Hope: “An anchor of the soul.”

Related topics: Faith and Charity ; Grace ; Justification ; Election ; Whom do we Worship? ; Opposition in all things ; Justification and Salvation ; Faith, certainty, and doubt  

In an earlier post I worked out a model for attaining faith which is: belief, hope, faith. First we believe, or desire to believe, or have a particle of faith. We then act on our belief. After investing ourselves in our beliefs we then hope for something connected to our efforts and beliefs. When the Holy Ghost affirms those hopes we have attained faith. Faith is that assurance that comes from the witness of the Holy Ghost. Once we have attained unto faith, its assurance strengthens our hope and reinforces our belief. Thus, we cannot attain unto faith without hope, but without faith our hope cannot endure and grow.

I realized I didn’t go into much detail about hope. So this post brings a little more precision to the ideas I sketched out in my Faith and Charity post.

Hope basics
Hope can refer to a wish or intention, such as, “I hope to see you soon.” It can also indicate a strong desire to obtain something: “I hope to win the race.” Moreover, we don’t hope for things we already have: “hope that is seen is not hope” (Rom. 8:24-25). Also, despair is the total absence of hope: “if ye have no hope ye must needs be in despair” (Moroni 10:22). So hope is an intermediate thing. “We hope for what we see not, then do we with patience wait for it” (Rom. 8:24-25). If the chance of success is zero there is no hope; rather, there is despair. If the perceived chance of success is 100% then there are no grounds for hope; instead, we rejoice. Hope exists between despair and having.

Hope can also come in kinds, or degrees. There is a “sufficient hope” (Moroni 7:3) and there is a “firm hope” (Heb. 3:6; Alma 34:41). There is also the kind of hope that is barely hanging on: Abraham, “against hope believed in hope” (Rom. 4:18). There is also a “lively hope” (1 Pet. 1:3) and we can also “abound in hope” (Rom. 15:13). There is even a “better hope” (Heb. 7:19). As the hymn More Holiness Give Me says, “More hope in his word.”

Gospel hope
But the kind of hope I’m interested in is not the generic kind, such as “I hope this is a good movie.” The kind I’m interested in connects to faith and charity. This could be called gospel hope, serious hope, or as Elder Neil A. Maxwell put it, “ultimate hope” (Hope through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, Ensign, Nov. 1998).

But first, there is something more basic than hope, belief. You can’t hope for something without first believing in the possibility of success, and this entails having beliefs about the possibility of success. Hope cannot exist unless certain things are possible, things we desire to see happen, or to obtain.

But what kind of beliefs lead to hope? The belief might be related to a question: Is the Book of Mormon true? Is Jesus Christ the Son of God? Have I been forgiven? Did Joseph Smith see God the Father and Jesus Christ? But the question is the Book of Mormon true? isn’t a belief. However the Book of Mormon might be true is. For example, the King of the Lamanites prayed, “if there is a God, and if thou art God, wilt thou make thyself known unto me” (Alma 22:18). At any rate, if you’re asking those questions then you already believe they might be the case. What ever the belief is, it is strong enough to prompt investigation. As the missionaries would say, “Read, ponder, and pray.”

Also, serious hope cannot exist without effort. A missionary might believe she can find a golden investigator, and hopes that she can. But if she never leaves her apartment her hope is no different from “I hope to win the race” without ever competing. So we must first believe something is obtainable and act on that belief, but then we must also continue the effort. Hope can exist while we are running the race, but not if we give up. So, not only does serious hope exist between despair and certainty, it also requires continual effort.

At different stages during our spiritual progression we hope for different things. An investigator probably desires to know if the Book of Mormon is true and prays for a witness of its truthfulness; he believes it might be true, reads it, prays about it, hopes for an answer, then prays some more. Another person might be feeling despair over her sins and hopes for a spiritual confirmation that she is forgiven. A parent might hope their children will gain a strong testimony of the Gospel. A missionary hopes to find investigators. A bishop has hopes for the members of his ward. These kinds of hopes are related to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But ultimately we “hope that [we] shall receive eternal life” (Alma 13:29) and one day hear, “well done, good and faithful servant...enter thou into the joy of thy lord” (Matt. 25:23). There is “the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27; Jacob 4:11; Alma 22:14; Moroni 9:25); “hope of salvation” (1 Thess. 5:8); “hope of eternal life” (Titus 1:2; 3:7); “hope of a glorious resurrection” (D&C 42:45; 138:14). These are “the hope[s] of the gospel” (Coll. 1:23).

Here is one way the process could work. An investigator believes the Book of Mormon might be true and that perhaps the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s restored Church. Consequently she takes the lessons from the missionaries and prays and ponders the claims of Mormonism. She hopes for an answer because she desires to know if she should continue with it. She then gets a confirmation from the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is true and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s true church. Because of that assurance, she has faith. Her belief is no longer it might be true, she now believes it is true and gets baptized. Her beliefs changed. So what does she hope for next? She currently believes in Jesus Christ and the Atonement. She believes the church is true. She believes it’s possible to stay on the strait and narrow path and obtain eternal life. She probably hopes for a firmer testimony; greater knowledge of the Gospel; overcoming sins and other weaknesses; making temple covenants; doing temple work for her ancestors; continued spiritual progression; bringing the gospel to others. But ultimately, she hopes for eternal life for herself and for those she loves. Her hopes are rooted in the belief that through the power of the atonement of Jesus Christ those things are possible. The Holy Ghost assures her that her hopes are not in vain. This assurance is the gift of faith and thus faith strengthens her hope and reifies her beliefs. As Elder Uchtdorf pointed out, “Each time a hope is fulfilled, it creates confidence and leads to greater hope” (The Infinite Power of Hope).

Like the example of the investigator, we start off believing that something might be true. After a spiritual witness that it is true we have attained faith. Our hopes are now rooted in the Gospel. Now that we have obtained hope we are motivated to do the works of the Gospel. This in turn leads us to the “work of faith, and labour of love” (1 Thess. 1:3) and a closer relationship with the Comforter which leads us back to a greater “assurance of things hoped for” (faith), which then leads to a stronger hope, etc. “The brighter our hope, the greater our faith” (E. Uchtdorf). It is through “witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken” (Jacob 4:6). Those witnesses are the surety of our hope. “Whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world” (Ether 12:4, emphasis added). Serious hope may be thought of as faith directed toward the future, anticipating something yet to be. Faith may be thought of as the confidence in our hopes that comes from witness of the Holy Ghost.

A tale to two hopes
But as Elder Uchtdorf points out, there are two kinds of hope: “The things we hope for lead us to faith, while the things we hope in lead us to charity” (italics original). Faith is the assurance of things hoped for; if we have faith we hope for things that are true.

But what does it mean to have hope in something? And how does that produce charity? We can have hope in God’s mercy, hope in the Lord, and hope in Jesus Christ, hope in his judgments, and hope in his word. To hope in someone is to rely on him, to trust him completely. In fact, the word “hope” is sometimes translated as “trust.” When Paul quotes Isaiah, “in him shall the Gentiles trust” (Rom 15:12), most modern translations render this as, “in him shall the Gentiles hope.” The same is true for Paul’s letter to Titus. “We trust in the living God” is rendered as “hope on the living God” in the NASB. Sometimes passages about hope are translated as “hope on,” sometimes they are translated as “hope in.” The sense of usage I get is that hope in Christ implies both trust and reliance. Our hopes are on Christ because we rely on him. They are in Christ because we have complete trust in him. “Hope is trust in God’s promises” (James E. Faust, Hope, an Anchor of the Soul, Ensign, Nov 1999), and hope is “the abiding trust that the Lord will fulfill His promise to us” (E. Uchtdorf).

To hope in Christ also includes a desire to emulate him. He is our divine prototype. “Every man that hath this hope in him[, Christ,] purifieth himself, even as he is pure” (1 Jn. 3:3). The scriptures tell us that “God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him” (1 Jn. 4:16). Therefore, to have a genuine hope in Christ we must love God and our neighbors, for “He that loveth not knoweth not God” (1 Jn. 4:8). It also seems possible that a person could hope for a future reward in heaven and therefore have faith, and at the same time not have a hope in Christ. Those who prophesy, do great works, and cast out devils do not necessarily have a reward in heaven (Matt. 7:22-23). Hope in Christ is greater than hope for a heavenly reward. In other words, charity more excellent than faith. Hope in Christ is tightly bound to our love of God and charity towards others. We are told that once we have attained a hope in Christ our desires will be granted: “Ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them” (Jacob 2:19).

Feeling hope
But gospel hope is a confidence and a feeling with a basis in belief and faith. It is a peace in believing granted by the Holy Ghost. But feelings can vacillate and change. What if one falls into serious sin? What if one goes through a period of depression or a series of very difficult disappointments? A person might be shaken when they find out Joseph Smith was a polygamist, which might go contrary to things they believe about the church. Severe depression can also strongly affect feelings of hope. I suppose that even suffering from a paranoid delusion can affect belief, faith, and hope. Mood swings, disappointment, tragedy, sorrow, all these strongly influence feelings of hope, which can in turn affect belief and faith. Our beliefs, hopes, and assurances are so intimately connected to others things in life that there are times when it’s a struggle to maintain them.

Final thoughts
The pull away from hope can lead us sin. “And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart” (Jer 18:12)—the ASV reads, “But they say, It is in vain...” Their lack of hope caused them to rely on their own effort and they rejected placing their faith in God. “Just as doubt, despair, and desensitization go together, so do faith, hope, charity, and patience” (E. Maxwell). If there is no hope in the resurrection then we might as well “eat and drink; for to morrow we die” (1 Cor. 15:32).

But ultimately, if we have charity we have hope in Christ.

Charity is the pure love of Christ, and it endureth forever; and whoso is found possessed of it at the last day, it shall be well with him. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure.  Amen. (Moroni 7:47-48)

Faith, certainty, and doubt

Related Posts: Faith and Charity ; Opposition in all things ; The First Vision 

I can honestly say that I have never had a prolonged crisis of faith. I’ve had moments of doubt wherein I wondered if God really existed, or if the Church is what it claims to be. But those moments never lasted long. All I needed was to remember I have a testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His Church.

Like many people with deep Mormon roots I was raised to believe in the Book of Mormon as scripture and that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God’s true, restored Church. Though I never seriously questioned this upbringing I did experience a crisis of sorts, which turned out to be the beginning of my testimony.

I was in the seventh or eighth grade at the time and it was a Saturday morning. I enjoyed watching those art programs where an artist creates a beautiful landscape painting in thirty minutes. (I remember there was this German guy who painted “powerful” mountains and this afro-redheaded guy who painted “happy” streams and clouds.) During one of the commercial breaks an advertisement for a Christian charity came on. I don’t remember the name of the charity or what exactly their purpose was, but clearly they were good people seeking to help others. And then, a thought struck me. These were good people. This charity works for good. Somehow, seeing those good people doing good provoked a question in me. How do I know the church I belong to is the true Church? After all, these other churches are also good. How do I know I’m right? The question in my mind grew intense. I cried out from within, “How do I know I’m right.” Suddenly an intense feeling of peace and calm came over me and my doubts were gone. I knew the Church was true.[1]

Every time I feel doubt I recall that experience.

Skeptics
A skeptic might say, “You should question that experience. Maybe you just got the answer you unconsciously wanted.” I’m not exactly sure what that is supposed to mean. They probably do not mean that I should question that I had a doubt erasing experience because that is exactly what happened. I can’t re-experience something different; I can’t say I experienced anything other than what I did experience. So perhaps the skeptic means something else.

Fairies and flying saucers
I was watching a video, Conversations with Arthur Henry King, the other day. One of the guest speakers recalls an experience with Arthur King. Apparently when Arthur was a boy he once saw fairies dancing on the frozen pond behind his house. The individual recounting the story then said, “When I asked him what he thought the fairies were he very seriously said to me, he said, ‘Well, I have no reason to doubt they were fairies.’”[2]

I remember when I was a very young boy, probably six to eight years old. It was the Forth of July and I was camping in the backyard of our house, and I remember seeing a flying saucer. It was square, there was a low frequency rumbling sound, and it was hovering over the roofs of the condominiums behind our home.

I experienced seeing a flying saucer. Arthur King experienced seeing fairies dancing on a frozen pond. Neither of us could say we didn’t experience seeing those things, because we did experience seeing those things. (By this I mean the experience seeing a flying saucer is what I experienced.)

Maybe the skeptic wants me to question my experience of certainty the same way I would question seeing a flying saucer. Maybe it was a blimp, or a helicopter, or flood lights on the clouds. Maybe the rumbling sound was from an automobile—maybe King was looking at dragon flies, or rustling leaves. Though I experienced seeing a flying saucer I can question my experience by positing that maybe I was looking at something other than a real, material flying saucer. Similarly, though I experienced a feeling of certainty I should be willing to question that the experience gave me knowledge that the Church is actually, really, true. Though I experienced an overwhelming sense of certainty it was simply how the neurons in my brain made me feel.

But on the other hand my doubt erasing experience was very unlike seeing fairies or a flying saucer. I didn’t have an overwhelming sense of peace and assurance that I was actually seeing a real, material flying saucer; there was no sense of certainty. My testimony experience came from within, and that experience will always be with me. There have been times when I leaned heavily on that experience for my testimony. There have been times when it formed only part of my testimony. But I can’t say that it didn’t happen. What then is the incorrigible believer to do? I can’t just decide I will no longer believe. In many ways that feeling of certainty remains with me.

Perhaps the skeptic intends to simply encourage religious questioning. Some people experience doubt because of the Church’s position on gay marriage. Others might be bothered by an historical event, such as the Mountain Meadows Massacre. They might be bothered when they find out Joseph Smith was a polygamist, or that there has been doctrinal evolution in the Church. Maybe they know someone who was given a priesthood blessing and was promised a full recovery, who then died. (I have personal experience with this last one.) There are many things that can cause doubt, and these experiences can lend credence to the idea that we should question rather than declare the truthfulness of the Church. If other people experience a feeling of doubt then it seems arrogant to say that the Church is true. It seems as though I’m elevating myself above the honest, good hearted skeptics. It’s like I am saying they are totally wrong.

So perhaps what the skeptic desires is to encourage a healthy dose of religious doubt. After all, skepticism is so very different from certainty. It can encourage respect of other people’s beliefs in ways that certainty cannot.

Faith and doubt
Andrew Sullivan wrote in a Time Magazine article, “When Not Seeing Is Believing,” about the dangers of religious certainty. He then writes,

... True belief is not about blind submission. It is about open-eyed acceptance, and acceptance requires persistent distance from the truth, and that distance is doubt. Doubt, in other words, can feed faith, rather than destroy it. And it forces us, even while believing, to recognize our fundamental duty with respect to God's truth: humility. We do not know. Which is why we believe.

He also asked the question, “If we have never doubted, how can we say we have really believed?”

I remember once in a physics math class, the professor was doing a long derivation on the board. He stopped midway and said, “You can’t know something unless you can prove it. Its OK to believe, but you can’t know unless it can be proved.” (Given that the class was mostly LDS it seemed his comment was directed towards us Mormons.) Sullivan’s essay is along similar lines. Belief is OK, but certainty in religious matters is dubious, and sometimes dangerous.

Thus, it turns out that faith is a strong belief in what might be true. Faith is being baffled by the Mystery and yet believing life has a purpose. Thus, according to people like Andrew Sullivan, faith accompanies the absence of certainty; faith and doubt belong together.

Two paths in a wood
Some people will ask, “Why not encourage skepticism?” After all, many of our most basic beliefs are self referential. For example, a poem’s structure can be analyzed, but can we account for the “structurality of structure.” And how can I argue that reason is a reliable way to discover truth without using reason. I also believe that any given proposition cannot be both true and false at the same time, but I can’t think of any way to demonstrate this without a proposition being either true or false and not both. Then again, reason is essential, poems can be analyzed, and the law of non-contradiction works for me. I treat these things like they were absolutes but I cannot objectively know them; there is no way I can argue that they are true without first assuming that they are true. So perhaps I should treat my religion like that. For me it is the ultimate explanatory principle and yet on a deeper level I know that I cannot objectively know my religion is the true religion.

And this is where the doubt promoters come in. Doubt can lead us to “believe in our god term and use it as if it were the ultimate explanatory principle. But on a deeper level, we also know that it is not.”[3]  Doubt can lead us to reevaluate our traditional religious beliefs, experiencing spiritual exhaustion to the point that eventually there is a humble, sincere acknowledgment that we should prize spirituality more than certainty. And after the crisis of faith a new wisdom emerges from the “born again” experience. Faith is standing in the Mystery and yet believing in an all good power.

Certainty, faith, and doubt
Now, I see nothing wrong with sincerely believing that the Ultimate is unknowable, or that faith is standing in a mystery and still believing. In some ways that kind of thinking reflects aspects of my own beliefs about God and the Ultimate. Personally I tend to have a positive spiritual response to those kinds of teachings. My criticism, however, is leveled toward those who promote a culture of religious doubt in order to produce a faith-from-doubt transforming experience by trying to make us ashamed of our history, doctrines, and traditions. By cultivating a sense of shame about our past (and present) our faith can be shaken and doubt can set in. Those who promote religious doubt often desire to transform traditional faith into a kind of doubt-faith.

The transformation pattern is basically this. We start having a deep religious faith. We then experience a crisis of faith. Then, after a prolonged struggle, we finally come to terms with the crisis in such a way that leads us to embrace a “broader” worldview. What faith-from-doubt promoters work for is transforming traditional religious beliefs into something more acceptable to them and to others who are frightened by religious certainty, or object to the Church’s position on abortion, gay marriage, women and the priesthood, etc.

Another difficulty I have with faith-from-doubt promoters is that they don’t describe faith as faith. To them faith is spiritual wonderment, awe, an apprehension of what might be true. My understanding of faith is that it originates from a religious experience, not sincere religious doubt. Though people often begin with doubts, wonderment, or spiritual apprehensions, eventually faith strengthens religious belief and moves them towards a vibrant, living knowledge that something that cannot be proved is actually, in reality, true. There is nothing wrong with feeling spiritual wonderment about the mystery of God, but that is not the goal. Knowing through personal revelation is the goal, and personal revelation is the source of faith. After Joseph Smith saw God the Father and and His Son Jesus Christ he recalled, “I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it” (JS-H 1:25). Though there were moments when he cried out, “O God, where art thou?” (D&C 121:1), he never doubted that he had the First Vision experience.

I’ll be the first to admit that our leaders are imperfect. Some aspects of our history are embarrassing, even shameful. There has been doctrinal evolution to be sure. Some questions cannot be answered objectively. Sometimes tension within belief is healthy. And there are times when having faith is more important than having proof. But questions and doubts needn’t always cultivate a sense of crisis. We can deal with them from within the framework of our faith. The kind of faith I believe in can arise while experiencing crisis or doubt, wonderment and awe, but it cannot be approached by cultivating doubt. I also believe that moments of certainty cannot alone sustain a testimony—a testimony must be nurtured. Ultimately, faith is not about believing in things because we cannot know if they are true. Faith is tightly bound to that feeling of assurance which leads us towards certainty and occasional experiences of certainty. The Gospel teaches us that it is possible to “know the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:5). Faith takes us towards that.

End Notes_______________
[1]  I don’t have to entirely depend on my memory because a week later I recorded it in my journal, which I still have; but I’m not going to dig it out of storage to look up the date.

[2]  See video here. The passage in question begins at about 3 min 45 sec, so you won’t have to wait long to encounter it. A transcript of the passage is

One of my favorite stories that Arthur told is about when he was a boy and saw fairies dancing on the frozen pond behind his home. Well, he rushed in to tell his father, who was a very proper man. His father made him [pause] would not let him play until he disavowed having seen the fairies...When I asked him what he thought the fairies were he very seriously said to me, he said, “Well, I have no reason to doubt they were fairies.” You have to understand, Arthur King, the highly respected scholar in academic circles today, still believes that as a child he saw fairies skating on a frozen pond behind his home. (Clifton H. Jolley)

[3]  Paul Kugler, “The Unconscious in a Postmodern Depth Psychology,” an essay from C.G. Jung and the Humanities, Toward a Hermeneutics of Culture, pp. 315-316.

Mormon History Resources

FYI. I just finished a major overhaul of my website. I have included an extensive list of Mormon history resources that might be of interest to those studying Mormonism and Utah History.

 

If there are any resources not listed, please let me know.  

Why I blog

I thought my readers might be interested to know why I blog.

Back in January 2007 Damon Linker wrote an article in the New Republic called “The Big Test.” In it he asserted that “Mormonism will remain a theologically unstable, and thus politically perilous, religion” and “To this day, the Mormon church teaches genuine respect for reason only when it operates within the narrow limits set for it by LDS prophecy,” and so forth. This article really ticked me off so I started a blog called Response to Damon Linker. As the Romney campaign developed I followed what Linker wrote and said about Mormonism, venting my disapproval of his assertions. Whenever I came across something that bothered me I would write a response to it.

But properly addressing what Linker wrote and said required background knowledge of Mormon history and beliefs. I wanted my blog to be heavily referenced and provide easy access to important historical documents. So, for example, I found and copied the text for the Morrill Anti Bigamy Act, the Edmunds Act, and the Edmunds-Tucker Act to another blog which I used as a reference for my Linker blog. There are also many great online sources. Google books has just about every 19th Century anti-Mormon book ever written. BYU has the entire Deseret News from the 19th Century, as well as other church magazines and the Journal of Discourses. Also available are the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Journal of Mormon History, BYU Studies, Journal of Mormon Studies, Sunstone, BYU Law Review, Element, FAIR Foundation, and BYU has made all of their Masters and Doctoral works relating to Mormonism freely available online. This meant that in quite a few instances I could reference a journal article, newspaper article, or magazine directly. No one would have to take my word for it.

Properly understanding our beliefs was important, but I needed explanations written with an apologetic angle. So I started writing on doctrinal subjects such as Creation Ex Nihilo, Doctrinal Certainty, and Blacks and the Priesthood, and I would refer to these in my responses. If someone else attacked the church I would also craft a response. Examples are Are Satan and Jesus Brothers? in response to a comment by Mike Huckabee, and Was Mormonism Ever Pro Slavery? as a response to Lawrence O’Donnell’s rant about Mormons on the McLaughlin Group, and Polygamy versus Democracy as a response to an article written by Stanley Kurtz.

After the Romney campaign ended I shifted away from Response to Damon Linker and focused on my other blog, Some Mormon Stuff, which has become my principle blog. In it I focus on Mormon history and beliefs, as well as engage in the usual apologetics.

While I was serving my mission I found I could deflect most anti-Mormon attacks by simply listening to what “opponents” had to say and then simply explain our doctrine. That approach was very successful. But after my mission I yearned for deeper doctrinal understanding, but to my disappointment found that few to none were available. For example, our doctrine of the fall of man had a fundamental question that needed resolving. How could God want Adam and Eve to eat the forbidden fruit and then command them not to eat it? That is a huge question. If there is no good answer then our doctrine is flat out phony. But I told myself that Mormonism was over 150 years old and there are lots of brilliant LDS scholars so somebody must have formalized the doctrine and found a good defense for it. I searched Dialogue, BYU Studies, Element, Sunstone, Journal of Discourses, Doctrines of Salvation, Mormon Doctrine, and every search pattern I could think of in my LDS Library software (which has over 1,000 books by LDS authors and leaders). Surely someone had crafted an explanation. All I needed was to find it. But the more I searched the greater my apprehension grew. Finally, I was forced to conclude that after 150 years and despite there being hundreds of brilliant Mormon scholars the most anyone had done was mention an idea or two that might possibly be the answer—nothing more than suggested possibilities. I felt disillusioned. Even a little betrayed. I thought, “Come on, someone must have done it!” But no one had. In my frustration I crafted my own explanation which I think is pretty good (see Fall of Man Part II). But why did I, a nobody, have to do this? Someone else should have done it a long time ago! I am still a little flabbergasted by it.

One thing that research has taught me is that by doing research one finds more questions. (I am currently finishing my Ph.D. dissertation in Physics.) As I studied and wrote more I wanted more. Since there were only a few serious books on Mormon doctrine I started to read Protestant material to find out what they had written about subjects like justification, sanctification, theosis, the Godhead, the Trinity, etc. I became an avid reader of their literature. From it I got tools and ideas with which I could better express my own Mormon beliefs. Even though I engage in some theological speculation, it is only insofar as I feel is necessary to reinforce and defend Mormon orthodoxy. I am what some people call a “genetic” Mormon, a true blue believer with deep ancestral roots. What can I say? I’m very seriously religious, and conservative.

I have come to realize that in many ways Mormon theology is a surface theology. It looks great on the surface but deeper explanations are lacking. For most people of any denomination having only a basic understanding is not a problem. Most people are looking for a theology they can connect with on a very personal level, and Mormonism has that in spades. But there isn’t much more. Mormons have never seriously engaged in theological systematics. On the other hand most Protestants and Catholics don’t know the deeper theological underpinnings of their own religious beliefs either. But if they want more it’s available. Mormons don’t have that. So part of my writing focuses on deeper doctrinal research, but again, only in ways that harmonize and reinforce traditional Mormon beliefs.

I wanted my posts to be easily accessible and not too long, so I focused on what I call “middle knowledge.” If one wants to be a popular author they have to be general enough to reach a wide audience and sell lots of books—for example C.S. Lewis. If they want scholarly respect they have to be highly specific and technical. Consequently, quite of lot of literature either doesn’t have enough information to be interesting or too much detail to deal with. Middle knowledge is for people who want more than the “popular” stuff but don’t want to dive through the journal articles and books—you won’t have met many people who’ve read the Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition. So I write about Mormonism with this in mind. My blog is more specific than the usual popular stuff, but heavily referenced to provide credibility and verifiability. I have even done some original research. There is no fame or money in it, but I love it and find it immensely rewarding. It has also improved my writing.

Apologetics is one of my goals. My blog as a reference source is handy. If someone attacks the church and a thorough explanation would be difficult I can refer them to a blog article. In other words, “Take it to the blog.” If they want more, the posts are cross referenced and heavily footnoted. I also hope it is useful to other people. For example, one person left this comment.

Hey thanks for this, I really needed an answer on Brigham and Slavery, our paper wrote that he did have slaves himself. I really needed an answer for a friend. It seemed like people would only find the bad that was said and would leave out the good with it. I am glad someone wasn't afraid to tell the whole story. I admire you whoever you are. Thanks! (Was Mormonism Ever Pro Slavery)

Mormonism’s atheological tendencies are changing. The Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology was organized in 2003 by a group of Mormon scholars and intellectuals. They hold yearly conferences and have an annual magazine, Element. It’s pretty good and I’m sure it will get even better. Still, to my knowledge this is the first time any such society was ever organized.

Most Mormons are familiar with the folklore of Mormonism. One often hears things like, “I heard the Word of Wisdom wasn’t always a requirement,” “I heard that so-and-so was a Mormon,” “I heard there is a secret vault in Cumorah,” “I heard there would be 200 million Mormons by the year 2100.” There are lots of those kinds of questions and ideas floating around. Most of them have some kind of basis in history and I wanted to explore them and find out where they came from.

Each topic is a mini-research project. Some posts take only a week or two to write. But I’ve spent several months to over a year researching several. But this would be on and off, not continuously. I try to post at least once a month, but lately because of dissertation pressure I haven’t been able to keep up with that goal. Hopefully I’ll eventually be able to resume my regular pace. Mormonism is such a big subject that I don’t think I’ll ever run out of things to write about; I suspect this will be my life-long hobby.

Thanks for reading.


Troy Wynn

Doctrine of Agency

Related Posts: Opposition In All Things ; Problem of Evil ; Fall of Man Part I ; Fall of Man Part II ; The Premortal Life

The doctrine of agency is a central Mormon belief. Agency means, generally, that we are free to make morally significant choices, but the purpose of agency is to permit us the freedom to choose moral good. However, freedom to choose moral good necessitates the option of choosing moral evil. Without a choice we could never freely choose to obey God’s commandments because obedience would be the only possibility. Consequently, agency exists to permit righteous choices but cannot exist without the possibility of evil choices. As Elder L. Tom Perry said, “Agency also opens the possibility for sin” (A Year of Jubilee, Ensign, November 1999). And Elder Boyd K. Packer said, “Choice cannot exist unless both good and evil are an option” (BYU Symposium, October 30, 1988).

When agency is understood in this light it is easier to understand how making righteous choices enhances individual agency. Thus we often hear about “develop[ing] our free agency in right choices” [1]; “[following] the teachings of the prophet does not violate the right of free agency; but rather enhances it”[2]; “[Agency] is freedom to choose right against wrong, not a choice between two equal forces”[3]; “When we choose to live according to God’s plan for us, our agency is strengthened”[4]; “to retain our agency we must daily walk in the light of our Lord and Savior”[5]; “pursuing correct alternatives widens the scope of one’s agency and leads to perfect liberty”[6]; “God’s gift and commitment to agency never will include a tolerance of sin”[7]; “one must use his agency to obey truth”[8].

In contrast, sin leads to slavery, addiction, and a loss of agency. “Addiction has the capacity to disconnect the human will and nullify moral agency”[9]; “To keep our free agency, we must not surrender self-control or yield to habits that bind, to addiction that enslaves, or to conduct that destroys”[10]; “If I do wrong, I am in bondage to that wrong. If I commit sin, I am in bondage to that sin”[11]; “When anyone succumbs to evil thoughts or evil doings...he brings himself under bondage to sin”[12].

The source of our agency
Mormons believe intelligence is an eternal quality. Abraham saw “the intelligences that were organized before the world was” (Abr. 3:22).These spirits “have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after...they are...eternal” (Abr. 3:18). “Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be....The glory of God is intelligence” (D&C 93:36). Every intelligent being possesses this eternal, uncreated, glorious quality.[13] Therefore every intelligent being is an eternal being. Our intelligence cannot be reduced to the physical, chemical, and biological processes that maintain physical life. We are not robots, nor are we creatures.[14]

But even though we don’t believe we are God’s pure creation created from nothing (see Creation Ex Nihilo), we do believe God has instituted a plan whereupon we (us intelligences) can progress and develop. Agency is an essential part of this plan. But before going into this I would like to address the conditions needed for agency to be exercised. Elder Bruce R. McConkie has listed four necessary conditions for agency (“Agency,” Mormon Doctrine). These topics are interconnected so discussing one involves the others. They are as follows.

The existence of divine law ~ Agency requires freedom of choice, freedom of action. But if anything at all is to happen then our actions must have consequences. The existence of cause and effect means the existence of law. Therefore laws are prior to agency. In its eternal dimension our individual happiness or misery is a consequence of our individual choices and actions. This is how the book of Mormon puts it.

...if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin.  If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness.  And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness.  And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. (2 Nephi 2:13)

Individual, eternal progression (or damnation) is based on cause and effect and therefore rooted in law. “When we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated” (D&C 130:20-21).

Opposites must exist ~ Opposites have to do with tension, competition, and enticement. They are also related to how we know. Without opposition “righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad” (2 Nephi 2:11). In order for God “to bring about his eternal purposes” in man “it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter” (2 Nephi 2:15).

In addition to the bitter and sweet there must also be enticement. We cannot act unless “enticed by the one [thing] or the other” (2 Nephi 2:15-16). God entices us to do good. The Devil entices us to do evil. (Moroni 7:12-13; D&C 29:39.) The enticements we experience result in choices whose consequences are happiness or misery, bitter or sweet, the good and evil of life. These are opposites and consequences and, in and of themselves, enticements. Moreover, they are an integral part of our understanding. Without knowledge of misery we have no knowledge of joy. We cannot do good without knowledge of sin. Without opposites we cannot be enticed, choose, or reap the consequences of our choices. “If they never should have bitter they could not know the sweet” (D&C 29:39).

A knowledge of good and evil ~ Agency allows us the freedom to choose good. But how do we know the difference between good and evil? It is partly the consequences of our choices, the bitter and the sweet. But the pleasure of sin makes us susceptible to deception. Therefore God gives us commandments which inform us of the eternal consequences of certain actions.

After Adam and Eve “transgressed the first commandments...knowing good from evil” they were situated to “act according to their wills and pleasures, whether to do evil or to do good—Therefore God gave unto them commandments...that they should not do evil, the penalty thereof being a second death” (Alma 12:31-32). We believe “men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil” (2 Nephi 2:5). Once we have this knowledge we are responsible for our choices. Agency demands individual accountability. “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17). “There is no true freedom without responsibility” (Boyd K. Packer, Agency and Control, Ensign, May 1983).

An unfettered power of choice ~ We believe he who “is compelled in all things...is a slothful and not a wise servant” (D&C 58:26). But it would be too simple to say that unfettered choice means there should be no compulsion at all. Many of our choices are based on negative consequences imposed by others, life has a way of forcing things on us, laws and punishments are necessary for orderly society, and children need parental guidance and sometimes discipline. But humans cannot be mechanistically adjusted to obey; we are not robots.

This is where the doctrine of agency takes on its political dimension. On one occasion President David O. McKay said,

Man’s greatest endowment in mortal life is the power of choice—the divine gift of free agency. No true character was ever developed without a sense of soul freedom. If a man feels circumscribed, harassed, or enslaved by something or somebody, he is shackled. That is one fundamental reason why Communism is so diabolically wrong.[15]

If an action stems from coercion, harassment, or slavery that action is not free. And I think that is an important point. I have heard some Mormons say that agency requires that children be allowed to choose whether to go to church or not, or for girls the length of the skirt they wear to church. Naturally parents will talk to their children about good and bad choices, but it is believed by some that the doctrine of agency demands that they do no more than discuss it with their teenagers. I believe this is a serious misunderstanding. Naturally it can be good for teenagers to experience greater freedom than they had when they were younger. But this has more to do with parents making wise choices for their children, not the doctrine of agency.

From my own experience, when I was a child and behaved outrageously, on a number of occasions (maybe three or four total) I was spanked with a belt. I didn’t like it, but it was never unprovoked. And I was never afraid of my father. I always felt like I could talk to him about anything. I was disciplined but I never experienced fear. As a teenager my experience was of a different kind. I remember one occasion when I was (probably) in the seventh grade. I was at a church youth activity—making bird cages out of popsicle sticks or some-such thing. I wanted to go outside and skateboard with my friends, so I asked my mom if I could. She said, “Troy, you need to decide for yourself.” I looked at her and said, “If you want me to stay, I’ll stay. If you leave it up to me I’m leaving.” As a teenager choosing between a boring church activity and skateboarding was a no-brainer. Skateboarding was way cooler. But she wouldn’t say to me, “I want you to stay.” I knew she wanted me to stay. If she had said so I would have gladly stayed to make her happy. But she wouldn’t say it. So I left. There are various ways that the doctrine of agency can be misunderstood, and misapplied.[16]

Using terror and fear to force others to uphold or oppose God’s law is evil because it is incompatible with the spirit of agency.[17] Using terror to prevent political debate and suppress unwanted beliefs is evil for the same reason. However, “the works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated” (D&C 3:1). Those living under authoritarian governments can still repent of their sins and be saved. “Wrong alternatives restricts free agency and leads to slavery...pursuing correct alternatives widens the scope of one’s agency and leads to perfect liberty. As a matter of fact, one may, by this process, obtain freedom of the soul while at the same time being denied political, economic, and personal liberty” (President Marion G. Romney, The Perfect Law of Liberty, Ensign, November 1981).[18]

The war in heaven
The struggle for agency began during the pre-mortal life. Mormons believe that all of humanity existed as God’s spirit children before the creation of the world. During that time there was a great counsel where the Father proposed, “We will make an earth whereon these may dwell...[and] prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them” (Abr. 3:24-25). God’s plan required agency which entailed a degree of risk. There would be enticement, consequences, accountability, knowledge of good and evil, hunger and plenty, happiness and misery, suffering and ease, righteousness and wickedness, shades of right and wrong. Some of us would be lost along the way; therefore, a Savior was needed to bring us back. When the Father said, “Whom shall I send?” (Abr. 3:27), Lucifer, one of God’s children “in authority in the presence of God” (D&C 76:25), proposed a different plan, saying, “I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor” (Moses 4:1). The guarantee “one soul shall not be lost” meant eliminating agency. Jesus, also one of our Father’s spirit children and his Beloved Son (Moses 4:2), came forward and said, “Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever” (Moses 4:2). Jesus was chosen to redeem mankind, and the vast majority of us stood with our Father’s plan. Lucifer rebelled, starting a war of words and ideas that eventually persuaded “a third part of the hosts of heaven” to follow him. (D&C 29:36.) Because Lucifer rebelled and “sought to destroy the agency of man” he was cast out of heaven (Moses 4:2-3; Luke 10:18; Rev. 12:9; Moses 4:4).

President Ezra Taft Benson said,

Satan stood for...coercion and force. Because Satan and those who stood with him would not accept the vote of the council, but rose up in rebellion, they were cast down to the earth, where they have continued to foster the same plan. The war that began in heaven is not yet over. The conflict continues on the battlefield of mortality... Proof of this is found in the long history of humanity. (The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p. 23-24)

Summary
President David O. McKay said, “only by the exercising of Free Agency can the individual even approach perfection.”[19] Elder Hugh B. Brown said, “Man faces a vista of limitless development, eternal progression...Free agency is prerequisite to any character-building plan...[and] with free agency any plan is inevitably crammed with risk.”[20] “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23). Therefore we need a Redeemer, Jesus Christ. Elder Boyd K. Packer pointed out, “Had agency come to man without the Atonement, it would have been a fatal gift” (Atonement, Agency, Accountability, Ensign, May 1988). “Agency also opens the possibility for sin; that, in turn, creates the need for repentance” (Elder L. Tom Perry, A Year of Jubilee, Ensign, November 1999).

President Gordon B. Hinckley said,

The eternal nature of man has been revealed. We are sons and daughters of God. God is the Father of our spirits. We lived before we came here. We had personality. We were born into this life under a divine plan. We are here to test our worthiness, acting in the agency which God has given to us. (The Great Things Which God Has Revealed, Ensign, April 2005)

End Notes_______________________________________

[1]Elder Delbert L. Stapley once said “we have built-in powers of conscience sufficient to develop our free agency in right choices and to acquire qualities of goodness, humility, and integrity of purpose” (Using Our Free Agency, Ensign, May 1975).

[2] John A. Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, p. 239.

[3] S. Dilworth Young, BYU Speeches of the Year, October 28, 1959, pg. 3.

[4] Gospel Principles, p. 21.

[5] Hales, Robert D., To Act for Ourselves: The Gift and Blessings of Agency, CR, April 2006.

[6] President Marion G. Romney, The Perfect Law of Liberty, Ensign, November 1981. 

[7] Elder Marvin J. Ashton, A Pattern in All Things, Ensign, November 1990.

[8] Elder Richard G. Scott, Healing Your Damaged Life, Ensign, November 1992.

[9] Elder Boyd K. Packer, Revelation in a Changing World, Ensign, November 1989.

[10] James E. Faust, Reach Up for the Light, p. 33.

[11] Teachings Of Presidents Of The Church: Joseph F. Smith, p. 283

[12] Elder Joseph Quinney, Jr., Conference Report, October 1936, p. 37–38.

[13] Joseph Smith taught, “The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven...Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement” (Teaching of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 354).

[14] “The volition of the creature is free; this is a law of their existence, and the Lord cannot violate his own law; were he to do that, he would cease to be God. He has placed life and death before his children, and it is for them to choose. If they choose life, they receive the blessings of life; if they chose death, they must abide the penalty. This is a law which has always existed from all eternity, and will continue to exist throughout all the eternities to come. Every intelligent being must have the power of choice” (Brigham Young, JD 11:272).

[15] Man May Know for Himself: Teachings of President David O. McKay, p. 80.

[16] I have noticed that many people from my parent’s generation have a notion that agency demands a kind of libertarian freedom of choice. I remember when I flunked my first school class. It was either the seventh or eighth grade (Jr. High). My parents sat me down and said, “What can we do to help you want to do better in school?” Needless to say, I was astonished, incredulous really. At that age I didn’t care about grades and it was plainly obvious to me there was nothing they could do to help me want to do better. To be honest, it caused me to loose a little respect for my parents. Such a statement seemed profoundly ignorant. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want anyone to think these examples characterize my parents. One of my friends once mentioned to me that my parents were in the top 5%. Looking back as an adult I’m inclined to agree. But there is this notion among that generation that children should be permitted “to exercise their agency.” It is not uncommon to come across this when the doctrine of agency is discussed in Sunday school.

I have wondered from where they got such a strange belief. Did it have anything to do with the growing sense of personal freedom that was developing in the sixties? hippies being the most obvious example. Perhaps it was a popular social science trend? Did Freud have anything to do with it? (Developing the child ego and all that.) I haven’t been able to pin it down. But there was a libertarian interpretation of agency during that generation. To quote from a Dialogue article from 1967.

Parental eagerness to lead children in righteous patterns can easily and subtly result in essential denial to them of the rights of free agency. When the nine-year-old announces his intent to stay home to watch television instead of attending sacrament meeting, a real challenge exists for a parent to choose between the two principles of "teach thy child" and "allow your child free agency." If the parent conveys to the child that he cannot have a choice in such matters, the child somewhere will assert his right to be a free agent. A young Mormon soldier who had earned all his priesthood awards for faithful attendance began smoking, drinking and, in general, violating the rules and practices of the Church when he went into military service. The man's discussion of his early life disclosed a feeling that he had rarely been given a chance to decide things for himself. His church attendance was mainly because of parental pressure. The parents did not give him a feeling that he was a participant in the choices made. The discomfort he felt from being deprived of his free agency, coupled with poor judgment from lack of experience in making choices, resulted in his aberrant behavior, which nearly destroyed him as he searched for his privilege of being a free agent. (Veon G. Smith, Free Agency and Conformity in Family Life, Dialogue, vol. 2, no. 3, Autumn, 1967, pp. 64-68)

The doctrinal mistakes are revealed in phrases such as “allow your child free agency” and one young man’s feeling of “being deprived of his free agency” who “searched for his privilege of being a free agent.” The war in heaven was fought over the issue of agency. The agents of agency won. The issue is settled, we have our agency. Period. Moreover, if moral agency is retained while living under authoritarian governments what justification is there for ideas such as allowing agency, or searching for agency, or even respecting agency? They seem rather empty.

[17] In the document The Family: A Proclamation to the World the church states, “There are too many homes where children fear their parents or where wives fear their husbands...individuals who … abuse spouse or offspring … will one day stand accountable before God” (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, Ensign, Nov. 1995).

[18] “Know that the wicked choice of others cannot completely destroy your agency unless you permit it” (Elder Richard G. Scott, Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse, Ensign, May 1992). Thus, “Some men may succeed in denying some aspects of this God-given freedom to their fellowmen, but their success is temporary. Freedom is a law of God, an eternal law” (Elder Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, April 1967, Second Day—Morning Meeting). “The adversary cannot take away [your agency] without your yielding it to him” (Elder Robert D. Hales, To Act for Ourselves: The Gift and Blessings of Agency, Ensign, April 2006).

[19] Taken from President Howard W. Hunter, The Golden Thread of Choice, Ensign, November 1989.

[20] Elder Hugh B. Brown, Conference Report, April 1956, Third Day—Morning Meeting, p. 105.