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

[malkie]

You're welcome, as long as you've left enough for the dolphins.

So let me say, right off, that I dislike the term "tithing", because it sounds too much like it's a fixed 10% donation. However, since it's familiar, we can start off with 10, except that since I'm in Canada, USians need pay a 15% tax rate - a temporary solution under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act.

Fair enough?

Oh, you want to know about doctrine & commandments? Since I'm new at this whole thing, I'm adopting Dudism as a temporary working model.

Any other questions, just pray to me, and I'll answer with the still soft voice, accompanied by a burning in your bosom that Pepto Bismol doesn't fix.

I can do Dudism, but can I get a friends and family discount on the tithing?

Absolutely! I'll knock off the Section 122 tariff (purely a slip of the keyboard to call it a tax, right?) and a further 15%. Are we good?

[Res Ipsa]

I can do Dudism, but can I get a friends and family discount on the tithing?

Absolutely! I'll knock off the Section 122 tariff (purely a slip of the keyboard to call it a tax, right?) and a further 15%. Are we good?

Done!

[Res Ipsa]

I dunno…. 67 here.

Like anything worthwhile I have to say, I stole it.

I got 10 years on you, but I get good ideas from "research, not by theft I recommend it!

Property is theft, so theft is property, which means that if I steal it, it's mines!!!!!!!!

I stole the BS buddy system from https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/book ... in-d-west/

[Limnor]

You're welcome, as long as you've left enough for the dolphins.

At least the dolphins saw it coming lol

[malkie]

I'd like to look a bit more closely at the implications of the two plans, bearing in mind the saying that history is written by the victors. While that is not 100% true, we have, as far as I know, no credible alternative to the one in Mormon scriptures - principally the New Testament, D&C, and PoGP.

I'd like to play devil's advocate (no surprise there ), and suggest some alternative tellings.

First, let's assume that Mormon god, Elohim, can "see round corners", as some believe that the Mormon prophets can, and could anticipate the outcomes of the disagreement between Jesus/Jehovah and Lucifer/Satan. Also, knowing his spirit children as we are told he did/does, he could anticipate how many of those who came to earth would accept Mormonism.

Elohim was following the same path that he had seen his father god take, and Lucifer likewise was doing what had been done on other worlds. So this was a well-worn path with predictable outcomes.

In order not to give Lucifer credit for his (presumably) well meaning intention to bring 100% of Elohim's children back to him, Elohim went for Jehovah's plan that would see 0.1% achieve exaltation, and Elohim would get the glory for that - for effectively consigning 99.9% of his children to something less than the best outcome. When Elohim said that

“This is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

he knew that the eternal life part was for only 1 in 1 thousand of his children.
(the calculation and assumptions are in viewtopic.php?p=2923260#p2923260 and are very much up for debate)

So I have to ask:

• was Elohim's thinking so black and white that he could find no compromise that would tilt the odds to perhaps 99.9% success, and only 0.1% failure?
• or was he so determined that he should have the glory for whatever success was achieved that he rejected Lucifer's plan outright - no discussion, no out of the box thinking?
• or did he not dare to try to find a way to improve on what had been happening from eternity past, in case he angered his father god?
• did the 2/3 of the spirits not cast down with Lucifer know that their chances of success were so small, and that their spiritual father was OK with that?

[Limnor]

Sorry, malkie, but I stumbled a bit here:

—Elohim was following the same path that he had seen his father god take, and Lucifer likewise was doing what had been done on other worlds.

Is this the same Lucifer on all possible worlds or a different Lucifer for each potential god?

I’ll return to your other points, but this is the initial “wut?” for me.

[malkie]

Sorry, malkie, but I stumbled a bit here:

—Elohim was following the same path that he had seen his father god take, and Lucifer likewise was doing what had been done on other worlds.

Is this the same Lucifer on all possible worlds or a different Lucifer for each potential god?

I’ll return to your other points, but this is the initial “wut?” for me.

My fault, my friend, and I apologise. I should have been clear(er)!

I don't know if Mormonism has a clear answer for this, but this is how I understand the way that the "what the fetch" is resolved.

It comes down to a series of "plays" with each iteration starring a different being in these roles: the god of this universe, his Only Begotten, and another of his children as the Evil One, or Satan. But the script stays the same - each being plays exactly the role that was played by his predecessor - no variations allowed that would alter the outcomes.

The whole series of "plays" started with #1 god and two of his spirit his children, proto-Only Begotten and proto-Satan. Each separate universe is created by a god who was a spirit child of a prior god, with separate spirit children of the current god playing the Only Begotten role and the Satan role for that universe and its god.

For our universe, Elohim plays the god role, Jesus plays the Only Begotten role, and Lucifer plays the Satan role.

In some future universe, MG will play the god role, and two of his spirit children will play the Only Begotten role, and the Satan role. Und so weiter und so fort!

I hope this is at least reasonably consistent and coherent.

[Limnor]

But the script stays the same - each being plays exactly the role that was played by his predecessor - no variations allowed that would alter the outcomes.

-snip-

I hope this is at least reasonably consistent and coherent.

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.

[Rivendale]

Sorry, malkie, but I stumbled a bit here:

—Elohim was following the same path that he had seen his father god take, and Lucifer likewise was doing what had been done on other worlds.

Is this the same Lucifer on all possible worlds or a different Lucifer for each potential god?

I’ll return to your other points, but this is the initial “wut?” for me.

My fault, my friend, and I apologise. I should have been clear(er)!

I don't know if Mormonism has a clear answer for this, but this is how I understand the way that the "what the fetch" is resolved.

It comes down to a series of "plays" with each iteration starring a different being in these roles: the god of this universe, his Only Begotten, and another of his children as the Evil One, or Satan. But the script stays the same - each being plays exactly the role that was played by his predecessor - no variations allowed that would alter the outcomes.

The whole series of "plays" started with #1 god and two of his spirit his children, proto-Only Begotten and proto-Satan. Each separate universe is created by a god who was a spirit child of a prior god, with separate spirit children of the current god playing the Only Begotten role and the Satan role for that universe and its god.

For our universe, Elohim plays the god role, Jesus plays the Only Begotten role, and Lucifer plays the Satan role.

In some future universe, MG will play the god role, and two of his spirit children will play the Only Begotten role, and the Satan role. Und so weiter und so fort!

I hope this is at least reasonably consistent and coherent.

I was on a reddit thread talking about the miserable success rate for Mormonism in terms of growth. A believer said it was prophesied that Mormonism would always be small. (Many leaders including Smith said it would fill the Earth.) I pointed out many things in this thread and asked how they reconcile the success rate of Elohim. I got the usual free will and fallen world response. 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?

[malkie]

But the script stays the same - each being plays exactly the role that was played by his predecessor - no variations allowed that would alter the outcomes.

-snip-

I hope this is at least reasonably consistent and coherent.

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.