Faith and Charity

Faith and Justification Part I:
Faith and Charity

Related Posts: Why Covenants? ; Justification ; Grace ; Election ; Justification and Salvation

What is faith?

We have definitions of faith such as, “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1) and, “Faith is things which are hoped for and not seen” (Ether 12:6), and “Faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true” (Alma 32:21). The Bible Dictionary says, “To have faith is to have confidence in something or someone” (“Faith,” Bible Dictionary). We know that it was by faith that “Noah…prepared an ark” (Heb. 11:7), “Abraham…obeyed; and he went out…[and] sojourned in the land of promise” (Heb. 11:8-9). By faith “Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau” (Heb. 11:20), and “Moses…refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter…[and] forsook Egypt (Heb. 11:24-27). Their faith was a motivating force. Because of their firm conviction that God would honor his promises Noah prepared, Abraham obeyed, Isaac blessed, and Moses forsook.

So faith does influence decisions, and scripture clearly teaches that faith and obedience are connected. From the apostle James we learn, “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:20). And the Lectures on Faith teach “[faith] is the principle of action in all intelligent beings” (LoF 1:9). True, but rather nonspecific. A businessman invests his money with the faith he will receive a return. An athlete trains with the faith that she will win the prize. But even that is vague. Perhaps it would be better to use this kind of analogy: A businessman invests his money on the hope he will earn a profit, and when a performance analysis of his investment shows that he is likely to make a profit then he has faith in his investment. An athlete trains with the hope she will win the prize. When she begins to see the results of her hard work, those results coupled with her hope give her faith. Faith is an assurance of things hoped for. Or rather, faith is the assurance one feels when something assures or reassures one that their hope is not in vain.

Faith begins with belief
But faith doesn’t begin with hope. The path to faith begins with belief, or a desire to believe, or as Alma put it, “a particle of faith.” The path to faith is this: belief → effort and hope → assurance and faith.[1] A businessman believes an investment will pay off. After making the investment he hopes he made a good investment. As far as the gospel is concerned, God fills us with “peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope” (Rom. 15:13). From another perspective, if someone whom you believe makes you a promise you have something to hope for. You hope that person will keep his promise.[2] And what follows hope? Hopefully it’s an assurance your hope is not vain. “Faith is the assurance of things hoped for” (Heb. 11:1). And the strongest assurance comes from the Holy Ghost.[3] “For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance” (1 Thes. 1:5; Heb. 6:11).[4]

We first believe. Then we take a risk. Then we hope. And finally with some kind of assurance we attain faith.

But once faith is attained, the belief-hope-faith sequence can also work in reverse. After a business man believes an investment is worthwhile and hopes his invested money produces a profit, a favorable analysis of the investment vindicates his hope and reifies his belief. Our faith in Christ is the assurance we receive from the Holy Ghost that our hope in Christ is not in vain and that our belief is true. Once we have faith in Christ, we believe with faith, hope with faith, pray with faith, and act with faith.

If we don’t have hope our “faith” is not truly faith: Faith comes from the spiritual witness of our hope; “How is it that you can attain unto faith, save ye shall have hope?” (Moroni 7:40). But without a feeling of assurance (i.e. without faith) we eventually abandon hope. A businessman invests his money on the hope that his investment will pay off. As more time goes by without favorable results he begins to loose hope and eventually gets out. Though we can hope our efforts will pay off, if we never attain unto faith, or if we loose faith and never regain it, eventually we abandon hope: “For without faith there cannot be any hope” (Moroni 7:42); “and thus they did retain a hope through faith” (Alma 25:16). And finally, if there is no hope then we eventually abandon belief.
The importance of charity
Charity is necessary for maintaining belief/faith/hope cycle. If we act uncharitably towards others then our “faith and hope is vain, for none is acceptable before God, save the meek and lowly in heart” (Moroni 7:44); “the hope of unjust men perisheth” (Prov. 11:7). The Spirit will never sustain faith and hope if we are vicious, thus if we are unkind our faith and hope is like a house built on the sand. [5],[6]

True faith in Christ leads us to greater acts of charity. Thus Holy Ghost operates with greater power, strengthening faith and hope.[7] Stronger faith justifies greater hope.[8] And our hope in Christ leads us to live a holier life. Faith, hope, and charity are necessary for maintaining spiritual growth. “Faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness” (Ether 12:28).

If a man have faith he must needs have hope; for without faith there cannot be any hope. And again, behold I say unto you that he cannot have faith and hope, save he shall be meek, and lowly of heart…for none is acceptable before God, save the meek and lowly in heart; and if a man be meek and lowly in heart, and confesses by the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus is the Christ, he must needs have charity; for if he have not charity he is nothing; wherefore he must needs have charity. (Moroni 7:41-44)

Are we saved by faith? In a way, yes. If we have faith then hope and good works inextricably accompany it. “[We are] saved by faith in his name” (Moroni 7:26). Are good works necessary for salvation? Yes. If we have a spiritual witness of the gospel of Jesus Christ then good works entail faith and hope in Christ. Thus, “all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel” (AoF 1:3), and “whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected” (1 John 2:5). Are we saved by hope? In a way, yes. Once we attain mature faith, that faith sustains our hope and motivates good works; “How is it that you can attain unto faith, save ye shall have hope?” (Moroni 7:40); “For we are saved by hope” (Rom. 8:24). Basically, to be saved we must be righteous. And “faith is counted for righteousness” (JST, Rom. 4:5); “faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness” (Rom. 4:9).

Faith, hope, and good works are inseparable from righteousness. If we “have faith, hope, and charity, and then [we] will always abound in good works” (Alma 7:24). And “except ye have charity ye can in nowise be saved in the kingdom of God; neither can ye be saved in the kingdom of God if ye have not faith; neither can ye if ye have no hope” (Moroni 10:21).[9]



End Notes_______________________________________
[1] “[Through Christ we] believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God” (1 Peter 1:21).

[2] Hope also produces patience, “But hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it” (Rom. 8:24-25).

[3] President Joseph Fielding Smith said,

When a man has the manifestation from the Holy Ghost, it leaves an indelible impression on his soul, one that is not easily erased. It is Spirit speaking to spirit, and it comes with convincing force. A manifestation of an angel, or even the Son of God himself, would impress the eye and mind, and eventually become dimmed, but the impressions of the Holy Ghost sink deeper into the soul and are more difficult to erase. (Answers to Gospel Questions, 2:151; qtd. in Gospel Principles, 36).

[4] Hope can also be confirmed through angelic visitation: “Consolation by holding forth that which is to come, confirming our hope!” (D&C 128:21).

[5] “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also” (James 2:26). Just as the body is not the spirit, and the spirit is not the body, works and faith are also different things. But without works faith dies.

[6] Out of faith, hope, and charity, charity is the most important. And it is possible for a person to have charity without believing the gospel of Jesus Christ. There are charitable organizations run by Muslims, Buddists, Jews who are exceedingly charitable people. Charity “suffereth long, and is kind, and envieth not, and is not puffed up, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth not in iniquity but rejoiceth in the truth, beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things” (Moroni 7:45). A person who is possesses those qualities is in perfect readiness to receive the gospel of Jesus Christ—either in this life or the next. “Charity never faileth. Wherefore, cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all” (Moroni 7:46); “And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity” (1 Cor. 13:13).

[7] The “Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love” (Moroni 8:26).

[8] There is “a more excellent hope” (Ether 12:32) and “a sufficient hope” (Moroni 7:3). Likewise there is “strong faith and a firm mind” (Moroni 7:30), and a “particle of faith” (Alma 32:27).

[9] But of the three, charity is the greatest: “And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness” (Col. 3:14).

Omnibenevolence of God

Related posts: Omnipotence and the Problem of Evil ; Grace

According to Mormon beliefs God’s work and glory is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39). And we share, along with out Christian cousins, the belief that “God is love.” But Mormons are extremely bothered by some of the tenants of Calvinism. For example the Westminster Confession says,

By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished…The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will…to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of His glorious justice. (Chapter 3)

Some of Calvin’s positions were so disturbing to Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609) that he formulated a Remonstrance espousing a more liberal view. Among other things his Remonstrance states that man must persevere in faith and obedience, and through the assistance of the Holy Spirit those who have accepted Christ have “full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory.” He also stated that Christ died for all persons, not for the elect only. John Wesley, an immensely powerful figure in the spread of Methodism, was strongly influenced by Arminianism. “This,” Wesley says, “is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible decree of predestination, and for this I abhor it…the soul that chooseth life shall live, as the soul that chooseth death shall die.” Joseph Smith wrote that as a young boy he was “somewhat partial to the Methodist sect,” and, “felt some desire to be united with them” (JS-H 1:8). The similarities between Mormonism and Arminianism have been noted by several writers.[1] According to the non-Mormon sociologist Thomas O’Dea, “Mormonism had early embraced an extreme Arminianism” (The Mormons, p. 120), and “The doctrine of the book [of Mormon] is wholeheartedly and completely Arminian” (Ibid., p. 28).

The Book of Mormon teaches that “the way is prepared for all men from the foundation of the world” (1 Nephi 10:18), “the Lord doth grant unto all nations, of their own nation and tongue, to teach his word, yea, in wisdom, all that he seeth fit that they should have” (Alma 29:8). We believe that “every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God” (Moroni 7:13). And, “If their works be good, then they are good also” (Moroni 7:5). These teachings are not explicitly stated in the Bible. If a good person has no interest in Mormonism, or Christianity, I needn’t worry about their eternal salvation. If their works are good then they are good. Their good works are a manifestation of God’s love working in them, whether they know it or not. Also, the hope for salvation exists beyond the grave. (See Spirit World.)

Final thoughts
The uniqueness of our beliefs is apparent. Though some LDS thinkers are worried that we might be loosing our uniqueness. (See Kent Robson, “Omnis on the Horizon,” Sunstone, 1979; Sterling McMurren, “Some Distinguishing Characteristic of Mormon Philosophy,” Sunstone, 1993). But many LDS philosophers and thinkers are committed to our uniqueness, so I don’t believe it is in danger of disappearing.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism says, “God, is omnipotent, omniscient, and, through his spirit, omnipresent” (“God”). Though we do believe in these omnis their meaning is not explicitly prescribed. We believe in spiritual omnipresence, that God is corporeal and had advanced to his present state. For us the word omnipotent leans more toward almighty. Because we deny creation ex nihilo we do not see God as first cause. Rather, he is the “framer of heaven and earth” (D&C 20:17) who “organized and formed the heavens and the earth” (Abr. 4:1).

Naturally, false beliefs have no saving power; but I don’t believe every false belief leads to damnation. In this life totally understanding God is beyond human ken anyway; so at least some wrong conceptions don’t deprive us of heaven. A good person who dies holding a false belief is not barred from God’s saving grace. And this is a good thing. The belief, “If you don’t believe as I do you will go to hell,” is pernicious. Too often adherents of a religious prescription feel obligated to marginalize other belief systems. Hence the recent controversy over Mitt Romney’s run for the Republican presidential nominee; many of our Christian cousins were afraid his being a Mormon would lead to conversions to Mormonism; hence a Mormon in the White House could end up sending people to hell.[2]



End Notes______________
[1] Blake T. Ostler, “The Development of the Mormon Concept of Grace,” Dialogue, vol. 24, no. 1, 1991; Thomas O’Dea, The Mormons, 1957, p. 28; Sterling M. McMurrin, The Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion, 1965, p. 81; Klaus J. Hansen, Mormonism and the American Experience, 1981.

[2] The late Father Neuhaus (editor of First Things) writes, “The questions are: Would a Mormon as president of the United States give greater credibility and prestige to Mormonism? The answer is almost certainly yes. Would it therefore help advance the missionary goals of what many view as a false religion? The answer is almost certainly yes…Anxiety about the strengthening of Mormonism by virtue of there being a Mormon president is not unreasonable. One may or may not share that anxiety, but it is not unreasonable” (A Mormon in the White House, First Things, June 29, 2007).

Omnipotence and the problem of evil

Related posts: Opposition in all things ; Creation ex nihilo ; The Fall of Man Part I

Classical theism affirms that God is omnipotent. But the meaning of omnipotence varies from person to person. Can God do only what is logically possible? Are there only non-logical limits to God’s power? Is God’s power limited by human free will? If God has all the power, are we powerless? If we have some power to what extent is God limited? Most people don’t believe that God can make 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, but do believe God can cure the sick and prevent accidents. But understanding omnipotence to mean God can do only what is logically possible isn’t enough: It’s logically possible God doesn’t exist. Consequently, some Christians define omnipotence as having all possible power, or maximal power.

The various definitions of omnipotence stem from philosophical and theological questions. Can God make a rock so massive he cannot move it? Did God create evil? If not, did he create all things? Is there any way to reconcile foreknowledge with free will? And so forth. Obviously philosophers tinker with conceptions of God. Some of the most prominent theological questions arise from the problem of evil.

Australian philosopher J.L. Mackie argued that given the awful reality of evil, believing in God’s omnipotence and benevolence is logically inconsistent. Because evil exists, if God is benevolent he cannot be omnipotent; because evil exists, if God is omnipotent he cannot be benevolent; if God is benevolent and omnipotent then evil would not exist. An omnipotent God could eradicate evil. A benevolent God would want to eradicate evil. An omnipotent and benevolent God would eradicate evil. Yet evil exists. Omnipotence, benevolence, and evil he writes, “are essential parts of most theological positions: the theologian…at once must adhere and cannot consistently adhere to all three” (italics original).[1]

Alvin Plantinga
Alvin Plantinga formulated a solution to the logical problem of evil as posed by Mackie, sometimes referred to as the Free Will Defense. Mackie contends the following propositions are logically inconsistent: (1) God is omnipotent and wholly good, and (2) evil exists. However, Plantinga points out if an idea can be found which intersects with (1) and entails (2) they are not exclusive; the idea need only include the existence of God and entail the existence of evil; if such an idea is possibly true then Mackie’s contention that the theologian cannot rationally adhere to (1) and (2) is false.

In The Nature of Necessity Plantinga argues that among all the possible worlds God could have created which contain free persons, that (quite possibly) if any one of them were actualized it could not contain moral good but no moral evil. What follows is a very simplified explanation of Plantinga’s arguments — which I sincerely hope I haven’t butchered. Consider the following question. What if it’s true that from among all the possible worlds containing free persons, if God actualized any one of them that everyone would commit at least one wrong act? Suppose for now that it is true, call it transworld depravity. If everyone suffers from transworld depravity it’s not possible to actualize a world containing free persons and which contains moral good but no moral evil. As an illustration consider a city official Curley. In the actual world W Curley is offered a $20,000 bribe and accepts. Now consider an alternate world W′ where Curley is offered $20,000 and refuses. If it’s true that “Curleyhood” (the essence of Curley) has the property he accepts all bribes greater than 19,000 dollars, then God cannot actualized a world where Curley doesn’t have this property; properties aren’t created. Consequently God cannot actualize any world that includes a Curley who freely rejects all bribes greater than $19,000, and consequently God cannot actualize W′. Now suppose every person has the property I will go wrong at least once if given the chance. The idea behind transworld depravity is that if God (strongly) actualizes any state of affairs where people are genuinely free to act, it would give them the opportunity to go wrong. So if everyone suffers from transworld depravity then God can not actualize only those persons who never go wrong. Moreover, a world having genuine moral agency is, in effect, like offering Curley a $20,000 bribe. Conclusion: If transworld depravity is true it’s not possible for God to create a world containing moral good but no moral evil. In Plantinga’s words,

What is important about the idea of transworld depravity is that if a person suffers from it, then it was not within God’s power to actualize any world in which that person is significantly free but does no wrong…it is possible that everybody suffers from transworld depravity. …the price for creating a world in which such persons produce moral good is creating one in which they also produce moral evil. (pp. 186-187)[2]

If transworld depravity is possibly true then Mackie’s contention that belief in (1) and (2) is positively irrational is positively wrong.

Now, saying everyone possibly suffers from transworld depravity is kind of like throwing a million dice at once and saying it’s logically possible to get all sixes. The probability of getting all sixes is mind bogglingly small — (1/6)^(1,000,000). However, the probability is not zero so the outcome is certainly possible; and it’s the possibility that resolves the logical problem. It bars the claim that it is positively irrational to believe in getting all sixes. Getting all sixes is roughly analogous to the idea of everyone suffering from transworld depravity: “It is possible that everybody suffers from [it].” The possibility bars critics of theism from claiming that believing in (1) and (2) is positively irrational. The strictly logical problem has been solved.

**I mention Plantinga’s free will defense because I believe it is a good defense of theism against the logical problem of evil. Mackie has admitted that Plantinga’s Free Will Defense works.[3] For theists, because transworld depravity need only be possibly true, those who are skeptical about it may still use it to defend theism. If Plantinga’s idea is possibly true then the door is open. Also, most people are probably not willing to go with the Mormon conception of God which altogether avoids the logical problem of evil.**

God’s omnipotence
But do Plantinga’s arguments subtract from God’s omnipotence? Could a being exist that is free from the restriction of transworld depravity? “It does appear to be logically possible that there be a being which is freer from restrictions than God in fact is,” writes William J. Wainwright (“Freedom and Omnipotence,” Noûs, vol. 2, no. 3, 1968, pp. 293-301). But Wainwright asks, “Does omnipotence involve a freedom from this kind of restriction?” He concludes that it does not.

The concept of omnipotence is not an entirely clear one. Omnipotence is sometimes understood in a more restricted sense and sometimes in a less restricted sense. There is no agreed on definition which could be used to settle the question in a quick and universally acceptable way…The notion that God is somehow limited by human freedom, that He must respect free decisions, is as old as the notion that he is omnipotent…one might suppose that a restriction like those we are considering has always been (vaguely) built into the notion of omnipotence. (pp. 300-301)

Mormons and the logical problem of evil
Among all the possible definitions of omnipotence most include things like freedom from causal laws and antecedent conditions (God is pure act); absence of non-logical restrictions to power; omniscience; essential goodness; essential existence (God cannot not exist); creating the universe ex nihilo; and “than which none greater can be imagined.” The traditional Mormon concept of omnipotence diverges from several of these, many of which I have already mentioned in previous posts (Omniscience ; Immutable, Omnipresence ; Omniscience and divine Learning). Here is another one. The Book of Mormon prophet Alma teaches, “Do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay…If so, God would cease to be God” (Alma 42:25). That’s a very radical idea which is open to interpretation. It could be saying arguendo if God were to be other than what he is he wouldn’t be God; which is not so radical. But some have taken it to mean that if God were to attempt to ignore the laws of justice he would genuinely loose his power and cease to be God. Alma qualifies his statement with, “God ceaseth not to be God” (Alma 42:23). But it seems to imply that in some theoretical way God could be otherwise than God. God is theoretically contingent, which fits well with the idea that God has progressed from lower stages of existence to where he is now. But this doesn’t necessarily entail it is actually possible for God to be other than God. Even if God progresses he can possess unchangeable qualities such as mercy, love, and justice.

We also believe that good and evil must coexist for God to bring about his purposes (see Fall of Man: Part I; Opposition in All Things), and that matter and intelligence exist independent of God. Intelligences “have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are…eternal” (Abr. 3:18; D&C 93:33). We also deny creation ex nihilo. (See Creation ex nihilo.) We believe God organized the heavens and the earth (Abr. 3:22; 4:1; D&C 20:17). Consequently, for us there is no logical problem of evil. And Mackie concedes this: “If you are prepared to say that…there are limits to what an omnipotent thing can do, then the problem of evil will not arise for you.”

The amount of evil and natural evil
But even though our theology provides an easy response to the logical problem of evil the problem of the amount of evil in the world remains. So, in that spirit, consider the following question. Is it possible God could have created the world a little better than it actually is? Imagine a world similar to ours in nearly every respect, but with one small difference. There are one fewer murders. That’s a possible world and it’s better than what we got. It also seems easily within God’s power. So speaking generally, if God were good he would make the world a little better than it is. One could always say, “Perhaps God does and we just don’t know it.” But that’s hard to believe and I’m inclined to think it’s begging the question. I’m not going to pursue the debate here because it is not the purpose of this series. I simply point out that being able to avoid the logical problem of evil is not a huge advantage in itself. The non-logical problem of evil remains.

There are also natural evils, bad things that happen because of tornados, earthquakes, famine, disease; acts of nature that end up harming people. In Mormon beliefs God didn’t create natural laws, so it’s easy to say natural disasters aren’t his fault. But surely God can prevent them, or at least make them less frequent. Along this line P. J. McGrath argues,

Consider first what happens to the problem when God is conceived as infinitely good but not omnipotent…while God does not want evil to be present in the universe, he does not have sufficient power to prevent it. But the trouble with this is that some evils which formerly existed have been eliminated by human ingenuity. For example, smallpox has been wiped out through the use of vaccination. If man can get rid of an evil like smallpox, why could God have not done likewise? (“Evil and the existence of a finite God,” Analysis, vol. 46, no. 1, 1986, pp. 63-64).

One solution proposed by an LDS philosopher uses the idea of an over-burdened doctor: “There are evils, which God could have averted but which occur at a time in which it is more important for God to attend to other matters” (“Finitism and the Problem of Evil,” Dialogue, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 83-95). I strongly disagree, and I think most Mormons would too. Our beliefs hold that God is spiritually “in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things” (D&C 88:41; Immutable, Omnipresence).

There are several approaches a Mormon can take when dealing with the problem of the amount of evil, whether natural or manmade. We believe that without opposition, “righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad” (2 Nephi 2:11). This passage seems to imply that the existence of evil is necessary for the very possibility a greater good to exist. How can a given act be morally good if the doer has no choice? How is not committing adultery good if adultery is impossible? It is even possible to love your neighbor without the possibility of hating him? If the presence of moral evil is necessary for our progression one can see how God might permit it. Because man’s intelligence is not created God cannot simply program us with genuine knowledge of good and evil. Consequently knowing the difference between good and evil, righteousness and wickedness, pleasure and pain, happiness and misery must be learned experientially.

How we view suffering
As to the suffering of the believers, perhaps we have a tendency to view their suffering selfishly. In their agony, like Job, they never loose faith. However, friends and family may question the existence of God because of their suffering. If the sufferer doesn’t loose faith, why should others? Sometimes the burden of comfort falls on the sufferer. In a scene from the movie The Bucket List, the two principle characters Carter Chambers (Morgan Freeman) and Edward Cole (Jack Nicholson) are given six months to live. Edward proposes they travel the world doing all the things they wanted to do before they die—the things on their bucket list. Edward says to Carter,

What do ya think happens now? I go back and sit around listening to people talking about mezzanine financing and subordinated debt, predending that I care about dead money. You go home to some ceremonial procession into death with everyone standing around watching you die while you try to comfort them. It that what you want, to be smothered by pity and grief?

My own response to the problem of natural evil draws heavily on my own experience with pain. When I was fifteen I was attending a Boy Scout jamboree in Mexico. It was about midnight and I was in my tent trying to sleep. Nearby, two other scouts decided they wanted a late night snack and started up a gas stove. It exploded, burning them and myself—the accident was caused by a faulty seal. I received 2nd and 3rd degree burns over about eleven percent of my body—my right arm is still heavily scarred. Ask anyone who has been badly burned and they will tell you that the healing process is infinitely more painful than getting burned: Much of the skin is destroyed, along with nerve endings; it’s most painful when they begin to grow back as the raw nerve ends are exposed. Two or three times a day the nurses would change my bandages and clean my burns. And even though they used the softest cloth and pressed as gently as they could, and even though they doped me up with morphine, I swear, it felt like they were scrubbing me with steel wool as hard as they could. It’s difficult to describe the intensity of the pain. It went on like that for almost two weeks. But that was over twenty years ago and I don’t sense any emotional trauma from it. The pain ended.

All wounds can be healed
From an eternal perspective all wounds can be healed. Consequently natural evils are evil only in times of distress. Once the pain has been eliminated the question of its evil fades to the sufferer. So the answer to the question, “If God were good wouldn’t he eliminate natural evils?” is affirmative. I suppose this isn’t very satisfactory for people who have suffered a great deal more than I, and who are presently suffering. But it is my perspective on the problem of pain.




End Notes___________________________
[1] Anthony Flew contends, “We cannot say that [God] would like to help but cannot: God is omnipotent. We cannot say that he would help if he only knew: God is omniscient. We cannot say that he is not responsible for the wickedness of others: God created those others. Indeed an omnipotent, omniscient God must be an accessory before (and during) the fact to every human misdeed; as well as being responsible for every non-moral defect in the universe” (“Theology and Falsification,” from New Essays in Philosophical Theology, 1955, p. 107).

Elder Neil A. Maxwell addressed Flew’s comments in “The Richness of the Restoration” ( Ensign, Mar 1998).

[2] “It is of course up to God whether or not to create Curley…But if he creates him, and creates him free with respect to this action, then whether or not he takes [the bribe] is up to Curley—not God…The atheologian is right in holding that there are many possible worlds containing moral good but no moral evil…[but] one of his central assumptions—that God, if omnipotent, could have actualized just any world he pleased—is false” (The Nature of Necessity, p. 184).

[3] Mackie concedes that Plantinga’s solution works. Mackie writes,

Since this defense is formally possible, and its principle involves no real abandonment of our ordinary view of the opposition between good and evil, we can concede that the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another. But whether this offers a real solution of the problem is another question. (The Miracle of Theism, p. 154)

The Attributes of God: Whence God? Talking about God.

The Attributes of God
Part iv: Whence God? Talking about God

Related posts: Immutable, Omnipresence ; Omniscience ; Omniscience and divine Learning ; Godhead: God or Gods?

In 1844 Joseph Smith taught,

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!…I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God. (King Follett Discourse, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith)

This was emphasized by president Lorenzo Snow (5th president of the church; d. 1901), “the Spirit of God fell upon me to a marked extent, and the Lord revealed to me, just as plainly as the sun at noon-day, this principle, which I put in a couplet: ‘As man now is, God once was; As God now is, man may be’” (The Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, edited by Clyde J. Williams, p. 2). That couplet is widely recognized by Mormons. Elder N. Eldon Tanner (Apostle; d. 1982 ) said, “We believe also that ‘as man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be’…Therefore, man should strive all his days to increase his intelligence and learn all the truths he can” (“Ye Shall Know the Truth,” Ensign, May 1978). Consequently, even Mormons who hold a more traditional view of omniscience tend to believe that God gained his knowledge of past, present, and future; as opposed to orthodox omniscience where God knows all things timelessly and independent of causation.

The following articles from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism quote President Snow’s couplet: Theogony ; Christology ; God the Father ; Godhood ; Snow, Lorenzo ; Doctrine: LDS Doctrine Compared With Other Christian Doctrines.

How Mormons talk about God
As I mentioned in my previous post, most Mormons believe that God knows all things; they believe in traditional omniscience. Joseph Fielding Smith (b. 1876; became 10th president of the church in 1970; d. 1972) said, “I believe that God knows all things and that his understanding is perfect…why should we say that his knowledge is limited and that hidden law and truths abound which he has not discovered. Who made those laws and where do they come from?” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 8). The Lectures on Faith (included in the Doctrine and Covenants until 1921) reads, “Without the knowledge of all things God would not be able to save any portion of his creatures…if it were not for the idea existing in the minds of men that God had all knowledge it would be impossible for them to exercise faith in him” (4:11).[1] Yet Brigham Young said, “[it has been said that] God can progress no further in knowledge and power; but the God that I serve is progressing eternally” (JD, 11: 286 – 287). And Wilford Woodruff (as an Apostle) said, “God Himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end” (JD, 6:120). George Q. Cannon (Apostle; d. 1901) said, “There is progress for our Father and for our Lord Jesus…It is endless progress, progressing from one degree of knowledge to another degree” (Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, p. 92). John A. Widstoe (Apostle; d. 1952) said, “If the great law of progression is accepted, God must have been engaged, and must now be engaged in progressive development” (A Rational Theology, p. 30-31).

The interpretation of these passages hinges upon the meaning of progression.

Within Mormonism there are principally two views of progression. Both hold that God has progressed to where he is now. The minority view holds that God is now progressing in knowledge and increasing in dominion. The other view, the neo-orthodox view, holds that God has progressed to ultimate perfection and knows all things past, present, and future. His increase in dominion is purely quantitative: he creates new worlds and his children become exalted, and this for all eternity. Elder Bruce R. McConkie (Apostle; d. 1981) taught this view: “There are those who say that God is progressing knowledge and is learning new truths. This is false—utterly, totally, and completely. There is not one sliver of truth in it…God progresses in the sense that his kingdoms increase and his dominions multiply—not in the sense that he learns new truths and discovers new laws. God is not a student” (“The Seven Deadly Heresies,” June 1, 1980, BYU Speeches).

Can there be harmony between these apparently divergent views? Sterling McMurrin suggested that we simply sermonize classically and theologize non-classically: “The word ‘finite’ stirs nothing in the soul of the worshipper,” he wrote in the Theological Foundations of the Mormon Religion, “But ‘infinite,’ ‘omnipotent,’ and ‘omniscient’ are words made to order for the preacher…So Mormon theological writing and sermonizing are more often than not replete with vocabulary of absolutism” (p. 35). It’s true in any religion that preachers sometimes preach one way and theologize another. But there is another view that rests on the idea of spheres of existence that synthesizes the ideas of perfection and progression. Brigham Young taught, “[We may become] as perfect in our sphere as God and Angels are in theirs, but the greatest intelligence in existence can continually ascend to greater heights of perfection” (JD 1:93). That statement implies that perfection can be relative to a given sphere. So perfect knowledge means knowing all there is to know and perfection means as perfect as one can be in a given sphere of existence. LDS scholar and essayist Eugene England has made use of this concept in an attempt find harmony between these two views of God. He writes,

My simple thesis here is that, in fact, these statements are not contradictory. These Church leaders were using two different, but complementary, ways of talking about God based on two different aspects of the Mormon understanding of God, both of which, I believe, are essential to our theology and must be maintained. With the help of a basic concept—that of different, progressive spheres of development and of possible perfection within each sphere—it is possible to believe both in God’s perfection of knowledge and power in relation to our sphere and in his progression in these attributes in his own and higher spheres. (“Perfection and Progression: Two Complementary Ways to Talk about God,” BYU Studies, vol. 29, no. 3.)

James R. Harris, Professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU, has adopted a view that God does know all things past present and future.

Statement about the foreknowledge of God are characteristically associated with reference to the “beginning and the end,” i.e., that the scope of God’s knowledge spans all of man’s experience (premortal, mortal, post-mortal, and immortal) and that man’s end (i.e., his final condition as an individual) was known by God, “from the beginning”…

The scope of God's foreknowledge would, at the least, encompass that period of man's existence cradled between the “beginning and the end”…

Eternal progression, like eternal punishment and eternal life, may represent a quality of experience and not exclusively a duration of experience…

For God there is no floundering, no experimentation, no misapplication of truth, for all things, past, present, and future are present with him… (“Eternal Progression and the Foreknowledge of God,” BYU Studies, vol. 8, no. 1)

Harris’s thesis is that God knows at least everything about this sphere of existence, past, present, and future, from its beginning to its end, as well as all things generally. I believe England is saying that God is omnipotent and omniscient in this sphere of existence; God can do everything that is possible to do in this sphere and knows everything about it. Only after its “end” does God progress to a higher sphere.

I haven’t thought through these arguments completely; the idea of spheres of existence seems to work. On the other hand I’m not bothered that within Mormonism there are divergent schools of thought about the attributes of God. So I don’t feel like harmonizing these different views is highly important. We have no equivalent to the Athanasian Creed which says that unless one firmly believes in the Trinity “he cannot be saved.” Mormonism has never required adherents to believe in a prescribed conception of God.[2] (See Four Important Creeds, Mormonism and the Creeds of Christendom.)




End Notes______________________
[1] Recent scholarship suggests the Lectures on Faith were written by Sidney Rigdon. They were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants because “they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons” (“Lectures on Faith,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism).

[2] The beliefs necessary to becoming a Mormon can be found in the baptismal interview. These questions are adapted to the individual’s circumstances and age. These interview questions outline the basic beliefs necessary to being baptized and confirmed a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

1. Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Savior and Redeemer of the world?

2. Do you believe the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?

3. What does it mean to you to repent? Do you feel that you have repented of your past transgressions?

4. Have you ever committed a serious crime? If so, are you now on probation or parole? Have you ever participated in an abortion? a homosexual relationship?

5. You have been taught that membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints includes living gospel standards. What do you understand of the following standards? Are you willing to obey them?
a. The law of chastity, which prohibits any sexual relationship outside the bond of a legal marriage between a man and a woman.
b. The law of tithing.
c. The Word of Wisdom
d. The Sabbath day, including partaking of the sacrament weekly and rendering service to fellow members.

6. When you are baptized, you covenant with God that you are willing to take upon yourself the name of Christ and keep His commandments throughout your life. Are you ready to make this covenant and strive to be faithful to it?
(From Preach My Gospel, p. 206)

Part III: Omniscience and divine Learning

The Attributes of God
Part III: Omniscience and divine Learning

Related posts: Omniscience ; Immutable, Omnipresence ; Whence God? Talking about God ; Creation ex nihilo

Is the future open or closed? If the future is open to God then naturally God learns. Some might find it surprising but this belief was once common among Mormons. In 1857 Apostle Wilford Woodruff (who became 4th president of the church in 1889) said, “God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end” (JD 6:120). Brigham Young said, “The greatest intelligence in existence can continually ascend to greater heights of perfection” (JD 1:93).[1] George Q. Cannon (Apostle; d. 1901) said, “There is progress for our Father and for our Lord Jesus…It is endless progress, progressing from one degree of knowledge to another degree” (Gospel Truth: Discourses and Writings of President George Q. Cannon, p. 92). General Authority B.H. Roberts (Seventy; d. 1933) wrote, “God is [not] Omniscient up to the point that further progress in knowledge is impossible to him; but that all knowledge that is, all that exists, God knows” (Seventy’s Course in Theology, vol. 4, p. 70-71).

Because the Mormon conception of the universe denies its creation ex nihilo (see Creation Ex Nihilo) there is a sense of obligation to grapple with scientific explanations of physical phenomena. We believe there is an underlying consistency between the universe and God. For example, James E. Talmage wrote in Jesus the Christ,

Miracles cannot be in contravention of natural law, but are wrought through the operation of laws not universally or commonly recognized…The human sense of the miraculous wanes as comprehension of the operative process increases. (p. 139)

Though God’s knowledge is greater than ours, even he operates within the bounds of law—this is uncontroversial for most Mormons. Miracles might contradict known laws but ultimately they do not suspend the natural laws of the universe. But does God learn?

Can God’s knowledge change?
If God learns then what he knows is subject to change.

This brings me to an illustration of one way God might learn. Firstly, suppose truly random processes exist. Most scientists would concede this is predicted by quantum mechanics, but I will use the illustration of “random” dice. Consider the outcome of a role of a six-sided dice, and suppose I get six. If the dice is truly random I cannot say there was a reason I got six. It could easily have been one, two, three, four or five. The outcome is unrelated to all antecedent conditions. There was no cause. It is, after all, random. If true randomness exists in the larger universe it’s impossible for science to predict absolutely the future. If randomness is outside God’s foreknowledge then he can learn at such-and-such a time, at such-and-such a place, Troy rolled a six. Taking this idea further, what if I base some of my decisions on a random quantum device (RQD) — such a device could be designed utilizing electron spin. When I push a button my RQD randomly lights up a yellow or red light. So when I make the decision to either walk to school or to ride the bus I push the button. If I get yellow I take the bus; if I get red I walk. Because my choice is based on a random outcome it’s impossible to foreknow what it will be.[2] If this is impossible for God to foreknow then he would learn on that particular morning the RQD gave me a red light and that I shall walk to school.

There is another way God’s knowledge could change. If I am sitting, then surely at that moment God knows I am now sitting. God knows I am now sitting only while I am sitting, and not at any other time. God cannot know I am now sitting while I am standing, neither can he know I was sitting before I sit, neither can he know I will be sitting after I stand up. If God’s knowledge is subject to change then it is at least partially temporal.[3] But further, doesn’t God know that he knows what he knows?—I, for example, know that 1 + 0 = 1; I also know that I know 1 + 0 = 1. [4] If God’s knowledge has any temporality to it then what God knows about himself changes. God cannot know that he knows I am now sitting before I sit. If any of God’s knowledge is temporal then God also discovers himself.

But what if God sees all temporal events as an eternal “now”? At that “now,” then, I am both sitting and not sitting, which seems to be a denial of the law of non-contradiction—a proposition cannot be concurrently true and false.

Mechanization
If God knows me absolutely then I am a mechanism. If I am a mechanism then free will is an illusion. If free will is completely knowable it too is mechanistic. But if I am not a mechanism it follows that God cannot know me absolutely. If I adopt this belief I should also reject infallible foreknowledge because it seems inconsistent to believe God knows all my future actions and yet does not know me completely. If God can’t know me completely then obviously I don’t know myself completely—true. But can God know himself completely? Is God a mechanism? Should we worship a mechanism? It seems if any being is to be non-mechanistic then total and comprehensive knowledge of it must be impossible, both to itself and to others. This requires rejecting traditional omniscience and embracing the belief that God learns. It also means there is no positive description of free will—random “choices” are also un-foreknowable. So it provides merely grounds for believing free will exists.

But could there be any way for God to know exactly what I will do even if my intentions are hidden? Consider this example. Every morning I choose either to walk to school or to ride the bus. And on one particular morning the bus breaks down several blocks from my house, but I had already chosen to walk to school without knowing this. God knew the bus would break down—He is, after all, an ace mechanic. So he knew with certainty I would walk to school, and I freely chose to walk to school, and participated in bringing that about. Though only one choice was available, Fate didn’t find me. I encountered it. Also, my choice need not be mechanistic—it could have been based on the outcome of my RQD; the issue of mechanization needn’t arise. All God needs to know is that I intend to go to school (one way or another) and that nothing shall prevent me from going to school, and that the bus will break down. Simply put, God can foreknow I walk to school and I can choose freely to walk to school. But instead of basing my choice on the outcome of my RQD, it could be based on my un-foreknowable free will.

But what if I had waited for the bus? Eventually I would have been forced to walk to school. So this illustrates only that some choices can be made freely and also be compatible with foreknowledge.

Having said that, I find it hard to believe something like the above example applies to all my free choices. What if there are two pieces of a cake to choose from, and my choice is based on the outcome of my RQD? or my unknowable will? That choice would be truly un-foreknowable.

Why reject omniscience?
Are there more solid grounds for rejecting traditional omniscience? Patrick Grim has come up with an intriguing argument against omniscience. If omniscience is knowledge that constitutes the set of all truths then there can be no omniscient being. I will simplify his arguments. Suppose there exist only three truths in the universe and they constitute the set S = {T1, T2, T3}. One could argue an omniscient being will know all truths in the universe, all truths contained in S—S, after all, is the set of all truths. However, a power set can be formed from these truths. The power set of S consists of every possible combination of the three truths of S: {}, {T1}, {T2}, {T3}, {T1, T2}, {T1, T3}, {T2, T3}, {T1, T2, T3}. I can then ask, “Is T1 in the first element? No. Is T1 in the second element? Yes. Is T1 in the third? No,” etc. What I end up with is more truths than those contained in the so-named set of all truths. (This is an application of the diagonal argument.) Because there is no set of all truths there can be no omniscient being. If an omniscient being did know all truths, it is always possible to generate more truths from the power set; the power set is always larger than the original set. Moreover, the argument works equally well with an infinite set of truths and analogues to this argument can be made for other ways of explicating omniscience. Because there can be no set of all truths, there can be no omniscient being.

Maybe that is true. At the very least it proves there is no cogent description of omniscience. But does this necessitate abandoning the very idea of omniscience? Perhaps not. In an exchange with Patrick Grim, Alvin Plantinga responded:

Suppose you are right: what we have, then, is a difficulty, not for omniscience as such, but for one way of explicating omniscience…A person who agrees with you will then be obliged to explain this maximal perfection in some other way; but she won't be obliged, at any rate just by these considerations, to give up the notion of omniscience itself. (“Truth, Omniscience, and Cantorian Arguments: An Exchange,” Philosophical Studies, vol. 71, 1993)

Conclusions
Personally, I have no strong objections to omniscience or to soft fatalism; nor do I have any special attachment to them. Scripture can support either view.[5] A typical argument for traditional omniscience is, “Without the knowledge of all things, God would not be able to save any portion of his creatures” (Lectures on Faith, 4:11). But I don’t see how that holds up. Suppose God knows everything except, say, how many dust particles existed in some uninhabitable, unobservable part of the universe six billion years ago? Would it matter to my salvation? I can’t see how. It’s always possible to come up with some factoid that doesn’t matter. Though traditional omniscience is very important to the God of the philosophers—If you want to say God is a being “than which nothing greater can be imagined” you must have omniscience—I don’t like the theological baggage that comes with it: pessimism, the fated future, that being known completely means I am a mechanism. Moreover, I don’t believe omniscience has any serious soteriology. If omniscience were essential to salvation then every fact, no matter how seemingly trivial, has salvific value or is necessary to another fact that has salvific value. And I can’t see how that’s true. Though omniscience has tremendous comfort value it seems unnecessary to religion.




End Notes_____________________________
[1] The Apostle Orson Pratt taught that God could not progress in knowledge. This was denounced by Brigham Young who said on 13 January, 1867, “Some men seem as if they could learn so much and no more. They appear to be bounded in their capacity for acquiring knowledge, as Brother Orson Pratt, has in theory, bounded the capacity of God. According to his theory, God can progress no further in knowledge and power; but the God that I serve is progressing eternally, and so are his children: they will increase to all eternity, if they are faithful” (JD 11:286). Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal, “Prest Yound said I corrected O. Pratt to day I did not way that God knows all things comprehends all things had has a fullness of all that He will ever obtain that moment eternity seases you put bound to Eternity & space & matter and you make an end and stopping ploease to it.” (4 March, 1860; qtd. in “The Mormon Concept of God” by Blake Ostler. See footnote 38 on page 77).

[2] LDS scientist Henry Eyring made a similar observation:

More recently, we have been obliged to give up the old determinism of classical mechanics as well as the idea of indestructibility of matter. Mechanical determinism meant that if one were given the state of the universe at any instant of time, a sufficiently expert mathematician could calculate the state of things at all times to come. This left no place for the great religious principle of free will. Then quantum mechanics brought with it the uncertainty principle. This principle eliminates the possibility of predicting the future exactly and tends to confirm that fundamental Christian tenet that man enjoys free agency as a divine gift. (Improvement Era, vol. 51, no. 2, February 1948)

[3] See Wolterstorff, Nicholas, 1975, ‘God Everlasting’ in God and the Good: Essays in Honor of Henry Stob.'

[4] “And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments” (1 John 2:3).

[5] One from the Book of Mormon reads, “But the Lord knoweth all things from the beginning; wherefore, he prepareth a way to accomplish all his works among the children of men; for behold, he hath all power unto the fulfilling of all his words” (1 Nephi 9:6). Preparations imply acting in time, and possibly accounting for contingences. Knowing all things “from the beginning” doesn’t necessarily imply knowing all things to their end. And Nephi didn’t say God has infinite power, but power to bring about his will. Also, “the Lord God doth work by means to bring about his great and eternal purposes” (Alma 37:7). And when the scriptures say “the Lord knoweth all things” (1 Nephi 9:6) and “the Lord knoweth all things which are to come” (WoM 1:7) it means that God knows the past, present, and all possible futures. Also, when God says, “my wisdom is greater than the cunning of the devil” (D&C 10:43; 3 Nephi 21:10), it sounds like God outsmarts the devil, which could imply temporality to God.

Scriptures supporting the traditional view of omniscience are: “all things are present with me, for I know them all” (Moses 1:6); “[I am Alpha and Omega,] The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes” (D&C 38:2); “But the Lord knoweth all things from the beginning” (1 Nephi 9:6; I quoted this one in the above paragraph).