Religion (Potentially sensitive)

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

Armadius, it is a complicated question, but the answer is a central portion of your argument. To be effective, or even truly understood, you need to be able to at least outline the areas where being "in love" is different than loving someone.
Until such a distinction can be made other than in the most vague terms, I have a hard time accepting any discussion that involves such a distinction.
When I *choose* to be kind to other people, and spend time with them, I come to love them. I develop a bond (or connection as you say). I have formed this bond with men and women, adults and minors. It has nothing to do with my physical relationship with these people.

[Skar]

I venture to guess that you probably think pedophilia is an urge people ought to resist.  At the same time NAMBLA would no doubt argue that their desires are just as central to who they are as your homosexuality or my heterosexuality is to us.  So, whether we agree on which urges fall into the forbidden category is a separate issue from whether some urges ought to be denied no matter their source or inception.

Some ancient Greeks would have argued this as well, in fact.  Pederasty was, according to some, part of the normal and desireable bond between men and boys.

[From l'C'valyi d'Jade:  Skar seems to have taken overy my post.  Nifty trick, that.  I have no idea how it happened, however.]

[from Skar]: Uh, neither do I.  I certainly didn't do it on purpose.  Spriggan?

[Aen Elderberry]

And yet this was the Catholic Church's official doctrine for centuries (that is, any human who was not baptized during their life would go irredeemably to hell.  This included infants who died in childbirth).

I wonder if this is why Dante's Inferno makes the upper levels of hell rather nice, well, nice compared to the lower levels.  It was a way to make Hell less hellish for the people that couldn't help being there since they never had the chance to get baptized.

[Jwh]

I know it appears as though this thread is finished and I am hesitant to bring it back up again but, I have a question more related to the original points of Mormonism which began the thread.

In one of EUOL's original posts on some of the fundamental beliefs of Mormonism, there was a part about the importance of freewill which seems to be a fundamental view point of most religions.  There was another post however of a few times in EUOL's life where prayers were answered with by god (marriage for example).  I don't actually know what Mormonisms stance on the omniscience of God, but one thing that has always been difficult for me to overcome from a religious stand point is that if God is omniscient and knows everything that will ever happen, then God knows the result of answering prayers and thereby nullifies personal free will.

For example if god did not have the power or chose never to answer any prayers then it seems to me that people can truly have free will, but once god begins to answer or not answer prayers as he chooses, then his knowledge of what his action will produce seems to void free will.   This freewill/omniscience paradox has always seemed difficult to me and I was just curious as to the Mormon view or answer to this.

[The Lost One]

In one of EUOL's original posts on some of the fundamental beliefs of Mormonism, there was a part about the importance of freewill which seems to be a fundamental view point of most religions.  There was another post however of a few times in EUOL's life where prayers were answered with by god (marriage for example).  I don't actually know what Mormonisms stance on the omniscience of God, but one thing that has always been difficult for me to overcome from a religious stand point is that if God is omniscient and knows everything that will ever happen, then God knows the result of answering prayers and thereby nullifies personal free will.

For example if god did not have the power or chose never to answer any prayers then it seems to me that people can truly have free will, but once god begins to answer or not answer prayers as he chooses, then his knowledge of what his action will produce seems to void free will.   This freewill/omniscience paradox has always seemed difficult to me and I was just curious as to the Mormon view or answer to this.

Normally I would defer to EUOL on something like this because he is more articulate than me, however, I will attempt to answer this one.

Yes, God is omniscience but we are not.  Free will was given to mankind so that each man and woman can see for themselves whether they would choose to follow the commandments of God.  Thus obedience to God is not mandatory or coerced but rather something that each individual must choose.

With the example of prayer, God has commanded people to pray to him, however, each individual must choose to pray to God. When God answers that prayer, an individual must choose to recognize that answer.  If an individual chooses to recognize the answer, then there may be an additional choice to accept that answer.  At no point does God compell anyone to pray and accept his answers to prayer.

Now, to avoid confusion, I will state that Mormons believe that free will or agency was given to mankind as a gift from God. One primary issue in the conflict between God and Satan is agency. Agency is a precious gift from God given to mankind in what we believed to be a pre-mortal state as part of God's plan for mankind. Agency is essential to God's plan for His children because it will allow each one of His children to see for him or herself whether they will be diligent in choosing good.  The fact that God may already know the result does not invalidated this choice for each individual because God does not dictate the choice for the individual.

[Jwh]

Thank you for the reply. 

I am still confused as to how this is not a conflict, but I do not want to argue this point into the ground because it seems somewhat menial and nitpicking.  But let me give anther example which I think might better illustrate where my confusion comes in.

Say that individual A is debating going to school.

If we assume that god is not omniscient or can not/will not answer any prayers (i.e. has no way to communicate with individual A) then A is forced to decide on his own to go to school or not.  Thus it may be said that A has free will.

If we assume that god is omniscient and actively can communicate with A through prayer or some other means then it seems to me that A  going to school is more a matter of gods will then A's.  Because god, knowing what A's decision will be given every possible prayer answer from god can give his answer in a way such that A will then go to school or not.

It just seems to me that in the case of an omniscient god who answers prayers, free will becomes more difficult to understand.

Again, thank you for this thread.  I have learned much more about Mormonism then I ever knew before.  Also thank you Brandon (EUOL) for your books I have enjoyed them and look forward to many more.

[The Jade Knight]

Let me see if I can help.

1.  God is not omniscient, man has free will:
God doesn't know if A should go to school.  God doesn't tell A whether or not he should go to school.  A has to choose, and then goes to school if he wants.

2.  God is omniscient, man has no free will:
God knows A should go to school.  God forces A to go to school.  A goes to school because it's God's will and there's nothing else he could have done.

3.  God is omniscient, man has free will:
God knows A should go to school.  If A prays, God tells him to go to school.  A goes to school if he chooses to accept God's will, but does not if he chooses not to.


There is still only 1 right answer, but it's man's decision as to whether or not to accept it.

[Jwh]

Hmm.  Thank you for the help, but it seems to me that an omniscient god will know the outcome of every possible answer to prayer that he gives.  Meaning that the gambit of prayer answers from no answer to giving a overwhelming feeling to follow gods will are possible responses from god over a single prayer.

Now, prior to actually giving A an answer, god knows how A will respond.  It is very possible that god giving one answer (possibly no response) elicits A to not go to school where as another answer (possibly an overwhelming feeling to follow his will) will elicit A to go to school.  To me this means that A's decision to go to school or not then lies in gods hands because the type of response that god will give determines what A will end up doing.

Also, with out the intention of blindly follow the six degrees of separation idea, it seems to me possible that once god has determined the outcome of one event for a person instead of being an observant bystander then that decision could easily propagate to change the lives many more than just the person with whom god made the initial suggestion or answer to prayer.

I think I have looked at this problem in to concrete a way and have difficulties getting over these problems.  I just personally enjoyed Mormonisms answers to other difficult religious problems seem to make much more sense to me than any I have heard before.  Also, I don't want this to turn argumentative and thus don't want to keep belaboring this point.  I just personally think that I have never properly understood the concept of freewill because this just seems so confusing to me.

[The Jade Knight]

To be honest, this is one of the great debates in Christianity: Free Will vs. Predestination.

My fiancée and I have actually argued the issue extensively, and she used to believe firmly in Predestination.  She's since changed her mind.

Let's give you a few more theoretical considerations:

If someone's having a bad day because of a bad attitude, and you do a little tiny nice thing for them, and then they have a good day, did you just force them to have a good day?  Did you exercise your will to take away theirs?  Or did you simply help them to reassert their own will in a more positive way?  To what extent was the interaction a matter of your will, and to what extent was it theirs?

I am not claiming that this complex question is really quite simple, but mostly, it's a matter of perspective:
If God did not have foresight, and did the same thing, would he still have taken your free will away?  If so, then everything that occurs to influence our decisions robs us of agency (and therefore, agency is an impossibility).

And if not, then how has God taken away our Agency by knowing in advance what will happen when he chooses to influence us?

God knows the future like we know the past.  He knows what we will choose.  But we choose.  That's the important part.  It doesn't really matter whether God has done something that influences us or not—we still choose, and we have the ability to choose.  God does not force us to choose one way or another.

I think the key to understanding this is focusing on the issue of whether or not external influences take away our agency.  God is not the only thing that influences our decisions.  But when something does, when something has influenced us, have we lost our agency, our ability to choose, because we were influenced?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I think that Jade essentially has it right. I understand what you're trying to ask, but it seems to me to pretty much be a semantic fine point rather than an actual paradox. The idea that God can give an answer to any given question that will definitely elicit a certain response relies on two assumptions: 1) that such a response definitely exists for eliciting every specific response to any given question for guidance. And 2) That God chooses to give that specific response.
I'm far from convinced that (1) is the case. But even if it is so, then it also follows that a potential response God might give is one that both informs us what the correct thing is to do but also leaves the decision up to us.

I don't believe that I have taken my child's freewill. I know that (nearly every time) I tell my three year old to eat her chicken she will throw a fit. Yet I still tell her to eat her chicken. Have I chosen to make her throw a fit? I don't believe so. Even though I have told her something that I am sure she will react to in a certain way, I'm still convinced that she is the one who has chosen to throw the fit. She can still choose to eat her chicken graciously. Or else she can eat her chicken and complain about it. Or she can choose not to complain and not eat her chicken anyway. And those are the options that first spring to mind that I am reasonably certain a 3 year old is capable of making (it doesn't include having a reasoned debate about the merits of eating her chicken, which an adult praying for guidance could make -- there's even examples of that in scripture).

For this reason, I don't believe that foreknowledge of the outcome necessarily means that God *has* made our decision for us.

[Pemberley]

I hope you don't mind my jumping in here. I've been reading this thread with interest-especially the portion about free will and God's omniscience, because this is a topic that has always fascinated me.  Incidentally, Mormons call it agency rather than free will because we believe that everyone has the freedom to choose their thoughts and actions, but not freedom from the consequences of those thoughts and actions.  I think that one of the ways that God preserves our agency is in the way he answers our prayers.

a potential response God might give is one that both informs us what the correct thing is to do but also leaves the decision up to us.

God, being God, could give a response that is so powerful or undeniable we would basically be "forced" to accept it.  Instead he chooses to respond to our requests in a way that lets us know what His will is, while still giving us the choice on whether or not to follow it.  Anyway, thanks for all your thoughtful questions and answers.  I enjoy them.

[The Jade Knight]

Plenty of Latter Day Saints call it "free will", as well.  There are some Latter Day Saints, however, who are not comfortable with this term, because they think "free" implies a lack of consequences for one's actions.

I just wanted to point out that this is the personal opinion of some, and has nothing to do with LDS doctrine; it's simply a semantic preference.

[Tink]

Another point, I'd like to make (and I just skimmed, so sorry if someone else said this) is that everything we have comes from God (i.e. this earth, food, shelter, etc.). They are blessings from God. The one thing that is truly our own is our agency. God cannot take away our ability to choose. Things can happen in our life that cause us to lose everything (think of Job), but we will always have the ability to choose how we react to these events. We can choose to continue with faith, as Job did, or we can choose to lose faith in God either by deciding he doesn't exist, or by deciding he does, but he's cruel. That's up to us.

When we pray to know what we should do in a given situation, we can choose to follow the answer we receive. Basically, since God is omniscient, he will know the best path for us to follow. We have decided that rather than rely on our own limited knowledge to make the decision, we will rely on God's knowledge, which is limitless. Because he loves us, and because we are his children, he will tell us what is best for us. (Of course, sometimes we don't know why it was the best decision until way after the fact.)

So back to the fact that agency is the only thing that is truly ours: When we decide to follow God's will and the answers he gives us when we pray, we are giving him the only thing that we can truly give--our agency. It's the greatest gift we can give him. It's the only thing he cannot take from us.

[Jwh]

I have given this topic a lot of thought over the last few days because the basic dilemma still seems too difficult for me to get over.  I think I may have come to some sort of conclusion that makes sense however I am not sure how succinctly I can say it.

As a little pre-discussion before I begin my point.  To me it has always made sense that given every possible decision by beings with agency or free will that the fundamental makeup of the world/universe would change for every possible method of making that decision.  An example being that (to use the example from before) deciding to go to school or not would have different outcomes for to myself, my friends, family, peers and others based on how and to what extent I made my decision. 

Given that preceding paragraph, (which I may be wrong or not able to explain as well as I wish I could) I can see God's omniscience as existing in one of two ways (there may be more, but these are the two that make most sense to me).  The first way is the way that I have always assumed it would be where God has the capability to know what will happen for any possible decision that any person can make.  Before a person makes a decision, especially one in which God was asked for guidance on, God can look at all the possibly ways the person may respond, know the resulting outcomes -- which would correspond to knowing the result of that decision for the rest of eternity, and then respond in such a way to yield the outcome he wants.  In this version of God's omniscience I still have difficulty accepting free will as existing.

The second version of God I think removes this difficulty (at least for me).  In this version, for each possible decision that any person could make, again especially ones in which prayer was done and the individuals are waiting for an answer from God (even no answer seems to be a form of answer), God can only answer in one way because that is the "perfect" way.  The only way in which God knew he was going to answer from the beginning of time, the only possible way.  In this version, God can not look at all the possible paths that a person's decision may take because they don't truly exist since God gives the ideal answer and knows the way you will take.  In this version the argument that although God knows what we will do, we are still the ones deciding it makes much more sense to me.  I don't think that this version of God takes away from his omniscience or majesty, it is just the way that seems to make logical sense to resolve this problem.

I guess the questions I have then are this: 
First, does this make sense at all and second is this version of God's omniscience more akin to the accepted version?

As I was typing this I came to a third version which is that although God may have a say in the outcome of our prayers to him, because of his ability to modify his answer to get a result, it is not the result that matters but the degree in which God had to give his answer to yield the determined answer?

[Aen Elderberry]

God can only answer in one way because that is the "perfect" way.  The only way in which God knew he was going to answer from the beginning of time, the only possible way.

I don't know if this changes your second scenario but have you considered that there may not be one "perfect way?"

I think God's goals are not along the lines of "this is how I want the world to be" or even "this is exactly what I want you to do" but more along the lines of "this is what I want my children to learn" and "I want you to help that person feel loved, I don't care if it's by baking them cookies or by smiling at them or listening to them but just do something." 

It may be that I need, for God's plan for me, to go to school to meet a particular person or be prepared for some future situation but perhaps it doesn't matter.   Perhaps his immediate goal for me is for me to learn patience, kindness, and compassion and I'll learn that whether I go to school or not.  Perhaps I'd learn those things quicker in at school.  But he can still find ways to teach me even if I don't listen to the answer to the prayer.  If I later regret not listening and express in prayer my regret he'll find another way to teach me.

In other words in my mind following the answer to a prayer can be important because of the outcome but most important is being willing to submit my will to his.  It's not to help God create the perfect version of the world.  In fact it's Satan's plan, not God's plan, to force everyone to create the Perfect World.

(Did that rambling make any sense at all?  It sounds like I'm claiming that Satan is Lawful Evil and God is Chaotic Good.    )