Can there be free will while God knows all things?

[wenglund]

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This question makes no sense.

It should make sense to people who draw a distinction between "kingdoms" and "glories", 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Vort]

24 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

If you do not accept the obvious in regards to Joseph Smith's phrasing, I cannot help you.

But I do accept the obvious. Joseph Smith was obviously talking about the same thing as he was in Section 76.

24 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

It is very specific WHY he is talking about the Celestial kingdom.  If it were different he would  NOT specify the Celestial Kingdom.

He didn't specify the celestial kingdom. He specified the celestial glory.

[Vort]

25 minutes ago, wenglund said:

To your way of thinking, is there celestial glory in the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms?

"Celestial" means "heavenly". Yes, there are three degrees of heavenly or salvific glory.

[The Folk Prophet]

16 minutes ago, wenglund said:

It should make sense to people who draw a distinction between "kingdoms" and "glories", 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Maybe I'm reading into the question. It struck me that you are trying to conflate meaning rather than drawing distinctions. If I misread you I apologize.

[person0]

So, for those of you who think that there are not 3 degrees within the celestial kingdom, do you then also conclude that those who are not sealed to a spouse will enter the terrestrial kingdom?   It's not unreasonable, considering that I believe that everyone who is sufficiently worthy, and who wants to enter the everlasting covenant of marriage, will have the eventual opportunity to do so.  I simply had never considered it.

[The Folk Prophet]

19 minutes ago, person0 said:

So, for those of you who think that there are not 3 degrees within the celestial kingdom, do you then also conclude that those who are not sealed to a spouse will enter the terrestrial kingdom? 

If by choice, yes. If not by choice, then no. They will be given the opportunity to be sealed to someone.

20 minutes ago, person0 said:

It's not unreasonable, considering that I believe that everyone who is sufficiently worthy, and who wants to enter the everlasting covenant of marriage, will have the eventual opportunity to do so. 

This (that they will be given the opportunity) has been stated again and again and again by our leaders.

[wenglund]

34 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Maybe I'm reading into the question. It struck me that you are trying to conflate meaning rather than drawing distinctions. If I misread you I apologize.

I wasn't trying to do anything other than clarify what others think. See Volt's response above for the clarification.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

45 minutes ago, Vort said:

"Celestial" means "heavenly". Yes, there are three degrees of heavenly or salvific glory.

Thanks for the clarification. Does "celestial" mean "heavenly" when used in conjunction with "kingdom"?

I guess what I am really asking is, do you believe there are multiple connotations of the word "celestial"--i.e. one that is a general reference to the "heavens" and "glories" and one that is specific to a heavenly kingdom and glory? And, if so, is there a way to determine from the context which connotation is intended: such as capitalizing the "C" or not, or it only means the latter if used in conjunction with kingdom?

I think I already know the answer, but I am asking to help clarify for others so they can understand how you can rightly interpret the scripture in question differently than they.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[person0]

I have decided after doing about an hour or so of research that it doesn't matter   If the Lord decides there is enough confusion on this, he will direct his prophets to clarify it.  For the time being, I will continue to to believe what the Church and general authorities have stated as the interpretation, which is that the celestial kingdom itself is comprised of 3 degrees.  I remain open to the consideration that the passage could be interpreted otherwise.  However, even if it were, it still wouldn't matter because I intend to live in such a way as to go to the highest degree possible. 

[The Folk Prophet]

It's interesting to consider at least. In D&C 76:71, in speaking of the Terrestrial Kingdom it says "whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father." So what do we imagine "the fulness of the Father" means? Because in my understanding of the gospel, that pretty much means the new and everlasting covenant of marriage.

[Vort]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

Thanks for the clarification. Does "celestial" mean "heavenly" when used in conjunction with "kingdom"?

Sure it does. In a similar manner, the word "terrestrial" means "earthly", and appears (to me) to be a comparative word -- earthly as opposed to heavenly, ground as opposed to sky. The word "telestial" doesn't exist outside of LDS cosmology, but it looks like it uses the Greek prefix "tele-", meaning "far". So I would assume "telestial" means something like, That kingdom of glory furthest from God.

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

I guess what I am really asking is, do you believe there are multiple connotations of the word "celestial"--i.e. one that is a general reference to the "heavens" and "glories" and one that is specific to a heavenly kingdom and glory?

Undoubtedly this is so. The word "celestial" is a perfectly good English word, with a perfectly well-established meaning. Perhaps a more important question is: What does the word mean when used in scripture?

Interestingly, the word "celestial" is used only one time in the KJV Bible, and that is Paul's famous statement about "bodies celestial" and "bodies terrestrial". The word does not occur at all in the KJV Old Testament or in the Book of Mormon. It does occur a few times in the Pearl of Great Price, but not in the text, only in the description of Facsimile 2 (where it appears to be used in the sense of "celestial kingdom"). So outside of the Doctrine and Covenants, the word appears a grand total of once in the text of scripture, where its meaning appears to be "heavenly" (as contrasted with "earthly" or "terrestrial"), and four (I think) more times in the description of one of the facsimiles of the figures in the Joseph Smith papyri, where its meaning appears to be "celestial kingdom".

In the Doctrine and Covenants, the word appears almost two dozen times. Most of those are in Section 76 and Section 88, where the term refers uniformly to the celestial kingdom, as far as I can tell. Besides those times, it occurs twice in Section 78, both of which appear to mean "celestial kingdom" (though the second use could be understood as "the heavens", which would make sense in context, but I think that's a bit of a stretch); once in each of Sections 101, 105, and 130, and three times in Section 137, all of which are unambiguously used to mean "celestial kingdom"; and once in Section 131, which is the passage under discussion.

So outside of Section 131, the word "celestial" shows up in our scriptures a couple of dozen times, almost exclusively in the Doctrine and Covenants. And within the Doctrine and Covenants, all but one (outside of Section 131) of those usages look unambiguously to mean "celestial kingdom" -- and that one looks to me like it means that, too.

So the scriptural use of the term seems well-established. Those prophets and apostles who have talked about such things seem to have been pretty consistent in interpreting Section 131 with the same usage as the other occurrences. So by what logic or reason do I inisist on an alternative reading?

Trick question. I don't insist on it. I simply think that's the more natural reading, and I think it fits in much better with the rest of our doctrine. The telestial kingdom is portrayed as widely diverse, with individuals differing as the stars in the sky differ in glory; but the celestial kingdom is one, and the glory of the celestial is one. Having a three-tiered celestial kingdom seems to violate this deep principle of unity.

But whether something makes sense to me is not really much of a test of its veracity. As I've mentioned in other places, I'm not looking to make any converts. I agree with others who have noted that it does not seem to make any difference, either in how we act or in how we approach situations.

Edited April 5, 2017 by Vort

[Guest]

I think the vernacular was unofficially changed a long time ago, from "free agency" to "moral agency". So maybe "moral will? I don't know. 

[pam]

I usually just see and hear agency these days instead of free agency.

[JohnsonJones]

There is one other location that has the Celestial Kingdom, and it is divided into three different areas.  Everything is symbolic, though whether one realizes this or not and it's application in this instance.  However, it's sort of too sacred to really discuss this or the meanings of the symbology here.

They DO coincide very closely with what the LDS church states about the Celestial kingdom, as well as the ideas which I mentioned in relation to the prophets and the Joseph F (and Fielding) Smith's comments, but that's about as close as I can really go in this discussion in relation to the other places where the Celestial Kingdom is specifically mentioned in LDS theology.

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, Eowyn said:

I think the vernacular was unofficially changed a long time ago, from "free agency" to "moral agency". So maybe "moral will? I don't know. 

Adding, this is not really a response to your post, but using your idea of agency and will as a jumping off point in response to the post you responded to...

Personal opinion...

I personally do NOT believe in pre-destination.  I think it is contrary to the designs of the Lord, it is the path that the adversary of the Lord would have had us do and participate in.  The Adversary's plan was one where we did NOT have freedom to decide for ourselves whether to be good or evil, but that agency was taken from us and controlled by him.

It is the Lord's plan that we are given the freedom to choose between him or against his father and the Kingdom of Heaven.  I believe this requires that we have the freedom to choose something, whether that is merely the ability to make a choice whether to be good or evil, or if it is far more than that, I believe we STILL have a choice in this life that will reflect eternity.

WHY?

If one was about to hand someone ultimate power, power that if abused could wreak chaos in the heavens, where it would be equal to any other great power, how do you test that individual to ensure of who they are?  You already know what they will choose if given a choice with the knowledge they have...but what about when they have that power?  Ultimate power corrupts ultimately...or does it?

When you see little children, you can see what they will be when they grow up.  They have pure emotion which, though it may be hidden, still rises to the surface even as adults.

This then, is why I think we are here.  To see what we are truly like inside, whether we can be trusted to always choose the right choice, or whether, when we are left to our true selves, we will deviate and choose the wrong.

I think the ONLY way to see our true nature is to erase all memory of what we were and what we knew so that we cannot use that to mask who we really are.  In this way, it can be seen if we truly will follow our heavenly leaders for eternity, or whether we are fallible enough that such power may not be right for us.

In addition, it shows what our true desires are in this life.  Part of this may be from choices in the pre-mortal life.  Perhaps we choose to have a life of comfort and wealth, but one where we would not have exposure to the church or a great chance to reject it over a life where we may struggle, but have the teachings of the Lord in it.  It shows whether we truly would WANT to even have that power in the first place.

I think our pre-existence had many choices which reflect on this life.  I think we had a great many things which we knew would happen in this life and each of us mapped out our own life in conjunction with our heavenly leaders.  In that way, it may be that most of what happens in this world that will occur is known overall, that we each also have specific missions we wish to participate in and accomplish in this life.  However, I think some may discount just how important this life is, and how important the things we choose in this life are.

It is far more than just a body that makes this life important, it is the growth that we can achieve personally, and it is the TEST (and I think this is a test) to see the truth about each and every one of us and our choices in this life.

I believe, in this way, that we are fore ordained to things, that there is fore-ordination, but there is NO pre-destination.  Pre-destination is a Calvinistic teaching, and one which I believe the LDS church has firmly rejected.

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[The Folk Prophet]

13 hours ago, Armin said:

Isn't the "free will" an illusion just resulting from competing neural systems only with a certain probability of a decision to come through?

No.

12 hours ago, Eowyn said:

I think the vernacular was unofficially changed a long time ago, from "free agency" to "moral agency". So maybe "moral will? I don't know. 

That's because freedom and agency are different (freedom being a component of agency, but not equivalent), and by calling it "free agency" it was confusing the issue for many members who (even still) believe agency means freedom. The term was not changed because freedom is an illusion.

[Eydis]

17 hours ago, person0 said:

So, for those of you who think that there are not 3 degrees within the celestial kingdom, do you then also conclude that those who are not sealed to a spouse will enter the terrestrial kingdom?   It's not unreasonable, considering that I believe that everyone who is sufficiently worthy, and who wants to enter the everlasting covenant of marriage, will have the eventual opportunity to do so.  I simply had never considered it.

Not only is it "not unreasonable" (wow, three negatives in the same sentence) but Ezra Taft Benson discussed it; "I also recognize that not all women in the Church will have an opportunity for marriage and motherhood in mortality. But if those of you in this situation are worthy and endure faithfully, you can be assured of all blessings from a kind and loving Heavenly Father—and I emphasize all blessings.

I assure you that if you have to wait even until the next life to be blessed with a choice companion, God will surely compensate you. Time is numbered only to man. God has your eternal perspective in mind."

It is hard for me to understand how someone who would otherwise be worthy of a Celestial life, who is faithful and endures to the end, would turn down celestial marriage when it is offered so that they may be an angel in the Celestial Kingdom.  That does not make sense to me.  How could they turn down marriage and still be faithful? That would be a contradictory statement regarding the the description of the type of people that will be in the Celestial Kingdom, people that want the fullness of that glory.  The opportunity for marriage will come before resurrection as we are told there is no marriage after resurrection.  Resurrection comes before being placed into a Kingdom of glory (or right with it) so then if it is possible to be in the Celestial Kingdom and not be married then we would have to say that those individuals turned down the opportunity to take on celestial marriage. I don't see how that is possible.

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, Eydis said:

Not only is it "not unreasonable" (wow, three negatives in the same sentence) but Ezra Taft Benson discussed it; "I also recognize that not all women in the Church will have an opportunity for marriage and motherhood in mortality. But if those of you in this situation are worthy and endure faithfully, you can be assured of all blessings from a kind and loving Heavenly Father—and I emphasize all blessings.

I assure you that if you have to wait even until the next life to be blessed with a choice companion, God will surely compensate you. Time is numbered only to man. God has your eternal perspective in mind."

It is hard for me to understand how someone who would otherwise be worthy of a Celestial life, who is faithful and endures to the end, would turn down celestial marriage when it is offered so that they may be an angel in the Celestial Kingdom.  That does not make sense to me.  How could they turn down marriage and still be faithful? That would be a contradictory statement regarding the the description of the type of people that will be in the Celestial Kingdom, people that want the fullness of that glory.  The opportunity for marriage will come before resurrection as we are told there is no marriage after resurrection.  Resurrection comes before being placed into a Kingdom of glory (or right with it) so then if it is possible to be in the Celestial Kingdom and not be married then we would have to say that those individuals turned down the opportunity to take on celestial marriage. I don't see how that is possible.

Just my personal opinion, and it goes against doctrine, but I believe salvation includes the covenant of marriage and eventually "every" person saved will be married in eternity.

[Rob Osborn]

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

No.

That's because freedom and agency are different (freedom being a component of agency, but not equivalent), and by calling it "free agency" it was confusing the issue for many members who (even still) believe agency means freedom. The term was not changed because freedom is an illusion.

The antonym of agency in scripture is "captivity", "chains", etc. A little mystery here is that when it says Satan sought to destroy our agency it literally meant he sought to chain us down to destruction.

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Just my personal opinion, and it goes against doctrine, but I believe salvation includes the covenant of marriage and eventually "every" person saved will be married in eternity.

Curious. How does it go against doctrine? I mean, it depends on what you mean by "saved" I suppose. Fully saved = exaltation. So that is pretty in line with doctrine. If you're saying everyone "saved" in the Telestial kingdom too...then....no.

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Curious. How does it go against doctrine? I mean, it depends on what you mean by "saved" I suppose. Fully saved = exaltation. So that is pretty in line with doctrine. If you're saying everyone "saved" in the Telestial kingdom too...then....no.

Again, my personal opinion, in the end there is no eternal telestial or terrestrial kingdoms, just the Celestial kingdom after the millennium for "all the saved" to dwell together in.

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Again, my personal opinion, in the end there is no eternal telestial or terrestrial kingdoms, just the Celestial kingdom after the millennium for "all the saved" to dwell together in.

So.....Satan's plan.

Gotchya.

[person0]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Again, my personal opinion, in the end there is no eternal telestial or terrestrial kingdoms, just the Celestial kingdom after the millennium for "all the saved" to dwell together in.

You are absolutely welcome to have whatever personal opinions you wish.

Quote

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.  (Articles of Faith 1:11)

That being said, you seem to have a lot of opinions that have been brought up in this thread which are in disagreement with the doctrines of the restored gospel.

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So.....Satan's plan.

Gotchya.

Satans plan is to lead all down to hell.

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, person0 said:

You are absolutely welcome to have whatever personal opinions you wish.

That being said, you seem to have a lot of opinions that have been brought up in this thread which are in disagreement with the doctrines of the restored gospel.

Well, its all in perspective. The truth is that our doctrines arent all necessarily true and some even contradicts itself. But again, this is my personal opinion.