Can there be free will while God knows all things?

[wenglund]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Irregardless, the future is not set in stone.

In terms of omniscience, the future is no more set in stone than the past.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, wenglund said:

In terms of omniscience, the future is no more set in stone than the past.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The past is set in stone, you cant change it. The future is how we fashion it and is fluid.

[wenglund]

15 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The past is set in stone, you cant change it. The future is how we fashion it and is fluid.

That may be true from our non-omniscient and limited temporal perspective as mortal men. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

59 minutes ago, wenglund said:

That may be true from our non-omniscient and limited temporal perspective as mortal men. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Its true regardless of if were mortal or immortal.

[wenglund]

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its true regardless of if were mortal or immortal.

I am disinclined, rationally, to let the mortals speak for the immortal, the finite for the infinite, the relatively ignorant for the omniscient. Sorry. But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[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.

Ben McGuire touches on this issue while making comments about D&C lesson 20 (About 15 minutes in): 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

 

[Rob Osborn]

16 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Ben McGuire touches on this issue while making comments about D&C lesson 20 (About 15 minutes in): 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

 

Havent watched all of it yet but its interesting how weve come to our beliefs and to me shows why there still remains contradictions.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

Ben McGuire touches on this issue while making comments about D&C lesson 20 (About 15 minutes in): 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

Hi Wade, also @Vort

I haven't looked at the video link, but this issue is addressed in another thread as well: https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/61917-angels-and-gods/

Based on one interpretation of D&C 132:17-19, the three degrees of the celestial kingdom could be comprised of angels, gods, and exalted gods, as follows:

The two non-exalted kingdoms are celestial beings, but the "lowest" degree (the angels) are not married; there is one place for the males, and one place for the females, living "separately and singly" as "ministering servants" (D&C 132:116-17). The next degree, for the gods (verse 19, "they shall pass by the angels, and the gods [those who are sealed and preparing to receive their exaltation], which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things"), might be those who are married and yet preparing to receive their exaltation -- see the Joseph Smith quote below:

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught: “When you climb up a ladder, you must begin at the bottom, and ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top; and so it is with the principles of the gospel—you must begin with the first, and go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil [died] before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world; it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 268). https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng

Edited May 31, 2017 by CV75

[Guest]

Goodness Gracious!  27 pages of 

Yes it is.

Not it isn't

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Goodness Gracious!  27 pages of 

Yes it is.

Not it isn't

And not a lick of it valid.

[Guest MormonGator]

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Goodness Gracious!  27 pages of 

Yes it is.

Not it isn't

Welcome to the internet kid. Grab a seat. And popcorn. 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Welcome to the internet kid. Grab a seat. And popcorn. 

I know that humans don't live as long as gators.  But who're you calling "kid"?

[Rob Osborn]

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

Ben McGuire touches on this issue while making comments about D&C lesson 20 (About 15 minutes in): 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

 

I finally watched the whole video and sorted it out in my mind. As said in the video, I am quite convinced that our doctrine regarding salvation, heaven, hell, etc is indeed still in transition. I didnt see anything in the video I wasnt really aware of but it does bolster the argument that when you really start to delve into these mysteries deeper it brings up more questions than answers that as of yet are certainly not answered by official publications of the church.

Pretty much most people in these forums know my own staunch opinions regarding heaven and hell. What many may not know however is that through my own understanding of the subject I have actually grown closer to the gospel and firmer in my testimony that Joseph Smith was no counterfeit. He diligently worked hard to do the work of the Lord, had many spiritual manifestations and worked hard to try to make sense of all the revelations in his time of ministry. So, seeing how there is a very real possibility that some of his visions were not greatly or correctly understood by even himself makes perfect sense. 

Im glad for these forums because it allows us ourselves to hash out the problems and misunderstandings and create a more theoretically correct doctrine that just isnt possible at church.

[Vort]

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im glad for these forums because it allows us ourselves to hash out the problems and misunderstandings and create a more theoretically correct doctrine that just isnt possible at church.

DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!!

[brotherofJared]

On 6/1/2017 at 10:46 AM, Vort said:

DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!!

I get what he's saying. I'm not so sure that we can get more correct. I don't think we can get any truer on doctrine if we simply follow the prophet. However, discussing the whys or the wheres and wherefores of the doctrine in church can cause some serious problems. I have been told a number of times the very same thing you posted here. But we can't be simply told not to discuss them. They have to have a place to grow. It's just not in church.

So, on that part, I would concede that this is a good place to bring these things up and discuss. However, this is not the place to find more correct doctrine that what we can find in church.

[MadelinePender]

Yes, I do think so, we should be free, because god knows everything. God planned our destiny long before our birth.