Mormons: is God a moral being?
Posted: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:16 pm
The Mormon view that God is a moral being like us leaves him open to certain critiques from which the God of, say, Calvinism has nothing to fear. Unlike the Calvinist God, who transcends morality and therefore can get away with anything, the Mormon God is literally a moral being, subject to moral laws as also to natural laws.
It is a classic tenet in ethics that there are sins of omission as well as sins of comission. In the words of the book of James, "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." As the ultimately powerful being, God is certainly in a position to do a lot of God in the world. And as a thoroughly knowledgeable being (omniscient even, if the likes of Millet are to be believed), he certainly can't use the excuse that he doesn't "know" about all the opportunities for him to exercise his divine do-gooder prerogatives. So my question to you is, if God is a moral being, how does he not stand condemned by the sheer weight of his sins of omission?
Among Arminians and open theists, who don't especially care for the supra-moral God of Calvinism, the usual answer is that God doesn't intervene because he doesn't want to impinge upon our free will. So, for example, God allows a murderer to kill his victim because to do otherwise would be a violation of the murderer's free-will. The obvious implication here is that God is forced to choose between the lesser of two evils: he can preserve life or he can preserve freedom, and he chooses freedom. Another obvious implication, given God's ostensible priorities, is that we should all register with the Libertarian Party and/or vote for Ron Paul in 2008. But whatever one may think about the appropriateness of God's priorities, this image of God confronting constant moral dilemma is disturbing. Christians have always tended to think of participation in this world as inherently sinful, because in almost every action we are choosing among evils. Virtually everything we do is sinful, for the simple reason that by doing it-- no matter what good we may accomplish by it-- we are sacrificing some other good. Christians have long taken comfort in the knowledge that in the Great Beyond this tension will be eliminated, and a truly moral life will finally be made possible. The Mormon view of eternal progression suggests, by contrast, that for all eternity we will continually be faced with moral tensions that make real virtue theoretically unattainable.
Another interesting aspect of the standard Mormon view that God is subject to moral law is the wuestion, in what is this moral law grounded? And how did God come to know its tenets? The most likely suggestion, I suspect, is that God subscribes to an essentially utilitarian ethic. God and/or the gods have agreed that, for the sake of mutual happiness and wholeness, certain standards of behavior must be observed. The moral law and the "plan of salvation" developed essentially as a social contract, designed to assure universal bliss and peaceful coexistence. But not everyone is capable of living up to this ideal standard, so the bliss is preserved by subjection all to a "probation" in which it is determined who is capable of living up to the contractual moral code and who is not. Those who are not are imprisoned in a lower kingdom where they can't disturb the bliss of the more powerful and more intelligent entities, and where they are pacified with the assurance that the bliss of their own kingdom is still far beyond anything they might have imagined, however imperfect it may be.
The view that God is a personal, moral entity, then, leads quite naturally to a picture of God that is less flattering than our old Christian ideal wherein God is uniformly good. In fact, the God who imprisons unworthies in lower kingdoms appears to be one who is acting largely out of self-interest. The God, moreover, who privileges freedom over life is one for whom this mortal reality is merely a means to his own end of sorting the worthies from the unworthies, and who apparently cares less about our priorities and the meaning we attach to our existence than he does about his own pre-determined goal. Though he is fundamentally the same species as us, it was he and his favorite sons who decided on this fundamentally elitist plan of salvation, designed to benefit primarily those who are counted among the great and noble at the expense of those who are judged unintelligent and/or unworthy.
In closing, it's worth noting one other objection to the explanation that God refrains from intervening because he doesn't want to impinge upon freedom. The truth is that in many cases it is not freedom that causes death and destruction. At Pompeii, for example, little would have been required of God other than to show up a few days early and let everyone know what was coming so they could evacuate the city. Certainly this is within God's power; he appeared to Joseph Smith. And if he was too busy, he could have sent an angel with a flaming sword to threaten to kill them unless they evacuate. Heaven knows that angels with flaming swords have been summoned for much more menial tasks than this. Rescuing the people of Pompeii certainly doesn't seem to impinge upon anyone's freedom, unless maybe Mount Vesuvius is herself a moral being who demolished Pompeii out of sheer spite. The open theist John Sanders, thankfully, acknowledged the validity of this objection in his debate with Christopher Hall and professed his inability to answer it. I suggest that it is equally unanswerable from a Mormon point of view.
This question of the morality of God is one that is fraught with difficulties, especially, I suggest, from a Mormon perspective. I invite you to offer insights or possible answers to these questions, as well as to reflect on the inadequacy of my own morality in persecuting you with such odious questions.
Best,
-Chris
It is a classic tenet in ethics that there are sins of omission as well as sins of comission. In the words of the book of James, "Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins." As the ultimately powerful being, God is certainly in a position to do a lot of God in the world. And as a thoroughly knowledgeable being (omniscient even, if the likes of Millet are to be believed), he certainly can't use the excuse that he doesn't "know" about all the opportunities for him to exercise his divine do-gooder prerogatives. So my question to you is, if God is a moral being, how does he not stand condemned by the sheer weight of his sins of omission?
Among Arminians and open theists, who don't especially care for the supra-moral God of Calvinism, the usual answer is that God doesn't intervene because he doesn't want to impinge upon our free will. So, for example, God allows a murderer to kill his victim because to do otherwise would be a violation of the murderer's free-will. The obvious implication here is that God is forced to choose between the lesser of two evils: he can preserve life or he can preserve freedom, and he chooses freedom. Another obvious implication, given God's ostensible priorities, is that we should all register with the Libertarian Party and/or vote for Ron Paul in 2008. But whatever one may think about the appropriateness of God's priorities, this image of God confronting constant moral dilemma is disturbing. Christians have always tended to think of participation in this world as inherently sinful, because in almost every action we are choosing among evils. Virtually everything we do is sinful, for the simple reason that by doing it-- no matter what good we may accomplish by it-- we are sacrificing some other good. Christians have long taken comfort in the knowledge that in the Great Beyond this tension will be eliminated, and a truly moral life will finally be made possible. The Mormon view of eternal progression suggests, by contrast, that for all eternity we will continually be faced with moral tensions that make real virtue theoretically unattainable.
Another interesting aspect of the standard Mormon view that God is subject to moral law is the wuestion, in what is this moral law grounded? And how did God come to know its tenets? The most likely suggestion, I suspect, is that God subscribes to an essentially utilitarian ethic. God and/or the gods have agreed that, for the sake of mutual happiness and wholeness, certain standards of behavior must be observed. The moral law and the "plan of salvation" developed essentially as a social contract, designed to assure universal bliss and peaceful coexistence. But not everyone is capable of living up to this ideal standard, so the bliss is preserved by subjection all to a "probation" in which it is determined who is capable of living up to the contractual moral code and who is not. Those who are not are imprisoned in a lower kingdom where they can't disturb the bliss of the more powerful and more intelligent entities, and where they are pacified with the assurance that the bliss of their own kingdom is still far beyond anything they might have imagined, however imperfect it may be.
The view that God is a personal, moral entity, then, leads quite naturally to a picture of God that is less flattering than our old Christian ideal wherein God is uniformly good. In fact, the God who imprisons unworthies in lower kingdoms appears to be one who is acting largely out of self-interest. The God, moreover, who privileges freedom over life is one for whom this mortal reality is merely a means to his own end of sorting the worthies from the unworthies, and who apparently cares less about our priorities and the meaning we attach to our existence than he does about his own pre-determined goal. Though he is fundamentally the same species as us, it was he and his favorite sons who decided on this fundamentally elitist plan of salvation, designed to benefit primarily those who are counted among the great and noble at the expense of those who are judged unintelligent and/or unworthy.
In closing, it's worth noting one other objection to the explanation that God refrains from intervening because he doesn't want to impinge upon freedom. The truth is that in many cases it is not freedom that causes death and destruction. At Pompeii, for example, little would have been required of God other than to show up a few days early and let everyone know what was coming so they could evacuate the city. Certainly this is within God's power; he appeared to Joseph Smith. And if he was too busy, he could have sent an angel with a flaming sword to threaten to kill them unless they evacuate. Heaven knows that angels with flaming swords have been summoned for much more menial tasks than this. Rescuing the people of Pompeii certainly doesn't seem to impinge upon anyone's freedom, unless maybe Mount Vesuvius is herself a moral being who demolished Pompeii out of sheer spite. The open theist John Sanders, thankfully, acknowledged the validity of this objection in his debate with Christopher Hall and professed his inability to answer it. I suggest that it is equally unanswerable from a Mormon point of view.
This question of the morality of God is one that is fraught with difficulties, especially, I suggest, from a Mormon perspective. I invite you to offer insights or possible answers to these questions, as well as to reflect on the inadequacy of my own morality in persecuting you with such odious questions.
Best,
-Chris