Seeing Things Differently -DanP the apologist excuse.

[Fence Sitter]

Contextualizing the pre-existance we are told we were living in the presence of God where the purpose of mortality was to put us in a different context where we needed to be separated from this presence in order to exercise agency. Yet 1/3 of our spiritual siblings failed and became fallen while being able to know for a fact God was God, and were experiencing the full love of God's divine presence.

Why?

Our first candidate is they lacked confidence/ feared they would fail. So where does this lack of self-confidence come from? They are clearly experiencing God's love directly being in his presence, have every reason to believe God wants the best for them. This *thing* that caused them to doubt their own capacity to succeed was powerful enough to risk everything on a chance at...what? So, where is it coming from?

Our second candidate is out of combined emotion and ignorance. They feel they need to intervene against God's plan to protect others. Again, this is in the context of their being in the presence of God and yet feeling as if they have to risk everything on a chance at...what? So, what would make sense as a powerful enough motive for a spiritual child in God's presence to doubt God's plan in this scenario?

Our third candidate is really a variation on the first two at their most fundamental: lack of faith or trust in God even though they are experiencing the presence of God the same as the other 2/3 who opted in to the plan. Where would this come from given they are exercising doubt in a context where they have perfect knowledge of God's existence and love?

The Plan of Salvation never made any sense to me for this very reason. No one fully understanding the consequences of rebelling against God, sides against Him, and what kind of Omniscient God offers 1/3 of his creation the opportunity to make such a decision and its attendant consequences, knowing how they will decide? Of course, this kind of plan makes sense to people who want to claim they control the power of God to seal up eternal blessings or punishments to others.

[MG 2.0]

Contextualizing the pre-existance we are told we were living in the presence of God where the purpose of mortality was to put us in a different context where we needed to be separated from this presence in order to exercise agency. Yet 1/3 of our spiritual siblings failed and became fallen while being able to know for a fact God was God, and were experiencing the full love of God's divine presence.

Why?

Our first candidate is they lacked confidence/ feared they would fail. So where does this lack of self-confidence come from? They are clearly experiencing God's love directly being in his presence, have every reason to believe God wants the best for them. This *thing* that caused them to doubt their own capacity to succeed was powerful enough to risk everything on a chance at...what? So, where is it coming from?

Our second candidate is out of combined emotion and ignorance. They feel they need to intervene against God's plan to protect others. Again, this is in the context of their being in the presence of God and yet feeling as if they have to risk everything on a chance at...what? So, what would make sense as a powerful enough motive for a spiritual child in God's presence to doubt God's plan in this scenario?

Our third candidate is really a variation on the first two at their most fundamental: lack of faith or trust in God even though they are experiencing the presence of God the same as the other 2/3 who opted in to the plan. Where would this come from given they are exercising doubt in a context where they have perfect knowledge of God's existence and love?

The Plan of Salvation never made any sense to me for this very reason. No one fully understanding the consequences of rebelling against God, sides against Him, and what kind of Omniscient God offers 1/3 of his creation the opportunity to make such a decision and its attendant consequences, knowing how they will decide? Of course, this kind of plan makes sense to people who want to claim they control the power of God to seal up eternal blessings or punishments to others.

This is a hard doctrine. My take is that there is much we do not know and understand in regards to the plan of salvation and exaltation. Yes, I know this sounds like a cop out. I’ve thought about this particular problem associated with LDS theology along with some other theologies that have similarities and you’re right, it doesn’t make sense from where we are ‘in the room’ that we inhabit.

I trust that God knows more than I and that any plan that does place so much emphasis on free will and choice not just in the here and now, but in the before and after, is a heck of a lot more complex and convoluted than what anyone of us can comprehend.

That’s one of the things that makes God who and what He is. The ability to ‘sort things out’ down to the minutiae of that which is above our pay grade to even attempt to figure out.

The only real alternative to putting it in God’s hands when it comes to some of these hard doctrines regarding free will in the before and the now and the hereafter is to throw up our hands and either sat there is no true free will or there is no all knowing and Omniscient God.

And that in many ways, from where we sit, is a logical and comprehensible choice/option to take.

No argument there.

Regards,
MG,

[drumdude]

there is no all knowing and Omniscient God.

That’s what Mormon deep doctrine teaches.

This sticks out to me like a sore thumb every time I see it. The Mormon God is not all knowing and omniscient like the traditional God of Christianity is, and that has implications. You can’t use the traditional Christian arguments about purpose and meaning and morality if those weren’t created by God. You’re essentially in the same boat as atheists on many of these points because the Mormon God is so limited.

[MG 2.0]

there is no all knowing and Omniscient God.

That’s what Mormon deep doctrine teaches.

This sticks out to me like a sore thumb every time I see it. The Mormon God is not all knowing and omniscient like the traditional God of Christianity is, and that has implications. You can’t use the traditional Christian arguments about purpose and meaning and morality if those weren’t created by God. You’re essentially in the same boat as atheists on many of these points because the Mormon God is so limited.

I don’t think I have a problem with that from the perspective that absolute free will seems to demand it. That is, that God cannot know that beyond which it is within the realm of free agents to know.

If we say that God has absolute power then we end up with the idea that God can simply make a perfect world in which people always do the right thing because God makes them that way.

In essence, no free will.

But that’s not the world we live in. One might say then that this world is a crucible in which free will reigns supreme. Not absolute free will, but limited free will found on a spectrum. That, God CAN control because all He has to do is set up a world based on natural law.

And natural law has its consequences.

Regards.
MG

[Res Ipsa]

He’s perfectly happy to tell everyone that they have free will and that they are accountable to God for their choices. Yet, he takes offense at the thought that anyone has the temerity to question his claim that everyone has free will. It’s Mormonism 101 — only he has access to objective truth.

That’s where we do come to loggerheads. And it does sound as though I’m taking offense to those such as yourself that are either unwilling or unable to accept that there may be objective truth not subject to incomplete human understanding.

LOL! You just attributed to me a position that is 180 degrees reversed from what I've said. In fact, you've described yourself. You are the one who said that you cannot conceive of the existence of objective truth that humans have no access to. I have absolutely no problem with the idea that (1) an objective reality exists; and (2) our brains lack reliable access to it. In fact, I've already said so. But, right out of the gate, you completely misrepresent the position that I've taken.

But I’m not.

I don't think you are offended. I think you are afraid. I think that fear is the reason you seem unable to describe the position of those who don't agree with you in anything other than pejorative terms. The existence of free will is foundational to your world view. The absence of free will is in no way foundational to mine. Free will is an interesting question to think about and discuss, but my constructed reality in no way depends on the answer to that question.

You keep trying to find some deep explanation of your observed correlation between non-belief and the questioning of free will that you can cast some kind of negative judgment upon. Mostly your answer seems to be that they secretly fear a God they don't believe in. Why are you driven to do that? The answer to the question is so obvious that it's not worth asking: because they can ask the question without threatening their entire belief system. Why does this obvious point elude you? Why can't you just practice what you preach: I'm okay, you're okay. You're still stuck at "I'm okay, you're okay (but you're objectively wrong and you're a threat to civilization).

It’s simply that I do think that it’s possible to access objective truth but only through divine intervention of one sort or another. And to some degree or another. I’ve gone into more detail on this earlier in the thread for those that are interested.

Okay. I understood that long before this thread started. Your belief in the existence of the LDS God requires you to believe that. You seem to forget that many of us here once held the same beliefs that you do.

I have absolutely no problem with your questioning whether we have free will. None at all. You have the free will to do so, and I respect that.

I'd like to believe that, but your compulsive disparagement of non-believers says otherwise.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

That’s what Mormon deep doctrine teaches.

This sticks out to me like a sore thumb every time I see it. The Mormon God is not all knowing and omniscient like the traditional God of Christianity is, and that has implications. You can’t use the traditional Christian arguments about purpose and meaning and morality if those weren’t created by God. You’re essentially in the same boat as atheists on many of these points because the Mormon God is so limited.

I don’t think I have a problem with that from the perspective that absolute free will seems to demand it. That is, that God cannot know that beyond which it is within the realm of free agents to know.

If we say that God has absolute power then we end up with the idea that God can simply make a perfect world in which people always do the right thing because God makes them that way.

In essence, no free will.

But that’s not the world we live in. One might say then that this world is a crucible in which free will reigns supreme. Not absolute free will, but limited free will found on a spectrum. That, God CAN control because all He has to do is set up a world based on natural law.

And natural law has its consequences.

Regards.
MG

Are you claiming that you know enough about God to proclaim his limits? What is your basis for claiming that God's knowledge is limited? Is this one of those objective truths that God has communicated to you?

And isn't what you claim is impossible exactly the plan Satan proposed in the Council in Heaven? How else was Satan going to force people to "choose the right?" Were red figures with pitchforks going to use force to keep folks from jerking off? How else was Satan going to guarantee a 100% success rate other than to have God create humans without free agency?

This sounds like the same Goldilocks God we've run into before: as powerful as you need him to be in any given thread; as impotent as you need him to be in any given thread.

[drumdude]

This sounds like the same Goldilocks God we've run into before: as powerful as you need him to be in any given thread; as impotent as you need him to be in any given thread.

The inconsistency on this point from MG, DCP, and pretty much every Mormon apologist is absolutely damning. They never start from first principles, they always morph the theology to escape whatever corner they've been forced into by simple logic and reason.

[Philo Sofee]

This sounds like the same Goldilocks God we've run into before: as powerful as you need him to be in any given thread; as impotent as you need him to be in any given thread.

The inconsistency on this point from MG, DCP, and pretty much every Mormon apologist is absolutely damning. They never start from first principles, they always morph the theology to escape whatever corner they've been forced into by simple logic and reason.

THIS^^^
Insight of the week!

[Gadianton]

If we say that God has absolute power then we end up with the idea that God can simply make a perfect world in which people always do the right thing because God makes them that way.

In essence, no free will.

Brilliant example. I think we can start here. Suppose God did just that. Suppose God made you such that you always keep the commandments, never make mistakes, and the same goes for everyone else. What does that feel like? Would you feel like you're trapped inside a body that isn't your own, looking at the birds and trees --- seeing everything around you as normal but when someone says "hello" to you, you feel your vocal chords constrained to say "hello, how are you?" very nicely back, as if you're attached to puppet strings making you move and act against the pressures of your own urges? Would it be like the demon example we spoke of, except for the reverse, where a "good spirit" for lack of better term forces you to constantly trade in niceness? You can hear the words you speak, feel the hand shakes, but it's as if somebody else is moving your body? Is that how it would be?

Or would it be more natural. Everything feels normal to you, but you simply don't have the capacity to be anything but nice? And there is no thought of meanness, or even a comprehension of what meanness would mean? Kind like in the Garden if Eden?

[MG 2.0]

You [have] said that you cannot conceive of the existence of objective truth that humans have no access to.

I accept the fact that there is objective truth that humans have no access to.

Regards,
MG