For me, I would probably go with Storm’s powers, because I hate it when it’s rainy and windy when I’m trying to play golf or frisbee.

Well, I’m glad to see you didn’t pull any punches just because you know me. :)

Where to start…with the easy ones first:

>”But since it seems to me that no one else actually said anything (beyond how great your post was)”

Hrm. See Ray and Avisitor for dissenting opinions of my wisdom.

>”Huh? You offer no support whatever for this (to some seemingly fatuous) statement.”

This refers more to the general picture of God as being perfect–whatever He requires of His children must be perfect, otherwise He would either be imperfectly merciful or imperfectly just. Either of those things would negate the possibility of His own perfection, and He would cease to be God.

>”except that we haven’t. We do not know what the alternative would have brought, ”

Right, but this in keeping with the context of the Book of Wisdom aspect of the hypothetical negotiation. In a legal dispute, we similarly don’t know what *would* have happened; but we are certainly able to look and make imperfect, yet useful, inferences about what *might* have happened had a different course been pursued.

>”Bold move. You have managed not to be excommunicated, nor to commit the sin of pride. Nothing ventured, nothing gained (or lost). Still, I wonder why you needed to think so long and hard to come to this feckless result.”

Ouch. In the first version of this section, I actually did want a do-over. However, as it progressed, I realized the always-touchy-feely truth that in requesting a do-over, I was essentially saying I’m disappointed with myself, which is simply not true. I would like some different attributes if I could, but in true economist form, I would rather earn them than have them given to me now, after the fact.

>”I have nothing to say about the content of this closing,…”

All I mean here is that what has not killed me has made me stronger, and I’m a better person for it. That makes me both appreciative of what I have, but also reminds me of my responsibility–both as a son of God and as a member of society–to use whatever abilities I have to improve “things”.

>”I leaves me almost wishing it were true.”
There’s always Pascal’s wager, right? Let me know where to send the Elders. Or Sisters. Or old senior couple from Ogden.

I waited until everyone else had their say. But since it seems to me that no one else actually said anything (beyond how great your post was), I feel the time is at last ripe for my own well-intended response:

I am a big fan of the pre-mortal existence…In theory, this doctrine provides a wonderful context…

Most explanations provide a good context (in fact, they are tailor-made to do so). The atheist idea of random chance is the least demanding context.

I think what you really mean is not context, but purpose. When people say there must be a reason for suffering, they mean there must be a justification for it.

In this light, a premortal existence is a great justification, but why stop there? Caprice and interdeity competition are much richer tapestries on which to paint our suffering. Human defiance is boring. A vengeful God is a much more compelling narrative, which explains why it is so much more common historically.

First…there are no memories or eyewitnesses around to debunk anyone’s claims regarding their pre-mortal behavior. Second, we have a dearth of scripture on the subject

Alfred Hitchcock called this a McGuffin. The premortality doctrine sells the LDS narrative and provides powerful glue to encourage/compel LDS norms of family, reinforce in/out group division, foster quasicompulsory volunteerism, and link charity with group norm enforcement. Whether the doctrine is true is (in this world) incidental, so long as it is believed to be true. Catholic doctrine has changed little in two millenia. It is the belief that it is true that has diminished, and this is a good lesson for Mormons as their church ages.

We know that each individual is born with a different array of talents and blessings. The scriptures teach that everyone has at least one spiritual gift.

Independent of whether the above is true, good politics teaches that it is useful and important for the highly gifted to at least pretend that the less gifted are blessed, to minimize jealousy and class resentment.

The evidence so far is that this is an inexpensive and highly effective technique. Conveniently, flattery seems to work disproportionately well on the less intelligent.

Despite this assurance, there is no indication as to why one person is born with the gift to be healed, while another is blessed with the gift of weeping (clearly, the stick of spiritual gifts has a short end).

Except within the context of the minimalist hypothesis that there is no reason besides random chance. This gives plenty of indication. Indeed, once we get beyond our solipsism, the real surprise is that there is such commonality of gifts. All humans look (and largely think) alike and possess similar abilities: there is only one species of hominid. Natural selection is again the minimalist hypothesis here.

The negotiation continues long into the night, but eventually we all reach individual licensing agreements with Heavenly Father…

So close to the crux of your post and you drop the ball. Is the the negotiation individual, secret, and bipartite, have we arrived at a Nash equilibrium among a small interinfluential group, or are we large enough to be treat our own negotiation in equilibrium with a reservoir, where our marginal choices have no statistical importance to others? In exercising our agency, do we care how others exercise their own? If not, that eliminates the “out” of collusion effects mentioned below. If so, then “our” choice is at heart reactionary, and not a real choice at all.

The royalty rate we pay for such gifts comes in the form of responsibility for our use of those gifts to bless the rest of His children.

What constitutes informed consent in this setting? Both modern human ethics and contract law rest strongly on the premise that no valid agreement can be made unless both parties are able to inform themselves (whether they do or not is a different matter). Did premortals fully understand the limitations of the human condition?

the faith and obedience required from each of us is perfectly just and proportionate to the blessings and gifts that are promised.

Huh? You offer no support whatever for this (to some seemingly fatuous) statement.

Importantly, we agree to add an insurance clause: If and when we fail to hold up our end of the negotiated agreement, One Other will be allowed to help us pay any debt we owe.

A moral hazard? Like government bailouts? It would seem important that this insurance clause revelation be unexpected and come after the choice man to become mortal, or it would vitiate the benefit of even making such a choice. Come to think of it, why the highly improbable configuration of 1/3 going with Satan, 2/3 to Earth (or whatever the LDS breakdown is). Short of collusion effects (partisanship and factionalism), the most likely distribution would be scale-invariant, i.e. over a log scale, giving rise to a power law either almost all with one or the other. Is there a scriptural basis for these collusion effects?

We all sign the contract with the Holy Ghost acting as Notary Public, and we make our way to the Blue Planet.

Disturbing metaphor. Clearly the Holy Ghost is not a disinterested party, and should be disqualified for any role as arbitrator or notary. The holy spirit seems to function as our superego to counterbalance the id of Satan, with God as executioner and Jesus possessing the power of pardon.

So here is the question: When we now open the Book of Wisdom, how do we feel about the negotiation that took place before the world was?

Is this really the question? This is an abrogation of contract. Whether things turn out well is immaterial. The question is whether we had good cause to make the decision that we did. Since we would not be asking the question if we had chosen differently, there is serious selection bias here. Assuming good faith negotiations in a premortal life, and absent new evidence to consider, we have no cause to revisit in appellate proceedings the decision made by the trier of fact.

Now that we’ve had many years in mortality to see the flowers and thistles of that negotiation

except that we haven’t. We do not know what the alternative would have brought, so we have a balance scale loaded only on one side. How can we possibly guess how heavy the payload is?

would we ask for a do-over if we had the chance? I’ve thought about this long and hard myself, and unless the gift of shooting lasers out of my eyes is on the table, the answer is probably a very hesitant No.

Bold move. You have managed not to be excommunicated, nor to commit the sin of pride. Nothing ventured, nothing gained (or lost). Still, I wonder why you needed to think so long and hard to come to this feckless result.

there is something very empowering and faith-promoting to me in the idea that long ago, my Heavenly Father and I sat down at a table and tailored a set of spiritual gifts specifically for me.

I have nothing to say about the content of this closing, but I congratulate you on its form. Rhetorically it is powerful, climactic, and compendious. I leaves me almost wishing it were true.

Apparently part of the formula is to start out as one thing, take several different directions, and do it at 3:30 in the morning. :-)

>”this yields a nicer interpretation than that expressed by those who claim that the righteous people in the pre-existence were rewarded with being born into the House of Israel and hence all others were less righteous.”

Agreed; as I mentioned above in a comment responsive to Ray, the whole idea came out my dissatisfaction with the more-righteous line of thinking. This is not to say that I categorically reject the idea that some people were more obedient–I dare say that Jesus Christ was likely more righteous than me, and He was probably not alone. However, it’s not a helpful tool for navigating mortality–it makes me feel pigeon-holed for decisions I can’t remember making.

I need to subscribe to this dude’s newsletter.

I feel bad that you seem to think your post went horribly awry or that we all took your premise as serious and based on absolute doctrine. I think you were applying a process you experience in your career to a gospel theory, nothing more, and for me personally it’s been great incentive to dig into my scriptures and doctrinal resources and improve my knowledge, which I can then ponder upon and pray for confirmation.

Actually, what you describe sounds less like negotiaion and more like God said, “Here’s a menu of options: the more good things you get, the higher the standard I hold you to.” Then it’s just us shopping for what we wanted most.

That there could have been something like this wouldn’t surprise me. And this yields a nicer interpretation than that expressed by those who claim that the righteous people in the pre-existence were rewarded with being born into the House of Israel and hence all others were less righteous.