person0

Unpredictable to whom? If I usually eat a hamburger for lunch but today I "unpredictably" decide to eat a chicken sandwich, is it really an unpredictable decision? I mean do I walk away from the service counter saying, 'wow, I'm eating a chicken sandwich today, who could have guessed that?!' I could imagine this happening to someone with severe dissociative identity disorder where one personality handles ordering the food and a different personality handles eating it . However, aside from that there is always a thought process behind the decision that is made and to an omniscient being such as God who knows the entirety of everything about you, I believe he can predict with 100% accuracy the decision you will make because he understands even the process behind what you consider to be 'unpredictability'. Could you provide a brief example of a real life situation where you made an unpredictable decision that you believe God would not have foreknown?

I'm new here, I'll try and remember next time I'm not a programmer by profession, but I enjoy the logic of programming and have written a couple of basic utility apps in the google play store. I haven't programmed a single line of code in over 6 months though need to develop my talents! I was going to say that but i figured someone else would anyway ! However, the combinations can only be unlimited if the variables are also unlimited. As for the rest, well, I pretty much agree with your entire post. I also agree that @Traveler makes a compelling point, but (without going into a ton of details since i'm at work) if you take into consideration the idea that our agency is in actuality a gift from God, then there is still no bearing upon his omnipotence. Do all of God's creations have agency? If he gives us the ability to choose does that actually make him any less powerful or does it mean that he is so powerful that he has the ability to create something which is capable of disobeying him? If once you give agency to a creation the ability to force that creation to choose something does not exist, then is there really a power which you are lacking? If you are not lacking in any existing power then are you not all powerful? I think most of what makes the argument of agency = God is not omnipotent is a similar construct to the immovable rock conundrum, albeit very astute!

I would say I probably have a similar 'crisis of faith' every couple of years or so. Most recently it was due to a study about the most accurate way to pay tithing which led to research and historical knowledge I was not aware of previously. Every persons situation is different so I pray the best for your spouse as he deals with this trial and for you as well. I don't know the extent of his concerns but if it is related to free masonry and the endowment it could be helpful to encourage him to contemplate on the following, 'why does it matter?'. Most of the time if this is done I usually come to a conclusion such as, 'If this came from that and XYZ . . . The church can't be true because of abc.' From there I usually try to find a workable reason as to how that wouldn't affect the truthfulness of the gospel or of JS. In regards to Mason's, if you assume God intended for us to adopt similar practices, would it not be logical to assume he would allow us to have as much responsibility as possible in the process? (i.e. Brother of Jared and the 16 shiny stones :-)

@Blackmarch I think I misread your initial response. If your intention was to convey that in order for the immovable rock to be a possibility it would need to be within the realm of possibilities then we are in complete agreement and I apologise for thinking you were saying that the reality of the immovable rock is real and required regardless.

In science fiction, philosophical discussion and video games, etc, this may well be a possibility. However, in our true existence the ability to permanently erase anything from existence does not exist. An object's state of physical existence can be altered, but it can not be destroyed, nor created from nothing. In a theoretical problem set you could include creation ex-nihilo as one of the variables within the set. That is all fine and dandy for fun and games but it does not translate to reality as an actual event that is possible to occur.

So which one of the ABCD involves creating an immovable rock? And even if that were the case in the theoretical world, in the real world for God to create an immovable rock is not within the 'set' of real possibilities so it wouldn't matter because it's still not possible for any being to accomplish.

If an individual can establish they are a direct decedent of Aaron and are of appropriate age it is that individuals "legal" spiritual right to be called as bishop in any area in which they live (it is their choice to decide if they want to enact this right). Also, if the current Presiding Bishop is not a direct decedent of Aaron then the same applies to a worthy decedent of appropriate age should they make the claim (however, to my knowledge this has never happened although the first situation is more likely to have happened).

I apologize in advance that I am usually not a very tactful person. I believe your logic is contradictory: The statement "every combination" implies limits, which is completely acceptable to the proposed definition of omnipotence being representative of all possible things, excluding impossible things. To be able to make an immovable rock does not have to be one of the possibilities, but mainstream societal thought has led people to believe that anything conceivable in the mind must be accomplish-able to an omnipotent being. Suppose one of the changes the omnipotent being wants to make in your example is to completely erase the existence of one of the 4 elements. Matter can not be created nor destroyed, it is an impossibility verified by scripture "the elements are eternal", therefore your assumption of omnipotence working like this does not hold up in all circumstances.

I agree. Christ was not caused to suffer because of others, he chose to suffer. There is a huge difference.

I agree with @zil. Or it appears that he agree's with me on this one. If you go back to my original definition in the OP, all powerful accounts for the fact that there are some things which the power to accomplish does not exist, these things are excluded while maintaining the intent of the word/attribute "omnipotent". The fact that each person (God included) has agency is evidence of our potential for omnipotence that we can inherit. I appreciate your perspective, but I think your initial response as Zil said indicates a mentality of limited power that must be "shared". I believe that there can be an infinite number of omnipotent beings. I see no reason why God can not work on both these principles, he could be an omnipotent and omniscient intelligence himself while still accomplishing his work using a collaboration of multiple intelligences.

I am fairly certain I agree with this statement. It was actually part of my initial thought process when writing my post on this topic. I think randomness is a human perception of knowable events that are based on knowledge we do not have. If you go to https://www.random.org/ and read their description of how the numbers are generated and then consider that God knows the entirety of the complex process behind what creates the "atmospheric noise", then it no longer becomes random. Similarly miracles cease to be magical and mystical once you comprehend what constitutes atoms and molecules and consider that rearranging electrons protons and neutrons would result in different elements and molecules: Therefore water becomes wine not by unknown magic but by a calculated rearranging of particles.

I second that!

I just kind of jokingly thought that if the question were poised as "Could God create a rock that he himself could not move?" then the answer would have to be yes, because it is asking specifically if God could not move it, not that no being in existence could move it. So if God created a gigantic rock the size of the earth for example, and then made a choice that would result in 'God ceasing to be God' then he would no longer be able to move the rock, but that would not impede another omnipotent being from being able to move it. So interestingly while God can not create an immovable rock, he could theoretically create a rock that he himself would be unable to move!

At some point or another, I presume most if not all of us have heard the purposefully thought provoking question, "Can God create an immovable rock?" Humor me here, the idea the question is intended to purport is that if God can create a rock that he himself cannot move then he is lacking in power because he then can't move it. On the other hand, if he is unable to create such a rock then he is lacking in power because of his inability to create it. There is an inherent flaw in this logic. The common logic adhered to in this exercise assumes that God's power must include anything that can be conceived in the mind, any possible thought that could come from the vast expanse of human imagination. But is that really what it means to be Omnipotent? The short answer is: NO. In order to keep this post somewhat short, suffice it to say that omnipotent in its most true form from the original Greek means "all powerful". The key word here being all. The "all" in all powerful in reality represents "every real thing". If something is not real it is not included with all. If there is something for which the power to accomplish does not exist then that thing is not a "real thing" and therefore it cannot be factored in to a definition of omnipotence. To further illustrate this point the Guide to the Scriptures identifies Omnipotent as: The divine trait of having all power . Notice all power rather than every conceivable power, or unlimited power as many people consider the word to mean. I think this is very important to understand because even our fellow Christian brethren often have a complete misconception of Omnipotence which is why they accept the concept of creation ex-nihilo, which from an LDS perspective we understand to be false due to the fact that it is impossible. If we can correctly convey the true meaning of omnipotence to others we can better communicate doctrinal differences in a meaningful way. I could go on and on but in conclusion: 1) God is omnipotent because he has the power to do every thing that can possibly be done (all power). 2) God can not create an immovable rock, because the ability to do such does not exist, and since such a task can not be accomplished ever, it has no bearing on God's omnipotence.

Rather than taking offense, would it not be more appropriate to feel sorry for the "offender" because you perceive that they are wrong? If you are hurt by what someone says is that really taking offense, or does it only become being "offended" after you act upon your hurt feelings in a spiritually inappropriate way? What if the offender speaks the truth? If Jimmy says you are fat, and you are, can you not be hurt by what he said but also acknowledge it's truth and choose your reaction? The wicked take the truth to be hard right? I'm fairly confident that there is nearly always (if not always) an alternative reaction to an event rather than being offended. I can't imagine Christ being offended (such as we use the term) I can however imagine him acting with righteous indignation and taking appropriate action based on the situation. I usually imagine those who are offended to be attempting to take advantage of the situation. (i.e. someone who is offended and chooses not to come to church as a result - even though they probably wont see it this way - is taking advantage of the situation and using it as an excuse to not do something they already know they should be doing) There may be a better way to word that but hopefully no one will take offense ;-)

@Eowyn Do we not all struggle with pride? I thought it was kind of universal.

Oops, looks like @Fether got to it before me

From Handbook 2: Surgical Sterilization (Including Vasectomy) The Church strongly discourages surgical sterilization as an elective form of birth control. Surgical sterilization should be considered only if (1) medical conditions seriously jeopardize life or health or (2) birth defects or serious trauma have rendered a person mentally incompetent and not responsible for his or her actions. Such conditions must be determined by competent medical judgment and in accordance with law. Even then, the persons responsible for this decision should consult with each other and with their bishop and should receive divine confirmation of their decision through prayer.

Forgive me if I am misreading your post but it sounds as though you are suggesting that there may be a fractional number of times when God does not know what our decision will be because of the possible randomness in the decision. If this is the case I disagree. I believe it is harder for us to comprehend the fact that He knows what we will do 100% of the time because of the fact that he knows us infinitely more than we know ourselves at this point. Kind of like a chess Grand Master's ability to perceive his opponents moves in advance except to the an infinite degree of perfection.

I neither said nor assumed he was rejecting the answer, just that he should consider the repercussions of doing so. The main point of that portion of my statement was to consider why he is questioning what to do in the first place. While it is possible he is struggling with disappointment or sincerely curious, the lack of response to further clarify the OP and at least minor details regarding the specifics of the inquiry or at least the topic of inquiry, any help to deal with those issues would merely be a guessing game as can be seen from Carborendum's response. We are all just guessing here at what the issue is and providing advice based on generics or possibilities. Just because he has received the answer and has recognized it does not mean he has accepted it. Many times family members have come to me after receiving personal revelation that she didn't like and, while acknowledging the answer received, rejected it until further evidence or persuasive experiences came down the road from other sources. There is nothing inherently wrong with the question, I do not believe I asserted otherwise. While I do not assume this is necessarily the case it is always possible that the he wants to find a way out of the answer he received (or believes he received), and that may or may not be the right course of action. Side Thought: What if his question was to ask if the BOM is true? I'm sure the responses would be very different from everyone ;-)

Yes. Definitely just show up. I doubt there will be a negative experience from it. God bless you for wanting to return. However, I am a super curious person. . . Why did you previously decide to stop going?

Hello. I'm new in the forum. I am LDS. I joined because I enjoy gospel discussions and don't get to scratch the itch as often as I would like. Not sure what else to say but feel free to ask!

Lets consider the OP's question from an unusually technical point of view: Imagine you are a programmer and you design a program that shows either a happy face or a sad face on the computer screen at the press of a button, and alternates every time. You, the designer have established that the program will do one or the other, every single time, and you know exactly which one and you know each image will display exactly 50% of the time if repeated infinitely. In this scenario you have determined and limited the choices of the program and it has no other option but to follow the course you have designated. You have determined both the options as well as the outcome. Now imagine that an unknown is introduced, a self-directed intelligence. Lets say you can attach this intelligence to be the determining factor as to which image is shown but all else remains the same. You have determined the options but not the outcome because the self-directed intelligence determines the outcome and you do not control it. You can not even make sure that each image shows up 50% of the time because you have no control over the intelligence making the decision. However, assume you watch the program run connected to this intelligence an infinite number of times. You would probably start to notice patterns and may eventually be able to determine with great accuracy which face will show. Now imagine that rather than a binary choice of happy face or sad face you update your program to have access to an infinite pool of images from which to choose. Now, in this scenario you have even less control. Not only are you not making the decision, you are also not determining the possible outcomes either. However, after an infinite repetition of the program you may still be able to determine with great accuracy which image will be displayed, and this will be based on knowledge over time. Now link your program to millions of other programs that are also linked to their own self determining intelligence, you now start to notice that the initial program behaves differently because the image it displays is now somehow affected by the ones displayed by the other programs. What started out as complete control has now fallen entirely apart and you know absolutely nothing about whats going on. Ahhhhhhh! Now imagine you are God. You are omniscient, and omnipresent. You know each and every one of the intelligences, you know everything about them. You know the entirety of the infinite pool of images that are available to be displayed. You know how each self determining intelligence will act or react to every other intelligence, and you know this reaction down to every last one of the infinite images. Does the fact that you have this knowledge mean you are the one who determines what image appears? Sure you wrote the program, but do you control what happens? No, you do not. Your infinite knowledge does not determine the outcome, it merely anticipates it. When something happens you already knew it would, based on knowledge, not based on determination. Our relationship to God is the same. He created the Plan of Salvation, it is his program, but the plan gives us each direct access to infinite choices at every moment, each of us are self determining intelligences. We each decide which of the infinite choice possibilities we will enact at any given time. However, God knows everything about our decision making process and already knows what we will choose at all times. This is not because he has determined it will happen, but instead because he has knowledge sufficient to tell him what will happen, before it happens. If you know that heating an egg in a skillet will cook an egg and make it edible, did you cause that reality to be, did you create the physical laws to enable it? Or do you simply have knowledge that it will happen? Likewise God has all possible knowledge and does not need to pre-determine our outcome. When necessary he can intervene to promote an outcome without directly causing it because we even can self-direct our reactions to him and his intervention (but he knows what we will do). So even when he appeared to Saul of Tarsus, and others throughout history there was no determination, simply motivation. Just another way to consider the same thing many others have posted in hopes to contribute something new to the conversation. :-)

If you are even 1 percent a direct blood descendant of a tribe of Israel then you do not have to be adopted into the house of Israel at all. Does your patriarchal blessing (if you have received it) indicate you are adopted into the house of Israel or does it simply state the tribe from which you are descended? On a side note, I am approximately a 50% blood descendant of Ishmael. My father is Arab from the Jerusalem/Jordan area. On my mothers side I have European ancestry and presume to be gentile with the possibility of mixing in the distant past. That being said, my patriarchal blessing identifies me as a descendant of the tribe of Ephraim and does not mention adoption, however, I have no idea if blood ancestry is through mixing in my fathers history or mothers. (I have known others who are specifically identified in their patriarchal blessings as being adopted into the house of Israel)

I would encourage you to consider the repercussions of rejecting the answer, and consider why you are questioning what to do in the first place. If the question is, for example, "should I accept x persons marriage proposal?" and you receive a "no", what could come about by rejecting it? Perhaps you really like this person, you are compatible in every currently known way, you are truly in love. Perhaps the lord knows that this person has or will develop an addiction that you will not be able to fully handle and he is protecting you as is understood from the teaching of paul to the corinthians: If the question is, on the other hand, "should I eat the week old leftover pizza to save money on groceries?" perhaps the lord is aware that the pizza will make you ill which will cost you money in medical expenses. Or possibly you are already overweight and it will contribute to some additional depression. Its also possible that it will simply cause you bad gas and a few hours of unnecessary pain. Obviously these are really random examples, however, I encourage you to consider Joseph Smith's experience with the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon which we no longer have today. Martin Harris's wife, Lucy, was concerned/curious about his involvement with the translation of the plates. Martin requested to take the pages to his wife. The Lord repeatedly told Joseph "No!", however, Joseph continued to ask after being pressured. Eventually the Lord said, "yes, but with conditions", however, He already knew that those conditions would not be met by Martin Harris, which is why he had said no in the first place. As a result of not heeding the Lords answer of No, the entire body of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has zero access to the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon (presumed to be the book of Lehi and/or other writings). There is never a time when you will be worse off spiritually as the result of heeding the Lords council. All council from the Lord is spiritual: It is always possible that the end result of not following the Lords council in a particular situation will be minor or not problematic over the long term. However, it is not usually worth a gamble to find out.