continuing revelation and the great apostasy


fatima
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

One of the things I have learned during my journey studying other faiths is that if I want to understand "Bob"'s beliefs, is that I need to look through Bob's eyes.  What Jane thinks is completely irrelevant to understanding what Bob's thinks.  What Jane believes doesn't matter when the goal is to understand what Bob believe.  Likewise: what I think/believe as an LDS person doesn't matter when trying to understand Catholic beliefs- Catholic beliefs are the only ones that matter when studying Catholic theology.  The reverse is also true.

Doesn't have anything to do with the fictional character X...it is of no religion. Probably more accurately, the straw man idea of god, of atheism.

Edited by Blueskye2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

Probably more accurately, the straw man idea of god, of atheism.

Not a straw man, a theoretical scenario designed to get us1 to both understand the same concept so that with both of us starting on the same square, so to speak, with the thought that maybe from there, understanding could follow.  I don't believe understanding is possible given the ways communication has happened to date in these two threads.

1 Where "us" is me and anyone (doesn't have to be you, you just took it up; I'm ok if you want to drop it) who believes God is omniscient (esp. of the future), created sentient beings from nothing, gave them free will, and that somehow those beings are responsible for their choices and God is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, zil said:

Not a straw man, a theoretical scenario designed to get us1 to both understand the same concept so that with both of us starting on the same square, so to speak, with the thought that maybe from there, understanding could follow.  I don't believe understanding is possible given the ways communication has happened to date in these two threads.

1 Where "us" is me and anyone (doesn't have to be you, you just took it up; I'm ok if you want to drop it) who believes God is omniscient (esp. of the future), created sentient beings from nothing, gave them free will, and that somehow those beings are responsible for their choices and God is not.

I see you laid a foundation of assumptions, then asked Catholics or Evangelicals or whoever to explain how the assumptions are logical. Your subsequent replies just really make no sense to me so yeah, best for me to leave it to someone else who maybe gets what you're doing. Cuz I'm dense and don't!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, fatima said:

It is my understanding that the LDS teaching of a Great Apostasy is basically based on teachings going astray after such-and-such a time (death of Christ?  Last apostle? I'm not sure) 

A question came to mind: if LDS doctrine teachings continuing revelation, how can you know that what was being taught was indeed erroneous, as opposed to continued revelation?  

For instance, the doctrine that Christ is True God and True Man in a hypostatic union.  LDS doctrine established with Joseph Smith that Jesus was a separate person (details escape me). To my mind it doesn't follow logically to say that there is continuing revelation (and further that Christ presumably would have established that in the first place with the priesthood keys, etc.)  but that when something was 'revealed' in the 400's, you don't accept it.

Christ had established the priesthood, given the proper authority to his apostles, and promised the protection from error, correct?

Another thread about polyandry was posted, and while I didn't read the whole thing, most respondents agreed that they would submit to the church's teaching if that ever happened.  When you study church history, why do those same people not submit to what was taught through the early church, even if they don't quite understand it?

Why would the Lord reveal anything else or more significant to the Latter-day Saints when they are not living up to what has already been revealed?  You notice that in general conferences or in the Ensign magazine, the only thing talked about is the basics?  That's because of two reasons:  first, there is a constant inflow of new members who can only handle the basics, and, second, the longer time LDS aren't living the basics, let alone anything advanced.  Anything advanced, the mysteries, are primarily left up to the individual member to seek out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, fatima said:

LDS posters say that they don't understand why we believe a loving father would create us with free will, knowing some would end up in Hell.  But they do understand/believe that God established a church He (presumably) knew would fail and lead souls into apostasy?

The first sentence is a little confusing, and it appears you are representing a Jehovah Witness belief not LDS. I have never heard of an LDS poster (at least someone studied) who would say "they don't understand why we believe a loving father would create us with free will, knowing some would end up in Hell." This is a basic belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ -- Moral Agency. As we are given moral agency, this means people will fail. People will obtain a Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial glory. Anything but the Celestial is failure on our part.

As the first statement doesn't define the gospel of Jesus Christ's doctrine or beliefs, the second question becomes problematic and unrelatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Vort said:

Because it was revealed that the early Church fell into apostasy.

This is something that we LDS must take completely on faith, in that Joseph Smith was told that all the extant churches of the time were false in his first vision.

In fact, the Catholic Church can make a very compelling case for being the true way.  Every Catholic Church I've ever been in has a timeline of every Pope starting with Peter.  Of course, Catholics believe that Peter held and passed on his keys. Every statue or portrait I've ever seen of Peter in a Catholic setting, shows him holding keys. This is a very Catholic belief.

There is a church in Rome that has a portrait of every Pope from Peter lining the wall just below the ceiling. The scary thing is that there are only four or five more places left to place portraits!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Anddenex said:

The first sentence is a little confusing, and it appears you are representing a Jehovah Witness belief not LDS. I have never heard of an LDS poster (at least someone studied) who would say "they don't understand why we believe a loving father would create us with free will, knowing some would end up in Hell." This is a basic belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ -- Moral Agency. As we are given moral agency, this means people will fail. People will obtain a Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial glory. Anything but the Celestial is failure on our part.

As the first statement doesn't define the gospel of Jesus Christ's doctrine or beliefs, the second question becomes problematic and unrelatable.

It is my understanding that the LDS position is that God did not give us the gift of free will, because we already had it in our intelligences, correct?  And those existed before God made (not created) us, correct?

So the discussion I think we are having is this: LDS are saying God would not create us with free will, knowing that some of those created beings of His would end up in Hell.  

The truth is I'm not sure if we are having an 'ex nihilo' discussion or a free will discussion, or a Divine Foreknowledge discussion.  I'm considering the latter two as I post.

As I was chatting about this with my Catholic priest son, he pointed out a couple of things, which I'm not sure I have the language skill to get across here, but I'm going to try. As to free will and divine foreknowlege: someone asked why God would create us knowing we would sin?  My son pointed out that God is outside of time, and that what is the future to us is always present to God.  He knows what will happen, but He only knows what will happen because there is something to know.  Meaning, it is only after we are created that there is something to know, and God doesn't deal in 'hypothetical' situations, e.g. if I create this person, what if he/she sins.  More to follow...

Edited by fatima
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Vort said:

I don't see the problem. Christ created a Church that was designed to be continuing; note that after Jesus' death and resurrection, Judas Iscariot was replaced and Matthias numbered with the Twelve. But the people rejected the gospel, and so it was taken from them. How is this anything at all, in any tiny detail, like the idea that God creates a man from nothing while knowing full well, before he ever created that man, that the man would end up in the eternal torments of hell?

Once again...my understanding...

You (LDS) believe that God would not create something He knew would fail, yes?  He would not create a creature only to see that creature fall to Hell, yes?  If that is correct, why is it not equally illogical that God would establish a church that He knew would fail?  It is the LDS position that Jesus Christ did establish the True Church, but that sinful men went so far off the reservation that the church fell into irretrievable error?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really understand some of these questions and answers.  We talk about God creating all things, but what does that really mean?  We have agency, so why should God be questioned about the paths his creations chose to take?   If we believe the Book of Mormon to be true, then we know what was being taught was erroneous because God told us it was, as has already been stated.  Did God "create" the church or did man create the church worship God as they were instructed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, zil said:

C-2) There are no preexisting sentient beings.  X is the only thing in existence.  X knows all the possible ways to create beings, all the things each possible being would do given all the possible combinations of beings (and other matter, like rocks, rivers, and thunderstorms).  X knows it all.  He's the one who will decide (already decided back before eternity started, apparently because X has always existed and always known what we're just getting around to describing).

X knows that if he creates a being with attributes [ABC], it will behave in a particular way.  But if X creates gives the being attributes [BCD] instead, it will behave in a different way.  X knows all the possible attribute combinations that can go into a being, as well as all the ways the beings can be combined within space and time.

Now here's where the logic fails (that is, where the idea that the created being is what chose its path and it's not X's fault fails)...  X creates being[ABC] instead of being[BCD].  X gives being[ABC] something we'll call "free will", but X already knows everything being[ABC] is going to do with said free will, and X knows how that would be different if it had been [BCD] instead of [ABC].  What's more, X knows exactly what will happen when being[ABC] runs into being[JKL], which X knows will happen (when, where, why, and how), cuz X is omniscient.

X is making all the choices.  X knows all the outcomes.  Therefore, X chooses the outcome.  X created being[ABC], not being[BCD].  being[ABC] can have all the free will in the world, but it won't enable him to do anything other than what X has designed into being[ABC] - cuz he's being[ABC], not being[BCD].  X knew full well that if he created being[ABC] it would choose hell, but if he created being[BCD], it would have chosen heaven, and in full knowledge of this fact (for X is omniscient and it cannot be any other way), X hauls off and creates being[ABC], thus dooming that being to (choose) hell.

The notion that somehow X, the omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent is somehow not responsible for deciding to make this being[ABC] instead of making it being[BCD] is so far beyond any rational comprehension that I have no words for it.  X creates this thing knowing full well it will end up in hell and then, through some irrational logic, says, "Not my fault, you did it, not me.  I just made you as the sort of being who would do it, but I didn't actually do it, so it's not my fault."

HUH!?

Yes, I know, someone will tell me I've got something wrong with what the Catholics or Evangelicals or whoever believe, but everything I've read in these recent posts on this topic says above is the "logic" being presented, only, there ain't no logic in C-2.

Now, I would have immense respect for someone who says, "Yeah, C-2 is pretty much what we believe, and we don't understand how it's fair or just, but we trust that God is fair and just so it must be, even though it makes no sense."  That's a choice to accept the belief while acknowledging the lack of sense in it.  But if someone thinks C-2 makes sense, well, all I can do is shake my head.

I posted briefly already, but I wanted to re-post to you specifically, because you've laid it out so thoroughly.  

God exists...period.  He is the Supreme Being, the Uncaused Cause, etc.  He created us from nothing to love us and He desires that we return that love to Him.  Not unlike the great love between a married couple that brings forth life (with God's grace) in marriage.  

That said, while God knows all things about His creation, He doesn't know what is going to happen with something He hasn't yet created, because there is nothing to know. 'It" doesn't exist.   My mind is comparing it to my newborn grand-nephew.  Before he was born we didn't know he would have the genes for cystic fibrosis, because there was nothing to know.  Now his parents know and proceed accordingly knowing that each new child of theirs has an x% chance of this disease.  Do/should all married couples cease to have children based on what horrible thing might happen to their children?

And God did not create us as one thing that He expects to somehow become something else, as though a dog is supposed to have some ability to become a cat.  He created us rational beings that can see the world and the love around us.  We can observe and participate in natural law, the order of the universe and know God, and be good people.  However, rational beings can also convince themselves of all sorts of things that are not from God, such as abortion being some sort of good thing.  This is our free will, and our free will and observance of all things good and beautiful in this world should lead us towards the existence of [a] God, even if we don't have the benefit of Him having revealed Himself to us, such as Aristotle did.

 

Anyway, I am getting off topic.  The point is, we are not created as creatures that have no ability to be what God intends.  He created and He saw that 'it was good'.  We are His creation and we were created for goodness.   As an athlete can train his body, a person can train his soul.  It takes discipline and ordering our minds and hearts towards the good, but it is categorically not that God is asking us to be ABC while creating us as XYZ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, fatima said:

That said, while God knows all things about His creation, He doesn't know what is going to happen with something He hasn't yet created, because there is nothing to know. 'It" doesn't exist.

Ah, see, now this is B-1, and whatever happens after this is perfectly logical (regardless of whether one believes it, it makes sense).  Thank you very much for clarifying this!  Your answer and belief makes perfect sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, fatima said:

It is my understanding that the LDS position is that God did not give us the gift of free will, because we already had it in our intelligences, correct?  And those existed before God made (not created) us, correct?

Not correct.  Agency is a gift from God.  That's scripture.

3 hours ago, fatima said:

The truth is I'm not sure if we are having an 'ex nihilo' discussion or a free will discussion, or a Divine Foreknowledge discussion.  I'm considering the latter two as I post.

Honestly, I think they've all kind of gotten muddle up here.... it's not the clearest thread.

3 hours ago, fatima said:

As I was chatting about this with my Catholic priest son, he pointed out a couple of things, which I'm not sure I have the language skill to get across here, but I'm going to try. As to free will and divine foreknowlege: someone asked why God would create us knowing we would sin?  My son pointed out that God is outside of time, and that what is the future to us is always present to God.  He knows what will happen, but He only knows what will happen because there is something to know.  Meaning, it is only after we are created that there is something to know, and God doesn't deal in 'hypothetical' situations, e.g. if I create this person, what if he/she sins.  More to follow...

(Note: I did not participate in the 'parent' thread to this, so I'm going to take a step back here and explain background first, then go foward)

LDS don't believe that people are robots- we all have personality, free will, etc.  We don't believe in "God created us" being something like "God created a bunch of robots".  No, we are children.  Our personalities are our- not something forcefully programmed like a robot.  We do NOT believe in any form of Calvinism, or that God's puppeteering in any way.  Yes, God knows whats going to happen- because He knows each of us, not because He's forcing it.  And He's not going to force anything- such would be unloving and unrighteous.

Often times people expressing this are contrasting it to Calvinism/predestination/The Elect/programmed personality ideas.  I have heard diverse opinions on this subject chatting with various Catholics.  I don't know if there's an official RCC position on it.

***

Now, addressing your son's explanation.  This position doesn't translate over well to an LDS discussion because the discussion is ex nihlio based.

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fatima said:

Once again...my understanding...

You (LDS) believe that God would not create something He knew would fail, yes?  He e would not create a creature only to see that creature fall to Hell, yes?

Ummm... we're not programmed robots.  This question is better geared to a theology that does believe in robot-programmed people.  

2 hours ago, fatima said:

 If that is correct, why is it not equally illogical that God would establish a church that He knew would fail?  

Again, we're not programmed robots, so the question is not really applicable... 

2 hours ago, fatima said:

  It is the LDS position that Jesus Christ did establish the True Church, but that sinful men went so far off the reservation that the church fell into irretrievable error?

God know that would happen, along with every other sin.  He allows them to happen because He loves us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

I don't really understand some of these questions and answers.  We talk about God creating all things, but what does that really mean?  We have agency, so why should God be questioned about the paths his creations chose to take?   

Exactly!  We are not robots: our choices are ours made with our agency, not programmed responses.  

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

Did God "create" the church or did man create the church worship God as they were instructed?

I'm admittedly a little confused by this question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm admittedly a little confused by this question.

 

I'll try to explain it better.  First, what exactly is a church?  Is it a building?  A congregation?  A group of people following the direction of God?   I believe it's the latter.  God didn't create the church.  God gave us the rules to live by and how he wants us to best worship him.  From there, men asked "how" and God gave them answers through revelation.  Man created the church in the manner God instructed, however, man is not infallible.  Man is not perfect.  Man inserts these imperfections into everything he does.  Therefore, you can't blame God for the imperfections in the church or accuse him of making a church that he intended to fail.  That falls upon the shoulders of man.  

One of you could likely provide a better example, as I rarely know what I'm talking about.  However, God told Noah to build an ark and gave him the directions.  If the ark had come about imperfect, would that be the fault of God or Noah?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I'll try to explain it better.  First, what exactly is a church?  Is it a building?  A congregation?  A group of people following the direction of God?   I believe it's the latter.  God didn't create the church.  God gave us the rules to live by and how he wants us to best worship him.  From there, men asked "how" and God gave them answers through revelation.  Man created the church in the manner God instructed, however, man is not infallible.  Man is not perfect.  Man inserts these imperfections into everything he does.  Therefore, you can't blame God for the imperfections in the church or accuse him of making a church that he intended to fail.  That falls upon the shoulders of man.  

Ah, that make sense.

12 minutes ago, Grunt said:

One of you could likely provide a better example, as I rarely know what I'm talking about.  However, God told Noah to build an ark and gave him the directions.  If the ark had come about imperfect, would that be the fault of God or Noah?

As long as Noah keeps listening to God, the ark comes out within functional parameters. The minute Noah quits listening to God, he's on his own and if he keeps his ears shut, will inevitably sink.

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, fatima said:

You (LDS) believe that God would not create something He knew would fail, yes?

No. On the contrary: If you believe that God is omniscient, and that to be omniscient means that all things past, present, and future lie before you to open view (or, equivalently, that the omniscient knows exactly what will happen in the future), then it is axiomatic that as long as God-created things fail, God does indeed "create something He knew would fail".

4 hours ago, fatima said:

He would not create a creature only to see that creature fall to Hell, yes?

This is actually a very simple logical progression.

  1. Is there an omniscient God who created all things?
  2. Does any of his creature fall to Hell?
  3. Is it inevitable that God creates a being that falls to Hell?

Using the logical AND: 3 = 1 AND 2

4 hours ago, fatima said:

If that is correct,

Then it would be illogical.

4 hours ago, fatima said:

why is it not equally illogical that God would establish a church that He knew would fail?

???

Fatima, your words have already proven that God does create beings who fall to Hell. If God creates such beings, and if God established a church, then it makes perfect sense that that church might, too, fall to Hell.

4 hours ago, fatima said:

It is the LDS position that Jesus Christ did establish the True Church, but that sinful men went so far off the reservation that the church fell into irretrievable error?

Effectively, yes. God will force no man to heaven. He has given to man many gifts that man has corrupted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, fatima said:

It is my understanding that the LDS position is that God did not give us the gift of free will, because we already had it in our intelligences, correct?  And those existed before God made (not created) us, correct?

It appears others have answered the questions; however, I will provide mine own thoughts as well. This understanding would be incorrect. Without God we do not have "moral agency", our ability to act or to be acted upon. This link provides a brief introduction to "moral agency," but describes it well enough: https://www.lds.org/topics/agency?lang=eng. The opening statement, "Agency is the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves." (emphasis added in relation to question)

9 hours ago, fatima said:

So the discussion I think we are having is this: LDS are saying God would not create us with free will, knowing that some of those created beings of His would end up in Hell.

I have never heard any LDS, nor authoritative LDS statements, confirm this statement. This understanding would also be incorrect in light of the given link, and this portion of a paragraph from it, "The Lord has said that all people are responsible for their own motives, attitudes, desires, and actions. Even though we are free to choose our course of action, we are not free to choose the consequences of our actions." (emphasis added in relation to statement)

The gospel of Jesus Christ explains and instructs that God did give us our moral agency, and that God knew many of his children would not reach it back to Him. In any degree that we do not become like Him, this can be described as "Hell", or the feeling of the damned (those without eternal progression or eternal lives).

My follow up question, where did you read or hear about LDS saying God did not provide us with these things?

9 hours ago, fatima said:

The truth is I'm not sure if we are having an 'ex nihilo' discussion or a free will discussion, or a Divine Foreknowledge discussion.  I'm considering the latter two as I post.

As I was chatting about this with my Catholic priest son, he pointed out a couple of things, which I'm not sure I have the language skill to get across here, but I'm going to try. As to free will and divine foreknowlege: someone asked why God would create us knowing we would sin?  My son pointed out that God is outside of time, and that what is the future to us is always present to God.  He knows what will happen, but He only knows what will happen because there is something to know.  Meaning, it is only after we are created that there is something to know, and God doesn't deal in 'hypothetical' situations, e.g. if I create this person, what if he/she sins.  More to follow...

The discussion appears to be centered around "Divine Foreknowledge" and some incorrect understanding regarding the gospel of Jesus Christ's doctrine as it applies to "moral agency" and "God's foreknowledge" that not all would return to him. This isn't disputed in any LDS realm, forum, or ward I have ever attended. My wonder is whether or not you are being fed misinformation from break offs, possibly apostate, members who have there own personal view on every doctrine in the gospel of Jesus Christ (meaning, even when they prophet says something they respond with, "That is great and all, but I have my own revelation and God is telling me something different").

We believe all things are "present" before God. His omniscience doesn't interfere with our moral agency, he simply knows it, thus a Savior was provided allowing all who would choose to have "eternal life" can (2 Nephi 2: 27-28).

In order to move a conversation forward we at least need to begin with a correct understanding of the doctrine and beliefs, even if we do not agree with them. Thank you for clarifying your understanding, and hopefully I have clarified some misunderstandings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2017 at 8:14 PM, mrmarklin said:

This is something that we LDS must take completely on faith, in that Joseph Smith was told that all the extant churches of the time were false in his first vision.

In fact, the Catholic Church can make a very compelling case for being the true way.  Every Catholic Church I've ever been in has a timeline of every Pope starting with Peter.  Of course, Catholics believe that Peter held and passed on his keys. Every statue or portrait I've ever seen of Peter in a Catholic setting, shows him holding keys. This is a very Catholic belief.

There is a church in Rome that has a portrait of every Pope from Peter lining the wall just below the ceiling. The scary thing is that there are only four or five more places left to place portraits!

I completely disagree with this.  Simply compare every other "Christian" church's doctrine or what it believes with what is taught in the Bible.  All those who claim we are saved only by grace are wrong, since the Bible teaches otherwise.  Then the very few that teach that works are the only way are wrong.  Then look at their foundation.  Are they built on the foundation of apostles and prophets?  If not, they are wrong.  How many churches believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever?  If they claim to do so, do they believe in continuing revelation?  All that do not are wrong because if God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, then there must be continuing revelation since this is the pattern God set from the very beginning. 

As for the Catholic Church, here is a quote from its website: " ...The Church cannot change its doctrines no matter how badly some theologians may want it to or how loudly they claim it can."  The Catholic Church has changed its doctrine several times beginning with the Counsel of Nice.  How about infant baptism and pouring water over the head for baptism instead of immersion?  How about the sale of indulgences or the Inquisition?  None of these things were ever in the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/26/2017 at 5:02 AM, fatima said:

It is my understanding that the LDS position is that God did not give us the gift of free will, because we already had it in our intelligences, correct?  And those existed before God made (not created) us, correct?

Catholic's and LDS mean different things when saying "free will", or what LDS call "Free Agency".

Catholic teaching=God created man as rational beings, with ability to reason. Our reasoning is our freedom, not different scenarios of choices. Our freedom comes from freely choosing Good. The more we choose Good the more we are exercising our Freedom. We don't need view having more scenarios of "choice", as being more free. All choices away from Good we view as an abuse of the free will that God has gifted us, not a valid exercise of it. Any choice that takes us from God's will, is self-enslavement to sin, the opposite of freedom.

LDS teaching is that the ability to make a choice is inherent in the type of being that man is. This is where you are seeing that LDS teaching is that God did not gift us with free will. To a Catholic, this is true.

For LDS, they believe in Intelligences that existed co-eternally with God, that were able make a choices and reason, because it is an eternal law of the universe. Laws to which God (in LDS teaching) is subject to. Free Agency is different than God's gift of creating us rationally, with the ability to reason. The LDS teaching being that pre-existing spirits did not have full freedom because they didn't have all the choices. God then gifted them with an earthly life where they have the choices they need in order to progress towards godhood. More scenarios of choice=more freedom.

I'm sure an LDS member can clarify anything I messed up, but I think I got the major points and a valid comparison.

Edited by Blueskye2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Blueskye2 said:

I'm sure an LDS member can clarify anything I messed up, but I think I got the major gist and a valid comparison.

Clarifying---

LDS also believe that God gifted us with ability to make choices. He never restricts our choices, however we restrict our own choices when we choose poorly and imprison ourselves in sin.  True freedom comes from freely choosing Good. The more we choose Good the more we are exercising our Freedom.

Just now, Blueskye2 said:

 because it is an eternal law of the universe, separate from God.

If you're trying to say that LDS believe don't believe agency is a gift from God, that is completely false.  See Moses 7:32. for example.

Just now, Blueskye2 said:

 Free Agency is different than choice making, in LDS teaching. 

Correction: free agency is defined as the ability to make choices. 

Just now, Blueskye2 said:

 The teaching being that pre-existing spirits did not have full freedom because they didn't have all the choices.

Huh?  I don't know where you got this idea.

Just now, Blueskye2 said:

God then gifted them with an earthly life where they have the choices they need in order to progress towards godhood.

God gave us the opportunity to grow in happiness/grace/become more like Him, but I don't see how this follows from your previous sentences.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Clarifying---

LDS also believe that God gifted us with ability to make choices. He never restricts our choices, however we restrict our own choices when we choose poorly and imprison ourselves in sin.  True freedom comes from freely choosing Good. The more we choose Good the more we are exercising our Freedom.

If you're trying to say that LDS believe don't believe agency is a gift from God, that is completely false.  See Moses 7:32. for example.

Correction: free agency is defined as the ability to make choices. 

Huh?  I don't know where you got this idea.

God gave us the opportunity to grow in happiness/grace/become more like Him, but I don't see how this follows from your previous sentences.  

From what I'm reading at LDS.org, the teaching is intelligences always have the ability to make choices.

Quote

 

In reviewing this topic, I would like to begin at the beginning, but so far as I can tell there never was a beginning so far as the exercising of free agency is concerned. According to the Prophet Joseph Smith, our minds or intelligences—those parts of our being with which we think and make choices and determine actions—have always existed. Concerning this the Prophet said:

“The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself. …

“The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. … There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [that is, co-eternal] with our Father in heaven. …

“Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, comp. Joseph Fielding Smith, Deseret Book Co., 1938, pp. 353–54.)

Thus the capacity of choice, which is a most essential element in free agency, has evidently always been part of our being.

 

 

 

The ability to make a choice is an element of free agency, but not free agency itself. 

What God gifted was the ability to makes choices that were not possible to make in the preexistence.

Quote

Our spirit bodies were capable of tremendous accomplishments, but they also had some serious limitations. There were some laws that they could not obey, and therefore there were some blessings not available to them. Thus, our Heavenly Father called us into a grand council in heaven where he proposed a plan that would give us further opportunities of growth and development by giving us further opportunities of choice. There the importance of moral free agency and its four necessary and essential conditions were explained to us: first, we must have the opportunity of choice—that is, the operation of law; second, there must be the possibility of the existence of opposites—good and evil, virtue and vice; these two make possible the third, the freedom of choice—that is, free agency; then finally, a knowledge of the law and its consequences.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Blueskye2 said:

From what I'm reading at LDS.org, the teaching is intelligences always have the ability to make choices.

 

 

The ability to make a choice is an element of free agency, but not free agency itself. 

What God gifted was the ability to makes choices that were not possible to make in the preexistence.

 

 

Did you read the verses I linked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share