One horn of this dilemma is the argument that if an action was caused or necessitated, then it could not have been done freely and hence the agent is not responsible for it. The other horn is the argument that if the action was not caused, then it is inexplicable and random, and thus it cannot be attributed to the agent and hence, again, the agent cannot be responsible for it. -Paul Russell: Freedom and Moral Sentiment, p. 14-

Paul Russel discusses the ‘Horns of the dilemma’ found when we get at the root of determinism and chance. Either way, the extreme of both views means that free agents do not control their choices. They are simply science experiments moved by the experimenter. The religionists hold to God as the great mover in the deterministic model, and the scientists welcome the randomness of nature and laws of physics as the great mover. I believe that both worship a golden calf. William James’ provides a third horn that can resolve the conflict in his 1884 ’The Dilemma of Determinism’.

A Greek woman had an ailing daughter who arrived at Jesus’ feet to beg for His miracles in her family. Jesus responded, ‘Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it unto the dogs.’ His response seems to say that His mission did not involve her or her people. He had a plan, and it did not involve miracles for her as a Greek woman. She then responds in humility, ‘Yes, Lord: yet the dogs under the table eat of the children’s crumbs.’ This response gives Jesus insight into His mission and His interaction with her. He responds, ‘For this saying go thy way; the devil is gone out of thy daughter.’ Did the Greek woman change Jesus’ mind?

Omniscience is not used in the Bible or Latter-day scripture. This leaves humanity guessing as to whether God agrees with the word He has never used in His revelations. All Christian religions have taken the concept into their vocabulary; However, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has done little to dogmatize the definition of omniscience. Let’s look at the history of omniscience and how various Christian denominations define it.

Does God change his mind (Numbers 23:19 & 1 Samuel 15:29)? Too often, when we talk about changing another’s mind, the implication is that we moved them from a wrong belief to a correct understanding. Or maybe, that one was so persuasive that another moved from their current thinking - regardless of the truth of either position. There is a third space where minds or decisions change. A relational space where new actors enter the scene and others within the group, knowing there are multiple viable options, are willing to mold their plans to accommodate the new dynamic.

In 2 Nephi 3, Lehi shares with his son Joseph a fascinating revelation that Joseph of Egypt1 saw the Nephite day over a thousand years in the future as well as Joseph Smith’s day over 2000 years farther into the future. This example is often shared with me from my friends when we get farther along with the conversation about the openness of God. It is an excellent example to push us to think about God’s knowledge of the future and how He could know Joseph Smith’s name if His children made free choices from Joseph of Egypt’s day (1700 BC) to 1830 New England times.

In LDS culture, Matthew 24:36 is quoted as witnessing that God knows the exact moment of His second coming. Without the surrounding verses, it is powerful in its statement of God’s knowledge of the future. Jesus says, ‘But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.’ Two analogies wrap verse 36 about nature and seasons that strongly implies a relational view of the timing of the second coming instead of a stopwatch or Japanese train arrival view.

In Luke 18:1-8, Jesus shares the parable of the importuning Widow and Unjust Judge (also called the parable of the persistent widow). In this parable, we learn that persistent prayers receive answers. The parable proposes that prayers can be answered through faithful wearying. The widow petitions the king, and the king ignores her. Finally, the king relents. Not out of compassion but because of her wearying. It looks like the rationale or justness of the request, the king’s character or the woman’s character is not justified or explained.

In Elder Holland’s book titled, Christ and the New Covenant, I first encountered the fascinating idea that God could change his behavior based on our prayers and faith. This paragraph stretched my mind. A final explanation-and in terms of the brother of Jared’s faith the most persuasive one-is that Christ was saying to the brother of Jared, “Never have I showed myself unto man in this manner, without my volition, driven solely by the faith of the beholder.