Can there be free will while God knows all things?

[askandanswer]

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

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

If its just your personal opinion, then it might not be the truth so perhaps you could be a little more judicious in your wording.

[Rob Osborn]

22 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

If its just your personal opinion, then it might not be the truth so perhaps you could be a little more judicious in your wording.

My belief in what I think is true on some things does not line up with those same things the church thinks is true. Hows that?

But, if we are basing truth on alignment of doctrine, then no, some of the doctrine we teach cant be true.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

For instance- Book of Mormon prophets taught that once you were dead, that predicament of unrepentance was final, you could not repent or change and you were sealed to the fate of a sinner, forever lost and sealed up to the devil. Latter day doctrine teaches repentance is possible after death, restitution can be made. One of these doctrines thus isnt true. This validates my statement.

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Satans plan is to lead all down to hell.

Well that's a great semantic argument. So I'll rephrase.

So...Satan's pre-existence proposal.

Gotchya.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

For instance- Book of Mormon prophets taught that once you were dead, that predicament of unrepentance was final, you could not repent or change and you were sealed to the fate of a sinner, forever lost and sealed up to the devil. Latter day doctrine teaches repentance is possible after death, restitution can be made. One of these doctrines thus isnt true. This validates my statement.

No. They are both true, can be true together easily with a simple condition added (which isn't exactly an obscure idea). That condition is opportunity. Those who did not have the opportunity to accept the gospel will have the opportunity to repent and accept it. Those who did have that opportunity and flatly rejected or failed to live it will not. It's really not that complicated.

[Rob Osborn]

31 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well that's a great semantic argument. So I'll rephrase.

So...Satan's pre-existence proposal.

Gotchya.

Satan is a liar. His plan all along was to lead all down to hell.

Edited April 7, 2017 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

28 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

No. They are both true, can be true together easily with a simple condition added (which isn't exactly an obscure idea). That condition is opportunity. Those who did not have the opportunity to accept the gospel will have the opportunity to repent and accept it. Those who did have that opportunity and flatly rejected or failed to live it will not. It's really not that complicated.

Except for that those who did reject will be taught again in the spurit world and they can repent there. So, they still are at odds.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Satan is a liar. His plan all along was to lead all down to hell.

By proposing a plan that was contrary to the Fathers. Which was to save (exalt) everybody.

How can you not know this?

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Except for that those who did reject will be taught again in the spurit world and they can repent there.

That is false.

Edit: Or at least incomplete. They may be able to "repent", but that is a different matter than qualification for whatever kingdom one qualifies for. For those who had opportunity, they qualified in mortality. It is true that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess (repentence?). But it is not true that they will have opportunity that they declined in mortality to gain their exaltation.

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

By proposing a plan that was contrary to the Fathers. Which was to save (exalt) everybody.

How can you not know this?

But, that wasnt his plan, it was a lie. 

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That is false.

Edit: Or at least incomplete. They may be able to "repent", but that is a different matter than qualification for whatever kingdom one qualifies for. For those who had opportunity, they qualified in mortality. It is true that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess (repentence?). But it is not true that they will have opportunity that they declined in mortality to gain their exaltation.

 

Yeah, that doctrine we teach isnt true.

[The Folk Prophet]

10 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, that doctrine we teach isnt true.

Hmm. Well, you have some...fascinating...views.

Edited April 7, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, that doctrine we teach isnt true.

I'm assuming this was tongue-in-cheek.  But, I don't know that we do teach that those who reject the gospel in this life but receive it thereafter, will be on par with those who accepted it in this life.  In fact, D&C 76 seems to explicitly argue against this view.

[The Folk Prophet]

Of course, by this strange philosophy, nothing we do actually matters. Sin is meaningless. Everyone is exalted in the end. So there's no test. Advocates for things like doing anything you can to get ahead so you have a "good" life, or just kill yourself to get out of the trials of mortality a.s.a.p. Engage in anything you want, because it doesn't really matter anyhow. We'll all get there eventually. And so what if it's a bit slower for one than another. At least that one got to enjoy all the sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll.

[wenglund]

On 4/5/2017 at 4:40 PM, Vort said:

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.

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.

Well said.

And, while I agree with you that resolving the scriptural ambiguity isn't a salvific emergency, I believe the ambiguity, and others like it, are very important if for no other reason than they are resistant to creedalism/dogma--which the Lord told young Joseph was an abomination.

Unfortunately, some in the church tend to surmount the resistance and bark their doctrinal dogma. In such cases, it is good to have people like you to rightly send them to the dog(ma) house. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Well said.

And, while I agree with you that resolving the scriptural ambiguity isn't a salvific emergency, I believe the ambiguity, and others like it, are very important if for no other reason than they are resistant to creedalism/dogma--which the Lord told young Joseph was an abomination.

Unfortunately, some in the church tend to surmount the resistance and bark their doctrinal dogma. In such cases, it is good to have people like you to rightly send them to the dog(ma) house. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Are you suggesting that dogma in and of itself is wickedness?

[wenglund]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Are you suggesting that dogma in and of itself is wickedness?

I am non-dogmatically taking the Lord at his word;

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, wenglund said:

I am non-dogmatically taking the Lord at his word;

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That's not an answer to my question.

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. Well, you have some...fascinating...views.

Thats straight from the D&C section 138. Do you think section 138 is just as fascinating? I sure do.

[The Folk Prophet]

35 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Thats straight from the D&C section 138. Do you think section 138 is just as fascinating? I sure do.

You'll have to provide a specific verse. I'm having trouble translating your translations back into the actual source.

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Of course, by this strange philosophy, nothing we do actually matters. Sin is meaningless. Everyone is exalted in the end. So there's no test. Advocates for things like doing anything you can to get ahead so you have a "good" life, or just kill yourself to get out of the trials of mortality a.s.a.p. Engage in anything you want, because it doesn't really matter anyhow. We'll all get there eventually. And so what if it's a bit slower for one than another. At least that one got to enjoy all the sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll.

Sin isnt happiness. That argument fails.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

Sin isnt happiness. That argument fails.

Let's say, just for a second, that such an idea would actually work on most mortal, fallen men who would, for the most part, be perfectly okay with "delayed" ethereal "happiness" that isn't as tangible to them as their drugs and sex, the argument for killing oneself quickly to get past mortal pains still holds.

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You'll have to provide a specific verse. I'm having trouble translating your translations back into the actual source.

30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.
31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.
32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.
33 These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands,
34 And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.
31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.
32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets.
33 These were taught faith in God, repentance from sin, vicarious baptism for the remission of sins, the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands,
34 And all other principles of the gospel that were necessary for them to know in order to qualify themselves that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

Cherry pick much?

59 And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation.

[Rob Osborn]

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Let's say, just for a second, that such an idea would actually work on most mortal, fallen men who would, for the most part, be perfectly okay with "delayed" ethereal "happiness" that isn't as tangible to them as their drugs and sex, the argument for killing oneself quickly to get past mortal pains still holds.

Except we have a dedire to live, not die.