Can there be free will while God knows all things?


kstevens67
 Share

Recommended Posts

@Mike and @Rob Osborn

I am of a slightly different stripe and thought.  As near as I can determine there is nothing in this life that can occur that will impact eternity without cavoite and that cavoite is that it can be repented of and erased.  Concerning mortality and quoting the infamous Secretary of State Clinton, “What difference does it make?”

When we repent, it is like it never happened.  This means that the choice of sin was not a cognitive exercise of agency but rather, the act of repentance (or not) is the exercise of agency and freewill.  Why would I believe this?  Because of the reasons, we repent or refuse to repent.  In the parable of the Prodigal Son, Jesus says that he (the Prodigal Son) came to his senses.  Another term often used in scripture is “awake” which means to discover or realize something not previously considered.  To take into account your real or actual intent which is your agency and freewill.   In essence, take control, responsibility and exercise agency and freewill.

The critical point is that we become aware – we wake up and repent or do not repent.  When do we become aware, wake up? – it is then that we exercise freewill and agency.  When is it that we become aware, wake up and make the choice to repent or not?  I have personally sought this and the answer that I have come to believe is – not in this mortal life.  The answer is when we stand before G-d at what is called the final judgement.   Everything else is just the preparation, the process of learning and experience so that we can choose.   For now we are in the process and as we make choices based in faith we will one day finalize our process and complete our mission to what we have always intended and prepared for - but the time cannot be completed now.    I believe both we and G-d have known for a very long time where we are headed – I believe we started the journey to get to where we wanted to go long before we were born.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Traveler said:

@Mike and @Rob Osborn

I am of a slightly different stripe and thought.  As near as I can determine there is nothing in this life that can occur that will impact eternity without cavoite and that cavoite is that it can be repented of and erased.  Concerning mortality and quoting the infamous Secretary of State Clinton, “What difference does it make?”

"What difference does it make" can be applied in some examples, but not in most examples. Most of the time our choices do make a difference--sometimes a tiny difference and other times a huge difference. My own stripe and thought causes me to think of life as something like playing chess where every move potentially opens the metaphorical door to more choices, or conversely closes the door forever to some other choices. 

Quote

When we repent, it is like it never happened. 

Well not exactly. When we repent *we* change, but the "it" still happened and often the results of the "it" are there to stay for the duration of our lifetimes. 

Quote

For now we are in the process and as we make choices based in faith we will one day finalize our process and complete our mission to what we have always intended and prepared for - but the time cannot be completed now.    I believe both we and G-d have known for a very long time where we are headed – I believe we started the journey to get to where we wanted to go long before we were born.

I believe this, too, but perhaps to a different extent. I can't say whether or what God knows--but I still believe God is omniscient. If I knew at some time past, I certainly don't know now and to invoke again the phrase "what difference does it make" I would answer that it makes all the difference. Yes, we started the journey long ago but if I accurately understand the meaning of what you've written as you want me to, then I'm not sure I can agree whole heartedly that my choices here don't have some kind of significant impact on my journey. Yes, I believe in repentance and my ability to change. Yes, I believe that my sins although they are like crimson can be made white. And yes I believe that my choices made in faith are everything good that you say they are. ...but:

Quote

The critical point is that we become aware – we wake up and repent or do not repent.  When do we become aware, wake up? – it is then that we exercise freewill and agency.  When is it that we become aware, wake up and make the choice to repent or not?  I have personally sought this and the answer that I have come to believe is – not in this mortal life.  The answer is when we stand before G-d at what is called the final judgement.   Everything else is just the preparation, the process of learning and experience so that we can choose. 

If you are right, and that repentance can be accomplished beyond this mortal life then wonderful. But since I don't know, I think I would be better off acting as though it can't.  I think I should keep playing the "game" and striving to enlarge my opportunities for free-will choices. :)

 

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike said:

"What difference does it make" can be applied in some examples, but not in most examples. Most of the time our choices do make a difference--sometimes a tiny difference and other times a huge difference. My own stripe and thought causes me to think of life as something like playing chess where every move potentially opens the metaphorical door to more choices, or conversely closes the door forever to some other choices. 

Well not exactly. When we repent *we* change, but the "it" still happened and often the results of the "it" are there to stay for the duration of our lifetimes. 

I believe this, too, but perhaps to a different extent. I can't say whether or what God knows--but I still believe God is omniscient. If I knew at some time past, I certainly don't know now and to invoke again the phrase "what difference does it make" I would answer that it makes all the difference. Yes, we started the journey long ago but if I accurately understand the meaning of what you've written as you want me to, then I'm not sure I can agree whole heartedly that my choices here don't have some kind of significant impact on my journey. Yes, I believe in repentance and my ability to change. Yes, I believe that my sins although they are like crimson can be made white. And yes I believe that my choices made in faith are everything good that you say they are. ...but:

If you are right, and that repentance can be accomplished beyond this mortal life then wonderful. But since I don't know, I think I would be better off acting as though it can't.  I think I should keep playing the "game" and striving to enlarge my opportunities for free-will choices. :)

 

 

Let me symbolize the journey.  Our universe is roughly 12 to 15 billion years old.  If we were around for creation and since we are eternal beings; being around would be a given.  This means we have been around doing stuff for a very long time.  If we use the analogy of one foot equal to 1,000 years, then our journey of exaltation and eternal life up to now would be like (comparable) a journey from Salt Lake City Utah to Los Angeles California.   The mortal part of this journey would be about the last 1 ½ inches.  In short – I do not believe the purpose of mortality is to determine where we will end up for eternity.  No one changes where they are going in the last 1 ½ inch of a 700-mile journey.  They will end up where they are going.  The only other possibility is to determine to go somewhere else.  But if their option is a max distance of 1 ½ inch – they are not going to get to anywhere else.

If an individual takes one breath and dies – their mortal purpose has been fulfilled and they will have no advantage over anyone else in eternity.  Everyone is guaranteed the same exact chance because G-d is no respecter of persons.  If this is true – how can it be said that mortal life is a difference maker?

No one can judge any mortal life, including their own, and say it is a failure or success – complete or incomplete – at least not from our mortal perspective.  We are here to gain a physical body and to gain the knowledge of good and evil.  Death is the knowledge of evil and the atonement is the knowledge of good.  There is nothing else in mortality beyond these gaining a body and the knowledge of good and evil that is of any importance. If there is anything else – I would sure like to know what it is and why it is important and how those souls that die following a single breath are not excluded from what is important.

One last point about repentance.  If you have figured out you are doing something wrong – yes we should repent and the sooner the better.  But my point is – that if you do not want to repent and be rid of the sin forever, there is no reason to do so.  It really would not matter if you did – you will not change a thing.  As my father told me once as a youth – “You have not changed anything until you have changed.”

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

Let me symbolize the journey.  Our universe is roughly 12 to 15 billion years old.  If we were around for creation and since we are eternal beings; being around would be a given.  This means we have been around doing stuff for a very long time.  If we use the analogy of one foot equal to 1,000 years, then our journey of exaltation and eternal life up to now would be like (comparable) a journey from Salt Lake City Utah to Los Angeles California.   The mortal part of this journey would be about the last 1 ½ inches.  In short – I do not believe the purpose of mortality is to determine where we will end up for eternity.  No one changes where they are going in the last 1 ½ inch of a 700-mile journey.  They will end up where they are going.  The only other possibility is to determine to go somewhere else.  But if their option is a max distance of 1 ½ inch – they are not going to get to anywhere else.

If an individual takes one breath and dies – their mortal purpose has been fulfilled and they will have no advantage over anyone else in eternity.  Everyone is guaranteed the same exact chance because G-d is no respecter of persons.  If this is true – how can it be said that mortal life is a difference maker?

No one can judge any mortal life, including their own, and say it is a failure or success – complete or incomplete – at least not from our mortal perspective.  We are here to gain a physical body and to gain the knowledge of good and evil.  Death is the knowledge of evil and the atonement is the knowledge of good.  There is nothing else in mortality beyond these gaining a body and the knowledge of good and evil that is of any importance. If there is anything else – I would sure like to know what it is and why it is important and how those souls that die following a single breath are not excluded from what is important.

One last point about repentance.  If you have figured out you are doing something wrong – yes we should repent and the sooner the better.  But my point is – that if you do not want to repent and be rid of the sin forever, there is no reason to do so.  It really would not matter if you did – you will not change a thing.  As my father told me once as a youth – “You have not changed anything until you have changed.”

 

The Traveler

I also agree that the very short time we spend here in mortality is not the "big test" that seals up our eternity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a vital element in regards to our mortal existence, and that it is exactly as the scriptures say.  This is where we choose between good and evil.  It is a time to prepare to meet our Lord.

Yes, I think the Lord and we have a great deal that was decided in the pre-existence, but as a Mormon, I also believe it was fore-ordination, rather the pre-destination that lies upon us in this life.

In the pre-existence we had a choice between good and evil (or the Lord and the fallen) and chose to follow the Lord.  There we had full knowledge of who we were and who the Lord was.

However, the ultimate prize in this life is MUCH greater than that.  We are offered everything our father has.  We will have the power he does.  How does one tell if someone will ultimately abuse that power or turn evil (as many of our brothers and sisters did in the War in Heaven).

I would say this is the perfect test for it.  The best way to see how one will act is how they will be if they are completely themselves.  They do not have that former knowledge to guide them, thus their true self should become apparent in this life.  Hence, one that is more likely to do good, will do good, and one more likely to do evil, will do evil.  Only those that show that they are inherently good by nature, and to be trusted to wield the great power and responsibility will be entrusted with it.

That's what I think our great test here is.  It isn't over knowledge, but what we are truly like in the depths of our beings.  Will we choose to do the right when we have no memory of it, or will our nature make us enemies of the Lord?  We may have been able to give ourselves some hand up in the process (for example, we may be members of the church today which is a great advantage, but as we see from many who were born in the church and have fallen away it is no guarantee), but in the end, it is how we will act that will determine what we will obtain in the next life.

For the most part, what we do may have been decided by us already in the pre-existence, but I still think we are able to make a choice between good and evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

Let me symbolize the journey.  Our universe is roughly 12 to 15 billion years old.  If we were around for creation and since we are eternal beings; being around would be a given.  This means we have been around doing stuff for a very long time.  If we use the analogy of one foot equal to 1,000 years, then our journey of exaltation and eternal life up to now would be like (comparable) a journey from Salt Lake City Utah to Los Angeles California.   The mortal part of this journey would be about the last 1 ½ inches.  In short – I do not believe the purpose of mortality is to determine where we will end up for eternity.  No one changes where they are going in the last 1 ½ inch of a 700-mile journey.  They will end up where they are going.  The only other possibility is to determine to go somewhere else.  But if their option is a max distance of 1 ½ inch – they are not going to get to anywhere else.

If an individual takes one breath and dies – their mortal purpose has been fulfilled and they will have no advantage over anyone else in eternity.  Everyone is guaranteed the same exact chance because G-d is no respecter of persons.  If this is true – how can it be said that mortal life is a difference maker?

No one can judge any mortal life, including their own, and say it is a failure or success – complete or incomplete – at least not from our mortal perspective.  We are here to gain a physical body and to gain the knowledge of good and evil.  Death is the knowledge of evil and the atonement is the knowledge of good.  There is nothing else in mortality beyond these gaining a body and the knowledge of good and evil that is of any importance. If there is anything else – I would sure like to know what it is and why it is important and how those souls that die following a single breath are not excluded from what is important.

One last point about repentance.  If you have figured out you are doing something wrong – yes we should repent and the sooner the better.  But my point is – that if you do not want to repent and be rid of the sin forever, there is no reason to do so.  It really would not matter if you did – you will not change a thing.  As my father told me once as a youth – “You have not changed anything until you have changed.”

 

The Traveler

OK, I'm going to believe that I misconstrued some of what you said earlier. I do agree with you with regard to a human lifetime being such a relatively infinitesimally small span in eternity. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

If an individual takes one breath and dies – their mortal purpose has been fulfilled and they will have no advantage over anyone else in eternity.  Everyone is guaranteed the same exact chance because G-d is no respecter of persons.  If this is true – how can it be said that mortal life is a difference maker?

Just for the sake of conversation. Isn't the doctrine that children who die before the age of 8 go directly to the Celestial Kingdom? That sounds like an advantage to me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike said:

Just for the sake of conversation. Isn't the doctrine that children who die before the age of 8 go directly to the Celestial Kingdom? That sounds like an advantage to me. 

This is a deeper idea of doctrine, so ignore if one wants.

There is a relatively NEW idea in the LDS church that has arisen, particularly one that I'm unsure of where it stems from.  This belief is that children not only go to the Celestial Kingdom, but are saved in the highest degree there of (aka, even though not married in this life, receiving exaltation...and all the rewards thereof).

I have not heard of a source for this, and it's arisen during the past 20-30 years as a Mormon culture thing.

Historically, Joseph  Smith declared that little children were saved in the Celestial Kingdom.

His first mentions of this say that they will sit on thrones, but they do not grow, they will retain the bodies that they had on earth.  This implies that they do not necessarily obtain the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom (though they are inhabitants thereof) and that they do not get married and have eternal prosperity (using the old definition for those of the lower class which normally meant an increase on children, or your prosperity, rather than what it is normally defined as with it being involved with wealth and estates).  They have their thrones and kingdoms, but they lack for eternal projeny.

This changes a little later, and we assume this is due to a vision he had of the eternities.  In this, we find that we may be able to raise those children that die in their youth as they grow to adult bodies, but nowhere does it imply that these children will actually be married.  Once again, it implies that they will enter the celestial kingdom to rule on their thrones, but as with their status with which they obtained here, which is that they will not have children of their own necessarily.

Hence, if we go by the older doctrines rather than the new traditions that have arisen over the past 30 years, yes, children who die go to the Celestial Kingdom.  If this was their choice, then it may be that this is the end of their increase.  They have glory, but not the highest there of, as they choose this route and to not be sealed or married.

It is also possible that those who died of reasons that were not of their choice, (for example, their choice taken from them by being murdered) may have all the opportunities that they were not afforded here, I don't know.

However, the rewards for remaining here and obtaining the opportunities for exaltation (hence, even if not married in the temple, you were married and would have been if given the opportunity) such as eternal marriage and endure to the end, you will obtain eternal life and exaltation as per the promises of our Lord.

Edited by JohnsonJones
clarifications
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

There is a relatively NEW idea in the LDS church that has arisen, particularly one that I'm unsure of where it stems from.  This belief is that children not only go to the Celestial Kingdom, but are saved in the highest degree there of (aka, even though not married in this life, receiving exaltation...and all the rewards thereof).

I have not heard of a source for this, and it's arisen during the past 20-30 years as a Mormon culture thing.

Not so. I was taught this as a child, and I'm 54.

Today, I am unconvinced about the whole idea of a multilevel celestial kingdom. Philosophically, it doesn't make much sense to me, and scripturally, it looks like a blatant misinterpretation. Just my opinion; I'm not looking to make converts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

This changes a little later, and we assume this is due to a vision he had of the eternities.  In this, we find that we may be able to raise those children that die in their youth as they grow to adult bodies, but nowhere does it imply that these children will actually be married.  Once again, it implies that they will enter the celestial kingdom to rule on their thrones, but as with their status with which they obtained here, which is that they will not have children of their own necessarily.

 

I've always been under the impression that to "rule on their thrones" is in a manner like God. Which isn't a sole position, but one in which is done by a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. So how does that come into play with this unique situation? Or am I interpreting things incorrectly? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not so. I was taught this as a child, and I'm 54.

Today, I am unconvinced about the whole idea of a multilevel celestial kingdom. Philosophically, it doesn't make much sense to me, and scripturally, it looks like a blatant misinterpretation. Just my opinion; I'm not looking to make converts.

I'm interested to know what got you to that understanding. For the sake of interest, care to expand? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

Not so. I was taught this as a child, and I'm 54.

Today, I am unconvinced about the whole idea of a multilevel celestial kingdom. Philosophically, it doesn't make much sense to me, and scripturally, it looks like a blatant misinterpretation. Just my opinion; I'm not looking to make converts.

It was taught by the apostle as recently as 1972 with the idea that children go to the celestial kingdom, that parents will be able to raise them, but NOT that those children receive exaltation or are sealed.  That was taught by the Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith.  I suppose 1972 was more than 30 years ago (I guess that would be 45, gosh I'm getting old), but the idea that children will receive exaltation and have celestial marriage is a rather new tradition where I don't see any substantial revelations or doctrine to support it from any of the modern prophets.

In regards to the Multi-Level Celestial Kingdom, it's origin is from Joseph Smith. 

Here is a link and a quote  D&C 131

Quote

1 In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees;

2 And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage];

3 And if he does not, he cannot obtain it.

4 He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

 D&C 131: 1-4

Now, Joseph F. Smith (who also had a revelation about the Spirit World) and Joseph Fielding Smith (though this may simply be a reflection of what his father taught, and we also see evidences of this in regards to Bruce R. Mckonkie though he was an LDS church president) in regards to who may be living in these kingdoms, though this is their personal opinions.

In the lowest are those who are there because the sealing power of the Lord.  Children who may not merit the Celestial Glory, but who are sealed to their parents, may be saved in the Celestial Kingdom.  This does not mean they do not need to repent of their sins in this life or the hereafter, but those that are children to their parents will be sealed up to them as their children beyond death, even if that means they are brought up from the lower kingdoms of glory to participate with their parents in that Glory of the Celestial Kingdom.

In the Middle level are those who receive the Celestial Glory.  They have done as the Lord commands and endured to the end.  They have their kingdoms and powers bestowed upon them, and yet they will serve those who are of a higher glory.  They chose not to be married in this life and hence, are relegated to the second degree of the Celestial glory rather than it's highest, because to obtain the highest man must enter into the patriarchal order. (My opinion are that these have all the power to create, such as organize worlds and create stars, but cannot populate those planets because they have no children to populate those planets with).

The Highest level are those who have received the patriarchal order in this life (those who are married in the temple for all time and eternity and have that blessing sealed upon their heads).  These will have exaltation, and have eternal offspring.  They are to become Fathers and Mothers like our Father is to us, to raise their children in the hereafter and bring to pass their children's salvation as well. (In otherwords, the only separation between this degree and the lower one is that one has children to populate their creation while the other does not, all three degrees live with each other and in that kingdom, but have separate responsibilities and ability in progression).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Forgot to put the link
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

I've always been under the impression that to "rule on their thrones" is in a manner like God. Which isn't a sole position, but one in which is done by a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. So how does that come into play with this unique situation? Or am I interpreting things incorrectly? 

No, it is never clarified completely.  Opinion is that he could have been referring to the third degree of heaven (and there used to be a tradition saying that children that die are automatically saved in the third degree of the celestial kingdom) as from the teachings of Joseph F. Smith and the Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith that those who are born in the covenant will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom unless they refuse to repent and/or are sons of perdition. 

However, in the context of thrones, if we look at the entirety of their teachings, it would imply that though not married, they receive the glory that others who receive their thrones and kingdoms in the Celestial Kingdom (and if you are a faithful LDS saint you may recall that there are promises that you can be such even if you are never married, but as this is something I'm not going to go that much into here on the where's and when of this), but cannot have increase.  Therefore, they will be rulers of heaven, but as they do not have children, they cannot populate their creations.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

I'm interested to know what got you to that understanding. For the sake of interest, care to expand? 

The celestial kingdom is the abode of God and of those who are to live as God lives. It makes no sense to me that such a realm would include those who voluntarily abstain from the very thing that allows eternal life -- that is, marriage.

As far as I can tell, the idea of a tri-level celestial kingdom is based solely on Section 131, verse 1-4:

Quote

In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; and in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage]; and if he does not, he cannot obtain it. He may enter into the other, but that is the end of his kingdom; he cannot have an increase.

Does "the celestial GLORY" mean "the celestial KINGDOM"? I doubt it. This appears to restate what had already been revealed 11 years earlier in Section 76 -- namely, that the kingdoms of glory (aka the heavenly glory, or the celestial glory, since "celestial" is just the Latin form of the word for "heaven") consists of three heavens or degrees. But we as a Church have taken this to mean that the celestial kingdom is itself divided into three levels, something that seems to me to be a misinterpretation of what Section 131 is saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

The celestial kingdom is the abode of God and of those who are to live as God lives. It makes no sense to me that such a realm would include those who voluntarily abstain from the very thing that allows eternal life -- that is, marriage.

As far as I can tell, the idea of a tri-level celestial kingdom is based solely on Section 131, verse 1-4:

Does "the celestial GLORY" mean "the celestial KINGDOM"? I doubt it. This appears to restate what had already been revealed 11 years earlier in Section 76 -- namely, that the kingdoms of glory (aka the heavenly glory, or the celestial glory, since "celestial" is just the Latin form of the word for "heaven") consists of three heavens or degrees. But we as a Church have taken this to mean that the celestial kingdom is itself divided into three levels, something that seems to me to be a misinterpretation of what Section 131 is saying.

Interesting. Thanks for the explanation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

I suppose 1972 was more than 30 years ago (I guess that would be 45, gosh I'm getting old), but the idea that children will receive exaltation and have celestial marriage is a rather new tradition where I don't see any substantial revelations or doctrine to support it from any of the modern prophets.

I have no opinion on the condition of children who die before the age of accountability. I was simply informing you that the idea is not particularly new.

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In regards to the Multi-Level Celestial Kingdom, it's origin is from Joseph Smith.

As I have explained above, I think this is a pretty obvious misinterpretation of Section 131, albeit certainly widely accepted in the Church today. I assume it's not a big deal for us now, and that if it were, the prophet and apostles would set things straight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

The celestial kingdom is the abode of God and of those who are to live as God lives. It makes no sense to me that such a realm would include those who voluntarily abstain from the very thing that allows eternal life -- that is, marriage.

As far as I can tell, the idea of a tri-level celestial kingdom is based solely on Section 131, verse 1-4:

Does "the celestial GLORY" mean "the celestial KINGDOM"? I doubt it. This appears to restate what had already been revealed 11 years earlier in Section 76 -- namely, that the kingdoms of glory (aka the heavenly glory, or the celestial glory, since "celestial" is just the Latin form of the word for "heaven") consists of three heavens or degrees. But we as a Church have taken this to mean that the celestial kingdom is itself divided into three levels, something that seems to me to be a misinterpretation of what Section 131 is saying.

I have heard those that believe this.  However, this delineation is clearly referred to from prophets all the way from Joseph Smith to Joseph Fielding Smith (and I believe Spencer W. Kimball possibly at some points, but not as much in these times). 

As per their teachings, we find out that there are different delineations in the three Kingdoms of Heaven themselves.  In the Telestial we know that there are as many different levels of that kingdom as there are stars in the sky differing in glory.  We know NOTHING of how many different levels the Terrestrial is divided into.  Our main scripture in regards to the Celestial is the revelation above, but there are references to this elsewhere. 

The main take way is that there is NO confusion between the difference between the Celestial and the Terrestrial or the Telestial.  If it were the three degrees of Glory, or three degrees of heaven, it would have referred to them as such instead of the Celestial.  Even in the days of Brigham Young there was a known differentiation between the terms.

There are some that have thought, despite this, that 131 is merely referring to the three degrees of glory instead of dividing the Celestial Kingdom further into 3 degrees within itself.

Overall, though an interesting subject, it is not paramount to our own salvation (as you already noted).  If you ascribe to the teachings of the Latter day prophets, it can be a comfort (specifically for those who lose children), but for our salvation, keeping the commandments and following the Lord and enduring to the end are far more important.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JohnsonJones @BeccaKirstyn @Rob Osbornand others

I agree with @Vort.  The idea of Kingdom is often misinterpreted.  For whatever reason, we tend to transport our understandings of society and privilege from our current mortal experience.  This is most interesting because we do not live in a kingdom but (at least those that are citizens of the USA) live in a social order we call a republic democracy. 

It seems to me that there are two elements necessary to abide the “Celestial Kingdom”.  First – an individual must be resurrected with a Celestial body.  Paul tells us in ancient scripture (I Corinthians chapter 15) that Celestial is a glory of physical flesh and that the body which is Celestial is different from other resurrected bodies.  Paul does not go into specifics – at least not from an empirical sense.

The second element of the Celestial Kingdom is Celestial Law.  We are informed through modern revelation that only those that can abide a Celestial Law will be “Celestial” beings.

Theologically and logically we tend to think these two elements are separable in a manner that they are in essence – “independent”.  I wonder if that is a misunderstanding.  That the two elements may be describing that which is inseparable elements of Celestial beings.  In essence, that one cannot exist without the other.  

There is another consideration – even in the pre-existence the children of G-d were divided into three groups.  We know this because the scriptures tell us that a third part followed Satan.  Many interpret this as a fraction of 1/3.  But the ancients did not understand fractions.  It meant that there were 3 divisions (most likely not of equal amounts of individuals) and one part followed Satan.  Although we do not know the exact percentage, we assume it was less than 50 percent.  In the Book of Abraham, we are told that one group G-d identified as the “elect”.

We learn from the epoch of Noah that his sons symbolically divide mankind into three different peoples.  As we understand scripture, the elect is dispersed among the “Gentiles”.  One purpose of the restoration is to gather the scattered elect out from the Gentiles.  It is somewhat speculation on my part – but I am inclined that the elect that are gathered in the restoration are directly related to the elect that G-d identified in the pre-existence.  I will also admit – that I believe this elect is the elect of the resurrection.  One point of interest, at least for me, is if it is possible that the elect of the pre-existence can end up in the resurrection as something other than Celestial or if someone that was not of the elect in the pre-existence could end up as Celestial.  Mostly in discussion I will take the side that the elect in the pre-existence are the elect of earth and the elect of the resurrection but only because I seldom encounter those willing to consider that possibility – let alone willing to search, ponder and pray about such a possibility.   Since I have not resolved this possibility with all my efforts – I am entirely convinced that those that are not willing to consider this possibility might have found something without searching that has alluded me in my searching.  For the record, I am convinced that there is a relationship of the elect that were in the pre-existence with the elect of mortality and the elect of the resurrection.  If there was not some correlation – there could not be a Christ – especially a one and only Christ anointed by G-d in the pre-existence. 

One thing for sure – The elect is scattered among every nation, kindred, tongue and people of earth and the elect will be gathered as a primary purpose of the “Restoration”.  I believe one of the purposes of the veil is to conceal the elect.  However, I am inclined to believe that the scripture admonition to “awake” is a call to the elect.  This call is in the manner that Jesus made reference that his sheep will hear his voice.  I believe the elect will hear the voice of Christ (be it the actual voice or the voice of his servants) and recognize it and love it.  Those that are not his sheep (not the elect) will either not be impressed and love his voice or they will hate it and oppose it.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies for coming in late.  I hope I'm not repeating anything previously stated.

On 2/25/2013 at 1:42 PM, kstevens67 said:

The non-believers stand-point:

1. The Christian God is omnipotent and omniscient.

2. If God created us knowing everything

3. He knows who will eventually end up in Heaven and who will end up in Hell

4. If the above are true, then we only have the Illusion of free will since we cannot see the future.

5. The God would then not be moral for punishing us for something He knows we will do upon creation.

As far as I know there's no official word on this from the Church.

Personally, I don't find this line of reasoning to be at all compelling.  It suffers from a fatal flaw, namely, that God is bound to time in the same way we are.  Why should we make that assumption?  For all we know, all of time is instantaneous to Him, such that the day of our birth and the day of our death occur simultaneously from the point of view of a Being who, being omnipotent, can exist outside of the constraints of space-time as we know it.  Every act we commit, good or evil, would be simultaneous, such that He knows every one of those decisions, but none of it is "locked in" by His foreknowledge because, for all intents an purposes, He sees it all at once. 

In other words, this bit of reasoning only works if God is limited in time the same way we are.  That, by definition, violates the first premise in that He would thus not be omnipotent.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Apologies for coming in late.  I hope I'm not repeating anything previously stated.

As far as I know there's no official word on this from the Church.

Personally, I don't find this line of reasoning to be at all compelling.  It suffers from a fatal flaw, namely, that God is bound to time in the same way we are.  Why should we make that assumption?  For all we know, all of time is instantaneous to Him, such that the day of our birth and the day of our death occur simultaneously from the point of view of a Being who, being omnipotent, can exist outside of the constraints of space-time as we know it.  Every act we commit, good or evil, would be simultaneous, such that He knows every one of those decisions, but none of it is "locked in" by His foreknowledge because, for all intents an purposes, He sees it all at once. 

In other words, this bit of reasoning only works if God is limited in time the same way we are.  That, by definition, violates the first premise in that He would thus not be omnipotent.

 

One point I think you and many others may be missing is the possibility that our freewill and agency we experience here in mortality and even in the resurrection is directly related and 100% reliant on our expression of freewill and agency in the pre-existence.    One point you make that I think is critical – is our view of time as a factor.  I do not believe our agency nor our freewill is changed with the passing of time.  Perhaps it may be so but I see no doctrine that specifically demands that such is the case.  You may also want to review my post made just before yours.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

One point I think you and many others may be missing is the possibility that our freewill and agency we experience here in mortality and even in the resurrection is directly related and 100% reliant on our expression of freewill and agency in the pre-existence.    One point you make that I think is critical – is our view of time as a factor.  I do not believe our agency nor our freewill is changed with the passing of time.  Perhaps it may be so but I see no doctrine that specifically demands that such is the case.  You may also want to review my post made just before yours.

I think you're right about the pre-existence.  The thing is though, if it applies here it's because the pre-existence, I believe, is also a realm outside of space-time as we know it.  

The non-freewill argument absolutely relies on sequential time.  It says if I was born in 2000 and God is aware that in 2025 I will commit a murder, then I am on an unalterable path that will end in my killing someone at some point in my 25th year.  It's unalterable because God, who is omniscient, already knows that it will happen, and thus there is no way to avoid that event.  (If it were possible, then God would still see the end result, whatever it is, and He's already seen it... I will murder.)

Thus, if my future action is known, and I have no power to change it, then it's impossible for me to avoid it.  If I have no ability to change my future crime, then I have no freewill in any meaningful sense. 

So that logic fails because it inserts God into an arbitrary point in time prior to my committing a murder in 2025.  Since God is not in the timeline, nor would He be limited to any one perspective in time, then from His point of view time is irrelevant.  The order in which the events of my life take place are also irrelevant because to Him, it's a singularity.

Looking at it from the pre-existence, if we too existed outside of time as we know it in mortal life, then we too would see our life as an instantaneous event, but I presume we weren't permitted to see.  Spoilers, you know :P

But then that logic is flawed too, isn't it?  It sets up the idea that the pre-existence happened before mortal time.  Which it did but ONLY from the perspective of mortal time.  It's in our past, in that the pre-existence is a condition that needs to exist at the beginning of our timeline.  In reality though, the pre-existence was back then.  It's also tomorrow.  It's also right now.  "When" is irrelevant.

...  I think I just blew a fuse in mah brain...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, unixknight said:

Apologies for coming in late.  I hope I'm not repeating anything previously stated.

As far as I know there's no official word on this from the Church.

Personally, I don't find this line of reasoning to be at all compelling.  It suffers from a fatal flaw, namely, that God is bound to time in the same way we are.  Why should we make that assumption?  For all we know, all of time is instantaneous to Him, such that the day of our birth and the day of our death occur simultaneously from the point of view of a Being who, being omnipotent, can exist outside of the constraints of space-time as we know it.  Every act we commit, good or evil, would be simultaneous, such that He knows every one of those decisions, but none of it is "locked in" by His foreknowledge because, for all intents an purposes, He sees it all at once. 

In other words, this bit of reasoning only works if God is limited in time the same way we are.  That, by definition, violates the first premise in that He would thus not be omnipotent.

 

All time cant possibly exist simultaneously with God. That idea removes cause and effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, unixknight said:

I think you're right about the pre-existence.  The thing is though, if it applies here it's because the pre-existence, I believe, is also a realm outside of space-time as we know it.  

The non-freewill argument absolutely relies on sequential time.  It says if I was born in 2000 and God is aware that in 2025 I will commit a murder, then I am on an unalterable path that will end in my killing someone at some point in my 25th year.  It's unalterable because God, who is omniscient, already knows that it will happen, and thus there is no way to avoid that event.  (If it were possible, then God would still see the end result, whatever it is, and He's already seen it... I will murder.)

Thus, if my future action is known, and I have no power to change it, then it's impossible for me to avoid it.  If I have no ability to change my future crime, then I have no freewill in any meaningful sense. 

So that logic fails because it inserts God into an arbitrary point in time prior to my committing a murder in 2025.  Since God is not in the timeline, nor would He be limited to any one perspective in time, then from His point of view time is irrelevant.  The order in which the events of my life take place are also irrelevant because to Him, it's a singularity.

Looking at it from the pre-existence, if we too existed outside of time as we know it in mortal life, then we too would see our life as an instantaneous event, but I presume we weren't permitted to see.  Spoilers, you know :P

But then that logic is flawed too, isn't it?  It sets up the idea that the pre-existence happened before mortal time.  Which it did but ONLY from the perspective of mortal time.  It's in our past, in that the pre-existence is a condition that needs to exist at the beginning of our timeline.  In reality though, the pre-existence was back then.  It's also tomorrow.  It's also right now.  "When" is irrelevant.

...  I think I just blew a fuse in mah brain...

 

I think you are catching on – at least in part.  Let me see if I can make an analogy.  In physics, there are two kinds of forces (energy) associated with a particle of mass (for purposes of discussion I am not considering subatomic particles).   These forces of energy are called kinetic energy and potential energy.  When we understand the energy states of a particle we can “determine” what that particle is going to do in every condition that arises in its physical circumstances of this empirical physical universe.  The extent that we understand and apply these principles determines how well we can play the game of billiards.  In short, a complex decision or choice (to win at billiards) is merely a series or sequence of individual simple choices and applications.   A smart billiard player knows what they are capable of accomplishing.  If we had a billiard robot we could program it to calculate each shot with precise accuracy to accomplish exactly what we would choose to do if we were, as an individual, could understand and apply the principles.  We could “calculate” exactly what the robot would do to complete whatever game it was to play.

I believe we had access to truth in the pre-existence.  We knew the parameters of mortal life and were given the agency to design our own mortal experiences.  I think it was very clear to us what we wanted to accomplish and that we had the final say in the “trials” we would face in mortality.  This final say we call agency or the expression of freewill.  That we did all this knowing preciously what experiences and choices would get us to which Kingdom of Glory.  Now, I will pause here to insert that there is a lot more detail to this notion that I am glossing over so this particular post is not a massive volume but just a short outline description of what I believe we were capable of understanding and doing with the eons of time in the pre-existence.   

G-d counseled with us and knew each and every detail of our plan.  He may have even warned some that they were “biting off more than they could chew” or that they could do more – but this is a separate discussion.  The point being that it is both possible and likely that G-d knows the details of our life and that our life has been determined but not by something outside ourselves.  It was all determined by ourselves.  The term used to describe that we live out our life according to our previous determined plan is “fore ordained”.  The term “determined” meaning something over which we do not exercise control or determine by our agency or choice.

How much can we change what we previously chose and were ordained to in the pre-existence?  I honestly do not know of certainty – but I am inclined to think that it is much less (if at all) than many seem to be thinking.  I am open to possibilities – but from the discussion I have seen – I do not believe that anybody understands that we could pre-determine our own lives.   Mostly it seems to me that such things are reduced to dogmatic concepts based on vague terms that are not understood in depth but argued (perhaps in ignorance) because for some reason, many are afraid to make effort to understand or question something that is not spelled out for them.  Sort of the concept – that if something is not spelled out – it is heresy to make any attempt to come to detailed terms with it.

 

Okay - I just read this before I posted it and I think it is a little too critical and harsh towards opinions that may differ from my.  Not my intent.  I do want to put forth the idea that G-d knows our life plan and that we have 100% controle over it - just not that much in this mortal life.  I am very interested in alternate opinions.  Especally explanations of why we may face things in this mortal life we are not expecting or prepared for.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

All time cant possibly exist simultaneously with God. That idea removes cause and effect.

Are you saying there can be no effect for those that lived and died a mortal life prior the the cause of the atonement of Christ?

 

the Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Traveler said:

Are you saying there can be no effect for those that lived and died a mortal life prior the the cause of the atonement of Christ?

 

the Traveler

Not at all. Until the atonement actually happened the prison doors (hell) were not accessed, no resurrections possible, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
  • pam unfeatured this topic

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