Friday, February 06, 2009

Agency: Have We Got It All Wrong?

How many of you Mormons have ever heard someone use, as an excuse to do whatever they want to do, "Don't you believe in free agency?" You probably had to explain further, something along the lines of: yes, we're free to choose how we act but not free to choose the consequences, like getting burned because you touched a hot stove. Which is true, don't get me wrong, but the natural consequence of feeling pain after touching a hot stove is a bit different than imposing a rule against PG-13 movies in your home. How do you justify imposing extra consequences? Isn't that forcing, since you have the power to enforce a consequence?

To draw out my point in dramatic fashion, let's imagine what might have happened in the oft-referred-to "war in heaven." Lucifer tells us he's going to save everyone by forcing us to do what is right. Let's suppose we don't dismiss him outright, let's ask him some of the details.


Me: How exactly does this work? You're going to force us to be righteous?

Lucifer: That's right.

Me: Well, suppose I get tired of being forced and complain about it. Is that a sin?

Lucifer: Well, you're going against my plan, so, yes.

Me: What are you going to do about it if I complain anyway?

Lucifer: Punish you.

Me: Uhhh... I thought you were going to save me.



Seriously, how exactly would this work, if none of us are lost? I can only think of two options: either we must cease to exist so that someone else does everything for us (and if we cease to exist, that puts a damper on the whole "one soul shall not be lost" thing), or we experience immediate punishment for our wrongdoings so that we can in the end be saved (which brings us back to "enforcing consequences" = "Satan's plan").

Or, there's a third option, which is that we're misunderstanding Satan's plan entirely! I'm not a prophet, so take this with a huge grain of salt. I don't want to be promoting false doctrine. However, I will try to use the scriptures to put my point across. Here are 4 clues as to what I think the plan really was.

Clue #1: Boyd K. Packer spoke once about how the scriptures do not contain the words "free agency" (see an earlier reference here), but rather speak of "moral agency," as in DC 101:78 (emphasis added):
That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.

That is, we are given agency to be accountable for our own sins, not to be free to choose. Of course, "free to choose" is a necessary part of that, otherwise we don't have our own sins to be accountable for. But there's a bigger picture here. Why else would Pres. Packer make a distinction?

Clue #2: We know that Satan's plan was to destroy our agency. How do we know that? Moses 4:1, 3:
Satan ... came before me, saying---Behold, here am I, send me, 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. Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man ... and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down.

Is verse 3 an explanation of what happened in verse 1, that Satan rebelled and sought to destroy our agency? If so, where in verse 1 did this happen?

Clue #3: Consider Moses 7:32 (emphasis added):
The Lord said unto Enoch: Behold these thy brethren; they are the workmanship of mine own hands, and I gave unto them their knowledge, in the day I created them; and in the Garden of Eden, gave I unto man his agency;

We clearly made choices of our own free will before the Garden of Eden, so it must be referring to something else. Something that happened in the Garden...

Clue #4: We get a description of agency in DC 93:31-32:
Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light. And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

In other words, agency and condemnation go hand-in-hand, because we have received instructions and not followed them.

The Punch Line: Are you still with me? Agency isn't about freedom of choice, it's about personal responsibility! What I'm getting at is this: Satan's plan wasn't to take away our freedom of choice, it was to let us do whatever we wanted! Let's borrow some more from Pres. Packer. He gave a talk in April 1977 in which he described his parable of the mediator, made famous more recently in a church video. (Seminary video?) Under God's plan, Christ re-negotiates the debt and offers us new terms of payment. Under Lucifer's plan, he pays off the debt and we're scot-free. Kinda makes sense how 1/3 of the host of heaven might have liked that plan a little better, huh? The problem there is, when we aren't held responsible (at least to some degree) for our actions, we never "grow up." i.e. we never become God-like. Lucifer receives all the glory, and we get what? A body that we never really learn how to use.

Oddly enough (or perhaps it's not so odd after all), this very plan gets brought up multiple times in the scriptures and in modern day. Look at Alma's first test as the Nephites' first chief judge: the teachings of Nehor. From Alma 1:4 (emphasis added):
And [Nehor] also testified unto the people that all mankind should be saved at the last day, and that they need not fear nor tremble, but that they might lift up their heads and rejoice; for the Lord had created all men, and had also redeemed all men; and, in the end, all men should have eternal life.

Sound familiar? After I first started thinking about this, I noticed that the Book of Mormon is chock full of prophets trying to fight against Nehor's doctrine. (As I read through it again this year, I'll try to update this blog entry with some examples. For starters, consider Abinadi trying to explain why his message of doom-and-gloom constitutes "good tidings of good" and "publishing salvation," as opposed to the Noah's priests' message of, you guessed it, "what great sins have thy people committed, that we should be condemned of God or judged of this man?")

So the next time someone asks you if punishments aren't just a continuation of "Satan's plan," perhaps it's safe to say "no, just the opposite. According to Satan's plan, I should let you get away with this."

PS: Do not misinterpret my post as advocating "compulsion upon the souls of the children of men." I can see how there may be a fine line between this and simply being a strict disciplinarian, and I won't pretend to be any kind of expert on such behavior. People should indeed be allowed to learn from their own experience, it's just that sometimes while they're still learning, sometimes they need a little extra incentive one way or the other. Same reason why we have fines for not stopping at stop signs, regardless of whether or not running one actually causes an accident.

PPS:  Is God taking away agency in Revelation 3:9 when he says "I will make them to come and worship before thy feet"?