Moses 7:32 - knowledge in their day of creation

[marineland]

On 10/13/2025 at 9:15 PM, InCognitus said:

And you later said....

What's the difference?  If God created Satan out of nothing and God (being omniscient) knew that Satan, using the free will that God bestowed upon him, would become evil in his rebellion, how is that different than God creating evil?

Parents know their children will suffer, maybe even die from severe pain or be 
killed, and yet they give birth to them.

That does not mean the parents are to blame.

Edited October 15, 2025 by marineland

[marineland]

On 10/13/2025 at 8:58 PM, Calm said:

How can it be free will when he was programmed to rebel?  Serious question, want to understand your reasoning, not challenging as illogical.

I don't see God forced him (programed him) to rebel.

[marineland]

On 10/13/2025 at 4:23 PM, teddyaware said:

Evil thoughts are tantamount to actions in the sight of God. This is why we will be judged for our thoughts, not just for our actions. You also appear to be presuming that the world in which intelligences exist is somehow a very simple one with very little ability to act, when for all we know the state in which intelligences exist may, it it’s own way, be just as complicated, sophisticated, nuanced and chaotic as is our present state of existence.

I think you said these intelligences had agency.  How did they act regarding good
and evil before becoming spirit children?

[InCognitus]

2 minutes ago, marineland said:

Parents know their children will suffer, maybe even die from severe pain or be 
killed, and yet they give birth to them.

That does not mean the parents are to blame.

Yes, but human parents:

1. Don't create their children out of nothing (as it is defined in modern Christian doctrine)
2. Don't have omniscient knowledge of the child they are creating
3. Don't grant freewill by their own power and knowledge to the child they are procreating

God on the other hand:

1. Created Satan out of nothing (according to modern Christian doctrine)
2. Has perfect foreknowledge and omniscient knowledge of what the creation will do
3. Grants freewill to his creation according to his own power and foreknowledge of the actions of that creation (again, according to some modern Christian doctrine).

So again, why did God, in his omniscience, create a being He knew would rebel and complicate things, and how is that different than just saying God created evil?

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, marineland said:

I don't see God forced him (programed him) to rebel.

What were his attributes that caused him to rebel that weren’t created by God? (Again, trying to understand reasoning)

Edited October 15, 2025 by Calm

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, marineland said:

I think you said these intelligences had agency.  How did they act regarding good
and evil before becoming spirit children?

Of course intelligences had agency, otherwise there would be no rhyme nor reason for them exist! And what makes you think that intelligences would be incapable of acting on their own thoughts and decisions? I believe the intelligences of which we speak are also capable of having meaningful interactions and relationships with other intelligences. After all, in Latter-Day Saint theology intelligences are material beings, and if they’re material beings they’re likely not as different from us as you seem to think they are. I’m sure that when the nature of the existence of uncreated intelligences is fully explained we will understand that these self existent beings are living, thinking agents who are capable of thought and action, and not as different from us as you seem to imagine they would be.

Edited October 15, 2025 by teddyaware

[marineland]

On 10/15/2025 at 6:27 PM, teddyaware said:

Of course intelligences had agency, otherwise there would be no rhyme nor reason for them exist! And what makes you think that intelligences would be incapable of acting on their own thoughts and decisions?

What I meant was what evil did intelligences choose or act upon?

[marineland]

On 10/15/2025 at 4:44 PM, Calm said:

What were his attributes that caused him to rebel that weren’t created by God? (Again, trying to understand reasoning)

I'd say pride and lust; the latter being like Eve's desire to become like God when
following the devil's temptation.

[marineland]

On 10/15/2025 at 4:08 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, but human parents:

1. Don't create their children out of nothing (as it is defined in modern Christian doctrine)
2. Don't have omniscient knowledge of the child they are creating
3. Don't grant freewill by their own power and knowledge to the child they are procreating

God on the other hand:

1. Created Satan out of nothing (according to modern Christian doctrine)
2. Has perfect foreknowledge and omniscient knowledge of what the creation will do
3. Grants freewill to his creation according to his own power and foreknowledge of the actions of that creation (again, according to some modern Christian doctrine).

So again, why did God, in his omniscience, create a being He knew would rebel and complicate things, and how is that different than just saying God created evil?

I don't really know. But if God created sin so he could provide an Atonement, then
he would be the author of sin.  

It's almost like the chicken and egg paradox.  Does the chicken (the Atonement)
lay the egg (the Fall), or does the egg (the Fall) lead to a chick (the Atonement).

For your "but human parents" section, I might add "4. pass on a fallen human
nature to their children".

Edited October 18, 2025 by marineland

[InCognitus]

2 hours ago, marineland said:

I don't really know. But if God created sin so he could provide an Atonement, then
he would be the author of sin.  

It's almost like the chicken and egg paradox.  Does the chicken (the Atonement)
lay the egg (the Fall), or does the egg (the Fall) lead to a chick (the Atonement).

For your "but human parents" section, I might add "4. pass on a fallen human
nature to their children".

That question can't really be answered adequately within the framework of the doctrine of modern Christianity.  With the invention of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo in the late second century AD, the problem is compounded exponentially.  

The classic problem of evil is a philosophical argument that suggests the existence of evil is incompatible with a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good.

The Wikipedia article, Religious Responses to the Problem of Evil, states the logical problem of evil this way:

"The earliest formulation of the problem of evil dates back to the Greek philosopher Epicurus;[a] David Hume paraphrased it as follows: "Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"[17]

The logical argument from evil is as follows:

1. If an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god exists, then evil does not.
2. There is evil in the world.
3. Therefore, an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient god does not exist.[18]"

And as I stated above, this problem is compounded by the more recent (and unbiblical) developed doctrine that God created all things (the earth, the universe, Satan, humans) out of nothing.

BYU professor David L. Paulsen stated the problem this way:

Quote

Although apologists for belief in God have labored long to reconcile the world’s evil with God’s goodness and power, they have often overlooked the much more difficult task of reconciling evil not only with His goodness and power but with God’s absolute creation and absolute foreknowledge as well. Twentieth-century English philosopher Antony Flew takes these additional premises into account in arguing that any such reconciliation is impossible. It is perfectly proper in the face of apparently pointless evil, he says, to look first for some saving explanation that will show that, in spite of appearances, there really is a God who loves us. But Flew claims that believers have assigned God attributes that block a saving explanation altogether:

We cannot say that [God] would like to help but cannot: God is omnipotent. We cannot say that he would help if he only knew: God is omniscient. We cannot say that he is not responsible for the wickedness of others: God creates those others. Indeed an omnipotent, omniscient God must be an accessory before (and during) the fact to every human misdeed; as well as being responsible for every non-moral defect in the universe.³

To state Flew’s argument differently: If God creates all things (including finite agents) absolutely (that is, out of nothing), knowing beforehand all the actual future consequences of His creative choices, then He is an accessory before the fact and ultimately responsible for every moral and nonmoral defect in the universe. And if, as some believers allege, some human agents will suffer endlessly in hell, God is also at least jointly responsible for these horrendous outcomes. But if so, how can He possibly be perfectly loving? Given the traditional understanding of God, whatever our consistency-saving strategies, in the end, I believe, we must candidly confess that they are not very convincing.

But the doctrines of the restored church as revealed by God to Joseph Smith resolves all of these issues.  See (the same article quoted above), Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil, David L. Paulsen, Professor of Philosophy, September 21, 1999.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, marineland said:

I'd say pride and lust; the latter being like Eve's desire to become like God when
following the devil's temptation.

And what was the internal source of his pride and lust, what caused him to think like that?

[teddyaware]

5 hours ago, marineland said:

What I meant was what evil did intelligences choose or act upon?

Evil thoughts, ideas and emotions that may negatively affect others and are at variance with the righteousness of God and holy intentions. This discussion board perfectly illustrates the battles of will, mind and heart in which intelligences can be engaged.

Edited October 18, 2025 by teddyaware

[manol]

44 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

This discussion board perfectly illustrates the battles of will, mind and heart in which intelligences can be engaged.

Do you see this discussion board as a battleground?  Do you see yourself as engaging in battles of will, mind and heart? 

 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Do you see this discussion board as a battleground?  Do you see yourself as engaging in battles of will, mind and heart? 

 

If you follow my dialogue on this thread with marineland, you’ll be better able to understand the reason why I made my point. But to directly answer your question (which is somewhat unrelated to the point I was actually trying to make), the answer is an emphatic yes! While engaged in debates on this board with some of the anti-Mormons, embittered former church members, and disaffected members of record who participate on this board, there are many times when intense arguments focused on controversial issues feel more like pitched verbal battles than polite conversations focused on benign ideas. Personally, I view the winning side of the war in heaven as victorious intelligences who engaged in an arduous, emotion charged verbal conflict that was focused on our eternal destiny, a veritable war of ideas that was won with will (testimony), mind (godly knowledge and wisdom) and heart (great love and devotion to our just, wise and loving God). 
 

Edited October 19, 2025 by teddyaware

[manol]

41 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

If you follow my dialogue on this thread with marineland, you’ll be better able to understand the reason why I made my point. But to directly answer your question (which is somewhat unrelated to the point I was actually trying to make), the answer is an emphatic yes! While engaged in debates on this board with some of the anti-Mormons, embittered former church members, and disaffected members of record who participate on this board, there are many times when intense arguments focused on controversial issues feel more like pitched verbal battles than polite conversations focused on benign ideas. Personally, I view the winning side of the war in heaven as victorious intelligences who engaged in an arduous, emotion charged verbal conflict that was focused on our eternal destiny, a veritable war of ideas that was won with will (testimony), mind (godly knowledge and wisdom) and heart (great love and devotion to our just, wise and loving God). 
 

Thank you for explaining your perspective.

So if I understand correctly, you see a parallel between the war in heaven and the verbal conflicts you engage in here on this board.  If I have that wrong, please correct me.  If I'm in the ballpark, well that helps me to understand you better, for which I am grateful. 

Edited October 19, 2025 by manol

[ZealouslyStriving]

25 minutes ago, manol said:

Thank you for explaining your perspective.

So if I understand correctly, you see a parallel between the war in heaven and the verbal conflicts you engage in here on this board.  If I have that wrong, please correct me.  If I'm in the ballpark, well that helps me to understand you better, for which I am grateful. 

Not a parallel, a continuation of that war.

[manol]

17 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Not a parallel, a continuation of that war.

Got it.  Is that how you see it too, @teddyaware? 

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, manol said:

Thank you for explaining your perspective.

So if I understand correctly, you see a parallel between the war in heaven and the verbal conflicts you engage in here on this board.  If I have that wrong, please correct me.  If I'm in the ballpark, well that helps me to understand you better, for which I am grateful. 

While I’ve been engaged in heated debates on this discussion with bitter critics of the restored gospel, I hope you’ll excuse me if the thought happened to pass through my mind that these earthly verbal battles are at least somewhat similar to what occurred during the ideological war in heaven. A question for you: Do you see any similarities at all between the war in heaven and when believers in the restored gospel of Christ verbally defend the church against its enemies? If you fail to see any similarities between the two, please explain to me the reasons why you believe they’re dissimilar? But before answering please consider the fact that for many years the leaders of the church frequently warn the members that the war in heaven is continuing to be fought here on earth.

Edited October 19, 2025 by teddyaware

[manol]

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

While I’ve been engaged in heated debates on this discussion with bitter critics of the restored gospel, I hope you’ll excuse me if the thought happened to pass through my mind that these earthly verbal battles are at least somewhat similar to what occurred during the ideological war in heaven.

I don't think that's an unreasonable thought arising from a faithful LDS perspective.

 

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

A question for you: Do you see any similarities at all between the war in heaven and when believers in the restored gospel of Christ verbally defend the church against its enemies?

My current paradigm is not at all war-centric. But I'm not saying that makes my paradigm “better”; imo we may each have embraced the belief system which best enables and facilitates our individual progression at this time.  (And I realize that idea may not have a place within your paradigm.)

 

1 hour ago, teddyaware said:

If you fail to see any similarities between the two, please explain to me the reasons why you believe they’re dissimilar? But before answering please consider the fact that for many years the leaders of the church frequently warn the members that the war in heaven is continuing to be fought here on earth.

Speaking only for myself here: Whatever warfare may have taken place in the past, I do not find the path which leads me towards the light to include war, or even thoughts of war, verbal or otherwise. I think my job is to choose those thoughts which bring only peace, and which align me to the consciousness of Christ. (<- Easier said than done!  But I think it's possible.)

 

Edited October 19, 2025 by manol

[mbh26]

On 10/12/2025 at 2:21 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Why did God, in his omniscience, create a being He knew would rebel and complicate things?

Because God respects our own moral agency.  

I believe we all existed as intelligences before becoming spirit children of our Heavenly Father.  Our independent will and level of development was up to our own choice even then, not just a question of God's competence in creating us.  Otherwise God could have simply created us to be perfect like Him without us having to do the hard work of improving, suffering, repenting, and ultimately progressing and even risk ultimately failing in the attempt.  All God can give us is an opportunity to improve upon what we are and become more like Him.  Lucifer accepted that opportunity only to later choose a path that led to his own unhappiness.  In his effort to get revenge, God has used Him to help improve his saints and bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  

[ZealouslyStriving]

22 minutes ago, mbh26 said:

Because God respects our own moral agency.  

I believe we all existed as intelligences before becoming spirit children of our Heavenly Father.  Our independent will and level of development was up to our own choice even then, not just a question of God's competence in creating us.  Otherwise God could have simply created us to be perfect like Him without us having to do the hard work of improving, suffering, repenting, and ultimately progressing and even risk ultimately failing in the attempt.  All God can give us is an opportunity to improve upon what we are and become more like Him.  Lucifer accepted that opportunity only to later choose a path that led to his own unhappiness.  In his effort to get revenge, God has used Him to help improve his saints and bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.  

I believe you are missing the point of my question to our Protestant friend.

Also, we (Latter-day Saints) don't believe God created Lucifer.

Edited October 19, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[JVW]

On 10/12/2025 at 2:21 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Why did God, in his omniscience, create a being He knew would rebel and complicate things?

On a sidenote, I'm not sure if this view applies to all of Satanism, or just to a certain sect (there is a European Satanic leader I follow on YouTube IIRC his name is Nicholas Shreck but I'd have to look it up), but I've heard the view espoused that Satan is actually a good guy doing exactly what God is commanding him to do. That Satan is actually one of God's generals and his mission is to tempt and try God's children to see if they will choose Jesus. So Satan is not actually destined for hell but to dwell in glory with God for a job well done.

[marineland]

On 10/18/2025 at 6:03 PM, teddyaware said:

Evil thoughts, ideas and emotions that may negatively affect others and are at variance with the righteousness of God and holy intentions. This discussion board perfectly illustrates the battles of will, mind and heart in which intelligences can be engaged.

By intelligences, I mean "beings" before these "beings" became spirit children.

What caused evil influences for them?

[marineland]

On 10/18/2025 at 3:31 PM, Calm said:

And what was the internal source of his pride and lust, what caused him to think like that?

Their God-given ability to think and make a choice.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, marineland said:

Their God-given ability to think and make a choice.

Okay.  Following so far.  Makes sense to me.  
 

Did this ability have any determined structure at its beginning to it or was it random?  Iow, did God know before he gave them their ability to think and choose how this ability would work and therefore what choices they would make or did he somehow hide the result from himself so he had no control over what those abilities would be in detail at least?

Iow, what led Satan to choose pride while some other being choose humility?

PS:  My last semester at university included a class on the various foundations of Psychology and what the basic assumptions meant.  Behaviourism and Humanism were studied in detailed, especially in the area of what actually determines our behavior.  So I tend to look at religious beliefs in the same way, dissecting them back to the most basic assumptions about humanity.  This is probably why I am asking for more detail. It’s one of the parts of belief that fascinates me the most—what ultimately makes is who we are.

Edited October 20, 2025 by Calm