Is G-d or his works a mystery?

[Traveler]

My father taught me as a youth that there is nothing about anything good that is a mystery. That it is evil that creates confusion and misunderstanding. I believe that G-d is good and that the only mystery concerning G-d is evil that confuses and lies concerning the clarity of truth pertaining to the goodness of G-d. I have discovered 5 principles that govern the goodness of G-d and I present these 5 principles to the forum for considerations and discussion. (If the 5 principles are complete or if I have listed something that does not belong).

Principle #1: G-d will not do for man that which man can do for themselves.

Principle #2: G-d will do for man that which man cannot do for themselves.

Principle #3: G-d will not do anything for man that is not for their eternal benefit.

Principle #4: G-d will do anything for man that is for their eternal benefit.

Principle #5: G-d will not do anything for any man without their concurrence. (G-d will not violate man’s agency or free will)

The Traveler

[Seminarysnoozer]

My father taught me as a youth that there is nothing about anything good that is a mystery. That it is evil that creates confusion and misunderstanding. I believe that G-d is good and that the only mystery concerning G-d is evil that confuses and lies concerning the clarity of truth pertaining to the goodness of G-d. I have discovered 5 principles that govern the goodness of G-d and I present these 5 principles to the forum for considerations and discussion. (If the 5 principles are complete or if I have listed something that does not belong).

Principle #1: G-d will not do for man that which man can do for themselves.

Principle #2: G-d will do for man that which man cannot do for themselves.

Principle #3: G-d will not do anything for man that is not for their eternal benefit.

Principle #4: G-d will do anything for man that is for their eternal benefit.

Principle #5: G-d will not do anything for any man without their concurrence. (G-d will not violate man’s agency or free will)

The Traveler

Thanks for presenting this topic, I am sure it will generate a lot of discussion.

I think one thing to consider is when we look at what God will or will not do to meet the demands of justice one has to also consider what Christ has done for us to meet the demands of justice and provide mercy with the plan He has outlined for us to redeem ourselves for all the things God will not do. This is exactly why we have a Savior to overcome those demands and provide a different way to achieve those things we could not do for ourselves. Christ's plan requires faith in Him, which by definition involves some mystery.

I would suggest that the test of knowledge already occurred, that is what happened with the first estate test with which we all passed. We don't have to repeat the test we already passed. We already, intellectually, understand the plan and agreed with it. The question now, for the second estate test, is one of action and resolve. Will we do the things we said we would do when we understood them intellectually but now under a veil of opposition and struggle that forces faith? That becomes a test of character.

We talked about this one time in Family Home Evening and the metaphor that came out that made sense to me is likening it to a soldier in boot camp who swears that they would not leave one of their fellow soldiers behind while in battle. They agreed with the concept intellectually and even if they hadn't had an combat experience, the concept was well understood. But when in the heat of the battle, when faced with the actual fear of death and other thoughts, maybe not all those soldiers would risk their life to go back for a fellow soldier. In that situation the true test of character comes out that goes beyond an ideal. It is a test of action that reveals one true character. This is similar to the test we face here.

[rameumptom]

Resurrection is given to all who are born in this life. There are many in this life who believe materiality is evil, and only the spirit is good. Therefore, they will not want resurrection, yet they will still receive resurrection.

God destroyed the world by Flood, without their concurrence.

Therefore, principle #5 is false.

[HiJolly]

I agree with Ram, #5 is clearly false. But the rest are ok, fitting in well with my view of God as a pragmatist.

On Mystery --- God knows what's goin' on. We don't, except for a few rules of thumb that only apply to mortality. Therefore, we have paradox and mystery whenever we try to deal with, or think about, God and/or eternity. Logic doesn't even begin to clear the fog.

HiJolly

Edited April 10, 2013 by HiJolly

[Traveler]

I believe #5 stands. The argument of the flood does not take into account promises made before we were born. I believe part the stipulation of coming to mortality was that we completely concurred that if things got out of hand that there would be intervention by G-d. Without that promise and agreement - I believe we would have fallen into the category of Satan and his followers. I believe the flood was within the parameters of what we all agreed to in order to come to earth.

If #5 is not completely accurate then there is no such thing as free will or Agency. I do not believe G-d will subvert our agency.

The Traveler

[Vort]

If #5 is not completely accurate then there is no such thing as free will or Agency.

That is because you have equated two unequal things:

Principle #5: G-d will not do anything for any man without their concurrence. (G-d will not violate man’s agency or free will)

Your parenthetical addendum above is intended to be an effective restatement of your original sentence, but it is no such thing. God has done and will continue to do many things for and to man without man's concurrence, and in no case does that violate man's agency. For example, God created man without man requesting that creation.

[Seminarysnoozer]

The use of the word "man" (for me at least) implies 'while in mortality' and not what happened before. Maybe using the words, 'God's children' or 'those that kept the first estate' is more inclusive of the events prior to being in this "man" state of corrupted, behind the veil, body with spirit state.

Reading through the list of principles, I was assuming "while in mortality" applied to each of those statements.

Is the veil a limitation (I don't think subversion is the right word) of free agency or does it just narrow the things for which we are accountable and therefore free agents over? I think the veil is what allows us to receive "small things" (stewardship) before we are given bigger things. How are we fallen? Are we not fallen by way of agency? It is the result of agency given that we become corrupted and fallen and need a Savior. So, in essence, us accepting the second estate test is like saying, 'I would like to be in a state in which I may lessen my agency by way of sin'. (but knowing it is just temporarily limited/subverted). I guess what I am trying to say is that maybe number 5 is one of those, what came first the chicken or the egg? Agency is 'concurrence' but the agency could limit future agency. Maybe it is the nature of agency that is subversive not God himself.

[Seminarysnoozer]

For example, God created man without man requesting that creation.

Really? I thought that is what is implied by agreeing to keep the first estate - the cooperation (concurrence) with the plan. Keeping the first estate is not a request to go on to the next step?

[Vort]

Really? I thought that is what is implied by agreeing to keep the first estate - the cooperation (concurrence) with the plan. Keeping the first estate is not a request to go on to the next step?

I am speaking of man's spiritual creation.

[Finrock]

Good Afternoon Vort! I hope you are having a good day. :)

I am speaking of man's spiritual creation.

I don't believe we have sufficient knowledge to say that we did or did not agree with being created spiritually.

What causes you to believe that God created man spiritually without man requesting this creation?

Respectfully,

Finrock

[Traveler]

I am speaking of man's spiritual creation.

Please include how you know this to be absolutely and unequivocally true? Without proof you cannot declare that you "know" there is an exception.

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

Good Afternoon Vort! I hope you are having a good day. :)

I don't believe we have sufficient knowledge to say that we did or did not agree with being created spiritually.

What causes you to believe that God created man spiritually without man requesting this creation?

Respectfully,

Finrock

Doesn't the idea of "creation" already denote the idea that man did not have the capacity to agree or disagree to "creation"?

I am only speaking for myself, it would appear incorrect to think the creation says to the creator, "Yes, go ahead, create me."

[Anddenex]

Without proof you cannot declare that you "know" there is an exception.

The Traveler

This is inherently an untrue statement. Proof is also a tricky word in our modern society. As a scientist, then you are familiar with other intelligent scientists who declare there is absolutely no proof, and none you would be able to provide, to prove there is a God, only your interpretation.

Thus, your statement would negate any members testimonies regarding "knowing" God exists.

Please clarify, what you would expect as "proof."

[Vort]

Please include how you know this to be absolutely and unequivocally true? Without proof you cannot declare that you "know" there is an exception.

Sure I can.

[Vort]

I don't believe we have sufficient knowledge to say that we did or did not agree with being created spiritually.

What causes you to believe that God created man spiritually without man requesting this creation?

Lemma 1: God granted man his agency.

Logical derivation: Before God granted man his agency, man did not have his agency.

Lemma 2: God created man in a premortal act of spiritual birth.

Logical derivation: Before his spiritual creation, man did not exist as a spiritual entity.

Assumption: God granted man his agency when man was a spiritual entity.

Logical derivation: God created man as a spiritual entity before endowing him with agency.

But if you don't agree with my timetable above, then let me make it simpler: God gave man his agency without man requesting or agreeing to it. This is pretty much indisputable, since a man cannot give permission or agreement without already having agency.

[Finrock]

Lemma 1: God granted man his agency.

Logical derivation: Before God granted man his agency, man did not have his agency.

Lemma 2: God created man in a premortal act of spiritual birth.

Logical derivation: Before his spiritual creation, man did not exist as a spiritual entity.

Assumption: God granted man his agency when man was a spiritual entity.

Logical derivation: God created man as a spiritual entity before endowing him with agency.

But if you don't agree with my timetable above, then let me make it simpler: God gave man his agency without man requesting or agreeing to it. This is pretty much indisputable, since a man cannot give permission or agreement without already having agency.

Thank you. The logic makes sense given that your propositions are true. I'm not sure if I agree with all of your propositions. And when I say I am not sure, I actually mean that I am not sure. I think I want to explore what it means for God to grant us agency. I'll have to think about this for a bit before I respond further (in case you care).

Regards,

Finrock

[Finrock]

Doesn't the idea of "creation" already denote the idea that man did not have the capacity to agree or disagree to "creation"?

I am only speaking for myself, it would appear incorrect to think the creation says to the creator, "Yes, go ahead, create me."

I think it denotes it only if we are talking about creation out of nothing. When I see the word "create" in a religious context, I generally think "organize, form."

Man was not created out of nothing. God did not create us in the sense you are using the word. As I understand the gospel, we (intelligences) are co-eternal with God.

Regards,

Finrock

[Traveler]

Lemma 1: God granted man his agency.

Logical derivation: Before God granted man his agency, man did not have his agency.

Lemma 2: God created man in a premortal act of spiritual birth.

Logical derivation: Before his spiritual creation, man did not exist as a spiritual entity.

Assumption: God granted man his agency when man was a spiritual entity.

Logical derivation: God created man as a spiritual entity before endowing him with agency.

But if you don't agree with my timetable above, then let me make it simpler: God gave man his agency without man requesting or agreeing to it. This is pretty much indisputable, since a man cannot give permission or agreement without already having agency.

Don't think so: D&C 93:29-31

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

The Intelligence by which man is able to exercise agency cannot be created or made. Also note that all intelligence exist independent to "act" or it does not actually exist. So in essence there is a chicken or egg paradox for one cannot exist without the other - intelligence cannot exist without agency

The Traveler

[Vort]

How does the scripture you quote have anything at all to do with what I wrote?

[Traveler]

How does the scripture you quote have anything at all to do with what I wrote?

If you cannot see (accept) how intelligence (which is not created or made) is related to agency (ability to act for itself) - how one defines the other - then we have nothing more to discuss? You can say you won the argument if you like - you have that agency.

The Traveler

[Anddenex]

I think it denotes it only if we are talking about creation out of nothing. When I see the word "create" in a religious context, I generally think "organize, form."

Man was not created out of nothing. God did not create us in the sense you are using the word. As I understand the gospel, we (intelligences) are co-eternal with God.

Regards,

Finrock

Yes, I also think about "organize" and "form" when I use the term creation within LDS gospel discussions.

Thus, I was not using the word "create" as you have suggested -- out of nothing. Thus, how does the one without form say to the creator, "Yes, feel free to organize or form me."

[Dravin]

How does the scripture you quote have anything at all to do with what I wrote?

If I may try to act as interpreter, I think his thought process is:

Before man was created spiritually he was intelligence. Intelligence can act (has agency). Therefore God did not grant man agency upon spiritual creation, it was a preexisting condition of being an intelligence.

[Vort]

If I may try to act as interpreter, I think his thought process is:

Before man was created spiritually he was intelligence. Intelligence can act (has agency). Therefore God did not grant man agency upon spiritual creation, it was a preexisting condition of being an intelligence.

Yet the scriptures teach that God granted man his agency, not that man had agency through all eternity.

[Vort]

If you cannot see (accept) how intelligence (which is not created or made) is related to agency (ability to act for itself) - how one defines the other - then we have nothing more to discuss?

I don't understand your question. Are you asking me if we have anything else to discuss?

If you are incapable of following my logical progression and then responding to it, you perhaps are incapable of discussing the issue coherently.

[Dravin]

Yet the scriptures teach that God granted man his agency, not that man had agency through all eternity.

Yep, it's dueling scripture* territory. A quick rundown of some of the scriptures scriptures mentioning agency:

32 The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

This can be interpreted as agency being granted as after or at physical creation. Though clearly it is something granted in this scripture.

3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

Clearly something granted here. It also seems suggestive that agency predates physical creation.

36 And it came to pass that Adam, being tempted of the devil—for, behold, the devil was before Adam, for he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency;

Predates the Garden of Eden but isn't attributed as self-extant or granted.

78 That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

Granted/given here. And this is without going into scriptures that use the word "agent".

*More accurately dueling interpretation.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Dravin