A recent post on Nate Smith's Blog prompted me to share some thoughts on Omniscience and Destiny.
I believe omniscience is the ability to know the current state and direction of all things within a kingdom, not to know all future outcomes. Check out the dictionary definition at dictionary.com
Notice that it doesn't say knowing all thoughts, knowing all outcomes or seeing all time.
When you know the state of all things, you can quite reliably predict the future, but you don't KNOW the future. For example: my son rides with his training wheels and veers of course toward the brick mailbox. He still has full choice over his actions, but looking at his present position and knowing his skill level, I'm quite sure he will crash into the mailbox.
I can even predict more than a few seconds into the future. For example, my son hates cleaning his room and needs coaxing every time. If I ask him to clean his room, I predict he won't. He has full choice to do so, but I know his past actions and attitude.
I believe that God does not see all of time immediately before him. Instead, he has perfect wisdom, perfect knowledge of all non-living things, perfect knowledge of our personalities, and perfect understanding of all natural laws, patterns and trends.
It is hard for us to imagine all God knows. We are as infants in his eyes. He can quite reliably predict our actions in many cases, but it doesn't preclude our ability to choose.
The author of Lectures on Faith - incidentally, less than two hundred years later, there is ambiguity about who actually wrote Lectures on Faith. How can we possibly claim certainty about, say, the New Testament, let alone the Old! - anyway the author of LOF says that we must have a correct knowledge of God's character, perfections, and attributes to have true faith in him.
So let's see what your scriptures say about God's correct attributes.
Here's God talking about himself in D&C 34:
"Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday and forever"
In LOF we read: "For without the idea of unchangeableness in the character of the Deity, doubt would take the place of faith...And again, the idea that he is a God of truth and cannot lie, is equally as necessary to the exercise of faith in him, as the idea of his unchangeableness."
Other scriptures worth taking a look at (off the top of my head - I'm sure there are others we could use) are Doctrine and Covenants 38:2, Moses 1:6, Ephesians 1:11, Psalms 147:5, Matthew 6:8, 2 Nephi 9:20.
D&C 38:2 is perhaps the most striking from my list: "The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes."
So, in short, I think it is against the doctrine of your church - and most Christian sects - to say that God does not have all time before him and know beforehand all actions we will choose to take. Your post makes it sound like a statistical, predictive algorithm which God has perfected by his knowledge of our hearts and minds. But if it is indeed perfect, then his knowledge is, in fact, knowledge, not predictions.
I feel your definition of perfect is beyond the intended meaning. Dictionary Definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect . God being perfect means he is without defect and has progressed so far that there is no more progress to be made. His work is to bring about the progression of others (Moses 1:39), not to progress himself.
So I would argue that perfect knowledge means that there is nothing else to know. And I argue that the future is not knowable. I have never heard any doctrine that says the future is knowable. Therefore, I believe God does not see or know the future.
As far as science proving that time is a 4th dimension--I've read a lot of Stephen Hawking and feel well read in the area. I personally subscribe to the idea that time is an arrow--that the future is not see-able.
Moving on to God's progression, in your church the idea of damnation is synonymous with being stopped or held back from progressing (if you'd like a citation I can find one later). So, if God has stopped progressing, he himself is damned. One reason for him to bring about the progression of others is to add more glory to himself. If you don't live up to God's rules, he won't accept you into his kingdom because you won't be adding glory to him but taking away, or damning him. My argument may be somewhat semantic, but I think it is valid to note that God's progression, in LDS doctrine, does not stop.
Now, as to physics and the idea of time as an arrow, well I've also heard it said that an infinite number of possible branches exist into the future (which obviously they do), and that our decisions continuously impact which branch is chosen. More interestingly, many physicists have spoken about traveling to other branches, other (parallel) universes, and other nearly incomprehensible ideas like these. So I must say that my own understanding of time is insufficient to choose a model like an arrow or a branching system, or anything else, since I can only perceive it as an arrow in my current state. What I meant by my comment is that, if any of those other models / dimensionalities actually do make sense in the physical world, God will have a handle on them and be quite able to know the end from the beginning.
Which brings us full circle. If God can see the future, and knows "all things which shall befall us," how does that knowledge still permit us to act with agency? Can we prove God wrong?
With that said, let me be brief in offering up another theory (given all we have here are speculative theories).
Last week my 11 year old son challenged me to a game of chess. I’m not a great chess player (not a perfect knowledge) but I agreed to play. I knew what the outcome of the game was going to be. With my limited knowledge, I can usually think three or four moves ahead. Knowing my son and his level of experience, I could also “predict” his moves. With those two pieces of knowledge, I was able to win the game…as expected. Yes, I did have to adjust my strategy and game play throughout the match; a tweak here, a tweak there; all in order to bring about the “expected” end result.
I remember once, I was watching a chess tournament where a very gifted individual played multiple games with various opponents all at the same time…and won every one of the games (he had a far better knowledge of the game and his opponents than I would).
Though this was a very feeble attempt at a very complex and not well understood concept, I suspect what we are talking about here might be a lot like this chess game; only with an infinite set of possible “moves”.
Given time is a concept we mortal beings use to measure the passage of events, I suspect God is not bound by that same measure. I suspect he knows the end result (disregarding the concept of “time”). I also suspect God knows how each of his children will act. With that said, we also have our free agency. If I had to draw loose parallels, God knows the end result and will occasionally need to make slight adjustments (a tweak here and a tweak there) based on our free agency behaviors. However, His plan will not be frustrated. A perfect example is when Martin Harris lost the first 116 pages of the Book of Mormon. I suspect it was foreseen by God, prepared for by God, then, when Martin Harris did what was anticipated, a slight adjustment was made. In short, God does know what we call the future, the past, and the present; as well as us and everything we come in contact with; and with that, takes an active role in bringing to pass His plan.
That is an excellent and concise way to explain why foreknowledge is not a determining cause in life!
I like that explanation better than Talmage's explanation in "The Great Apostacy" p.26.
The new testament does contain the word "predestinated" but in the footnotes you'll see we believe the greek origin is "foreordained" which means chosen to do something. Also see the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry on Predestination at http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Predestination.
"The Lord knoweth all things which are to come" (W. of M. 1:7)- I interpret it to mean that God knows his promises and has great power to shape circumstances and influence people. He never breaks any promises and he understands the consequences to every choice. I don't believe that this passage means that God knows which decisions we will make. "things which are to come" seems quite different from "every person's decision to every choice they face."
"The Lord knoweth all things from the beginning" (1 Ne 9:6) - This is in the context of God having "all power unto the fulfilling of his words" and God's "wise purpose in him, which I know not."
"he knoweth as well all things which shall befall us" (Mni 7:22) - I interpret it to mean that God has planned his actions which include shaping circumstances and influencing people. I think "all things which shall befall us" is clearly different from "all choices we will make". Befall is the key word.
"The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes;" (D&C 38:2) - This is in the context of describing that Christ created all things, not in the context of omnicience or knowlege.
The LDS Doctrine provides overwhelming evidence of free agency. We believe in a War in heaven between the ideas of agency and forced obedience (Moses 4:3). We believe that the atonement of the Son of Man has efficacy in the fact that Christ had the power to sin and the power to obey. "Men are free to choose liberty and eternal life or captivity and death" (2 Ne. 2:27). Also see D&C 29:39, D&C 37:4, Rom 2: 11, A. of F. 3.
God's power lies in knowing our thoughts and our hearts and having an infinite understanding of all things. (T.G God, Omnicience of at http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/g/74 )
In A Marvelous Work and a Wonder (1973) by Legrand Richards, pg. 26, Elder Richards has a blunt and cutting description of predestination.
Again there is the erroneous doctrine of predestination, that without any act on our part some are predestined to eternal life and some to eternal damnation, and that no matter in which class we find ourselves there is nothing we can do about it. A complete analysis of this doctrine forces one to the conclusion that, if true, God would be responsible for all the sin and iniquity in the world since the belief is that all our acts were pre-determined before we were born, whether they be good or evil.
In his effort to destroy truth, Satan could hardly have hoped to deceive men more effectively and completely than to take from them a consciousness of their responsibilities through the teaching of such doctrines.
You say God's stop in progression means he is dammed. I say all damnation is a stop in progression but not all stop in progression is damnation. (I'd draw a Venn diagram if my blog was that cool.) The use of the word perfect in the scriptures goes back to the origin of the word, meaning "to bring to completion". Something that is completed cannot be "more done."
OK, I have a feeling that at the end of the day we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I have not really had time to come back to this thread for a long time, so I guess this is a conciliatory note suggesting that we remain friends but have strong disagreements about the meaning of the word omniscient. I don't really even believe in God anyway, so the argument seems kind of strange to me, but I think it's safe to say that your understanding of God's omniscience is different from the popular one portrayed in your church (and most other churches), whether it is the precise official doctrine of said church or not.
As for your interpretation of the scriptures I mentioned, well I should hope that if God makes a promise he intends to keep it, and if he foresees the future he intends to be proven right with the passage of time. I guess that means a combination of the following:
1. God is unable to make a promise/revelation he is uncertain about being able to fill.
2. If God has made a promise he must use his omniscience to "influence" and "shape" to make it happen, because breaking the promise forces him to cease being God.
I don't see God as a timid man, nor do I see him as having to make up for his promises by "shaping" circumstances to match his needs. Of course, the alternative seems to be even more contradictory (vis our earlier discussions).
Personally, I do not like your idea of omniscience. If there is a God, I want to limit him as little as possible. Turning God into a probability machine with infinite data kind of takes away a lot from him, in my opinion. The internet could become the same sort of thing, with some really smart machine learning programs involved!
It can also be argued that if God has that much data, and perfect judgment, then his probabilistic guessing should never be wrong, and so you are actually agreeing with me that he has a perfect knowledge of all things to come. ;) In fact, I can't think of a single time in all the "standard works" that a prophet receives a vision of the Lord, a vision with the spirit of prophecy and all that jazz, that is not eventually fulfilled (every jot and tittle). As God said, "..my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled." (D&C 1:37-38, if I'm not mistaken?) How can these visions and God's words ("what I the Lord have spoke I have spoken and I excuse not myself") all be correct, all the time, if God's knowledge does not extend past the present moment?
Anyway, I didn't mean to get back into the center of the argument. I just meant to say, "hey! I disagree. Also, the idea of a personal god seems laughable to me!"
To Ken and Art: thank you for hanging on during this increasingly long conversation and being rational people. In my experience, most people tend to hide under the umbrella of faith whenever that faith starts to be questioned (which is by far an easier route, and by far the less-advantageous one). Your idea of omniscience is thought-provoking and intelligent, so I appreciate your descriptions and thoughts. My staunch disagreement does not mean that I think you lack intelligence, only that I disagree.
Re: Christ giving Prophets visions of the future. Your point here is strong. I see one of two scenarios:
1 - It is some "Back to The Future" type situation where it is possible to see the future based on the present course of things in the pre-mortal and mortal worlds.
Or 2 - That those prophets saw a generality of events and not certain persons' exact choices.
So yes, we probably have to agree to disagree. It is interesting that this type of discussion has happened many many times in history so it is good to play it out.
Thanks for your time, Nate.
I do however question your reasoning for bantering on a topic unassociated with your belief. If there is no God, He can’t be omniscient, and therefore any argument on either side would be fruitless.
Though I seldom visit these discussion sites and have never participated in one other than this one time, I certainly hope to “bump” into you again. Our disagreements are what make us humans inquisitive and truth seeking.
Since I decided to leave the church, I have experienced incredible cultural strife from some of those who remain believers. For me, leaving was vindicating and beautiful, but for my family and more narrow-minded friends it represents a dark time in my life (which they hope I will "grow out of").
One reason I continue to ponder the nature of God is because I haven't fully dismissed the possibility of his existence. Another is that I think it's interesting to speculate about what God might be like from a purely philosophical standpoint. Since I live in Utah, ignoring God would be like ignoring socialism. I don't believe in socialism (or I believe that it is a backwards way of thinking), but I can't ignore that it's being injected into our government all around me (a topic for another day's discussion).
Anyway thanks to you and to Ken for the discussion, and have a good day.