God, Agency, And The "prime Directive"

[JarMan]

I hope the Star Trek reference doesn't scare too many people away. But the concept of the "Prime Directive" is something that I think is analogous to God's relationship with us. As I understand it, the Prime Directive in Star Trek essentially prohibits interference with primitive cultures or civilizations so that those cultures can develop organically without interference from advanced cultures.

 

I think God has a Prime Directive, of sorts, in that he will not interfere with our moral agency. In my view, this is why he "lets' bad things happen" or why sometimes prayers go unanswered or why sometimes God's servants do or teach things that aren't quite ideal or in harmony with God's law.

 

The two questions I have that are related to God's Prime Directive are:

1) What is its purpose? In other words, why is it so essential for us to have moral agency?

2) Where does God draw the line between inspiring us and compelling us? Another form of this question is, How closely does God direct the church? Is he a micro-manager or does he take more of a laissez-faire approach?

 

I have my own opinions about the answer to these two questions, but I would like to hear what others think?

[CV75]

1) What is its purpose? In other words, why is it so essential for us to have moral agency?

2) Where does God draw the line between inspiring us and compelling us? Another form of this question is, How closely does God direct the church? Is he a micro-manager or does he take more of a laissez-faire approach?

In my opinion,

 

1) Without agency, we would not exist (D&C 93:30) since there would be nothing to act or to be acted upon.

 

2) I think God gets involved with people, things, and organzations (and principalities, powers, thrones, dominions -- both visible and invisible) on all sorts of levels according to what is needed to preserve His agency and ours--Colossians 1 shows how He works on various levels and in response to our faith, hope and obedience as well as in response to our lack of these things so that we might have them.

 

Inasmuch as He provided an Atonemnt for each individual, He micromanages. Inasmuch as we need to receive it, He macromanages. To paraphrase D&C 93:31: "Behold, here is the agency of man: that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them (micromanage), and they either receive, or receive not, the light (macromanage)."

Edited January 2, 2014 by CV75

[The Nehor]

I hope the Star Trek reference doesn't scare too many people away. But the concept of the "Prime Directive" is something that I think is analogous to God's relationship with us. As I understand it, the Prime Directive in Star Trek essentially prohibits interference with primitive cultures or civilizations so that those cultures can develop organically without interference from advanced cultures.

 

I think God has a Prime Directive, of sorts, in that he will not interfere with our moral agency. In my view, this is why he "lets' bad things happen" or why sometimes prayers go unanswered or why sometimes God's servants do or teach things that aren't quite ideal or in harmony with God's law.

 

The two questions I have that are related to God's Prime Directive are:

1) What is its purpose? In other words, why is it so essential for us to have moral agency?

2) Where does God draw the line between inspiring us and compelling us? Another form of this question is, How closely does God direct the church? Is he a micro-manager or does he take more of a laissez-faire approach?

 

I have my own opinions about the answer to these two questions, but I would like to hear what others think?

 

1) It is there to allow us to develop. We are being tested. Not in a pass/fail test kind of way that we walk in ready for and walk out unchanged but in a stretching and testing ourselves into something else here. For those who pass this is as bad as eternity gets. This gives me comfort.

 

2)God does not compel at all. I think God directs the Church in the most vital areas. The problem is we have little idea what those are. Are the music rules or the three-hour block coming into being vital to someone's exaltation? Maybe.

 

I think the Prime Directive metaphor doesn't work that well. In Star Trek it exists because more developed cultures do not understand the ramifications of interference in another culture and even good-intentioned actions can cause dangerous consequences. God does not have that limitation and knows exactly what His interference will cause. He not only interferes He steps in and tells us what our culture should be and how to get there. He does stay back far enough to let cause and effect work so that we can predict to some extent what our actions will cause to happen (i.e. generally good acts have good results) but He is not "hands off".

[Calm]

"In Star Trek it exists because...."

I think it exists because a writer took the easy way out for a plot problem and then they were stuck with it. Seems to me on ST the PD was honoured more in the breaking than the upholding of it.

[The Nehor]

"In Star Trek it exists because...."

I think it exists because a writer took the easy way out for a plot problem and then they were stuck with it. Seems to me on ST the PD was honoured more in the breaking than the upholding of it.

 

Mostly. In the original Star Trek it was created about halfway through the series. The problem they had is they made the Enterprise so powerful yet wanted the crew to interact regularly with primitive cultures. In the early episodes they introduced god-beings and super-powered computers that could stop the ship. That excuse grew old so they made up the Prime Directive. When Picard showed up they made it into an overriding philosophy and tied it into the Vulcan IDIC philosophy they made up for color in one of the shows in the Original Series. Later they have the later series look back at how the early starships skirted it regularly to justify Kirk a bit

 

Yeah.....I wasted my teenage years............

[rpn]

God wouldn't be God without agency.   IME, He is perfectly capable of intervening on a real personal level to assure His wishes will be carried out.   But He doesn't very often do so, presumably because doing so is inconsistent with the overall plan.    When I was in college, it was my job to determine the names for the various RS callings.  I'd been in the ward maybe a week when I was called and few people knew each other either.  Most of the callings came easily from looking at the list and praying.  But I could not figure out who the spiritual living teacher was supposed to be.  A couple of Sundays in the second counselor said to me, "why don't you pick so and so"?  I told her to butt out as it was not her stewardship.  I talked to Him about how much I needed/wanted to know.  The next week, she said, "I know you are going to be really mad at me, but I need to ask you if you thought about so and so.   And I was really mad and told her so.  I also marched home after church got on my knees and said, "I'm staying here until you tell me who it is supposed to be."  I heard, as clearly as if it was speech, "Well, if you'd select so and so, I wouldn't have to tell Shauna to tell you anymore, would I?"   Oh it was crystal clear that He needed so and so to do the job at that time and in that ward.   But it also didn't come easily to me.    

 

I can see the same dynamic in leaders and have had similar less dramatic inspiration.   He doesn't let listening leaders mess up in those times when it really matters for some reason.    But, and this is a big but, leaders aren't always listening, and sometimes whatever it is doesn't matter in His plan sufficiently for Him to fix it anyway.  (I say doesn't matter, but I mean doesn't cause trouble for the plan over all or for individuals that they cannot deal with --- not that it is meaningless.)   And  it can be especially hard when leaders are honoring the council form of decision-making ---- waiting until there is consensus before proceeding forward.   In the mean time there may be plenty of heart break where people, good people trying to do their best to do His will, are still messing up.    (I'm not so sure that humans messing up from time to time isn't also part of His plan, as so much of mortal growth comes from such events (though it can be painful for innocents).

 

The Book of Mormon stories about how people got caught up in traditions and had a hard time leaving them behind are designed to help us understand that we do have to leave lots of our preconceptions and our prejudices and our understanding of the world behind if we are to be effective servants of the Most High.  Otherwise we might to a reasonably good job of being ourselves, but we may miss His work completely or wholly. 

 

Until or unless we submit our will to His, He has no power to compel, no would He wish to compel.   He cannot give what we will not take.  And we must take, chose for ourselves to access the atonement and return to Him.    We give Him (I think in terms of Them including Heavenly Mother)  the only thing that isn't His already --- our willing heart to follow Him.

[cinepro]

It does seem odd to me that God acts as the ultimate libertarian (bordering on anarchy), in which he will allow anyone to do anything, only bounded by the physical laws of the universe.  There is no point at which God will step in and stop someone from committing evil acts towards others, even if those evil acts severely impinge on the agency of others.  In the end, agency is directly proportional to the amount of strength and power one is able to amass. 

 

Yet, I am supposed to believe that it is good for me to "interfere" to stop evil people if the situation presents itself.

 

We often talk about this life being a "test", but do we ever really discuss how awful the conditions and parameters of this test are? 

 

Obviously, we have different philosophical constructs to try and explain the issue ("God will sort it out in the end", "We always have the agency to chose our reactions", "The conditions of the mortal test are varied according to some pre-existant state" etc.), but in reality, "survival of the fittest" does more to explain how mortality and agency play out than any other philosophy.

[The Nehor]

It does seem odd to me that God acts as the ultimate libertarian (bordering on anarchy), in which he will allow anyone to do anything, only bounded by the physical laws of the universe.  There is no point at which God will step in and stop someone from committing evil acts towards others, even if those evil acts severely impinge on the agency of others.  In the end, agency is directly proportional to the amount of strength and power one is able to amass. 

 

Yet, I am supposed to believe that it is good for me to "interfere" to stop evil people if the situation presents itself.

 

We often talk about this life being a "test", but do we ever really discuss how awful the conditions and parameters of this test are? 

 

Obviously, we have different philosophical constructs to try and explain the issue ("God will sort it out in the end", "We always have the agency to chose our reactions", "The conditions of the mortal test are varied according to some pre-existant state" etc.), but in reality, "survival of the fittest" does more to explain how mortality and agency play out than any other philosophy.

 

To be fair in the scriptures God does interfere to stop evil people....just not always. I think this has something to do with the consequences having to be non-fixed to make the choice more subject to what we want and not what we fear. Though on the other hand I have never met an evil person I can call happy.

 

We don't discuss how awful the test is mostly because some people seem to think it is not so bad here. I envy those people. I think this earth is, on the whole, a horrible place. It's beautiful but very very dangerous and very very hurtful. Do we really need all the diseases and parasites? I mean what kind of sick mind came up with some of these? I understand the need to work to survive but why set it up in such a way that it is possible for one person to horde the necessities of life while others lack them? Isn't the per capita pain per life a little high? Do we really need to be born with crippling physical, mental, and emotional problems? Couldn't we keep the wicked from reproducing and saddling people with crippling complexes and emotional problems?

 

Also, do I really need an ego this huge and vulnerable with all the pride to go with it? I mean, I know I am a God waiting to grow up and one day the Universe will bend to my every whim but seriously, maybe a bit of overkill in the design there? And the sex drive? Couldn't we have been wired for monogamy? Wouldn't that have saved a lot of trouble and heartbreak? What purpose does having a brain susceptible to addiction serve? Self-destructive habits get reinforcement while positive habits can be easily dropped. Why? Doesn't seem fair. President Packer once remarked that addiction seems like the devil is cheating.

 

I do accept that these things are necessary because God told me so (without an explanation yet) but I can see how there is a pretty good prima facie case for God being absent or uncaring.

[Calm]

 President Packer once remarked that addiction seems like the devil is cheating.

 

Spot on.

[Palerider]

1.

I don't believe anyone has mentioned this specifically, but Free Agency is the only way an individual changes and "becomes" from the inside out.

 

Whether one is compelled by Satan or God, even if that compulsion is to do the right thing, you still have no intrinsic growth within the individual. In order for the individual to inculcate and accept the correct side of the "argument", and make it a part of themselves (Which in turn, allows it { the argument} to make them into what it will) they must CHOOSE for themselves.

 

2.

 

If the true church actually did exist upon the earth, God is bound by His character to insure that correct information is transmitted to His people through a prophet.

 

Giving correct information DOES NOT suspend one's free agency (be they prophet, king or layman) as to whether to obey or not.

[Stargazer]

"In Star Trek it exists because...."

I think it exists because a writer took the easy way out for a plot problem and then they were stuck with it. Seems to me on ST the PD was honoured more in the breaking than the upholding of it.

 

Well, it was honored in the breach by Kirk, at least.  For him it was, shall we say, more of a guideline than a rule.

[cinepro]

To be fair in the scriptures God does interfere to stop evil people...

 

To be fair, to the degree that scriptural stories might not be totally objectively or accurately recorded, I'm approaching this from more of a "history as seen by everybody and not just the people who wrote scripture stories" point of view.

 

It's not that there aren't "limits" in our test.  There are vast limitations built into the system, mostly by the laws of physics, economics, and physiology.  We all have limited resources, so our capacity to do good or evil is greatly limited.  Every once in a while, someone amasses great resources and brings about the killing of a few million people, but generally speaking we are all pretty comfortable with the idea that our agency has these limits.

 

So it isn't a matter of having limiting mechanisms.  It's just odd that there isn't a more limiting mechanism put in place by God that keeps us from so directly limiting (or ending) the agency of others.  The idea that anyone taking "the test" can arbitrarily end someone else's mortal test at any time (intentionally or by accident) seems like a pretty serious flaw.

[Calm]

The idea that anyone taking "the test" can arbitrarily end someone else's mortal test at any time (intentionally or by accident) seems like a pretty serious flaw.

 

Perhaps this is dealt with by this only being one part of the test and not the complete form.

[Duncan]

To be fair, to the degree that scriptural stories might not be totally objectively or accurately recorded, I'm approaching this from more of a "history as seen by everybody and not just the people who wrote scripture stories" point of view.

 

It's not that there aren't "limits" in our test.  There are vast limitations built into the system, mostly by the laws of physics, economics, and physiology.  We all have limited resources, so our capacity to do good or evil is greatly limited.  Every once in a while, someone amasses great resources and brings about the killing of a few million people, but generally speaking we are all pretty comfortable with the idea that our agency has these limits.

 

So it isn't a matter of having limiting mechanisms.  It's just odd that there isn't a more limiting mechanism put in place by God that keeps us from so directly limiting (or ending) the agency of others.  The idea that anyone taking "the test" can arbitrarily end someone else's mortal test at any time (intentionally or by accident) seems like a pretty serious flaw.

 

 

or hamper someone else's test. I was talking to a guy the other day whose wife left him and their family and so now he is left to figure things out, what if God foreordained him to be a GA or something? someone pulled the plug on that plan so if someone seems to have thwarted God's plan- I am not saying that he is foreordained to do so, maybe is or was but in cases like George Lee, Richard Lyman, or the host of apostles in the 19th and early 20th century, things went screwy mclouie and I can't see how God wanted that. The funny thing too about the test is like 99% of everyone who ever lived, at least here in mortality doesn't even know about it-If it will be worked out in the next life why not wait for the rest of us 1 percenters, providing we are even doing it right....

[Duncan]

Perhaps this is dealt with by this only being one part of the test and not the complete form.

 

 

that is an intriguing idea! it seems like for most the test comes in the next life, I don't see how mind you if you were some drunk in the 18th century who died without ever hearing the truth, they would go to the next life still a drunk, unable to overcome their addiction here-that's what I read in the scriptures anyways!

[strappinglad]

I think that God is well aware of the ' butterfly effect ' . I've read quite a bit on WWII and can see how battles were won or lost on a mere scrap of information, or on a small movement of troops or a insignificant decision by some minor operative.

[Palerider]

Perhaps this is dealt with by this only being one part of the test and not the complete form.

 

Wouldn't necessarily disagree with this, but wouldn't it be interesting if 90% of the test for this arena was just in being born, period? The aquisition and experience of having a body. 

 

And don't forget the omniscience of the Father in knowing the future of those who happen to exit early.

[Duncan]

Wouldn't necessarily disagree with this, but wouldn't it be interesting if 90% of the test for this arena was just in being born, period? The aquisition and experience of having a body. 

 

And don't forget the omniscience of the Father in knowing the future of those who happen to exit early.

 

 

that's the rub! where is agency if someone knows ahead of time how you'll use it? is God a predictor?

[Palerider]

that's the rub! where is agency if someone knows ahead of time how you'll use it? is God a predictor?

 

I don't think they are mutually exlusive. Just knowing from a very limited experience of having children here on earth, I could watch my children playing from the distance of my window and predict fairly accurately who was going to do what and about when it would happen. Yet, I didn't infringe on their decision making process.

 

God's power to foreknow is beyond our comprehension and yet foreknowing doesn't alter the fact of our agency.

 

I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that the term "test" might be a somewhat gross misnomer for what we're doing here. I'm thinking more and more, "Earthschool Experience". 

 

So, Johnny, What did your body teach you about alcohol and drugs and cheap thrills while you were on earth? 

Edited January 3, 2014 by Palerider

[Duncan]

I don't think they are mutually exlusive. Just knowing from a very limited experience of having children here on earth, I could watch my children playing from the distance of my window and predict fairly accurately who was going to do what and about when it would happen. Yet, I didn't infringe on their decision making process.

 

God's power to foreknow is beyond our comprehension and yet foreknowing doesn't alter the fact of our agency.

 

I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that the term "test" might be a somewhat gross misnomer for what we're doing here. I'm thinking more and more, "Earthschool Experience". 

 

So, Johnny, What did your body teach you about alcohol and drugs and cheap thrills while you were on earth? 

 

 

I get that but why does God make promises to people via Patriarchal Blessings, priesthood blessings, etc. to people he knows will go inactive? If he knows how they'll use their agency so much so to make promises to them then doesn't he also know they'll split on the Church? I was talking earlier to the missionaries here and said that I grew up with a group of 7 boys from 12-18, all of got Patriarchal blessings, 3 of us served missions and of those 3 only 2 of us are active and so we are the only 2/7 that are active. I don't know if the other 5 will come back but inactive people with blessings do die, I just wonder about that

[Palerider]

I get that but why does God make promises to people via Patriarchal Blessings, priesthood blessings, etc. to people he knows will go inactive? If he knows how they'll use their agency so much so to make promises to them then doesn't he also know they'll split on the Church? I was talking earlier to the missionaries here and said that I grew up with a group of 7 boys from 12-18, all of got Patriarchal blessings, 3 of us served missions and of those 3 only 2 of us are active and so we are the only 2/7 that are active. I don't know if the other 5 will come back but inactive people with blessings do die, I just wonder about that

 

I agree with the obervation of the dilema.

 

Thinking in terms of the few true patriarchal blessings that were given in Old Testament times and the resulting outcomes it gives one pause.

 

I don't recall seeing any parallel analog of modern patriarchal blessings in the primitive Church. Maybe I've just forgotten?

 

I know this isn't the answer you're looking for, but this is one of the reasons why I see the latter day practice of patriarchal blessings as being......without foundation, shall we say?

 

And yet I feel sure there are many out there, prepared with testimonies in hand, of their validity.........

Edited January 3, 2014 by Palerider

[Robert F. Smith]

----------------------------------------------   

We often talk about this life being a "test", but do we ever really discuss how awful the conditions and parameters of this test are? 

 

Obviously, we have different philosophical constructs to try and explain the issue ("God will sort it out in the end", "We always have the agency to chose our reactions", "The conditions of the mortal test are varied according to some pre-existant state" etc.), but in reality, "survival of the fittest" does more to explain how mortality and agency play out than any other philosophy.

We can be cynical about all this, of course, and many take that path -- with plenty of good Hobbesian reasons why life is "nasty, brutish, and short."

 

However, on the positive side, Christoph Hauert says that, even though some prefer shame, “honour has an equally strong effect on encouraging people to cooperate for the common good,”* while W. E. Deming says that “A management style based on cooperation rather than competition brings joy to workers and long-term success to the market.”**

 

In “response to Social Darwinism and to Thomas Huxley’s “The Struggle for Existence,” Peter Kropotkin instead focused “on altruism from sociobiology,” arguing “that anarchist societies were feasible because of an inborn human nature to do good.” +  Indeed, cooperation rather than competition is the very “fabric of society.”++

 

Finally, one group of scientists concluded, based on our long human history as hunter-gatherers, that “human ancestral social structure may be the root of cumulative culture and cooperation and, ultimately, human uniqueness,” and that this  “promotes interaction among residential groups,” and that “the unique composition of human ancestral groups promotes cooperation among large groups of non-kin.”#

 

How do you spell altruism?

 

*  “Shame and Honor Increase Cooperation,” online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110601131759.htm .

**  Deming, The New Economics: For Industry, Government, Education, 2nd ed. (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2000). 

+   Kropotkin, Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution (London: W. Heinemann, 1902/ reprint 1914/1955/2005). 

++  Lee Dugatkin, Cheating Monkeys and Citizen Bees: The Nature of Cooperation in Animals and Humans (Free Press, 1999/ Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 2000). 

#  ScienceDaily.com, Mar 11, 2011, online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110310141422.htm , summarizing Kim R. Hill,  et al.,  “Co-Residence Patterns in Hunter-Gatherer Societies Show Unique Human Social Structure.” Science, 331/6022 (2011):1286-1289.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

I agree with the obervation of the dilema.

 

Thinking in terms of the few true patriarchal blessings that were given in Old Testament times and the resulting outcomes it gives one pause.

 

I don't recall seeing any parallel analog of modern patriarchal blessings in the primitive Church. Maybe I've just forgotten?

 

I know this isn't the answer you're looking for, but this is one of the reasons why I see the latter day practice of patriarchal blessings as being......without foundation, shall we say?

 

And yet I feel sure there are many out there, prepared with testimonies in hand, of their validity.........

So you admit first off that the Patriarchs gave patriarchal blessings, but, since they seem absent from early Christianity, therefore they are "without foundation"?  I thought that the Restoration was about the Restoration of all things.

[JarMan]

Thanks for all of the feedback and discussion so far. I'll take a shot at answering my own questions (though I'm only partially satisfied with my answers).

 

1) God's wants us to learn and to progress. Without complete moral agency, our progression can only go so far.

 

2) I used to think that God took a more hands on approach. Over the last several years I've come to suspect that he is much more distant than how he is presented in your typical LDS Sunday School lesson. Part of this shift in my thinking is a result of personal experiences (unanswered prayers) and part of it has to do with realizing how fallible church leaders really are. And part of it has to do with the growing feeling that the church is really just one of many church's inspired by God, with each church doing its best to try to figure everything out.

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't think they are mutually exlusive. Just knowing from a very limited experience of having children here on earth, I could watch my children playing from the distance of my window and predict fairly accurately who was going to do what and about when it would happen. Yet, I didn't infringe on their decision making process.

 

God's power to foreknow is beyond our comprehension and yet foreknowing doesn't alter the fact of our agency.

 

I'm coming more and more to the conclusion that the term "test" might be a somewhat gross misnomer for what we're doing here. I'm thinking more and more, "Earthschool Experience". 

 

So, Johnny, What did your body teach you about alcohol and drugs and cheap thrills while you were on earth? 

I get that but why does God make promises to people via Patriarchal Blessings, priesthood blessings, etc. to people he knows will go inactive? If he knows how they'll use their agency so much so to make promises to them then doesn't he also know they'll split on the Church? I was talking earlier to the missionaries here and said that I grew up with a group of 7 boys from 12-18, all of got Patriarchal blessings, 3 of us served missions and of those 3 only 2 of us are active and so we are the only 2/7 that are active. I don't know if the other 5 will come back but inactive people with blessings do die, I just wonder about that

You should have read the Palerider's wise comments more carefully.

 

Patriarchal blessings are not fortune-telling, tarot, or ouija.  None are inevitable, including Jesus' own real test here among us.  God guarantees to us all the right to fail and right of first refusal.  Otherwise the test is meaningless.  However, you should take it all in stride.  After all, virtually everyone will be saved through acceptance of the Gospel here or hereafter.  Palerider's "Earthschool Experience" is the reason we are here.  So don't be so judgmental on your brothers.  Just love them, and expect that you'll all be together on the other side.

 

The Jewish Misnah tractate Abot says that "All is foreseen, and yet free choice is given."  That is also good LDS theology.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Robert F. Smith