Revelation, Coercion, And Martin Harris

[cinepro]

In discussing the story of Martin Harris and the lost 116 pages, one question is seldom asked:

Did Martin Harris coerce God?

I'm using the word "coerce" in a loose sense, with the idea that God did not want Martin to show the 116 pages to his wife, Lucy. But when faced with the possibility of losing Martin's financial support for the Book of Mormon translation and publication, permission was given.

In other words, if Martin Harris hadn't been the key financial figure in the process, would the story have ended any differently? If an alternate investor had come forward around that time, would Martin still have been given permission to take the pages?

[zerinus]

In discussing the story of Martin Harris and the lost 116 pages, one question is seldom asked:

Did Martin Harris coerce God?

I'm using the word "coerce" in a loose sense, with the idea that God did not want Martin to show the 116 pages to his wife, Lucy. But when faced with the possibility of losing Martin's financial support for the Book of Mormon translation and publication, permission was given.

In other words, if Martin Harris hadn't been the key financial figure in the process, would the story have ended any differently? If an alternate investor had come forward around that time, would Martin still have been given permission to take the pages?

At that point in time as far as I know Martin Harris had not been approached to finance the printing of the book; and I doubt if he had any idea he might be. And in any case, Joseph did in the end lose the services of Martin Harris when he was rejected from being scribe, and Oliver Cowdery was appointed to replace him. The fact that he agreed to finance the printing of the book was not due to any "favouritism" he received from Joseph Smith or the Lord.

Edited August 14, 2012 by zerinus

[mrmandias]

In discussing the story of Martin Harris and the lost 116 pages, one question is seldom asked:

Did Martin Harris coerce God?

I'm using the word "coerce" in a loose sense, with the idea that God did not want Martin to show the 116 pages to his wife, Lucy. But when faced with the possibility of losing Martin's financial support for the Book of Mormon translation and publication, permission was given.

In other words, if Martin Harris hadn't been the key financial figure in the process, would the story have ended any differently? If an alternate investor had come forward around that time, would Martin still have been given permission to take the pages?

It was more Martin's importunity, and Joseph's, that coerced God.

[ANACO]

Free agency.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1999/04/the-witness-martin-harris?lang=eng

[Lamanite]

When you figure this out let me know. But from my vantage point you will first have to answer:

Can our prayers actually change God's will? My initial response goes something like this: His omniscience precludes the introduction of any new information given through our prayers so there is no possibility that we could change His mind. Prayers should therefore be devotional in nature nad at times an opportunity to seek revelation and the humility to be obedient.

So I'm fairly certain no one coerced God. On the other hand, perhaps someone's feelings and personal motivates were misinterpreted as Divine inspiration? That could be a way out of the problem.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[zerinus]

When you figure this out let me know. But from my vantage point you will first have to answer:

Can our prayers actually change God's will? My initial response goes something like this: His omniscience precludes the introduction of any new information given through our prayers so there is no possibility that we could change His mind. Prayers should therefore be devotional in nature nad at times an opportunity to seek revelation and the humility to be obedient.

So I'm fairly certain no one coerced God. On the other hand, perhaps someone's feelings and personal motivates were misinterpreted as Divine inspiration? That could be a way out of the problem.

Big UP!

Lamanite

There is even more to that story. The book of Mormon suggests that God knew in advance that those pages would ba lost, and the circumstances under which they would occur; and put in place contingency arrangements so that no inherent losses would take place.

[Lamanite]

There is even more to that story. The book of Mormon suggests that God knew in advance that those pages would ba lost, and the circumstances under which they would occur; and put in place contingency arrangements so that no inherent losses would take place.

Accepting God's "advance" knowledge raises the issue of pre-determinism and free will. At this point I think the typical response some Mormons (including me) make is to re-define God's Omniscience from a classical definition to one of "mostly" omniscient or relatively omniscient, or something like that.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[zerinus]

Accepting God's "advance" knowledge raises the issue of pre-determinism and free will. At this point I think the typical response some Mormons (including me) make is to re-define God's Omniscience from a classical definition to one of "mostly" omniscient or relatively omniscient, or something like that.

Big UP!

Lamanite

No. I would say it is absolute omniscience.

[Lamanite]

No. I would say it is absolute omniscience.

Just curious as to how you reconcile omniscience with free will? Basically theological fatalism is the issue you and I are talking about. In addition, I call into question the omniscience of God and the incompatible idea that man can influence an omniscient being.

Seems pretty straight forward to me that in order to massage these concepts into a shape that is compatible with Mormon theology one would have to redefine the divine attribute of omniscience.

If I'm mistaken then just point out where I'm wrong and I will have no problem adjusting my own paradigms.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[zerinus]

Just curious as to how you reconcile omniscience with free will? Basically theological fatalism is the issue you and I are talking about. In addition, I call into question the omniscience of God and the incompatible idea that man can influence an omniscient being.

Seems pretty straight forward to me that in order to massage these concepts into a shape that is compatible with Mormon theology one would have to redefine the divine attribute of omniscience.

If I'm mistaken then just point out where I'm wrong and I will have no problem adjusting my own paradigms.

Big UP!

Lamanite

They operate at different levels. The Fact that God knew in advance that Martin Harris would importune Joseph Smith to take the plates, and Joseph would yield to that pressure etc., did not deprive Joseph Smith or Martin Harris of their freewill to act as they did, and the responsibility they bore for the consequence of their actions. You may think that it does, but you cannot prove or demonstrate that it does. One does not logically follow from the other, although you may like to think that it does. If my actions are known or can be known in the past, long before I take them, It does not mean that had no volition in taking those actions. Even though it may appear to be like that, it does not prove or logically follow that it is.

[Lamanite]

it does not prove or logically follow that it is.

Perhaps if I use an example that is based on logic, reason, and simple deductions you might gain the ability to appreciate the concept of theological fatalism. Appreciation can exist without becoming a believer.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Let us suppose that being omniscient involves being infallible, and believing that p if and only if it is true that p.Let us also suppose that God existed in 1900, and that omniscience is part of his essence.Now, suppose that Jones mowed his lawn on 1/1/2000. Then God believed in 1900 that Jones would mow his lawn on 1/1/2000. Did Jones have the power to refrain from mowing his lawn? No. Because that would mean either

(1) that he had the power to do something which would have brought it about that God had a false belief in 1900, or

(2) that he had the power to do something which would have brought it about that God did not believe in 1900 that Jones would mow his lawn on 1/1/2000, or

(3) that he had the power to do something which would have brought it about that God did not exist in 1900. And each of these alternatives is impossible."

This may help bring things into focus for you.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited August 15, 2012 by Lamanite

[zerinus]

Perhaps if I use an example that is based on logic, reason, and simple deductions you might gain the ability to appreciate the concept of theological fatalism. Appreciation can exist without becoming a believer.

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

This may help bring things into focus for you.

Big UP!

Lamanite

I will tell you why that argument is flawed. Let us assume that God is both omniscient, and infallible in His omniscience (as proposed in that argument). I will even go one step further, and suggest that God can actually see the future in panoramic vision (to the minutest detail) as He is able to see the present or the past. Now let us suppose that He sees me (with His omniscient eye) in 1900 mowing my lawn in 1/1/2000. Does that mean that I did not have the volition to have mowed my lawn in 2/1/2000 instead? No! I could choose to mow my lawn the day I wanted to, and God would still have seen me mowing it on the day that I would choose to do so. I know that is a hard concept to grasp, but I assure you it is logical. I choose to mow my lawn any time I want to; and the fact that God is able to see me doing it on that particular day two million years before does not mean that I had no freewill to choose to do it on another day if I had wanted to. I could have chosen to do it on another day, and God would have then seen me doing it on that day instead.

Edited August 15, 2012 by zerinus

[Deborah]

I have to agree with Zerinus on this. The fact that I may know my child will choose to eat candy rather than broccoli doesn't preclude my child from choosing. He still has his free will. I could certainly not allow him the choice and in this circumstance I might not. In another circumstance my child will beg me for something and I know that it will not have good consequences but in order to teach him I might let him make his choice, even knowing what the outcome will be, because he needs to learn the lesson. There is no question that Joseph learned a valuable lesson from this experience.

[Lightbearer]

In discussing the story of Martin Harris and the lost 116 pages, one question is seldom asked:

Did Martin Harris coerce God?

I'm using the word "coerce" in a loose sense, with the idea that God did not want Martin to show the 116 pages to his wife, Lucy. But when faced with the possibility of losing Martin's financial support for the Book of Mormon translation and publication, permission was given.

In other words, if Martin Harris hadn't been the key financial figure in the process, would the story have ended any differently? If an alternate investor had come forward around that time, would Martin still have been given permission to take the pages?

The reason the question is seldom asked is because it is a stupid question. You are implying that God has no power to do His own work. How could Martin force God? Money is absolutely worthless to God, if He willed it He could take the treasures of the earth and give them to Joseph for the purpose of printing. But then that would make things too "easy" and also rob Martin of the blessings for his sacrifice. The scriptures gives some insight into this idea:

"THE works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught. For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round. Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men; For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him. Behold, you have been entrusted with these things, but how strict were your commandments; and remember also the promises which were made to you, if you did not transgress them. And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men. For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words— Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble. Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou wast chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall. But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work; Except thou do this, thou shalt be delivered up and become as other men, and have no more gift." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 3:1-11)

We do not surprise God, He knows all things from the beginning and He provides a way to fulfill all of His words. The problem with the idea of God's foreknowledge taking away our agency is we forget that just because God knows it does not mean He wills or causes it. In fact the 116 page manuscript is a perfect example of how God uses His foreknowledge of events to fulfill His words. It also shows the consequences of our agency. If Martin had not asked for the pages, the Church would have had the book of Lehi. The Book of Mormon would have been bigger. Since he did and God gave him according to his desires, the book was lost, but Joseph and Martin gained some important lessons on listening to the counsel of God and ignoring the persausions of men. They grew as a result (which was part of God's plan.) While philosophers think they can second guess God, they always come up short because of one major difference. We have the veil over our minds, but God does not. He can see all things, we cannot yet see all things. We make errors in judgment, God does not. We sin and fall short of the glory of God, while He does not. Yet we have agency to choose according to our desires. God's work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man and in order to do such He must have all knowledge and all power... if not He could not accomplish this task.

[Lamanite]

I have to agree with Zerinus on this. The fact that I may know my child will choose to eat candy rather than broccoli doesn't preclude my child from choosing. He still has his free will. I could certainly not allow him the choice and in this circumstance I might not. In another circumstance my child will beg me for something and I know that it will not have good consequences but in order to teach him I might let him make his choice, even knowing what the outcome will be, because he needs to learn the lesson. There is no question that Joseph learned a valuable lesson from this experience.

You might be "certain" but you can't "Know". You may have a very high percentage intuition due to your relative perspective and relationship but you CANNOT KNOW. You've misused the word know. The acceptance of free will removes the possibility of divine omniscience. Just brush up on your classical philosophy and some of the Patristic Fathers.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

Does that mean that I did not have the volition to have mowed my lawn in 2/1/2000 instead? No!

If God sees the future as "One eternal now" (Joseph Smith) then by very definition we no longer have the ability to choose anything other than what God saw. There would be no more choosing. Your ability to exercise free will would at that point be an illusion. You may claim with certainty and enthusiasm that you have free will but your assertions do not make it so. In your scenario there is only one possible future, and because linear time is fixed, there cannot be any any reality contrary to God's omniscient observations. It's called predestination. The past, present, and future are immutable. The events embedded into the reality of the Universe are non-negotiable. This renders free will absent from the Universe.

This is the point where I think we can accept the divine attribute of omniscience however we must do so with a divergence from classical definitions. We are need to create a very unique definition of God's omniscience.

1. We must reject the notion that God operates within linear time.

2. We need to accept that His omniscience is "relative". Simply stated we need to accept that His omniscience is not absolute knowledge of the future. It is Divine knowledge based on Divine observations that result in highly probably observations. This belief allows for the preservation of free will.

3. We could define His omniscience as near perfect predictions. When calculating the probabilities of events and actions we can see from our relative vantage point that he is perfect when assessing those things that are within his Divine Stewardship. He would be Divinely accurate..

4. Within my model God retains His perfect nature because He remains perfectly capable in every attribute and capability necessary to providing salvation and exaltation for His children. Removing absolute omniscience does not make Him fallible, it proves His Divinity.

I'm sure there are more items to be added to my list but I've got to run for a bit.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited August 15, 2012 by Lamanite

[Lamanite]

just because God knows it does not mean He wills or causes it.

I've posted quite a bit of this to Zerinus but just thought I would post this one more time. If God "knows it" then that leaves only one reality to exist. If there is only one reality in the future then there is no option for choice. Only one reality exists! This reality is KNOWN and is therefore immutable! There cannot be other options or choices.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Deborah]

You might be "certain" but you can't "Know". You may have a very high percentage intuition due to your relative perspective and relationship but you CANNOT KNOW. You've misused the word know. The acceptance of free will removes the possibility of divine omniscience. Just brush up on your classical philosophy and some of the Patristic Fathers.

I may not but God, who sees past, present and future, can know and according to D&C 130:7 so will we one day: "But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord."

Moses 1:6 "And I have a work for thee, Moses, my son; and thou art in the similitude of mine Only Begotten; and mine Only Begotten is and shall be the Savior, for he is full of grace and truth; but there is no God beside me, and all things are present with me, for I know them all."

Abraham 2:8 "My name is Jehovah, and I know the end from the beginning; therefore my hand shall be over thee."

[zerinus]

I've posted quite a bit of this to Zerinus but just thought I would post this one more time. If God "knows it" then that leaves only one reality to exist.

No, there can be more than one reality in at least two ways: (1) The "future" that God is seeing will be dependent on the choice that that person will be making in the future. The person will be free to make any choice he wants to. The fact that that choice will be known in the past does not mean that he did not have that choice, or that it was not real for person living in the future. (2) Another way that there can be more than one reality is that, as we have seen in the case of the loss of the 116 pages, that God not only sees the future, but can intervene in it to change the course of events to suit His purposes, but without overriding man's agency. For example, God knowing that a problem regarding the 116 pages would arise, could have devised more than one strategy to fix it. One strategy might have been to kill Joseph and Martin instantly, and appoint someone else to do the job, which would have caused other complications. Another solution might have been to send an angel to tie up Joseph and Martin to a tree, and flog them with a horsewhip until they stopped importuning etc. But all of these would have deprived Joseph and Martin of their agency, and the lessen which they might learn from their failures. So God chose an option which allowed Joseph and Martin to preserve their agency, as well as learning by experience to trust the Lord more, while at the same time ensuring that no serious loss would occur as a result of the loss of the 116 pages. So the future is not fixed as you think, and there is more than one reality. The multiple realities are determined by two factors: (1) man's agency (in the future vent), and (2) God's agency in determining the outcome that suites Him best, but without at the same time depriving man of his (future) agency.

If there is only one reality in the future then there is no option for choice. Only one reality exists! This reality is KNOWN and is therefore immutable! There cannot be other options or choices.

Except that there is more than one possible reality, as stated above.

Edited August 15, 2012 by zerinus

[CASteinman]

Congratulations to Cinepro for an interesting thread.

[Lamanite]

Except that there is more than one possible reality, as stated above.

I don't mind you using the argument that "there is more than one possible reality", that is to say that God sees an infinite number of divergent time lines resulting from free will. (See Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment for an example of multiple realities.) Nevertheless, in the case of divergent time lines based on infinite choice availability and variables, God does not Know the future, he only has the ability to predict which reality has the highest probability to occur.

Using the argument that God operates according to divergent time lines allows us to preserve man's free will. It also allows God to be intimately involved in shaping who we are and what we are becoming. How does God influence us?

No ^apower or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the ^bpriesthood, only by ^cpersuasion, by ^dlong-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

kindness, and pure ^bknowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the ^csoul without ^dhypocrisy, and without ^eguile—

But again I must emphasize the fact that if the future is absolute in its very nature-- so that God is restricted to viewing a single immutable time line, then it is impossible for free will to exist.

Big UP!

Lamanite

edit to add: The double slit experiment may provide insight on probability waves and how observation forces the collapse into 1 reality. This could affect how I view things. Not sure yet.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Lamanite

[zerinus]

I don't mind you using the argument that "there is more than one possible reality", that is to say that God sees an infinite number of divergent time lines resulting from free will.

That is not what I mean by there being more than one reality. God does not see an infinite number of possible realities. There are no "divergent timelines". God sees one reality, the one that is determined by our (and His) exercise of agency in the future event.

(See Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment for an example of choice and multiple realities.) Nevertheless, in the case of divergent time lines based on infinite choice availability and variables, God does not Know the future, he only has the ability to predict which probability is the most likely to occur.

Using the argument that God operates according to divergent time lines allows us to preserve man's free will. It also allows God to be intimately involved in shaping who we are and what we are becoming:

I think you are being confused because you are looking at it through the lens of the philosophical arguments which you seen to have been reading. They are preventing you from thinking along the right lines.

But again I must emphasize the fact that if the future is absolute in its very nature-- so that God is restricted to viewing a single immutable time line, then it is impossible for free will to exist.

The future is not absolute in that sense of the term; as explained above, and in my previous posts.

edit to add: The double slit experiment may provide insight on probability waves and how observation forces the collapse into 1 reality. This could affect how I view things. Not sure yet.

These are the things that you are being confused by. You are not seeing what I am describing.

[Lamanite]

That is not what I mean by there being more than one reality. God does not see an infinite number of possible realities. There are no "divergent timelines". God sees one reality, the one that is determined by our (and His) exercise of agency in the future event.

I think you are being confused because you are looking at it through the lens of the philosophical arguments which you seen to have been reading. They are preventing you from thinking along the right lines.

The future is not absolute in that sense of the term; as explained above, and in my previous posts.

These are the things that you are being confused by. You are not seeing what I am describing.

I'm not being confused by exposing myself to philosophical thought. Amongst other philosophical disciplines I have found the paradox of omniscience and free will both fascinating and relevant to my existence. As far as I've been able to ascertain the scriptures are silent in regards to the specifics of this issue. Rarely do I find the Lord willing to offer up the how's and the why's. In this case I think that God describes himself in scripture as best as he can considering the limitations of the language and the revelator.

Unfortunately I think we're talking past each other now so I'm gonna give it a rest for awhile and them come back to this thread later.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[blackstrap]

Good luck with your study of God's omniscience,Lamanite. I have found that when thinking about such ideas,for me it is like contemplating the concept of infinity. My mind just isn't big enough!

[Lamanite]

Good luck with your study of God's omniscience,Lamanite. I have found that when thinking about such ideas,for me it is like contemplating the concept of infinity. My mind just isn't big enough!

Reading and thinking are always better than the "honey do" list.

Seriously though, occasionally the search for further light and knowledge (even though that knowledge is not always salvific) can be rewarded with glimpses of Eternity.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited August 16, 2012 by Lamanite