Can there be free will while God knows all things?

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

Except we have a dedire to live, not die.

Not yet had to deal with a suicide huh?

[Vort]

This reminds me of something:

Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us. And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 4/6/2017 at 1:04 AM, JohnsonJones said:

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. 

Sounds like a case of confirmation bias to me.

[Rob Osborn]

17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Not yet had to deal with a suicide huh?

Yes, had a family member suicide and several friends and several close neighbors suicides as well. All cases they were not mentally well.

[Rob Osborn]

25 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

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.

Thanks, was gonna quote that one too, you beat me to it.

[The Folk Prophet]

17 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

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

Another thought on this:

Satan is a liar, and his plan WAS a lie, it's true. However, that kind of misses the point of the logic. If Satan proposed the plan that he would save everyone then it's indicative (even with no other scriptures or thoughts added in) that God's plan was not to do so. If one suggests that Satan proposed a plan that was the same as Gods, but God rejected it that really makes no sense at all.

Of course one could argue that the reason Satan was rejected was solely because he sought the honor whereas Christ gave the glory to the Father, but that of course doesn't make sense with the next verse (3) where it plainly states that Satan sought to destroy the agency of man. How did he do this? By wanting the glory? No. That has no correlation. It is by claiming he would redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost.

So I have to ask, how can Satan's plan have been God's plan all along?

Edit: Referencing Moses 4:1-3

Edited April 7, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Thanks, was gonna quote that one too, you beat me to it.

So when it comes down to it, we "translate" that bolded phrase differently, you according to your self-admitted, non-doctrinal views, and me according to what matches other scriptures/doctrine so it actually makes sense. Okay.

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yes, had a family member suicide and several friends and several close neighbors suicides as well. All cases they were not mentally well.

Then how can you claim a universal "we" desire to live?

[Rob Osborn]

29 minutes ago, Vort said:

This reminds me of something:

Yea, and there shall be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die; and it shall be well with us. And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark.

And on the other end of the spectrum no one achieves the perfection required before death to be celestial worthy. Now what?

Repentance after death and continuing our path towards perfection will take some time. I love the Book of Mormon but one area they had no clue on was the great work amongst the dead to bring them also to salvation and perfection for even the prisoners shall go free.

[Rob Osborn]

27 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Another thought on this:

Satan is a liar, and his plan WAS a lie, it's true. However, that kind of misses the point of the logic. If Satan proposed the plan that he would save everyone then it's indicative (even with no other scriptures or thoughts added in) that God's plan was not to do so. If one suggests that Satan proposed a plan that was the same as Gods, but God rejected it that really makes no sense at all.

Of course one could argue that the reason Satan was rejected was solely because he sought the honor whereas Christ gave the glory to the Father, but that of course doesn't make sense with the next verse (3) where it plainly states that Satan sought to destroy the agency of man. How did he do this? By wanting the glory? No. That has no correlation. It is by claiming he would redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost.

So I have to ask, how can Satan's plan have been God's plan all along?

Edit: Referencing Moses 4:1-3

Satan was imitating the Savior and his role when he said he was going to save all in reference to saving all that the Father should give him to save. Here-

39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. (John 6:39)

We are told that Satan was a liar and imitator of the Savior from the beginning. His real plan however was not to save anyone but rather to deceive and blind men and lead them into captivity where he could reign over them

 

 

4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

[Rob Osborn]

24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So when it comes down to it, we "translate" that bolded phrase differently, you according to your self-admitted, non-doctrinal views, and me according to what matches other scriptures/doctrine so it actually makes sense. Okay.

This was in reference to the Book of Mormon where such doctrine is opposite.

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I love the Book of Mormon but one area they had no clue on was the great work amongst the dead to bring them also to salvation and perfection for even the prisoners shall go free.

I find it fascinating that you don't even bother to try and reconcile the ideas. You just throw out whatever scriptures don't fit your translation of other scriptures -- and at odds with the doctrines taught in the church even. It's.....fascinating. Usually in these types of debates there will be some twisting of some word or another or some idea of another to generally stay in sync with scriptures. This is the first time I've had someone just flat out claim that the Book of Mormon prophets were clueless though.

Fascinating.

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

This was in reference to the Book of Mormon where such doctrine is opposite.

It's only opposite if you translate "shall receive a reward according to their works" to mean something other than the obvious -- assignment to the proper kingdom based upon their works...just exactly as the Book of Mormon teaches.

[Rob Osborn]

42 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I find it fascinating that you don't even bother to try and reconcile the ideas. You just throw out whatever scriptures don't fit your translation of other scriptures -- and at odds with the doctrines taught in the church even. It's.....fascinating. Usually in these types of debates there will be some twisting of some word or another or some idea of another to generally stay in sync with scriptures. This is the first time I've had someone just flat out claim that the Book of Mormon prophets were clueless though.

Fascinating.

It shows that the church in ancient times amongst the Nephites didnt have anything but the basic doctrine and they thus assumed on some things. They clearly didnt have anything but a strict saved/ damned dichitomy where only this life is the space granted for men to become perfect and once dead there was no advancement towards perfection. Fast forward two thousand years and our doctrine has changed a lot. Our Book of Mormon pkan of salvation is not the same doctrine we teach out of the manuals with three worlds of glory that saves everyone from the vilest unrepentant to the wholesome and perfect. Then, we have temples where a more advanced doctrine regarding the plan of salvation is taught there that isnt in agreement to the manuals. Yes, our church does in fact teach three distinct doctrines that do in fact create contradictions. Does it bother me? Not a whole lot, it just shows were not there yet as far as "truth" stands.

[wenglund]

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That's not an answer to my question.

Actually, it is, though perhaps a bit more subtle and nuanced an answer than you may prefer. 

However, if it helps, my less ambiguous answer would be a tentative yes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Actually, it is, though perhaps a bit more subtle and nuanced an answer than you may prefer. 

However, if it helps, my less ambiguous answer would be a tentative yes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thanks for the clarification.

I don't agree. Dogma isn't good or bad. It just is. Good is good and bad is bad. Dogma is (per dictionary.com) "an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc...." If the official system of principles or tenets are good then it is good. If they are bad/wrong then it can be bad. The Lord's condemnation of the dogma of Joseph's day was not a condemnation of dogma itself, but of "the" dogma -- the tenets and principles of the churches on the earth -- which were bad/wrong/off-kilter/mistaken/corrupted/askew/etc.

I think it a bit of a stretch to suggest that the Lord does not live by, proclaim, hold to, believe in, and consider good and wise, a strict system of principles and tenets. Those principles and tenets are truth. And God is and will always be a God of absolute, perfect truth.

[wenglund]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

It shows that the church in ancient times amongst the Nephites didnt have anything but the basic doctrine and they thus assumed on some things. They clearly didnt have anything but a strict saved/ damned dichitomy where only this life is the space granted for men to become perfect and once dead there was no advancement towards perfection. Fast forward two thousand years and our doctrine has changed a lot. Our Book of Mormon pkan of salvation is not the same doctrine we teach out of the manuals with three worlds of glory that saves everyone from the vilest unrepentant to the wholesome and perfect. Then, we have temples where a more advanced doctrine regarding the plan of salvation is taught there that isnt in agreement to the manuals. Yes, our church does in fact teach three distinct doctrines that do in fact create contradictions. Does it bother me? Not a whole lot, it just shows were not there yet as far as "truth" stands.

I agree that growth in understanding necessitates changes in beliefs and perspective (Paul spoke of the difference between his understanding as a child versus that as an adult), which is why, in part, God is against creedalism/dogma since it locks people into a given level of understanding and damns them from progressing to greater understranding.

However, differing perspectives and levels of understanding aren't necessarily contradictory, and may each be "true" in their own light. I believe the heaven/hell dichotomy still holds true even with the three kingdoms and outer darkness understanding of the heavens.  The "old" law and understanding is not done away with, but is subsumed by the "new" law. At least that is how I see it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[person0]

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Thanks for the clarification.

I don't agree. Dogma isn't good or bad. It just is. Good is good and bad is bad. Dogma is (per dictionary.com) "an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc...." If the official system of principles or tenets are good then it is good. If they are bad/wrong then it can be bad. The Lord's condemnation of the dogma of Joseph's day was not a condemnation of dogma itself, but of "the" dogma -- the tenets and principles of the churches on the earth -- which were bad/wrong/off-kilter/mistaken/corrupted/askew/etc.

Emphasis added 

 

Edited April 7, 2017 by person0

[The Folk Prophet]

25 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

...clearly...

No.

25 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Fast forward two thousand years and our doctrine has changed a lot.

No.

26 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yes, our church does in fact teach three distinct doctrines that do in fact create contradictions.

No.

I understand you think "Yes. Yes, Yes." in response, so hopefully you'll refrain from the childish sort of "nuh uh, uh huh" sort of reply. But your views are yours. You can, of course, interpret things however you want. Stop pretending it's obvious though. It is not. If anything is obvious it is what has been and is commonly taught in the church, that those who did not have the opportunity in this life will in the next, and the Book of Mormon's messages are applicable to those who have the truth (which makes a fair amount of sense whereas the Book of Mormon brings them that truth even as they read it). That is the "clearly". All the rest is you interpreting things according to your own personal view of how you think it works. And you are at odds with prophets. You can justify this all you want with claims that they contradicted each other and that they had limited understanding. I find it interestingly arrogant for anyone to proclaim they are so certain a prophet was wrong. But...that's your right. Just don't expect others to fall in line with it.

It is not hard to reconcile these so-called contradictions one with one another. Not hard at all. I will grant you that there are some mysteries and things that we don't understand that may seem like contradictions in other matters. But not on this one. It has been explained pretty easily. I could, of course, go find a bunch of talks and teaching supporting this, but you would, I'm sure, blow them off as "wrong". After all, if you're going to proclaim Lehi and Alma full of it, how hard is it to proclaim a modern day apostle the same when it doesn't support your view. If there wasn't an easy reconciliation of your so-called contradictions your view might even hold a bit more water. It does run afoul a bit of the "most correct book" proclamation by Joseph Smith...but I'm sure you'll simply declare him wrong in that matter too.

Still, there's not much I can say by way of argument. If you think the prophets were wrong, then you think they were wrong. There it is. Not much else I can say on the matter. That being said, I'm going to trust Lehi, Alma, and other prophet's interpretations of things over yours.

Enjoy. 

[Rob Osborn]

14 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I agree that growth in understanding necessitates changes in beliefs and perspective (Paul spoke of the difference between his understanding as a child versus that as an adult), which is why, in part, God is against creedalism/dogma since it locks people into a given level of understanding and damns them from progressing to greater understranding.

However, differing perspectives and levels of understanding aren't necessarily contradictory, and may each be "true" in their own light. I believe the heaven/hell dichotomy still holds true even with the three kingdoms and outer darkness understanding of the heavens.  The "old" law and understanding is not done away with, but is subsumed by the "new" law. At least that is how I see it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I completely believe in the saved/damned, heaven/ hell dichotomy. Personally, I do not believe the telestial and terrestrial worlds of glory exist after the millennium which just leaves heaven (celestial kingdom), and hell in the end.

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

No.

No.

No.

I understand you think "Yes. Yes, Yes." in response, so hopefully you'll refrain from the childish sort of "nuh uh, uh huh" sort of reply. But your views are yours. You can, of course, interpret things however you want. Stop pretending it's obvious though. It is not. If anything is obvious it is what has been and is commonly taught in the church, that those who did not have the opportunity in this life will in the next, and the Book of Mormon's messages are applicable to those who have the truth (which makes a fair amount of sense whereas the Book of Mormon brings them that truth even as they read it). That is the "clearly". All the rest is you interpreting things according to your own personal view of how you think it works. And you are at odds with prophets. You can justify this all you want with claims that they contradicted each other and that they had limited understanding. I find it interestingly arrogant for anyone to proclaim they are so certain a prophet was wrong. But...that's your right. Just don't expect others to fall in line with it.

It is not hard to reconcile these so-called contradictions one with one another. Not hard at all. I will grant you that there are some mysteries and things that we don't understand that may seem like contradictions in other matters. But not on this one. It has been explained pretty easily. I could, of course, go find a bunch of talks and teaching supporting this, but you would, I'm sure, blow them off as "wrong". After all, if you're going to proclaim Lehi and Alma full of it, how hard is it to proclaim a modern day apostle the same when it doesn't support your view. If there wasn't an easy reconciliation of your so-called contradictions your view might even hold a bit more water. It does run afoul a bit of the "most correct book" proclamation by Joseph Smith...but I'm sure you'll simply declare him wrong in that matter too.

Still, there's not much I can say by way of argument. If you think the prophets were wrong, then you think they were wrong. There it is. Not much else I can say on the matter. That being said, I'm going to trust Lehi, Alma, and other prophet's interpretations of things over yours.

Enjoy. 

We are worlds apart in understanding each other. Im not arrogant, Ive just studied it a lot more than most people. Contrary to what you falsely accuse me of, I love the Book of Mormon, I just recognize that they didnt have more truth as we do.

[wenglund]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Thanks for the clarification.

I don't agree. Dogma isn't good or bad. It just is. Good is good and bad is bad. Dogma is (per dictionary.com) "an official system of principles or tenets concerning faith, morals, behavior, etc...." If the official system of principles or tenets are good then it is good. If they are bad/wrong then it can be bad. The Lord's condemnation of the dogma of Joseph's day was not a condemnation of dogma itself, but of "the" dogma -- the tenets and principles of the churches on the earth -- which were bad/wrong/off-kilter/mistaken/corrupted/askew/etc.

I think it a bit of a stretch to suggest that the Lord does not live by, proclaim, hold to, believe in, and consider good and wise, a strict system of principles and tenets. Those principles and tenets are truth. And God is and will always be a God of absolute, perfect truth.

I am using the word, "dogma" to mean a set of beliefs that are never questioned or open to change.

And, as I intimated to Rob above, the Lord certainly has established a system of principles and tenets that are "true," though he has done so in a way that not only allows for, but facilitates change--i.e. the plan of progression. Such changes or progression are not likely when people assume that, at any given point they have a "strict" and "absolute" understanding of the Lord. The infinite and transcendent ways of God do not fit too well within dogmatic or creedal boxes formed in the minds of man.

In fact, one of the biggest challenges to growth in the church is to adjust from the absolutist/fundamentalist/black-and-white thinking necessary for childhood (or spiritual novices), to the more nuanced beliefs of adults (spiritually mature). Too often, the "reeds" of belief are too stiff and inflexible, and end up breaking rather than humbly bending to new understanding. The ranks of former members are filled with those who failed the test of faith in this regard. This is tragic, and part of the reason God deems creedalism/dogma as abominable.

Again, at least that is how I see it at this stage in my development. You are free to think otherwise. I simply offer this as something to conseder for your possible benefit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-,

[person0]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

We are worlds apart in understanding each other. Im not arrogant, Ive just studied it a lot more than most people. Contrary to what you falsely accuse me of, I love the Book of Mormon, I just recognize that they didnt have more truth as we do.

The people themselves may not have been taught the same truth's we now know.  However, there is no evidence to suggest that the prophets and especially Mormon, who had the writings of all the prophets did not have the same knowledge we have today.  Also they had access to writings and scriptures which we do not have access to at this time such as the words of Zenos, etc.

[wenglund]

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I completely believe in the saved/damned, heaven/ hell dichotomy. Personally, I do not believe the telestial and terrestrial worlds of glory exist after the millennium which just leaves heaven (celestial kingdom), and hell in the end.

Interesting. My belief takes me in the opposite direction, away from the binary to "many mansions." We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

Just now, person0 said:

The people themselves may not have been taught the same truth's we now know.  However, there is no evidence to suggest that the prophets and especially Mormon, who had the writings of all the prophets did not have the same knowledge we have today.  Also they had access to writings and scriptures which we do not have access to at this time such as the words of Zenos, etc.

Speculation at best. Going off of just what the BoM says, its readily apparent they viewed heaven as "one physical place" where "all" the saved go while the damned all go to hell. Ironically, I actually believe this is 100% true. They were actually off though in regards to repentance after death. They taught it was impossible to change after death. We know through modern day revelation that there is repentance and change possible after death.