CommanderSouth

That’s true. I forgot that. He even mentions it in the talk.

It's VERY interesting, I was just watching a video by German theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder who I earlier saw post a video saying how free will doesn't exist, and how if you don't believe that you're just rejecting science, and so on (I felt it was very arrogant, but I digress, also futile, because if it doesn't, I couldn't believe anyway). I was watching a follow up video where she was elaborating and said that there was a proven mathematical theory/formula/whatever that said for humans to have free will... particles would have to have free will. I stopped the video there, and wanted to tell her, "Have I got a church for you!" Does any of that mean anything? Of course not, but I would be lying if I rejected the idea thar right now, everything I'm finding, even in this darkness, heck, even the darkness ITSELF, is pointing back to the restored Gospel. By saying there is no such thing as immaterial matter, Joseph hit a home run he didn't even know he was swinging at. By saying that everything is made of intelligence, he put forth a worldview that is very MUCH for OUR day. It almost makes Skousen irrefutable with his "intelligence" idea of the atonement (if we assume the mathematical theorem of necessary particle intelligence is true). It makes Card's understanding of a sort of graded "aiua" (From Speaker for the Dead) a perfect explanation of EVERYTHING, they have will, but they follow deterministic patterns, but have freer wills the higher up you go.

It’s funny because the whole thing is similar to trying to figure out if you are in the matrix. You can’t while being plugged in, and if you are, you have to be plugged in. It almost feels like a semantic with no practical purpose. Though the implications are very important.

I guess the trick is to just have you help me believe in Free Will (I jest)

Having worked in QA that is a representation of life I should have made sooner. Testing is just for working out what bugs need to be addressed. You know going in that you’ll have some. I have to say that is a profound comparison. And a much more reasonable understanding of pre existence, this life, and eternity. It paints the entire thing differently. The more I think the more I realize, answering this question is one that you have to do if you want to believe in God. In the sense that if you are ever actually concerned. If this is all there is then this is all there is. We are just lumps of firing neurons. If there is more, then there is more. To believe you have choice at all, to believe you exist, you have to believe that something beyond material exists. We can HAVE agency, and agency demands there be something more to have it in the first place. We have to be more than our bodies alone. And that puts you smack in the middle of embodied spirits and intelligences. Interesting how all roads lead to the Gospel it seems.

Life is almost like Pascal's wager in that sense. Act like you DO have free will, in case you did. Because if you don't, it doesn't matter any way. And this is a choice with only 2 options, so, unlike Pascal's wager, it's a valid line of reason. You don't have free will, nothing matters. You do, you should do something with it. There is no third option.

Well, I think Card annunciated my feelings about Intelligences, Creation, and Embodiment better than anyone. I am also chewing on the thought that, I truly "want" free will, I "want" to exist. If I have the illusion of free will, isn't that actually better that physically having it? Because, while I can be worried about the illusion, I don't know if it's possible (nor do I wish to try) to break it. So if I have free will from some endowment, I have it. If I don't but think I do, I still "effectively" have it, and am deluded in such a way that I can't lose it. It's like internal vs external motivation. Better to be internally motivated, so why not better to be internally "free willed". It would be like desiring to be cold. If I was physically in the cold, I'm cold. If my mind sends the sensations to receptors without the stimuli, I'm still cold, so I'm still happy! (Barring other things like being somewhere dangerous and normal stimuli being blocked, but that isn't important)

Very similar to when I read Blade Runner and briefly pondered if I could know I were an Android. That's the trick, the question of "are you SURE" followed by, "well how can you KNOW". I know I do that myself all the time on lots of things.

Interestingly in my digging I've found "debunking" of Libet's experiment, (here and here). One questions the interpretation, and the other the experiment itself. It's so odd. I understand that all this equates to a very convincing wink, nod and, "are you SURE?" and it's enough to throw me into a tizzy. Which of course makes me think about Adam and Eve. "You shall surely NOT die." or in this case "You surely DON'T have free will." And that's enough to cause trouble.

I had been discussing this with a family member and had the same conclusion. That our body is hardware and our spirit or will is software. Sure the stats of the hardware directly impacts our “fps” or performance in general. That bring the case doesn’t mean the pc is running itself.

And what's funny to me, I have 0 qualms leaving 95% + of things to determinism. I know I'll eat salad if that's what's in the fridge. I know I'll walk without thinking about it. I understand that habit and homeostasis in my body drive most of my decisions. The place where I find the issue is killing me is the idea that the last 5% is also out of my control. The idea that I have no choice. That even when I try to put those odds in my favor by only stocking salad in the fridge, that, well, I never could have done anything different.

And if I don't have free will, I can't do anything about it

This of course is the delicious irony. I understand what you are saying, but in no way feel it. I'm probably going to take refuge in the fact that I can believe something without knowing it, and believing it is enough to drive my actions. I'm going to have to believe I have free will, even if I don't, else I'm just going to atrophy. And my hope is that in doing so will find my way out of this pit of despair (to borrow something from a movie). I didn't worry about what atheists believed yesterday, why should I today. (And yes, I know this is an unfair generalization, but it suits this).

So, I like tech news, among my sites is ArsTechnica. Yesterday I stumbled on to this gem (link Determinism Vs Free Will) Got to reading it, but now my anxiety is ramping up. Which is bad because I have GAD and Depression. I'm on meds, but I don't like how I'm feeling. I now can't shake the feeling of the determinist view being right. But if that were true (which I am mentally resisting), there is no ME to begin with. I'm just the flame alight from the candle of my body. Thankfully in one breath, I understand that I am a spirit in a body. Eventually they'll be united perfectly, and fill the measure of their calling, or however the saying goes. While I GET that, I don't feel it. I got into reading the Libet experiments which basically say about 500 milliseconds before a person was making a choice to move their hand, their brain was already ramping up for it (readiness potential). Though on the other hand I also read that if you read that data through a different filter, you get it lining up with when participants were saying they were making the decision. All of this is to say, I really just want to talk about ways we are meant to act, and not be acted upon. Because it's interesting to me, after having some good breakthroughs in the last month with my testimony, I feel like I'm being hit in the innermost part of my being, that is to say, MY BEING ITSELF. I wonder if this is the misery that Satan wants for us, he is disembodied, perhaps his anguish is not having a full sense of self. And being denied this, wants to take it from us, if he can. In any event, I have been thinking about the verse about being able to act, and not be acted upon. I've been thinking about the whole crux of the plan being the ability to chose. And that is where my fear is, that I have no ability to choose. That I AM just reacting to stimuli, even if it is a trillion small ones. And in that way, I am not. So I don't expect therapy (though I hope this process is therapeutic). But what are some thought processes you guys have when dealing with this? If I ponder it more, I do realize we are uniquely equipped to deal with this problem. Our self, the intelligence that is "us" is co eternal with God, which makes sense. It is also co eternal with truth, whatever it is. These things being the case, our spirit has agency, it is the most fundamental gift we have, and what Satan wanted to take. It is also in a sense, the only thing we can give God that he doesn't have. We can hand over US to him. This makes sense, but I'm having a hard time "feeling so now" it's like the flavor of the jalapeño of secularism is drowning the perfect mildness of the gospel. Ironic I can fire off all these nice gospel phrases and talk references :D.

Ironically the wedding ring I wear is a Deseret book version of the JS ring. I lost my then current ring in the snow. We went to DB and I found that one and liked it because I knew what it was, but mostly no one else would

Sorry for so many posts so quickly, but I would like to quip. I understand Brother Joseph a bit better now. As when Sidney Rigdon finished the vision dripping in sweat, the Prophet said, "You'll have to forgive Brother Rigdon, he isn't as used to this as I am". I can say, I'm not as used to this as Brother Joseph either. I feel like this topic, even though it was a lot of me talking to Zil2, (ty for the help) and myself, I feel exhausted chewing through this. I really feel like I'm in a better place mentally about this topic now, and also spiritually, as I did feel guided in this possibility. Both of which are something I need in my life right now, and I am grateful to the Lord for. If anyone has any other viewpoints, please share, it's been so helpful!

I think I/anyone who goes down this path, should also be careful, because Bruce R McConkie's words come to mind too. In the Seven Deadly Heresies, he speaks against the idea that (and I paraphrase) "that eternal progression means God is ever learning new truths. This could mean that he will one day find a "better" plan of salvation" I don't want to put forth this idea to think the plan is so malleable that there is a "better" way. I think I'm saying more that one group might respond to THIS parable and another to THAT parable, while neither is better. I think if you take the parallel too far you introduce that. But I think you stay safest if you compare it to a temple ordinance. It's something that can change in administration, but not in the truths and principles involved. Like when Joseph asked Brigham to streamline the endowment. We know there are parts that can change, but the essence cannot. There are eternal parts, and administrative parts. And perhaps THAT is the best way to understand the "plan" as being "God's". While I'm not married to it (though as of now, I feel it's very plausible), it's satisfying enough to put me at ease, and know that there ARE plausible understandings. I want to say I can condense this into the following: We don't believe in "ex nihilo" creation. God didn't create the Earth from nothing, but it is still his creation. We know that certain things, such as intelligence and light/truth ("glory") exist co-eternally with God. We also know that God "has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself". It is therefore plausible, that the plan of salvation is the outcome of "God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory" used said "power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself" in creating a plan, similar to how church leadership has "created" temple ordinances. The difference between these being that God has done this with a perfect knowledge. He has done this with an exalted perspective. As the Prophet Joseph Smith didn't say that "Elohim" did this, he didn't attempt to separate the father from his exalted state. So his plan would be different from the "man made" temple ordinances as much as our bodies are different from his, they have a similar form, but his is perfect. I won't carry the analog further, though perhaps one could. I say all of it to say, that there can be multiple ways to share the same truths, and in the same vein, perhaps there are multiple ways to share the exalting truths, the eternal principles, and God's "plan" is his way of doing that for us, knowing the language we speak, and what will make the most sense for us, because he speaks after "our manner of language" (D&C 1:24, among others). I think I'll go to bed now, and leave all of this to settle.

While I have been thinking about all that has been said, and how I have been thinking about this, the statement I made earlier about Ex Nihilo creation hit me like a sack of bricks. I have been putting it in my journal when you were posting this, and this was something that I wrote, as you were posting this (left in context, emphasis added)... "We don't believe he created the earth out of nothing, but we also don't bat an eye at saying he "created the earth". So if we don't believe in ex nihilo creation, why was I still trying to put God into that box. We don't believe he created the universe from nothing, so he couldn't have created the plan from nothing either. Now to what extent that means, and how it interplays I can't say. I can only say, God didn't create the plan of salvation "ex nihilo" any more than he did the universe. The prophet Joseph Smith said that "He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself" (King Follett Discourse). That process sounds an awful lot like temple ordinances. Things that use symbols to point to a higher meaning. Perhaps this life itself, and all the little bits and pieces of it, are pointing to a higher meaning.  Not knowing anything about the intelligences and spirits that God found himself in the midst of, perhaps the ones he found himself around would respond to these eternal truths in the process WE (being those he found himself in the midst of) call life. Perhaps life itself is a parable, a symbol, a type, a shadow, an ordinance pointing us to a higher truth we can only understand bit by bit. Line upon line, precept upon precept. Maybe in that way this truly is "God's plan", his way of getting us to where he is. Like Common Core math can teach relationships between numbers I didn't understand or have growing up, God is showing us HIS way to get US to exaltation. "

If the presumption is that there is only one way to exaltation, I would argue that the sermon does lend itself to the conclusion that the plan isn't "God's" but rather, self existent. ALL the conclusions, I will cede that it does not. I went back and was reading the sermon again, I would agree that it doesn't touch on God's mortal/premortal existence, ironically it even talks about God as having "power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself". But in that passage what I find interesting is the use of "institute" followed by "instruct". Institution of laws would seem to indicate creating the path itself but instruct would seem to indicate learning about something that is already extant. MAYBE what's being said is that there ARE principles upon which, one is exalted, but the "laws" being "instituted' are ones that "instruct" about the principles themselves. And if that is the case, it is makes me think of an earthly parallel, the temple ordinances. The ordinances themselves are built on eternal principles, but administration of them can change. Perhaps THAT is how it is meant. The "plan" that father created, is based on eternal principles that he did not create. In what is perhaps a ham handed analog, this life and the "plan" is all a temple ritual. It's a symbol of something else. It's LIKE something else, but it isn't the thing. There are aspects of it that are God's, and there are aspects of it that are unmade. These combined together, show that it's God's plan, even is ALL of the pieces didn't come from him. INSIGHT AHOY - I have no problem with calling the Earth "God's" and in fact, all creation, as "God's" but I openly admit he didn't create it from nothing. So, maybe the way to think is in that sense. We don't believe in ex nihilo creation, either in matter, or "the plan", though not doing so doesn't make the creation not "God's".

That's fair, and like the other point you made, more in line with what I actually think. I said "saved" but I really meant exalted. And when I think of him, I think of him as a savior, which gels in my mind with the "Christ does what the father does", but I would also think "Perfect, but not a savior" would be possible. And as you said too, there are other possibilities that we just can't grasp. I also respect the thought of not getting married to these things. I am very much just looking for a logical grasp of possibilities that don't seem self-contradictory.

I was looking to visit my favorite sounding board, and wanted to touch on a topic that I already have (Link) If anyone wants to read it, that is the link. But looking through it myself, I feel I am partway to where I need to be, but not quite there, and wanted to work through it with you guys, as it usually ends up helping! So, long and short. As of late I have been contemplating the nature of God. In my current thinking, he is either A) Self existing, truly omnipotent, and the source of all "Goodness", but in that way, "Goodness" is just his nature, and really a descriptor, and not a positive adjective. Goodness in this sense is arbitrary and just describing God. This is the God of the non-LDS (very broad strokes, and partly unfair, just using it for ease of description). B) God is an eternal being, an exalted man, possesses all Goodness, but goodness does exist apart from him. This is palatable to me because it takes the "unfairness" of existence out of his hands. Some things just are because they ARE, not because they were designed that way. This removes the incomprehensible parts of existence, really the problem of pain. If there is a truly omnipotent being, and things could have been different, why are they not. Thus, I believe this view posits God as an "effectively" omnipotent being, that is a being that can do all that can be done. This leads into my ongoing question. Why do we still call the plan of salvation, "God's" plan. God didn't make it, he couldn't, the King Follett sermon precludes it. He couldn't have been saved (to borrow from my Pentecostal upbringing) by his own plan. It's a chicken and egg scenario. With this in mind, it makes sense to me that it is his plan (and was my takeaway from the conversation linked) in that his touch, spin, and signature are on it. It's his variation. And perhaps this is the way it should be viewed, but I'm just trying to work through it, and sharpen and clarify the thought process. It also might be of worth to realize that we will become God's in the sense that we will be one with God the father, and if he is one with his father (turtles all the way down of course) then in a sense any time it is said that it is "God's" plan, it is true that heavenly father informed and kicked the ball down the hill, but that the plan in broad strokes, has always been. FWIW, I originally didn't have the last long sentence of the above paragraph written initially, and now that I'm seeing it, that feels like it might be the angle to go at it. In my favorite way of reasoning, reductionist, (I say this with sarcasm, because I always hated in 2 Nephi where Lehi goes "If C, then B, then A, thus God"), my understanding is this. I exist, ergo, something exists, which means something has to be eternal, either this existence, or God. If God exists eternally and is the SOURCE of reality in the sense that he created everything, including the rules, we are then potentially bound by the argument against his omnipotence, in that he is not good, because of the pain and suffering we see in the world. And those who argue for this, still have to limit his omnipotence by saying he can't subvert logical fallacies, such as a rock too heavy, or a burrito too hot. And with that defeat of true omnipotence, I move to the other argument, that he isn't. I believe our theology posits, that reality/eternity exists. There are principles that are "eternal" and eternal principles, I would argue, are unmade. If that is the case, then God exists separate and beholden to these principles. And our path is to follow him, in the way he has set forth, and thus become like him. It seems reasonable enough to say the end of all existence, the meaning, is to become like God. Which jives well with "This is my work and my glory." This was all written in one go, so I appreciate any feedback you guys have to help hone this, this is in a large degree train of consciousness, but I need help sorting it, so I'll stop now.

Something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately is whether or not God actually wants our worship, obviously, he wants our respect, he wants our gratitude, but does he really want the endless fawning? Perhaps this is a function of my own misunderstanding of what true worship is, or, perhaps, it’s a miscommunication on how society portrays worship. growing up protestant, Penecostal in this case, all I remember, is people, hands raised, waving back and forth slowly. Or speaking in tongues, depending on the service lol. This instilled in me, a vision of worship as endless praise, endless, speaking, gratitude expressed over and over without end. But my thoughts Lately have turned to the idea that perhaps it’s just living a righteous life, acknowledging his hand in your life, but not necessarily laying prostrate on the floor endlessly. in the way that I would worship my own father on earth. I want to do all that he has set me up to do, I also want to bring honor to his name I don’t wanna make him disappointed. And in doing this, this is the worship he wants and this way he isn’t the egomaniacal narcissist that a militant atheist would describe, he’s just a dad who loves his kids and wants them to do well, and they gave him honor by doing their best to do so. It ties into a thought that I’ve had lately that if you love me keep my Commandments it’s just a statement of if you love me trust me and in doing so we can fill the other part of that statement that if we do the will of the father we will know of the doctrine and our love for the father will grow. I understand these are basic statements but they haven’t came into my mind in this way before. And just figured it kick it around with one of my favorite sounding boards

I will have to check that out! And it's funny, I found Sanderson first, loved Elantris, stalled after the first Mistborn, but of my own laziness. But I had similar vibes from Sanderson. The hard magic of Elantris also brought the spirit, and for the same reason. God isn't magic. I think it's something he wants me to learn or something

I'm working on Children of the Mind now. I keep thinking he can't get any more deliberate and beautiful in his description of intelligences and the Skousen style of understanding of how all reality works. Yet he does, and I keep drinking deeply from it. A simple, profound, beautiful possibility of how things are. How eternal progression and embodiment might happen.

Which is to say, I have a few more chapters to read, but I am very excited about this one!