Nathan Richardson
In a previous post (Restored Doctrines and Free Will), I explained that the Lord apparently revealed the doctrine that intelligence has always existed in order to help us understand how it is possible that we have agency. Because a part of us was not created by him, we can truly make choices, rather than merely acting out a script that he wrote into our souls at spirit birth. In a following post (A Gift that Was Never Given?), I discussed a question that is raised by this notion. The question is, Does this mean that intelligence inherently possesses agency, before it is organized into a spirit body?1 If the answer is yes, then how can mankind’s agency be something that “I, the Lord God, had given him” (Moses 4:3). How can agency be a gift from God if intelligence already inherently possesses it? If the answer is no, then how do we explain that intelligence is the source or explanation for our agency, while simultaneously not having agency all along?
The exact answer might not have been revealed yet, but I have some thoughts that, once again, come from section 93. In short, I’d like to posit this solution: (1) intelligence does not possess agency before spirit birth, because (2) agency is more than just the power to choose.
Ingredients of Agency
Although the words “agent” and “agency” are only used in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, the principle of agency is taught throughout the standard works. Father Lehi discusses several elements required for agency to exist (2 Ne. 2), and Bruce R. McConkie summarizes them into the following list:
Four great principles must be in force if there is to be agency:
- Laws must exist, laws ordained by an Omnipotent power, laws which can be obeyed or disobeyed;
- Opposites must exist—good and evil, virtue and vice, right and wrong—that is, there must be an opposition, one force pulling … the other.
- A knowledge of good and evil must be had by those who are to enjoy the agency, that is, they must know the difference between the opposites; and
- An unfettered power of choice must prevail.
Agency is given to man as an essential part of the great plan of redemption.2
Thus, power to choose is not in itself agency. The ability to make a choice is only one of several ingredients necessary for agency.
Imagine for a moment a situation in which only some of these ingredients were present. The potential for agency would exist, but agency in its fullness would not be functioning. If I tell you to choose whichever candy bar you want, but I only offer you a Butterfinger, agency is not in force. When you complain that you don’t like Butterfingers, imagine if I said, “Then why did you pick it?” I may remind you that you are accountable when exercising your power to choose, but it’s a farce of agency, because you didn’t really have anything to choose between (opposites).
Perhaps intelligence, before it is organized at spirit birth, constitutes such a situation, in which not all the ingredients necessary for agency are present. I wonder if intelligence has the raw potential to choose, but until spirit birth, it has nothing to choose (opposites), no system governing the outcomes of joy and misery (laws), and thus perhaps no opportunity to discern what is right (knowledge of good and evil).3 If such is the case, then intelligence would inherently possess one crucial attribute necessary for agency (power to choose), but intelligence alone could not actually act independently.
This may be what the Lord was getting at in section 93. He does not necessarily say that all intelligence is independent to act for itself. Rather, he says, “All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence” (D&C 93:30). There are several ways of interpreting this scripture (this is a very deep section), but allow me to posit one interpretation by paraphrasing: “Intelligence can only act for itself once it has been placed within a sphere of creation. Intelligence is independent once I organize it through spirit birth and give it laws, opposites, and knowledge of good and evil. Until then, it has nothing to act upon. It has the power to choose, but nothing to choose.”
“Free” from Everything
An analogy might better illustrate this. Is an astronaut free to move about if he is handcuffed and tied to the wall of his shuttle? Of course not. Likewise, the scriptures say that Satan seeks to “bind” us and destroy our agency. But there is an equally unpleasant scenario—being unconnected to anything. Remove not only the astronaut’s bonds, but also the shuttle, the space station, the planets, and every celestial object there is. Now the astronaut is floating in space, unfettered. Is he free to move about now? No.
For one thing, he has nothing to push off of in order to propel himself. With nothing to interact with, he cannot act. But even supposing he still had his shuttle, is he free to go any place he likes? No, because there is nowhere to go. In such a state, he could press on the accelerator for hours and never know how fast he was going or whether he had turned full-circle, because he would be the only thing around. He is not really free to choose his destination because there are no destinations to choose from. He’s not even really free to stay put, because how can you really stay in a position that is undistinguishable from all other positions? Thus, his ability to move is meaningless until he has somewhere to move to.
Likewise, intelligence’s power to choose is meaningless until it has things to choose. I wonder if intelligence, before spirit birth, is like an astronaut floating unfettered in space. Perhaps intelligence can be thought of as the potential to choose and act, but until spirit birth it has nothing to choose among, and nothing to act upon.4 Thus, it has the raw potential for agency, but does not actually have agency until Heavenly Father gives intelligence all the other ingredients at spirit birth, by placing it in a “sphere” of influence, in which there are now laws, opposites, and real good and evil to distinguish. Having been placed in a situation to interact with matter and other agents, intelligence now has all the ingredients of agency.
Conclusion
I offer this as an explanation for how agency (1) is possible only because of intelligence’s uncreated nature (D&C 93:31), while it simultaneously (2) is a gift we obtained from God (Moses 4:3).
Note: This post has been filled with a lot of “perhaps” and “supposes” and “maybes.” I keep qualifying my remarks because I try not to take my own ruminations too seriously. Only the Father, speaking through prophets, could settle a matter like this, so I always stay open to other explanations. But I also feel the Lord expects us to ponder his revelations, and that the answers to the most important questions are in there, if we just look hard enough.
Notes
1. “Through that birth process, self-existing intelligence was organized into individual spirit beings.” Marion G. Romney, “The Worth of Souls,” Ensign, Nov. 1978, p. 13.
2. Bruce R. McConkie, “Agency,” Mormon Doctrine (Bookcraft, 1966), p. 26; quoted in “The Fulness of the Gospel: Agency,” Ensign, Mar. 2006, p. 18–19. This list was the basis for an outstanding seminary video about agency.
3. I recognize that in this section I may not be using Elder McConkie’s terms in the way he defined them. I hope I am, but even if I’m not, I think the point remains: power to choose is not the same thing as agency.
4. This pre–spirit-birth condition may be what Lehi was describing when he said that without opposites, “all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death” (2 Ne. 2:11).
Jeff Thayne
Nathan Richardson
26 Comments
September 29, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Why must there by laws for agency?
September 29, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I’m not sure exactly. That’s definitely something to look for in my gospel study. I also want to know what all he meant by laws.
September 29, 2008 at 8:59 pm
I see Elder McConkie’s four necessary principles for agency to exist as necessary to moral agency, not just agency.
To me, agency is the principle upon which accountability rests—the legal framework, if you will. Moral agency is more precisely the type of agency we have been given in mortality which allows us to ultimately chose eternal life or everlasting death.
The word “moral” has reference to both good and evil, therefore, moral agency is our ability to do good or to do evil. We can use agency to drink a glass of water, but since that action is neither good nor evil, we did not “excercise” a moral agency.
Back to McConkie. If you reread the 4 things with the view of being able to act in moral (good or evil) ways, then it takes on a different meaning.
Acting (primary agency), in and of itself, is not the big thing needed to make God’s plan work. His plan requires moral agency. It requires good and evil. He intends to give men [mankind] the choice of eternal life or death (i.e., exaltation or something else).
Thus, Opposites (good and evil) must exist in order to have “moral” agency. Law must be established with corresponding rewards and penalties associated with each good or evil act. A Knowledge of good and evil, and free Choice are required for Him to justly hold us accountable to the Law and offer the corresponding rewards.
God’s plan was not just to give us the freedom to choose in a generic sense, but it was to give us the ultimate choice: Eternal Life or Eternal Death. (And Law is one of the four necessary principles Elder McConkie gives upon which that plan is based.)
September 29, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Matthew,
I think I agree with you in concept. I would agree that moral agency is not just making a choice, it is making a choice that has moral and eternal consequences. I think that is essentially what Nathan is arguing. Thus, while we may have had the capacity to choose among options, we did not have the capacity to make a moral and significant difference in our lives and in the lives of those around us until God placed us in a sphere with morally significant choices to make. In this way, moral agency is a gift from God, even though the innate potential for it always existed.
September 30, 2008 at 5:51 am
Excellent post. Sound logic in providing a possible explanation to this perceived quandary. If your explanation is correct, why did God not say: “I provided man with an opportunity to exercise his agency.”? This would have been more straightforward. . .okay, I went and re-read Moses 4:3. He is speaking about this agency as a sidenote, in the context of Satan’s attempt to take away our agency. AH, I just noticed something interesting. God did not say that Satan was seeking to “take away” our agency, but to “destroy” our agency. Perhaps the use of the word “destroy” is a key to further understanding. Satan can effectively destroy man’s agency by removing one of the four conditions described above. Yes, I DO like your explanation.
September 30, 2008 at 8:46 am
Aaron: Satan can effectively destroy man’s agency by removing one of the four conditions described above.
Yeah, I think that’s such an important point. One folk doctrine that gets repeated in the Church a lot is that “sought to destroy agency” means Lucifer intended to force us to do good. But this assumes that force is the only way to destroy agency. Removing any of those four ingredients would destroy agency. I think it’s much more likely that Lucifer wanted to get rid of law, so that he could revel in any sin he wanted without any consequences. Jeff talks about this is Law and Moral Agency.
September 30, 2008 at 11:56 am
Matthew: I see Elder McConkie’s four necessary principles for agency to exist as necessary to moral agency, not just agency.
That’s an interesting distinction—I think you may have something there. My friend and I talked once about whether animals have agency. It’s obvious they make choices, but it’s also obvious that there’s something qualitatively different between our choices and theirs. Maybe the difference is that we have moral agency. And maybe that’s the main point made in the Eden story when Adam and Eve eat the fruit—of all God’s creatures, we are the only ones with knowledge of good and evil, and thus a moral component in our choices.
That brings up an interesting possible interpretation in D&C 93:30. There are actually two things that are “independent in that sphere in which God has placed it”: intelligence and truth. [Wild Speculation Warning] Is there a second uncreated/eternal entity that can lead to agency? Intelligence and “truth,” as used here?
Craig Ostler pointed out something interesting in D&C 93:36, which says that intelligence is “light and truth” together. Perhaps truth (placed in a sphere of creation) can have agency, while truth plus light can have moral agency. That would mean that many of God’s creations could have agency, but only humans, who have the light of Christ (knowledge of good and evil), can have moral agency.
Light + Truth = Intelligence (D&C 93:36).
Truth + A sphere = Agency (D&C 93:30–31)
Light + Truth + A sphere = Moral agency
Hmmm. … One weakness of this is that a lot of this revolves around the term “moral agency,” and that term is really only used one time in the scriptures (D&C 101:78). But whatever the case, this is definitely adding dimensions to my reading of section 93.
September 30, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I entered this blog by referring to a question raised in the first comment, so now I’d actually like to go back to the original post and comment about a few things. I’ll break each item into a separate comment.
First, I really enjoyed the analogy about the astronaut. Restrain him and he is not free. Remove everything around him (which might sound like ultimate freedom) and he is unable to act in meaningful ways. Very interesting.
This reminds me of 2 Nephi 2 where Lehi teaches of the importance of opposites then has this to say:
2 Nephi 2
14 . . . there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.
The astronaut can act, but without the inanimate objects which can be acted upon what good is it? I guess we need those opposite things which don’t act so that those things which do have meaning.
September 30, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Nathan: Thus, power to choose is not in itself agency. The ability to make a choice is only one of several ingredients necessary for agency.
That idea is what caught my attention to your blog in the first place. This is the first time I have found others who talk about agency similarly to the way I do. In fact, I thought your words sounded very familiar. This is what I wrote several years ago:
And:
September 30, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I think that intelligence(s), spirit beings, mortal beings, and spiritual beings all have agency, but the quantity and quality of that agency differs according to the sphere in which they reside.
The “agency of man” is different in my mind from the agency of spirit beings.
Let me frame it this way: I think that the agency, laws, and maybe even truths associated with a telestial kingdom (sphere) are different from the agency, laws, and truths of a terrestrial and also a celestial kingdom (sphere). I further think that beings in these various spheres are able to experience the fullest agency possible within those spheres according to the laws and truths by which they are governed.
Therefore, I would not describe intelligence(s) as having potential agency. Instead, I would say they have agency in the fullest, realest sense they can, but it is not the same as what you and I know, because we have been “added upon” (i.e., with each progressive sphere or estate we enter, we have gained greater abilities and opportunities).
Warning: I can only explain this in generalities based on principles, since it’s more a gut feeling, rather than any hard knowledge.
October 1, 2008 at 8:42 am
Matthew: This reminds me of 2 Nephi 2. … “Both things to act and things to be acted upon.”
Yeah, that’s one notion I had in mind as I thought about all this.
Agency cannot be the same as free choice if free choice is only part of agency!
Other general authorities have made similar distinctions, too. Dallin H. Oaks said, “Interferences with our freedom do not deprive us of our free agency. When Pharaoh put Joseph in prison, he restricted Joseph’s freedom, but he did not take away his free agency. When Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple, he interfered with their freedom to engage in a particular activity at a particular time in a particular place, but he did not take away their free agency” (“Free Agency and Freedom,” BYU devotional, 11 Oct. 1987). If anyone finds similar quotes elaborating on the different ingredients, I’d love to get a copy!
I think that intelligence(s), spirit beings, mortal beings, and spiritual beings all have agency, but the quantity and quality of that agency differs according to the sphere in which they reside.
That is a really interesting way to put it. Maybe it’s related to the doctrine taught when the Lord says, “There are many kingdoms; for there is no space in the which there is no kingdom; and there is no kingdom in which there is no space” (D&C 88:37).
I would say they [intelligence(s)] have agency in the fullest, realest sense they can, but it is not the same as what you and I know.
It’s an interesting idea, but doesn’t that create the same problem—how can agency be a gift if we always had it, even to a lesser degree?
Or there’s this thought: perhaps the various kingdoms constitute “spheres” of different laws, and thus different types or qualities of agency. But perhaps intelligence starts out with no sphere—in a place that is not a “kingdom” or “space,” and thus has no “law,” as used in D&C 88. So while there may be many kingdoms and corresponding laws and types of agency, there is also a condition of no kingdom, law, or agency.
Warning: I can only explain this in generalities based on principles, since it’s more a gut feeling, rather than any hard knowledge.
A big amen on my account, too! It’s nice to bounce ideas off someone else who’s thinking about this, too, though.
October 1, 2008 at 9:38 am
Nathan,
I enjoyed this post. Thanks. You have given a lot of information to reflect on. The idea that intelligences do not have agency because all the 4 essential ingredients are not present is intriguing. As as side issue, I am impressed with Lehi’s philosophical contributions in 2 Nephi chapter 2. He made some profound statements long before notable intellectuals like Pythagoras, Confucius, and Socrates.
Your thought experiment of an astronaut in empty space is similar to Newton’s water bucket thought experiment. Notwithstanding its obvious limitations, he used the spinning water bucket to support his idea of absolute space (i.e., the water in a spinning bucket would only become concave if it were moving relative to some other object in space). Similarly, as you point out, agency would only exist if there are choices present.
I would like to know how free will vs. moral agency factor into what you wrote. Is is fair to say that inanimate matter has free will in the sense of being able to choose whether to go to point A or point B? But, it lacks moral agency which is the power to choose between good and evil. For instance, Data’s cat “Spot” (Star Trek) has the power to choose whether to sleep on the couch or on the floor, yet it does not have the power to choose whether to help the Romulans by chewing through the wires causing a core breach that destroys the Enterprise.
Assuming Spot does not have moral agency, if he does chew through the wires and destroy the Enterprise, it is a meaningless act in terms or right vs. wrong because he was not enticed by evil Romulans to carry out the act.
Live long and prosper!
October 1, 2008 at 10:23 am
Dave,
Are you a Trek fan? If so, Awesome!
I have no intention of speaking for Nathan, but here’s a thought. As I understand, Dave, “free will” is a philosophical concept essentially Greek in origin. “Moral agency” is a term found in scripture. (People have tried to combine the two into “free agency”, which is found nowhere in scriptures and has problematic implications)
I believe in moral agency, but I think the traditional philosophical baggage that comes with “free will” is very problematic. If Joe needed to make a choice between x, y, or z, on what grounds will he make that choice? If the grounds for his decision (such as rational analysis, social habit, genetic determinism, whatever they be) exert a strong influence on his choice, then is it really a free choice? And if his choice is completely disconnected from the grounds upon which he would normally make the decision, then is his decision not random and therefore meaningless?
I’ll be writing a post soon that will address this issue. I think that it is likely that we need to re-evaluate using “free will” as the definition of moral agency (because of many problems I will explain in my future post), but rather treat moral agency as something deeper and more subtle.
October 1, 2008 at 11:22 am
Jeff,
Perhaps ancient Greek conceptions of free will could not dig deeper into the realm of moral agency because their concept of a supreme law-giver was under developed. Sure some greek intellectuals were monotheists, most notably Xenophanes and Aristotle, but their conception of a supreme being was limited.
In order to recognize moral agency one must acknowledge that there is an absolute foundation for judging things good and evil. Relativistic concepts of truth that dominated the thinking of the ancient Sophists would not suffice. A society needs to recognize that there is an absolute truth about good and evil, and that it is found in a final arbiter of truth who wrote the laws (God). The ancient Greeks had no such beliefs.
Perhaps this is why they could only deal with the more superficial issue of free will.
October 1, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Nathan: . . . how can agency be a gift if we always had it . . . ?
This is the basic question I was trying to answer for myself a number of years ago.
Here are some pieces of the puzzle with which I was working:
“In this connection, let us say that unless there is absolute freedom of religion and of worship, there is no salvation. Unless men have their agency—given of God in preexistence, given anew in the garden of Eden, and given again after the fall—unless men are free to choose, they cannot gain liberty and eternal life through the great Mediator of all men.”
— Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1985], p. 664.
I wondered what it could mean that agency was given over and over again. It seems to open a door to a possible solution.
D&C 93
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.
31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.
I begin with the proposition that intelligence does in fact have agency. I haven’t spent much time figuring out why. It’s just the way I read the above verses. (As a philosopher, this must just drive you nuts!)
In my mind, the first half of verse 30 talking about truth being independent and able to act for itself is enough to establish the tie between intelligence and agency. For instance, verse 29 (and other places) tie intelligence to truth in various ways (also light, glory, fulness, etc.).
But there’s more. The second half of verse 30 where it says, “as all intelligence also,” seems to me to implicitly tie intelligence to the preceding idea that was expressed about truth—that intelligence is also independent and can act for itself (don’t ask me how—that’s one of the things I can read and agree with, even though I can’t explain how things work in other spheres).
Back to McConkie. With the idea of independence, acting for itself, and agency (which I think are more or less similar) being defined within a sphere (or kingdom, estate, state), I then noticed that each time McConkie says that agency was given (pre[mortal]existence, Eden, and after the fall) we have a new sphere of existence as follows:
1) pre-mortal existence / spirit body / celestialish (?)
2) garden of Eden / spiritual (?) body / terrestrial
3) after the fall / physical (mortal) body / telestial
I would say that after the resurrection, agency will again be given. It will be the agency associated with the particular body/sphere we inherit.
I’m not a true philosopher (I don’t even play one on TV—or even in the blogs for that matter), so I can only explain the process I used to get there.
Your ideas about intelligence are equally interesting. If you read McConkie’s quote above his first mention of agency is the “preexistence”, so he doesn’t address the “intelligence sphere” one way or the other, so I can play with your ideas without much grief.
By the way, I take D&C 88:37 to exclude the idea that intelligence is in a non-kingdom, but I find that an interesting possibility as well. My reading of D&C 93:30, however, puts intelligence in a sphere (in my mind at least).
October 1, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Or, Matthew, a possible way to read D&C 88:37 and D&C 93:30 is that for intelligence not to have a moral agency of at least some kind is to be removed from a sphere of existence (that is, have all planets taken away, in the analogy). If it is in a sphere, as you say, then it would have to have the kind of moral agency associated with that sphere. In that sense, the “astronauts without planets” would be a hypothetical condition, with no instantiation in reality.
October 1, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Sorry—I didn’t keep up on the discussion and I’ve not read all the comments yet.
One quick thought about Elder McConkie’s assertions. It seems to me that he assumes that morality is tied to laws. But we then have the spirit vs. letter of the law situation. Put another way, you can see laws as outlining rules for what you should do. Or you can see laws as providing a way of indicating values we ought have. The problem is that there is a conflict between these two. (The most obvious place to see the conflict is in the Adam and Eve story as seen through LDS eyes)
My sense is that Elder McConkie’s background as a lawyer made him see the value of rule of law. But sometimes (as in civil disobedience) it’s good to violate the law. Making sense of this is non-trivial.
All this then gets one into the question of meta-ethics. I personally don’t think there are good answers to most meta-ethical questions. But clearly the very meaning of morality will change if one is a consequentialist or a Kantian. Which would seem to suggest that the question of ethics is itself determinative of the question of agency.
To say that it’s a matter of laws is almost to take the more Kantian approach. That in turn raises the question of whether laws are just and whether they are just because God states them or God states them because they are just.
Put simply, there’s a lot of ontology lurking in the background of this question.
October 1, 2008 at 4:12 pm
This post and all the comments are fascinating. This is what my family and I call a DDV (Deep Doctrinal Vortex) and I loved reading everyone’s thoughts.
These scriptures have intrigued me for a long time, so being able to ponder them with additional quotes and ideas is very enjoyable.
Thanks!
October 1, 2008 at 4:22 pm
In 2 Nephi chapter 2, Lehi described the basic concept of agency, that man can, “act for himself.” This chapter is also full of the four principles that McConkie relates to moral agency:
1. Law (verses 5, 7, 10, 13, 26)
2. Opposites/Opposition (verses 10, 11, 15)
3. Knowledge/Know (verses 5, 18, 23, 26)
4. Choice/Choose (Free) (verses 26, 27, 28, 28, 30)
Alma chapter 42 also contains those four concepts related to agency within it:
1. Law (verses 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)
2. Opposites/Opposition (verse 16)
3. Knowledge/Know (verse 3)
4. Choice/Choose (Will/Freely) (verses 7, 27)
October 1, 2008 at 4:33 pm
In this setting, Clark, I’m not sure if I see laws as universal abstractions that codify all moral behavior, or simply God’s unique instructions for us in this place and time. For me, at least, I don’t see moral behavior as that which adheres to a universal abstraction (so I’m not really a Kantian); rather, moral behavior is being responsive to God, and immoral behavior is being rebellious against God, whatever the occasion may be (I mean this is a Levinasian sort of way, with God representing the Other. Of course, this may differ from Levinas himself). Without divine instructions to follow or grate against (even if they are only for our unique context), neither reaction to God is really possible. Thus, divine instructions provide an occasion for us to fulfill our ethical obligation to the divine, or to resist it.
Now, this may be different than the way McConkie uses the term, but if I were to define law as God’s instruction to me in my particular place and time, then it certainly fits.
That’s the best answer I can give right now. There are a lot of unanswered questions that I have about the issue.
October 1, 2008 at 10:03 pm
But being responsive to God tells us what is ethical but not why. Then there’s problem of what it means to be responsive. Of course that’s my problem with Levinas. The move to the ethical as opposed to the responsibility for the ethical is underdetermined.
October 2, 2008 at 9:18 am
Clark: …Whether [laws] are just because God states them or God states them because they are just.
Yeah, that’s something I’ve been mulling over since high school. It’s so easy to assume the latter, that there is a standard higher than God to which he adheres in order to be God. But something in me has never let me totally embrace that.
The best I can articulate it is, I think that godhood is a mysterious point at which a person becomes indistinguishable from a principle. They become one and the same—a personified precept. And so to ask whether something is first good or first Godly is redundant. Just a feeling I’ve had.
But being responsive to God tells us what is ethical but not why.
Have you read C. S. Lewis, “The Abolition of Man“? One main point he makes is that in order for there to be a universal, non-relative Good, there must be at least one thing that is good for its own sake, without some reason behind it.
Honesty, selflessness, humility—for any virtue, we can keep trying to back up another step and say, “But why is that good” (and I think that’s a valuable activity). But Lewis asserts that there has to be something that is inherently good, without a further-back reason for it. I find that really compelling. I wonder if Heavenly Father has something to do with that.
October 2, 2008 at 9:20 am
Matthew, thank you for that list from Alma 42! I’d found those in 2 Ne. 2 before, but not in Alma 42. Cool stuff!
Rachel, I agree. Isn’t this fun? We’re glad to have you. (By the way, how did you become an About.com guide for the Church?)
October 2, 2008 at 11:17 am
Clark: …Whether [laws] are just because God states them or God states them because they are just.
Nathan: I think that godhood is a mysterious point at which a person becomes indistinguishable from a principle. They become one and the same—a personified precept.
When I first read Clark’s statement, something inside me wanted to thwart the “what came first the chicken or the egg” nature of the question.
I felt that when an individual person progressed to a point where they were so united (or “one”) with the Eternal laws of the universe, then they would be said to have reached Godhood. At that point the individual person is so united with Truth (like the inseparability of the physical and spirit bodies after the resurrection) that it’s impossible to say which came first, since they are one at that point.
October 2, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Good way of putting it, Matthew. And I know it raises other questions, but it’s just how it feels to me, too.
October 5, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Nathan: I was very blessed to become the guide, and I know the Lord prepared me to be ready when the position opened up. The previous guide was there for 5 years, and when she was getting ready to quit I applied. I then went through a three week orientation/training after which I was approved and became the guide. It’s been 6 years now (which I can hardly believe), and I have truly been blessed with such a wonderful job.
And just to clarify, in case there’s any confusion, I don’t work for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I am not an official site, but am considered a media resource. I’ve worked with the Church’s internet department a few times and am on the Church’s email distribution for media contacts.
And yes, this is fun!