Does this seem very "intelligent" to you? - updated 22Feb

[MG 2.0]

First, let's assume that Mormon god, Elohim, can "see round corners"...

Of course we are referring to "corners" as we would define them within a spatial 3D world, right?

This conversation has been interesting and thought provoking. Good insights. Although, I would suggest that all of these insights and interesting views expressed are all being done within the parameters of operating within a limited framework. That being the case, are there some "corners" (possibly more than a few) that only God...past, present, future...can "see around"?

If that is true, it seems as though much of what we seemingly find irrational...such as the 'speedbumps' in the Plan of Salvation...are the result of living within a 3D spatial world and being blind to the "corners" and/or other views that are available to the 'gods' that exist in a different spatial/time than we do.

So many of the arguments that are expressed on a thread such as this are interesting and even somewhat convincing within our own brains/minds which also, without having to remind us (?), are subject to the limitations put upon it as a result of operating within the cranial space of a human being living in a restricted space in 'time'.

In AI research (look up Fei Fei Li) we are just now getting to a place in which AI is being trained to operate/see within 'spatial worlds'. Something that was heretofore considered impossible. Are there worlds other than 'our' own finely tuned carboned based spatial world that are something beyond what we can even fathom or conceptualize?

Are the words/ideas, even within the religious lingo/expression of our language, incapable of describing that reality except in a somewhat broken fashion?

I seem to remember Joseph Smith referring to the frustration that he had in trying to use "broken" language to describe what he saw/experienced as a reality somewhat separate from our own. Through the veil, so to speak. And so we have what are seemingly insufficient descriptions of what came before and what comes after.

I don't want to destroy and/or derail the train of thought that others have, I just wanted to throw in my observation(s) having to do with the rather limited view that we have and that in may be useful to remember that and remain humble, at least on some level.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Apparently Elohim is in the misery buisiness. I am sure many of the spirits would have preferred being left alone. We agreed isn't fair either. A memory wipe? Just trust me brother you agreed?

Recently I referred to "armchair quarterbacking". Perfect example. Along with a number of other examples that could be pointed out in this thread.

But it is fun, speculative, and interesting.

But per my last post, rather limited in scope and/or understanding?

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

Apparently Elohim is in the misery buisiness. I am sure many of the spirits would have preferred being left alone. We agreed isn't fair either. A memory wipe? Just trust me brother you agreed?

Recently I referred to "armchair quarterbacking". Perfect example. Along with a number of other examples that could be pointed out in this thread.

But it is fun, speculative, and interesting.

But per my last post, rather limited in scope and/or understanding?

Regards,
MG

No one is armchair quarterbacking, as there is no evidence of a quarterback or game being played. There are some of my fellow humans critiquing theories communicated to them by some of my other fellow humans. Nothing wrong worth that.

[Limnor]

I've barely scanned the first half of Gad's thread, and immediately could see a relationship, but I suspect it's going to take a bit of effort for me to digest.

Don’t worry—me too lol

[Limnor]

Thank you malkie. You’ve explained it clearly enough—the inconsistency is in the overall explanation itself.

If no variation is allowed that would alter the outcome, how could any angel have chosen otherwise? If agency is the thing that must be protected over all, where does freedom enter the system?

I was also thinking about Gad’s OA thread, specifically the question of how the greatest conceivable being could still be answerable to a higher law, or something prior or greater in a pedigree. I haven’t finished that thought yet, but the relationship to your post is interesting to me.

Yes, there's still some tweaking needed, at the very least. Thanks for keeping me honest

How about the crowd of "extras", the angels, have agency, as distinct from the main actors who have accepted fixed roles.
Then there could be a change in the 1/3 fraction of cast outs, and in the 1/1000 fraction of fully successful potential gods. I'm pretty sure that the scriptures say, or strongly imply, that there were some fence-sitters, and that may affect the final counts on each side in any particular universe.

Since we are likely supposed to be considering infinite numbers of intelligences to begin with, and huge if not infinite numbers granted spirits by each god, perhaps we can also expect a fair degree of uniformity of character types in each population, and therefore statistically similar results?

IDK.

I've barely scanned the first half of Gad's thread, and immediately could see a relationship, but I suspect it's going to take a bit of effort for me to digest.

The problem I’m picking at is if opposition requires that someone must always rebel, then at least one agent’s role becomes necessary and is no longer a free act of rebellion—because if not the design collapses.

[MG 2.0]

The problem I’m picking at is if opposition requires that someone must always rebel, then at least one agent’s role becomes necessary and is no longer a free act of rebellion—because if not the design collapses.

Can two things be true at the same?

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Recently I referred to "armchair quarterbacking". Perfect example. Along with a number of other examples that could be pointed out in this thread.

But it is fun, speculative, and interesting.

But per my last post, rather limited in scope and/or understanding?

Regards,
MG

No one is armchair quarterbacking, as there is no evidence of a quarterback or game being played. There are some of my fellow humans critiquing theories communicated to them by some of my other fellow humans. Nothing wrong worth that.

I would say further that limitations in scope are more to be found on the faithful LDS side: the starting position there is that anything that contradicts current orthodox Mormonism (assuming for the sake of argument that such a beast exists) must automatically be discarded. That includes anything that cannot be encompassed in an overall scheme of a benevolent creator god who fits the parameters of the LDS scriptures and the consistent teachings of current LDS authorities.

One simple recent example is the furor over the use of "Mormon" as an acceptable moniker for members of The CoJCoLdS. Overnight, almost, it went from a term fully accepted by one prophet and the then General Authorities to a victory for Satan when the next prophet and almost the exact set of General Authorities took over.

[Marcus]

The problem I’m picking at is if opposition requires that someone must always rebel, then at least one agent’s role becomes necessary and is no longer a free act of rebellion—because if not the design collapses.

Can two things be true at the same?

Regards,
MG

As in, free agency exist, and also, free agency doesn't exist? The mental gymnastics necessary for that defy logic.

[Marcus]

I've barely scanned the first half of Gad's thread, and immediately could see a relationship, but I suspect it's going to take a bit of effort for me to digest.

Don’t worry—me too lol

Ditto!

[Limnor]

Can two things be true at the same?

Regards,
MG

As in, free agency exist, and also, free agency doesn't exist? The mental gymnastics necessary for that defy logic.

Exactly. You can’t claim free agency is ultimate but require a rebellion as a necessary part of a plan.