Does God Meddle with Free Will?

[Traveler]

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)?"

The point I was trying to make is that through prayer our will is brought into alignment with the will of G-d. I would like to avoid the concept of “free” will because I am not sure free will is any different from will.

Thus the real answer to prayer is not to change the will of G-d or his works but bring our will and our works into alignment with the will and works of G-d. Until that takes place the prayers of man are not really answered by G-d.

Because we have a tendency to begin our prayers with where we are with our personal wills – Snow is using this tendency to demonstrate (with reverse logic) that if we hold to our will and not align our will with G-d’s then it must be that G-d would have to take away somebody’s will in order to answer an individual prayer – any individual’s prayer. Since many of us think our will is justified any indication that our will has been helped, it is seen as G-d’s answer to our prayers. But if it is our will that is justified and not the will of G-d then in reality the prayer was not answered by G-d. Thus, just because we pray and get a job – it is possible that it really was not G-d answering our prayer even though many think that it is.

Snow is much smarter than we want all want to admit – and he likes people to come to his same cleaver conclusion without him having to take them step by step on how to get there. He likes us to do the logic – sort of thing. He is not just trying to have a discussion – he is trying to get people to think – especially to think beyond the “Sunday” school answer and to get to a level where we “stretch” a little. If you do not understand that about Snow he will drive you nuts – but if you do understand he can spark some very interesting thinking. If this is not fun or informative for you then I would suggest that you not play in his game.

The Traveler

[Misshalfway]

It seems that in this world we act and are acted upon. God acts upon us. Satan acts upon us. And we all act upon ourselves and each other. We can take away certain parts of anothers freedoms. We can even limit our own. It seems God can and does do the same. But there are parts to agency that God won't violate. I don't think he can violate them. He can't save someone against their will.

[Seminarysnoozer]

He is not just trying to have a discussion – he is trying to get people to think – especially to think beyond the “Sunday” school answer and to get to a level where we “stretch” a little. If you do not understand that about Snow he will drive you nuts – but if you do understand he can spark some very interesting thinking. If this is not fun or informative for you then I would suggest that you not play in his game.

The Traveler

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.

[Traveler]

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.

Generally I think we would all be better off to remove the adverb “free” because I do not think it adds better understanding to either “will” or “agency”. But that is just me. I like your story. The problem is that we only see a very small part of all the contributing factors. For example, you may not be aware of what your neighbors were praying for. Our L-rd may have realized that in order to answer their prayers something had to be done to help bring their will and agency around to be able to understand what it was they really needed and wanted. Because they were praying and asking the L-rd was able to help them.

We may sometimes see his help as a “set back” but that is because we see things through a mortal perspective. The point is that G-d is not going to force agency. We are all having a mortal experience that will bring peril. We agreed to have a mortal experience of peril before we came to earth. The reality is that nothing will happen to us without our compliance. It may not seem so at the time but at some point we did agree. Even Jesus at Gethsemane lost track of what he had promised to do as the reality of what was unfolding conflicted with his will at the moment.

Sadly many do not find out until later that very often our current will can conflict with our true will that defines who we really are. So what appears to be a manipulation of our will or the will of others by G-d is nothing more than an “awakening” to the our real will.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

Believing in prayers or actions to incur Divine intercession must go part and parcel with Man's very oldest yearning for God.

Whether God interceeds or not, the fact is that millions have taken comfort from that thought and continue to do so.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Here's a thought on the topic:

If short of God's intervention, a state of affairs, SA1, would occur due to the exercise of free will of a free agent and then God would have to manipulate the exercise of free will to bring about some other state of affairs, SA2.

If a prospective employer prayed to God for guidance on who to hire and God somehow inspired him with an answer, then God has exercised persuasive power but has not violated free will - which I, and gospel principles - I think, hold sacred. On the other hand if the employer, at the same time an applicant was praying for a job, was set on giving the job to someone else, and God intervened and supernaturally interceded to compel SA2 when the employer wished no divine guidance, then coersive power would have been exercised.

The difference is persuasion vs coercion.

What do you mean by 'compel'? ...like dropping a Book of Mormon on someones porch? ... since God "supernaturally interceded" to allow JS to translate the Book of Mormon, and the person getting the book would have chosen SA1 (not go to church) but now chooses SA2 (become a faithful member of the church) after reading the book. If the guy getting the book didn't pray for the book to be dropped on his porch then it is coersive?

And who in this world seriously does not wish divine guidance in their heart of hearts? If they are that low, they had no free will in the first place as they gave it all up to Satan.

[Snow]

Well here's a thought...

Free will must be so sacred that God, if the OT account is to be believed, went so far as to kill people, including innocent child, rather than supernaturally interfere with Pharaoh's free will.

[Gatorman]

Again, you are suggesting Heavenly Father did it. Heavenly Father allowed Pharoah's command to come upon ALL the first born of Egypt, except those who accepted the blood of the lamb, IE - representative of accepting Christ. If those people did not accept Christ, they would pay the punishment for following Pharoah. I see no 'evil' in God's actions. I see no immorality.

[Snow]

Again, you are suggesting Heavenly Father did it. Heavenly Father allowed Pharoah's command to come upon ALL the first born of Egypt, except those who accepted the blood of the lamb, IE - representative of accepting Christ. If those people did not accept Christ, they would pay the punishment for following Pharoah. I see no 'evil' in God's actions. I see no immorality.

Gibberish. Have you not read the scriptures from Exodus 12?

And Jehovah will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he sees the blood on the lintel, and on the two door-posts, Jehovah will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come into your houses to smite you.

And it came to pass that at midnight Jehovah smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of cattle.

Pharaoh didn't do it. The Lord did it, at least according to the Bible. Read it.

[Gatorman]

And, I did not say Pharoah did it either. But, neither am I suggesting Heavenly Father is evil if he did it himself. But, you don't like my reasoning. You can't accept it for whatever reason. You believe it is foolish to accept the mysteries of God. I believe it is faith.

Gibberish. Have you not read the scriptures from Exodus 12?

And Jehovah will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he sees the blood on the lintel, and on the two door-posts, Jehovah will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come into your houses to smite you.

And it came to pass that at midnight Jehovah smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of cattle.

Pharaoh didn't do it. The Lord did it, at least according to the Bible. Read it.

[Snow]

And, I did not say Pharoah did it either. But, neither am I suggesting Heavenly Father is evil if he did it himself. But, you don't like my reasoning. You can't accept it for whatever reason. You believe it is foolish to accept the mysteries of God. I believe it is faith.

Get it straight. First you jump my case for suggesting that God did it. Now you are saying that even if God did do it then it's all good.

BTW, the mysteries of God I don't have a problem with. It's your mysterious dogma that I think if dangerous.

Let's recap to keep our theories clear:

Snow: Killing innocent babies is bad.

Gatorman: Killing innocent babies can be good... and good for them.

[Gatorman]

Nice try Snow, but, no. How about, God's will and purpose is above my own understanding at times. As such, his actions may seem 'bad' to me. However, his purpose may be necessary, good, and just.

IE: I am not so simple minded to believe that my definition of 'good' defines God. I can understand that I am limited in my ability to understand him and I do not require that understanding to have faith in him. When I lack understanding, it is not necessary for me to dismiss him.

Get it straight. First you jump my case for suggesting that God did it. Now you are saying that even if God did do it then it's all good.

BTW, the mysteries of God I don't have a problem with. It's your mysterious dogma that I think if dangerous.

Let's recap to keep our theories clear:

Snow: Killing innocent babies is bad.

Gatorman: Killing innocent babies can be good... and good for them.

[Snow]

Nice try Snow, but, no. How about, God's will and purpose is above my own understanding at times. As such, his actions may seem 'bad' to me. However, his purpose may be necessary, good, and just.

IE: I am not so simple minded to believe that my definition of 'good' defines God. I can understand that I am limited in my ability to understand him and I do not require that understanding to have faith in him. When I lack understanding, it is not necessary for me to dismiss him.

Translation: Gatorman believes that baby killing can be good, depending on the circumstances. No matter how you spin it, that what you believe.

[Gatorman]

Translation: Gatorman believes that baby killing can be good, depending on the circumstances. No matter how you spin it, that what you believe.

Translation: Snow is only capable of twisting words and failing miserably to try to make someone feel bad about themselves.

Snow, I do not claim to know Heavenly Fathers will or ways. Because of that, I do not define him by my own understanding of good and evil, right and wrong, or just and unjust. If you need to limit God to your own understanding, then feel free. However, quit trying to paint my position in a negative light, as you constantly do. You try to use your spin of what I say to make others thing I am bad, foolish, or wrong. Well Snow, frankly, you are wrong. I am none of the above. And, I have said it before and I will likely say it again, I will pray for you that you will find out through simple means, rather than through situations that can cause pain, anguish, and unhappiness, that Heavenly Father loves us, but, he will NOT be mocked and he is not limited to our simple understanding of things.

[Snow]

Translation: Snow is only capable of twisting words and failing miserably to try to make someone feel bad about themselves.

Absolutely FALSE. I am not twisting your words. You do in fact believe that baby killing in certain circumstances is not only not wrong, but good. That's what you believe. If I am wrong then say that you believe that baby killing it bad, period.

I do not, no matter what you claim, think that you could be caused to feel bad about believing in the moral goodness of situational baby killing. Why would you feel bad? You think it is a good thing so of course you aren't going to feel bad. I say it, not for you, but to clearly point out the differences between people like you who think that stealing, killing, kidnapping, slavery, taking virgins as booty, is perfectly good in the right circumstances and people like me who do not believe in relative morality. For me - killing innocent people and slavery and stealing are not good. Period.

Funny that some of you people claim that I am the irreligious one - or it would be funny if it weren't so sad.

Snow, I do not claim to know Heavenly Fathers will or ways.

Well that's not true. In this case you claim to know that he wills baby killing, stealing and slavery.

Because of that, I do not define him by my own understanding of good and evil, right and wrong, or just and unjust. If you need to limit God to your own understanding, then feel free. However, quit trying to paint my position in a negative light, as you constantly do.

Heaven forbid that someone should stand up for the rightness of not raping and stealing.

Sorry - I will always take a stance against evil and will not be silenced by those that don't like it.... and remember, this is a thread about free will - YOU are the one that brought up the morality of shedding of innocent blood. If you didn't want your views of right and wrong discussed, you shouldn't have brought it up in this thread.

You try to use your spin of what I say to make others thing I am bad, foolish, or wrong. Well Snow, frankly, you are wrong. I am none of the above. And, I have said it before and I will likely say it again, I will pray for you that you will find out through simple means, rather than through situations that can cause pain, anguish, and unhappiness, that Heavenly Father loves us, but, he will NOT be mocked and he is not limited to our simple understanding of things.

It just boggles the mind. You claim that baby killing is God's goodness and then claim that I am the one that mocks - we just can't figure it out because we aren't smart enough. Unbelievable.

[Gatorman]

Snow - You simply do not get it. You can not understand that your definition may not be Heavenly Fathers definition. If President Monson killed a man, by what our definition would state is murder, and proclaimed from the pulpit that he was commanded by Heavenly Father, then we would differ on what we see. I would favor towards considering that it is true. We have a promise that a modern day Prophet of our church will not be allowed to lead us astray. Either that promise is true and the Prophet is telling the truth or God lied. So, how would you reconcile that situation. A Prophet of Heavenly Father, commanded to take an action you see as evil, chooses to follow Heavenly Fathers will, and commits an act of murder. Is Heavenly Father evil? Is the Prophet being allowed to violate the promise given to us?

Now, this is not really so different than what you want us to toss out. I have not said it is good or evil. I have said I can understand that I do not understand and I will not confine the discussion to a box of my own understanding. I believe Heavenly Father is capable of doing what is needed for his purposes. I believe that I, and you Snow, are incapable of understanding all of his ways. As such, there are scenarios that we simply will not be able to understand, but we are asked to accept it on faith that it is for his purposes. I choose to accept it on faith and look forward to the understanding that will come later. You appear to choose to determine that, since such actions would mean Heavenly Father does not meet your definition and fit in your box, it can't be true and we should ignore it.

That is the point. I am not saying that these things are good. Simply that I believe Heavenly Father may have a purpose for commanding them and it is beyond us to understand that purpose. Now, twist away whatever you will. Again try to paint me that I am calling rape good. Whatever makes you feel better Snow. Just know that, my faith in my Heavenly Father is strong enough that your mistaken opinions will not change it. Now, as I do not want to get into a fight, to violate forum rules, or to allow the to degenerate any further, I am going to exit this thread for a while.

[Snow]

Snow - You simply do not get it. You can not understand that your definition may not be Heavenly Fathers definition. If President Monson killed a man, by what our definition would state is murder, and proclaimed from the pulpit that he was commanded by Heavenly Father, then we would differ on what we see. I would favor towards considering that it is true. We have a promise that a modern day Prophet of our church will not be allowed to lead us astray. Either that promise is true and the Prophet is telling the truth or God lied. So, how would you reconcile that situation. A Prophet of Heavenly Father, commanded to take an action you see as evil, chooses to follow Heavenly Fathers will, and commits an act of murder. Is Heavenly Father evil? Is the Prophet being allowed to violate the promise given to us?

Now, this is not really so different than what you want us to toss out. I have not said it is good or evil. I have said I can understand that I do not understand and I will not confine the discussion to a box of my own understanding. I believe Heavenly Father is capable of doing what is needed for his purposes. I believe that I, and you Snow, are incapable of understanding all of his ways. As such, there are scenarios that we simply will not be able to understand, but we are asked to accept it on faith that it is for his purposes. I choose to accept it on faith and look forward to the understanding that will come later. You appear to choose to determine that, since such actions would mean Heavenly Father does not meet your definition and fit in your box, it can't be true and we should ignore it.

That is the point. I am not saying that these things are good. Simply that I believe Heavenly Father may have a purpose for commanding them and it is beyond us to understand that purpose. Now, twist away whatever you will. Again try to paint me that I am calling rape good. Whatever makes you feel better Snow. Just know that, my faith in my Heavenly Father is strong enough that your mistaken opinions will not change it. Now, as I do not want to get into a fight, to violate forum rules, or to allow the to degenerate any further, I am going to exit this thread for a while.

I get it. You don't need to beat it into the ground.

I believe that killing and stealing and raping is bad, you believe that sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.

I get it Gatorman but apparently YOU do not as you keep claiming that I am twisting your words. If you do not believe that sometimes stealing and killing and slavery is okay and sometimes it is not, then clearly say that it is wrong, period. don't soft peddle. Have a little courage to back up your convictions.

[Elphaba]

Years ago I read an essay by a LDS therapist who, I believe, specialized in childhood abuse. Unfortunately, I saved it on an old computer, and have spent hours searching for it online, but can't find it. Perhaps someone here is familiar with it and can link it.

According to this essay, many people who have been abused as children are driven to make poor choices as adults. They often stay in abusive relationships because of their terror of abandonment. They're nervous systems are raw, which means their emotions are always overwhelming, and crippling. And so forth.

As a result, the therapist believes a person's free will can be warped, or even non-existent. This is because these people usually just spend their time trying to survive in what is a very painful world to them.

This essay resonated with me, because I know the poor choices I've made were a result of the above. And while most people disagree with this, I know in my case 'choice" is the wrong word, or at least it was when I was younger. I didn't see any choice except hopelessness and despair, and my actions reflected this.

Snow, you and I have discussed this in the past, and I know you don't agree with me. I'm good with that.

But if what the therapist said is true, then God would realize such a person's free will is damaged. Would He do something about it? You guys would have to answer that.

Obviously this is not in the same category as murder or rape; yet, it is not uncommon for people who were abused in childhood to commit one and/or the other. My father is a perfect example.

If were still a believer, and believed in free will, or agency as I believe the Church now calls it, I think this essay would have helped me a lot.

I just know that here I am 53 years old, and I'm just figuring out how to STOP and THINK, rather than reacting to life in ways that hurt me to the core. As I said, I think if I had read this essay, I would have seen myself in it, and have realized why I never felt a sense of free will. I wonder if it would have made a difference.

Anyway, I know this isn't what you're looking for, but there it is.

Elphaba

Edited October 28, 2009 by Elphaba

[Dove]

Hello, Snow,

You seem quite bitter....I don't mean this as a cut, I'm just noticing a pattern.....

I've heard your ideaology before, on another thread. Something about God allowing evil in the world, remember? I was going off on how he doesn't rescue anyone from evil....etc, and you and I exchanged ideas about it a little....

What gives? Oh, yeah, I was going on about how there's not much difference between God causing evil and stepping back to allow it to happen.

I have my own thoughts on this topic; but, right now, I'm more concerned about your come from.....(oh, right, I was "concerned about your come from on the other thread as well, LOL)

Yeah, there are plenty of instances in the Bible/Book of Mormon where God has either allowed children/innocents to die, or has directly caused their death....How do you reconcile that with a just and loving God? I believe that one of your arguments with the Bible was that it was either a metaphor or allegory, and did not actually occur...

How would you feel if God actually did take the life of one of us? I think he does take our lives every day, when we all die, personally. This is where I become grateful for the atonement and that we all will be resurrected at some point...

What I'm trying to get down to is this, are you thinking/pondering that God really is not who he claims to be; just, perfect, loving, etc., with all the evil in the world?

[Seminarysnoozer]

I take it from this discussion, Snow, if you were in Abraham's shoes, you would tell God, "no, I am not going to take my only (innocent) son and kill him!"

Then God would say, " I didn't use the word 'kill,' why do you use the word 'kill' to describe my command to offer a sacrifice?"

(clarification: I am not saying the definition of what happened with the passover is sacrifice. With Abraham was that not a command to 'kill' under your definition of kill? And Abraham knowing God didn't even question the command.)

Snow, what is your definition of killing?

[rameumptom]

It is obvious that Snow does not believe in either the Bible nor the Book of Mormon. He thinks God could never allow the killing of babies, etc. Yet both books testify that God does, indeed, do these things. How can one believe in the Book of Mormon but think that Nephi's killing of Laban was:

1. allegorical

2. an evil act that Nephi blamed on the Holy Spirit, as God would never have Nephi do such a despicable act.

Personally, I do not think you consider either of those to be accurate. However, that is what you are doing to others.

Snow,

You see the problem you are imputing upon others? When you insist that Gatorman and I accept evil as good, it is because you are ignoring the fact that we are actually believing in what the scriptures tell us. You are imposing your personal world view and beliefs as judge, jury and executioner. Yet, you do not actually discuss the scripture, except from your world view. If someone reads it differently, then you are quickly upon them to condemn them for their evil views.

I understand your concerns about God allowing the killing of babies, etc. But the world is not so black and white as you insist it to be. And God is not concerned so much about the world and appearances, as he is about His work: Moses 1:39. Yes it is sad if children must die early, but God makes up for it in exalting them. Isn't that just?

For me to believe in God and have your world view would mean I would have to consider God as evil. Why? Because he allows evil to occur in the first place! He cast Satan down here to earth to tempt us. Or do you not believe in that part of the story, either? God has the power to stop evil. He just chooses not to do so, because it is part and parcel of the plan to exalt mankind. Otherwise 2 Nephi 2 is meaningless, as is the atonement of Christ.

I find there are bigger problems with God as you see him, than from my viewpoint. If all I saw was the mortal destructions and pains, I would still blame God and consider him evil. But I see the big picture. God allows temporary evils and bad things to occur, and yes, he even mandates it on occasion; in order to have eternal things come to pass.

[Traveler]

Gibberish. Have you not read the scriptures from Exodus 12?

And Jehovah will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he sees the blood on the lintel, and on the two door-posts, Jehovah will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come into your houses to smite you.

And it came to pass that at midnight Jehovah smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of cattle.

Pharaoh didn't do it. The Lord did it, at least according to the Bible. Read it.

I thought that maybe this discussion does not have enough dimensions yet so I thought I would add a new one. One of the interesting pieces to the story of Moses in Egypt is that the meaning of “firstborn” has been changed somewhat in modern society. We think it is the “oldest” in every family. That was not the meaning to the ancients.

Firstborn was a class similar to first class on an airplane. First class on a plane is not the oldest class (seats and food and stuff). It is the “best”. In essence what the L-rd did in Egypt was to end the ruling dynasty in control of Egypt at the time. The justice of death was answered upon all the heads that supported and controlled the rule of Egypt at that time. We should not interpret this to understand that innocent children that had no clue that what was happening were being “killed” off. One of the things that we learn is that to have power to rule over a people there must be some complicity with G-d – who according to his will (based in law and justice) can execute the maledictions associated with the covenants to rule on earth. A primary covenant malediction is to end one’s posterity because of covenant disobedience to rule with justice. Because this is an epoch in the Bible it all has symbolic implications with individual salvation. But because many, even on this forum, do not know or care about such covenants with G-d insomuch that they have neither eyes to see nor ears capable of hearing.

As to the blood of the lamb over the doors of the Israelites – well that is a whole other concept and discussion about covenants.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

It is obvious that Snow does not believe in either the Bible nor the Book of Mormon.

If someone's belief differs from mine, it means it is different, not nonexistent.

:)

Edited October 29, 2009 by Moksha
proofreading revealed ancient code

[Snow]

Years ago I read an essay by a LDS therapist who, I believe, specialized in childhood abuse. Unfortunately, I saved it on an old computer, and have spent hours searching for it online, but can't find it. Perhaps someone here is familiar with it and can link it.

According to this essay, many people who have been abused as children are driven to make poor choices as adults. They often stay in abusive relationships because of their terror of abandonment. They're nervous systems are raw, which means their emotions are always overwhelming, and crippling. And so forth.

As a result, the therapist believes a person's free will can be warped, or even non-existent. This is because these people usually just spend their time trying to survive in what is a very painful world to them.

This essay resonated with me, because I know the poor choices I've made were a result of the above. And while most people disagree with this, I know in my case 'choice" is the wrong word, or at least it was when I was younger. I didn't see any choice except hopelessness and despair, and my actions reflected this.

Snow, you and I have discussed this in the past, and I know you don't agree with me. I'm good with that.

But if what the therapist said is true, then God would realize such a person's free will is damaged. Would He do something about it? You guys would have to answer that.

Obviously this is not in the same category as murder or rape; yet, it is not uncommon for people who were abused in childhood to commit one and/or the other. My father is a perfect example.

If were still a believer, and believed in free will, or agency as I believe the Church now calls it, I think this essay would have helped me a lot.

I just know that here I am 53 years old, and I'm just figuring out how to STOP and THINK, rather than reacting to life in ways that hurt me to the core. As I said, I think if I had read this essay, I would have seen myself in it, and have realized why I never felt a sense of free will. I wonder if it would have made a difference.

Anyway, I know this isn't what you're looking for, but there it is.

Elphaba

Hi El,

I understand that there are those that are limited because of mental illness or perhaps past abuse or other things beyond their control. I understand but cannot fully relate but I fortunately do not carry, at least currently, that baggage. What I do believe - and I do have experience with this - even those, or at least many of those, that suffer limitations from past ills, retain some spark of autonomy or agency that is sufficient, should they choose to exercise it, to start down a path that leads to greater agency and well-being.

Regards

[Snow]

It is obvious that Snow does not believe in either the Bible nor the Book of Mormon.

Don't make stuff up ram. It's not nice and it's not honest.

He thinks God could never allow the killing of babies, etc.

Don't make stuff up ram. It's not nice and it's not honest. I believe 100% that God allows the killing of babies. God allows it every day, day in and day out.

Helpful hint: if you are going to fabricate opinions that you want to attribute to me, try to be a little more subtle - I'll still notice but maybe it won't be so obvious to others.

Yet both books testify that God does, indeed, do these things. How can one believe in the Book of Mormon but think that Nephi's killing of Laban was:

1. allegorical

That's a new one to me - I've never considered that the Laban killing could possibly be allegorical. Sounds like a dumb idea.

2. an evil act that Nephi blamed on the Holy Spirit, as God would never have Nephi do such a despicable act.

That doesn't sound so correct either. As least you get points for creativity - but certainly not for accuracy.

Personally, I do not think you consider either of those to be accurate. However, that is what you are doing to others.

Huh?

You think that I am fabricating stuff about what others believe - like you did - and saying that they believe it? Are you referring to the discussion I've had on this thread with Gator? Then bull. I didn't make up a single thing. He believes that baby killing is sometimes a moral act. That is exactly what he believes - we've even discussed a specific example - the Passover - that is representative of his belief.

You'd better have a better example than that.

Snow,

You see the problem you are imputing upon others? When you insist that Gatorman and I accept evil as good, it is because you are ignoring the fact that we are actually believing in what the scriptures tell us. You are imposing your personal world view and beliefs as judge, jury and executioner. Yet, you do not actually discuss the scripture, except from your world view. If someone reads it differently, then you are quickly upon them to condemn them for their evil views.

You are right. I think that in an absolute sense killing and rape and slavery and stealing and kidnapping are wrong. Absolutely wrong. You do not think they are absolutely wrong. You only think they are situationally wrong. I'll stipulate that I could be mistaken, maybe you are right that killing and raping and stealing and kidnapping and enslaving could be situationally acceptable. Does that make you happy.

You maybe think that I am using charged language to unfairly portray your position - is that what you don't like? Okay than state what, exactly about what I said is untrue. Do you not believe those things to be situationally acceptable?

I understand your concerns about God allowing the killing of babies, etc.

Nope - I have no concern about that at all except as a philosophical dilemma - actually a trilemma - theodicy or the problem of evil. What you may be thinking about - mistakenly - is that I thought it highly unlikely that God would intercede in an applicants job search when God doesn't intercede in very real evil and suffering like murder and rape or child murder and rape even when victims pray for intervention. Seriously - you should be accurate in your complaints.

But the world is not so black and white as you insist it to be. And God is not concerned so much about the world and appearances, as he is about His work: Moses 1:39.

You say it is not black and white. I say that rape is always wrong. Period.

Yes it is sad if children must die early, but God makes up for it in exalting them. Isn't that just?

God is mad at Pharaoh so he kills children but then makes up for me. No - that doesn't sound just. What I think would be just is holding Pharaoh accountable for his own sins and not kill the children and let them go through mortality just like the rest of us. I understand that others with evil intent exercise their agency to harm children or others but that is different than God doing it or ordering it.

For me to believe in God and have your world view would mean I would have to consider God as evil.

Nope. I believe in God and I have my world view and I do not believe that God is evil. Actually I believe that God is good and just and wonderful. My view is a whole lot clean and consistent than your view. God does no evil and evil is evil.

Why? Because he allows evil to occur in the first place! He cast Satan down here to earth to tempt us. Or do you not believe in that part of the story, either? God has the power to stop evil. He just chooses not to do so, because it is part and parcel of the plan to exalt mankind. Otherwise 2 Nephi 2 is meaningless, as is the atonement of Christ.

Apparently you aren't reading up on your gospel. In the face of eternal existences separate from God, evil can exist on it's own terms. God need not be the author of it. Granted you still have to explain why he doesn't do more to control it but they are plenty of way to explain or to try to understand that.

I find there are bigger problems with God as you see him, than from my viewpoint. If all I saw was the mortal destructions and pains, I would still blame God and consider him evil. But I see the big picture. God allows temporary evils and bad things to occur, and yes, he even mandates it on occasion; in order to have eternal things come to pass.

...tsk, tsk, tsk... still missing the point. It's not about God allowing. It's about the idea of God causing.