Pragmatism and The Perils of Paradoxes-A Religious Exploration of Contradictions and Their Benefits
“Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them” (Matthew 7:20). A commonly quoted passage from the Bible is often used in a Mormon, or LDS (Latter-day Saint) context to offer advice on the merits of an action. From a pragmatic view, this would be a viable way to analyze the worth of a belief. Paradoxes are not typically viewed as a positive thing in society, however, the issues of the Fall, war, and peace, and free-will versus determinism, have a practical effect among LDS members. [1]
Around the United States Mormons are known for many things, particularly for their high rate of charitable work and donations. [1] Mormon society’s work-oriented nature embodies many pragmatic elements. Caring for the poor and needy is a fundamental aspect of Mormon theology, and this is put into action with programs such as their flour mills, bishop’s storehouses, and tithes and offerings. Not only is it a belief that is held to be important, it is one that is consistently practiced. The results of such a practice allow for the believers to see the fruits of their actions. Coupled with pragmatism, the apparent paradoxes throughout Mormon doctrine and theology establish a tension that heavily influences the way their culture and attitude approach a wide range of issues. Paradoxes are problematic due to the mental anguish they cause in people. [2] Generally, when people are presented with two opposing statements from the same source, the viability of the source is often questioned. Logic and reason draw people away from contradictions, but the unique cultural and social results that derive from paradoxes in Mormon society oddly shows positive fruits. The existence of paradoxes in the Mormon faith are challenging, but these potential costs are mitigated by the practical benefits manifested from paradoxes in Mormon society. The paradoxes of the Fall, war, and peace, and free-will versus determinism will be explored in depth. This essay will show that the results of paradoxes mitigate the potential costs.
Mormons tend to interpret Biblical events in different ways than other Christians. In the first book of the Bible, God gives two commandments to Adam and Eve.
Multiply and replenish the earth
Do not partake of the forbidden fruit
Mormon doctrine teaches that Adam and Eve were placed in the garden of Eden to live in the presence of God. However, the garden did not present any opportunity for progress or opposition. Essentially if Adam and Eve remained in the garden of Eden they would be in a static state that provided no improvement. In the garden of Eden, they would live in a state of innocence with no ability to procreate (i.e. multiply and replenish the earth). However, if Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit they would “fall” and be cast from the presence of God. This would allow for them to procreate and bring the spirits of humankind to earth to live in a world replete with evil and destruction. Whatever choice Adam and Eve made would be a direct violation of the other commandment. These conflicting commandments create dissonance. Looking past the logical elements of this biblical account, one can see the effects it has on Mormon society. Mormon families above other Christian faiths are known for having many children. In the Bible, one can clearly find the command given by God to multiply and replenish the earth. Why is it that Mormons seem to adhere to this command more than other Christians? Because most other Christians view the Fall in a negative light.
The unique paradox is that God presented two options to Adam and Eve: stay in the garden of Eden and don’t reproduce or leave the garden of Eden and reproduce. Eve was the first to choose to transgress the commandment to not partake of the fruit, and this has been hailed in Mormon theology as making a courageous decision. From a Mormon perspective, it is believed that the choice to violate the commandment was an integral part of God’s plan of salvation, and thus multiplying and replenishing the earth was of utmost importance. Because Mormons hold to this belief that the first progenitors made a commendable decision to break the law to “bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man”, multiplying and replenishing the earth is a way of respecting and embracing the doctrine of the Fall. The effects of this are the ever-growing number of members in the Mormon church and the focus on a children-centered marriage.
Marriage trends in the world have seen an increase in age within the last decade, but Mormons typically get married and start to have kids at a much younger age than both the national and world averages [2]. [n4] From the perspective of the church institution, the younger age of marriage and procreation translates into more members. One who has grown up and wants to preserve their belief in the Mormon faith would feel inclined to marry another of the same beliefs. A Mormon family-centered marriage would focus on raising their children in the teachings of LDS culture and theology. Thus, one can see that the paradox of the conflicting commandments results in members placing an increased reverence for the command to multiply and replenish the earth. The violation of the commandment to not partake of the fruit can be justified by claiming that it was not as important and would have frustrated God’ plan had Adam and Eve chosen to follow it. This paradox of the Fall has caused many to question the veracity of it as a made-up story used to illustrate a point, but the results that stem from this paradox are mitigated by the fore mentioned benefits.
Mormonism’s use of the Bible and Book of Mormon allow for extended interpretation concerning the paradox of war and peace. Typically, the tension that is felt from these paradoxes derive from two scripture verses:
Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God (Matthew 5:9).
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword (Matthew 10:34)
The elementary response to this concern would be that Jesus was addressing two different contexts. In the first case he is emphasizing the importance of not having a contentious heart and to live the gospel more fully. In the second case, he is making a case for full devotion to the gospel. From a religious sense, Christ is asserting that you are either with him or against him. This can be understood in a metaphorical context. The scriptures (both the Book of Mormon and Bible) are filled with numerous verses that state the utmost importance to maintain peace but is then followed by a call to war. To many this leaves room to consider the situations in which war is justified. The answer to when war is justified will vary greatly depending on the individual, but what is important is the effects this projects onto Mormon culture and their general attitude towards wars waged between nation states. In the Book of Mormon, the Book of Alma contains a set of chapters that discuss the war years of the Nephites. “Behold, it came to pass that while Moroni was thus breaking down the wars and contentions among his own people, and subjecting them to peace and civilization, and making regulations to prepare for war against the Lamanites” (Alma 51:22). Within this scripture’s verse there are mentions of establishing peace in the land, yet the people are simultaneously preparing for war against the Lamanites. Later, in the Book of Mormon, the scriptures praise Moroni for being “a man that did not delight in bloodshed” (Alma 48:11). From these verses of scripture, modern day Mormons would typically extrapolate that war should not be waged unless necessary. The Mormon understanding of these scriptures seem to be that conflict with the Lamanites was inevitable, and if they did not defend themselves, they would be subject to the laws of the Lamanites and would not have freedom to worship God. In situations such as the Iraq war, Mormons were heavily in favor of the war, deeming it to not be a mistake [3]. This could possibly stem from the perception that the tyranny of the Iraqi government was worth overthrowing, or that the threat of terrorist attacks needed to be quickly counteracted.
Lobbyist Connor Boyack in 2012 countered this seemingly Mormon attitude towards the Iraq war by posting a billboard which stated, “Why did Spencer W. Kimball say: We are a warlike people?” [4]. Mr. Boyack cites the talk by President Kimball entitled, “The False God’s we Worship” [5]. Essentially this speech given by an LDS prophet condemns the attitudes of members to put peace to the side and embrace war. "When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel — ships, planes, missiles, fortifications — and depend on them for protection and deliverance." Essentially, President Kimball urged the saints to deny war when possible and embrace the gospel. One can see in a modern context the tension that is created in the Mormon culture. On one hand Mormons feel the need to embrace war to protect their society and on the other they are rebuked to accept peace over anything else. This unique paradox creates a check on the call for war and is balanced out by pushback from the advocates of war. The results of this paradox are embodied by diversity of political and philosophical thought on the justification of war in the Mormon community. Mormon leaders seem to act as correcting mechanisms in the society to use one side of the paradox or the other to influence members’ views on war. The cost of this paradox could be identified as Mormons being deceived into supporting an immoral war, but from a Mormon perspective this is mitigated by the revelation and inspiration driven nature of church leadership. Thus, tension of war and peace in Mormonism is eased through the mitigating factors of the rational benefits that come from this paradox.
Agency is one of the core principles of Mormon doctrine. The council in heaven that Mormons believe to be the establishment of the plan of salvation, was based on preserving the agency of man. Lucifer opposed the plan and promised to deliver all the children of God back to Him on the condition of eliminating the ramifications of choices. Although Mormons believe strongly in a concept of free-will, there are some contentions as to how free humans really are. The following scriptures can show the paradox of determinism and free-will.
“Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself...” (2 Nephi 2:16).
“And he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born” (Abraham 3:23).
Mormons consistently stress the importance of humankind having the ability to choose between right and wrong. The choices that humans made to come to this earth was an important one, and this decision-making process continues in this life. The apparent paradox that seems to form around this idea comes along with the principle of foreordination. There are many scriptures in Mormon cannon that point to the idea of man being ordained to a calling in life prior to coming to this earth. The core concern is that if God has predetermined certain roles on earth, that would mean that the life experiences that the person will go through is set in place to an extent. This predetermination could be somewhat fluid, but essentially the free-will/agency of that person is limited. That person will be presented with experiences that are in line with the predetermined role. If one is trying to ease the tension from this apparent paradox, it is probable to assume that although the predetermined role of the person is put into certain life experiences, they still have the choice to reject those experiences and take another path. But an objection to this claim would argue that because the person was placed in certain life experiences in the first place, their choices are severely limited, and they do not truly have free-will. A commonly held Mormon belief is that Joseph Smith was predetermined to take on the role of “Prophet of the Restoration.” Joseph Smith grew up in a very religious home and his prayer brought about the First Vision. He sought religious truth and was predestined by God to take on the role of bringing back the gospel. There are a few accounts of Joseph Smith being sternly told that if he used the golden plates for his own profit he would be cut off (Joseph Smith History 1:59). Joseph Smith did have the ability to make alternative choices, but this was at the threat of being cut off. Furthermore, he was obliged to complete the delegated role of Prophet of the Restoration. It can be fairly argued that in a situation such as this he had little free-will. Other examples could include things such as someone being born with homosexual tendencies or genetic defects that heavily impact the way in which they live. There are many opinions in response to these questions, but the tension that becomes apparent with free-will and determinism has realistic results. Mormon society has generally been known as one that is centered around works. In fact, Mormons have commonly been characterized as heavily work-oriented (i.e. Pelagian) and shy away from the idea of grace. [6] The reason for this can be attributed to many things, but it is argued that the strong belief in agency and earning one’s way back to God results in the fruit of action. Mormons place heavy emphasis and value on performing and seeing the fruits of their labor. On the other hand, the idea of foreordination in Mormonism allows for them to explain difficult situations, experiences, or leadership roles. This could consist of a situation where a missionary is killed in a tragic car accident. Mormons would conclude that God needed that person back in his presence, thus a deadly accident was required to bring them back. For an outsider this may seem like a paradox of one’s free-will being restricted and not allowed to live the full effects of their life. But for Mormons, it presents a unique tension that motivates them to create a works-oriented society and provides a method to explain tragic situations and leadership. The argument of free-will and determinism is far from over, but the results that it brings about in Mormon society is mitigated by the positive fruits of good actions and a hopeful mindset.
One can see that there are many effects of these seemingly opposite concepts, but the results are explained as a mitigating factor to ease these tensions. Often, religious people who care about the logical aspects of theology and doctrine are deeply concerned by apparent contradictions. Speculation can at times ease contradictions, but they often result in more questions and tension. Dwelling on these paradoxes can lead to an abyss of doubt and peril, but ultimately the bright light of the fruit that results outweighs the darkness.
Works Cited
“Penn Research Shows That Mormons Are Generous and Active in Helping Others.” Penn Today, Penn Research Shows That Mormons Are Generous and Active in Helping Others | Penn Today.
“Social Characteristics.” Social Characteristics - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Social Characteristics.
Gallup, Inc. “Among Religious Groups, Jewish Americans Most Strongly Oppose War.” Solve your organization’s most pressing problems - Gallup, 23 Feb. 2007, Among Religious Groups, Jewish Americans Most Strongly Oppose War.
Meyers, Donald W., and Salt Lake Tribune. “Billboard: Why Did LDS Leader Say Mormons Are Warlike?” The Salt Lake Tribune, Billboard: Why did LDS leader say Mormons are warlike?.
“The False Gods We Worship.” Ensign, www.lds.org/ensign/1976/06/the-false-gods-we-worship?lang=eng.
“Mormons Are Not Christians” – One Reason They Say It.” LDS Magazine, http://ldsmag.com/article-1-7692/
