God and Free Will

This article was inspired by a post on r/LatterDayTheology.

It's sometimes said that our conception of God is "maxipotent" rather than "omnipotent", since there are things our theology contemplates that God cannot do.

Does it come down to just this:

God can't exercise the agency of an otherwise independent intelligence while preserving the independence of the intelligence?

God can't produce theosis in humankind without the aggregate quantum of suffering we observe?

The first is a logical impossibility, the equivalent of saying God can't make a square without four 90 degree corners. I doubt anyone, Nicene or otherwise, considers this sort of thing a limitation on God's omniscience.

So, is it really just the second? And isn't the second a sort of logical impossibility, as well, if theosis is produced by an independent agent overcoming adverse matter?

Comment Thread 1: God's Free Will and Justice

harleypig (8mo ago):

Does God have free will? In several verses, conditions are placed on Heavenly Father being God. If he violates those conditions, he ceases to be God.

The fact that those conditions exist would seem to imply that God not only has free will but can also violate those conditions. This would also suggest that God is constantly choosing to be good.

To be pedantic, a square without 90-degree corners is possible in non-Euclidian spaces, but I get your meaning. Can God create a paradox? A situation in which no form of math or reasoning is possible. Maybe? But if he can and does, he's just as subject to consequences as any of us.

As for your second point, how can one be an effective agent for good without knowing anything about evil? At its most simplistic, 'evil' is the act of violating those same constraints God operates under, and suffering is the consequence of those violations.

Buttons840 (8mo ago) — Reply to harleypig:

Are the laws that govern God good?

Didn't the laws that govern God require that Jesus, the more righteous of all, suffer the most? That doesn't seem good.

Is there really any "good news" in the gospel if the ultimate powers in the universe, powers that are even greater than God, are evil? After all, requiring to Jesus suffer seems pretty evil.

harleypig (8mo ago) — Reply to Buttons840:

Be careful when you get so deep that you don't forget to come up for air.

Some things just are. My son hated shoes (he still does). To him, it was totally unfair that he had to suffer through wearing shoes for a good part of his day. Society requires him to wear shoes in most public spaces.

Is justice evil? Is justice good? I don't know, but–and, warning, this is deep in the mists–I think justice just is. It's a fundamental and inviolable law of reality.

Justice must be satisfied. Poorly phrased, justice only requires that the scales balance. Justice doesn't care how the scales are balanced, only that they are. Hmmm … I just realized that implies justice doesn't care how they became imbalanced in the first place.

Another way to think of evil (in this context) is causing the scales of justice to be out of balance.

And while we have the ability to imbalance the scales of justice, we don't have the wherewithal to rebalance them.

Add to that the idea that we cannot stand still. We either have to progress, or we digress. We wanted to progress, but we couldn't.

So, God, in his mercy, devised a way to allow us to progress. Someone had to keep the scales of justice in balance, though. I don't know why it had to be Jesus instead of God himself or someone else, but it doesn't matter. Jesus volunteered for it.

Good things aren't free. They have to be worked for.

Buttons840 (8mo ago) — Reply to harleypig:

I consider "what is the nature of God?" to be extremely shallow. I don't think it's deep, I think it's one of the first principles we build our faith upon.

jmauc (8mo ago) — Reply to harleypig:

Nothing required Jesus to do anything. He chose that path out of Love. HF and Jesus could have simply let our chaos be.

If you watch how the world is, had God not intervened, we would have destroyed ourselves. It his love and his mercy, that we were/are able to become something more.

Comment Thread 2: Theosis and Suffering

e37d93eeb23335dc (8mo ago):

If by suffering you mean the suffering we experience during the nanosecond we are in mortality, I think the answer must be no. Jesus Christ (and probably others, like the Holy Ghost) attained godhood (theosis) in premortality without going through mortal suffering.

StAnselmsProof (OP, 8mo ago) — Reply to e37d93eeb23335dc:

Interesting, leaving aside Jesus, is your answer yes?

As for Jesus, his theosis wasn't complete until his resurrection and, in his case, his suffering was the greatest of all. So, I don't think suffering can easily be dismissed in Jesus' case. Remember, our scripture also refers to us as "Gods" in the premortal life (at least some of us).

e37d93eeb23335dc (8mo ago) — Reply to StAnselmsProof:

Are you saying that Jesus Christ wasn't a God prior to His mortal birth? That the great Jehovah was not a God? Is the Holy Ghost not a God right now?

StAnselmsProof (OP, 8mo ago) — Reply to e37d93eeb23335dc:

Of course, Jesus was God in his premortal life. But he wasn't a perfected embodied being like the Father. That step in his progression involved coming to earth, obtaining a body and . . . suffering.

e37d93eeb23335dc (8mo ago) — Reply to StAnselmsProof:

Then you can become a God without suffering.

harleypig (8mo ago) — Reply to e37d93eeb23335dc:

Why do you think Jesus didn't suffer in attaining pre-mortal Godhood in the pre-mortal existence?

Honest question. I never considered suffering in that context, though we know that suffering must have existed (you can't have war without suffering).

e37d93eeb23335dc (8mo ago) — Reply to harleypig:

I realize that absence of proof is not proof of absence, but, we don't have any indication in the scriptures or words of the prophets to indicate He suffered in premortality, so it would be speculation to suggest He did.

harleypig (8mo ago) — Reply to e37d93eeb23335dc:

It would be speculation either way, I think.

But the idea of opposition in all things seems to be universal, and it applies to all three states of existence: pre-mortality, mortality, and post-mortality.

Opposition comes with suffering.

ETA: Or maybe it would be better said, "suffering comes with opposition."

BayonetTrenchFighter (8mo ago) — Reply to harleypig:

I think this is an area in which there is some disagreement or discussion on.

Did Jesus "attain Godhood"?

I would say no.

He has eternally been God.

Eternally been one with the father.

Eternally been the great Jehovah.

At the same time, he is the firstborn.

e37d93eeb23335dc (8mo ago) — Reply to BayonetTrenchFighter:

Are you saying that from the moment of His premortal spirit birth, he was already a God?

BayonetTrenchFighter (8mo ago) — Reply to e37d93eeb23335dc:

Or even before then, yeah.

e37d93eeb23335dc (8mo ago) — Reply to BayonetTrenchFighter:

So… there are intelligences out there that are Gods right now?

Frankly, that is pretty crazy, but if you have any reputable sources, I'd be interested to read them.

BayonetTrenchFighter (8mo ago) — Reply to e37d93eeb23335dc:

Yes. We know of at least 3.

The father, son, and Holy Spirit

Edible_Philosophy29 (8mo ago) — Reply to BayonetTrenchFighter:

I think the question was whether you had sources that explain when the members of the godhead first achieved theosis (ie was it when they were intelligences, or once they possessed spiritual bodies etc). I think it might be a tough ask, considering we really don't have much in the way of information about God's preexistence.

BayonetTrenchFighter (8mo ago) — Reply to Edible_Philosophy29:

Right. I would say always.

God the fathers was never Not God.

Christ was never not God.

The spirit was never not God.

Edible_Philosophy29 (8mo ago) — Reply to BayonetTrenchFighter:

And will it be the same for those of us who reach theosis? Asked another way- in what way were they always Gods? Were they always perfect? Were they always omnipotent/omniscient? What is your reasoning?

BayonetTrenchFighter (8mo ago) — Reply to Edible_Philosophy29:

It depends on what one means by perfect.

In the lds understanding, Christ was not "perfect" until his resurrection and exaltation.

However Christ has always had the triomni. (Mosiah 3)

God is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable (see Mormon 9:9; D&C 20:12, 17; 109:77). https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/3-god-the-father?lang=eng

Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, title page of the Book of Mormon (2 Ne. 26:12). course of the Lord is one eternal round, 1 Ne. 10:19 (Alma 7:20). the Eternal Father, 1 Ne. 11:21 (13:40; Mosiah 15:4; 16:15; Alma 11:38–39; Morm. 6:22; Moro. 4:3; 5:2; 10:4, 31). the Everlasting God, 1 Ne. 11:32 (15:15; 2 Ne. 4:35; Hel. 12:8; Moro. 10:28). the Eternal God, 1 Ne. 12:18 (2 Ne. 9:8; Alma 34:9; Ether 8:23). the Messiah shall be called, The Everlasting Father, 2 Ne. 19:6 (Isa. 9:6). Christ is light of world, light that is endless, Mosiah 16:9. the Godhead is one eternal God, Alma 11:44. the Only Begotten is without beginning of days or end of years, Alma 13:9. the everlasting Maker, Hel. 1:11. to seek happiness in iniquity is contrary to nature of righteousness which is in our Eternal Head, Hel. 13:38 (Alma 41:10–11). the Lord changes not, 3 Ne. 24:6 (Moro. 8:18). God is same yesterday, today, forever, Morm. 9:9. no variableness or shadow of changing in God, Morm. 9:9–10. God changes not, or he would cease to be God, Morm. 9:19. God knows all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, Moro. 7:22. Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead, Moro. 10:34. God's course is one eternal round, D&C 3:2 (35:1). God is endless, D&C 19:4, 10. name of God is Endless, D&C 19:10. eternal or endless punishment is God's punishment, D&C 19:11–12. God is same yesterday, today, forever, D&C 20:12. God is infinite, eternal, unchangeable, from everlasting to everlasting, D&C 20:17. the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God, infinite, eternal, without end, D&C 20:28. works of God have no end, nor beginning, D&C 29:33. the Lord is Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, D&C 35:1 (38:1; 45:7; 54:1; 61:1). from eternity to eternity, the Lord is same, D&C 76:4. the Holy One is without beginning of days or end of life, D&C 78:16. council of the Eternal God of all other gods, D&C 121:32. Endless is God's name, Moses 1:3. God is without beginning of days or end of years, Moses 1:3 (6:67). Endless and Eternal is God's name, Moses 7:35.

e37d93eeb23335dc (8mo ago) — Reply to BayonetTrenchFighter:

This is so at odds with everything in the scriptures and taught by the latter-day prophets that I don't know of any way to respond.

BayonetTrenchFighter (8mo ago) — Reply to e37d93eeb23335dc:

Is that so? Can you give me something?

Comment Thread 3: What God Cannot Do

BayonetTrenchFighter (8mo ago):

Things the father can’t do:

Create from nothing

Sin

Lie

Violate justice

Violate mercy

Violate agency

Force theosis or ascension onto beings.

harleypig (8mo ago) — Reply to BayonetTrenchFighter:

I'm being pedantic, but isn't that the point of theological and philosophical discussion? :)

I think two things are being conflated here: Things God can't do without suffering consequences (ceasing to be God) and things impossible to do.

God cannot sin or lie without suffering the consequences.

Justice takes precedence over mercy, so it's possible to violate mercy in favor of justice.

As for agency and theosis being impossible, I hope so. If not, and had Lucifer had his way, we wouldn't have had any choice. Theosis seems to be tied to God's (or gods) having free will.

Buttons840 (8mo ago, edited) — Reply to harleypig:

Justice, as we often understand it, is self contradictory and incoherent.

Justice is what caused the one being that was without sin to suffer more than any other. Is this just?

Or, let's pretend that I am a righteous man, and an evil man murders my wife and children in anger. The evil man is unrepentant, he believes my wife and children had it coming, because they cut him off in traffic. The evil man is accountable and is actually evil, and when he dies God punishes the evil man because he committed murder.

What does justice do for me though? I being a righteous man, what does justice do for me?

Does justice stop the murderer from killing my family? No.

Does justice reverse the consequences of the murder on me? No. The difficulties of having my family killed will almost certainly cause me to commit sins myself; maybe I drink, maybe I do drugs, maybe I curse God and hate society for a time. Sin begats sin; sin leads to more sin. Did justice stop any of this? No.

What does justice do for me? Well, justice requires that the evil man be punished…

But wait, I am a righteous man, and so I have sincerely forgiven the evil man. God commanded me to forgive and I did forgive. God told me that not forgiving would be an even greater sin than the murderer committed, and so I did forgive.

So, having forgiven the evil man who killed my family, what does justice have to offer me? Well, justice punishes the evil man. This makes me sad. In the end justice only makes me even more sad. In the end justice only causes me more suffering. I am somewhat like Jesus in this way, I am righteous and justice does nothing for me except to add to my undeserved suffering.

Justice only adds evil to evil.

Justice caused the most righteous of all to suffer most of all.

Justice, seeing that sin has caused suffering, tries to fix it by adding more suffering.

And justice does the same to all other righteous people. The righteous forgive and desire mercy for all, but justice demands punishment and suffering upon the wicked, and this adds to the suffering of the righteous. So Jesus was not a one-off exception, just like Jesus, many of the righteous suffer because of justice.

Note, all of this assumes that justice is a principle of punishment. To the extent that justice requires punishment, it is unjust to the righteous, because punishing the wicked causes the righteous further harm.

askunclebart (8mo ago) — Reply to Buttons840:

Interesting. And that righteous man who forgives the murder (without actually witnessing justice making and receiving its demands) did something that even GOD does not do. God won't (can't?) forgive until justice gets its demands. We aren't so lucky

Buttons840 (8mo ago, edited) — Reply to askunclebart:

It all fits together if

the law of justice becomes the law of correction, and

the law of mercy becomes the law of forgiveness.

If the only demand of justice is that we correct our hearts and rid ourselves of the desire to sin, while also forgiving everyone else of all they have done, then it makes sense to me. This might be painful.

If God wishes to form a Godly society with us, then we must all change ourselves so that we live the principles needed to create such a society. Sin is our own incompatibility with that society; sin is anything that would disrupt the society worthy of having God in their midst.

And we must do something else to form a Godly society. We must forgive others of the things they did in the before-times, when times were hard. Because, if someone in the Godly society still holds onto ancient grudges, this disrupts the society for all by allowing bad feelings to persist. This is why refusing to forgive is a greater sin than the sin that should be forgiven. Refusing to forgive is, potentially, the worst of all possible sins.

Once everyone has corrected themselves and is ready to live by Godly principles, and once everyone has forgiven all others–once all have forgiven all–then nothing stops us from forming a society worthy of having God in our midst.

Joseph Smith said it:

if you do not accuse each other God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven; and if you will follow the Revelations and instructions which God gives you through me, I will take you into heaven as my back load. If you will not accuse me, I will not accuse you. If you will throw a cloak of charity over my sins, I will over yours— for charity covereth a multitude of sins.

Justice as a form of punishment has no place in any of this, as far as I can see. But the idea that justice is punishment is everywhere in our scriptures, and in our cultural beliefs.

If some nebulous "law of justice" demands punishment, then it is evil, as evil as the sin it seeks to punish, and there is no "good news" in the gospel, because the ultimate laws of the universe are evil. But, if the law of justice is really a law of correction, then all is good.

Reconsider the story of the righteous man who had his family killed by an evil man–what if there is no punishment, but only correction. The righteous man does not suffer when he sees correction taking place, because he knows the correction is not pointless suffering, but it will ultimately be for the benefit of himself and the formerly evil man. The righteous man might suffer temporarily when he sees the, possibly painful, correction of his brother, but ultimately his joy will exceed the suffering, because the correction was not pointless and eventually his brother returns seeking his forgiveness. That is real justice.