Free Will and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

The Church of Jesus Christ and Agency | Free Will

Free Will and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Summary: Critics sometimes claim that the Latter-day Saint doctrine of agency is incompatible with modern science because human choices are supposedly predetermined by the laws of physics. However, neither science nor philosophy has resolved the question of free will, and the evidence does not justify the conclusion that agency is an illusion. Latter-day Saint scripture affirms that individuals are free to choose and are accountable for those choices, while scientific theories about determinism, quantum mechanics, and brain function remain subjects of active debate. Consequently, claims that physics has disproven agency reflect a philosophical interpretation of the evidence rather than an established scientific fact.

---

Question: Does Jesus already know who will be returning to God's presence?

This is a doctrinal or theological topic about which there is no official Church doctrine of which FAIR is aware and/or about which we may learn more "line upon line; precept upon precept" (2 Nephi 28:30; Isaiah 28:10). Leaders and members may have expressed a variety of opinions or positions. Like all material in FAIR Answers, it reflects the best efforts of FAIR volunteers, not an official Church position.

Since we don't have a revealed answer to this question, both views seem to be okay for faithful Latter-day Saints

Occasionally, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will hav questions about the relationship between God's foreknowledge and free will. FAIR volunteers will often encounter questions like these: "In Sunday School today, someone said that Jesus Christ knew before this life who would return to Heavenly Father's presence. Some class members disagreed with that idea. We couldn't reach a final answer. We couldn't find a scripture that proved the comment was right. The person said, 'Jesus knows everything, from the beginning to the end. So he knows who will be returning to God's presence.' Could you help me with this question?"

Most Church members believe in absolute foreknowledge. This means God knows everything that will happen in the future. Most people who believe this don't think about the problems it might cause. But those who do think about it say that God can know everything, and people can still have free choice. They also say prayer can still work. A smaller number of Church members don't agree with this view. They believe God knows everything that is possible to know. But he doesn't know future events perfectly because knowing the future isn't logically possible. In this view, God knows everything that can be known. But free choice means some things are not certain yet. People who believe this must accept that God might sometimes be surprised by how things turn out. This idea causes its own problems.

Since we don't have a revealed answer to this question, both views seem to be okay for faithful Latter-day Saints.

This question is hotly debated among Mormons and Christians in general

The scriptures don't give us a clear answer. Both sides use evidence to support their views.

James Faulconer explained the situation:

```html

Modern scripture clearly talks about God's foreknowledge. It says, "All things are present before mine eyes" (D&C 38꞉2). It says that God has a fullness of truth. He has "knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" (D&C 93꞉24, emphasis added).

∗       ∗       ∗

To try to solve the problem of God's foreknowledge and human freedom, important Jewish and Christian thinkers have offered three answers.

[1] In the first answer, both sides are true: "Everything is foreseen, and freedom of choice is given." This is what Rabbi Akiba and Maimonides believed (Aboth 3, 19; Yad, Teshuvah 5:5). Augustine and Anselm also believed this (City of God 5.9–10; The Harmony of the Foreknowledge, the Predestination, and the Grace of God with Free Choice 1.3). Maimonides said that humans can't know the future and still be free. But God's knowledge is different and mysterious. So God can know the future and people can still be free.

[2] In the second answer, God's foreknowledge is limited. Since people are free, God knows what might happen and what probably will happen. But he doesn't know for certain what will happen. God knows everything that can be known. But he doesn't know exactly how people will use their freedom ahead of time. This is because future events that depend on choices don't exist yet. This is what the Talmudist Gersonides believed (Levi Ben Gershon, 1288-1344; Milhamot Adonai, III, 6). Charles Hartshorne and process philosophers also believed something like this.

[3] In the third answer, humans are not really free. Freedom is fake. It only seems real because humans don't understand that God causes everything. Everything people do is already decided ahead of time. God knows everything that will happen and causes everything that happens. This is what Spinoza and Calvin believed.

Throughout history, most Latter-day Saints have taken the first position: God knows everything and people are still free. Some have taken the second position: God's foreknowledge is not complete. The third option—that human freedom is fake—doesn't fit with LDS belief in real agency and responsibility. Praise and blame, being accountable and being judged, don't mean anything unless humans are free. Any teaching about foreknowledge that goes against this principle breaks LDS scripture.James E. Faulconer, "[<http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Foreknowledge_of_God> Foreknowledge of God]," in Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 4 vols., edited by Daniel H. Ludlow, (New York, Macmillan Publishing, 1992), 1:521-522.

This problem is also talked about from a more scientific point of view in the FAIRwiki article on [<http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_science/Free_will> "Free Will"].

As Faulconer says, most Latter-day Saints believe in unlimited foreknowledge

As Faulconer says, most Latter-day Saints believe in unlimited foreknowledge. This has been the traditional view of most Christians since the New Testament period. Joseph Smith didn't seem to question this teaching. There are no revelations that talk about it. In fact, it seems that most LDS leaders and scholars simply haven't questioned whether it's true.

A few LDS leaders have spoken out against any limits on God's knowledge. The strongest statement probably came from Elder Bruce R. McConkie. He listed limited foreknowledge as the first of "seven deadly heresies":

Some people say that God is learning new things and gaining more knowledge.

This is false—completely, totally, and absolutely. There is not one bit of truth in it. It comes from a twisted and wrong understanding of the King Follett Sermon and what eternal progression means.

God progresses in the sense that his kingdoms grow and his dominions multiply—not in the sense that he learns new truths and discovers new laws. God is not a student. He is not a lab worker. He is not coming up with new theories based on past experiences. He has already reached that state of exaltation where he knows all things and has all power.

∗       ∗       ∗

Eternal progression means living the kind of life God lives and increasing in kingdoms and dominions forever. I can't understand why anyone would think that an infinite and eternal being needs to learn more. He has ruled in our universe for almost 2,555,000,000 years. He made the heavens. His creations are more than the particles of the earth. He knows when every sparrow falls. Why would anyone think such a being has more to learn and new truths to discover in the laboratories of eternity?Bruce R. McConkie, "The Seven Deadly Heresies," address given at Brigham Young University on 1 June 1980; BYU Speeches of the Year 1980.off-site wiki FAIR link

Other Latter-day Saints have pointed out that absolute foreknowledge creates special problems with agency and prayer

Other Latter-day Saints have pointed out that absolute foreknowledge creates special problems with agency and prayer. If God knew from all eternity exactly what any of us would do at any time, then it's hard to say we have real agency. As Blake Ostler explained:

The modern argument shows that free will doesn't work with foreknowledge. The argument is based on the fact that the past can't be changed. In other words, no person can do anything that would mean God didn't always believe what God has always believed. Suppose that God has always believed that I will rob a 7-Eleven at a certain time t. If I don't rob the 7-Eleven at time t, that would mean God didn't always believe I would rob at t. But God has always believed that I will rob the 7-Eleven at t. So I can't have the power to not rob. Having that power would mean I could change God's past beliefs. No person can change the past. But to be free about whether I rob, I must have the power to not rob the 7-Eleven at t. So either God doesn't have foreknowledge or I am not free.

Also, if God has absolute foreknowledge, then it's hard to understand how prayer asking for things works. The whole idea behind this kind of prayer is that, by praying, we can get God's help in situations where he wouldn't have helped if we hadn't asked—basically, we're trying to change his mind about something ("I wasn't going to help them, but since they asked...."). If God has absolute foreknowledge from all eternity, then not even he could change the future. If he did, his earlier foreknowledge would be wrong, and it wouldn't be true anymore. For example, you will either find your lost keys or you won't. Praying about it can't possibly change that outcome if God has absolute foreknowledge. So in this view, prayer asking for things is useless because God can't be convinced to act differently to change the outcome.

Question: Is the Latter-day Saint doctrine of "agency" or "free will" false, since all human choices are predetermined by the laws of physics?

We know from the scriptures that God can exactly predict the future, but we also know from the scriptures that we have our moral agency to decide our future

Science shows that all interactions of matter—including all events in the human brain—are caused by previous events. If we knew enough about the laws that control these interactions and the current state of the universe, we would be able to exactly predict any future event. Does this mean that the doctrine of "agency" or "free will" is false? Are all human choices already predetermined by the laws of physics?

We know from the scriptures that God knows the future. But we also know from the scriptures that we have our moral agency to decide our future. There must be a solution to this problem. But there is no generally-accepted solution yet.

The Spirit and the Body

Everything we think and feel is probably connected with some physical changes in the brain. And, really, this shouldn't surprise Latter-day Saints. They do not believe that "mind"/"spirit" and "body" are two totally separate and completely different things (See Cartesian fallacy):

There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter. (D&C 131:7-8)

So in Latter-day Saint theology, there is no spirit/matter split. Spirit is matter, though it's harder to detect with mortal eyes. If a spiritual experience or a "thought" from our spirit/mind is going to affect a mortal being, it's not surprising to find detectable physical changes in the regular "non-spiritual" matter that we can study. You won't detect the actor (the 'spirit matter'), necessarily. But you might expect to see the effect of the action (on the 'body matter').

Newtonian Determinism

A question that is likely to create an argument in any Latter-day Saint Sunday School class anywhere in the world is, "Does God perfectly know the future?" Half the class will insist that he does, because the scriptures are clear:

O how great the holiness of our God! For he knoweth all things, and there is not anything save he knows it. 2 Nephi 9:20

The other half will insist that this is not possible. They say this would destroy the free agency of man, which is also clear:

Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life. 2 Nephi 10:23

But God's knowledge is not really the question anyway. The real question about free will involves the nature of physical and spiritual law — is it deterministic or indeterministic?

The Universe is said to be "deterministic" if, given the state of the Universe at one point in time, there is only one state possible at a later point in time. The Newtonian world view was deterministic. It concluded that if we knew the present positions, speeds, and other properties of every bit of matter, field, and (we would add) spirit, the future values for these things are completely set. So the orbits of the planets, the weather, the rise and fall of nations, or the outcome of every love affair is already determined. It's based on the current state of the universe. It is hard to see how free agency can exist in such an environment.

Quantum Uncertainty

The alternative to a deterministic Universe is a Universe in which, given the state of the Universe at one point in time, more than one state is possible at a later point in time. We call such a Universe "indeterministic." Since the early 20th century, it has been clear that the fundamental laws of the Universe are [<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_physics> quantum mechanical] in nature. In quantum mechanics, the present state of the Universe may precisely determine a probability distribution. But, ultimately, the future state of the Universe will involve a random selection from among the allowed possibilities. The future is always partially uncertain. This is the majority view of the interpretation of quantum theory, but it is not the only view. As the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states,

The scientific evidence for quantum mechanics is sometimes said to show that determinism is false. Quantum theory is indeed very well confirmed. However, there is nothing approaching a consensus on how to interpret it, on what it shows us with respect to how things are in the world. Indeterministic as well as deterministic interpretations have been developed, but it is far from clear whether any of the existing interpretations is correct.

But does quantum mechanics do anything to help the situation with free agency? We must remember that quantum mechanics is partly deterministic — the determination of the probabilities for each possible outcome — and partly indeterministic — the final random selection of one state out of all the possibilities. Since the ultimate selection process is random, it is no different than the process of flipping a coin. The quantum world view, with each decision controlled by the outcome of a coin toss, seems less helpful to free will than does the deterministic world view.

What Is Free Agency?

The existence or non-existence of free will has deeply troubled Latter-day Saint and non-Latter-day Saint philosophers for centuries. And the problem shows no sign of resolving itself.

One Latter-day Saint philosopher, Blake Ostler,Blake Ostler, "The Latter-day Saint Concept of God," Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (Summer 1983), 73. has suggested that there is a third possibility between determinism and indeterminism. This is the "creative synthesis" suggested by philosopher and theologian Charles Hartshorne. In this view, the moment of decision itself creates a new entity that did not exist in the previous moment. This new entity is affected by the decision process and contributes to the outcome of the decision process in a deterministic but unpredictable way. This, it is suggested, is what we call "free will."

On the other hand, a Latter-day Saint physicist, Ronald Hellings,Ronald Hellings, "Determinism and Free Agency," a talk presented at Sunstone Symposium West, Los Angeles, California, 1988 (unpublished). has argued that Hartshorne's description of "creative synthesis" sounds suspiciously like a simple non-linear process. This is a completely deterministic thing that engineers and scientists encounter and solve all the time. In Hellings' view, free agency should be thought of as the name for the deterministic causes that arise inside an individual's uncreated intelligence. Determinism is required, according to Hellings, in order to allow those causes to truly make the decision. Without determinism, the decision could be stolen away at the last moment by a random flip of an electron in someone's brain.

Notes (click to expand)

Back to Top