[Footnote A: II Nephi ii:27.]
2. Moral Freedom to Follow Man in all Estates: When the earthlife was proposed, Intelligences were about to exercise that freedom in a new sphere of existence; in a new environment, under new, and to them, doubtless, strange conditions. The plan Lucifer proposed involved the destruction of his freedom. "Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man," says the Lord. "Here am I," said Lucifer, "send me. I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind that not one soul shall be lost."[A] Under this plan, Intelligences were to have an earth-life in which there would be no losses; a world where there was nothing adventurous and dangerous, a "game" in which there are no real stakes; all that was "hazarded" would be given back. All must be saved; and no price is to be paid in the work of salvation. The last word is to be sweet. All is to be "yes," "yes" in the universe.[B] The fact of "no" was nowhere to stand at the core of things. There could be no seriousness attributed to life under such a plan, since there were to be no insuperable "noes" and "losses;" no genuine sacrifices anywhere; nothing permanently drastic and bitter to remain at the bottom of the cup. "I will redeem all mankind, that not one soul shall be lost," said Lucifer; "and surely I will do it." Man was to have nothing to do in the achievement, all was to be done for him. He was to be passive, merely. Not a thing to act, but something to be acted upon. Such only could be the outcome of a world where all mankind would be saved, "that not one soul should be lost." It would be an utterly meaningless world. Without heroism; listless indifference would claim it. Passage through such an estate would add nothing to Intelligences. And yet, beyond question, there were natures among the Intelligences of heaven that longed for such a scheme of things, so much they dreaded danger, adventure and the stress of life that comes from individual struggle and individual responsibility. "Give us ease, let us have things done for us without our concern and the pain of striving," is their cry. And a third part of the hosts of heaven Lucifer turned away from the Lord in that day, because they made this election, and they became the devil and his angels (Doc. & Cov., Sec. xxix).
[Footnote A: Book of Moses, Ch. iv:4.]
[Footnote B: The expressions here used are a paraphrase of a passage in a lecture of the late Prof. Wm. James, on "Pragmatism" (page 295), on the thought, "May not the notion of a world already saved in toto anyhow, be too saccharine to stand.">[
3. The Thoughts of a Modern Philosopher: Mr. Wm. James, in his "Pragmatism," has a very wonderful passage bearing upon the whole thought here dwelt upon; and it is so pregnant with suggestion relative to our theme, so supported by philosophical thought and analysis of human nature, both strong and weak, that one marvels at the idea and thought in it which so parallels our own doctrines advanced in the Book of Moses—the doctrines above considered and given to the Church, in large part, in the very first years of her existence.[A] The following is the passage from Mr. James:
[Footnote A: For full account of the Book of Moses, see Seventy's Year Book. No. I, Lessons v and vi. It was published in full by F. D. Richards in the Pearl of Great Price, 1851, Liverpool, England.]
"Suppose that the world's Author put the case to you before creation, saying: 'I am going to make a world not certain to be saved, a world the perfection of which shall be conditional merely, the condition being that each several agent does its own "level best." I offer you the chance of taking part in such a world. Its safety, you see, is unwarranted. It is a real adventure, with real danger, yet it may win through. It is a social scheme of co-operative work genuinely to be done. Will you join the procession? Will you trust yourself and trust the other agents enough to face the risk?
"Should you, in all seriousness, if participation in such a world were proposed to you, feel bound to reject it as not safe enough? Would you say that, rather than be part and parcel of so fundamentally pluralistic and irrational a universe, you preferred to relapse into the slumber of nonentity from which you had been momentarily aroused by the tempter's voice?[A]
[Footnote A: Of course this proposition of relapsing into "nonentity" is no part of the "Mormon" scheme of thought, since the actual proposition of our revelations was made to Intelligences alike uncreated and uncreatable, and alike indestructible; so that while in the exercise of their freedom these Intelligences might decline participation in the scheme of things proposed, they could not sink back into nonentities.]
"Of course, if you are normally constituted, you would do nothing of the sort. There is a healthy-minded buoyancy in most of us which such a universe would exactly fit. We would therefore accept the offer—'Top! and schlag auf schlag!" It would be just like the world we practically live in; and loyalty to our old nurse Nature would forbid us to say no. The world proposed would seem 'rational' to us in the most living way.
"Most of us, I say, would therefore welcome the proposition and add our fiat to the fiat of the creator. Yet perhaps some would not; for there are morbid minds in every human collection, and to them the prospect of a universe with only a fighting chance of safety would probably make no appeal. There are moments of discouragement in us all, when we are sick of self and tired of vainly striving. Our own life breaks down, and we fall into the attitude of the prodigal son. We mistrust the chances of things. We want a universe where we can just give up, fall on our father's neck, and be absorbed into the absolute life as a drop of water melts into the river or the sea.
"The peace and rest, the security desiderated at such moments is security against the bewildering accidents of so much finite experience. Nirvana means safety from this everlasting round of adventures of which the world of sense consists. The Hindo and the Buddhist, for this is essentially their attitude, are simply afraid, afraid of more experience, afraid of life!
"And to men of this complexion, religious monism comes with its consoling words: 'All is needed and essential—even you and your sick soul and heart. All are one with God, and with God all is well. The everlasting arms are beneath, whether in the world of finite appearance you seem to fail or to succeed.' There can be no doubt that when men are reduced to their last sick extremity, absolutism is the only saving scheme. Pluralistic moralism simply makes their teeth chatter, it refrigerates the very heart within their breast. * * *
"I find myself willing to take the universe to be really dangerous and adventurous, without therefore backing out and crying, no play. I am willing to think that the prodigal son attitude, open to us as it is in many vicissitudes, is not the right and final attitude towards the whole of life. I am willing that there should be real losses and real losers, and no total preservation of all that is. I can believe in the ideal as an ultimate, not as an origin, and as an extract, not the whole. When the cup is poured off, the dregs are left behind forever, but the possibility of what is poured off is sweet enough to accept.
"As a matter of fact, countless human imaginations live in this moralistic and epic kind of a universe, and find its disseminated and strung along successes sufficient for their rational needs. There is a finely translated epigram in the Greek anthology which admirably expresses this state of mind, this acceptance of loss as unatoned for, even though the lost element might be one's self:
"A shipwrecked sailor, buried on this coast,
Bids you set sail.
Full many a gallant bark, when we were lost,
Weathered the gale."