Also according to Brigham Young, evil is simply inverted or perverted good. Think of how true this is. Take sex, for example. It’s a good thing, ordained by God, but if perverted/misused, it becomes evil. I think this is true of everything evil I can think of. There’s always a true principle to be found in every kind of sin and wickedness.

(Still not had time to read the Skousen link yet)

If he believed in scripture (or God) I think he would be in harmony with Orson Pratt in that perhaps in his view, everything can eventually be explained by string theory.

He put together The Elegant Universe for Nova a few years back.

http://www.amazon.com/NOVA-Universe-Michael-B-Green/dp/B0000ZG0TA

When our agency is “in tune” with God at the sub-atomic level, we become good or God-like in all 10 dimensions.

you really need to go read the essay I linked to. Skousen’s conception of intelligences is a lot different than what you are recalling it to be. In his view, God isn’t just limited by them, he’s subservient to them. And joshua is right – Skousen’s view is very much like penal substitution, except that God is helpless instead of angry.

Of course LDS theology limits God in some ways, but Skousen pretty much makes God a mid-level bureaucrat.

I dont buy penal substitution ideas and I dont buy God being God by virtue of catering to intelligences who may or may not be good.

Ivan: In the scriptures the idea of God ceasing to be God is a hypothetical to teach a point. In Skousen’s view, God could cease to be God in fact and it’s a constant danger. In Skousen’s view God is NOT all-powerful, “intelligences” are, and God merely does what they ask.

I think everyone who adopts a thorough-going view of free will has to allow that God could chose to do evil. Blake Ostler obviously is the biggest recent proponent of this idea. He has an interesting argument as well. (Ignoring for the moment his commitment to Libertarian Free Will which entails it)

Consider which is greater – a being who could do evil but doesn’t or a being that could never do evil? Whose choice is more praiseworthy?

It’s an interesting argument and has a lot of strength to it. However it does leave open the possibility of creation ceasing to be in a normal fashion. And, since Blake rejects the endless recursion of Gods ala traditional readings of the KFD, this leaves him with a real pickle of a problem IMO.

Regarding Skousen and who is more powerful intelligence or God I honestly haven’t read him since I was a kid. So I can’t speak there. My guess though is that, like Pratt, he wouldn’t see this as a real problem. Mormons already have to put serious limitations on God. For instance if intelligences are co-eternal with God and without end then God is limited against creating or destroying them. Likewise if there is some element of free will (ignoring the ontological discussion of what kind) that is eternal then God is limited against infringing on that fundamental will.

I don’t see that as a problem especially if this view of will explains how God has all power without adopting creation ex nihilo. Once you have co-eternal intelligences I think something like this is a logical consequence.

Here’s what I’m talking about:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0114013/stories/2003/10/08/theMeaningOfTheAtonement.html

Some quotes:
God the Father cannot save us

and

Now, keeping in mind D&C 29:36, what would happen if the Father violated the confidence of these intelligences? What do you think would happen. No one on the face of the earth has dared to announce the doctrine contained in the back of Alma 42. No church has dared to suggest that God could fall. Our Heavenly Father has said, “I want you to know I walk the razor’s edge of celestial law continually in order to maintain the confidence and honor of all these who trust me, because that is the source of my power.

and
Now, the genius of the solution: The gods know that these little intelligences have a capacity for compassion. Therefore, the atonement is based not on law, but on mercy. That�s in Alma 34:15. In other words, we are going to try to get to these little intelligences in some way so that we can overcome the demands of Justice. The families of God must have worked this out eons and eons ago with other families. So this is the pattern.

Remember when they were selecting a Savior? Jesus volunteered. Then Satan said, “You know, Father, this is a very old-fashioned plan. I mean, this isn�t necessary. You can satisfy the intelligences of the universe

and

That was the mission of Jesus Christ. He had to suffer so much that when He goes to those little intelligences and pleads on the behalf of someone who did the best he could, which is called repentance

Go read the whole thing, but the take away is that the “intelligences” are in charge, and God “walks the razor’s edge” – capable of falling at anytime if the true masters aren’t satisfied.

Skousen, to me, is far too speculative and too far off base. God the father can save us, through his son. The plan was his and was not cooked up to satisfy his real boss, the “intelligences” as Skousen would have us believe.

These are only hypotheticals to teach a point. God has become perfect and will never do those things that would make him cease to be God.

I could only find the following talk, which is an imperfect look at Skousen’s viewpoint:

http://reperiendi.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/the-atonement-by-cleon-skousen/