There is no free will in Mormonism

[_Infymus]

Agency in Mormonism is like elections in the old USSR. You have the ability to choose, but there is only one correct choice.

You absolutely nailed it. In Mormonism, there is only one choice. If you choose wrong, you go to jail. If you choose right, you become a God.

I want choice number three. I want neither.

Wait, there is no choice number three in Mormonism, right? Right.

No wonder there was a war in heaven. The Mormon God needed to be taken down and taken down hard.

[_harmony]

Infymus's entire tirade is against a strawman, a cultural phenomena, the smoke and mirrors of decades of human leadership that long ago lost the ability to communicate with God.

Please define how my argument is against a "straw man". My argument is against the Mormon "Plan Of Salvation(tm)" that Mormonism teaches to new converts. It has nothing to do with religion outside of Mormonism.

WIKI: A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

So tell me, Harmony, how is my argument against the POS(tm) a "straw man" argument?

Show me, oh please, the error of my ways, but please do so logically, rather than the Mormon, "the sensations under my nipples tells me so" way.

I think you intentionally misrepresent the Mormon church at every opportunity, Infymus. You distort basic LDS doctrine as much as any apologist distorts anti-Mormon arguments. Where you see coersion, others without your agenda see willingness. Where you see force, others without your agenda see eagerness to change. Where you see Stockholm syndrome, others without your agenda see sincere conversion and embracing of a set of beliefs you no longer hold as true. You are as agenda-driven as any Mormon, with less to offer and more to reject. You present a caricature that is no more accurate than the one the church presents. Your distortions and exaggerations do your argument no favors. You simply become a shadow of what you could be, were your arguments a bit closer to reality.

For example, your distortion of "every knee shall bow and every mouth confess that Jesus is the Christ" is misunderstood as coersion. If indeed that passage is accurate, then even your knee will bow and your mouth confess that Jesus is indeed the Christ, because to do otherwise would be unthinkable, as if you would insist that your name for yourself is not Infymus. Coersion would not be necessary, because the truth would be prima facie. If the passage is not accurate, then confession will be unnecessary, since again, the truth will be prima facie. Joseph may be right or Joseph may be wrong, but either way, you will not have any influence there.

I reject much of what passes for Mormon doctrine these days, yet to the eternal angst of our more orthodox posters, my temple recommend is current. Anyone like me can see your distortions and knows you are fighting against an invention of your own mind, your own private strawman. I have no desire to show you the error of your ways. I see no benefit in doing so. The cost far outweighs the benefit, from my perspective. What you preach is useful only when understood within your own personal worldview.

[_Infymus]

For example, your distortion of "every knee shall bow and every mouth confess that Jesus is the Christ" is misunderstood as coersion. If indeed that passage is accurate, then even your knee will bow and your mouth confess that Jesus is indeed the Christ, because to do otherwise would be unthinkable, as if you would insist that your name for yourself is not Infymus. Coersion would not be necessary, because the truth would be prima facie. If the passage is not accurate, then confession will be unnecessary, since again, the truth will be prima facie.

Oh my God. You cannot see the forest through the trees can you Harmony.

I will not bow to your Mormon God.

I will do the unthinkable.

I will NOT obey, I will not bow, I will tell your God to go and F* himself before I bow before him.

And guess what? According to your Gods rules, I get to go to a prison set aside for me, right?

See this is where you just don't get it. It isn't about the truth being "prima facie". It's about free agency. It's about freedom. The freedom to CHOOSE NOT TO BOW. To choose NOT to follow the Mormon Jesus. And in that choice, not being subject to the Mormon Jesus' rules and regulations. Do NOT put me in a kingdom that the Mormon Jesus created. Do NOT subject me to the Mormon Jesus' punishments. I want out - completely - show me the goddamn door.

What you preach is useful only when understood within your own personal worldview.

Then show me what I have written is wrong. Take it a part piece by piece at tell me what is wrong with it. Show me rather than just tell me my argument is wrong.

Tell me Harmony how anything other than having more than two wives, being sealed in the temple, paying tithing for the rest of my life - is nothing short than a prison sentance.

Show me how the lower two kingdoms of Mormonism are not prisons.

Quit being so goddamn verbose and get to the hard-core Mormon doctrine because the way you are writing it, you want me to put the same rose colored glasses on that you're wearing so I can't see the forest through the trees. I'm not buying it.

Show me in Mormon Doctrine terms how my version of the POS(tm) is incorrect.

Joseph may be right or Joseph may be wrong, but either way, you will not have any influence there.

You can write this and yet you cannot accept what I have written. Basically you are stating exactly what I said. Regardless of what I think, I have no influence, I cannot change it, I cannot get out of it. There is no third door. There is no escape. Either accept it, or die a spiritual death.

Mormons, pathetic.

[_harmony]

For example, your distortion of "every knee shall bow and every mouth confess that Jesus is the Christ" is misunderstood as coersion. If indeed that passage is accurate, then even your knee will bow and your mouth confess that Jesus is indeed the Christ, because to do otherwise would be unthinkable, as if you would insist that your name for yourself is not Infymus. Coersion would not be necessary, because the truth would be prima facie. If the passage is not accurate, then confession will be unnecessary, since again, the truth will be prima facie.

Oh my God. You cannot see the forest through the trees can you Harmony.

I will not bow to your Mormon God.

I will do the unthinkable.

I will NOT obey, I will not bow, I will tell your God to go and F* himself before I bow before him.

And guess what? According to your Gods rules, I get to go to a prison set aside for me, right?

Well, since my God is not anywhere near your concept of God, I doubt either of us will have to worry.

What you preach is useful only when understood within your own personal worldview.

Then show me what I have written is wrong. Take it a part piece by piece at tell me what is wrong with it. Show me rather than just tell me my argument is wrong.

Tell me Harmony how anything other than having more than two wives, being sealed in the temple, paying tithing for the rest of my life - is nothing short than a prison sentance.

Show me how the lower two kingdoms of Mormonism are not prisons.

Quit being so goddamn verbose and get to the hard-core Mormon doctrine because the way you are writing it, you want me to put the same rose colored glasses on that you're wearing so I can't see the forest through the trees. I'm not buying it.

Show me in Mormon Doctrine terms how my version of the POS(tm) is incorrect.

You don't get it, do you, Infymus? I don't care. I don't care if you're a Mormon, an atheist, a Jesuit, or a Buddhist. It makes no difference to me. Your problems with Mormons, Mormon doctrine, what you define as the Mormon God, etc. have no bearing whatsoever on my existence. If I cared about you, I'd correct you. I don't, so I won't. Your worldview is skewed, but I have absolutely no compulsion to set you straight. I have no wish to be the angel that calls you to repentence, ala Alma.

Joseph may be right or Joseph may be wrong, but either way, you will not have any influence there.

You can write this and yet you cannot accept what I have written. Basically you are stating exactly what I said. Regardless of what I think, I have no influence, I cannot change it, I cannot get out of it. There is no third door. There is no escape. Either accept it, or die a spiritual death.

Mormons, pathetic.

That you would see my sentence that way is no mystery. What I meant was, what will be will be, and you kicking against the pricks has no more influence on the outcome than anyone else who ever kicked. What you deem as the "Mormon God" is a figment of your imagination, a strawman, although I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. I see no advantage to me, to disabuse you of your notions. I'm not exactly a great Saint myself, since I see little of my God in either your version of the Mormon God or the official version. I don't see coersion, force, or culpability in the church today, although it is a definite given in its infancy. However much has changed since then.

[Guest]

our worldview is skewed, but I have absolutely no compulsion to set you straight.

This has nothing to do with a world-wide view, this has everything to do with the Mormon View. And since you're a line toting Mormon, it has everything to do with your world.

That you would see my sentence that way is no mystery. What I meant was, what will be will be, and you kicking against the pricks has no more influence on the outcome than anyone else who ever kicked. What you deem as the "Mormon God" is a figment of your imagination, a strawman, although I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. I see no advantage to me, to disabuse you of your notions. I'm not exactly a great Saint myself, since I see little of my God in either your version of the Mormon God or the official version. I don't see coersion, force, or culpability in the church today, although it is a definite given in its infancy. However much has changed since then.

Then Harmony, this is all I need. You're another one of those who cannot explain your position, nor do you wish to debate the doctrine for which you live in. You are just another religious ass who points the fingers at those who question and state, "You are kicking against the pricks". It is so typical of Mormons who will not debate their own religion. When someone of their faith suddenly "falls away" and realizes the whole thing is a sham, suddenly they are the outcast. When they debate the portion of the faith they do not agree with they are either "kicking against the pricks", or they are under the influence of "Satan".

Fine.

Go suck up to your Hinkster and come back when you can open your mind. Come back when you understand what "Straw Man" really means. Until then, you sit and obfuscate and point the finger - a typical closed-minded Mormon bigot.

[_harmony]

our worldview is skewed, but I have absolutely no compulsion to set you straight.

This has nothing to do with a world-wide view, this has everything to do with the Mormon View. And since you're a line toting Mormon, it has everything to do with your world.

ROTFLMAO. Please be sure to tell Daniel your conclusions. He'll no doubt immediately start doubting your sanity. Wow, what a great laugh.

That you would see my sentence that way is no mystery. What I meant was, what will be will be, and you kicking against the pricks has no more influence on the outcome than anyone else who ever kicked. What you deem as the "Mormon God" is a figment of your imagination, a strawman, although I can see how you'd come to that conclusion. I see no advantage to me, to disabuse you of your notions. I'm not exactly a great Saint myself, since I see little of my God in either your version of the Mormon God or the official version. I don't see coersion, force, or culpability in the church today, although it is a definite given in its infancy. However much has changed since then.

Then Harmony, this is all I need. You're another one of those who cannot explain your position, nor do you wish to debate the doctrine for which you live in. You are just another religious ass who points the fingers at those who question and state, "You are kicking against the pricks".

Fine.

Go suck up to your Hinkster and come back when you can open your mind. Come back when you understand what "Straw Man" really means. Until then, you sit and obfuscate and point the finger - a typical closed-minded Mormon bigot.

It should not be construed (as you have done) that just because I don't explain my position to mean that I can't. It simply means I don't care to waste the time explaining it to you. You fly in here once in a while, drop your version of reality like so much manure, complain about someone else's closed mind (someone you haven't had enough interaction with to have any idea of the state of their mind), and expect us all to jump on your bandwagon and cheer. Not gonna happen. No one died and made your worldview the only acceptable worldview. Get over yourself.

If I'm your typical Mormon bigot, you haven't seen many Mormon bigots. *LOL*

Just because I don't care to waste my time with the likes of you and your totally skewed worldview doesn't mean I'm a Mormon sheep, Infymus. It suits you think that, though. Carry on.

[_Infymus]

ROTFLMAO. Please be sure to tell Daniel your conclusions. He'll no doubt immediately start doubting your sanity. Wow, what a great laugh.

I couldn't give a rats ass what DCP thinks, and he knows it.

It should not be construed (as you have done) that just because I don't explain my position to mean that I can't. It simply means I don't care to waste the time explaining it to you.

Because obviously you can't. You want to come in here and strike at my position, but explain no position of your own. You don't want to even go into what the POS(tm) is all about. All you're interested in is attacking my position with your claims of a "straw man" and "world view" positions. You have added nothing of value.

Do you even understand what a straw man is? You keep throwing it about but you don't give any examples in what I originally wrote about the POS(tm).

You fly in here once in a while, drop your version of reality like so much manure, complain about someone else's closed mind (someone you haven't had enough interaction with to have any idea of the state of their mind), and expect us all to jump on your bandwagon and cheer. Not gonna happen.

I have been here since this forum started and long before this version of the forum started. I read this daily, culled from it for almost three years for the Mormon Curtain. Just because I don't post regularly (as I have my own forums to take care of) doesn't mean I don't know who the regular posters are and what their positions are.

No one died and made your worldview the only acceptable world view. Get over yourself.

Here we go again with your so called "world view". This has nothing to do with a world view. Hello? Knock knock, anybody in that hollow head of yours Harmony? This is about Mormonism and the POS(tm), not what the REAL world thinks. Want to know what the real world thinks? Very little of Mormonism.

Just because I don't care to waste my time with the likes of you and your totally skewed worldview doesn't mean I'm a Mormon sheep, Infymus. It suits you think that, though. Carry on.

You started this by responding to this. If you can't back up your words and provide source and real opinion, than it is just YOU who are dropping in here with your form of horse s***.

You see Harmony, you can't show me that the POS(tm) is anything more than a compulsive plan to either make men into Gods or put them into prisons. Because you can't agree with that principal nor can you see beyond it, you then have to use the typical religious b***s*** speak of "kicking against the pricks", or be just like DCP and write a lot of verbostic nonsense to lift your nose up to those who you think can't understand your spiritual level of understanding.

How about coming back with something actually useful, eh?

[_rcrocket]

"Free will" and whether it exists was long debated by theologians centuries and eons before Joseph Smith. He offered nothing really new, but he certainly seemed to understand the issues very well.

Justin Martyr taught: "In the beginning, He made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right so that all men are without excuse before God." 1 ANF 172.

Justin further taught: "[I]f they chose the things acceptable to Him, He would keep them free from death and from punishment. However, if they did evil, He would punish each as He sees fit." 1 ANF 243.

Thus, essential Christian thought in the second century was that man had free will, but if he chose wrong, he was going to suffer for it. I assume that you condemn all of Christianity, as a result.

rcrocket

[_Infymus]

"Free will" and whether it exists was long debated by theologians centuries and eons before Joseph Smith. He offered nothing really new, but he certainly seemed to understand the issues very well.

Justin Martyr taught: "In the beginning, He made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right so that all men are without excuse before God." 1 ANF 172.

Justin further taught: "[I]f they chose the things acceptable to Him, He would keep them free from death and from punishment. However, if they did evil, He would punish each as He sees fit." 1 ANF 243.

Thus, essential Christian thought in the second century was that man had free will, but if he chose wrong, he was going to suffer for it. I assume that you condemn all of Christianity, as a result.

rcrocket

Right, and I agree rcrocket. However, this debate here centers around the Mormon view of Free Agency, which in all regards, encompasses the POS(TM).

We could, if wanted, branch into general Christianity, but I'd rather not. But even so, as you point out above by said quote, even that shows there is no agency within. Either choose right, or be punished.

[_harmony]

"Free will" and whether it exists was long debated by theologians centuries and eons before Joseph Smith. He offered nothing really new, but he certainly seemed to understand the issues very well.

Justin Martyr taught: "In the beginning, He made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and doing right so that all men are without excuse before God." 1 ANF 172.

Justin further taught: "[I]f they chose the things acceptable to Him, He would keep them free from death and from punishment. However, if they did evil, He would punish each as He sees fit." 1 ANF 243.

Thus, essential Christian thought in the second century was that man had free will, but if he chose wrong, he was going to suffer for it. I assume that you condemn all of Christianity, as a result.

rcrocket

Right, and I agree rcrocket. However, this debate here centers around the Mormon view of Free Agency, which in all regards, encompasses the POS(TM).

We could, if wanted, branch into general Christianity, but I'd rather not. But even so, as you point out above by said quote, even that shows there is no agency within. Either choose right, or be punished.

Perhaps it would be more accurately stated as: choose, and accept the consequences of your choice.

You, of course, prefer to have no consequences. If you receive prison, it will be because of your choice. If you receive exaltation, it will be because of your choice. No one will force you to choose one over the other.