Comments on: We Mormons probably should all be open theists

By: meizitang

meizitang — Tue, 26 Apr 2011 04:00:50 +0000

Consent and concurrence is what made our Father in Heaven our Spiritual Father. Inferred in God’s purposes of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, is the establishment of a divine society. When it became obvious that God’s children had sufficiently moved away from evolving towards a divine society then the flood became necessary. The toddler had to be redirected away from the cliff.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:25:45 +0000

I agree Mark. Consent and concurrence is what made our Father in Heaven our Spiritual Father. Inferred in God’s purposes of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, is the establishment of a divine society. When it became obvious that God’s children had sufficiently moved away from evolving towards a divine society then the flood became necessary. The toddler had to be redirected away from the cliff.

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 06:46:21 +0000

In terms of everything that really matters, I would call the flood more like a detour than a reset. A reset would be like Brigham Young’s concept of the second death – reduction to spirit dust. I don’t think the latter is very economical, and it may not even be possible. Economical as in repent and repair rather than damn and destroy.

IMO, real divine power is completely contingent on consent and concurrence, so even a detour is not enough. The offered plan must be better than all available alternatives. If the folks in charge promoted a plan significantly inferior to a ready alternative, I would say they would likely suffer a loss of confidence. I can’t imagine a flood like decision being undertaken in heaven without an overwhelming sustaining vote.

By: Jacob J

Jacob J — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 04:46:57 +0000

Patrick,

the failure of all participants in the plan is a possible outcome

So it sounds like you are saying it is a logical possibility. Which means I agree with your point.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:37:37 +0000

I’m not a real regular internet participant so it’s hard for me participate in discussions.

I made my comment based on what I see as a continued good faith effort on the part of Satan to thwart everything God is doing, and I believe he thinks he can win. When dealing with free agents, the failure of all participants in the plan is a possible outcome. I think the flood is a good example of this. The flood represents a hard reset, a “let’s start this over again”.

Ultimately God will not fail because he always has the hard reset as an option.

By: Jacob J

Jacob J — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:05:43 +0000

Aaron, For all that JNS has been frustrated with folks on this blog for not giving compatibilism a fair shake, he has not yet told us where to find the treatment of compatibilism that we are neglecting. So, I am with you.

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 18:02:54 +0000

I think compatibilism is a somewhat respectable perspective on the question of free will. My problem with non-creatio ex nihilo compatibilism is the consequent impossibility of assigning a substantive reason for anything.

i.e. people become compatibilists because they do not like the idea of events without antecedent causes, and subsequently lose the ability to identify an original or primary cause for anything. Classical theists aside, in the philosophical sense, compatibilism is essentially the denial of causes.

By: Aaron Brown

Aaron Brown — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:16:05 +0000

Thanks, Geoff. I actually read portions of the JNS/Greenwood tagteam a couple months back, and it’s that thread that actually inspired me to ask this question. (I figured if JNS was trying to make compatibilism respectable, it can’t be completely silly, can it?). I’ll have to revisit it. Thanks.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:32:43 +0000

Aaron, J Nelson-Seawright and Adam Greenwood formed an unlikely alliance to defend compatibilism for Mormons in this thread. Clark less vigorously chimed in at the follow up thread here. And here is a post where I stand all amazed at the number of Mormons who kinda sorta like compatibilism (Jeff G does most of the compatibilism defending there with Christian Cardall assisting to some degree). Of course I think all the Mormon compatibilism defenders fail in the end but at least they give it the ol' college try...

By: Aaron Brown

Aaron Brown — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:17:47 +0000

Sorry to be late to the party, but I’m curious: Can Geoff J or Blake (or anyone) direct me to an argument in favor of Mormonism and compatibilism. Whether on this blog, or elsewhere, has anyone (Clark maybe?) set forth this argument in a respectable form? I confess I’m totally with Geoff and Blake here, 100%, to the point that I am utterly mystified by the notion that any LDS committed to intuitively appealing notions of free will (and at all inclined to think carefully about the question) could possibly entertain thinking otherwise. But I admit my mystification could merely be evidence of my failure to engage serious arguments that are out there. So a reference to a Mormon compatibilist argument in top form would be appreciated.

Aaron B