One of my kids decided to join me in converting to the church. The other did not.

The one who didn’t said if we’re right and he’s wrong, we can convert him when he’s in spiritual prison.

Do with it what you wish.

Regarding spirit birth, I recognize that you probably don’t accept it. (I don’t think one has to take it as a birth, just a transformation of kind that couldn’t happen on its own) The point is that there are absolute limits to what our choices can provide for us that can only be transcended by an outside entity – God. So we as intelligences never could organize a mortal body. I don’t think Pratt’s ontology would allow this kind of distinction. At least from what I can see I don’t see any logical reason why God would be necessary.

What I was doing was extending this to the resurrection. That is, telestially resurrected beings simply never can make the choices necessary to move to an other kingdom. Now one can debate about whether than is just. But that’s a different matter.

I’ll get to the numbered argument a little later. (Perhaps at my blog – I need a few more LDS topics this week)

Regarding resurrected beings and humanity. I certainly don’t think any resurrected being is human the way we typically use human in regular speech. Now there are different senses where it can apply. But I think the assumption that humanity is a single kind is problematic if we do expand the notion. i.e. it seems to me that the argument rests upon what is our kind.

Kalam (??? ?????) in Arabic means speech or discourse and refers to the Islamic tradition of seeking theological principles through dialectic.

I this what you meant about my arguments being a variation on the Kalaam arguments?

Further, I don’t understand your paragraph that follows. I do not believe in a spirit birth if that is what you mean.

I can restate that in a numbered argument if you want for clarity

Yes please do.

As for Pratt, I only glean parts of his model not all of it. I do like the idea of intelligence particles joining togther to create a new emergent beings that is greater than the sum of the parts, though.

Your second argument (which is basically a variant of the Kalaam arguments) is much more interesting. I may address that separately. The short answer is that if there is something essential to us but requires *outside* intervention (i.e. God giving us a mortal birth and physical birth) then no, infinity isn’t long enough because of the problem of natural kinds. (Basically the same issue as the first argument) The problem is that the MMP rejects this line of reasoning, saying there aren’t natural kinds.

So your line of reasoning only works if you reject MMP it seems to me.

(I can restate that in a numbered argument if you want for clarity – but the basic point is that MMP presupposes all humanity is the same in a fundamental way, whereas the traditional view rejects that)

Orson Pratt’s model also has issues over the problem of infinity (among many other things). I’ll hold off on that. But I don’t think Pratt’s ontology is a good one for either MMP or traditionalists to rest arguments on. It’s helpful as a first approximation but many problems quickly arise in even the simple modifications of Pratt.

Come on Clark — that’s just too easy. An eternally progressing dog could become the greatest thing a dog can become. An eternally progressing human can become the best thing possible for humanity. Since the best possible thing for a human to become is a full-fledged God, this analogy works for my position and against yours.

Why do you say that the traditional view doesn’t fit there being something “essential” to us?

I suppose that wasn’t exactly what I meant. However if we are eternal and our spirits have been in present form forever already (see my post on that) I think we have a problem explaining how there is any progress at all. Isn’t FOREVER long enough to become perfect if we are ever going to? Does it require infinity plus 1 to achieve that goal for us?

I lean more to the Orson Pratt model where it is the intelligence “particles” (whatever that really means) that make up our spirits/intelligences that are eternal. The thing that is “me” emerges from that core of combined intelligent stuff. In other words I think our parts are eternal but we are the whole that is greater than the sum of the parts. As a result, there really is a possibility for the destruction of the soul as Alma preached. (So that answers your question about everyone being destined for exaltation in an MMP model — where there can be progression there can also be regression.) But there is also the possibility of growing and transcending our current state and becoming an entirely new creature — one that is like God.

Why do you say that the traditional view doesn’t fit there being something “essential” to us? It seems that’s fairly key to the traditional view. I guess I have to ask again what you see the problem being? It seems to me that the traditional view sees mortality as a way of illustrating to us what that “excess” that is us actually is. We see it, acknowledge God’s judgments as just, and go to where our happiness is maximized.

It would seem to me that the MMP is the system with a problem of there being an essence, because the MMP typically (but not always) endorses a view that there isn’t anything that can’t be changed. Thus judgements go on in a kharma-like cycle where we repeat experiences until we finally are transformed. That is, there is no essence to keep us from our final destination of exhaltation. All can and will be exalted.

Now as I said not all MMP people endorse that. But in my experience they often endorse something close. And I’ve never quite seen an MMP proponent explain why everyone won’t be exalted eventually given infinite time.

You’re just looking for positive evidence beyond the scriptures for the (default) view.

This is true. But it is because I don’t think the default view is actually in the scriptures, even if other people read that view into them.

I think what I sketched out above (responsibility in the residue of who we are) is the best answer.

Ok, so let me restate the version of the “traditional model” you have outlined: Everyone is judged based on their thoughts, words, and deeds in this life; but the judgment is leveled and equalized by taking the effects of the mortal body out of the equation. After that leveled and equalized Judgment, everyone is resurrected into permanent bodies and placed on some planet in a different universe FOREVER. (And they presumably cannot advance in technology enough to create a space program even though there knowledge from here rises with them in the resurrection and they live forever.) In the immortal Telestial world(s) the people have good bodies so there is no desire to lie, cheat, murder, or commit adultery even though these were the people that loved that stuff here. (I guess their bodies made them do it?) So there they live, for all eternity with no chance for spiritual progress.

Is that about right?

Can you see why I think the whole thing is poppycock? It is contrary to my view of how a loving God would treat his own Children. Indeed, I believe the message the scriptures teach is that there will never be a time throughout all eternity when we cannot freely choose to repent and return to our God. (Though I think there is point at which we are no longer the same person we once were either through progression or regression).

I think the core difference between the traditional view and the MMP view is over whether there is something “essential” to us.

Yes! I agree. The problem is that the traditional model does not jibe well with the view that there is something that is essential to us and the MMP works wonderfully with that idea. But most members want to hold to the traditional model and the idea that there is something essential to us.

Yet I also think that there is some influence of our spirit on our soul. Thus I don’t think one could ever reduce our choices to the brain.

We have to beware of false dichotomies. (i.e. that we are free with only a few insignificant and rare flaws or that we are fully determined by our body)

As for the justification you seek – thanks for putting it that way. I think that makes more sense. Really you’re not looking for problems in the default view. You’re just looking for positive evidence beyond the scriptures for the view. I think what I sketched out above (responsibility in the residue of who we are) is the best answer. If there is this residue that escapes the physical determinism of the body, then we can roughly call that what is essential about us. And it seems reasonable that this essence determines our ultimate character and where we’d be happiest.

Now if you seek empirical evidence for this, then I acknowledge a problem. But of course at that point there are bigger problems…