Does God Know?

[Walden]

Far from it. We are in control of our destiny. Our actions determine what we will be. We have a choice. There is no illusion here. The fact that the outcome is known in advance does not alter the reality of that choice.

Agreed, my wording was rather clumsy with regard to the use of "illusion." It's just that this is a difficult concept to put words to.

And yes, I would agree that the fact that god already knows what decisions we will make before we make them "does not alter the reality of that choice." All choices have consequences, and according to theology, those consequences may not be known until the afterlife, but they are real consequences just the same.

But that doesn't change the fact that from the moment that we take our first breath, and according to LDS theology it likely goes even further back to the pre-existence, god knows exactly all the chocies we will ever make (at least, for this discussion, in this life) and thus which kingdom we will inherit. We still have the freedom to make those choices, god just knows us so well that he knows which choices we will make. He knows exactly who will enter the celestial, terrestrial and telestial kingdoms before we have made a single choice in life.

So essentially, the "test" that this life presents is not necessarliy which kingdom we will inherit, but rather, how we will individually respond to the choices that we are faced with? And this is meant to help us learn and grow in the eternities? Essentially he is exposing us to good and evil for our own knowledge? Didn't we have a war in heaven already between "good and evil", in which the valiant among us were faced with a choice to follow satan's plan or christ's plan......or was that war not about "good or evil" plans, but rather, a war over "plan A" or "plan B" with no good or evil asociated with either plan.

As confused as I likely sound, I am not trying to be obtuse, it's just that this conundrum regarding choice in the face of known outcomes is a complex one.

[Maidservant]

I decided a while back that, for myself, omniscience was not a quality I required out of my God and indeed, may have been an invented idea about God in the history of religion. Thus if I learn that He is, after all, omniscient, great. If I learn that he is not omniscient, also fine. Any thing in between . . . works for me.

However, omniscience itself has become much less mysterious to me in ways I am not going to enumerate here, and I tend to think that omnscience is possible not only for Gods, but for any average Joe with enough technology and social understanding. We are not that many translations away from omniscience ourselves (think Internet, remove the hardware, put it internal to your brain, etc etc etc). In other words, I do think omniscience is possible, is not really that supernatural, and thus, of course, God would be omniscient including intimate knowledge of our choices.

My main challenge I want to make here however is that this earthlife--in my understanding--is not a test in the sense that we think of it, like when we take school tests. The test is not a balance of our good acts versus our bad acts and whichever we have the most of and have been forgiven of, then we're good to go with a big gold star on our forehead, through the gates into a section of real estate with a big sign on it that says "Celestial Kingdom". In fact, I don't think any person is capable of doing good on their own without light and spirit from grace (or at least, I'm not).

I also think the idea of a "learning experience" does not quite capture what it is we are doing here (again, in my personal understanding).

If you think about God, and he holds in his fingers a pea seed, he will know with foreknowledge what that pea seed will become. He knows what the process looks like and what the conclusion is. However, he can look at that pea seed all day long, KNOWING, and it will never BE unless he PLANTS the pea seed.

When we were born into this mortal plane, we were PLANTED. Indeed, the outcome is not in question. Most of us will overcome. Most of us will bear fruit. But the process is required. The earth will become celestial . . . not as handed to us on a platter . . . but as created by us, as we live our covenants. This is not a matter of proving that we are GOOD ENOUGH to be celestial. This is a matter of actually BUILDING the kingdom.

If you stand on a plot of land, with hammer, wood, nails, and say, "I'm GOOD ENOUGH to build a house. I know how to do it. God can trust me to do it." That may all be true, but you actually have to do the LABOR or the HOUSE will never appear in time, space and reality. Also a person who says, "Gee, I'm not sure I can build a house, at least without some help,", but that person gets started any way, maybe screws up a few times and has to rebuild some sections, and brings a house into reality . . . THAT is how this earth life works. In this point of view, the mistakes are not black marks, maybe detours only, they don't even exist any more because the house that finally gets built is just fine.

From the point of view of our pre-mortal life, entering mortality IS the ORDINANCE of Godhood. You start on one end, incomplete, you enter by birth, and when the ORDINANCE of MORTALITY is complete (not at death, but at what is termed the Final Judgment) . . . Mortality and what you became WILL BE your crown.

My point is that if God IS completely omniscient, that omniscience cannot violate the purpose and function of earth life. Even if he knows all the things you are going to do, we still have to live them, otherwise we can't have the harvest (of peas) or can't live in the house (that we built with God's help).

[Brade]

That reasoning is false. If TAO doesn’t make it to the celestial kingdom (using your analogy), that is because TAO failed to meet the requirements. The fact that that outcome can be known in advance does not alter the fact that it was through his own choice that he didn’t make it to the celestial kingdom—nor does it mean that he could not have altered the outcome by making a different choice. That is simply is not a logical deduction to make. He did have a choice, and he exercised his choice to arrive at the outcome; and the fact that those choices and their outcome can be known in advance does not mean that the choices were not real, or that the outcome could not have been different if other choices had been made.

To my way of thinking it is not even a paradox at all. Your reasoning is flawed. It is not a paradox. It may be a difficult concept for the limited human mind to grasp; but in reality it is not even a paradox.

First of all, reasoning isn't false (or true, for that matter). Reasoning is bad or good, sound or unsound, or cogent or not cogent. Premises, propositions, declarative sentences, and the like can be false. Just a little nit-pick, but it's good to be precise and accurate. I have to be honest, and I sincerely don't mean to sound rude, but when somebody's response regarding a complicated philosophical matter begins with "That reasoning is false" I instantly am forced to wonder whether such a person is sufficiently familiar with formal logic to grasp the logical nuances of matters like the philosophical problems of free will.*

Ok, let's try this. Imagine that it's Monday. God knows that Bob will eat an apple at precisely noon on Friday. So, here we have a proposition: Bob will eat an apple at precisely noon on Friday. Let's call that proposition 'P'. God knows that P. In saying that God knows that P we are saying at least that P is true. So, it's true that P.

Now, here's a question: Come noon on Friday, can it be false, given what I've said above, that P?

You need to bracket off questions of moral responsibility and blameworthiness for now. Can P fail to obtain, give what I've said?

*See this for a reinforcement of some of the basics of logic and logical terminology

[Brade]

Thus the difference between forseeing and predestination is that in one, the actor does not know where his actions will take him, thus he obtains free will. The past and future have many possible paths, but only one reality.

Whoa! Hold on a minute. 'free will' in what sense? 'free will' in the sense of being able to do otherwise, or in the sense of performing actions without coercion? If it's the former, then we can easily construct a scenario where your claims entail a very straightforward contradiction. If it's the latter, then fine, you're a compatibilist about free will. That's fine, as long as you're willing to concede that, as a compatibilist, people cannot do otherwise. If this is going over your head, then you should really read this, and the linked entries on compatibilism, determinism, and incompatibilism, before going further.

[Nathair/|\]

You know how on a clear day you can climb a tree and see for miles and miles in each direction? Imagine your consciousness is raised up a few dimensions so you can see time the same way.

If my analogy is correct, then it's all simply a matter of perspective. From up on His tree, Heavenly Father can watch enough of the time stream that he knows what "will" happen (from our perspective.) (Hey, I wonder if that's part of the meaning of the god hanging on the world tree to gain gnosis.)

I suggest that the purpose of the mortality as a test is so that we will know that the judgement is just. Heavenly Father knows us perfectly. He could simply assign us all to the kingdom we belong in from the beginning, but then we could justly claim "Hey, You didn't even give me a chance.

Yours under the far-seeing oaks,

Nathair /|\

[SkepticTheist]

God's knowledge as an observer of all things in time and space does not infringe on cause and effect, though he can certainly intervene if he wishes, and no doubt, he often does.

Does God know what we will do, say, and think before we do?

(And does He know the choices we will make before we make them?)

[subgenius]

Interesting perspectives i have read thus far.

If it is the nature of Heavenly Father to "know" all, does that mean He controls all?

But more importantly, do we not see in the scriptures that He is capable of changing His mind? Does the Book of Life not have names added/deleted ?

If on the one hand we try to knock around the Omniscient Paradox with respect to Heavenly Father then we are remiss in the given quality of HF wherein He is capable of defying logical impossibilities - that He encompasses total and pure agency.

So, yes, it is completely reasonable that He is capable of knowing all things, capable of changing His mind, and capable of allowing us the freedom to choose otherwise.

How often do those of us with children let them go down a path when we are fully aware of the inevitable consequence that awaits them?

[TAO]

Whoa! Hold on a minute. 'free will' in what sense? 'free will' in the sense of being able to do otherwise, or in the sense of performing actions without coercion? If it's the former, then we can easily construct a scenario where your claims entail a very straightforward contradiction. If it's the latter, then fine, you're a compatibilist about free will. That's fine, as long as you're willing to concede that, as a compatibilist, people cannot do otherwise. If this is going over your head, then you should really read this, and the linked entries on compatibilism, determinism, and incompatibilism, before going further.

That's why souls/intelligences must be eternal - to get rid of the compatabtilist part of it.

Skeptic Thrust explains it well. Foreknowledge of others doesn't destroy personal responsibility.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[TAO]

Agreed, my wording was rather clumsy with regard to the use of "illusion." It's just that this is a difficult concept to put words to.

And yes, I would agree that the fact that god already knows what decisions we will make before we make them "does not alter the reality of that choice." All choices have consequences, and according to theology, those consequences may not be known until the afterlife, but they are real consequences just the same.

But that doesn't change the fact that from the moment that we take our first breath, and according to LDS theology it likely goes even further back to the pre-existence, god knows exactly all the chocies we will ever make (at least, for this discussion, in this life) and thus which kingdom we will inherit. We still have the freedom to make those choices, god just knows us so well that he knows which choices we will make. He knows exactly who will enter the celestial, terrestrial and telestial kingdoms before we have made a single choice in life.

So essentially, the "test" that this life presents is not necessarliy which kingdom we will inherit, but rather, how we will individually respond to the choices that we are faced with? And this is meant to help us learn and grow in the eternities? Essentially he is exposing us to good and evil for our own knowledge? Didn't we have a war in heaven already between "good and evil", in which the valiant among us were faced with a choice to follow satan's plan or christ's plan......or was that war not about "good or evil" plans, but rather, a war over "plan A" or "plan B" with no good or evil asociated with either plan.

As confused as I likely sound, I am not trying to be obtuse, it's just that this conundrum regarding choice in the face of known outcomes is a complex one.

If I mat suggest, God cannot judge/set us for our future actions, even though they will eventually happen. I think it is a rule of the law of justice, but I may be very wrong.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[TAO]

Brade... P is true which allows god to see it is true. Not the other way around, imo.

Best Wishes,

TAO

[Questing Beast]

Does God know what we will do, say, and think before we do?

(And does He know the choices we will make before we make them?)

Yes. But our making them, and our thoughts, are not caused by "God". The free will is real. Knowing the outcome of all things does not mean that they are caused to happen. I watch my children and I know an outcome is obvious but that in no way makes my foreknowledge the cause of the outcome.

I hold the belief that "God" does not even read minds. That would ruin the experience of creating free will and then watching it go to work. If we request a mind reading that is another thing entirely: but even then, we have to comprehend what it is that we are asking for. To have "God" enter the mind is like being reabsorbed back into the totality of "God"; like the philosopher's drop of water returning to the ocean. That is an intrusion that most free wills flinch from when the opportunity is presented. It is a sort of annihilation of the sovereign self.

Of course, all things can be "reset", since "God" is not bound in any way by the linear progression and limitation of space-time. Not only is the outcome known by "God" (for all things are present - NOW - continually), but ALL outcomes: and I have to believe that every possible outcome has its own reality, i.e. exists within its own world in which it is placed, or occurs....

[Kiviuq]

As we have seen in this thread, imagining the existence of a divine being that knows the future necessarily conflicts with our perceived sense of free will. Man has been debating this problem for a millennium. You all are making it way too hard. Personally, I think you have to give up one notion or the other. The watered down explanations of how to have both just don’t work for me.

[zerinus]

. . . god just knows us so well that he knows which choices we will make.

I don’t think that is how God knows the future. If that is how he knew, it would still be hit and miss. It would still be guesswork. But according to the scriptures, that is not how God’s foreknowledge works. God knows the future with the same accuracy as He knows the past. He doesn’t just make a good guess at the future, but sees it as clearly as the past. He can show it to you like a movie, as He has done to the prophets. Nephi for example was shown a vision in which he saw the ministry of Christ, John the Baptist, John the Revelator, and Mary like a movie. He saw the entire history of the Nephites unfold before him like a movie. He saw the rest of world history unfold before him like a movie. He saw what they looked like. These are all recorded in Nephi’s vision in the Book of Mormon. Moses had the same kind of vision revealed to him. This is how he tells the story:

Moses 1

:

27 And it came to pass, as the voice was still speaking, Moses cast his eyes and beheld the earth, yea, even all of it; and there was not a particle of it which he did not behold, discerning it by the spirit of God.

28 And he beheld also the inhabitants thereof, and there was not a soul which he beheld not; and he discerned them by the Spirit of God; and their numbers were great, even numberless as the sand upon the sea shore.

29 And he beheld many lands; and each land was called earth, and there were inhabitants on the face thereof.

30 And it came to pass that Moses called upon God, saying: Tell me, I pray thee, why these things are so, and by what thou madest them?

The Brother of Jared was likewise shown a similar vision:

Ether 3

:

25 And when the Lord had said these words, he showed unto the brother of Jared all the inhabitants of the earth which had been, and also all that would be; and he withheld them not from his sight, even unto the ends of the earth.

26 For he had said unto him in times before, that if he would believe in him that he could show unto him all things—it should be shown unto him; therefore the Lord could not withhold anything from him, for he knew that the Lord could show him all things.

And so was Enoch:

Moses 7

:

41 And it came to pass that the Lord spake unto Enoch, and told Enoch all the doings of the children of men; wherefore Enoch knew, and looked upon their wickedness, and their misery, and wept and stretched forth his arms, and his heart swelled wide as eternity; and his bowels yearned; and all eternity shook.

42 And Enoch also saw Noah, and his family; that the posterity of all the sons of Noah should be saved with a temporal salvation;

43 Wherefore Enoch saw that Noah built an ark; and that the Lord smiled upon it, and held it in his own hand; but upon the residue of the wicked the floods came and swallowed them up.

44 And as Enoch saw this, he had bitterness of soul, and wept over his brethren, and said unto the heavens: I will refuse to be comforted; but the Lord said unto Enoch: Lift up your heart, and be glad; and look.

45 And it came to pass that Enoch looked; and from Noah, he beheld all the families of the earth; and he cried unto the Lord, saying: When shall the day of the Lord come? When shall the blood of the Righteous be shed, that all they that mourn may be sanctified and have eternal life?

46 And the Lord said: It shall be in the meridian of time, in the days of wickedness and vengeance.

47 And behold, Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, even in the flesh; and his soul rejoiced, saying: The Righteous is lifted up, and the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world; and through faith I am in the bosom of the Father, and behold, Zion is with me.

* * *

55 And the Lord said unto Enoch: Look, and he looked and beheld the Son of Man lifted up on the cross, after the manner of men;

56 And he heard a loud voice; and the heavens were veiled; and all the creations of God mourned; and the earth groaned; and the rocks were rent; and the saints arose, and were crowned at the right hand of the Son of Man, with crowns of glory;

57 And as many of the spirits as were in prison came forth, and stood on the right hand of God; and the remainder were reserved in chains of darkness until the judgment of the great day.

* * *

67 And the Lord showed Enoch all things, even unto the end of the world; and he saw the day of the righteous, the hour of their redemption, and received a fulness of joy;

All the great prophets and patriarchs of ancient times had similar visions shown to them. Adam was shown such a vision (D&C 107:56). Abraham saw such a vision (John 8:56); and without doubt Noah, Isaac, Jacob and many other were shows such visions, although we have no record of all of them at the present time. Moroni was shown such visions:

Mormon 8

:

34 Behold, the Lord hath shown unto me great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come, at that day when these things shall come forth among you.

35 Behold, I speak unto you as if ye were present, and yet ye are not. But behold, Jesus Christ hath shown you unto me, and I know your doing.

God knows the future with such precision that He is able to influence the course of events so that the future turns out in His favour—but without overriding man’s free agency. For example, He knew that Satan would hatch a plot to prevent the Book of Mormon from successfully being published in the generation of Joseph Smith; so He put in place contingency arrangements to ensure that Satan’s plot would not be successful—but without overriding the agency of Joseph Smith, Martin Harris, or anyone else. (see D&C 10.)

It is about time the folks on this board did their homework, and opened up their scriptures and actually read them!

So essentially, the "test" that this life presents is not necessarliy which kingdom we will inherit, but rather, how we will individually respond to the choices that we are faced with?

No! The test is to determine which kingdom we will inherit. The fact that God knows the outcome does not mean that it is not a real test. An experienced teacher may know in advance which ones of his pupils will pass their final exam, and which ones will fail; but he cannot pass or fail them before they have taken the exam. And the fact that he know the end result does not mean that it is not a real exam.

And this is meant to help us learn and grow in the eternities? Essentially he is exposing us to good and evil for our own knowledge? Didn't we have a war in heaven already between "good and evil", in which the valiant among us were faced with a choice to follow satan's plan or christ's plan......or was that war not about "good or evil" plans, but rather, a war over "plan A" or "plan B" with no good or evil asociated with either plan.

Mortality serves two purposes: (1) it is a test to determine what kingdom we will inherit, depending on what choices we make; and (2) it is a place where we learn by experience to distinguish between good and evil. These two different functions should not be confused. Both functions are important, and real.

As confused as I likely sound, I am not trying to be obtuse, it's just that this conundrum regarding choice in the face of known outcomes is a complex one.

I agree it is a difficult concept to grasp; but it is not an impossible one!

[Brade]

Brade... P is true which allows god to see it is true. Not the other way around, imo.

Best Wishes,

TAO

Are you trying to say that P cannot be false? Again, here's the question I asked: Come noon on Friday, can it be false, given what I've said above, that P? The answer should be either "Yes, it can be false that P", "No, it cannot be false that P", "I like contradictions, it can be true and false!", "It's neither true nor false", or "I don't know".

I agree it is a difficult concept to grasp; but it is not an impossible one!

It's a difficult concept to grasp because, if we're talking about libertarian free will, then grasping that that sort of free will is compatible with the sort of foreknowledge zerinus espouses is the same as grasping the truth, if it could be true, of "all living cats have hearts and no living cats have hearts".

[CA Steve]

But according to LDS and Christian belief, god is omniscient.

On LDS.org is is stated that, "God the Father is the supreme ruler of the universe. He is all powerful (Gen. 18:14; Alma 26:35; D&C 19:1–3), all knowing (Matt. 6:8; 2 Ne. 2:24), and everywhere present through his Spirit (Ps. 139:7–12; D&C 88:7–13, 41)."

I think that it is generally accepted among the Christian community exactly what god knows.....everything.

I think the LDS belief about the nature of God is different from the mainstream Christian belief. While we like to throw around the Omni's when it comes to describing him. In reality we have a much more finite view of his nature. We tend to think of him in terms of existing within both time and space and coeternal to both matter and intelligences.

[Calm]

As we have seen in this thread, imagining the existence of a divine being that knows the future necessarily conflicts with our perceived sense of free will. Man has been debating this problem for a millennium. You all are making it way too hard. Personally, I think you have to give up one notion or the other. The watered down explanations of how to have both just don’t work for me.

Depends on how you define "free will". If the ultimate cause of man's behaviour is rooted in his own eternal nature and not in some external cause, then one could say he has "free will" in the sense that he is his own 'cause' or determinant (not sure if this is the correct word, but too lazy to find another) of future state of existence. Of course, if that eternal nature is fixed and unchangeable, then it seems perhaps inappropriate to call it "free" even if it is an individual's own will that ultimately is the primary cause of what he is.

I agree when you take the logic back to the very beginning of what causes what and combine that with perfect foreknowledge, you do have a problem IF you make the assumption that time acts in a linear fashion for God as well as man....and I don't know if we can make that assumption, but I also don't believe we can frame the conversation in any other way save to say if God's "time sense" is not the same as mortal man's, then we don't have a clue how will and knowledge actually operate in an eternal sense because we don't have a clue about what eternity actually is.

[zerinus]

First of all, reasoning isn't false (or true, for that matter). Reasoning is bad or good, sound or unsound, or cogent or not cogent. Premises, propositions, declarative sentences, and the like can be false. Just a little nit-pick, but it's good to be precise and accurate. I have to be honest, and I sincerely don't mean to sound rude, but when somebody's response regarding a complicated philosophical matter begins with "That reasoning is false" I instantly am forced to wonder whether such a person is sufficiently familiar with formal logic to grasp the logical nuances of matters like the philosophical problems of free will.

Your reasoning is false—as in erroneous.

Ok, let's try this. Imagine that it's Monday. God knows that Bob will eat an apple at precisely noon on Friday. So, here we have a proposition: Bob will eat an apple at precisely noon on Friday. Let's call that proposition 'P'. God knows that P. In saying that God knows that P we are saying at least that P is true. So, it's true that P.

Now, here's a question: Come noon on Friday, can it be false, given what I've said above, that P?

No, it can’t, be; but that does not mean that it could not have been if Bob had made different choices. You are constructing a false syllogism. The fact that God knows what choices Bob would make so as to end up eating an apple precisely at noon on Friday, does not mean that he had no option but to make those choices; nor does it mean that God could not have altered the course of events so as to lead to a different outcome if He wanted to—but without affecting Bob’s free agency.

[Brade]

Your reasoning is false—as in erroneous.

My reasoning is just fine as applied to libertarian free will. I challenge you to find a lettered philosopher who would disagree - I think there's 1, maybe 2.

No, it can’t, be; but that does not mean that it could not have been if Bob had made different choices.

Ah ha! And that's what I was fishing for. Basically, it could not have been true if history had been different. This is not libertarian free will. That's fine, as I've already said. non-libertarian capatibilist free will is compatible with the type of foreknowledge you espouse. Libertarian free will – i.e. the ability to do otherwise – is not compatible with the type of foreknowledge you espouse.

The fact that God knows what choices Bob would make so as to end up eating an apple precisely at noon on Friday, does not mean that he had no option but to make those choices

Sure, it means that he could have made the "choice" to not eat the apple if things about the past were different. And, again, that's not the ability to do otherwise. That's the ability to do otherwise if things were different. That's compatabilist free will, not libertarian free will. I'm simply trying to be clear here.

[zerinus]

It's a difficult concept to grasp because, if we're talking about libertarian free will, then grasping that that sort of free will is compatible with the sort of foreknowledge zerinus espouses is the same as grasping the truth, if it could be true, of "all living cats have hearts and no living cats have hearts".

Not true. See my reply to your previous post.

[zerinus]

My reasoning is just fine as applied to libertarian free will. I challenge you to find a lettered philosopher who would disagree - I think there's 1, maybe 2.

I don’t care what philosophers believe. I am a theologian, not a philosopher; and what I am discussing here is theology, not philosophy.

Ah ha! And that's what I was fishing for. Basically, it could not have been true if history had been different.

That is not what I said at all. I said if he had made different choices. That is not the same as saying “if the history had been different”. Let’s not change the subject here. We are talking about man’s freewill, not about the indeterminate course of history.

This is not libertarian freewill. That's fine, as I've already said. non-libertarian capatibilist free will is compatible with the type of foreknowledge you espouse. Libertarian free will – i.e. the ability to do otherwise – is not compatible with the type of foreknowledge you espouse.

I don’t know what kinds of “freewill” philosophers recognize, and I don’t care. I know of only one kind of freewill that the scriptures identify, and that is the ability to make an informed decision between two courses of action—typically a good and evil action.

Sure, it means that he could have made the "choice" to not eat the apple if things about the past were different. And, again, that's not the ability to do otherwise. That's the ability to do otherwise if things were different. That's compatabilist free will, not libertarian free will. I'm simply trying to be clear here.

That is the problem of complicating a theological discussion with a philosophical one. From a theological perspective, the “choices” that we are particularly interested in are choices between good and evil, that determine where we will end up after the final judgement—although the argument is equally applicable to inconsequential choices, such as whether to eat an orange or an apple on a Friday afternoon.

[Brade]

Not true. See my reply to your previous post.

Look, the only way to square libertarian free will with the sort of foreknowledge you espouse is by positing exotic theories about time and space, or by revising the rules of logic. Both of these options, and others like them, strain reflective equilibrium, and that's precisely why virtually nobody seriously defends the view that libertarian free will is compatible with divine foreknowledge of the sort you espouse.

I don’t care what philosophers believe. I am a theologian, not a philosopher; and what I am discussing here is theology, not philosophy.

The issue is quite clearly a philosophical one that theologians also happen to deal with, but I'm unaware of any professional theologians who disagree with the analysis I've presented, even if they do disagree about what sort of free will exists. It's clear enough to me that you're just not familiar with the issue as it's discussed in the academic disciplines of philosophy or theology. Both disciplines make the same distinctions and use the same terminology and logical framework in analyzing the problems of free will. There are lots of people on this forum, who happen to be familiar with the philosophy and theology, who disagree with me about what sort of free will exists, but would be and have been happy to agree with my analysis of the issue.

That is not what I said at all. I said if he had made different choices. That is not the same as saying “if the history had been different”. Let’s not change the subject here. We are talking about man’s freewill, not about the indeterminate course of history.

Past "choices" are part of history. We can't just assume that those choices are free, in any sense, because, wait for it, that's what's at issue.

I don’t know what kinds of “freewill” philosophers recognize, and I don’t care. I know of only one kind of freewill that the scriptures identify, and that is the ability to make an informed decision between two courses of action—typically a good and evil action.

It's becoming clear to me that you really don't care about the issue in a philosophically rigorous way.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I have a difficult time believing that if God knows every action that we will take, that it would be possible for him to not be a "respecter of persons". Like I said, I personally believe that He voluntarily sets aside His fore-knowledge in terms of our individual actions so that He can truly be an impartial judge and that our choice of eternal life or eternal death is truly ours.

[LDSToronto]

I don’t care what philosophers believe. I am a theologian, not a philosopher; and what I am discussing here is theology, not philosophy.

I don’t know what kinds of “freewill” philosophers recognize, and I don’t care. I know of only one kind of freewill that the scriptures identify, and that is the ability to make an informed decision between two courses of action—typically a good and evil action.

How did you receive training as a theologian without receiving some type of training in one of the fundamental concepts that theologians are concerned with? And more so, how did you bypass major philosophical teachings about free will?

H.

[LDSToronto]

I don’t know what kinds of “freewill” philosophers recognize, and I don’t care. I know of only one kind of freewill that the scriptures identify, and that is the ability to make an informed decision between two courses of action—typically a good and evil action.

I'm not a theologian, nor a philosopher (though I have my fantasies...), but one thing I am an expert in is making choices in my own life, and I can tell you, unequivocally, that I am rarely faced with a choice between good and evil. Like, maybe once in a blue moon, and it's more the, "Should I go to conference or sleep in" type of evil, not the "Should I have pork chops or a small baby for dinner" type of evil.

H.

[zerinus]

How did you receive training as a theologian without receiving some type of training in one of the fundamental concepts that theologians are concerned with? And more so, how did you bypass major philosophical teachings about free will?

H.

My training in theology is in scriptures. Believe it or not, the basis of Christian theology (I mean traditional Christian theology) is the Bible. A whole lot of other discipline may have been built around it; but it ultimately boils down to the Bible. Anybody who knows the Bible well, and can intelligently reason from it, can legitimately call himself a theologian. In the case of Mormonism, that basis expands to include modern revelations of the Church. That is my training as a theologian. I haven’t received any “formal” training as a theologian, if that is what you are asking—and I don’t think I need to. Our resident “formal” theologian I suppose is Rob Bowman; and I can hold my own against him any day! There is no contest!