On Playing God

I did a workshop at our stake’s women’s conference, and I blogged about it at Real Intent (you can read that blog here).

The presentation was based on the 12-steps of the church’s Addiction Recovery Program which are, in turn, based on the 12 steps of Alcoholics Anonymous, which are, in turn, a straightforward way of applying the atonement to our lives.

The first three steps are all about our relationship with ourselves, God and other people. And they’re especially important for people who aren’t necessarily addicted.

One of the cornerstone doctrines of the gospel is agency – the ability that we have to act for ourselves, to make our own choices and enjoy (or suffer) the consequences of those choices. “God will force no man to heaven,” or so the hymn says.

In the first three steps of a 12-step program, once acknowledges his own powerlessness over his addiction (and, in the case of a program like AlAnon or Families Anonymous for co-dependents, over other people), the power of God to restore us, and the willingness to turn ourselves and our lives over to God.

For people who grow up reciting the first few Articles of Faith, this should be boilerplate stuff.  We believe in God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost; we believe we’ll be punished for our own sins and not Adam’s transgression; and we believe that through the Atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. We are taught from our earliest years that we get to choose, that we are agents unto ourselves, and that the fact that we are here on earth is already proof of our having chosen well at least once.

And yet, most of us who grow to adulthood try to limit the agency of others at one time or another. After acceptable rules of persuasion fail, we try to force our friends or our enemies to do things our way as kids. As parents, we learn by trial and error how much we can force our children to behave. As spouses we learn, often through sad experience, that D&C 121 is right – we really can’t compel others to behave in a certain way.

I’ve heard some say that trying to control outcomes for others is trying to play God. But even God does not control the outcome. He offers a choice and we make a choice. Our choice determines the outcome. Of course God facilitates the choice, and the path back to Him if we choose poorly. After all He loves us and His grace extends to each of us if we choose to accept it.

As a parent, the hardest lessons I’ve learned have been the understanding that I must let go. Now a loving parent doesn’t hold a child out a third story window and then let go. Instead, the parent does all he can to teach, guide, direct, protect, make safe, and then he lets go. And even when a parent lets go, he doesn’t leave his child alone. Good parents establish rules and boundaries with real consequences so that children learn early that with choice comes accountability. And consistent and fair consequences often do a better job of teaching than any lecture Mom or Dad could give.

Now six of my seven children have approached that point at which they begin to separate from us. All kids do it (or should), usually in the mid-to-late teenage years. Some of the separations have been easier than others. Some of our kids have separated but maintained the standards and patterns they learned at home. Others couldn’t run for the exit fast enough. A few have separated in fits and starts – wanting to be independent, but not really wanting to be independent.

Our job as parents – impossible as it seems – is to prepare them to leave, not to prepare them to stay. I learned some time ago that I cannot judge my success as a parent by the choices my children make. But I have learned there are things I can do to help them learn to separate themselves from me. I can help them see consequences. I can help them think a little longer term than the end of the hour or day or week. I can engage them in conversation and invite them to formulate and express their opinions (even half-baked ones). I can help them identify their strengths and help them to reinforce those. (Chances are they know their weaknesses better than I do; I am learning I don’t need to point those out, but I can still help them to learn how to work through them if they want to.)

Basically, I do need to play God. He put us here with teachers, trainers, parents, prophets, friends and family to help us to learn to live separately from Him (so we can return to Him). Similarly, I need to help my children to arm themselves to live separately from me.

What do you think? What has worked for you in helping your children to be independent?

On agency

I've been engaged in a discussion of agency on another blog, Eric Nielsen's Small and Simple. Thanks, Eric for the discussion and for getting my thoughts churning.

Eric's blog looks at the terms "free agency" and "moral agency." The phrase "moral agency" showed up in three talks in the November 1990 General Conference (President Faust, Elder Packer and Elder Nelson), and in 2006, Elder Christopherson spoke to the term "moral agency" at a BYU devotional (and was subsequently quoted in the Ensign last year):

“In years past we generally used the term free agency. That is not incorrect. More recently we have taken note that free agency does not appear in the scriptures. They talk of our being 'free to choose' and 'free to act' for ourselves (2 Nephi 2:27; 10:23; see also Helaman 14:30) and of our obligation to do many things of our own 'free will' (D&C 58:27). But the word agency appears either by itself or with the modifier moral: 'That every man may act in doctrine and principle … 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' (D&C 101:78; emphasis added). When we use the term moral agency, we are appropriately emphasizing the accountability that is an essential part of the divine gift of agency. We are moral beings and agents unto ourselves, free to choose but also responsible for our choices” (“Moral Agency,” ENSIGN, June 2009, pp. 45-53, from a BYU devotional delivered January 2006).

I'm a simple guy, and I prefer the simpler term agency, as defined at lds.org:

"Agency is the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves. Agency is essential in the plan of salvation. Without it, we would not be able to learn or progress or follow the Savior. With it, we are 'free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil' (2 Nephi 2:27)."

Agency relates to the description of Adam and Eve after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree of knowledge: “And it is given unto them to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves, and I have given unto you another law and commandment” (Moses 6:56).

As such, it seems there are some things agency is and some things it isn't. Agency describes our present state, where we as humans can and do make choices about how we live and what we do. We choose to keep the commandments or not. We choose to obey the law of the land or not. We choose to marry or not. Those choices are made possible because we are agents unto ourselves, because we have agency.

Agency (Free, Moral, or just plain Agency) does not suggest that I should be free to do whatever I want without consequence. It does not suggest that less government is better. It does not suggest that more government is better. It does not mean that teenagers do not need to listen to their parents. Nor does it mean that I can justify ignoring the commandments of God.

In fact, because I have agency, I am accountable for the choices I make. When I choose to act in one way or another, I also choose the consequences of that action. My agency does not free me from the consequence. And the imposition of a consequence does not limit my agency in any way. In fact, I would argue that the imposition of a consequence increases my agency, because it gives weight and meaning to my choices.

When Adam chose to partake of the fruit, he did so knowing the consequences of his choice, good and bad, and then chose. And we can do the same.

Submitting to God's will

Agency is a key tenet of Mormon belief. We teach that even in the premortal existence we were free to choose the plan advanced by the Savior or the one from Lucifer. The former allowed us to come to this earth, make mistakes, enjoy the blessings of an atoning sacrifice, and potentially return to our Father in Heaven. The latter plan would have forced all to obey (not specified how) and demanded the glory for everyone’s return to our Father be given to the author of the plan, Lucifer.

In that struggle of ideas came the war in heaven described in scripture and in remarkable poetry (See Milton’s Paradise Lost). As actors in that war, we choose sides, and, according to prophetic teachings, are here because we sided with the Lord in that struggle. Those who sided with Lucifer were denied bodies and therefore future progression in the Plan of Salvation.

Now that we are here, we are to learn faith and obedience; we are to submit to our Father in Heaven’s will for us. To some that decision seems a paradox, as we are apparently asked to give up that agency in favor of submitting to God’s authority.

The key is that in so surrendering our will to God’s we act of our own volition. The Book of Mormon teaches we are free to choose (2 Nephi 2:27), but also that the natural man (acting only in our own best interest) is an enemy to God and that overcoming the natural man requires us to yield (my emphasis) to God’s way in order to find true and lasting happiness (Mosiah 3:19).

Some find following the commandments to be restrictive suggesting that freedom should allow us to do whatever we want. Mature thinkers will see spiritual adolescence in this way of thinking. Young drivers may also not see the need to follow speed limits until they’ve paid a fine or two, or, worse yet, have injured themselves or others. Mature spiritual thought suggests the trade off between a life run riot and the blessings of obedience is significant, and that the blessed life is the better choice.

Others wrongly suppose that “I am what I am” (what I call the Popeye defense) and I cannot change. If that’s so, then the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ was for nothing. But the atoning sacrifice of the Savior WAS for something, and that something is the gift that we may change, that we may overcome our natural man, that we may be more driven by instinct, that we may learn a better way, His way, that we may prepare to return home to our loving Father.

My experience is that God’s way works. It brings me more joy, more peace, and ultimately, more of what matters the most. And that is in this life, excluding whatever benefit there may be in the life hereafter.

- Paul