The Plan of Salvation: My Brief Overview

[_Jason Bourne]

This implies that when we say that God has "all power", we do not mean that he can do anything. In similar fashion, when we say that God "knows all things", we meant to say that God knows all things that can be known.

This is just a sample, but notice how, throughout Coggin7's theological diatribe, the natural and accepted meaning of words need to be skewed and altered in order to create the illusion of reasonableness.

"All Power" doesn't mean "All Power," it means X.

God can have all knowledge yet there are things which he does not know because he only knows the things which can be known. Huh?

God can do everything but not some things.

And all this confusion is supposed to inspire us to get on our knees for decades so that we can shore up our struggling testimonies with continuous confirmation from what we hope is a supernatural being (that corresponds to the teachings of our elders of course) in order to maintain our belief in these tortured sentences.

You must be exhausted.

You need to read a little philosophy on these subject. I recommend Blake Ostler's first of three books on these topic. It is called Exploring Mormon Thought-The Attributes of God.

[_solomarineris]

In the premortal sphere, the "first estate" of our eternal progression bla-bla bla-la-la la
Loren ipsum dolor sit amet all greek to me

do you have a life?
Give me your address so i can contribute 10 bucks for your weekend entertainment or send you a gift subscription of Playboy
for your reading enjoyment.

[_amantha]

This implies that when we say that God has "all power", we do not mean that he can do anything. In similar fashion, when we say that God "knows all things", we meant to say that God knows all things that can be known.

This is just a sample, but notice how, throughout Coggin7's theological diatribe, the natural and accepted meaning of words need to be skewed and altered in order to create the illusion of reasonableness.

"All Power" doesn't mean "All Power," it means X.

God can have all knowledge yet there are things which he does not know because he only knows the things which can be known. Huh?

God can do everything but not some things.

And all this confusion is supposed to inspire us to get on our knees for decades so that we can shore up our struggling testimonies with continuous confirmation from what we hope is a supernatural being (that corresponds to the teachings of our elders of course) in order to maintain our belief in these tortured sentences.

You must be exhausted.

You need to read a little philosophy on these subject. I recommend Blake Ostler's first of three books on these topic. It is called Exploring Mormon Thought-The Attributes of God.

No thanks. I don't want to read essentially "1000 Tortuous Ways to Believe Anything You Want" type books. I have had quite enough of trying to put a friendly face on imaginary beings.

[_Jason Bourne]

No thanks.

Ok

But it would help you understand what you are critiquing. It seems that your knowledge about this is limited and I do not mean that as a personal attack. The issues of God's omni's have been debated about forever and ever. Ostler's book discusses many of these arguments and peppers ideas that Mormonism presents on them as well. It is quite a good book though for me at least a very hard read. But it was educational.

[_amantha]

No thanks.

Ok

But it would help you understand what you are critiquing. It seems that your knowledge about this is limited and I do not mean that as a personal attack. The issues of God's omni's have been debated about forever and ever. Ostler's book discusses many of these arguments and peppers ideas that Mormonism presents on them as well. It is quite a good book though for me at least a very hard read. But it was educational.

Sorry. I "edited to add" after I said "no thanks." My knowledge on other people's confabulations on god is quite extensive. If it seems like I am avoiding deep discussion on "important matters" it is simply because I don't like to play ball by other people's made up rules. I simply don't see god as important anymore. I have made peace with the nonexistence of a personal god.

Now the "afterlife" I find intriguing but I really have no idea. It could be that our brains are simply transducers of a non-spatial consciousness, but it seems more likely that our consciousness is simply a side effect of a whirring biological zoetrope.

[_Trevor]

Now that I am settling down a bit, I thought I would more seriously and fairly engage Coggins' essay, which is not half bad.

A cosmic eugenicist would choose traits, attributes, and characteristics for his children.

If God himself represents the goal of perfection toward which his children are to yearn, doesn't that determine to a certain degree the "traits, attributes, and characteristics" his children should possess?

What LDS doctrine actually says is that all intelligence, eternal, uncreated, and coexistent with God, exits at vastly differentiated initial states. Our intelligence does not exist at the same level, or state, in the very beginning, and as it progresses though various stages of development, it progresses at different rates, along different trajectories, and encompassing different levels of focus, consistency, and preserverence (valiance, in LDS terminology).

Why the jump from multiple traits, attributes, and characteristics to intelligence alone?

The various levels of salvation, or degrees of glory (and of no glory at all), achieved by varying individuals in eternity, are manifestations, not of a cosmic eugenics program, but a cosmic obstacle course, much like those encountered in military basic training. It matters much less what one begins with,in such circumstances, as much as what one does with the characteristics and attributes one has. It may take one only a few tries to overcome some of the obstacles, while others may take far longer. In the Gospel, the potential is the same for all (in an ultimate sense, not in this life per se), even thought the initial states were varied and God did not, with forethought, choose these initial states and characteristics for us, rigging the ultimate outcome.

This is sort of how I always thought of it too: the obstacle course, that is. Are you positing progression through lower kingdoms as well?

The Gospel also encompasses the concept of grace, which is the power of Christ to enable and empower us to transcend our inherent mortal (and perhaps, with respect to other intelligences, initial ontological ) limitations and move beyond the intrinsic imitations on growth and progression each of us brings to our mortal experience.

And that certainly appears to be a lot kinder than a cosmic eugenics program.

Amantha's alternative proposal appears to have been spun from whole cloth, and bears no resemblance to actual Church doctrines on these matters. Whatever they may be, they do not reflect anything resembling a coherent, fair minded understanding of these concepts. One may disagree, of course, but one should not set up strawmen that the slightest breeze can knock down in doing so. One should engage the concepts on their merits.

I would guess that amantha's proposal is based on her experience of the LDS Church as she has lived it, instead of the doctrine taken in isolation. This is not to say that cosmic eugenics is the right way to go, but cosmic eugenics suggests something of the way that in this world a certain kind of elite usually emerges in LDS leadership. In the highest Church leadership, there is a tendency to draw from a certain narrow group of interrelated families. Still, eugenics is not an accurate description. There is, however, still a lingering idea of the royal blood, the most public vestiges of which exist in the patriarchal blessing, but again this is not eugenics.

To respond to your "engage concepts on their merits." I think it would be more correct to say that one should more fairly represent what the concept is. Sometimes our enthusiasm for drawing analogies can carry us off on a blind trail.

I am really tired, and I will not be surprised to find that much of what I wrote did not make sense, but these are the thoughts that popped in my head while I was reading.

[_amantha]

I would guess that amantha's proposal is based on her experience of the LDS Church as she has lived it, instead of the doctrine taken in isolation. This is not to say that cosmic eugenics is the right way to go, but cosmic eugenics suggests something of the way that in this world a certain kind of elite usually emerges in LDS leadership. In the highest Church leadership, there is a tendency to draw from a certain narrow group of interrelated families. Still, eugenics is not an accurate description. There is, however, still a lingering idea of the royal blood, the most public vestiges of which exist in the patriarchal blessing, but again this is not eugenics.

To respond to your "engage concepts on their merits." I think it would be more correct to say that one should more fairly represent what the concept is. Sometimes our enthusiasm for drawing analogies can carry us off on a blind trail.

I am really tired, and I will not be surprised to find that much of what I wrote did not make sense, but these are the thoughts that popped in my head while I was reading.

My eugenics analogy is completely appropriate for this reason: Assuming the truth of Mormonism, of all of god's children, only an extraordinarily, practically infinitessimal number are going to be able to become gods and to continue the god race creation program. The plan is patently not about happiness. It is about getting a select few through the motions of absolute obedience an on to making spirit babies to start the process over again.

Those who are selected out are effectively neutered. God does not want them procreating. They are not worthy. That is the absolute essence of eugenics.

The reason my OP is a salient point is to show that it is ridiculous to expect anyone to actually want that.

Think of how many authorized people of god there as a ratio of all that will have ever lived. You can't put a real percentage to it, but you can see how ridiculously small the number is. Then you can see that of all of those on "the records" how many stepped up and lived the program. The percentage drops again. Any sane person will immediately see the ridiculousness of the situation.

Who in their right mind makes a life altering investment based on a plan like that especially when so much of the "doctrine" and faith promoting history is up for grabs?

I have fairly represented the obvious extrapolated end of such a plan. If it seems ridiculous it is because it is and no devotion should be paid to it.

[_Trevor]

My eugenics analogy is completely appropriate for this reason: Assuming the truth of Mormonism, of all of god's children, only an extraordinarily, practically infinitessimal number are going to be able to become gods and to continue the god race creation program. The plan is patently not about happiness. It is about getting a select few through the motions of absolute obedience an on to making spirit babies to start the process over again.

Those who are selected out are effectively neutered. God does not want them procreating. They are not worthy. That is the absolute essence of eugenics.

I see what you are saying, amantha, but a eugenics program along the lines of the racial policies of the Third Reich, as Coggy points out, does not allow for the operation of free will or self-improvement. In that program, there is no equivalent to "grace." There, the defective or putatively inferior are simply weeded out at the get-go.

While it is considered heterodox, there is room in the LDS belief system for the concept of progression between kingdoms. Those who believe such have a decidedly more open and forgiving view of things. I asked Coggy about this for a very good reason. If there is progression between kingdoms, then those who are not able to procreate for a time will likely be able to do so later.

Another point- happiness is subjective. Many Mormons conceive of life in the lower kingdoms as a measure of happiness, just not a full measure of joy.

Final thought- the Nazi eugenics program was predicated on the idea that by choosing the best, racially Aryan breeders, the brood would be increasingly racially pure over time. In LDS cosmology, the privilege of creating spirit children does not seem to be combined with the expectation that those with the privilege will have super spirit babies or some such. In fact, the system is so reliant on the concept of free choice, that there is no necessary connection with the quality of offspring and the outcome. Lucifer was one of the mighty and great ones, who chose to rebel. Many, less lofty souls will far surpass him by making the right choices. When they become gods, their offspring will not have been bred somehow to avoid having Lucifers, as far as we know.

I see your point, but the term "eugenics" is a pretty loaded one, and for this reason, as well as some of the things Coggy pointed out, I don't think it is the best way to describe Mormon theology and cosmology. Still, you have raised some interesting point by doing so.

[_amantha]

I see what you are saying, amantha, but a eugenics program along the lines of the racial policies of the Third Reich, as Coggy points out, does not allow for the operation of free will or self-improvement. In that program, there is no equivalent to "grace." There, the defective or putatively inferior are simply weeded out at the get-go.

While it is considered heterodox, there is room in the LDS belief system for the concept of progression between kingdoms. Those who believe such have a decidedly more open and forgiving view of things. I asked Coggy about this for a very good reason. If there is progression between kingdoms, then those who are not able to procreate for a time will likely be able to do so later.

Another point- happiness is subjective. Many Mormons conceive of life in the lower kingdoms as a measure of happiness, just not a full measure of joy.

Final thought- the Nazi eugenics program was predicated on the idea that by choosing the best, racially Aryan breeders, the brood would be increasingly racially pure over time. In LDS cosmology, the privilege of creating spirit children does not seem to be combined with the expectation that those with the privilege will have super spirit babies or some such. In fact, the system is so reliant on the concept of free choice, that there is no necessary connection with the quality of offspring and the outcome. Lucifer was one of the mighty and great ones, who chose to rebel. Many, less lofty souls will far surpass him by making the right choices. When they become gods, their offspring will not have been bred somehow to avoid having Lucifers, as far as we know.

I see your point, but the term "eugenics" is a pretty loaded one, and for this reason, as well as some of the things Coggy pointed out, I don't think it is the best way to describe Mormon theology and cosmology. Still, you have raised some interesting point by doing so.

Well I never mentioned what "kind" of eugenics program it was, did I?. And I explicitely said nothing of the third reich. Coggins7 would just like to make me sound like a nazi so the patency of the idea can be lost in a storm of reactive bias. Plato was a eugenicist:

From Wikipedia:

Pre-Galtonian eugenic philosophies

The basic ideals of eugenics can be found from the beginnings of Western civilization. The philosophy was most famously expounded by Plato, who believed human reproduction should be monitored and controlled by the state. However, Plato understood this form of government control would not be readily accepted, and proposed the truth be concealed from the public via a fixed lottery. Mates, in Plato’s Republic, would be chosen by a “marriage number” in which the quality of the individual would be quantitatively analyzed, and persons of high numbers would be allowed to procreate with other persons of high numbers. In theory, this would lead to predictable results and the improvement of the human race. However, Plato acknowledged the failure of the “marriage number” since “gold soul” persons could still produce “bronze soul” children.[citation needed] This might have been one of the earliest attempts to mathematically analyze genetic inheritance, which was not perfected until the development of Mendelian genetics and the mapping of the human genome. Other ancient civilizations, such as Rome,Athens[9] and Sparta, practiced infanticide through exposure as a form of phenotypic selection. In Sparta, newborns were inspected by the city's elders, who decided the fate of the infant. If the child was deemed incapable of living, it was usually exposed[10] in the Apothetae near the Taygetus mountain. It was more common for girls than boys to be killed this way.[11] Trials for babies which included bathing them in wine and exposing them to the elements. To Sparta, this would ensure only the strongest survived and procreated.[12] Adolf Hitler considered Sparta to be the first "Völkisch State," and much like Ernst Haeckel before him, praised Sparta due to its primitive form of eugenics practice of selective infanticide policy which was applied on deformed children though the Nazi's believed the children were killed outright and not exposed.[13][14][15]

The 12 Tables of Roman Law, established early in the formation of the Roman Republic, stated in the fourth table that deformed children would be put to death. In addition, patriarchs in Roman society were given the right to "discard" infants at their discretion. This was often done by drowning undesired newborns in the Tiber River. The practice of infanticide in the ancient world did not subside until the Christianization of the Roman empire.

The progression from kingdom to kingdom idea precludes those in the lower kingdoms from progressing to a reclamation of their procreative powers. They are "damned." If progression to the CK was allowed than anyone could just say they can behave however they want and take their good old time reaching the highest glory if they ever wanted to. That bit of apologist bunk would remove the controlling potency of the dogma.

As far as happiness goes, let Mormons frame it however they want to. I allow people their faith. But Coggins7 wants to make his infallible witness into something more than faith. He wants to call it "knowledge." I can't let him do that without pointing out the weakness of his argument.

I am not trying to take comfort away from people. This is what I personally believe to be the purpose of religion--along with achieving amiable society and other such things. I think religion evolves for a real, rational purpose.

But let's not sugar coat the product they are selling. I have no qualms with the way people choose to reframe the core stories of their religion for themselves (unless of course they try to sell it to me), but I will attack the theology itself.

[_Trevor]

Well I never mentioned what "kind" of eugenics program it was, did I?. And I explicitely said nothing of the third reich. Coggins7 would just like to make me sound like a nazi so the patency of the idea can be lost in a storm of reactive bias. Plato was a eugenicist:

Well, it would have been helpful, if you had specified what kind of eugenics program. And, to say that "the basic ideals of eugenics can be found from the beginnings of Western civilization" is not to state that Plato was a eugenicist in our sense of the term. In fact, your reference supports my contention that eugenics is about the quality of the offspring, which you have not demonstrated to be the goal of Mormon spirit creation.

The progression from kingdom to kingdom idea precludes those in the lower kingdoms from progressing to a reclamation of their procreative powers.

Not that I am aware of, but I may be mistaken. Could you point me to something that would settle the issue?