Can there be free will while God knows all things?

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

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

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Oh, i believe in many mansions also, just that all the mansions are in the celestial kingdom.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Contrary to what you falsely accuse me of, I love the Book of Mormon

I did not accuse you of not loving the Book of Mormon.

[The Folk Prophet]

This discussion got weird.

I'm out.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Armin said:

"No"...? Oh yes. Certainly. See David Eagleman. See neurophysiological publications. See yourself, and ask yourself, why your neural system (s) exist and what its (theirs) most important task is: leading you to a decision. Did you never ask yourself why you did this instead of that...? If you believe you were free and your will is free, how could you be sorry for all the wrong decisions you made in the past? Doesn't mean "freedom" to make right decisions instead of wrong ones? Be aware: we are not spirits, and we are bound in a body, and the unity of spirit and body in the Mormon doctrine is often called the soul. That soul depends from the body as well from the spirit. You may say the spirit reigns, but the body rules. And, by the way, a simple "no" is too less in spite of an important question like this. Think of the black horses and the white horses, as Eagleman said, and your spirit is right among them.

I don't care what David Eagleman said. God says he gave us free will. I don't care what some "scientist" thinks. He's wrong.

[Ijustforgotit]

Easy answer.  Gods plan and knowledge is always changing according to our free will. he can always try and influence us to make the right decision but he will always put more options in our path even when we made the wrong choices

[Edspringer]

 

Can there be free will while God knows all things?

 

YES

 

Please read " The Articles of Faith", by Elder James E Talmage. 

 

[wenglund]

On 4/7/2017 at 3:53 PM, Rob Osborn said:

Oh, i believe in many mansions also, just that all the mansions are in the celestial kingdom.

I see the continuum of mansions crossing all kingdoms, though I am hoping to trade in my mansion for a beach-front cottage in whatever kingdom God figures I am most deserving, and more important, where he needs me most.

Whatever the case, at some point in the eternities, some of God's children will be leaving his kingdom to start kingdoms of their own.

Either way, my focus now is on my earthly mission, which means leaving off concerning myself with my heavenly life until after the Father brings me home.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Eydis]

On 3/14/2017 at 11:32 AM, Colirio said:

 

"Our agency is preserved, however, by the fact that as we approach a given moment we do not know what our response will be. Meanwhile, God has foreseen what we will do and has taken our decision into account (in composite with all others), so that His
purposes are not frustrated.  It is unfortunate that our concerns do not center more upon the correctness of what we do in a given
moment-and less upon whether or not God's having foreseen what we
would do then somehow compromises our agency. It is equally regrettable that our souls should be troubled at all because we cannot figure out `how' God does it, when it has been made so
abundantly clear and on so many occasions that He does do it."
(Neal A. Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience, p.
12.)

 

I don't remember anyone using the word "timeless" to describe God in this thread as that particular word often has other connotations. (I.e. Timeless oldies music soundtrack, etc.) 

 

Elder Maxwell said that God is not bound by time. 

 

As to your point, some of the reasons just off the top of my head that God not being bound by time is important: 

 

1. For the people who lived before the atonement, their sins could still remitted by something that "hadn't happened yet."

2. Christ's past and future victories were and are assured. Not just a "guess based on past experience" as someone who doesn't believe in God's omniscience might surmise. The war against Satan is won by Christ, even though it still wages in our time. 

3. Those who are faithful might receive their calling and election made sure while still in mortality. Your place is prepared. God's purposes cannot be frustrated. 

 

There are probably a myriad of reasons that I haven't even thought about. For myself, it's comforting to know that it's not just a guess. It's not a "hope." God already has prepared our reward and is able to assure us the perfect mortal opportunities to become more like Him. 

 

"One of the most helpful-indeed, very necessary-parallel truths to
be pondered when studying this powerful doctrine of foreordination is given in the revelation of the Lord to Moses in which the Lord says, `And all things are present with me, for I know them all'
(Moses 1:6). God does not live in the dimension of time as do we. Moreover, since `all things are present with' God, his is not simply a predicting based solely upon the past. In ways which are
not clear to us, he actually sees, rather than foresees,the
future-because all things are, at once, present, before him!"
(Neal A. Maxwell, "A More Determined Discipleship," Ensign, February 1979, p. 72.)

 

For me, to read that statement from an apostle of the Lord is a comfort. 

I don't think I am explaining myself well, my apologies.  I am trying to say there is something qualitatively different between knowing something will happen vs. knowing that it has happened.   For example, I know that my son will graduate from High School in a year but I wouldn't yet call him a High School Graduate.  Similarly, I think there is something qualitatively different when God brings something "to pass" as opposed to knowing that it will happen. 

What I mean by timeless, is the claim that there is no equation in God's realm that would require the factor of time.  It is the belief that time simply doesn't exist for God.  So, this takes away any relative time discussion, it wouldn't include any idea that for God time is faster or slower, it is the belief that there is simply no passage of time at any rate for God. I don't know what else to call it but timeless. 

In the First Vision, Joseph heard God speak.  He heard the beginning of the sentence through to the end of the sentence, by his description.  Joseph didn't say the sentence was instantly in his mind as if is happened in a twinkling of an eye, or something like that.  He claimed that he saw and heard and watched God point even.  To claim that God pointed means that at one moment He wasn't pointing and then He was.  This implies the passage of time witnessed by Joseph Smith.  If God was without time, then He couldn't do those things, it would be all one moment.

[Traveler]

 

Just as sure as the laws and principles of physics and the empirical forces that govern the universe (gravity, electromagnetic, small atomic force and large atomic force) – there are laws and principles that govern intelligences.  For example – light cleaves unto light and darkness seeks out darkness.

Agency is nothing more than intelligence (including spirit and the light and truth of that spirit) fulfilling itself as it has been within it from the beginning.   G-d did not create Satan to be evil nor was Jesus created to be good but both were made free by G-d and given agency to choose according to the light and truth within them – which light and truth or darkness and lie – has always been and is co-eternal with G-d.

That G-d knows that light cleaves unto light and darkness cleaves unto darkness – does not change the darkness nor the light.  Indeed, allowing darkness to cleave unto darkness and light to cleave unto light is the destiny of intelligence to choose for itself.

 

The Traveler

[Colirio]

1 hour ago, Eydis said:

 It is the belief that time simply doesn't exist for God. 

I don't remember anyone stating this belief. If they did, they would be wrong in their assertion according to LDS doctrine. At the very least they should probably rephrase what they intended to say. 

 

In fact, the opposite is true. ALL time exists for God at once, past, present, and future. That is scripturally based and confirmed through modern prophets. 

 

"The Lord Himself said that He `knoweth all things, for all things
are present' before Him. (D&C 38:2.) We read, too, that `all
things are present with me, for I know them all.' (Moses 1:6.)
Therefore, God's omniscience is not solely a function of prolonged
and discerning familiarity with us-but of the stunning reality
that the past and present and future are part of an `eternal now'
with God! (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 4:597.)" (Neal A.
Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience, pp. 7,8.)

 

Don't just take my word for it, though. Pray and get your own answers!  

 

For me, such a discussion is far less important than applying the gospel in our lives. 

Edited April 10, 2017 by Colirio

[Rob Osborn]

On 4/10/2017 at 10:56 AM, Colirio said:

I don't remember anyone stating this belief. If they did, they would be wrong in their assertion according to LDS doctrine. At the very least they should probably rephrase what they intended to say. 

 

In fact, the opposite is true. ALL time exists for God at once, past, present, and future. That is scripturally based and confirmed through modern prophets. 

 

"The Lord Himself said that He `knoweth all things, for all things
are present' before Him. (D&C 38:2.) We read, too, that `all
things are present with me, for I know them all.' (Moses 1:6.)
Therefore, God's omniscience is not solely a function of prolonged
and discerning familiarity with us-but of the stunning reality
that the past and present and future are part of an `eternal now'
with God! (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 4:597.)" (Neal A.
Maxwell, All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience, pp. 7,8.)

 

Don't just take my word for it, though. Pray and get your own answers!  

 

For me, such a discussion is far less important than applying the gospel in our lives. 

If the sequence of events that make up the passage of time is nonexistant with God then there is no cause and effect. That is a contradiction. God "brings to pass". That means there is an actual future, otherwise he couldnt cause things in the present to "bring to pass" things in the future and as they "pass" they become things that already happened and cannot be changed.

[Colirio]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

If the sequence of events that make up the passage of time is nonexistant with God then there is no cause and effect. 

 

Hey Rob, I don't believe that anyone said that time is nonexistent for God. Just to clarify, what I stated was:

 

"In fact, the opposite is true. ALL time exists for God at once, past, present, and future. That is scripturally based and confirmed through modern prophets." 

 

Once again, you don't have to take my word for it. I encourage everyone to seek their own answers through prayer and study.  

 

I find debate to typically entrench the parties further into their own views and therefore am not really interested in it. 

 

"Like Laman and Lemuel, many today would consign God only to the past; He thereby ceases to be the constant God of yesterday, today, and tomorrow (see 2 Ne. 27:23). Actually, God has the past, present, and future ever before Him, constituting an 'eternal "now"' (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 220; see also D&C 130:7)." 

 

[Rob Osborn]

16 hours ago, Colirio said:

 

Hey Rob, I don't believe that anyone said that time is nonexistent for God. Just to clarify, what I stated was:

 

"In fact, the opposite is true. ALL time exists for God at once, past, present, and future. That is scripturally based and confirmed through modern prophets." 

 

Once again, you don't have to take my word for it. I encourage everyone to seek their own answers through prayer and study.  

 

I find debate to typically entrench the parties further into their own views and therefore am not really interested in it. 

 

"Like Laman and Lemuel, many today would consign God only to the past; He thereby ceases to be the constant God of yesterday, today, and tomorrow (see 2 Ne. 27:23). Actually, God has the past, present, and future ever before Him, constituting an 'eternal "now"' (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 220; see also D&C 130:7)." 

 

God may indeed see things in the past and future but they dont really exist in the present.

[Traveler]

22 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

God may indeed see things in the past and future but they dont really exist in the present.

What is the present?  A second - a nanosecond.  How much "time" is consumed by the present?  (if there is a present or if the present is an actual element of time?)  I can understand that there is a past and a future but I do not believe you can prove by any analytical or empirical means that there really is such a thing as the present "TIME"- except that you think there is a present.  I do not think you can even demonstrate that the "present time" is the same "present time for everybody or even anybody - your self included.  What ever you think is the present - it will be in the past before you can determine what you think you will do about it in the future.   That in reality you can only see and realize things that have happened already in what we call - the past.  That you do not and are not capable of realizing what you call the present any more than what you think is the future.   I believe you are assuming unprovable and unempirical “things” and wildly speculating stuff that you cannot demonstrate (and perhaps even comprehend or understand) any more than the next guy that does not agree 100% with your speculation.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

20 minutes ago, Traveler said:

What is the present?  A second - a nanosecond.  How much "time" is consumed by the present?  (if there is a present or if the present is an actual element of time?)  I can understand that there is a past and a future but I do not believe you can prove by any analytical or empirical means that there really is such a thing as the present "TIME"- except that you think there is a present.  I do not think you can even demonstrate that the "present time" is the same "present time for everybody or even anybody - your self included.  What ever you think is the present - it will be in the past before you can determine what you think you will do about it in the future.   That in reality you can only see and realize things that have happened already in what we call - the past.  That you do not and are not capable of realizing what you call the present any more than what you think is the future.   I believe you are assuming unprovable and unempirical “things” and wildly speculating stuff that you cannot demonstrate (and perhaps even comprehend or understand) any more than the next guy that does not agree 100% with your speculation.

 

The Traveler

I disagree. The fact we exist and everything happens all happen in the time of what we call the "present". But, its not stationary, it flows and as the future unfolds the actions that happen are done in the present and then flow off into the past as all part of a cause and effect mechanism. As events unfold they get recorded as markers as if on a grand timeline scale. Those markers only exist as they unfold in the present always making that grand timeline longer still. We know our brains work ahead of time in anticipation of cause and effect happening in the present. This allows us to function in the ever flowing forward river of the present. It allows us to read, communicate, walk, and literally everything else we do. Things do not happen in the past nor the future. Action only happens in the present as it rolls forward.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I disagree. The fact we exist and everything happens all happen in the time of what we call the "present". But, its not stationary, it flows and as the future unfolds the actions that happen are done in the present and then flow off into the past as all part of a cause and effect mechanism. As events unfold they get recorded as markers as if on a grand timeline scale. Those markers only exist as they unfold in the present always making that grand timeline longer still. We know our brains work ahead of time in anticipation of cause and effect happening in the present. This allows us to function in the ever flowing forward river of the present. It allows us to read, communicate, walk, and literally everything else we do. Things do not happen in the past nor the future. Action only happens in the present as it rolls forward.

 

It is not so much that I disagree – but that I am certain that all points of agreement and disagreement are pure speculation.  I do not believe that you can prove that anything can exist in what you call the present unless it already existed in the past and that there is no difference between the past and what you call the present or even the future.

The same arguments we use in debating creation ex nihilo we cannot separate what you are calling the present be distinguished from the future or the past.  In essence, I am saying that you cannot say any more about what you call the “present” than what you are calling the future.  The only part of time you can validate and know exists is the past – you cannot know that anything exists in the now or the future.  The only reason you can know or demonstrate or think you can know or demonstrate that something exists or not; is if it consistently shows up in the past.  If it does not show up in the past you have no way to determine if it really ever existed in the present or is just a figment of your imagination.  And then only if you think you have a memory of it.

What you are calling future and current time are mere assumptions based entirely in speculation.  But there is another problem for believers in G-d trying to deal with what you are calling the flow of time.  If the future is not already true, even as we speak, then faith in G-d and eternal life is false.  Think my friend – If the future is not (nor cannot be) known – there is no logical reason to believe in G-d.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

It is not so much that I disagree – but that I am certain that all points of agreement and disagreement are pure speculation.  I do not believe that you can prove that anything can exist in what you call the present unless it already existed in the past and that there is no difference between the past and what you call the present or even the future.

The same arguments we use in debating creation ex nihilo we cannot separate what you are calling the present be distinguished from the future or the past.  In essence, I am saying that you cannot say any more about what you call the “present” than what you are calling the future.  The only part of time you can validate and know exists is the past – you cannot know that anything exists in the now or the future.  The only reason you can know or demonstrate or think you can know or demonstrate that something exists or not; is if it consistently shows up in the past.  If it does not show up in the past you have no way to determine if it really ever existed in the present or is just a figment of your imagination.  And then only if you think you have a memory of it.

What you are calling future and current time are mere assumptions based entirely in speculation.  But there is another problem for believers in G-d trying to deal with what you are calling the flow of time.  If the future is not already true, even as we speak, then faith in G-d and eternal life is false.  Think my friend – If the future is not (nor cannot be) known – there is no logical reason to believe in G-d.

 

The Traveler

The future is not known exactly. We proceed forward on faith and will conti ue to proceed forth on faith in eternity. Faith is an eternal principle.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

The future is not known exactly. We proceed forward on faith and will conti ue to proceed forth on faith in eternity. Faith is an eternal principle.

Define faith.

[Rob Osborn]

18 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Define faith.

Faith is a belief in something you hope to be true or belief in bringing to pass something which one hopes for and works for.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

What you are calling future and current time are mere assumptions based entirely in speculation.  But there is another problem for believers in G-d trying to deal with what you are calling the flow of time.  If the future is not already true, even as we speak, then faith in G-d and eternal life is false.  Think my friend – If the future is not (nor cannot be) known – there is no logical reason to believe in G-d.

Because perception of any kind is completely subjective, neither the future, past nor present can be true (these designations have no perception in and of themselves); only our perception of what is going on in these subsets of eternity as we perceive them can be true or false, to the degree it aligns with God’s perception. Our faith in God is subjective, and is based on the spiritual perception we possess, which is defined and governed by eternal law.

From D&C 93:24, “truth is knowledge [perception] of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come.”

The plan of happiness gives us a revealed, spiritual perception of eternal things, hence the multiple reference points: things as they are (the testimony of Jesus and that He does the Father’s will); things as they were (the pre-mortal existence); and, things as they are to come (our redemption in Christ). Each of these perceptions requires faith.

The plan of science gives us truth in the form of the physical perception of physical things. Instead of discernment, we use observation, and instead of faith, we use experience for the past and various means of projection for the future.

“All truth [whether spiritual or physical perception] is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.” Because all things are spiritual, the greatest or highest degree of perception drives the organization or placement of all other perceptions into their respective spheres, where they are given to act for themselves. God’s spiritual perception defines and gives boundaries to any other perception, and He can act in them all as occasion requires.

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

The future is not known exactly. We proceed forward on faith and will conti ue to proceed forth on faith in eternity. Faith is an eternal principle.

 

I have no idea what is meant by knowing something exactly.  Especially when you go on to talk about faith.  I believe when we do not know something exactly; then it is called faith.  I do not understand why you insist on qualifying knowledge with the term exactly?  The "exactly" qualification make no sense and appears (at least to me) to be to be a contradiction.  So, I think you do not know exactly what you are talking about or at least I do not think you know exactly how to express yourself.

Let me put this another way – What is not known exactly about the future cannot be determined to turn out exactly right and therefore any hope or faith in the future is not exactly on point (correct or right); therefore, it is not exactly the right thing to be doing or believing in.  So if you do not know exactly where the line is between what can be known and what cannot be known – how do you know exactly that such a possibility is exactly correct?  Or that someone elses opinion is not what is exactly right?  or at some random point exactly right? 

If future things cannot be known exactly - you should not be pretending that you know exactly that such a thing cannot be known exactly.

 

The Traveler

Edited April 12, 2017 by Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Faith is a belief in something you hope to be true or belief in bringing to pass something which one hopes for and works for.

I would dare say this is highly inaccurate. Maybe a topic for a different thread though. But faith is not belief. Belief is it's own separate principle that is important. But it stands on it's own. It's not just another word for something like charity is for love. They are separate principles. Belief is one (probably only moderately important) part of faith. But it is not the same thing as faith.

[Eydis]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

What is the present?  A second - a nanosecond.  How much "time" is consumed by the present?  (if there is a present or if the present is an actual element of time?)  I can understand that there is a past and a future but I do not believe you can prove by any analytical or empirical means that there really is such a thing as the present "TIME"- except that you think there is a present.  I do not think you can even demonstrate that the "present time" is the same "present time for everybody or even anybody - your self included.  What ever you think is the present - it will be in the past before you can determine what you think you will do about it in the future.   That in reality you can only see and realize things that have happened already in what we call - the past.  That you do not and are not capable of realizing what you call the present any more than what you think is the future.   I believe you are assuming unprovable and unempirical “things” and wildly speculating stuff that you cannot demonstrate (and perhaps even comprehend or understand) any more than the next guy that does not agree 100% with your speculation.

 

The Traveler

The present could be defined as the moment something could be acted upon. One cannot act on (or change) the past or the future event other than what is done in the present.

[Eydis]

41 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I have no idea what is meant by knowing something exactly.  Especially when you go on to talk about faith.  I believe when we do not know something exactly; then it is called faith.  I do not understand why you insist on qualifying knowledge with the term exactly?  The "exactly" qualification make no sense and appears (at least to me) to be to be a contradiction.  So, I think you do not know exactly what you are talking about or at least I do not think you know exactly how to express yourself.

Let me put this another way – What is not known exactly about the future cannot be determined to turn out exactly right and therefore any hope or faith in the future is not exactly on point (correct or right); therefore, it is not exactly the right thing to be doing or believing in.  So if you do not know exactly where the line is between what can be known and what cannot be known – how do you know exactly that such a possibility is exactly correct?  Or that someone elses opinion is not what is exactly right?  or at some random point exactly right? 

If future things cannot be known exactly - you should not be pretending that you know exactly that such a thing cannot be known exactly.

 

The Traveler

Maybe the better way to say it is that a the future cannot be described as events that have already come to pass.  Like I said before, I may know that I will leave this body some day but I wouldn't say that I am a resurrected being right now.  I cannot know that I am a resurrected being until I am resurrected.  I could know that I will someday be resurrected but that does not carry the same significance as saying I am resurrected.

I can see the value in saying that there is something gained by bringing the act 'to pass'.  What I don't understand is why there is such a strong push in these arguments to say that God does not gain anything by bringing things 'to pass', that it would carry the same value as it had before He brought it 'to pass'.   How is that idea supportive to the LDS doctrine? 

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

I have no idea what is meant by knowing something exactly.  Especially when you go on to talk about faith.  I believe when we do not know something exactly; then it is called faith.  I do not understand why you insist on qualifying knowledge with the term exactly?  The "exactly" qualification make no sense and appears (at least to me) to be to be a contradiction.  So, I think you do not know exactly what you are talking about or at least I do not think you know exactly how to express yourself.

Let me put this another way – What is not known exactly about the future cannot be determined to turn out exactly right and therefore any hope or faith in the future is not exactly on point (correct or right); therefore, it is not exactly the right thing to be doing or believing in.  So if you do not know exactly where the line is between what can be known and what cannot be known – how do you know exactly that such a possibility is exactly correct?  Or that someone elses opinion is not what is exactly right?  or at some random point exactly right? 

If future things cannot be known exactly - you should not be pretending that you know exactly that such a thing cannot be known exactly.

 

The Traveler

Faith is a principle of belief in something you hope to be true. The future is one such area where we act in faith going forward not knowing but having faith or a "belief" that what we are lining up will come to pass.