My Grand Unified Theory of Everything

Let me begin by refuting my own title.


This is not really mine at all. It is bits and pieces thrown together, and in my view is a common general view by many members of the church. This is not all that original - if at all.


This is not really grand at all. It seems to be 'small and simple' to members of the church who discuss and ponder such things. In fact, this is of course quite an oversimplification.


I doubt that amongst the 'nacle group there will now be, nor perhaps ever be, a unified theory of things. This is not necessarily all bad. We all are waiting for further light and knowledge at some level.


Yep. File this under speculative theory, although it may not be as far off as some may suppose.

'of Everything'

Everything?!?!?! Well, not EVERYTHING.

So here we go........

A Grand Unified Theory of Everything

In the beginning there was everything. The elements and the intelligences already existed and always had. (D&C 93:33, Abraham 3:18) Not all intelligences were equal. Some intelligences were more intelligent than others. One was more intelligent than they all.

Intelligences have the ability to gain and retain knowledge, and they also have a will of their own. The intelligence that was 'greater than they all' was able to gain knowledge much more quickly, and much more thoroughly than any of the other intelligences. In time he began to gain the ability to control matter, and use it to serve his wise purposes and his perfect will. This continued until he gained a mastery over the universe, and thus became God. (See Rational Theology, Chapter 6)

God knew of the lesser intelligences, and knew that he could help them to progress and have the fullness of joy that he had. If the lesser intelligences could be directed and helped on their way, and they in turn could aid other intelligences to progress, then the work and glory and joy of God, and all intelligences, could advance in very meaningful ways.

So God developed a method or plan for the progress of the intelligences. These intelligences could receive a measure of knowledge and power with certain terms and conditions. If the intelligences were willing to covenant with God that they would meet the terms and conditions, then they would receive the knowledge and power they sought. If they were successful in meeting these terms and conditions as promised, they could then receive more knowledge and power. And this would continue until the perfect day. (D&C 50:24) With knowledge and power come responsibility. Those who showed that they could not be trusted with the knowledge and power they received would not be able to progress unless a forgiveness was granted by God.

Since not all intelligences are equal, the results of participating in this plan would also not be equal. Some would progress farther and at a higher rate than others. Provisions are made that intelligences are allowed to progress as they will. God ultimately will determine the amount of knowledge and power that an intelligence will receive. And all of this progress of the intelligences under this plan exceeds that progress that they would ever have made without the assistance of God. Those intelligences that become like God will be able to assist in the work in ways similar to what God does. Those who do not become like God will assist in lesser ways.

This plan will continue as long as there are elements and intelligences in the universe. 'For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy.'

OK. Let me have it. How screwed up is this?


At 6/27/2006, Blogger Jeff said...

Your theory is similar to something I had once toyed with, the idea that God essentially crawled out of the chaos (or sea of intelligences) and became more powerful and able to control matter, etc. The problem I have since discovered, is that much early LDS teaching contradicts this idea. You may have heard Lorenzo Snow's "couplet": "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become." This couplet did not come out of nowhere. There is a long history of revelation and belief behind this, taking its major ideas from the King Follett Discourse, delivered by Joseph Smith. In this discourse, Joseph insisted that the Son has done nothing that he did not see his Father do before, and thereby demonstrated that the Father once lived as a mortal on a planet, and even laid down his life and took it up again. This implies that the Father was once a Savior somewhere else. If this is true, then there would have to have been people that he was Savior over. As you follow out this, you end up with a regression of Gods, which is still reflected in the hymn "If you could Hie to Kolob", where the question is posed, "Will we ever find the generation where Gods began to be?" The answer? Probably not. Your theory seems to ignore the regression of Gods. Now, there may have been a "grand beginning" where the very First God was, but that is speculation only, and to assume that Our God was the Grand Beginning is contrary at least to Joseph's King Follett Discourse if not other teachings. I could see a suggested grand beginning back two or three "generations" of Gods as at least possible, however, the likelihood of it I doubt.

Well, what do you think of that?

~Jeff, a "Mormon Gnostic"

At 6/27/2006, Blogger Eric Nielson said...

Very good Jeff, and welcome to small and simple. Thank you for your comments.

The God I refer to here is not necessarily Elohim, but a speculative first God. In this way the couplet would still hold up as the current pattern according to the plan of the first God that was intended to continue. I believe that all this is consistent with the KFD.

Eternity is hard to comprehend. Part of my leaning this way is a desire to have a beginning. It appears the Widtsoe thought this way at least at one time in Rational Theology.

Anyway, again thanks for dropping by and leaving such a thoughtful comment.

At 6/28/2006, Anonymous Geoff J said...

Eric: In the beginning...

I think what you have written works pretty well since you are starting at a beginning point. Of course the more difficult problem is that there is no beginning -- not to matter, not to God, and not to us.

At 6/28/2006, Blogger Eric Nielson said...

In the beginning was just a phrase I used for literary purposes. I thought I expressed that matter and intelligences always existed. No begining to matter, or God, or us. Isn't that what I said?


Post a Comment

<< Home

link to MA