Moral Agency and Freedom

I read through entries from an internet discussion group a few weeks ago and found the post of an individual who argued that the Honor Code at Brigham Young University is wrong because it “restricts our agency.” I realized that the basis for his absurd and false argument is a doctrine commonly taught in church meetings: “In the pre-earth life, the devil’s plan was to force us to do good so that we could all be saved in the after life.” This doctrine is often supported with the scripture: “Satan . . . sought to destroy the agency of man.”² It is commonly assumed that the Satan could only destroy away our agency through force or coercion. However, Bruce R. McConkie made it clear that there are various ways that the adversary can take away agency. He explained that agency requires four conditions:

1. Laws ordained by an omnipotent power must exist, laws we can either obey or disobey.

2. There must be opposites—good and evil, right and wrong.

3. We must have knowledge of good and evil; we must know the difference between the opposites.

4. We must possess an unfettered power of choice.⁶

Taking away any of these four criterion would destroy our agency. We commonly assume that the Lord was speaking only of the fourth criterion in the book of Moses; that is, that the devil would jeopardize our unfettered power of choice by forcing us to do good.

The Essence of Marriage

The continuing public debate over the definition of marriage has led many people to ask questions about marriage that they may have never thoroughly considered before. Many informative and thought-provoking pieces have been written on these questions, and it takes more than just a brief article to comprehensively address them. I would like to respond to one aspect of this debate that merits some attention: the essence of marriage.

Proponents of legalizing same-sex “marriage,” or as some more accurately term it, “genderless marriage,”¹ must first establish that marriage is capable of redefinition. They must show that it has no inherent, universally identifying quality that necessitates its current definition, but rather that it is a variable term that means different things to different people, and therefore cannot be limited to the narrow definition of one group, such as with the term “stylish.” One writer recently asserted just that. Julian Sanchez, a contributor for the online magazine Reason,² said that “marriage has no ‘essence.’ There is no one function or purpose it serves in every time and place.”

“Knee-Bending Rules”*

*Title borrowed from James Ferrell’s book, The Holy Secret.

“Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth. Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.” –Lehi, The Book of Mormon¹

In my post, Metaphors of the Atonement, I argued the possibility that God is capable and willing to forgive us at any time, and to welcome us back into his presence. I also argued that the Atonement is necessary for the change of heart within us that will allow us to return to our Heavenly Father, not to appease some metaphysical law that demands recompense for our misdeeds. Two possible objections have been raised in response to this possibility.

The first objection is that this way of looking at the Atonement could be misunderstood to negate the need for repentance. However, the efficacy of the Atonement hinges upon our personal repentance. In the parable of the prodigal son, even though the father was willing and ready to receive and embrace his son without recompense, his son had to first find his way home. This journey home is repentance, and repentance is enabled by the Atonement. As Amulek declares, the Atonement of Jesus Christ “bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance… only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.”²

Metaphors of the Atonement

“There shall be no other name given nor any other way nor means whereby salvation can come unto the children of men, only in and through the name of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent.” - King Benjamin, The Book of Mormon¹

As Latter-day Saints, we know that every sin, every heartache, and all suffering can be redeemed through the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We also know that the Savior is the only way to find redemption from and through these things. There are a great many metaphors in circulation that explain why the atonement is crucial to salvation and redemption, and there is scriptural support for most of them. I believe, to an extent, what C. S. Lewis said about this subject:

The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this are another matter… Theories about Christ’s death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works. Christians would not all agree as to how important those theories are… But I think they will all agree that the thing itself is infinitely more important than any explanations theologians have produced. I think they would probably admit that no explanation will ever be quite adequate to the reality…

We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ’s death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself.²

The metaphor that is perhaps the most frequently used is, as Lewis states it, “the one about our being let off because Christ has volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us.”²

Odd Realities and Moral Imperatives

“Besides being complicated, reality, in my experience, is usually odd. It is not neat, not obvious, not what you expect. For instance, when you have grasped that the earth and the other planets all go round the sun, you would naturally expect that all the planets were made to made to match—all at equal distances from each other, say, or distances that regularly increased, or all the same size, or else getting bigger or smaller as you go further from the sun. In fact, you find no rhyme or reason (that we can see) about either the sizes or the distances; and some of them have one moon, one has four, one has two, some have none, and one has a ring.

“Reality, in fact, is usually something you could not have guessed. That is one of the reasons I believe Christianity. It is a religion you could not have guessed. If it offered us just the kind of universe we had always expected, I should feel that we were making it up. It has just the queer twist about it that real things have.” — C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity¹

It seems as though C. S. Lewis is saying something very similar to the claim we made in Don’t Apologize: Are Christian Apologetics Counter-Intuitive?: Christianity is not something we derive from reason. As Williams said, “Truth, I am convinced, can be rendered reasonable, but it does not arise from reason.”² Perhaps a definition found in the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia may help:

A priori: In epistemology, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori (or empirical) knowledge, which derives from experience.³

It seems to me as though knowledge of Christianity is derived from experience… as Lewis says, it isn’t something you could guess by just by thinking about it. In that sense, Christian pursuit of knowledge isn’t a priori, but rather it is empiricistic; but we must not confine empiricism to merely sensory experience.

The Consequences of Ideas

“Whether he recognizes it or not, every person holds to a metaphysical position, trusts in at least one system of epistemology, and holds a personal axiology or set of values and ethics. Furthermore, these three areas of our own philosophy are interrelated. Our metaphysics (our view of reality) influences our epistemology (the way we gain knowledge), and together the two determine our axiology (our values).” — Gerald Lund¹

What I most appreciate about Gerald Lund’s claim is that he readily acknowledges that our ontology and our epistemology have significant implications on our perspective on what it means to be good. Philosophers and scientists sometimes fool themselves into believing that their philosophical beliefs have little bearing on their moral or ethical perspective. Many assume we can separate the moral implications of an idea from the idea itself.

Don’t Apologize: Is Christian Apologetics Counter-Intuitive?

“How extraordinarily stupid it is to defend Christianity, how little knowledge of humanity it betrays, how it connives if only unconsciously with offence by making Christianity out to be some miserable object that in the end must be rescued by a defence. It is therefore certain and true that the person who first thought of defending Christianity is de facto a Judas No. 2; he too betrays with a kiss, except his treason is that of stupidity. To defend something is always to discredit it.” –Soren Kierkegaard, from The Sickness Unto Death

This quote is surprising. Is it stupid to defend Christianity? Defending the doctrines taught by Christ has always seemed an honorable enterprise. Are not the great sermons we find in the scriptures a logical defense of Christianity? Upon a more careful reading of the scriptural sermons, however, they seem to consist almost entirely of personal testimony rather than logical defense. The prophets, having had personal experience with God, testify of events they have witnessed or experienced. This is the essence of Christianity: personal experience. The principles that Christ taught and the precepts attested to by prophets for ages do not need to be defended or proven; they need to be lived!

Kirkegaard is letting on to something else here too. Apolegetics may actually hinder our ability to perceive spiritual things the more they direct us to empirical, logical, or even ontological “proof,” as though such endeavors yield real knowledge about God. Where, then, is reason valuable? Williams explains, “Once we know what is true, reason provides a wonderful tool for sorting out our obligations, anticipating consequences, and persuading others that what we know is true. Truth, I am convinced, can be rendered reasonable, but it does not arise from reason.”

Natural Science and Theology

I have been working on a project that delineates the theological roots of the natural sciences. The modern sciences believe that the world is composed entirely of inert matter, and that everything we observe can be accounted for by matter interacting according to strict mathematical laws. This philosophy can be described as materialism and the mechanical philosophy of nature. Materialists deny the existence of any kind of being that cannot be explained by an account of the interactions of matter in motion, and thus deny the existence of God or His relevance in studying the natural world.

Many believe that this is because the scientific method has led us to these conclusions; however, it seems clear now that this philosophy has its roots in Deism, the belief that although God was the original creator of the universe, the First Mover, since that time He has not interacted with the world. According to Deists, All processes of the natural world have occurred autonomously and independent of God since the moment of creation. Deists habitually deny the possibility or relevance of divine interaction in the world, including miracles. Thus, David Griffin may be right when he says, “If there ever is to be a harmony between science and religion, the attachment of the scientific community to the mechanistic worldview will have to be transcended.”