I’m a bit perplexed regarding Mark’s comment on JFSII; he couldn’t even grasp the point of the parable of the labors. I wrote him off decades ago.

Regarding the JS quote Mark cites, “For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;”, Isn’t that referring to the reality of the resurrection (continuation of the union of sprit and body)? To use it as a physics lesson or the basis of creation doctrine, seems like a big stretch. I know your interpretation is the party line, but I’m a free thinker and can’t help but question all this stuff. Hence my impatience with the likes of Nibley.

BTW, Nibley’s soft headed socialism was a major turn off to my irreverent iconoclastic soul. Lefty profs like that are dime a dozen at any university, and I was expecting someone of more weight and substance.

The thing about ex nihilo creation is that Joseph Smith taught that it was wrong on multiple occasions, and the rejection of it has become an official doctrine of the Church, constraining even those (e.g. Stephen E. Robinson, a definite evangelical Mormon) who do not like it. (cf. How Wide the Divide)

The best extra-liturgical reference is D&C 93:29,33:

“Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.”

“For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;”

So I can hardly fault Br. Nibley for teaching the long standing doctrine of the Church.

The LDS doctrine of God has always had him embedded in space-time, until certain neo-orthodox folks tried to turn him back into a Greek statue. So take comfort, you are not alone, just part of the neo-Hellenization of the Church, that is all.

Back for a moment and then I’m off to Raymond for the weekend.
If we understand the concept of light,as well as the cubit – as mentioned time wise in Facsimile #2, then how this is accomplished is not difficult to understand. I recommend Allan Fletcher’s book titled “Light” that you can pick up at the Church bookstore as a superb read on the principles.

Enjoy, and I will be back on Monday.

First, as discussed in the Pre-Mortal Works thread, God’s knowledge is not our, and as such may not be limited by a finite and linear way of thinking as we humans are. So when you say “God did not know”, does “know” refer to how we know (linear and finite) or something greater, which we do not understand and cannot comprehend?

Second, as others have said in previous comments above, if Christ’s atonement was infinite in every way, then it is possible he atoned for every sin any of us could commit given the scenarios of every decision we would ever make. That would certainly be possible if the atonement is truly infinite and if the atonement is tied to God’s knowledge.

“How did He show Adam, Enoch, Moses, and Abraham all the inhabitants of the world, from beginning to end, and all the events that would occur?”

All events? Even me eating my sandwich as I type this? Even every single action of all 6 billion of us on the earth today and everyone else for the last 2.2 million days? I am doubtful that they indeed did see every event that has transpired, is transpiring and will transpire in the lives of every individual every second. That’s 200 trillion seconds just up until today, for a single person. It would take them thousands of years just to watch the events that transpired for one individual (or one individual at a time) if they watched it second for second. If they did not watch it second for second and all the billions of persons simultaneously, then it is doubtful they saw everything.

BTW, it’s good to see you back, Larry.

Unfortunately, I have to go for a few hours and can’t respond in detail to your blog.

I will try later. have a good day.

Philosophically, though, I don’t see how one’s foreknowledge of a result in any particular event, or series of events, impedes the decision making ability of independent people participating in that event.

We draw conclusions beforehand all the time on activities of others, or on particular events such as sports or politics and are right.

We don’t, however, have the capacity to know what God knows with certainty, so we can’t know past, present, and future in the here and now as God can and does know.

Section 88:41 makes it clear, in my mind, what He knows. Facsimile #2 does as well, but that’s a discussion for another day.

If God did not know, then how and why could He provide a Redeemer from before the foundation of the world. How did He show Adam, Enoch, Moses, and Abraham all the inhabitants of the world, from beginning to end, and all the events that would occur?

I understand why we wrestle with this problem and the complexities we run into with it, because it can cause a lot of anxiety for some by virtue of the arguments of Libertarianism, with which I obviously take issue. I hate Determinism. Fortunately, these are not the only two options. There is a third option that allows for foreknowledge (see 84:45 and 93:24,30) and the exercise of agency. 2Ne.2 also offers some great insight into the third argument, in my mind.

In the end, though, I don’t think that there is anyone on this blog that has anything to fear with respect to His foreknowledge (or perhaps even yours prior to coming here).

Where did you get this idea of a sub-contractor Being in Nibley’s work?
His Egyptian studies defy that interpretation.