that perfect frame occur that it can be restored back to? Either, like Justice is trying to suggest it occurs here in the variability of how one is born into this world and all of those characteristics resulting from all of one's ancestors imperfect decisions and lives culminating in one's current mix of genes is its 'perfect frame'. Suggesting the measure of one's fullness is based on physical characteristics obtained in this life. (Thanks mom and dad and grandma, grandpa and great great great great great great great grandfather who decided to travel the seas to attack my great great great great great great great grandmothers village for all the genes you passed on to me.) Or you believe that there was only one "perfect frame" in which it is to be brought back to, Adam and Eve. As God is the first and the last, (but not anything in between) in the end we will all be like the first. A few verses before the scripture above it is explained; "Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last;" All the alterations that occurred in between are not of God and therefore it needs to be restored to the way He created it. That is why all these corruptions and changes to His creation that even result in genes that cause disease or lead to a predisposition for problems such as; alcoholism, homosexuality, schizophrenia, major depression, myotonic dystrophy, cystic fibrosis and on and on and on are things that happened in between and are not the beginning or the end. It's the same state of the genes that causes variability in appearance. I personally don't think the scriptures were using the cutesy form of the word perfect, when referring to "perfect frame." Like when you would say, " I found the perfect dress for the dance next week." The "perfect frame" referred to in the scriptures unlike a "perfect dress" will have to be worn from there on out, forever, so it better be perfect for all occasions and purposes, having nothing lacking and be able to reach the fullness of not just its creation on earth but the "fullness" of eternity, God-like.

The purest form of learning the gospel and the lessons from our Lord is not through reason and algorithms, it is by being touched by the spirit through an open heart. So it is a fine complement to say we get emotional and not try to let rational thoughts cloud our learning. I can get rational when the thought requires rationality but I realize that most of the gospel requires emotion, an open heart, the spirit, faith, whatever you want to call it. The gospel and especially written scripture will never be fully understood by creating some algorithm or computer-program-like list of rules that one can plug in every story and determine the veracity or the lesson thereof, at least until Jesus returns. One can't prove a belief based in faith or feelings of the heart. The gospel requires belief through faith and an open heart. And therefore the gospel and all of its associated stories and lessons as a whole are not provable. The only way to "prove" the gospel is letting someone live it and work with faith to feel it on their own, it is not done through a list of rational thoughts. The scripture and the gospel were meant to work through the spirit, or the heart as some people say. That isn't "whack" that's just the way it is. And the scripture can have different meanings for different people with the same words, for some "cast into the lake of fire" is literal and they need to hear it that way and understand it that way to motivate them, and to others "cast into the lake of fire" is a metaphor to understand how bad it's going to hurt. The scriptures alone cannot give us perfect understanding of God. They are there for our growth, meaning we don't have all the answers. 3 Nephi 19: "32 And tongue cannot speak the words which he prayed, neither can be written by man the words which he prayed. 33 And the multitude did hear and do bear record; and their hearts were open and they did understand in their hearts the words which he prayed. 34 Nevertheless, so great and marvelous were the words which he prayed that they cannot be written, neither can they be uttered by man. 35 And it came to pass that when Jesus had made an end of praying he came again to the disciples, and said unto them: So great faith have I never seen among all the Jews; wherefore I could not show unto them so great miracles, because of their unbelief." And yes, one would show faith by saying "I don't understand how that is possible" instead of "I don't believe in ...." By saying "I don't believe in ..." instead of being contrite and having an open heart one cuts off faith to even have a chance to work the answer in. I believe God has the power to change one donkey's anatomy to be able to talk and yet I don't understand the story fully or understand how that happened. So for that story, at least, I would never say, "I don't believe it." I can only say "I don't understand for now even when my rational thoughts lead me in one direction." And for the list of rules you gave, you left no place for "I don't understand but I will believe through faith for now until I have a knowledge." ... so you left no room for faith. That is not whack!!!

The original question asked by Snow is an impossible question, involving an impossible situation "choosing between good only" as good cannot exist without bad. So really, the original question is the same asked in the pre-mortal life to all of us who already answered that question, that is why we are here. Even Snow answered that question and that is why Snow is here. The question being asked is; Is it better to stay in the state we were in before coming here or have a chance to come here and be tested with good and bad options? For many, it is still a valid question that we have to remind ourselves of all the time because even though the battle is over as far as that goes, Satan still tries to make it an issue. He still tries to raise that doubt and question in our minds and pull us off the straight and narrow.

Yes, but 3 x 3 is always 9. I am not talking about comparing different things. I am talking about a variable that has no significance. If one says, for example, that height doesn't matter when our perfect bodies are restored than why would it vary. To me, especially when one says a feature doesn't matter like height or weight, then I have to question where that variability comes from - some random process or God feeling like making it this way or that way in a whimsical way. Or is that process out of His control. If one does not believe that God does things in a whimsical or random way then I think you will not have insignificant variables in the production of our perfected bodies. Why does this matter? Because I think a lot of people in this world go out of their way to try to stand out, to be different, unique, which I think is a direction away from God. Or they may be proud of their looks. I believe there are many examples of this in the Book of Mormon about a certain group trying to change their appearance with jewelry and clothes to stand above another group. Like Jesus, our example, who didn't care about the clothes He was wearing from one day to the next. If everyone followed Jesus example perfectly, which of course is just theoretical, there would be no fashion industry. Matthew 6:31 "Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? 32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things. 33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. 34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

I can see that with the exception of the status of "no end to one's increase." Unless, you think the body somehow changes over time too. And realizing too that the closer you get to perfection the less we vary even in our personalities. And once we start acquiring all the talents and abilities possible there is less variability. As an example, if I enjoy music in this life and have a talent for it and my husband doesn't, eventually, in a world of no-end to our development, he will enjoy music just as much as I do. In a world where there is a limit to ones increase then I can see how those variable traits are static. That is why I raise the question can variability exist with perfection? but maybe I should ask, is there less and less variability the closer we approach perfection?

I suppose the thing that is hard to take in about your "methodology" and maybe others have the same feeling is that I see no room for the process of faith in your methodology. Please tell me how faith fits into this system of yours. If you have accounted for every angle and reason in your method then you leave no room for faith. I would say that you have outlined a good way to ponder the scriptures, to begin one's study of the scriptures but I don't think you have to arrive at any conclusions until you have also added faith to the process. Faith makes it so you do not have to conclude your thoughts for the meantime. With faith, one doesn't require "show me 2 or 3 examples of this." You do not have to show by science or internal contradictions or any other method of philosophical reasoning that something is true or not, literally true or not, or allegorically true or not if you leave room for faith. You are trying so hard to say there is a conclusion, it is true or it is not, that it leaves no room for faith. If one drives so hard to arrive at some conclusion as to make the conclusion the purpose of study of the scriptures then faith is pushed out of the picture. So, how does faith fit into your methodology. That's the part that I am not understanding.

I don't know what perfect looks like. I am in no way trying to suggest the features of perfect, I have no ability to suggest that. (except maybe color - - > 'bright beyond all description') What I am trying to suggest is that variability amongst human kind or any other "kind" comes from the fall and science explains that, in part, by genetics and variable environments. If those variables are not part of the next like, in other words you take away the genetics and you take away the variable environments for any given kingdom (with maybe the exception of the telestial kingdom as it varies as the stars vary) WHERE IS THE VARIABLE? If one thinks there is variability, even if there is a 'range' as Vort put it, then you are saying that God varies or His methods vary. If you think God is going to make us look different in any given kingdom, please tell me what you think that variable is based in. Is it just a random process? Okay, you get this body, and you get this one ... like picking clothes off a rack? Where does that idea come from? That's the part I am stuck on, I can't imagine a God that gives us an Eternal body, that never dissolves with an uncontrolled variable attached to it. If one says the variable is 'glory' I suppose that is fine, I can somewhat wrap my mind around that idea, but even then for any specific level of glory the bodies would look the same then. Why is the idea of all looking the same so appalling too? I don't understand that. Are you saying identical twins hate the fact that they look alike? Some might say that, I'm sure you can find some, but all the identical twins I've ever run across or know seem perfectly happy with having a brother or sister looking exactly like them. What is more beautiful to you, the stars or the sun? If one likes the stars more because they vary over the plain 'oneness' of the sun, I guess that's their choice to make. You said taking away disease is part of the perfecting process. To me that alone, points towards 'one perfect body.' Many diseases come from the environment and of course those will be taken away but looking at those that are caused by the design of our bodies or the make up of our genes, removing all of those, brings you closer to making us all look the same. I'll give you one example (I think there are many); obstructive sleep apnea. People that are taller have a greater distance between the base of the nose and the trachea making the tissue between those two points more floppy and has been shown to increase the rate of obstructive sleep apnea. People that have a short distance between those two points have crowding of the muscles of the throat, the tongue and soft palate and that increases the risk for sleep apnea. There is an ideal point between those two that reduces the risk for sleep apnea. I am not trying to say everyone who is short or everyone who is tall gets sleep apnea, I'm talking about risk. And I don't know if we are even going to be breathing in the next life, I suspect not, since we don't have blood. But, in any case, this is just an example of how body shape, size, plays a role in disease ... if that is part of your definition of perfection (to take away disease). By removing diseases alone, that process has already made us look a lot alike. So, if you think you know where this variable comes from, please share. It's not genes, it's not environment, so where? Some random rolling of the dice? or the whimsical nature of God? I don't think so. So.... I don't see how variability and perfection mix.

The word 'variety' I realize now is not the right word for the premise of this discussion as it is too much confused with a number of different species. The questions and ponderings pertained more to the variability in any given "kind" in a perfected state, i.e at the resurrection. The variability that we know about now in biology comes from the genetic process, chromosomal crossover, the whole recombination process. Or genetic mutations, inversions, deletions, duplications etc.. Since there won't be any of that as all of that is as a result of the fall, what would all the creatures of any given "kind" look like if they had all the same unchanged DNA. I'm not trying to say there is DNA in the next life, I don't know. I am just saying the variability that we now know comes from being in a corruptible state.

The height, weight, muscle mass etc, for that body is decided upon and "designed" or it is a random variable process. And if it is a chosen, designed thing, then my suspicion is that it would be the same choice every time. Otherwise, for me, it seems it would be random and I can't picture God doing random things.

It's me ... I know you are talking about me. I'll admit right now that I am wrong about 3/4 of the time, sorry ... and the other 1/4 of the time is when I talk with my hubby.

OK, good, thanks ... we are on the same page then. That also, in part, is my point. I think we get hung up on being individual here and it makes it hard to imagine a world that lacks individuality or variability. Just a few weeks ago I asked a friend of mine at church where she found such a beautiful dress. Without me telling you her name, I think I can say this without it being gossip ... but, she wouldn't tell me. Later I found out she told another friend that she didn't tell me because she didn't want me wearing the same dress to church. Honestly, I have felt the same way too sometimes ... and I have probably done the same thing to others (I've repented). We protect our identity and even do things to stand out a bit, color hair, a new dress/style, jewelry. That's exactly why I think this discussion has relevance to how we live our lives here. Another friend didn't let anyone see her remodeled kitchen until it was completely done because she didn't want anyone else in the neighborhood to do it exactly like hers, there were a few other people doing remodels at the same time. I like your last statement so I will repeat it here, "being Celestial has little to do with the selfishness of individuality."

Thanks, glad to hear I am not the only one who leans that way. Exactly my point. Seems everyone is saying that if you have any questions, in other words, you don't know something, then that is doubt. Someone in this thread defined doubt as being in between belief and disbelief, well, for me, unknowing is between those points. Since you can't believe in something you don't understand then I would say everyone doubts all the time if that definition is true because nobody understands everything. I thought doubt was more than having a question, or trying to understand the significance of something. ... I can believe in the science of mathematics and still have questions about my calculus homework and when I arrive at the answer I never had any 'doubt' as to it being right.

I agree.