Spencer W Kimball’s Grandson turns in Temple Recommend

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 7/10/2023 at 11:32 AM, Teancum said:

On 7/9/2023 at 8:56 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

As the inimitable, incomparable Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said once (paraphrasing), flawed, fallible, mortal human beings are all God has ever had to work with.  That must be terribly frustrating to Him, but He deals with it.

Why would that be frustrating to God?  God set up the plan. So it is on him really if he is frustrated with it.  Honestly though, this argument is a cop out and a good illustration of how God is made by men in their own image and ideals.

I remember one time with my little kids, it was time to fold laundry.  The fight was so fierce I was surprised blood wasn't drawn.  A door was slammed so hard it hasn't closed correctly since.  

 

On 7/10/2023 at 2:04 PM, Teancum said:

I am not a God that claims to be omniscient, omnipotent and so on. There is a bit of a difference don't you think?  I mean really? Or maybe the God you believe is is a weak simpleton? 

I could fold their laundry, but it's up to them to learn how to do it, and how to deal with each other.  I loved them, and was frustrated and disappointed by them at the same time.

I'm not a creation, I'm offspring.  God isn't an impartial distant force, He's the literal Father of my spirit.  I'm not an automaton functioning up to design specs 100% of the time, I'm sentient meat learning how to human.

Is it truly that difficult of a concept to grasp a perfect being at the helm of an imperfect universe, and everything is happening as it's supposed to, despite the bumps and frustrations?  I mean, I get it, you're an atheist or whatever.  But can you grasp the concept?

Edited July 12, 2023 by LoudmouthMormon

[MrShorty]

@Stargazer I understand how we sometimes say that God having perfect foreknowledge goes against free agency. I also understand how making it about us needing to work out the experience for ourselves is still necessary, so free agency is still preserved. My problem with that line of thinking is that God would still put those He knows will end up in hell or whatever we want to call permanent estrangement into the box.

I know that mortal-child relationship is an imperfect analogy. If I KNEW that an accident at school would kill or disable my child, I would be -- how shall we say it? -- strongly inclined to have my child stay home that day. Do we have any thoughts in this line of thinking about why God would send some of His children into the world where He knows they will become permanently separated as if dead from Him?

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@Stargazer I understand how we sometimes say that God having perfect foreknowledge goes against free agency.

I have never understood this line of reasoning.  I don't see a nexus between A) God's omniscience, and B) a person's capacity to choose.  I don't see how the former negates the latter.

Could you (or anyone else) walk me through this?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Rain]

30 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

@Stargazer I understand how we sometimes say that God having perfect foreknowledge goes against free agency. I also understand how making it about us needing to work out the experience for ourselves is still necessary, so free agency is still preserved. My problem with that line of thinking is that God would still put those He knows will end up in hell or whatever we want to call permanent estrangement into the box.

I know that mortal-child relationship is an imperfect analogy. If I KNEW that an accident at school would kill or disable my child, I would be -- how shall we say it? -- strongly inclined to have my child stay home that day. Do we have any thoughts in this line of thinking about why God would send some of His children into the world where He knows they will become permanently separated as if dead from Him?

I've had to come to a place where I don't think he can do as much as I always thought he could.  As a parent I am ok with letting my child go through hard times so they can learn, but that doesn't mean I will just watch as they put their face in the fire or run in front of a car or watch them drown in the water. 

I very strongly feel God’s love for his children and I can't make it make sense to think someone who loves his children so much would just watch them become victims or torture, house fire etc. So for whatever reason I think He just does not have the ability to help in many if not most situations.

[Stargazer]

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

@Stargazer I understand how we sometimes say that God having perfect foreknowledge goes against free agency. I also understand how making it about us needing to work out the experience for ourselves is still necessary, so free agency is still preserved. My problem with that line of thinking is that God would still put those He knows will end up in hell or whatever we want to call permanent estrangement into the box.

No.

If God knows you're going to screw up and so denies you the opportunity, wouldn't you (as a premortal spirit) say to Him, "Wait! You're wrong! Put me in Coach! I'll surprise you!"

He has to put us in. He organized us for that purpose and for that purpose gave us agency. But He's not forcing us to go in. When the morning stars shouted for joy (see Job), they all knew that they might fail, but didn't know how it would come out. They demanded to be put in. Their agency could not be proven unless they were given the opportunity to succeed or fail. They wanted it. You wanted it.

As for the permanent estrangement, that's an empty argument. Before He and Heavenly Mother organized you, you were already estranged, and not part of the Plan. You were the equivalent of an ant or a butterfly.

He said:

DC 93:29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

He organized you from pre-existent materials. He saw that your qualities made you a fit candidate for exaltation, and so, with your permission, you were trained and put in to the test. Without testing you, you were nothing. 

Now, all this is the Gospel according to Stargazer, so of course it could very well be wrong. But I have all the confidence of @Teancum that I am right.

Let's talk about Judas. The Plan seemed to require that someone betray Jesus. If not Judas, who would it have been? Maybe there was no need for a Betrayer. Maybe the Sanhedrin could have tracked Jesus down where he would be out of the crowd's eye (that was Judas's critical selling point), without assistance from a Betrayer. But the scriptures seem to say that a Betrayer was necessary. Are you going to argue that God was wrong to put Judas in despite knowing he was going to betray the Son of God? The case of Judas leads to the inescapable conclusion that "God would still put those He knows will end up in hell or whatever we want to call permanent estrangement into the box."

But aside from Outer Darkness, what's the worst that could happen? Answer: the Telestial Kingdom. It's a Kingdom of Glory, and said to be so wonderful that we cannot imagine it. Not so bad then, is it?

And speaking of Outer Darkness, did God not know that a very large number of His children would end up there because of a rebellion in the Pre-existence? Even if He didn't know which ones it would be, doesn't the mere fact that he knew many would rebel make Him a bad God? If He knew the toll would be so high, how dare He organize any intelligences into Spirits? Knowing that many would rebel at their first test? The waste is tragic!

Moses 1:39. You have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

Another take on this: let's go the orthodox Christian route on this. They say there is no pre-existence. You come into existence at conception, or maybe "quickening." Fine then. And you're judged right after you're dead. And let's assume that not even God has perfect fore-knowledge. How dare He create any souls at all, because He knows that a very large proportion are going to screw up and be thrown into eternal fire for all eternity!!!! Even if most of them never had the opportunity to even hear the gospel of Christ!!!! He put them in before Christ was born, five thousand miles away from Palestine, and they never had the chance at all!!!! That's not a just God. That is a cruel and a capricious god who condemns billions to inescapable and eternal agony for no other reason than he himself put them, with malice aforethought, where they couldn't find salvation! Such a god deserves no love, no respect, and no worship. Such a god is to be despised.

Fortunately, God is not that god.

1 minute ago, MrShorty said:

I know that mortal-child relationship is an imperfect analogy. If I KNEW that an accident at school would kill or disable my child, I would be -- how shall we say it? -- strongly inclined to have my child stay home that day. Do we have any thoughts in this line of thinking about why God would send some of His children into the world where He knows they will become permanently separated as if dead from Him?

Yes, it's an imperfect analogy, because the Spirits organized by God are not children when sent into mortality. They had been trained over a long period of time (one presumes), and they had passed all earlier tests. And as adults they were sent forth. Just like you do with your children -- at some point you must cease helicopter parenting and let them go forth. 

Did you read my Schrödinger's Cat analogy I posted for Teancum? I don't know if it will do anything for you.

By the way, if you like to think that you can pull a fast one and surprise God about how you will end up, there's nothing wrong with that. It makes no difference whatsoever to the outcome. But for God to be omniscient, what I have been saying is absolutely necessary. It's like the stupid question, "Can God make an object that is so heavy that even He cannot lift it?" It relies upon false premises. 

Until you have been proven, even you cannot know if you will succeed. And if you are not tested, you still don't know. You have to collapse the state vector by going down. Until then you are Schrödinger's Cat in Schrödinger's catbox.

[Stargazer]

40 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have never understood this line of reasoning.  I don't see a nexus between A) God's omniscience, and B) a person's capacity to choose.  I don't see how the former negates the latter.

Could you (or anyone else) walk me through this?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I thought his arguments were the best one could come up with, actually. How dare God put you in if He knew in advance that you would fail?

My response is, if He didn't put you in, then that was a failure in itself. You wanted to be tested. He obliged you.

[Stargazer]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

I've had to come to a place where I don't think he can do as much as I always thought he could.  As a parent I am ok with letting my child go through hard times so they can learn, but that doesn't mean I will just watch as they put their face in the fire or run in front of a car or watch them drown in the water. 

I very strongly feel God’s love for his children and I can't make it make sense to think someone who loves his children so much would just watch them become victims or torture, house fire etc. So for whatever reason I think He just does not have the ability to help in many if not most situations.

God's eternal children are not like your mortal children. God's children are adults in spirit, who must be tested in order to prove whether or not they could be like Him and have His power. God's children were asked if they would support Father's decision to not sent Lucifer, and send Jehovah instead. 

Some people in mortality refuse to have children because they think the world is too cruel a place. This is somehow merciful, they think. In reality it is beside the point. You can't be merciful to nonexistent people.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I thought his arguments were the best one could come up with, actually. How dare God put you in if He knew in advance that you would fail?

My response is, if He didn't put you in, then that was a failure in itself. You wanted to be tested. He obliged you.

Moreover, we all chose to come here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, Rain said:

I've had to come to a place where I don't think he can do as much as I always thought he could.  As a parent I am ok with letting my child go through hard times so they can learn, but that doesn't mean I will just watch as they put their face in the fire or run in front of a car or watch them drown in the water. 

I very strongly feel God’s love for his children and I can't make it make sense to think someone who loves his children so much would just watch them become victims or torture, house fire etc. So for whatever reason I think He just does not have the ability to help in many if not most situations.

My version is he could interfere, but it would prevent his children from becoming what they want to be. He has the ability to keep us from great harm and the ability to help us grow into what we want to be, but he doesn’t have the ability to do both because somehow they contradict/cancel out each other.  It doesn’t make sense to me that there needs to be such extremes to accomplish that, that is one thing I have to take on a very hefty dose of faith. 

Edited July 12, 2023 by Calm

[Benjamin McGuire]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have never understood this line of reasoning.  I don't see a nexus between A) God's omniscience, and B) a person's capacity to choose.  I don't see how the former negates the latter.

Could you (or anyone else) walk me through this?

There are two other components: God's ability to change the circumstances (his omnipotence) and God's morally perfect nature. The question of whether or not people have a choice under these conditions is the subject of centuries of debate. It is less of a problem for LDS theology than it is for other theologies (more on that in a moment). So the general argument proceeds as follows -

P1: God knows how a person will act in any given circumstance

P2: God could alter the circumstances so that the person would act in a different way.

C1: Since God did not alter the circumstances in which a person acts, God is then responsible for the way in which a person acts (determinism).

There is something that isn't stated in the above (but could be included - I am separating it out) - God wants people to act in a good way and not in an evil way. This is usually connected to the premises involved in the arguments about the existence (necessity) of evil:

P3: God is omniscient (all-knowing)

P4: God is omnipotent (all-powerful)

P5: God is omnibenevolent (morally perfect)

P6: There is evil in the world

This sets up a theological (and philosophical) problem. The question is, does God want there to be evil in the world, or is it somehow necessary? You will find some of the most interesting discussions about this in Leibniz (in my opinion). Leibniz argued that all of the things that we see that we feel are bad in the world are in fact necessary because God could not create a creation without them that would, in the larger perspective, produce something better in the end. Thus, he argued, this is the best of all possible worlds. And, he argues, for an omniscient (and perfect God), if a better world could have been created and still met the desires and aims of that God, then God would have done so, leaving us to face the reality that this can only be the best of the possible creations that God could have created. This is unsatisfying for a number of theologies. But you aren't asking about the problem of evil - and the challenge that most theologians face is that if there is a degree of determinism, can (as individuals) we really be held responsible for what we do. For a long time, the primary theory invoked was some form of compatibilism, which argued that free will and determinism weren't exclusive. That is, there is a strong push to protect responsibility for actions against the idea of determinism. This is the view taken early by Augustine. It is argued against by Kant. I think that from this perspective, Platinga offers some useful insight:

Quote

A world containing creatures who are significantly free (and freely perform more good than evil actions) is more valuable, all else being equal, than a world containing no free creatures at all. Now God can create free creatures, but He can't cause or determine them to do only what is right. For if He does so, then they aren't significantly free after all; they do not do what is right freely. To create creatures capable of moral good, therefore, He must create creatures capable of moral evil; and He can't give these creatures the freedom to perform evil and at the same time prevent them from doing so. As it turned out, sadly enough, some of the free creatures God created went wrong in the exercise of their freedom; this is the source of moral evil. The fact that free creatures sometimes go wrong, however, counts neither against God's omnipotence nor against His goodness; for He could have forestalled the occurrence of moral evil only by removing the possibility of moral good.

This doesn't go as far as Leibniz, and a short comment like this doesn't really do it justice.

The Book of Mormon, on the other hand takes an entirely different perspective. It argues that evil is a necessary part of creation - so as to allow for there to be good (you can't have one without the other). The Book of Mormon then argues that 1) moral responsibility only occurs where there is agency, and 2) that agency is limited in our mortal probationary state instead of being absolute. The Book of Mormon suggests in this way that much of our lives can occur deterministically - but there is sufficient opportunity given to most of us (but not all of us) to create some degree or moral responsibility to allow for judgment. Within Mormonism, the idea is that creation is flawed - and was intended to be flawed (with a pre-determined process to both correct those flaws and to correct for the flaws). Mormonism's view of the necessity of evil isn't without its own issues - but they become secondary to the issue of agency and moral responsibility.

In reality, I think that Mormonism presents something of a spectrum of belief (as far as the membership goes) in terms of the degree to which they accept the idea of limited agency in mortality (ranging from absolute agency to only very moderate agency). And the relatively unique (among Christian sects) belief of eternal progression tends to reduce, in my opinion, the impact and necessity of choice during mortality (again this position has had strong opposing voices within the Church). But, this problem seems clearest in our doctrinal position on the moral responsibility of infants and those who have yet to reach a state of accountability. I think more broadly you would get most LDS to agree with the idea that where we encounter highly deterministic environments, there is little or no moral responsibility for our actions - it is context that creates in part our moral responsibility - what would be considered evil for one person might be neutral for someone else, or even good in other circumstances (consider Nephi and Laban). Our views on morally difficult issues like warfare tend to create areas filled with ambiguity. And to bring this back to the current discussion, we have our own unique challenges when some issues are moved from previous certainty to these areas of ambiguity - like same-sex attraction, which many leaders of the Church viewed as having an unnatural origin, while more recently the Church recognized that same-sex attraction was for many, not a choice at all.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I have never understood this line of reasoning.  I don't see a nexus between A) God's omniscience, and B) a person's capacity to choose.  I don't see how the former negates the latter.

Could you (or anyone else) walk me through this?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

That would make you a compatibilist. Libertarian free will is directly at odds with a deterministic universe (one where the future can be told based on a complete knowledge of the present state of the universe). 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I've had to come to a place where I don't think he can do as much as I always thought he could.  As a parent I am ok with letting my child go through hard times so they can learn, but that doesn't mean I will just watch as they put their face in the fire or run in front of a car or watch them drown in the water. 

I very strongly feel God’s love for his children and I can't make it make sense to think someone who loves his children so much would just watch them become victims or torture, house fire etc. So for whatever reason I think He just does not have the ability to help in many if not most situations.

 

2 hours ago, Calm said:

My version is he could interfere, but it would prevent his children from becoming what they want to be. He has the ability to keep us from great harm and the ability to help us grow into what we want to be, but he doesn’t have the ability to do both because somehow they contradict/cancel out each other.  It doesn’t make sense to me that there needs to be such extremes to accomplish that, that is one thing I have to take on a very hefty dose of faith. 

I had an experience last week that really cemented my beliefs around this topic, and they fall in line with Cal's thinking on the issue.

My 8 year old daughter was taking swimming lessons from a very capable teacher in her backyard pool.  The teacher is very experienced and knows her stuff.  She knows how to teach littles the fundamentals of swimming while also teaching them safety and self-saving techniques.  This was our second year with her, and the very last day of swim lessons for this season (so we'd had a lot of experience with her and I knew what she had been teaching and what my daughter had already show she was capable of).

Because it was the last day the teacher was testing skills to see which kids were ready to move on to the next class next year, and one skill was being able to swim the length of the pool with a modified front crawl.  The last couple of lessons my daughter had struggled with the breathing and timing of the arms and legs and I knew this was going to be a struggle for her so I was watching intently when it was her turn.  Likewise, the teacher knew it was going to be a struggle and was watching her closely as well.  As expected, she got to the middle of the pool, still in the deep end, and bogged.  She was treading water but that was a new skill and she started to panic.  The teacher was not in the pool but was on the side, even with her.  She had been in a jumper dress but when my daughter started struggling she took the dress off and was prepared to jump into the pool if needed.

But she didn't jump in.  

And my little 8 year old daughter was screaming for help at this point.  When the teacher didn't react how she wanted her too she started screaming for me.  She was looking at me and screaming for me to help her.....and I didn't.  I didn't move from my seat, though I had tears running down my face and was giving her every ounce of attention I had in me.

I didn't move because I knew that she was in no actual danger and because I knew she needed to know that she was capable of getting herself out of the situation.  She had all the skills, and she had practiced them time and again and her teacher was four feet away from her, talking her down through her panic, reminding her of what she had practiced so many times, and reaching out her hand to shorten the distance to safety.

And she did it.  She rescued herself.  She floated on her back to catch her breath and put her face in the water and glided with her little arrow hands and kicked with her little feet over and over again until she could reach her teacher's hand, and then the teacher pulled her out and hugged her tight while she cried.  She talked to her about how strong she was and how capable and how if it ever happened again now she would know that she could do it and that she should never give up on herself.  After holding her to her side for a few minutes while directing the rest of the kids my daughter jumped back in the pool as happy as could be (to the point that I had to yell at her twice to not attempt to get the toys at the bottom of the deep end because we'd had enough drama for one day).

I hugged her tight and talked to her after the lesson and made sure she knew that if she had been in any danger I would have been in the pool in a second.  Her older brother, who was in the same lesson, also told her that he was ready to save her if she had gone under (they would have both drowned, my kids are not great in the water ).  We talked about what she had learned and how strong she was.  I knew she could do it, and I needed her to know that.  Because next time doing it herself might be her only option.

I thought about this experience that whole day, and for days afterwards.  And I thought about how many times I have "screamed" and pleaded for my Heavenly Father to save me from something, and how many times He probably didn't intervene in the way that I wanted because His perspective was so much different than mine.  These were times that He knew I wasn't actually in any real danger and He let me be in that moment without immediate rescue because I needed the knowledge, confidence, and skills that would result by going through that struggle. 

And not just for learning's sake--not just for another lesson to add to my list of information--but because that knowledge and those "skills" might be the only thing standing between me and disaster next time.  

I don't think every time God doesn't intervene it's for this reason (not at all), but it did remind me that our perspective from the deep end of the pool is really limited and not the best place to be to understand what our Heavenly Father is doing (or why He's doing it) from the pool deck.

[MiserereNobis]

The problem of evil is a tough bugger. I don’t look down on anyone who loses faith over it. I probably slightly look down on those who think they have the solution. 
 

ETA: the full solution

Edited July 13, 2023 by MiserereNobis

[Rain]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

 

I had an experience last week that really cemented my beliefs around this topic, and they fall in line with Cal's thinking on the issue.

My 8 year old daughter was taking swimming lessons from a very capable teacher in her backyard pool.  The teacher is very experienced and knows her stuff.  She knows how to teach littles the fundamentals of swimming while also teaching them safety and self-saving techniques.  This was our second year with her, and the very last day of swim lessons for this season (so we'd had a lot of experience with her and I knew what she had been teaching and what my daughter had already show she was capable of).

Because it was the last day the teacher was testing skills to see which kids were ready to move on to the next class next year, and one skill was being able to swim the length of the pool with a modified front crawl.  The last couple of lessons my daughter had struggled with the breathing and timing of the arms and legs and I knew this was going to be a struggle for her so I was watching intently when it was her turn.  Likewise, the teacher knew it was going to be a struggle and was watching her closely as well.  As expected, she got to the middle of the pool, still in the deep end, and bogged.  She was treading water but that was a new skill and she started to panic.  The teacher was not in the pool but was on the side, even with her.  She had been in a jumper dress but when my daughter started struggling she took the dress off and was prepared to jump into the pool if needed.

But she didn't jump in.  

And my little 8 year old daughter was screaming for help at this point.  When the teacher didn't react how she wanted her too she started screaming for me.  She was looking at me and screaming for me to help her.....and I didn't.  I didn't move from my seat, though I had tears running down my face and was giving her every ounce of attention I had in me.

I didn't move because I knew that she was in no actual danger and because I knew she needed to know that she was capable of getting herself out of the situation.  She had all the skills, and she had practiced them time and again and her teacher was four feet away from her, talking her down through her panic, reminding her of what she had practiced so many times, and reaching out her hand to shorten the distance to safety.

And she did it.  She rescued herself.  She floated on her back to catch her breath and put her face in the water and glided with her little arrow hands and kicked with her little feet over and over again until she could reach her teacher's hand, and then the teacher pulled her out and hugged her tight while she cried.  She talked to her about how strong she was and how capable and how if it ever happened again now she would know that she could do it and that she should never give up on herself.  After holding her to her side for a few minutes while directing the rest of the kids my daughter jumped back in the pool as happy as could be (to the point that I had to yell at her twice to not attempt to get the toys at the bottom of the deep end because we'd had enough drama for one day).

I hugged her tight and talked to her after the lesson and made sure she knew that if she had been in any danger I would have been in the pool in a second.  Her older brother, who was in the same lesson, also told her that he was ready to save her if she had gone under (they would have both drowned, my kids are not great in the water ).  We talked about what she had learned and how strong she was.  I knew she could do it, and I needed her to know that.  Because next time doing it herself might be her only option.

I thought about this experience that whole day, and for days afterwards.  And I thought about how many times I have "screamed" and pleaded for my Heavenly Father to save me from something, and how many times He probably didn't intervene in the way that I wanted because His perspective was so much different than mine.  These were times that He knew I wasn't actually in any real danger and He let me be in that moment without immediate rescue because I needed the knowledge, confidence, and skills that would result by going through that struggle. 

And not just for learning's sake--not just for another lesson to add to my list of information--but because that knowledge and those "skills" might be the only thing standing between me and disaster next time.  

I don't think every time God doesn't intervene it's for this reason (not at all), but it did remind me that our perspective from the deep end of the pool is really limited and not the best place to be to understand what our Heavenly Father is doing (or why He's doing it) from the pool deck.

I get this.  It is how I used to feel.  But the more I know about the horror in the world the more I feel the distance between God's love and his "choice" not to help. So I'm ok with the idea of him not being able to help. It is the only way I can reconcile it anymore.

[bluebell]

Just now, Rain said:

I get this.  It is how I used to feel.  But the more I know about the horror in the world the more I feel the distance between God's love and his "choice" not to help. So I'm ok with the idea of him not being able to help. It is the only way I can reconcile it anymore.

Completely understandable.  I was just explaining why that doesn't work for me personally.  But we all have things about God, and who we need Him to be and rules we need Him to function under, in order to be able to have faith in Him.  Mine are not any better than yours.