Background

In God of the possible by Gregory Boyd he makes an eloquent argument about the joy of our sociality as humans and how this relates to traditional views of the exhaustive foreknowledge of God. In light of the Latter-Day Saint view on the sociality of heaven being similar to our current existence, I found his argument enlightening. He asked some great questions in the quotes below.

• Why would this eternally static view of divine knowledge be greater than a view of God enjoying novelty, adventure, spontaneity, creativity, and moment-by-moment personal relationships?
• Can we enjoy something God cannot enjoy?
• If God is indeed the greatest conceivable being, why should we not conclude that God would have more possibilities open to him, would be more free, and would be more sensitive to change than we humans?

Sociality in heaven

In D&C 130:2 we find the phrase, “that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there”. I have always loved this verse for the picture it conveys. It helps me imagine my relationships in heaven. Here is the full verse.

2 And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there, only it will be coupled with eternal glory, which glory we do not now enjoy.

From my reading of references to this verse in historical conference talks by LDS general authorities, most of the references are about our family bonds perpetuating beyond the grave. President Faust uses it to highlight the sociality of the relief society and the establishment of frienships. I think all LDS would say that the verse is highlighting our relationships in heaven. I think it also relates to the emotions associated with those relationships.

God of the possible (Gregory Boyd)

Gregory Boyd describes the traits of our sociality on this earth and makes a great argument for God having the possibility to enjoy these traits as well.

Beyond the fact that [exhaustive foreknowledge] is at odds with the basic portrait of God we get in scripture and radically at odds with the motif of divine openness, we have to ask: What is admirable about this portrait? Why would this eternally static view of divine knowledge be greater than a view of God enjoying novelty, adventure, spontaneity, creativity, and moment-by-moment personal relationships?

…

Can We Enjoy Something God Cannot Enjoy? If the classical view of divine foreknowledge is correct, there are positive things humans can do that God cannot do. We can enjoy novelty - new songs, fresh poems, original paintings, unanticipated twists in stories, spontaneous play, creative dances, and so on. We can wonder, experience adventure, and enjoy surprises when encountering the unexpected. Though the Bible is explicit in ascribing many of these experiences to God, the classical view rules them out. Is this not limiting God?

The Legacy of Plato: The problem, as I see it, is that since Plato, Western philosophy has been infatuated with the idea of an unchanging, timeless reality. Time and all change were considered less real and less good than the unchanging timeless realm. Time is simply the “moving shadow” of eternity, according to Plato. This infatuation with the “unchanging” unfortunately crept into the church early on and has colored the way Christians look at the world, read their Bibles, and develop their theology: We have thus been subtly conditioned to assume that possibilities, openness, change, and contingency are “beneath” God. As with Plato, we tend to assume that they are only aspects of the “lower” reality where imperfect humans live. We experience the future as somewhat open only because we are limited beings. I submit to you that sound biblical interpretation as well as sound philosophical reflection suggests that this Platonic assumption is misguided. Simple observation shows us that the higher up a being is in the scale of things, the more possibilities are open to it, the more spontaneity it evidences, and the more sensitive it is to change. People, for example, generally have more possibilities open to them than cats, evidence more freedom in their lives than dogs, and can sense another person’s mood and respond accordingly better than gorillas.

If God is indeed the greatest conceivable being, why should we not conclude that God would have more possibilities open to him, would be more free, and would be more sensitive to change than we humans? The Platonic and classical Christian notion that God (and therefore God’s knowledge) must be utterly unchanging contradicts this. Everything we read in scripture and everything we observe in the world around us suggests that a God who is frozen in an eternity or perfectly certain facts is inferior to the God of the possible, who is capable of discovery, risk, novelty, and adventure.

Brigham Young

If we read Brigham Young’s quotes below, we might think that Greg Boyd is plagiarizing Brigham or at least should have referenced him. However, I would guess that Greg Boyd didn’t even know that the Journal of Discourses existed. I do appreciate Brigham and Greg for the way in which they use our ‘sociality’ to build a philosophy of heaven.

Life is an accumulation of every property and principle that is calculated to enrich, to ennoble, to enlarge, and to increase, in every particular, the dominion of individual man. To me, life would signify an extension. I have the privilege of spreading abroad, of enlarging my borders, of increasing in endless knowledge, wisdom, and power, and in every gift of God.

To live as I am, without progress, is not life, in fact we may say that is impossible. There is no such principle in existence, neither can there be. All organized existence is in progress, either to an endless advancement in eternal perfections, or back to dissolution. You may explore all the eternities that have been, were it possible, then come to that which we now understand according to the principles of natural philosophy, and where is there an element, an individual living thing, an organized body, of whatever nature, that continues as it is? It cannot be found. All things that have come within the bounds of man’s limited knowledge-the things he naturally understands, teach him, that there is no period, in all the eternities, wherein organized existence will become stationary, that it cannot advance in knowledge, wisdom, power, and glory. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 1:349-50, July 10, 1853

…

They appear to be bounded in their capacity for acquiring knowledge, as Brother Orson Pratt, has in theory, bounded the capacity of God. According to his theory, God can progress no further in knowledge and power; but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children: they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithful" Brigham Young, January 13, 1867, Journal of Discourses 11:286

• openness
• lds
• attributes