Does God Know When We Will Die?

[rodheadlee]

12 hours ago, William Jones said:

That's another question I have.  If there is a correct channel, why so much confusion among the population?  Again this comes back to God, right?  He is supposedly perfect but can't communicate very well.

Sorry i didn't get back to you, I will in the morning. I am beat from work.

[mfbukowski]

13 hours ago, William Jones said:

That's another question I have.  If there is a correct channel, why so much confusion among the population?  Again this comes back to God, right?  He is supposedly perfect but can't communicate very well.

This is a test.  It's not that he does not communicate very well- it's just that giving us all the answers would invalidate the test.  We get to figure it out by ourselves, though he gives us clues.

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

ummm...ok. 

Oh. I thought you said God knows every detail of our lives. He must not have known about my mission being delayed, or else he forgot to tell the prophet so the prophet messed up on my assignment. Must not be a true prophet, God is a bad communicator, or there is no God. Those are the only alternatives.

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

You're correct it wasn't a prophecy...it was a calling to serve a mission the following spring, something God would have know would not take place due to His being fully aware that Patton would die in October of the very year He issued the mission call.  The problem then is why did God issue a call for a mission He know would never be served. I reconcile that problem quite easily...in that I don't believe God had anything to do with this call...it was all Joseph Smith speaking as God...and as a man and not knowing how the future would turn out...issued the call...he then tried to cover the fact up by issuing other revelations to justify Pattton's premature death.  But that just how I see it...and respect that you see it differently

So, if God knew I was going to need knee surgery before I could go on my mission,  then he messed up when he told the Prophet what day I should report to the mission home. The missionary department covered it up for him by giving me a later arrival date as if no mistake had been made. Obviously, Pres McKay was speaking as a man, not a prophet, because he could not foretell this glitch in my calling.

[rodheadlee]

On 4/21/2017 at 7:37 AM, William Jones said:

That's another question I have.  If there is a correct channel, why so much confusion among the population?  Again this comes back to God, right?  He is supposedly perfect but can't communicate very well.

He puts out the signal, it's up to us to tune ourselves to His channel.

[William Jones]

31 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

He puts out the signal, it's up to us to tune ourselves to His channel.

I understand. It seems to me, though, that this system of communication is too easily misinterpreted by the masses. Many have used James 1:5 and have gotten different results as to what church is correct, if any. 

[thesometimesaint]

20 hours ago, William Jones said:

Did they actually touch it or was that a metaphor of sorts?

Yes we all can do what we wish and should be allowed to do so and benefit or suffer here from what we do here and now.

No they actually touched the hot stove. I just didn't force them to touch it.

Why? If God is perfect he should prevent us from ever doing anything wrong or stupid. A small series of errors can lead to some very big  problems.

[William Jones]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

No they actually touched the hot stove. I just didn't force them to touch it.

Why? If God is perfect he should prevent us from ever doing anything wrong or stupid. A small series of errors can lead to some very big  problems.

Are you saying you believe that a perfect God would necessarily prevent us from making mistakes? Why would that be necessary? Maybe this life isn't the all or nothing test organized religion wants us to believe?

Couldnt it be that this life is like a university where God let's us have free reign, without his meddling, to learn and make mistakes and learn from other's mistakes, but minus the "eternal consequences" that organized religion created? 

[MiserereNobis]

21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

This is a test.  It's not that he does not communicate very well- it's just that giving us all the answers would invalidate the test.  We get to figure it out by ourselves, though he gives us clues.

I've never been much of a fan of the test metaphor for life.  As a Catholic, I'm more into the "vale of tears" thing  

Seriously, though, this is a nice answer for the purpose of life from the Catechism:

"God, infinitely perfect and blessed in himself, in a plan of sheer goodness freely created man to make him share in his own blessed life. For this reason, at every time and in every place, God draws close to man. He calls man to seek him, to know him, to love him with all his strength. He calls together all men, scattered and divided by sin, into the unity of his family, the Church. To accomplish this, when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son as Redeemer and Savior. In his Son and through him, he invites men to become, in the Holy Spirit, his adopted children and thus heirs of his blessed life."

And then there's this great excerpt from the beginning of A River Runs Through It (the book):

"In between on Sunday afternoons we had to study The Westminster Shorter Catechism for an hour and then recite before we could walk the hills with him [their father] while he unwound between services. But he never asked us more than the first question in the catechism, "What is the chief end of man?" And we answered together so one of us could carry on if the other forgot, "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever." This always seemed to satisfy him, as indeed such a beautiful answer should have."

Anyways, the idea of life being a test seems so arbitrary.  I understand the meaning behind the metaphor, and there is truth there, but the metaphor itself falls flat for me.

[Calm]

I don't get into the test metaphor, I see it as a school where we are to learn, but more like a preschool without grades and just experiences and opportunities to try things out.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Calm

[carbon dioxide]

On 4/21/2017 at 10:36 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

 The problem then is why did God issue a call for a mission He know would never be served.

This happens probably more than once a day.  God gives a calling to someone and before they fulfill the calling they die.  Mission calls and callings are given in part to give us a chance to accept or reject.  God does not tell us when we are going to die.  He expects us to run to the finish line and not slow down.  He knows we will slow down if we know when the end comes.  We should live our lives worthy as if we will die today but also prepare and work as if we have another 30 years to go. 

[thesometimesaint]

23 hours ago, William Jones said:

Are you saying you believe that a perfect God would necessarily prevent us from making mistakes? Why would that be necessary? Maybe this life isn't the all or nothing test organized religion wants us to believe?

Couldnt it be that this life is like a university where God let's us have free reign, without his meddling, to learn and make mistakes and learn from other's mistakes, but minus the "eternal consequences" that organized religion created? 

We all die eventually. If it is just this life and then the abyss. What difference does some serious mistakes make?

[William Jones]

11 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

We all die eventually. If it is just this life and then the abyss. What difference does some serious mistakes make?

We don't know what happens afterward and its conjecture to say otherwise. All I know is that what occurs here and now. Society evolves and has laws against murder, etc. to prevent harms now and hopefully we can keep evolving our laws as our understanding improves.

[JLHPROF]

19 minutes ago, William Jones said:

We don't know what happens afterward and its conjecture to say otherwise. All I know is that what occurs here and now. Society evolves and has laws against murder, etc. to prevent harms now and hopefully we can keep evolving our laws as our understanding improves.

Laws haven't evolved according to improved understanding.  Societal norms are in constant flux, and as a result so are societal morals.  What we abhor today we accept tomorrow.  What we accept today will be tomorrow's taboo.

God is the only source of true morality.

[Vance]

On 4/20/2017 at 9:54 AM, Johnnie Cake said:

According to LDS Doctrine God is omnipotent, omnipresent & omniscient.  He knows everything. 

Elder Robert Hales put it this way, “God knows all these things…Though omnipotent and omniscient, all-powerful and all-knowing, He is our friend.” Oct ’97 General Conference

I think you got carried away with your "omni" du jour language.

[Vance]

On 4/20/2017 at 0:36 PM, Johnnie Cake said:

Ahhh...I was quoting LDS Prophets...and Elder Bednar says his and their words are scripture...should I dismiss Elder Bednar's words?  Are you suggesting we should dismiss their words?

I think you tried to put an extra word in his mouth.  Just sayin.

[William Jones]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

Laws haven't evolved according to improved understanding.  Societal norms are in constant flux, and as a result so are societal morals.  What we abhor today we accept tomorrow.  What we accept today will be tomorrow's taboo.

God is the only source of true morality.

According to the priest-class who defines "God's" will for us.

[thesometimesaint]

On 4/23/2017 at 10:17 AM, William Jones said:

We don't know what happens afterward and its conjecture to say otherwise. All I know is that what occurs here and now. Society evolves and has laws against murder, etc. to prevent harms now and hopefully we can keep evolving our laws as our understanding improves.

We all will die eventually. Immortality is reserved for the Gods.

Some would say that man has been trying to modify the laws since at least the times of 10 Commandments. I'm not convinced that all of the laws we've made are an improvement.

[clarkgoble]

On 4/21/2017 at 10:50 AM, William Jones said:

My main point is that God is the perfect one here and should be able to communicate perfectly without the guessing as to whether the prophet is speaking as a man or is inspired.  I agree that men are fallible but God's message shouldn't be fallible or confused, right?  However, confusion as to what is doctrine, why the book of abraham exists, book of mormon translation problems (loose v. tight translation), etc., etc.  It seems that God is the lousy communicator here.

I confess I don't quite understand this. While God certainly could do that, it's not at all clear why he should. Certainly we know he doesn't. Whether that counts as evidence against God's existence depends upon the argument for why one thinks he should be unambiguous. The main arguments for him being somewhat unclear and ambiguous is the traditional "hidden God" necessary for faith. That is if it's too easy to tell what God wants that defeats the whole purposed of mortality.

[clarkgoble]

On 4/22/2017 at 8:19 PM, Calm said:

I don't get into the test metaphor, I see it as a school where we are to learn, but more like a preschool without grades and just experiences and opportunities to try things out.

Yeah the idea of a test for God to find out about us doesn't make much sense. The idea of a test to develop ourselves and learn about what we really want makes far more sense.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Yeah the idea of a test for God to find out about us doesn't make much sense. The idea of a test to develop ourselves and learn about what we really want makes far more sense.

I don't hear most people thinking of the test as God finding out about us, but rather giving God something to fairly judge us by.  It wouldn't be just to,condemn someone to punishment for something they hadn't done yet, but were going to do that God has foreknowledge of.  Others see it as testing ourselves, which works for me till one talks in terms of a "test" because that feels more organized and distinct than what I see happening.  We need to experience life to learn who we are, we need experience to develop who we are...a "test" occurs after the learning is accomplished in most usages.  I prefer to emphasize the learning aspect rather than the testing our mettle side of it, especially since I see us as unfinished until way into the next life.

[Calm]

On 2017-04-21 at 10:50 AM, William Jones said:

My main point is that God is the perfect one here and should be able to communicate perfectly without the guessing as to whether the prophet is speaking as a man or is inspired.  I agree that men are fallible but God's message shouldn't be fallible or confused, right?  However, confusion as to what is doctrine, why the book of abraham exists, book of mormon translation problems (loose v. tight translation), etc., etc.  It seems that God is the lousy communicator here.

Is this perfect communication to the prophet or to the person the prophet is giving the message to or to everyone who hears of the message and may or may not 'liken' it to themselves?

[clarkgoble]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't hear most people thinking of the test as God finding out about us, but rather giving God something to fairly judge us by.  It wouldn't be just to,condemn someone to punishment for something they hadn't done yet, but were going to do that God has foreknowledge of.  Others see it as testing ourselves, which works for me till one talks in terms of a "test" because that feels more organized and distinct than what I see happening.  We need to experience life to learn who we are, we need experience to develop who we are...a "test" occurs after the learning is accomplished in most usages.  I prefer to emphasize the learning aspect rather than the testing our mettle side of it, especially since I see us as unfinished until way into the next life.

Not sure that makes sense assuming God knows. The more traditional folk theology that everyone goes to where they are most happy tends to entail that it requires people really knowing themselves what they want. Thus God's knowledge is insufficient for this sorting. But there's also a reasonably strong folk theology that we're essentially underdetermined and are creating ourselves. This becomes prominent in the spiritualist tradition within Mormonism in the early Utah period that often involved quasi-reincarnation interpretations of the telestial kingdom. (Not that the folk tradition necessarily buys into the multiple probation theory)

Edited April 25, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Kenngo1969]

On 4/20/2017 at 11:50 AM, stemelbow said:

Beats the hell out of me.

That's my favorite answer on the thread, right there!

[Kevin Christensen]

On 4/20/2017 at 10:45 PM, William Jones said:

If a prophet claims a statement is a prophecy and it clearly doesn't come to pass, then can't one assume that the person claiming to be a prophet isn't really a prophet at all? Further, if this "prophet" later gets something right, can't we assume that it was luck, because of the prior mistake? If prophets are fallible, then how can one trust them? Why bother? It seems to me that "prophet" must mean infallibility or you cannot call yourself a prophet. You simply cannot claim prophetic powers and then fail in prophetic claims.

One can actually search out the Biblical Keys for Discerning True and False Prophets in order to get a clear idea of the whole range of identifying characteristics that makes the fruit distinguishable.  This essay collects 28 distinct Biblical tests, noting that the one that most people know and use the most also happens to be the one most qualified in Biblical practice and example and most abused by those rejecting Biblical prophets.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Biblical_Keys_for_Discerning_True_and_False_Prophets

And it helps to be aware of the sorts of mistakes that Biblical peoples made in the process, and the sorts of things the investigators ought to do in order to get the best answers.  It pays to be particularly leary of claims both of infallibility and of the potential that the critics may not be infallibly correct in their approaches.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA