Restored Doctrines and Free Will

Nathan Richardson

There is a classic problem in religious philosophy that I want to introduce and briefly address: the problem of free will. A lot of people who are a lot wiser than I have talked about this over the centuries, and they deal with the intricacies in much more detail than I will. (For more extensive discussions of these questions, you might start by reading the sources cited in the notes below.) So the question is, what can I possibly add to the discussion, being a mere dilettante in philosophy? My main objective is to show how the restored gospel sheds light on problems like this and helps answer questions that have puzzled people for centuries. I hope it helps people see how grateful we should be for revealed doctrines, and how carefully we should study them.

The Problem of Free Will

The problem of free will is, briefly stated, how can something have free will if something else created it? Wouldn’t the creator be responsible for everything the creation does? Take, for example, a computer program. If I write every line of code in that program, I am responsible for every subsequent action when I start running it. So if a program I make gives me undesired results, I have no one to blame but myself. I can’t say, “This stupid program isn’t doing what I told it to do.” In reality, it’s doing exactly what I told it to do; I just need to change the coding to change the outcome. In the words of my friend Cavan Morris, “There are no stupid programs, only stupid programmers.”

You can’t program a computer to have free will; it will never be able to make its own choices or express its own desires. In fact, a computer can’t even do something genuinely unpredictable. Agency is very different from randomness, but even genuine randomness is beyond programmers. Every action a computer performs is predetermined by the original set of equations and values the program started with. (Even “random number” generators aren’t truly random; “Most random numbers used in computer programs are pseudo-random, which means they are a generated in a predictable fashion using a mathematical formula.”1) For example, if I copy a program and run it on two identical computers, both computers will give me the same output. One computer can’t decide to take the same variables and equations and give a slightly different outcome. The outcome is determined by the initial set of variables.

Some people think of humans this way: since we were created by God, he decided the initial set of variables in our spirit, and that set of dispositions and inclinations causally determines all our later decisions, which cannot be genuine choices. Free will, then, must be a myth. But since the set of variables and equations are so complex and beyond our understanding, it appears to us that we have free will. So it is a helpful myth that we like to believe. (And for atheists, the same argument exists, except the variables take the form of genes and environment—nature and nurture.)

Solutions from the Restored Gospel

Thus, for centuries people have tried to reconcile two notions that seem to contradict each other:

  • God created people.
  • People have free will.

Revealed truth given during the Restoration of the gospel solves this conundrum. The Lord revealed certain doctrines that explain how created beings can be free to choose, and how God is not responsible for those choices. Part of the answer lies in a fuller understanding of the word creation. “Joseph Smith’s way out of the conceptual incoherency generated by the traditional theological premises is to not go in. His revelations circumvent the theoretical problem … by denying the trouble-making postulate of absolute creation.”2 The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith the true understanding of creation:

You ask the learned doctors why they say the world was made out of nothing, and they will answer, “Doesn’t the Bible say he created the world?” And they infer, from the word create, that it must have been made out of nothing. … [Create] does not mean to create out of nothing; it means to organize. … God had materials to organize the world out of chaos.3

One of those materials was intelligence. We don’t know much about it, but one thing we do know is that “intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be” (D&C 93:29). Thus, at some level, there is a part of us that has always existed. While Heavenly Father created us, and was intimately involved in forming our character, talents, and personality, there is still a part of us that he did not “create” out of nothing. This explains in part how Heavenly Father is simultaneously our Creator, while not being responsible for every subsequent action that his creation performs.

In an earlier post, I explained that precious little has been revealed about intelligences. One of the only things we know is that it cannot be created, but rather has existed for all eternity. The question arises, why did Heavenly Father bother revealing the existence of intelligences and then decline to tell us much about them? He gives his reason for revealing the doctrine two verses after describing their eternal existence, in seven words: “Behold, here is the agency of man” (D&C 93:31). In other words, “Once you know that an ingredient in your make-up is uncreated and eternal, you can understand how it is possible that you have real, genuine free will, instead of being puppets to your Creator or your environment.”4

Thus, the apparent contradiction of a created being having free will and personal accountability disappears when we understand revealed truth. The Lord went out of his way to reveal the doctrine of eternally-existing intelligence specifically to help us understand how it is possible that we have agency. By teaching us that we are agents, he helps us see that (1) we are accountable for our actions and without excuse, and (2) we are free to choose liberty or death, and that the decision of whether we will end up exalted in the celestial kingdom is now entirely up to us, and entirely within our power to choose. No wonder he wanted us to know about intelligence! Even though he left many more questions about intelligence unanswered, he shared with us the one detail that matters most.



Notes

1. Random.org.
1. Neal A. Maxwell, “The Richness of the Restoration,” Ensign, Mar. 1998, p. 8.
2. David L. Paulsen, “Joseph Smith and the Problem of Evil,” BYU forum, 21 Sep. 1999.
3. Joseph Smith Jr., “The King Follett Sermon,” Ensign, Apr. 1971, p. 13–14.
4. For a fantastic fictional conversation that conveys this idea in an easy-to-understand way, see Orson Scott Card, Xenocide, ch. 13 “Free Will,” p. 254–57.

22 comments

  1. Nathan,

    A question about footnote 4 . . .

    I very much enjoyed the first two books in Orson Scott Card’s Ender series (for very different reasons because they are two very different kinds of books), but I really detested “Xenocide.” I felt that Card sold his soul (to speak only sort of hyperbolically) by legitimizing the notion that mental disorders (e.g., obsessive-compulsive disorder) could be genetically programmed. Further, since the obsessive-compulsions of some of the characters were constitutive of their religious lives, their rituals were not only religiously interpreted by them but the relief they felt upon completing their obsessive rituals was the essence of “spiritual experience” for them. I saw this as an argument that spiritual experience and religious life are really just biological in nature. As you can imagine, given that Card is a very religous man, finding this line of thought taken seriously in his book came as a real surprise to me.

    Perhaps you can help me see where he makes a convincing argument for agency in that work because I not only don’t see it, I think he ends up endorsing a natural scientific worldview that argues for a pervasive genetic determinism.

  2. I had a conversation the other day with some Mormon critics who were contending against free will. Their claim was that the Bible did not teach it. My response was basically, why have a religion, or a Bible, or commandments, if we were not meant to choose certain things.

    Anyway, does anyone have some favorite verses from the Bible that clearly support free will?

    Also related, how revolutionary is free will in Mormonism—religiously speaking?

  3. Ed: Perhaps you can help me see where he [Card] makes a convincing argument for agency in that work.

    The OCD/genes thing is another topic, but I was referring to the conversation between Ender and Miro, when they’re discussing whether Jane (the computer program) really has free will. (I added the chapter and page numbers to the footnote today so you can read the whole passage if you want.) Most pertinently, Miro says,

    The priests say that God created our souls, and that just puts us under the control of another puppeteer. If God created our will, then he’s responsible for every choice we make. God, our genes, our environment, or some stupid programmer keying in code at an ancient terminal—there’s no way free will can ever exist if we as individuals are the result of some external cause.

    And Ender answers with

    I think you’re right. … I think that we are free, and I don’t think it’s just an illusion that we believe in because it has survival value. And I think we’re free because we aren’t just this body, acting out a genetic script. And we aren’t some soul that God created out of nothing. We’re free because we always existed. Right back from the beginning of time, only there was no beginning of time so we existed all along. Nothing ever caused us. Nothing ever made us. We simply are, and we always were.

    That fictional conversation is actually the one that started me on this trail. It helped me understand the deep meaning behind the Lord’s short statement, “Behold, here is the agency of man.”

  4. Thanks, Eric.

    Eric: Does anyone have some favorite verses from the Bible that clearly support free will?

    I’d have to get out my topical guide. If I come up with anything soon, I’ll let you know.

    Also related, how revolutionary is free will in Mormonism—religiously speaking?

    I dunno. Any takers? I don’t think we’re unique in believing in it; I do think we have a unique rationale for explaining how it’s possible.

  5. It was already a major force in Protestantism. Calvin for the determinists and Wesley for the libertarians. Although in the days of Newtonian mechanics ruling how freedom was considered was quite different than now. (Just look at Kant!)

  6. Nathan,

    Your post raises some interesting things to ponder. Though you do not come out and say it, it seems that you believe that intelligences (i.e., the substance that we were before being organized into spirits) have agency. I am curious if this is your opinion on the matter.

    There are some who believe that intelligences have agency and some who believe they do not. I think that it is important to consider whether “human” intelligences differ from inanimate matter intelligence. Could they be different?

    Skousen, author of Earth: In the Beginning, believes that intelligences have agency. He says that the primordial matter of the creation “obeyed” the gods, thus suggesting that they chose to obey. On the other hand, McConkie wrote that he did not think that intelligences have agency, but then added that we don’t know the answer to this question.

    I’ve wondered about God giving organized spirits their agency in the pre-existence. Could he “give” agency to entities that already possessed agency?
    —Thanks

  7. Dave: Though you do not come out and say it, it seems that you believe that intelligences (i.e., the substance that we were before being organized into spirits) have agency.

    It’s interesting that you got that impression, because I actually lean away from that interpretation. What part of the post gave you that impression?

    My main reason for thinking that unorganized intelligence, before spirit birth, does not have agency is the same one you mention: there are many, many prophetic statements that call agency a gift from God to man (e.g, Moses 4:3; 7:32). If we always had it, how could it be given to us? (I have other reasons, too.)

    You’re right that the precise answer hasn’t really been revealed. From what I read in Brent Top’s book The Life Before, various Church leaders have had different takes on the sparse revelations that address intelligence/intelligences. So whenever we talk about this, it’s good for everyone involved to understand that we’re wondering outloud together, but all conclusions are tentative.

  8. Nathan,
    You wrote that a solution to the problem of free will is that part of us was not created by God, and thus He is not responsible for controlling our every choice. (I like this, by the way.) If this explanation is going to work though, I wonder if it is necessary to assume that intelligences bring some form of agency with them.

    Anyhow, I tend to agree that intelligences do not have agency in the way that spirits possess agency. I think that intelligences obey God “lock stock, and barrel.” Their strict adherence to His commands is, in part, what makes him God. Moreover, moral agency requires being enticed by good and evil a’la Lehi’s teachings (Light of Christ vs. Satan’s minions) and being able to choose the one or the other. I just don’t think intelligences are enticed by either; they just exist. IMO, human beings are the only entities endowed with moral agency. Thoughts?

  9. Dave, I’m loving this, by the way. This is the kind of thoughtful conversation we always hope for this site!

    Dave: If this explanation is going to work though, I wonder if it is necessary to assume that intelligences bring some form of agency with them.

    Well, let me describe how I picture it. I think they bring with them the raw potential to make choices, but that raw potential is not agency. In 2 Nephi 2, Lehi mentions several things needed for agency to exist. Bruce R. McConkie summarizes them in a list of four: laws, opposition, power to choose, and knowledge of good and evil.

    I wonder if intelligence is the raw potential to choose, but until it is placed in a sphere of creation (D&C 93:30), it has nothing to choose (opposition), no cause-effect rules (laws), and thus perhaps no opportunity to discern good and evil (like how you said: “I just don’t think intelligences are enticed by either; they just exist”). I wonder if spirit birth is that point at which, being placed in a situation to interact with matter and other agents, intelligence now has all the ingredients of agency.

    Does that makes sense? I haven’t fully thought through all the implications, but it seems possible to me that intelligence can be thought of as the potential to choose and act, but until spirit birth it has nothing to choose among, and nothing to act upon. Thus, it has the raw potential for agency, but does not have it until Heavenly Father gives intelligence all the other ingredients at spirit birth.

    Anyhow, I tend to agree that intelligences do not have agency in the way that spirits possess agency.

    That’s a good way of putting it. I feel the same way. And let me just add, there may be other differences than the ones I’ve described.

  10. I think that intelligences obey God “lock, stock, and barrel.” Their strict adherence to His commands is, in part, what makes him God.

    That is interesting. It kind of makes sense to me. Maybe another way of putting it is this: The ability to obey requires intelligence. The additional ability to disobey requires agency.

    IMO, human beings are the only entities endowed with moral agency.

    I agree with this. To me, the Eden story seems to be expressly teaching this. Heavenly Father makes all the various creatures, but he only endows one of them with knowledge of right and wrong—people. Other creatures can make choices, but that is not the same as moral agency (as in Elder McConkie’s quote).

    I heard once in a seminary video (“The Three Pillars of Eternity”) that mankind is the only one of God’s creations that has the ability to disobey him. Ever since, I’ve been looking for a reference for that statement, because it jibes with other quotes I’ve heard.

  11. Nathan,

    Sounds good. I especially like “The ability to obey requires intelligence. The additional ability to disobey requires agency.” Inanimate matter cannot follow His commands unless it has intelligence. And because of our agency, we are the only part of God’s creation that can choose to disobey the Creator. Great stuff!

  12. Eric: Does anyone have some favorite verses from the Bible that clearly support free will?

    Here are two I found that work best.

    Isaiah 56:3–6
    For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that . . . choose the things that please me . . . I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

    Joshua 24:15
    Choose you this day whom ye will serve . . . but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

    Also, I agree with you that the Lord wouldn’t provide a Bible and commandments unless we were agents.

    Furthermore, if we really weren’t agents, then could God really be called a just God at the judgment if he judged people who had no agency…people whom he just “pre-programmed”? Alluding to previous discussion, wouldn’t that just be saying that exaltation or damnation was also chosen not by us, but by God himself?

  13. Ed,
    I read Card’s work differently. I saw a group of confused, but intelligent people clinging to a twisted belief that their OCD was some religious calling. Apostasy and its results. I didn’t see Card trying to say anything more than that. Of course, I don’t approach the philosophical aptitude of those on this blog; we all read and understand differently based on our experience. I have wanted to read that book again for some (I like his philotic web concept); maybe I will do so soon.

  14. Aaron,

    It is likely that you and Dr. Gantt read it in a similar way, but just reacted to it differently. What Dr. Gantt objects to is the implication that we too may be intelligent but confused people, who believe that our genetic attachment to certain activities constitute a religious imperative. He may be reacting to a tendency in our culture to try to find scientific, genetic, or biological explanations for all of our behavior, including our religious beliefs. I read a book this year by an author who claimed just that very thing—that religious rituals are the result of a particular genetic structure. I believe that reduction of religious belief to genetic propensities is a consequence of a long-standing tradition of apostate thought.

    Whether Orson Scott Card intended to make the implication or not, I don’t know. Personally, I doubt he did. I’ve never actually read the book, though, so I can’t say for sure.

  15. Jelaire, the free will debate isn’t about whether people choose but what choosing entails ontologically.

    Aaron, one of the more interesting things OSC wrote about is how something can be meaningful to a person when it seems ridiculous to outsiders. That to him is part of the core of religion. He has several short stories that have that as the focus. I thought the OCD bit was quite interesting and compelling and very thought provoking. Too bad the rest of the book was so disjointed and uneven. (There was a short story prior to the book that only dealt with the OCD subplot that was quite good)

  16. Clark: Jelaire, the free will debate isn’t about whether people choose but what choosing entails ontologically.

    Right, that’s true. But I think she was responding to the issue Eric brought up: “I had a conversation the other day with some Mormon critics who were contending against free will. Their claim was that the Bible did not teach it.” I think the critic Eric talked to was debating whether people choose.

  17. Culture And Intelligence Of
    Living And Inanimate matter

    Re
    http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/20/24.page#1199
    What is intelligence?

    A. Over and over again

    “Intelligence, like every “specific” physical property (f.e. specific weight or heat etc.,) is a specific cultural phenotype characteristic. Plain science….

    The core (wordnet.princeton) definition of “intelligence” is “the ability to comprehend, to understand and profit from experience”. These surviving abilities are different for the different phenotypes within a genotype, therefore each phenotype has its own meaning of “intelligence”.

    Intelligence is to culture approximately as essential amino acids are to proteins. Culture evolves in response to circumstances by use of intelligence and to the extent and scope feasible by the extent and scope of intelligence.”

    B. Biological culture is a biological entity.

    It is an elaboration-extension of the cell’s manipulation beyond its outer membrane. It has been selected for survival of genes and genomes by means of manipulating-adjusting the cell’s outer circumstances, in addition to the cell’s outer membrane which was selected much earlier for controlling the inner cell’s circumstances.

    C. And since organic and biological and mineral and all other inanimate matters

    are obviously essentially all cosmic matters, products consisting of energy, culture and intelligence – strange as it sounds but definitely factual – all and each display culture and intelligence, i.e. each displays a unique mode of response to its environment and circumstances (culture) in its unique mode-rate-manner (intelligence).

    How much simpler and clearer can culture and intelligence be comprehended and defined?

    Respectfully,

    Dov Henis

    (A DH Comment From The 22nd Century)
    http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q–?cq=1

  18. Dov, were you commenting on this article, or the The Scientist article in the link above?

    Anyway, I think your comment is interesting and definitely informs the field of psychology. However, I am using “intelligence” here in a very unique way, as a specific religious term. Kind of like how “spirit” might be used differently depending on the religion. Or how “sovereignty” has very different meanings if your talking Catholic theology versus international law. Thanks for your comment, though!

  19. This is really a great weblog post with thanks for sharing this educational information.. I will go to your web website frequently for some latest publish. This really is such a wonderful useful resource that you’re offering and you give it away for free. I adore seeing web websites that understand the worth of providing a top quality useful resource free of charge. It?s the outdated what goes about arrives about routine. Several of the factors associated with this weblog post are usually advantageous nonetheless had me personally wanting to know, did they seriously suggest that? 1 point I have acquired to say is your writing expertise are excellent and I will be returning back for any brand-new blog post you arrive up with, you may probably have a brand-new supporter. I bookmarked your blog for reference.

  20. *sniff* That has got to be the sweetest nonspecific, generalized, semi-automated response I’ve ever received from a web marketer. I’m touched. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *