DiscussMormonism.com

D&C 93:36 wrote:The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.

This is one of BYU's unofficial mottos, where very secular information is taught.

D&C 93:37 wrote:Light and truth forsake that evil one.

Abraham 3:19 wrote:... These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all.

D&C 88:40 wrote:For intelligence cleaveth unto intelligence; wisdom receiveth wisdom; truth embraceth truth; virtue loveth virtue; light cleaveth unto light; ...

It seems to me that free agency actually requires information. Is someone that does not have all the relevant facts exercising free agency because he or she has to guess at the 'missing pieces'? I don't think that making an informed decision is antithetical in the least to free agency or its exercise. To me, one can know all the pertinent information in order to properly evaluate the consequences of the different options open to him or her, but still have a choice. A choice between which set of consequences the individual prefers. Different individuals knowing all of the information relevant to the issue will decide it differently.

The faith test is not an exercise of free agency. The faith test is simply a guessing game, as we are told it is not the process of choosing the most logical approach to the data we have, but hoping for something that is not seen, for example.

Absence of information is contrary to the glory of god being intelligence. Yet we are told that making a decision on partial knowledge is an exercise of free agency. Free agency does not require any dearth of information relevant to the decision; it merely requires being able to make the decision of one's own choosing. I call faith, by definition, a hastily made, brash decision.

Now as necessary for 'faith', yes, as defined as hoping for something not seen, there is no room for 'faith' if one is fully informed.

But faith, and its prerequisite--a lack of some or even all of the relevant information on the issue--has nothing to do with free agency.

And I am yet to hear an explanation of why an ALL KNOWING (fully informed) being such as god would reward those that make a hasty, brash decision on less than all the pertinent information, so much so that this all knowing being would withhold it. What in the afterlife will require the faith guessing game that is demonstrated by exercising faith in this realm by having guessed right from partial, nay, scant, evidence?

Why, in order to become a god and then have all knowledge, must I be a good guesser and be someone willing to venture a guess of bits and pieces of relevant information? Wouldn't a better test for whether I am worthy to have all knowledge to know what I will do with all knowledge on a particular matter? I.e., whether I will consider it all, giving appropriate weight to each bit of information in the full set of that which is pertinent to the question, before making the decision?

I fail to see how being willing to make a hasty decision on less than all the relevant information somehow proves my eligibility for all knowledge.

Faith is a diversion into a logical cul-de-sac, for which religion depends on many such dead-ends. It does not prove me valiant to anything for the hereafter. It proves only that I am willing to make a hasty, ill-informed decision before I have all the information--a quality that should disqualify me from being entrusted with all knowledge, since by so making the faith decision I've proven I do not, in the decision making process, value the need to first have and then base my decision on all the relevant information. How then does my willingness to make a partially- or nil-informed decision qualify me to be entrusted with all knowledge?

On the 'milk before meat' front, implicit is that the meat will be forthcoming after the milk.

And then, when BKP says to leave it alone, why is it so essential for 21st Century LDS Church to keep TBMs that they be admonished to not learn? to not find out all the relevant information? Why will the 'meat' not be forthcoming? I've wondered how such an admonition serves the credo that 'the glory of god is intelligence'.

I also find that the apologetic model of the Interpreters (those recently disenfranchised at NAMIRS and now have set up their new blog) is one of obfuscation. If they wanted, if they entrusted their readers with all the information, then the apologetic approach would be to answer the substance of criticism, as best there might be any substantive answer. Such approach would have no need for, nor room for, ad hom attacks, sneering and condescension. I've wondered how such diversionary tactics serve the credo that 'the glory of god is intelligence'.

I agree with your sentiment. According to Mormom doctrine one third of the hosts of heaven rebelled against God even when they were certain of his existence. So at least accorrding to Mormonism you don't need doubt or a lack knowledge to have agency.

Stormy Waters wrote:I agree with your sentiment. According to Mormom doctrine one third of the hosts of heaven rebelled against God even when they were certain of his existence. So at least accorrding to Mormonism you don't need doubt or a lack knowledge to have agency.

It also means that, according to Mormonism, Gods plan just wasn't that convincing...

Drifting wrote:

Stormy Waters wrote:I agree with your sentiment. According to Mormom doctrine one third of the hosts of heaven rebelled against God even when they were certain of his existence. So at least accorrding to Mormonism you don't need doubt or a lack knowledge to have agency.

It also means that, according to Mormonism, Gods plan just wasn't that convincing...

The plan of God simply asked more of us than many would embrace. There is always a sacrifice required to move on to the next phase of existence. Refuse the sacrifice and get left behind.

As far as Sox' conundrum you give too little value to HOPE. You value information as king. It is not when sacrifice is the prime factor. Without hope sacrifice is impossible. In the gospel it is not a choice you are making but a sacrifice. You are laying down your life in the HOPE of being brought up by the power and grace of Christ and the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost to make you a new hybrid creature able to have to do with Almighty God on His own terms. How else could we without his boost up as it were. I must zip my lip lest I let cats out of my new bag.

Abraham would never have led Isaac up Mt Moriah without the HOPE that God would change his mind. See?
Hope has the power to override information. This touches upon my new interest in the why of whys. I don't want to let too much light out from under the door just yet.

Nightlion wrote:Abraham would never have led Isaac up Mt Moriah without the HOPE that God would change his mind. See?
Hope has the power to override information. This touches upon my new interest in the why of whys. I don't want to let too much light out from under the door just yet.

And a good parent would have told God to shove it when He first asked them to murder their own child.

Drifting wrote:

Nightlion wrote:Abraham would never have led Isaac up Mt Moriah without the HOPE that God would change his mind. See?
Hope has the power to override information. This touches upon my new interest in the why of whys. I don't want to let too much light out from under the door just yet.

And a good parent would have told God to shove it when He first asked them to murder their own child.

You presume too much thinking that you can speak to God. You cannot. Abraham he knows. But you?
By NOT making the acceptable sacrifice in this world everyone on the planet is telling God the same thing.
Like the 1/3rd in the beginning. You will be left behind and not step up to the next existence where oneness with God and the joy thereof is. Telling God off in this life will be all the more lamentable than those who did so before.

Nightlion wrote:You will be left behind and not step up to the next existence where oneness with God and the joy thereof is.

If He is the God of the Old Testament I don't want to live with Him.

Drifting wrote:

Nightlion wrote:You will be left behind and not step up to the next existence where oneness with God and the joy thereof is.

If He is the God of the Old Testament I don't want to live with Him.

That say you think you know him when in fact you do not. Neither have you paid the least farthing to come to know him. I would say you are guessing without a clue.

Nightlion wrote:As far as Sox' conundrum you give too little value to HOPE. You value information as king. It is not when sacrifice is the prime factor. Without hope sacrifice is impossible. In the gospel it is not a choice you are making but a sacrifice. You are laying down your life in the HOPE of being brought up by the power and grace of Christ and the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost to make you a new hybrid creature able to have to do with Almighty God on His own terms.

Hi, Nightlion!

So, following this line of thought hope of the unknown being necessary to give sacrifice, what didn't Jesus know when he sacrificed himself, i.e. the Crucifixion? For it to be a sacrifice, then there had to be something Jesus did not know. But I've always heard he made that sacrifice fully knowing. Did Jesus being an all-knowing god undermine the sacrificial nature of the Crucifixion?

sock puppet wrote:

Nightlion wrote:As far as Sox' conundrum you give too little value to HOPE. You value information as king. It is not when sacrifice is the prime factor. Without hope sacrifice is impossible. In the gospel it is not a choice you are making but a sacrifice. You are laying down your life in the HOPE of being brought up by the power and grace of Christ and the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost to make you a new hybrid creature able to have to do with Almighty God on His own terms.

Hi, Nightlion!

So, following this line of thought hope of the unknown being necessary to give sacrifice, what didn't Jesus know when he sacrificed himself, i.e. the Crucifixion? For it to be a sacrifice, then there had to be something Jesus did not know. But I've always heard he made that sacrifice fully knowing. Did Jesus being an all-knowing god undermine the sacrificial nature of the Crucifixion?

He could only hope that he would finish without blinking those damn Jews out of existence. Seriously, he did not desire to suffer, and went in by hope, faith and love of his Father, to do his will. Then he noticed that the Father had forsaken him and left him alone, possibly to wonder the big IF met only by hope not knowing why he was forsaken, he did say so. Even knowing that he would lay down his life and take it again as he predicted of himself, still, laying it down is hoping, don't you think? Interesting.

I do not think God is ever without all three, faith, hope and charity. When he creates he watches (hopes) to see that he is obeyed. And what of his fond hopes for us. Always disappointed, always.