TG Mortality 25 - 2 Nephi 2 (III)

I think it’s important to note that I’m not asserting that Lehi ISN’T revealing some deep metaphysical/ontological structures here on which the very existence of God depend (though I find it hard to even conceive what mortal tools I might use to prove that he is), but I AM saying a close reading of his words as a “gedanken” or “thought experiment” about the intellectual consequences to those individuals or societies who choose to try to live without the law seems to fit the text equally as well AND to provide us with some useful application of his words to our mortal condition.  Is such a train of thought a total anachronism for Lehi’s time?  I would suggest we could fruitfully draw comparisons with the roughly contemporaneous Ionion “physikoi” among the Greeks, with Lucretius in the 1^st century B.C., and with evidence from the book of Psalms (which most scholars concede contains much pre-exilic material) of the existence of strains of Hebrew thought that seek to exclude the existence of God and the reality of the moral law (off the top of my head here, at least Psalms 14).  A closer study of what has been preserved of Near-Eastern wisdom literature might reveal more parallels in Lehi’s more immediate environment (memory suggests the Egyptian “dispute between a man and his Ba” and the Babylonian “dialogue of pessimism” as examples of deep existential probing).  The Book of Proverbs (again with at least some pre-exilic content) might be especially useful.

            Looked at in this way, Second Nephi chapter two contains a powerful critique of the implications of a materialistic world view for any conception of “free will.”  Using Aristotle’s distinction, the “physikoi” who sought to explain the origin and nature of things only from matter (as opposed to the “theologoi” who sought them in the supernatural), have a very hard time avoiding the collapse of moral (and other important) distinctions.  Watching Margulis and Sagan attempt to rescue some of those distinctions is especially instructive.  They earnestly try to provide some scientific (evolutionary) underpinnings to such concepts as truth, beauty, love and biophilia.  It takes little thought to realize that an evolutionary structure for the production of mental pleasure in some patterns we call “true” or “beautiful” or in reacting with concern to some human beings or even life as a whole (biophilia) gives them no significant moral or ontological standing at all.  It certainly doesn’t privilege them in any way over biological urges such as aggression, violence, competition or dominance that from an evolutionary stand point must have equal status as products of the evolutionary processes.  Even Margulis and Sagan are forced to conclude that “belief in the life’s importance may not be a reflection of reality, then, but an evolutionarily reinforced fantasy that prejudices believers to do what is necessary, bear whatever burdens, to survive.”  Such an outlook is certainly difficult to reconcile with God’s “eternal purposes in the end of man” (v. 15). 

            The concerns Lehi had about the implications of a world view that deny the reality of a creator and an objective moral law are quite relevant in our day.  They underpin the concerns expressed by Elder Packer in his thoughtful treatment of the implications of the doctrine of evolution within a Mormon context.  He was careful to make it quite clear he was not teaching doctrine nor speaking for the church, simply articulating some deep concerns he personally had about the implications of the concept.  I know that the article ("The Law and the Light") has been caricatured as anti-scientific and intellectually shallow, even (heaven forbid) “anti-evolution.”  A careful rereading of the article strikes me differently.  He is wrestling, as all intelligent Mormons must, with how to apply the truths of the gospel to the world we live in today, including the state of scientific discovery and scientific thought as it exists in our time.  You may not agree with every personal conclusion that he reaches (I’m certainly a little more agnostic on several points than he is), but it is still evidence of a thoughtful and perceptive grasp of the issues.  Several of his objections to the idea of a theistically directed creation of man’s body via evolutionary channels should give any believing Mormon some food for deeper thought.  Elder Packer is a bit of a “bete noire” among Mormon intellectuals for a variety of reasons, but I personally think it often leads to an underestimation of a man with significant intellectual gifts.  Aside from the revelation that has flowed through him as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, I cannot read anything he writes (even some things I disagree with) without finding myself respecting him as a thoughtful, intelligent man.  Anyway, I find the core of his concerns in the article parallel my concerns as I’ve read significant texts on evolution—the fundamental assault on theism and the moral law. 

            As my oldest son likes to point out, there is evolution with a small “e” and Evolution with a large “E.”  I’m really not aiming at a discussion of evolution and Mormonism.  A fine review of the current situation is found here:

            http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/lds/lds-history-evolution.php

            What I AM concerned with as I think about Free Will, is the cultural impact of Evolution with a large “E.”  Lehi makes it clear that the concept of agency, as we understand it within the gospel, is meaningless outside of a world view that includes a creator and an objectively real moral law.