One of the features of Latter-day Saint thought is the deep and committed response to God’s children having agency or free will. We see this as the founding thought of the cosmos, one that existed as long as God (D&C 93:29-31, 2 Nephi 2:11). In fact, it is ’the agency of man’ to receive and reciprocate the light or love that was ‘plainly manifest unto’ each of us from the ‘beginning’ (D&C 93:31) that aligns quite well with Jesus’ two great commandments in response the question of the greatest commandment in the law (Matthew 22:37-40).

Abraham J. Heschel is worth our reading time. He was a good friend of Martin Luther King, lost his family in the Holocaust, and taught for 27 years at the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in Manhattan. I believe he is the one that coined the phrase most moved mover in describing God. His daughter explained that he and Martin Luther King used the phrase.1 I am reading Between God and Man which is a compilation of his writings.

We want leaders to be infallible or completely fallible. It is hard for us to realize the giant grey zone for every leader on the planet - prophets included. That grey zone is called agency or free will in a world full of others that wield the same power. The life of Mark Hoffman, Gordon B. Hinckley, and our prophetic narrative all seem to make people think that this story of the Murder among the Mormons is a faith crusher.

Lately, I try to take quotes from our general authorities and theologians on descriptions of attributes and principles we should have and put them into questions about God. My posts “Does God have faith (Romans 3:3)?” and “Does God exercise faith?” are two examples of this idea. Understanding that our experience on earth does not represent the plan’s culmination, we are, nonetheless, God’s children here to learn of Him and how to act and be like Him. Christians are all too willing to teach the concept “What Would Jesus Do?” in getting us to exemplify the attributes of God in our lives. The assumption of that statement, is that we can do what Jesus does.

One horn of this dilemma is the argument that if an action was caused or necessitated, then it could not have been done freely and hence the agent is not responsible for it. The other horn is the argument that if the action was not caused, then it is inexplicable and random, and thus it cannot be attributed to the agent and hence, again, the agent cannot be responsible for it. -Paul Russell: Freedom and Moral Sentiment, p. 14-

Paul Russel discusses the ‘Horns of the dilemma’ found when we get at the root of determinism and chance. Either way, the extreme of both views means that free agents do not control their choices. They are simply science experiments moved by the experimenter. The religionists hold to God as the great mover in the deterministic model, and the scientists welcome the randomness of nature and laws of physics as the great mover. I believe that both worship a golden calf. William James’ provides a third horn that can resolve the conflict in his 1884 ’The Dilemma of Determinism’.

Some Latter-day Saints (and many others) believe that the future is entirely predictable if one just knew the current state right now. This concept is called causal determinism and, if too intently followed, creates ideas like fixed-future omniscience, predestination, and antagonism towards free-will or Agency. Of course, many events can be predicted in a causal chain, which allows science to progress and humans to reason about the future. However, fanatical focus on causal determinism would argue that when the first living cell formed on earth that my lunch order on Wednesday was determined for my October 23, 2020 order.

This week my second father died of cancer and has allowed me to think about what it means to create one’s life in the image of God. He lived his life as if yesterday were done and that today could be done in such a way to bring joy to his and other’s future. He was the type of person that shined so bright that you couldn’t be in his presence without going through his personality.

I have spent quite a bit of time discussing time and the future in this blog. In fact, many of my conversations with my friends have touched on the topic of time as well. Recently, I was at a small backyard gathering where a friend of mine blurted out, “J’s entire premise is messed up so the logic doesn’t make sense.” He was referencing the concepts of God living within time. However, god living in time is not the premise. It is the result of the driving premise upon which openness theology is based. That God’s entire desire is to be in loving relationships with each of use. His desire to love and let us love is the premise. In this post, I lay out the driving premise of most moved mover in the context of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint’s most cherished teaching - agnecy.

Alma 29:4-5 provides a few stunning statements about agency and God’s response to our agency. I ought not to harrow up in my desires the firm decree of a just God, for I know that he granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction.

Does God need me for His plan to work? Years ago, one of my leaders often said, ‘God doesn’t need us’ when discussing our relevance in God’s plan. I think I understood what he was trying to say, but the phrase didn’t sit well with me. If he was trying to say that God can bring about the Plan of Salvation with or without me, then I agree. However, if he was saying that God’s work moves without His people, I don’t agree.

Any of my friends that have been willing to engage me on the concept of a contingent future and openness theology often find the idea persuasive enough to ponder its impacts on scripture. Eventually, they ask a question about the many prophetic statements found in scripture. Their questions fall along the lines of the following, “What about …” the prophecy of the civil war starting in North Carolina by Joseph Smith?

In 2 Nephi 26:23-28 we get a series of great questions about our relationship with the Lord to which all are answered with a ‘Nay’ from Nephi. Doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Hath he commanded any that they should depart out of the synagogues, or out of the houses of worship? Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness?

In Doctrine and Covenants 93:30-32 we read, All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. 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.

Background The story of Isreal’s relationship with the Gibeonites is an excellent example of relational theology. In this story, we see God call Joshua, command Joshua, then support Joshua in his calling. It is a fascinating story of how God works with His people in a mutual relationship of trusting decision making. The relational Story Joshua’s call and command In Deuteronomy 34:91, Joshua’s call to lead the people is signaled through the description of Moses laying his hands on Joshua and the children of Isreal’s willingness to hearken to Joshua’s words.