mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Uh, yeah, I'm a Mormon You didn't know that? We don't have problems with ambiguity because we have the spirit to guide us. That's about the best system I know of.You don't? It appears a lot of people have a lot of problems with ambiguity. That's most of the reason this forum exists it seems. Maybe you just haven't joined the crowd yet.
mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Again, you are taking extreme positions. We say God allows agency, and you say there is anarchy. We fully accept that God is in control but you refuse to accept that he allows his children to make bad choices. Freedom of choice is the foundation of his plan. We get to choose whether or not we obey him. Remember, in our doctrine, Abraham was chosen before he was born. The plan of salvation was put in place before the world was created. But none of this has anything to do with biblical inerrancy. He can't be in control and give you true free agency. If we're arguing purely logically you will never beat that.
mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 HUh? I think this is called a non sequitur.If it has not been recanted, I assert that Moroni 8:18 and Mormon 9:9-10 (both read in context) are in direct contradiction to the doctrine of eternal progression. I choose not to believe in a system that allows this kind of thing. Because I would never be able to make up my mind what I was really supposed to be doing/not doing.
Calm Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated. A decision made before either of them were born. God makes these kind of decisions. The LDS explanation of agency is at best, far too simplistic and anthropocentric. And if the explanation is that God hates someone before he has done anything to hate or before God has even created him, that explanation is unjust and uncompassionate. Edited January 20, 2015 by calmoriah
Calm Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 He can't be in control and give you true free agency. If we're arguing purely logically you will never beat that. Dogmatic statements are not logical arguments.
mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 And if the explanation is that God hates someone before he has done anything to hate or before God has even created him, that explanation is unjust and uncompassionate.Maybe if you had read the next couple verses... So close Cal so close. 13 As it is written , Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated . 14 What shall we say then ? Is there unrighteousness with God? Godforbid . 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy , and I will havecompassion on whom I will have compassion . 16 So then it is not of him that willeth , nor of him that runneth , but of God that sheweth mercy .
Calm Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Maybe if you had read the next couple verses... So close Cal so close. 13 As it is written , Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated . 14 What shall we say then ? Is there unrighteousness with God? Godforbid . 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy , and I will havecompassion on whom I will have compassion . 16 So then it is not of him that willeth , nor of him that runneth , but of God that sheweth mercy .Still of the same mind….if God just randomly chose who to have mercy and compassion on and who to condemn to hell to burn for eternity and then created them for that purpose, that would be an unjust, unmerciful, uncompassionate God in my view. He has mercy and compassion on whom he chooses for a reason…because of their choices to love God and repent, not just a whim.
mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Dogmatic statements are not logical arguments.I have control over all my decisions. God has control over all my decisions. The two cannot co-exist logically. God does not have control over my decisions. God knows whether I will return to Him. Another impossible logical pair.
mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Still of the same mind….if God just randomly chose who to have mercy and compassion on and who to condemn to hell to burn for eternity and then created them for that purpose, that would be an unjust, unmerciful, uncompassionate God in my view. He has mercy and compassion on whom he chooses for a reason…because of their choices to love God and repent, not just a whim.According to your view, he didn't totally know what their decisions would be in life. So how did he really choose them again? The answer lies in the same passage yet again. 11 (For the children being not yet born , neither having done any good or evil,that the purpose of God according to election might stand , not of works, but of him that calleth
Calm Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I have control over all my decisions. God has control over all my decisions. The two cannot co-exist logically. God does not have control over my decisions. God knows whether I will return to Him. Another impossible logical pair. Are you a parent? If so, can you predict in certain circumstances how your child will react? Does that mean you controlled your child and forced him or her to make that decision?
mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) Are you a parent? If so, can you predict in certain circumstances how your child will react? Does that mean you controlled your child and forced him or her to make that decision?No. False analogy. You might think you can predict and you will get some things right. You never know 100% for sure what they will do. This is why you can never guarantee where your children will end up in life. You might raise them up in the Church and they still choose to screw up your plan. Edited January 20, 2015 by mass168
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 HUh? I think this is called a non sequitur.One of many. I don't even know what he is talking about but i am at the point where I don't care anymore. He is just playing games and refuses to listen.
mfbukowski Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) No. False analogy. You might think you can predict and you will get some things right. You never know 100% for sure what they will do. This is why you can never guarantee where your children will end up in life. You might raise them up in the Church and they still choose to screw up your plan. So you change your plan. So what? We have no problem with change and ambiguity. Life is change. We are not rocks, we are interactive beings and so is God. That is precisely the difference between how you conceive of God and how we conceive of God. He teaches us. If we don't learn with one way of teaching math, he chooses another. He is a tutor to bring us individually to him and we all learn differently. But I have already said all that 3 or 4 times. We no longer see as children in black and white.I suggest strongly that you read this material. See where you think you stand on the scale, not that you will accept it anyway. After all, it isn't God breathed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_G._Perryhttp://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/perry.positions.html Edited January 20, 2015 by mfbukowski 2
Calm Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) No. False analogy. You might think you can predict and you will get some things right. You never know 100% for sure what they will do. This is why you can never guarantee where your children will end up in life. You might raise them up in the Church and they still choose to screw up your plan. But God has known us since he gathered us to him as intelligences and clothed us in spirit as his children. And his own personal intelligence is such that he can comprehend us down to the last electron and proton. He does not have the limits a mortal parent has….so no false analogy. He is the perfect parent. Edited January 20, 2015 by calmoriah 2
Calm Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 According to your view, he didn't totally know what their decisions would be in life. So how did he really choose them again? The answer lies in the same passage yet again. 11 (For the children being not yet born , neither having done any good or evil,that the purpose of God according to election might stand , not of works, but of him that calleth You do not convince me given the verses are not intended to say what you interpret them to say. From a friend who is a scholar who I went to because my brain is dead today and I wanted a clearer explanation: V. 13 is a quote from Malachi 1:2, where Jacob and Esau represents Israel and Edom. Furthermore, it is about Esau being in service to Jacob, not about being predestined to salvation. V.15 is a quote from Exodus 33:19. In Exo 32-33, God's wrath was propitiated by Moses' intercession, and God changed his mind about destroying the Israelites. Unless one wishes to charge Paul of wrenching Exo 33:19 out of context, one must understand God as making decisions based on the actions of subjects, not part of a decree as understood by Reformed theology. Yes, God has to show mercy first, but there is nothing in there about the inability of man a la Total Depravity or any of the other parts of the TULIP.
mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 But God has known us since he gathered us to him as intelligences and clothed us in spirit as his children. And his own personal intelligence is such that he can comprehend us down to the last electron and proton. He does not have the limits a mortal parent has….so no false analogy. He is the perfect parent.I feel like the perfect parent would have children that are a little more perfect.. If you want to be so literal about it.
mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 You do not convince me given the verses are not intended to say what you interpret them to say. From a friend who is a scholar who I went to because my brain is dead today and I wanted a clearer explanation:V: 13 Totally agree this is referring to the nations represented by the two people. That makes it even more interesting. It says God HATED Esau, I'd like to hear how your friend got around that part.. v: 15 Interesting, but you still have to fit "For the children being not yet born , neither having done any good or evil" part in somewhere.
Calm Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Quit reading it with your assumptions in place and you might see it.
Rain Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) I don't believe that human language itself can convey perfectly any thought. It is an imperfect medium so how can it convey a perfect thought perfectly? Math may come the closest, but there are still the fundamental assumptions we can't prove are Truth but just assume it. What if those assumptions are wrong? Plus math is limited in only what formulations are now being used. The math someone used in 2000 BC may mean something different than the math used in 2000 AD because of new formulations.God's thoughts may be perfect and he may convey his thoughts perfectly to someone, but human speech and understanding is incapable of perfectly understanding him so there is an inherent error in anything a mortal human is involved with. Don't you believe that no man can be perfect? How then can a man produce something that is perfect and without error? God is not the one who is writing the words, not the one who created the language itself that is being used, not the one who is the publisher/copyist…these were all human men and women who in their very actions have error and imperfection involved.Yes, God has the power to create something perfect, but he would have to turn men into robots/unthinking machines and create their very language for them (if by some chance a finite language could convey his thoughts) in order to have his words that convey his thoughts perfectly written out by a scribe.He chooses, imo, not to turn mankind into something less than an insect.As should be obvious imo by how many different interpretations of the same words exist.And later in another post:Something that transcends language and time is outside of language and time.This reminds me of when my youngest was a preemie and still in the hospital. He wasn't progressing and I felt he wanted to go back and live with his Heavenly Father. I really wanted him to stay here, but let it be up to God. The Spirit told me to speak "spirit to spirit" with DS and let him know that I would like him to stay. Then He let me know how to do that.Those few minutes with my son did transcend language. It was one of my most favorite memories. After that I looked back and saw other times when that had happened as well, but I didn't know it - most commonly on my mission. Several times in the Book of Mormon the writers apologize for possible errors. Joesph Smith said it was the most correct book, not a completely correct book. So it makes sense to understand that the language or errors may not completely cover understanding and that when you are reading with the Spirit as you said then the Spirit to your spirit understanding comes through.Oh my.Have you ever studied a language? Did you know that many words in English come from Greek, Latin, French, and Germanic languages? Do you know what languages Hebrew came from?.....Did you know that Latin has turned into Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, Romanian and some other minor languages?My husband is teaching himself Italian, most through reading an Italian BoM with an English BoM and a Italian to English dictionary. There are just enough differences as he uses all three to help him understand that one language just doesn't cover it all. He feels he has gained more understanding through it. Kind of cool. Edited January 20, 2015 by Rain 2
Calm Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) This reminds me of when my youngest was a preemie and still in the hospital. He wasn't progressing and I felt he wanted to go back and live with his Heavenly Father. I really wanted him to stay here, but let it be up to God. The Spirit told me to speak "spirit to spirit" with DS and let him know that I would like him to stay. Then He let me know how to do that. Those few minutes with my son did transcend language. It was one of my most favorite memories. After that I looked back and saw other times when that had happened as well, but I didn't know it - most commonly on my mission. My mom experienced much the same with me…only I was heading toward miscarrying. She said I wanted to go back, but stayed because she needed me (I am the one with whom she communicates the best). I had an interesting experience once where a stranger said this to me out of the blue (you would have died but you stayed for your mom). Edited January 20, 2015 by calmoriah 1
mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Quit reading it with your assumptions in place and you might see it.I might say the same to you, lets be fair here?
Calm Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) I am not trying to convert anyone here, you are. Nor am I arguing that the scriptures are not ambiguous or are inerrant. Another friend's helpful response: Eldon R. Taylor discussed this question in the December 1990 Ensign. Here’s my summary of his long answer. He indicates that: The problem is one of definition and interpretation. Many Christian churches regard the words predestine and foreordain as synonymous. [Even Webster's Dictionary defines foreordain as "to dispose or appoint in advance: PREDESTINE." (Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Springfield, Mass.: Merriam Webster, Inc., p. 483, s.v., "foreordain")] However, our modern-day Church leaders have distinguished between them. Predestination is not a part of Latter-day Saint doctrine; foreordination is. The Prophet Joseph Smith clearly taught that individuals were foreordained in premortality to certain missions in mortality. "Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was foreordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council in Heaven before this world was," [Teachings, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1977, p. 365].... To discover what Paul meant in Romans 8:29-30, we must study his other writings. In his letter to Timothy, Paul wrote that God "will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. 2:4; see also 2 Nephi 26:33)... On the question of agency and accountability, Paul taught that God "will render to every man according to his deeds.... For there is no respect of persons with God." (Rom. 2:6-11; see also 2 Nephi 2:27) In the same letter, Paul told the Romans that their conduct would determine their eternal reward: "Know ye not... his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" (Rom. 6:16) Paul's letters also make it clear that "the elect" can fall from grace and thus lose their reward. (See Rom. 11:17-21) In fact, Paul claimed no guarantee of his own salvation; one of his favorite themes was the necessity of holding "stedfast unto the end." (Heb. 3:14; see also 1 Cor. 9:27) Such constant exhortations to righteousness would hardly seem necessary if he had believed that human beings did not help determine their own eternal destinies by their conduct during mortality. From these scriptures, it seems clear that Paul did not believe in predestination - at least as a Calvinist defines the term. But then we might ask, did Paul believe in and teach the doctrine of foreordination - as we define the term? Again to find out, we need to study Paul's writings. He himself said that he had been set apart "before [he] was born," (Gal. 1:15, Revised Standard Version). He wrote to Timothy of their "holy calling" given "before the world began." (2 Tim. 1:9) To the Ephesians, he said that the Lord "hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world" to receive the gospel and its blessings. (Eph. 1:3-5; see also verse 11) He told the Thessalonian members that "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." (2 Thes. 2:13) Indeed, all people are foreordained to salvation and exaltation, but to fulfill that foreordination they must accept the ordinances of the gospel, keep the commandments, and endure to the end. But if Paul did not believe in predestination, why does the passage in Hebrews refer to it? Could those who translated the King James Version have erred in using the English word predestinate to convey the meaning of foreordain? Possibly. The problem arises because the Greek word proorizo, which is made up of the prefix pro (meaning "before or in front of; beforehand, or earlier") [Liddell and Scott, "Greek- English Lexicon,” Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959] and the verb orizo (meaning "to determine, mark out, designate, destine, ordain or appoint," or "to divide or separate from... to preappoint or pre-ordain)" [Arndt and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1957; Moulton and Milligan, The vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1952] can be translated a number of different ways. In fact, various combinations of words have been used to translate the term over a period covering hundreds of years. [see Acts 4:27-28; 1 Cor. 2:7] The [following] examples... come from various translations of Romans 8:29-30. Note how the same idea is translated in a number of different ways. Translation Year Romans 8:29 Romans 8:30 Wycliff 1380 bifor ordeyned bifor ordeyned Tyndale 1534 ordeyned before appoynted before Cranmer 1539 ordeyned before appoynted before Geneva 1657 ordeyned before appoynted before Rheims 1582 predestinated predestinated Standard Rev. 1881 foreordained foreordained James Moffatt 1913 decreed of old has thus decreed J.B. Phillips 1958 chose them chose them long ago Wm. F. Beck 1963 appointed long ago appointed long ago New Test. in 1966 had also set had already set Today's English apart apart In addition to these translations, the Greek word proorizo can be translated several other ways -- for example, with such English words as allotted, planned, and fore-approved. Obviously, the most correct way to translate the word cannot be determined by simply referring to a dictionary. And the word chosen may not fully or accurately convey the original author's intent. The accuracy of any translation depends on the translator's ability to determine what the original author had in mind and then to convey that idea to the reader in another language... From the tenor of Paul's letter, we may determine that the English word predestinate does not accurately convey what Paul meant in Romans 8:29-30. What then did he mean? To understand that, we need to look at the verses in context. In verses 4 through 6, Paul tells members to "walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.... For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." [see also Mosiah 3:16] In verses 14 through 17, he explains, "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.... We are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ." In verse 24, Paul explains the need for hope in order to attain promised blessings [see also 2 Nephi 31:20; Ether 12:4, 8, 28,32; and Moroni 7], and in verse 28 he says that "all things work together for good to them that love God" and who are foreordained to accept the gospel and become like Christ. Further, those who are thus foreordained are "justified," "sanctified," and "glorified" (see v. 30) through receiving the saving ordinances of the gospel and obeying the commandments - which is Paul's theme throughout his epistles. Overall, Paul's teachings cannot be reconciled with the concept of Calvinistic predestination, and to translate proorizo as predestination does not accurately convey the apostles intended meaning.... In summary, Paul did not believe in predestination as Calvinists have defined the word. It has been his interpreters who have confused the doctrine. Paul himself taught that God loves all his children and has offered salvation to all who come unto Christ and are justified and sanctified through obedience to the covenants they make with him [Eldon R. Taylor, Ensign, December 1990, pp. 29-31]. Although the words predestinate or predestinated were used only four times in the King James version of the New Testament (Rom. 8:29, 30; Eph. 1:5, 11), from these short references has come one of the most destructive false doctrines ever conceived. Paul spoke of this saying, "they will not endure sound doctrine but... shall turn away their ears from the truth and shall be turned unto fables" (2 Tim. 4:3-4). Because many modern churches have turned away from the truth of the pre-existence of man, they have turned to the fable of predestination. The reluctance of scholars to use "before ordained" or "foreordained" may have resulted from the abundance of Greek words meaning "ordained" which were used throughout the New Testament. There are no less than twelve different Greek words which were translated as ordained by King James translators though the word ordained or ordain is found only twenty-three times in all the New Testament (James Strong, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible). In an effort to avoid the more frequent use of the word ordained, it is possible that the word predestined may have been substituted as what was thought to be an equivalent word in the four instances in Romans 8 and Ephesians 1. Even today, expert translators fail to distinguish between foreordained or predestined when translating the Greek word proorizo. The Nestle Greek Text Literal English Translation by Reverend Alfred Marshall (The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English, Zondervan Bible Publishers, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1975) translates proorizo as foreordained in Romans 8 but uses predestined in Ephesians 1. Despite modern uncertainty regarding this doctrine, it is important to note that Romans 8:30 links foreordination to being "called.” The rest of that verse seems to say that once a man is called, he will also be justified and glorified but this is not always the case. Matthew 22:14 teaches, "many are called, but few are chosen" (see also Matt. 20:16; Luke 13:23; D&C 95:5; 121:34). Thus being called (foreordained) does not automatically imply salvation (being chosen). We are called to follow in Christ's footsteps (1 Pet. 2:21) but yet may be rejected if we are not obedient to that call (Heb. 10:26; Rev. 2:5). To return to live with God and Christ we must be called, chosen, and faithful (Rev. 17:14). See also Jer. 1:5; 2 Thes. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2; Alma 13:3-6; Abraham 3:22-23; Mormon Doctrine, p. 588; Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:147-154. The article he is summarizing is here: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/12/i-have-a-question?lang=eng Edited January 20, 2015 by calmoriah
mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I am not trying to convert anyone here, you are. Nor am I arguing that the scriptures are not ambiguous or are inerrant. Another friend's helpful response: The article he is summarizing is here: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1990/12/i-have-a-question?lang=engUnderstood. No need to respond if you don't feel like talking about this anymore. If you do feel so inclined though... Interesting how there was no mention of chapter 9 anywhere in there. If you're super concerned about reading things in context, reading from the same book tends to help sometimes. Really, I was much more interested in your personal understanding of it this whole time, as opposed to definitions. You believe God knows who is going to choose him and be counted among the number that returns to Him. In other words, you believe that God will not be surprised by anything that proceeds out of this world. I really really wish I understood how you reconcile this with free agency. I know you think you have explained it, but I'm just not getting it. I don't think I've ever heard any serious thinker deny the butterfly effect. A world where nothing is set in stone until it happens and billions upon billions of free agent decisions are being made every second is Chaos when combined with that effect. It doesn't seem to be a system logically compatible with a God in total control. Now if you acknowledge that and still choose to take the faith position, I will accept that and try to question you no further. Or, if you reject it, I will try to bother you no further as well, I just wish I understood the fullness of your position.
Calm Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) I really really wish I understood how you reconcile this with free agency. Free agency is not the ability to randomly choose. It is the ability to choose for ourselves. A better term is moral agency, we are responsible for our choices, they are not imposed upon us by God. Our eternal natures are the core of why we choose the way we do in an eternal sense. In mortality, because we do not have full access to our memories or even possibly all of our eternal nature, our choices may be more limited than they would be if we were fully aware. Some might even have in mortality very little actual agency due to abuse, emotional or mental or physical or spiritual disability, but God has arranged to counterbalance such limitations by our continuing to learn and develop in the Spirit world before resurrection at which time we will make a fully informed and morally responsible choice of what our eternal distination will be, whether accepting the Atonement fully and becoming one with God as he has asked us to become or something else. The butterfly effect does not ultimately matter because whatever happens in mortality will be balanced out by what happens after death as we learn and experience what we missed out on in mortality. Even if for some reason we are locked in from our very beginnings to one path with us always choosing a certain way due to that eternal nature, it is still our own nature that leads us to that choice and not because God created us that way. What he created is our ability to express those choices, not the reason for the choice itself. I also believe that we are limited in our understanding of what eternal nature really is so I am open to the idea that ultimately life is either completely [self-]determined by our eternal nature or there is an openness to choice in some fashion that will be explained eventually in a way that satisfies me. Edited January 20, 2015 by calmoriah
mass168 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 "Free agency is not the ability to randomly choose. It is the ability to choose for ourselves." ? "Even if for some reason we are locked in from our very beginnings to one path with us always choosing a certain way due to that eternal nature, it is still our own nature that leads us to that choice and not because God created us that way. What he created is our ability to express those choices, not the reason for the choice itself." How do our eternal beings get locked that way? Who locks them?
Recommended Posts