Comments on: “Ye are gods”: Thoughts on “Radical Universalism”

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:16:18 +0000

Geoff J, With regard to the “new day” theory of Heber C. Kimball, to be an accurate analogy, the new days would have to be inevitable. Then there is the issue of consciousness between one lifetime and another.

If you are awake between one day and the next, it is hard to see how one person can’t remain in the spirit world while others start are born again.

Finally, I don’t know about Heber Kimball, but many of the advocates of this idea believed in being reborn during the millennium, into a world that was substantially better than the one they left. If you keep on doing that you are making some pretty significant forward progress, and presumably helping others to do the same.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:08:44 +0000

Is there a point at which a theory stops being a radical version of Mormonism and starts being a different religion?

Yes, I imagine that a codified or creedalized version of something this radical might qualify as a different religion (unless it came from the First Presidency). I don’t know where the exact point of crossover is but surely it exists. Of course if no one openly believes it would it be correct to call it a religion?

By: Jacob J

Jacob J — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 00:25:12 +0000

Geoff, I’m not sure that “deals with” the issue so much as “defines” the issue. You are suggesting an explanation for why it is better to be corrupt humans that to be glorified gods. The conclusion is the problem, not the lack of an explanation for why the conclusion could be true. As to theorizing that there is no such thing as an eternal body, it seems with every speculation we get farther and farther away from something resembling Mormonism. Is there a point at which a theory stops being a radical version of Mormonism and starts being a different religion?

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:49:34 +0000

It dawns on me that I have the makings of a sci-fi novel (or better yet a series of novels!) with this idea. I appreciate y’all helping me clean up my idea before I write the first draft (probably never).

Anyway, one way to deal with the issue you bring up Jacob is to assume a cartesian dualism with mind and matter. If we do that we could assume that minds are eternal but there is no such thing as eternal bodies because of entropy. That would provide additional motivation to condesend to mortalities even with the risk of things not going well. This is especially true if we buy the idea popular Mormon idea that being embodied is significantly preferable to non-embodied state.

By: Jacob J

Jacob J — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 19:23:37 +0000

The first paragraph of Mark’s #35 is my “negatives number 6″ objection. That is, this boredom aleviation motivation is an underlying assumption I just can’t get on board with. It strikes me as completely untenable that a god would prefer this crappy life to her own godly life. The whole concept of divinity is evicerated if this life is preferable to the divine life. We talked about this in more depth last time you brought this up, but it is worth mentioning here.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:51:05 +0000

Mark D., If mortalities were, as Heber C. Kimball suggested, comparable to days then each would be like waking up in the morning and then going to sleep at night. Sure, there would be some bad days but that does not mean we wouldn't want to ever wake up again.

By: Mark D.

Mark D. — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:52:45 +0000

Another problem I might mention is there are instances of mortal suffering so severe that I don’t think anyone would choose to submit to such suffering or even the relative probability of such suffering, unless there was something of enormous value to be gained thereby. Salvation qualifies, avoiding boredom does not (in my opinion).

BTW, I don’t think the finite resources maximum forward progress model has any problem with theodicy.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 06:05:48 +0000

Yeah. Pretty cool, huh?

By: Jacob J

Jacob J — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 05:55:57 +0000

Right. In Greek mythology they were roaming around acting like mischievous humans. In this model they actually become mischievous humans. A striking resemblance.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 05:28:46 +0000

Gods roaming around amusing themselves by acting like mischievous humans.

Well make that “becoming mischievous humans” and I think you are closer to the idea.