Free Will ?

[LOSTONE]

Free will is often spoke of with in most faiths, including my Christian faith. I personally believe I do have free will and my future is not preset to a level that my free will is not pointless or a oxymoron or a paradox. However, that is just my view of my free will. What do others think about free will is?

[Calm]

LDS call it free agency or moral agency, pretty much same thing...the ability to choose right or wrong.

Got to get in a few more hours of sleep to handle grandkids tonight so here is something until others get back from church and speak up:

https://www.lds.org/topics/agency?lang=eng

Edited November 2, 2014 by calmoriah

[The Nehor]

To not believe in free will is to not be LDS.

[Robert F. Smith]

To not believe in free will is to not be LDS.

Yes, and on the other hand the very logical Calvinists are correct in giving complete sovereignty to God:  The God of John Calvin created everything from nothing, and is responsible for everything, including evil.  There is no freedom of choice at all, and whether one is saved or damned is completely a matter of predestination.  This is the consequence of the normative Muslim-Jewish-Christian dogma of creation ex nihilo.

 

LDS, on the other hand, believe in a God who organized pre-existing matter and intelligences, and gave them authentic freedom of choice.  Since we are all coeternal with God our Father, and since we are of the same species, His glory is to give us (his children) immortality and exaltation -- if we will accept it.

[The Nehor]

Yes, and on the other hand the very logical Calvinists are correct in giving complete sovereignty to God:  The God of John Calvin created everything from nothing, and is responsible for everything, including evil.  There is no freedom of choice at all, and whether one is saved or damned is completely a matter of predestination.  This is the consequence of the normative Muslim-Jewish-Christian dogma of creation ex nihilo.

 

LDS, on the other hand, believe in a God who organized pre-existing matter and intelligences, and gave them authentic freedom of choice.  Since we are all coeternal with God our Father, and since we are of the same species, His glory is to give us (his children) immortality and exaltation -- if we will accept it.

 

That is not entirely true. Many Calvinists believe in free will; they just don't believe your eternal destination can be chosen.

[Robert F. Smith]

That is not entirely true. Many Calvinists believe in free will; they just don't believe your eternal destination can be chosen.

Yes, some do equivocate.

 

The late Chuck Smith, pastor of Calvary Chapel (Costa Mesa, Calif), frankly stated that the notion of free will directly opposed the sovereignty of God.  He admitted that he could not explain any logical way out of such a contradiction or paradox, even though he believed in free will.

[The Nehor]

Yes, some do equivocate.

 

The late Chuck Smith, pastor of Calvary Chapel (Costa Mesa, Calif), frankly stated that the notion of free will directly opposed the sovereignty of God.  He admitted that he could not explain any logical way out of such a contradiction or paradox, even though he believed in free will.

 

I am not sure it is equivocating. I think devils have free will but are damned with no hope of escape.

 

In some Christian faiths they see free will as God abdicating some of his sovereignty.

[Robert F. Smith]

I am not sure it is equivocating. I think devils have free will but are damned with no hope of escape.

 

In some Christian faiths they see free will as God abdicating some of his sovereignty.

Clever, but inadequate to solve the logical dilemma.  A Prime Mover cannot go "poof, you have free will," any more than He can create a stone so big that He can't lift it.

[telnetd]

LDS, on the other hand, believe in a God who organized pre-existing matter and intelligences, and gave them authentic freedom of choice.  Since we are all coeternal with God our Father, and since we are of the same species, His glory is to give us (his children) immortality and exaltation -- if we will accept it.

 

This is an oxymoron when you consider that the Book of Mormon refers to Christ as the

Eternal God.  He cannot be when the LDS Church teaches Heavenly Father fashioned this

intelligence into the first spirit child of heavenly parents.

 

Gail

[Calm]

Maybe according to nonLDS beliefs, not so LDS.

PS: this is Social Hall, no debate allowed. If for once you want to tell people your own beliefs rather than telling us what we believe, mods may not kick you out, but I bet you will disappear from this thread if you continue telling us what we can and can't believe. If you are a Calvinist and disagree with the protrayal of your beliefs, then challenge that and report it to the mods.

One reason why it is not an oxymoron for LDS:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/19?lang=eng

Edited November 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[LOSTONE]

I did not intend to post this entry to create a debate or express my believes solely. I was also looking for other people’s personal believe on this subject. Such sharing gives me stronger insight and grows my wisdom. It is how I learn outside the scope of structured documentations. If I have offended someone with this post, I do apologize. That was not my intentions at all. If someone finds reasons to be offended my my post they have several options including ignoring my posts, address the offensive thought to me in a mature fashion, or report it to the powers of this site. To attack me or be insulting is not an option that will bring anything healthy about for anyone.

[Calm]

My apologies if you misunderstood my post. I was responding directly to the previous poster, telnetd, who has the habit IMO of telling LDS what we believe as opposed to talking about his own beliefs. He is a longtime poster, has been told by mods not to do it in the past I believe.

Have no problem with your thread at all.

Edited November 8, 2014 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

This is an oxymoron when you consider that the Book of Mormon refers to Christ as the

Eternal God.  He cannot be when the LDS Church teaches Heavenly Father fashioned this

intelligence into the first spirit child of heavenly parents.

 

Gail

It may seem oxymoronic to you, Gail, but even the Roman Catholic Jerusalem Bible, in its note g to II Timothy 1:2,18, finds that "'Lord' can be taken in either case as a reference either to the Father or to the Son," and this sort of confusion is normal in the NT. 

 

It is quite true that the Book of Mormon title page and II Nephi 26:12 each declare “that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God,” but that tells us nothing without context:

 

Alma 11:

38 Now Zeezrom saith again unto him: Is the Son of God the very Eternal Father?

39 And Amulek said unto him: Yea, he is the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth, and all things which in them are; he is the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

 

(Which is what John 1 essentially says of Him (Jesus):

1  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.)

 

Alma 11:44 broadens our purview a bit:

. . . Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God,

 

And D&C 20 moreso:

28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

 

However, III Nephi 11 adds another wrinkle:

27  . . .  the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.

 

This may seem to be an oxymoron, but the same is said in John 10:30,38, “I and my Father are one.   . . . the Father is in me, and I in him.”

 

And continuing with John 17:11, 21-22, where Jesus Himself says,

11. . . . Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.  . . .  

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: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.

 

The word “trinity” does not occur in the Bible or Book of Mormon, and the concept is a later dogmatic christian theological retrojection upon texts which describe a paradoxically close relationship among God, his Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.  Indeed, the NT exhibits no more than “triadic coordination” rather than a divine unity of three-in-one, which some take to be tritheism.  It is not possible to formulate a doctrine of hypostatic union among the members of the Gottheit, but rather no more than a full unity of purpose and love among perfect beings, with God the Father at their head – one God -- but finally including all of us.   Formal language of cross-identfication (Mosiah 13:28, 15:1-5) is, therefore, only to be taken as metaphorical, so that “the will of the Son” is “swallowed up in the will of the Father” (Mosiah 15:7).  In fact, David Paulsen and Ari Bruening argue for a social trinity in III Nephi.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[changed]

Free will is often spoke of with in most faiths, including my Christian faith. I personally believe I do have free will and my future is not preset to a level that my free will is not pointless or a oxymoron or a paradox. However, that is just my view of my free will. What do others think about free will is?

Free will is  a very interesting topic.  I personally believe that our free will is evidence of our eternal nature.  Non-eternal entities would not have free will because everything they do could be traced back to how they were created - like a robot, they have no free will because everything they do can be traced back to who programmed them & how they were created.  The only way to have free will is to have no beginning - to be eternal.

from section 93: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93.29?lang=eng#28

 29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

 30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

 31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

Edited November 9, 2014 by changed

[changed]

Yes, and on the other hand the very logical Calvinists are correct in giving complete sovereignty to God:  The God of John Calvin created everything from nothing, and is responsible for everything, including evil.  There is no freedom of choice at all, and whether one is saved or damned is completely a matter of predestination.  This is the consequence of the normative Muslim-Jewish-Christian dogma of creation ex nihilo.

 

LDS, on the other hand, believe in a God who organized pre-existing matter and intelligences, and gave them authentic freedom of choice.  Since we are all coeternal with God our Father, and since we are of the same species, His glory is to give us (his children) immortality and exaltation -- if we will accept it.

As you pointed out, the sovereignty of God does not extend to illogical impossible scenarios … perhaps the hardest thing to control and have power over is oneself, the power to not intervene when you could, to stand back and allow everyone to have their own free will.

[Tacenda]

Free Will isn't found in my Mormonism, I'm a trapped goon. 

[strappinglad]

Every day we can use agency to either build a cage or an estate. Having already built a first estate, I wonder why so many prefer to live in a cage. When we deny ' truth ' , do we not deny ourselves freedom?

[Guest]

Free will is often spoke of with in most faiths, including my Christian faith. I personally believe I do have free will and my future is not preset to a level that my free will is not pointless or a oxymoron or a paradox. However, that is just my view of my free will. What do others think about free will is?

We have a habit of calling it "free will", but it comes at great cost if we do the wrong thing...even doing the right thing could alter our lives in ways we are not prepare for at that moment. Even good change can be stressful.

[Calm]

Free Will isn't found in my Mormonism, I'm a trapped goon.

If you are trapped, it is by your own choices.

[Tacenda]

If you are trapped, it is by your own choices.

Nope.

[Calm]

Nope.

Keep telling yourself that and you will stay trapped.

 

Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.

 

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/v/viktor_e_frankl.html

 

PS:  this man was a inmate in the German concentration camps.  I think he knows a thing or two about free will.  You should read at least his quotes if not his actual books, though I would encourage everyone to read Man's Search for Meaning.

Edited November 9, 2014 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

Just for the record, the whole confusion between free will and determinism is almost toally based on linguistic confusions.

 

I really don't intend to get into this thread, and the point can be debated until everyone turns blue, but the fact is it amounts to nothing.

 

You can decide right now to respond to this thread or not.  Whether or not you do is up to you. That alone proves the discussion is based on semantics.  We can and do make choices and no one really doubts that.

 

The choice to argue in favor of determinism proves that you are wrong if you decide to do so, because even deciding that you believe in determinism is a choice.

Edited November 10, 2014 by mfbukowski

[Stroopwafel]

Free will is an illusion, albeit a useful one. To those who wish to seriously consider the freedom of the will, I invite you to read Schopenhauer's Essay on the Freedom of the Will.

 

Also, here are some excerpts from Nietzsche's Human, All Too Human, from the section called The Wanderer and His Shadow, which I personally find enlightening (bolded parts are mine):

 

9 - Origin of the Doctrine of Free Will.—Necessity sways one man in the shape of his passions, another as a habit of hearing and obeying, a third as a logical conscience, a fourth as a caprice and a mischievous delight in evasions. These four, however, seek the freedom of their will at the very point where they are most securely fettered. It is as if the silkworm sought freedom of will in spinning. What is the reason? Clearly this, that every one thinks himself most free where his vitality is strongest; hence, as I have said, now in passion, now in duty, now in knowledge, now in caprice. A man unconsciously imagines that where he is strong, where he feels most thoroughly alive, the element of his freedom must lie. He thinks of dependence and apathy, independence and vivacity as forming inevitable pairs.—Thus an experience that a man has undergone in the social and political sphere is wrongly transferred to the ultimate metaphysical sphere. There the strong man is also the free man, there the vivid feeling of joy and sorrow, the high hopes, the keen desires, the powerful hates are the attributes of the ruling, independent natures, while the thrall and the slave live in a state of dazed oppression.—The doctrine of free will is an invention of the ruling classes.

 

10 - Absence of Feeling of New Chains.—So long as we do not feel that we are in some way dependent, we consider ourselves independent—a false conclusion that shows how proud man is, how eager for dominion. For he hereby assumes that he would always be sure to observe and recognise dependence so soon as he suffered it, the preliminary hypothesis being that he generally lives in independence, and that, should he lose that independence for once in a way, he would immediately detect a contrary sensation.—Suppose, however, the reverse to be true—that he is always living in a complex state of dependence, but thinks himself free where, through long habit, he no longer feels the weight of the chain? He only suffers from new chains, and “free will” really means nothing more than an absence of feeling of new chains.

 

12 - The Fundamental Errors.—A man cannot feel any psychical pleasure or pain unless he is swayed by one of two illusions. Either he believes in the identity of certain facts, certain sensations, and in that case finds spiritual pleasure and pain in comparing present with past conditions and in noting their similarity or difference (as is invariably the case with recollection); or he believes in the freedom of the will, perhaps when he reflects, “I ought not to have done this,” “This might have turned out differently,” and from these reflections likewise he derives pleasure and pain. Without the errors that are rife in every psychical pain and pleasure, humanity would never have developed. For the root idea of humanity is that man is free in a world of bondage—man, the eternal wonder-worker, whether his deeds be good or evil—man, the amazing exception, the super-beast, the quasi-God, the mind of creation, the indispensable, the key-word to the cosmic riddle, the mighty lord of nature and despiser of nature, the creature that calls its history “the history of the world”! Vanitas vanitatum homo.

[Stroopwafel]

Just for the record, the whole confusion between free will and determinism is almost toally based on linguistic confusions.

 

I really don't intend to get into this thread, and the point can be debated until everyone turns blue, but the fact is it amounts to nothing.

 

You can decide right now to respond to this thread or not.  Whether or not you do is up to you. That alone proves the discussion is based on semantics.  We can and do make choices and no one really doubts that.

 

The choice to argue in favor of determinism proves that you are wrong if you decide to do so, because even deciding that you believe in determinism is a choice.

 

This one's for you then :

 

Freedom of the Will and the Isolation of Facts.—Our ordinary inaccurate observation takes a group of phenomena as one and calls them a fact. Between this fact and another we imagine a vacuum, we isolate each fact. In reality, however, the sum of our actions and cognitions is no series of facts and intervening vacua, but a continuous stream. Now the belief in free will is incompatible with the idea of a continuous, uniform, undivided, indivisible flow. This belief presupposes that every single action is isolated and indivisible; it is an atomic theory as regards volition and cognition.—We misunderstand facts as we misunderstand characters, speaking of similar characters and similar facts, whereas both are non-existent. Further, we bestow praise and blame only on this false hypothesis, that there are similar facts, that a graduated order of species of facts exists, corresponding to a graduated order of values. Thus we isolate not only the single fact, but the groups of apparently equal facts (good, evil, compassionate, envious actions, and so forth). In both cases we are wrong.—The word and the concept are the most obvious reason for our belief in this isolation of groups of actions. We do not merely thereby designate the things; the thought at the back of our minds is that by the word and the concept we can grasp the essence of the actions. We are still constantly led astray by words and actions, and are induced to think of things as simpler than they are, as separate, indivisible, existing in the absolute. Language contains a hidden philosophical mythology, which, however careful we may be, breaks out afresh at every moment. The belief in free will—that is to say, in similar facts and isolated facts—finds in language its continual apostle and advocate.

[Ahab]

Free will is often spoke of with in most faiths, including my Christian faith. I personally believe I do have free will and my future is not preset to a level that my free will is not pointless or a oxymoron or a paradox. However, that is just my view of my free will. What do others think about free will is?

When people talk about free will what they're usually talking about is the power or ability to make a choice in situations where a choice is possible. In situations where no choice is possible we would be talking about a situation where there would be no free will.