162 replies to this topic

[paulpatter]

kicks, on 21 December 2010 - 11:09 AM, said:

God is not all powerful. He has power only to the extent that it does not conflict with the free will of His creations.

I wonder about the idea that God is not all powerful.  Elder McConkie, for example, states:  "To carry forward his own purposes among men and nations, the Lord foreordained  chosen spirit children in pre-existence and assigned them to come to earth at particular times and places so that they might aid in furthering the divine will.    . . .   The mightiest and greatest spirits were foreordained to stand as prophets and spiritual leaders, giving to the people such portion of the Lord's word as was designed for the day and age involved."  (Mormon Doctrine, p. 290)    

If God has power only "to the extent that it does not conflict with the free will of His creations," he is, in fact, all powerful.  Why?  Because he knows in advance--'before the world was"--those intelligences who will exercise their free will pursuant to his designs:  Thus, "Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born." (Abr. 3:23)

Then there is this:  ". . .there is nothing that the Lord thy God shall take into his heart to do but that he will do it."  (Abr. 3:17)

And this:  "And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command  [emphasis added]  them."   (Abr. 3:25)

Note, too, that both the Father and the Son referred to themselves as the "Beginning and the End."

[CV75]

stemelbow, on 17 December 2010 - 02:51 PM, said:

Lucifer rebelled because God conceived of the rebellion all on his own.

No so:

Agency exercised by truth and intelligence (the personification of which is God Himself) is the basis for existence (D&C 93: 30). When not so exercised, we have condemnation (D&C 93: 31). A fullness of existence can be called “good” and a lack of fullness of existence (condemnation) can be called “evil.”

God possesses all agency (all truth and intelligence, acting for Himself; the word “for” meaning both independently and in perpetuation of His eternal interest), and gave man his agency. He is God because a) He exercises agency perfectly, or only for good (for example, Moses 1: 39); and b) no matter how others’ agency is exercised for or against His commandments, or for evil, He remains God.

Others’ abuse of the gift of agency and the resultant evil is not a product of God’s creation, or of giving others agency, or of any degree of foreknowledge He possesses (truth is knowledge of all things past, present, future, and its key attribute is agency, wherein it acts for itself, never deviating from perpetuating good).

[nicolasconnault]

Let's use our imagination for a moment.

You are God.

Despite being all-powerful, you are bound by eternal laws, and in fact it is through your obedience to these eternal laws that you are able to orchestrate the salvation of souls.

Because you are omniscient, as you plan the salvation of billions of souls, you immediately become aware of all future events, including the actions of the souls to whom you will grant free agency.

Are you responsible for the actions of free agents if you know them in advance?

Is a parent the source of all the evils he knows his children will commit? (I know my son will lie eventually).

[stemelbow]

Stem had said:  

Quote

Lucifer rebelled because God conceived of the rebellion all on his own.

Quote

No so:

Agency exercised by truth and intelligence (the personification of which is God Himself) is the basis for existence (D&C 93: 30). When not so exercised, we have condemnation (D&C 93: 31). A fullness of existence can be called “good” and a lack of fullness of existence (condemnation) can be called “evil.”

God possesses all agency (all truth and intelligence, acting for Himself; the word “for” meaning both independently and in perpetuation of His eternal interest), and gave man his agency. He is God because a) He exercises agency perfectly, or only for good (for example, Moses 1: 39); and b) no matter how others’ agency is exercised for or against His commandments, or for evil, He remains God.

Others’ abuse of the gift of agency and the resultant evil is not a product of God’s creation, or of giving others agency, or of any degree of foreknowledge He possesses (truth is knowledge of all things past, present, future, and its key attribute is agency, wherein it acts for itself, never deviating from perpetuating good).

0

To be clear/fair, my comment above, in context, was in reference to the mainstream concept of God--not to the LDS view.  If God created all things, including all people, out of nothing, knowing beforehand the very acts/thoughts of each of those He Himself designed out of nothing, then all the creatures deeds/thoughts were conceived of by God.  If God when before creating never thought of evil or did evil, and is, as they say, the only self-existent one, then evil ideas and deeds had to start somewhere.  If He actually knew of/concevied of each and every deed/thought each of His creations would do/think, then He originally conceived of evil deeds/thoughts.  No creature would be able to think/do evil if God did not first conceive of evil deeds/thoughts.  In this way, all evil, on the mainstream concept of God, is original to God--He initially conceived of evil--the very source of all evil.

love,
stem

[Vance]

RickChown, on 17 December 2010 - 09:44 PM, said:

Evil has no existence of its own, it is really the absence of God.

Then how can it exist at all, if God is omnipresent?

Edited by Vance, 22 December 2010 - 08:12 AM.

[stemelbow]

nicolasconnault, on 22 December 2010 - 06:19 AM, said:

Let's use our imagination for a moment.

You are God.

Despite being all-powerful, you are bound by eternal laws, and in fact it is through your obedience to these eternal laws that you are able to orchestrate the salvation of souls.

I can do that.  Just to be clear this sounds to be the LDS view, rather than the mainstream view though.

Quote

Because you are omniscient, as you plan the salvation of billions of souls, you immediately become aware of all future events, including the actions of the souls to whom you will grant free agency.

Are you responsible for the actions of free agents if you know them in advance?

On the LDS view, I don't think that's possible.  On the mainstream view, it must be so.  Mainstream ideas are that God created all things out of nothing, and being all-knowing and all-powerful, He must be the source of all events that take place as a result of His act of creation.  Why?  Because He designed it out of nothing.  He, alone, conceived of every thing that would happen.  Every evil, for instance, that is ever done was conceived of by God before anyone existed, on the mainstream view--if taken to its logical conclusion.  Such is not necessarily the case for the LDS view.

Quote

Is a parent the source of all the evils he knows his children will commit? (I know my son will lie eventually).

Of course not.  Parents do not create out of nothing.  And while we have a perspective of "all will lie at some point" as history seems to indicate, we simply do not know the details of each act/thought that will happen to our children.  This is just a poor analogy when considering the argument laid forth.

love,
stem

[stemelbow]

Vance, on 22 December 2010 - 08:06 AM, said:

Then how can it exist at all, if God is omnipresent?

Very good point.  If God is everywhere, then how can evil ever be done, assuming He is good?  The mainstream view is illogical as contradictions must be made at nearly every turn in hopes to hold it.

love,
stem

[CV75]

stemelbow, on 22 December 2010 - 08:02 AM, said:

To be clear/fair, my comment above, in context, was in reference to the mainstream concept of God--not to the LDS view.

Yes, I understood that. I just like to promote the LDS view in favor of the mainstream view.

[LDSToronto]

nicolasconnault, on 22 December 2010 - 06:19 AM, said:

Let's use our imagination for a moment.

You are God.

Despite being all-powerful, you are bound by eternal laws, and in fact it is through your obedience to these eternal laws that you are able to orchestrate the salvation of souls.

Because you are omniscient, as you plan the salvation of billions of souls, you immediately become aware of all future events, including the actions of the souls to whom you will grant free agency.

Are you responsible for the actions of free agents if you know them in advance?

Is a parent the source of all the evils he knows his children will commit? (I know my son will lie eventually).

It depends what you mean by omniscient. Is God able to see the future so clearly that he knows the exact lie, the exact wording, the exact time of the lie? Or, does he have a notion that lies will be told, and he shows the way to repentance?

If God knows perfectly what I will do, then I have free will, and thus, no agency to change my path.

[Mudcat]

stemelbow, on 17 December 2010 - 02:51 PM, said:

No evil ever would exist or occur or be thought of if God did not conceive of the evil designs before creating ex nihilo, right?

I agree with your logic on this. As an Evangelical, I see no way around the issue that God, as the Divine creator of all things, is responsible for the existence of evil.

Though I agree with the notion of free agency, such agency does not alleviate the responsibility God has for evils presence.

The way I understand it, as it relates to the problem of evil, is that creating free agents and allowing them the opportunity to be drawn into a state of perfection/goodness is better than not creating such free agents. This seems to be God's goal... drawing free agents into a loving fellowship with Himself.

Evil, as I see it, is any action that is against the nature of God but evil seems to be a necessary element for free agents to make choices relational to God. Ergo evil must exist for this sort of stuff to actually work.

However, not only do I hold God ultimately responsible for making evil, I hold him ultimately responsible for it's demise in the future. The fact that evil will cease at some future point, with a greater good being accomplished is a strongsuit for an Evangelical view, IMO.

In contrast, LDS seem to think that God is not ultimately responsible for evil and works to organizationally diminish evil and increase good. However given the infinite nature of evil that seems also consistent with such a view, evil can never be eliminated.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

edited - grammar and syntax

Edited by Mudcat, 22 December 2010 - 02:59 PM.

[ERayR]

Mudcat, on 22 December 2010 - 02:45 PM, said:

I agree with your logic on this. As an Evangelical, I see no way around the issue that God, as the Divine creator of all things, is responsible for the existence of evil.

Though I agree with the notion of free agency, such agency does not alleviate the responsibility God has for evils presence.

The way I understand it, as it relates to the problem of evil, is that creating free agents and allowing them the opportunity to be drawn into a state of perfection/goodness is better than not creating such free agents. This seems to be God's goal... drawing free agents into a loving fellowship with Himself.

Evil, as I see it, is any action that is against the nature of God but evil seems to be a necessary element for free agents to make choices relational to God. Ergo evil must exist for this sort of stuff to actually work.

However, not only do I hold God ultimately responsible for making evil, I hold him ultimately responsible for it's demise in the future. The fact that evil will cease at some future point, with a greater good being accomplished is a strongsuit for an Evangelical view, IMO.

In contrast, LDS seem to think that God is not ultimately responsible for evil and works to organizationally diminish evil and increase good. However given the infinite nature of evil that seems also consistent with such a view, evil can never be eliminated.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

edited - grammar and syntax

Here is another thought for you to consider.  Good and evil are eternal principles and as long as there are people (spirits) being advanced and tested there will be good and evil.  Hence they will exist without end.

God has chosen and is the embodiment of good and those that oppose good embocy evil to some degree.  Our job is to become as God so that we no longer give evil a place to reside.

Just some thoughts.

[CV75]

Mudcat, on 22 December 2010 - 02:45 PM, said:

evil seems to be a necessary element for free agents to make choices relational to God.

However, not only do I hold God ultimately responsible for making evil, I hold him ultimately responsible for it's demise in the future. The fact that evil will cease at some future point, with a greater good being accomplished is a strongsuit for an Evangelical view, IMO.

Genesis 1: 31, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." At least at their inception, every thing that God made was good. As He endowed His creations, particularly His children, with agency, they were able to become evil, as Lucifer demonstrated. As some indeed became evil, and others remained good, the basis for choosing between good and evil came about.

Lucifer is a fallen angel, originally good. It would seem that if all things God made were good, then Lucifer fell without being enticed by an external evil created by God. We are not told what evil enticed him, but he took the intelligence that he possessed and acted upon it contrary to God's will. We know he was very powerful, and given much light, and so may have comprehended and then experimented with its opposite, which led to his downfall. On the other hand, God comprehends all things, but does not do that which would undo them.

[Mudcat]

ERayR, on 22 December 2010 - 05:11 PM, said:

Here is another thought for you to consider.  Good and evil are eternal principles and as long as there are people (spirits) being advanced and tested there will be good and evil.  Hence they will exist without end.

God has chosen and is the embodiment of good and those that oppose good embocy evil to some degree.  Our job is to become as God so that we no longer give evil a place to reside.

Just some thoughts.

Hi ERayR,

As I am thinking about it, my view has issues of it's own problems. The one that comes to the top of my mind, is that if I were to assume that God's goal is to create the maximal number (quantitatively or qualitatively) of free agents. Then why bring a stop to it at some future point (judgment) But that's just me blathering a bit.

On this thought of yours and other LDS, that evil and good both are eternal principles. Well it certainly seems to fit with your view, I'll agree. But it seems problematic to me.  

Let's assume your right about it and God is good, because that is what he has chosen. If so, then God is not the locus of "Good" rather an example of good, in that He has chosen to follow a particular eternal principal vs. another to perfection. In this sense, "God" is simply the result of particular and rigorous formula.

In such a case, God is God, because of his ability to adhere to the highest principles. The problem isn't so much in God's ability to adhere, rather it's in the notion that there are principles that God must adhere to something, in order to be God... and this perfect adherence must be to "Good".

If this is so, then "Good" being some arbitrary cosmic principle like gravity is the God maker of sorts. Take Nephi for example, God could not have told Nephi anything other than to slay Laban because only someone who perfectly adhered to good could say such.

There is more to say on the matter... but I am sleepy.


Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Libs]

I don't really understand the whole idea of eternal principles hanging out there with no author.  Do they have an author?

[nicolasconnault]

Libs, on 22 December 2010 - 11:34 PM, said:

I don't really understand the whole idea of eternal principles hanging out there with no author.  Do they have an author?

That is more a metaphysical than a theological question. Personally I don't see the need for an author to "create" eternal principles, firstly because anything eternal cannot be created (it has always existed), and secondly because that would imply a rational, logical being existing in an initially completely chaotic dimension, devoid of principles and laws.

[CV75]

Mudcat, on 22 December 2010 - 11:01 PM, said:

The problem isn't so much in God's ability to adhere, rather it's in the notion that there are principles that God must adhere to something, in order to be God... and this perfect adherence must be to "Good".

At the very least, God is bound to stay true to Himself ("I AM that I AM", or "I SHALL BE that I SHALL BE"), which makes Him that eternal principle, which is "Good" (Matthew 19:17), wherever He came from. He must adhere to Himself, however He got that way.

[ERayR]

Mudcat, on 22 December 2010 - 11:01 PM, said:

Hi ERayR,

As I am thinking about it, my view has issues of it's own problems. The one that comes to the top of my mind, is that if I were to assume that God's goal is to create the maximal number (quantitatively or qualitatively) of free agents. Then why bring a stop to it at some future point (judgment) But that's just me blathering a bit.

That is a problem with your view. In my view that no longer becomes a problem because as we each emulate God more and more we come to the point where evil no longer holds any attraction and there will always be those progressing through that point of the eternal time line.

Mudcat, on 22 December 2010 - 11:01 PM, said:

On this thought of yours and other LDS, that evil and good both are eternal principles. Well it certainly seems to fit with your view, I'll agree. But it seems problematic to me.  

Let's assume your right about it and God is good, because that is what he has chosen. If so, then God is not the locus of "Good" rather an example of good, in that He has chosen to follow a particular eternal principal vs. another to perfection. In this sense, "God" is simply the result of particular and rigorous formula.

In this view God is good personified.  He is a locus for all his creations.  

Mudcat, on 22 December 2010 - 11:01 PM, said:

In such a case, God is God, because of his ability to adhere to the highest principles. The problem isn't so much in God's ability to adhere, rather it's in the notion that there are principles that God must adhere to something, in order to be God... and this perfect adherence must be to "Good".

I don't know of any view where God does not have to adhere to a certain set of principles to be God.  The creeds (Nicene and Athenasian) outline principles that define God, thus they are principles he must adhere to (have) in order to be God.  This may only be in the minds of the followers but indeed if, in their view, God did not adhere to these principles then, to them, he would not be God.

Regardless of what we may want to believe there are eternal principles that, if one wants to progress, must be followed.

Mudcat, on 22 December 2010 - 11:01 PM, said:

If this is so, then "Good" being some arbitrary cosmic principle like gravity is the God maker of sorts. Take Nephi for example, God could not have told Nephi anything other than to slay Laban because only someone who perfectly adhered to good could say such.

There is more to say on the matter... but I am sleepy.


Respectfully,

Mudcat

I'm not sure what you mean by this and I haven't given it much thought but good and evil are not arbitrary and go much beyond things like gravity.  Gravity can be suspended under certain conditions.  Good and evil can not.

Again I am not sure what you mean about Nephi and Laban.

[Libs]

nicolasconnault, on 23 December 2010 - 07:05 AM, said:

That is more a metaphysical than a theological question. Personally I don't see the need for an author to "create" eternal principles, firstly because anything eternal cannot be created (it has always existed), and secondly because that would imply a rational, logical being existing in an initially completely chaotic dimension, devoid of principles and laws.

The problem I see, is in how to bring order out of chaos, without intelligence.  I know LDS theology speaks of "intelligences" that are eternal, but they seem to be in some kind of embryonic state, at that time, not really having the ability to make "order" (principles), I wouldn't think.

I don't know.  It's difficult to make sense of it, IMO.  Makes much more sense (to me) to have an eternal, unchanging God who established these principles and order in the universe.

[nicolasconnault]

Libs, on 23 December 2010 - 01:10 PM, said:

The problem I see, is in how to bring order out of chaos, without intelligence.  I know LDS theology speaks of "intelligences" that are eternal, but they seem to be in some kind of embryonic state, at that time, not really having the ability to make "order" (principles), I wouldn't think.

I don't know.  It's difficult to make sense of it, IMO.  Makes much more sense (to me) to have an eternal, unchanging God who established these principles and order in the universe.

That doesn't make sense to me, because if God was unchanging and had always existed, He would have had to define and establish the bounds and principles of his own existence. An intelligent being is a principled, orderly being. If God has always been intelligent and orderly, He then cannot have established that order at a set point in time.

[Libs]

nicolasconnault, on 23 December 2010 - 05:43 PM, said:

That doesn't make sense to me, because if God was unchanging and had always existed, He would have had to define and establish the bounds and principles of his own existence. An intelligent being is a principled, orderly being. If God has always been intelligent and orderly, He then cannot have established that order at a set point in time.

The way I see it, God has always been orderly and intelligent (eternally) and whatever God creates is orderly.

If you just have eternal principles hanging out there somewhere, there is no explanation as to where they came from..