Comments on: God and Completion

By: Michael Dorfman

Michael Dorfman — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 16:57:21 +0000

I suspected I was missing the point. Which leads me to ask, then: what is the point, exactly? Could you flesh out this paradox a bit in terms that might make sense to a non-Mormon?

By: Clark

Clark — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 16:44:50 +0000

Yeah – different point. While this could conceivably be tied to the logical problem of evil I don’t think it has any bearing on the evidentiary problem of evil. (I.e why are there these evils)

I do know some are seeing similarities there between Buddist and Mormon views. But I don’t feel qualified to say much there due to my ignorance of much Buddist philosophy in that area.

By: Michael Dorfman

Michael Dorfman — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 09:27:10 +0000

Clark: The big paradox within Mormonism seems to be that progression to be true progression demands simultaneously a gap or lack and a dissatisfaction with the gap. This makes sense to me; in fact, it seems to be a restatement of the First Noble Truth. Things are imperfect, and we want them to be better. Fair enough. So far, so good. Clark: So you must desire a gap you don’t desire. Wait, what? Why would I desire the gap? What I desire is some eventual end to the gap. I'm not sure I'm following you here. Are you suggesting that because (for believers) God created this crappy universe of suffering, and I am supposed to love God, therefore I should love the crappiness of suffering? Or am I missing the point?

By: Clark

Clark — Wed, 06 Jan 2010 00:03:34 +0000

I think James is the definite influence there on Roberts. I hadn’t thought about that relative to eternal progression though. I like the near Heideggarian sense of it. When I drive a car the truths of say my knowledge about the steering wheel and so forth withdraw as phenomena. They reappear when things stop working. That is things appear as thing so I can think about them by way of a breakdown of practices. Relative to omniscience this is kind of interesting.

I don’t think most people think about the questions to much. When they do it’s not in depth. Progression is about stages because that’s the focus of lessons on the plan salvation. There aren’t lessons on the nature of God beyond the important things like how he loves us and saves us.

That said I think there are a fair number of people thinking about theology. So there are many strains of thought.

By: Jacob B.

Jacob B. — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 23:38:42 +0000

I think Roberts’ thinking was in line with this, though he didn’t seem to see the paradoxical implications. I’m thinking here of his the “truth recedes into the background the closer we come to it,” and this constitutes the joy of progression, almost but not quite achieving perfection. The gap which constitutes the lack of this achievement makes progression worthwhile because, in a Jamesian sense, it makes the universe a real adventure, and learning of every kind never-ending.

But Mormon notions of progression today? I don’t know. I document this in more detail in my Fall 2008 Dialogue article on progression, but it seems that eternal progression in contemporary Mormon discourse is simply equated with the fairly routine journey through the various “stages” of the plan of salvation. And by contemporary discourse I refer to several talks by GA’s and the conversation on the topic in general, though McConkie’s notion of progression (like so many other McConkie interpretations) is still alive and well.