Is God Omniscient?

[Zeta-Flux]

Wade,

1. It has always been true that I sinned in the past (Assumption: Omnitemporality of Truth).

2. It is impossible that God should hold a false belief or fail to know any truth (Assumption: Infallible Foreknowledge).

3. God has always believed that I had sinned in the past (from 1 and 2).

4. If God has always believed a certain thing, then it is not in anyone's power to have done anything which entails that God has not always believed that thing (Assumption: Fixed Past).

5. It is not in my power to have done anything that entails that God has not always believed that I sinned in the past (from 3 and 4).

6. Had I refrained from sinning in the past entails that God has not always believed that I had sinned in the past (necessary truth and from 2; Principle of Transfer of Powerlessness).

7. Therefore, it was not in my power to have refrained from sinning in the past (from 5 and 6).

8. If I had acted freely when I sinned in the past, then I also had it within my power to have refrained from sinning (assumption libertarian free will).

9. Therefore, I did not act freely when I had sinned in the past (from 7 and 8 ).

While I don't believe in many of the assumptions in Blake's argument, I do think it is logically valid (if understood the way Blake understands it). The problem I personally see with the way you have rearranged the argument is that 4 is not a restatement of a "fixed past". Rather, you are replacing a fixed past with a statement that strikes me as equivalent to the modal fallacy. The past is "fixed" but not necessarily as it happened. In other words, God's knowledge is not "necessarily" the way it is (in an alternate world, His knowledge would have been different), and doing something different in the past would not (a priori) "entail that God has not always believed that thing".

Edited March 23, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[zerinus]

If God sees the future, how is he able to "alter" it? He wouldn't be seeing the actual future if it can change.

Evidently it doesn't work that way. He is able to both see it and alter its course if He chooses to (without affecting man's agency).

[Zeta-Flux]

Evidently it doesn't work that way. He is able to both see it and alter its course if He chooses to (without affecting man's agency).

My view is a little different.

[zerinus]

I am trying to convey that the word “knowledge” is described in some places in scripture as something very different from how it is commonly used, just as the words “intelligence” and “light” are. These definitions are fundamental to understanding “agency” and “existence.”

The offending conclusion seems to be that where God uses His faith to create, His creations (forms of existence) represent new knowledge (forms of existence) to Him, and as the precursor of His perfect knowledge, His perfect faith is perfect “foreknowledge.”

That still doesn't square with what God has revealed. God does not see the future just "in faith," but in fact, as they shall be. You also seem to use the word "faith" with respect to God in an arbitrary way, without specifying what that "faith" is in. According to Joseph Smith, God's "faith" rests in Himself, in His ability to create. It is not faith that can equate to "foreknowledge". His foreknowledge is not an act of faith, but the other way round. It is His omnipotence and omniscience that enables Him to exercise faith in himself, not the reverse.

We have and exercise our agency no matter how much He knows.

That is not disputed--at least not by me.

Edited March 23, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

My view is a little different.

My view is based on what God Himself has revealed. I don't think you can beat that.

Edited March 23, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Would it be accurate to say that you see God's foreknowledge as provisional--that God foresees what will happen unless He intervenes and what will happen when He does intervene? If so, does this provisional foreknowledge also apply to mankind such that God foresees what will happen if we choose X and what will happen if we choose Y instead? Or does God already know that we will choose X instead of Y (perhaps unless He intervenes)?

I don't believe God's foreknowledge is "provisional" as you describe it.

[Zeta-Flux]

My view is based on what God Himself has revealed. I don't think you can beat that.

Then back it up. Where has God revealed that He can alter what He sees in the future?

[CV75]

As I said, I can only go by what God has revealed; and what He has revealed doesn't seem to me to allow for that possibility. Take a look for example at what God revealed to Moses:

Moses 1:

4 And, behold, thou art my son; wherefore look, and I will show thee the workmanship of mine hands; but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease.

5 Wherefore, no man can behold all my works, except he behold all my glory; and no man can behold all my glory, and afterwards remain in the flesh on the earth.

8 And it came to pass that Moses looked, and beheld the world upon which he was created; and Moses beheld the world and the ends thereof, and all the children of men which are, and which were created; of the same he greatly marveled and wondered.

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.

38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come, and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

My reading of these verses is that God sees from the beginning of eternity to the end of eternity (for want of a better way of expressing it), all that He has ever done and all that He will ever do. There is nothing that escapes His gaze. In fact, He is not only able to see all that He has ever done and all that He will ever do, but He is even able to show it to someone else. That is what I understand from these verses by showing to Moses “all of” His “glory;” the seeing of which is such an experience that after it no one can remain as a mortal human being. I don’t know about you; but from my point of view, that rules out any kind of “learning” that God will need or be expected to do.

Cannot agree. See above.

But God has revealed that faith leads to knowledge, and knowledge to greater faith. Where in the scriptures does it say that He is exempt from this principle?

I take no exception to any of the scriptures you offer that describe His greatness with regards to this world or all the other worlds He created, creates and will create. There is no end, meaning the eternal round of faith and knowledge continue.

His works and words, glory, and children (all having elements of faith and knowledge) never cease. But the ones Moses saw pertain to this world only, who past, present and future inhabitants were accounted for before its foundation. He assures Moses that this involvement and relationship with this world is a good representation of the way He lives and conducts His affairs in relation to other worlds (verse 38). But His description is still relative to the capacity of the children of men. This passage does not say anything about His knowledge, or that He is exempt from faith. But neither do the scriptures ever say explicitly that He is exempt from other eternal principles that we know He must follow.

[CV75]

Because in His revelations God has told us otherwise. See my previous post.

The scriptures do not define omnipotence or omniscience. They do testify of God’s incomparable power and knowledge, as you showed with Moses 1. Again, the scriptures testify of His nature in relationship to us in this world, which is in the same pattern as other worlds.

[CV75]

That still doesn't square with what God has revealed. God does not see the future just "in faith," but in fact, as they shall be. You also seem to use the word "faith" with respect to God in an arbitrary way, without specifying what that "faith" is in. According to Joseph Smith, God's "faith" rests in Himself, in His ability to create. It is not faith that can equate to "foreknowledge". His foreknowledge is not an act of faith, but the other way round. It is His omnipotence and omniscience that enables Him to exercise faith in himself, not the reverse.

That is not disputed--at least not by me.

Foreknowledge does lead to faith, following the same eternal principle I have been describing, where faith leads to knowledge which expands faith, which in turn expands knowledge. That which leads to knowledge can be called faith by my examples or foreknowledge by your example, but it remains that foreknowledge, faith and knowledge function in an eternal round. God exercises all these in the perfection that the scriptures attest to.

[CV75]

P.S. I do like the idea that faith is an act of foreknowledge, just as an experieinced farmer plants a certain seed having the foreknowledge that it will yeild a certain crop.

[Mudcat]

Hi Mudcat,

Premise 7 follows directly from premises 5 and 6; in other words, if you accept 5 and 6, then you must accept 7. The word "therefore" simply means 7 is a conclusion that follows from the specific premises 5 and 6. The argument does not address causation at all. That's why I posted earlier "this is not a causal relationship." By way of (a maybe bad) example, 2 + 3 = 5, but 2 and 3 do not cause 5 to exist.

With respect to 8, no, that's simply a particular definition of free will known as "libertarian free will." If you deny libertarian free will, then you are stuck having to explain the justice of punishing someone for actions wherein they had no power to do differently.

Hi Log,

Thanks for the definition but I think I understand what "therefore" means. 7 is true because of 5 and 6. Bold mine, I missed the statement you made that it wasn't a causal relationship. My push in the arguments failure, is that it didn't point to causation but apparently this is something you had already acquiesced. My apologies in that respect.

However, if the argument fails to establish foreknowledge in a causal sense, it doesn't prove much of anything. At best you have a correlation between human choice and foreknowledge. That's it.

Taking a second look at your proffered argument.

1. It has always been true that I will sin tomorrow. (Assumption: Omnitemporality of Truth).

2. It is impossible that God should hold a false belief or fail to know any truth (Assumption: Infallible Foreknowledge).

3. God has always believed that I will sin tomorrow (from 1 and 2).

4. If God has always believed a certain thing, then it is not in anyone's power to do anything which entails that God has not always believed that thing (Assumption: Fixed Past).

5. It is not in my power to do anything that entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow (from 3 and 4).

6. That I refrain from sinning tomorrow entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow (necessary truth and from 2; Principle of Transfer of Powerlessness).

7. Therefore, it is not in my power to refrain from sinning tomorrow (from 5 and 6).

8. If I act freely when I sin tomorrow, then I also have it within my power to refrain from sinning (assumption libertarian free will).

9. Therefore, I do not act freely when I sin tomorrow (from 7 and

.

I would object to your first premise. You have know way of knowing what you will do tomorrow, you may have plans of what you will do, but we have all seen our plans of the next day go awry.

You do offer the omnitemporality of truth as your assumption, but given that you actually have no access to future truth, such an assumption should be dismissed. You nor I actually have any means of knowing if premise 1 is or isn't true. On those grounds alone the argument is dubious speculation.

[Maidservant]

omniscience was an ontological barrier to theosis.

Rather than being a barrier, the knowledge that our Father in heaven (and as available to any person) experiences is a result of the multiplicity of beings in union (= God) and acting as "agents unto themselves". (D&C 58:28).

As CV75 mentioned, omniscience is not a scriptural term, and it is a mistake to corral what is in the scriptures regarding the nature of God and of our Father in heaven into this (Greek) philosophical paradigm.

Nevertheless, the scriptures do yield something like this: "The same which knoweth all things." (D&C 38:2).

The scriptures say this: "The Spirit knoweth all things." Alma 7:13 We are encouraged, as Saints, to cultivate this same knowledge that our Father in heaven experiences, through our own walk with the Spirit. In fact, we are never to be without the Spirit and what it can reveal to us.

Ohhhhh, there is so much to say on this and so little time! So I will only give bits.

First of all, as I understand, there is no past and there is no future. There is only the conditions of the present. If a person conceives of past, present and future as existing on a line somewhere, then they will receive the meanings of the scriptures in a certain way. If a person conceives of time differently, such as the paradigm I subscribe to, or any other--then the scriptures will be received as shaped by that paradigm.

Second of all, the matter of knowledge itself, especially as presented in the scriptures versus our modern, Greek-infused idea of knowledge. Modernly we tend to equate knowledge with information. I do not think that the scriptures, when read plainly, support this notion of knowledge. So to make arguments about what kind of "information" God holds in his "mind" or brain is missing the reality of what is being presented in the scriptures (so I say).

Third of all, if you take the conception of time as only the present and take the conception of knowledge as being our choices and living and our becoming--then what our Father in heaven knows is US. I know I am not expressing this well. But there is no knowledge in some independent essence in some ether of the universe separated from being. All knowledge is in beings and how they are, and to have knowledge, you have to know people (and animals, plants, etc)--not ideas or information.

The New Testament says this will be the condition of all people when we complete our mortal journey and grow into our eternal one: 1 Corinthians 13:12 "but then shall I know even as also I am known."

That is enough for now. Suffice it to say that a discussion on the traditional senses of knowledge, "free will", and omniscience are fruitless. The real mystery in the scriptures is breath taking and bypasses all of that.

Note: Visiting Teaching and Home Teaching are exercises in "omniscience", or rather, the knowledge of God.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Maidservant

[Log]

However, if the argument fails to establish foreknowledge in a causal sense, it doesn't prove much of anything. At best you have a correlation between human choice and foreknowledge. That's it.

Hi Mudcat,

I think it proves something pretty profound, and the word "correlation" is not in the same universe of discourse as what is being demonstrated. Simplistically speaking, it proves that if God foreknows all, you have no choice.

I would object to your first premise. You have know way of knowing what you will do tomorrow, you may have plans of what you will do, but we have all seen our plans of the next day go awry.

I don't need to know what I will do tomorrow for the premise to work; it nowhere refers to my knowledge, and for that reason my knowledge of tomorrow is irrelevant to it.

You do offer the omnitemporality of truth as your assumption, but given that you actually have no access to future truth, such an assumption should be dismissed. You nor I actually have any means of knowing if premise 1 is or isn't true. On those grounds alone the argument is dubious speculation.

I don't know the technical philosophical term, and there is one, but premise 1 is a simple example of a non-controversial truth based on what we would claim as a choice by the individual. You can pick any statement about a potential choice that will happen to be true tomorrow and the argument works. If God foreknows all, as I'm sure you believe, then the omnitemporality of truth ought to be uncontroversial to you.

Hi Maidservant,

I have a different perspective and I'm not sure my view is entirely compatible with yours. For starters, I would argue that one only knows that which is one with oneself.

As silly as that sounds.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Log

[Mudcat]

Hi Mudcat,

I think it proves something pretty profound, and the word "correlation" is not in the same universe of discourse as what is being demonstrated. Simplistically speaking, it proves that if God foreknows all, you have no choice.

Nah, I don't think it does. You have choice, God knows what you will choose, but God doesn't make you choose what you chose. You choose what you chose because you wanted to.

I don't need to know what I will do tomorrow for the premise to work; it nowhere refers to my knowledge, and for that reason my knowledge of tomorrow is irrelevant to it.

Come on Log, the argument says "It has always been true that I will sin tomorrow" The argument bases this knowledge on an assumption that, due to our lack of foreknowledge, has no real validity in a comprehensive respect.

"Omnitemporal truth" precedes God in the argument and has no actual grounding in our own human cognition, in that we don't have any comprehension of all events throughout time. If you can manage to offer a solid grounding that establishes omnitemporal truth in primacy to God the argument would be better.

I don't know the technical philosophical term, and there is one, but premise 1 is a simple example of a non-controversial truth based on what we would claim as a choice by the individual. You can pick any statement about a potential choice that will happen to be true tomorrow and the argument works. If God foreknows all, as I'm sure you believe, then the omnitemporality of truth ought to be uncontroversial to you.

I dunno the philosophical term either. But if you tell me X will happen tommorrow, I would assert that you don't know that X will actually happen tomorrow and think you would be hard pressed to prove it. Bold mine. We can't really pick anything that will "happen" to be true because we don't know if what we pick will actually happen.

God's foreknowledge of truth doesn't entail that we have such. Omnitemporality is unassailable, unless you are God.

[Log]

Hi Mudcat,

I give up. Sorry. I tried.

[Maidservant]

Hi Maidservant,

I have a different perspective and I'm not sure my view is entirely compatible with yours. For starters, I would argue that one only knows that which is one with oneself.

As silly as that sounds.

Not silly.

John 17:21 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us." (see also D&C 50:43 and D&C 35:2).

I am not sure how to explain it either, but the knowledge of "people" is not a knowledge of "the other" or something outside of us--but to be bound into one--all of us seeing out of each others eyes (and hearts). Our Father in heaven is already doing this (~the Lord looketh on the heart). The location of his (and our) omniscience (or as I would better say, his sight, knowledge and ability to choose and love and effect his plans) is not outside of us, peering into some future (that I contend is not even there). His omniscience is in our hearts and within his creations.

By the way, people often imagine the past to be certain and more real and "actually happened" as opposed to the future. But this is not the case, as I see it. From the perspective of the present (conditions) (the only thing there is)--the past also doesn't exist. We do not have the past, we only have the record of the past (ourselves and our creations). But ourselves as beings in the present, is also a record of the future. It takes a bit to ponder on this, and it's a little "scary" because of what we are used to thinking, but mechanically it makes more sense to me than the (western) traditional notion of time (that we use and mis-use for everything including scripture interpretation). Only in my opinion of course.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Maidservant

[Mudcat]

Hi Mudcat,

I give up. Sorry. I tried.

Well it was fun. You were a bulldog, get some sleep, you might change your mind.

If not, I certainly hope the encounter gives both of us more reason to seek after God than seek after better arguments.

Respectfully,

Mudcat

[Log]

I am not sure how to explain it either, but the knowledge of "people" is not a knowledge of "the other" or something outside of us--but to be bound into one--all of us seeing out of each others eyes (and hearts). Our Father in heaven is already doing this (~the Lord looketh on the heart).

Ha ha ha, would you believe this was part of a theme that I wove into a Sacrament talk a few weeks back?

Any talk the bishop doesn't correct afterwards is a good one, I always say...

Edited March 24, 2012 by Log

[Maidservant]

Ha ha ha, would you believe this was part of a theme that I wove into a Sacrament talk a few weeks back?

Any talk the bishop doesn't correct afterwards is a good one, I always say...

Ha ha. Awesome.

[Log]

As an aside, I remember attending a stake conference (not actually stake conference, if I recall correctly, but a special stake meeting) a few years ago which happened to be attended by a rather high ranking GA, who said some very interesting things.

He said "It had to have been possible for Jesus to fail, or else it wouldn't have been a real test."

But, if God infallibly foreknew the future, it would NOT have been possible for Jesus to fail.

He said also of Nephi, mentioned in Helaman 10, who was given great power, that "he shalt not ask that which is contrary to" God's will was meant not as a commandment, but that Nephi actually would never ask that which was contrary to God's will.

That seems to imply at least some form of foreknowledge.

I did not get a chance to talk with this GA one-on-one after the meeting, as his ranking was sufficiently high that every stake officer in attendance and then some crowded around him. I bring this up not as a slam-dunk argument from authority - if I was after that, I'd have simply cited the First Presidency statement on God's knowledge and gone home, and with this GA, I'm not even going to post his name - but to show that these issues are not so clear-cut as some would like to believe, and not everyone holds a dogmatic view of things. Of course, if you consider me unreliable, then my anecdote here is worth less than nothing.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Log

[zerinus]

But God has revealed that faith leads to knowledge, and knowledge to greater faith. Where in the scriptures does it say that He is exempt from this principle?

Where does it say that “faith leads to knowledge ...?” Faith leads to knowledge only if you exercise faith to acquire knowledge; but faith in itself doesn’t lead to anything, except what you exercise faith to achieve. If I exercise faith to move a mountain, I move a mountain; it doesn’t “lead” to any kind of “knowledge”. But if I exercise faith to believe that by becoming a disciple of a great prophet, it will increase my knowledge of the mysteries of God, then yes, it will increase my knowledge. Faith is like an empty vessel that needs to be filled; you get out of it what you put into it. If you exercise faith to increase in knowledge, you will increase your knowledge. If you exercise faith to move a mountain, you will move a mountain. Faith is a tool which enables you to do things. It does not by itself “lead” to anything.

I take no exception to any of the scriptures you offer that describe His greatness with regards to this world or all the other worlds He created, creates and will create. There is no end, meaning the eternal round of faith and knowledge continue.

Except that the scriptures I quoted do not connote an “eternal round” of increase in faith or knowledge.

His works and words, glory, and children (all having elements of faith and knowledge) never cease. But the ones Moses saw pertain to this world only, who past, present and future inhabitants were accounted for before its foundation. He assures Moses that this involvement and relationship with this world is a good representation of the way He lives and conducts His affairs in relation to other worlds (verse 38). But His description is still relative to the capacity of the children of men. This passage does not say anything about His knowledge, or that He is exempt from faith. But neither do the scriptures ever say explicitly that He is exempt from other eternal principles that we know He must follow.

That is a vague, woolly, ambiguous kind of statement. It doesn’t mean anything until it becomes specific.

The scriptures do not define omnipotence or omniscience. They do testify of God’s incomparable power and knowledge, as you showed with Moses 1. Again, the scriptures testify of His nature in relationship to us in this world, which is in the same pattern as other worlds.

The word omniscient is not used in scripture (except in the Lectures on Faith, which I consider to be scripture); but the word omnipotent is used in the Book of Mormon; and we must assume it means what it does in the English language, according to the following verses:

2 Nephi 31:

3 For my soul delighteth in plainness; for after this manner doth the Lord God work among the children of men. For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding.

D&C 1:

24 Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

If God says that God is omnipotent, and uses the English language to say it, then we must assume that it means what it does in the English language.

Foreknowledge does lead to faith, following the same eternal principle I have been describing, where faith leads to knowledge which expands faith, which in turn expands knowledge. That which leads to knowledge can be called faith by my examples or foreknowledge by your example, but it remains that foreknowledge, faith and knowledge function in an eternal round. God exercises all these in the perfection that the scriptures attest to.

P.S. I do like the idea that faith is an act of foreknowledge, just as an experieinced farmer plants a certain seed having the foreknowledge that it will yeild a certain crop.

See above. You are also overlooking that fact that God exercises faith in Himself, not in another, to accomplish His purposes. That is a different kind faith from exercising faith in another. When we exercise faith in God to accomplish something, we are relying on someone who is superior to ourselves in knowledge and power. He knows things that we don’t know, and has powers that we don’t have. We can learn something from Him which we didn’t know, and exercise powers through Him which we did not have. But when God exercises faith in Himself (because there is no one greater than Himself that He can exercise faith in), there is no room for Him to learn something from the exercise of that faith which He didn’t already know. You are not really addressing these issues. Perhaps a quote from the Lectures of Faith would be appropriate here:

Lecture 2:

2. We here observe that God is the only supreme governor, and independent being, in whom all fulness and perfection dwells; who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnicient; without beginning of days or end of life; and that in him every good gift, and every good principle dwells; and that he is the Father of lights: In him the principle of faith dwells independently; and he is the object in whom the faith of all other rational and accountable beings centers, for life and salvation.

_______________________________

Q. Is there a being who has faith in himself independently?

A. There is.

Q. Who is it?

A. It is God.

Q. How do you prove that God has faith in himself independently?

A. Because he is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life, and in him all fulness dwells.

This does not allow room for God "learning" anything new by the exercise of His faith which He didn't know before.

Edited March 24, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

P.S. I have a suspicion that what you are really trying to do is to revive the doctrine of eternal progression, which I don’t think you will be able to do. I don’t believe that it is an inspired doctrine. The only sense in which God can be said to be “progressing” in scriptural terms is in His glory. He constantly glorifies himself by the works that He does:

Isaiah 44:

23 Sing, O ye heavens; for the Lord hath done it: shout, ye lower parts of the earth: break forth into singing, ye mountains, O forest, and every tree therein: for the Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and glorified himself in Israel.

D&C 45:

4 Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified

D&C 132:

31 This promise is yours also, because ye are of Abraham, and the promise was made unto Abraham; and by this law is the continuation of the works of my Father, wherein he glorifieth himself.

We can also glorify Him by the works that we do, if our works are wrought in God:

John 13:

32 If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.

John 21:

19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, Follow me.

1 Peter 2:

12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

Ether 12:

8 But because of the faith of men he has shown himself unto the world, and glorified the name of the Father, and prepared a way that thereby others might be partakers of the heavenly gift, that they might hope for those things which they have not seen.

But I don’t see any other sense in which God can be said to be “progressing”. There is no such thing as God progressing in knowledge or in faith.

After giving it further thought, I have also come to the conclusion that your earlier statements that God didn’t know who would be exalted to be incorrect. The scriptures make it clear that God knows in advance who will be faithful and thus would be exalted. Here are the verses:

Alma 13:

1 And again, my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children; and I would that ye should remember that the Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son, to teach these things unto the people.

2 And those priests were ordained after the order of his Son, in a manner that thereby the people might know in what manner to look forward to his Son for redemption.

3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.

5 Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared—

6 And thus being called by this holy calling, and ordained unto the high priesthood of the holy order of God, to teach his commandments unto the children of men, that they also might enter into his rest—

7 This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things—

8 Now they were ordained after this manner—being called with a holy calling, and ordained with a holy ordinance, and taking upon them the high priesthood of the holy order, which calling, and ordinance, and high priesthood, is without beginning or end—

9 Thus they become high priests forever, after the order of the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, who is without beginning of days or end of years, who is full of grace, equity, and truth. And thus it is. Amen.

10 Now, as I said concerning the holy order, or this high priesthood, there were many who were ordained and became high priests of God; and it was on account of their exceeding faith and repentance, and their righteousness before God, they choosing to repent and work righteousness rather than to perish;

11 Therefore they were called after this holy order, and were sanctified, and their garments were washed white through the blood of the Lamb.

12 Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.

According to this scripture, God knew in advance who would be faithful, and thus be saved and redeemed; and therefore they were foreordained to that priesthood, and thus effectively foreordained to redemption and exaltation (which is what “entering into his rest” means), before they were born. There is no way that this can be harmonized with your earlier teaching that God doesn’t know who will be exalted before it happens.

P.P.S. Edited to add that verse 3 is often misunderstood in the Church. It is thought to refer to their faithfulness in the pre-existence. It doesn't. It refers to their faithfulness in this life. It is a projection of their faithfulness in this life in the foreknowledge of God.

Edited March 24, 2012 by zerinus

[wenglund]

Hi Log,

Let me give it one more try, if you will:

If we define foreknowledge as knowing the future as though it is the past,

then, in principle, foreknowledge is the same as past knowledge.

As such, an argument that foreknowledge denies free will, is also an argument that past knowledge denies free will, or in other words, it is an argument that knowledge denies free will.

However, an argument against past knowledge denying free will, is also an argument against foreknowledge denying free will, or in other words, it is an argument against knowledge denying free will.

Does this help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 26, 2012 by wenglund

[Log]

Hi Log,

Let me give it one more try, if you will:

If we define foreknowledge as knowing the future as the past,

then, in principle, foreknowledge is the same as past knowledge.

As such, an argument that foreknowledge denies free will, is also an argument that past knowledge denies free will, or in other words, it is an argument that knowledge denies free will.

However, an argument against past knowledge denying free will, is also an argument against foreknowledge denying free will, or in other words, it is an argument against knowledge denying free will.

Does this help?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That was helpful for me in trying to understand your position. I guess you'll need to guide me in baby steps.