Free Agency

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I was told that "free agency" was redundant- that the agency in and of itself is freedom and that unfree agency would be an oxymoron.

[mfbukowski]

Helaman 13: 8-10 "Therefore, thus saith the Lord: Because of the hardness of the hearts of the people of the Nephites, except they repent I will take away my word from them, and I will withdraw my Spirit from them, and I will suffer them no longer, and I will turn the hearts of their brethren against them.

And four hundred years shall not pass away before I will cause that they shall be smitten; yea, I will visit them with the sword and with famine and with pestilence.

Yea, I will visit them in my fierce anger, and there shall be those of the fourth generation who shall live, of your enemies, to behold your utter destruction; and this shall surely come except ye repent, saith the Lord; and those of the fourth generation shall visit your destruction."

How would you then explain these verses to someone who had that same concern I mentioned in my first post?

Biz

Seriously?

You left out verse 5:

5And he said unto them: Behold, I, Samuel, a Lamanite, do speak the words of the Lord which he doth put into my heart;

These are the words of Samuel, a human being, a prophet, who was inspired to say those words. He saw "what was coming" and put the words into human language as he understood them.

The Lord does not dictate- he inspires- notice the words were "put into my heart"- not dictated.

The Lord does not bargain with us- so where it says things in the scriptures where it appears that the Lord is "bargaining" the author is using human concepts to communicate with human beings.

It's like Abraham bargaining with the Lord for Sodom in Genesis 18- sorry, but the Lord doesn't do that!

Don't take everything so literally!

Edit: to clarify perhaps- Samuel was inspired to see what the consequences of their actions would be, and the Lord put that into his heart. He then chose the words to preach what he had felt in his heart- making sound as if the Lord was somehow bargaining. In fact, Samuel was saying "The Lord has shown me what the consequences of you doing this will be- if you go on with this, it will affect generations to come, for hundreds of years!"

If he had said those words instead of what he said, would you be more comfortable with it?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Helaman 13: 8-10 "Therefore, thus saith the Lord: Because of the hardness of the hearts of the people of the Nephites, except they repent I will take away my word from them, and I will withdraw my Spirit from them, and I will suffer them no longer, and I will turn the hearts of their brethren against them.

And four hundred years shall not pass away before I will cause that they shall be smitten; yea, I will visit them with the sword and with famine and with pestilence.

Yea, I will visit them in my fierce anger, and there shall be those of the fourth generation who shall live, of your enemies, to behold your utter destruction; and this shall surely come except ye repent, saith the Lord; and those of the fourth generation shall visit your destruction."

How would you then explain these verses to someone who had that same concern I mentioned in my first post?

Biz

There that is better.

[Biz]

The concept of agency or being a free agent is actually quite simple to understand. An agent is one who acts. A free agent is one whose actions are self-determined rather than being imposed or constrained by force or agreement to the will of another. A servant or slave or employee is bound to act on the wishes of their master or employer. A free agent is not bound by such an agreement.

The Bible teaches that those who have received the teachings of the Law and the Prophets and accepted the covenants of being a member of God's chosen people are bound by the law and are no longer free agents; they are either slaves to sin and Satan or they are slaves to God and Christ.

The Bible further teaches that those outside the law or covenants are neither slaves to Satan nor slaves to God and will be judged according to their own conscience. Such are the only true Free Agents as they are neither slaves to God or to Satan, as the law has no claim upon them.

AmorLibertas,

I thought you gave a great explanation. Essentially, at its basic level, agency in relation to individuals who have made covenants with God resembles the same characteristics as are found in the American legal system. One could then use basic concepts regarding agency law in the legal system to explain why God acts in a way they may not agree with or not understand.

When one is baptized they may go from having “free agency” to a heightened form of “moral agency” which creates some sort of fiduciary relationship. Within the agency relationship is a “contract” or “covenant” in which both parties agree to abide by. When man sins they are in breach of the contract or covenant. The Atonement allows minor sins to not terminate the contract so long as one repents. The prophets play a unique role in helping the contract remain enforceable. But if the individuals refuse to repent, listen to the prophets, and abide by the contract then the contract is terminated. With termination or a breach comes the termination of the relationship. Not only is the relationship or contract terminated but the offending party is liable for wrongful termination and as a result pays some sort of damages.

While this is not the law at its basic level these restatements of the law are useful. These restatements of the law become even more applicable if the individual is a holder of the Priesthood.

Creation

REST 2d AGEN § 1 Agency; Principal; Agent (1) Agency is the fiduciary relation which results from the manifestation of consent by one person to another that the other shall act on his behalf and subject to his control, and consent by the other so to act.

• Comment on Subsection (1):a. The relation of agency is created as the result of conduct by two parties manifesting that one of them is willing for the other to act for him subject to his control, and that the other consents so to act. The principal must in some manner indicate that the agent is to act for him, and the agent must act or agree to act on the principal's behalf and subject to his control.

Termination
REST 2d AGEN § 118 118. Revocation Or Renunciation: Authority terminates if the principal or the agent manifests to the other dissent to its continuance.

• Comment:b. Power to revoke or renounce. The principal has power to revoke and the agent has power to renounce, although doing so is in violation of a contract between the parties and although the authority is expressed to be irrevocable. A statement in a contract that the authority cannot be terminated by either party is effective only to create liability for its wrongful termination.

Biz

[mfbukowski]

Amor and Biz

Very good insights!

I am very familiar with the notion of "agency" in a fiduciary sense but never connected the dots to covenants and the gospel. I think you guys nailed it!

But what does that have to do with God killing people?

[Webster]

Interesting that you should bring up the dictionary definition of agents and agency. I think this is the definition that our scriptures always use.

All five times that scripture refers to people being agents in a doctrinal sense, it always says that men are "agents unto themselves" (or in Adam's case, an "agent unto himself"). Other scriptures which speak of agents in a secular manner use the word "unto" to define the agent's principal. Therefore, the scriptures define men as their own agents, meaning we all do in fact serve a principal -- it is ourselves. We are our own principal. We are left independent to follow our own dictates. And as in the law of agency, when the agent acts upon the will of his principal, the principal is legally bound to the contracts of his agent. Accountability, and consequences for our actions, are build on the foundation of the principle of agency. If Satan could destroy our agency (our ability to legally represent ourselves), we would become unaccountable.

Someone pointed out that "free agency" is not used in our scriptures. Instead, I would say that our scriptures use a unique concept of agency, one that we don't commonly use today since we've wandered off into discussions of philosophical "free agency", choice, freedom, etc.

[Messenger]

Everyone has free angency to do bad things which causes us to lose our free agency. Usually, we are warned before it happens and protected, but not all the time. Sometimes we get the chance to learn from someone elses stupidity first hand. It is my belief that thats what life is all about. Our being mixed with people doing silly or stupid things and yes people experiencing our own sillyness or stupidity. It is difficult sometimes for both, us and them! But alas, there are lessons everywhere! If we didnt forgive, we would never be forgiven in my opinion.

[Biz]

Seriously?

You left out verse 5:

These are the words of Samuel, a human being, a prophet, who was inspired to say those words. He saw "what was coming" and put the words into human language as he understood them.

The Lord does not dictate- he inspires- notice the words were "put into my heart"- not dictated.

The Lord does not bargain with us- so where it says things in the scriptures where it appears that the Lord is "bargaining" the author is using human concepts to communicate with human beings.

It's like Abraham bargaining with the Lord for Sodom in Genesis 18- sorry, but the Lord doesn't do that!

Don't take everything so literally!

Edit: to clarify perhaps- Samuel was inspired to see what the consequences of their actions would be, and the Lord put that into his heart. He then chose the words to preach what he had felt in his heart- making sound as if the Lord was somehow bargaining. In fact, Samuel was saying "The Lord has shown me what the consequences of you doing this will be- if you go on with this, it will affect generations to come, for hundreds of years!"

If he had said those words instead of what he said, would you be more comfortable with it?

With all due respect to verse 5, the beginning of verse 8 begins, "Therefore, thus saith the Lord:" As far as I have been taught whenever a Prophet says, "thus saith the Lord" the Prophet is speaking for and behalf of God and not for himself and we should take the message more literal than less literal. So in this case I interpret it to mean that Samuel is no longer sharing the feelings of his heart which feelings are his personal interpretation of the revelation God gave him, rather, Samuel is speaking for God himself. While there is an extreme grey area in the Church in interpreting when old/current Prophets have acted for God or simply themselves "thus saith the Lord" is about the only thing that stands as black and white.

Your Edit to Clarify is very helpful though because in trying to help someone, insights like that can be helpful. Through your help and others I realized what I needed to learn for myself. But if you set up Samuel as Prophet speaking to the "Nephites" who are the people who have covenanted with God he simply is informing them of their "breach" of the contract and is warning them of the consequences of the breach if they do not repent.

Biz

[Biz]

Interesting that you should bring up the dictionary definition of agents and agency. I think this is the definition that our scriptures always use.

We are our own principal. We are left independent to follow our own dictates. And as in the law of agency, when the agent acts upon the will of his principal, the principal is legally bound to the contracts of his agent. Accountability, and consequences for our actions, are build on the foundation of the principle of agency. If Satan could destroy our agency (our ability to legally represent ourselves), we would become unaccountable.

Well said. My favorite part, "If Satan could destroy our agency (our ability to legally represent ourselves), we would become unaccountable."

Biz

[krose]

If you have an employee that you have warned over and over ... again about his inappropriate actions and he defiantly persists in those actions, eventually the guy has to be fired (pun fully intended).

Of course, "fired" in your example is actually "killed" in the Bible, so don't forget to include the rationale for "firing" his toddler and his newborn baby along with him.

Perhaps they were warned many times as well?

[Scott Lloyd]

If it's true that a significant population of members thought that the word 'free' in the expression 'free agency' contributed to the expression the notion that there was some sort of exemption from the consequences of poor choices, then I'm going to feel a sense of vicarious embarrassment for such people for exhibiting such a level of mental laziness and apparent lack of serious reflection. I mean, seriously, if it's true that the brethren discovered that that was a serious problem, then that would reflect very poorly on the level of attention an apparently significant number of members pay to their theology.

That is, of course, your prerogative. For what it's worth, thankfully, I've yet to meet anyone so foolish as to think that freedom from consequences was packaged into the notion of free agency.

I, on the other hand, see this attitude in those who use the misnomer "free agency" in the hue and cry they raise most anytime the Church of Jesus Christ takes a position on a public issue where morality is concerned.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Of course, "fired" in your example is actually "killed" in the Bible, so don't forget to include the rationale for "firing" his toddler and his newborn baby along with him.

Perhaps they were warned many times as well?

And who, pray tell, would take in all those now orphaned pagan children if only the adults and accountable older youths were executed?

Since I have a proper understanding of the standing of little children before God, I feel no heartburn over the question.

[Webster]

I, on the other hand, see this attitude in those who use the misnomer "free agency" in the hue and cry they raise most anytime the Church of Jesus Christ takes a position on a public issue where morality is concerned.

I agree that both agency and the idea of "free agency" have been misinterpreted and misused by some. It's one of my pet peeves.

Some erroneously see agency as a license to do whatever they want. Some even imply that doing what they want is more important than striving to do God's will. To them, agency (i.e., freedom) is more important than coming unto Christ. Their rights and freedoms effectively become their god. They think the main purpose of God's plan is to grant and uphold this so-called agency, when His ultimate purpose is the exaltation of men through the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Some believe that when someone else 1) tells them what they should do, 2) says that something is wrong, or 3) interferes with their life in any way, that agency is somehow diminished, damaged, or destroyed. This is usually used by those who want the freedom to do whatever they want, and often expect the church to either say nothing or accept their way of life. They feel they can tell the church how it is, but they don't allow the church to exercise its freedom to speak. I sometimes wonder what they think a church is for.

I've heard some parents essentially say that they won't "force" the gospel on their children. They fear that teaching their children or "making" them do anything would result in taking away their agency. This is basically their way of saying that the gospel is not very important to them, and they put little emphasis on it in their homes. They feel they are following God's plan and allowing their children to have agency when they don't teach or emphasize the gospel.

When we focus on the idea that agency is a right or a freedom, we get a few people who incorrectly use that idea to their advantage. I think the dictionary's definition of agency (the ability to act, instumentality, or the legal ability to act for, or represent, another) places the emphasis on accountability where it should be. The scriptures say that men are, "agents unto themselves." Using the dictionary and the law of agency, this would mean that humans 1) are allowed the right to legally represent themselves, and 2) are legally bound to the consequences of their actions. Most who get it wrong want to focus on their rights, but when you act as your own agent you are legally accountable for those things which you do. The emphasis of agency should be on the accountability that results from our actions, then all of the foolishness that I mentioned above would disappear.

[AmorLibertas]

I've heard some parents essentially say that they won't "force" the gospel on their children. They fear that teaching their children or "making" them do anything would result in taking away their agency. This is basically their way of saying that the gospel is not very important to them, and they put little emphasis on it in their homes. They feel they are following God's plan and allowing their children to have agency when they don't teach or emphasize the gospel.

I believe you do such individuals an injustice by supposing that the gospel is not very important to them. On the contrary, I suspect it is very important to them; they simply realize that getting another to share their beliefs or values is not generally successful when done through compulsion or coercion. Such parents would do well to learn better techniques in evangelizing their children to their beliefs and morals rather than simply giving up or resorting to force and compulsion.

When we focus on the idea that agency is a right or a freedom, we get a few people who incorrectly use that idea to their advantage. I think the dictionary's definition of agency (the ability to act, instumentality, or the legal ability to act for, or represent, another) places the emphasis on accountability where it should be. The scriptures say that men are, "agents unto themselves." Using the dictionary and the law of agency, this would mean that humans 1) are allowed the right to legally represent themselves, and 2) are legally bound to the consequences of their actions.

It is not simply that we are allowed the right to legally represent ourselves, it is that we are allowed to act on our own behalf rather than being bound to act in service to another.

Most who get it wrong want to focus on their rights, but when you act as your own agent you are legally accountable for those things which you do. The emphasis of agency should be on the accountability that results from our actions, then all of the foolishness that I mentioned above would disappear.

Or you could take the biblical route and point out that man is not an agent unto himself once he or she accepts Jesus Christ as their savior. At that point they are no longer agents unto themselves but rather servants of God in Christ. Alternatively, if one learns and then rejects the Gospel, according to the Bible, they are agents of sin and of Satan. According to the Bible, only those without (outside/apart from) the law are truly agents unto themselves in this life and will be judged according to the dictates of their own conscience.

[Scott Lloyd]

Or you could take the biblical route and point out that man is not an agent unto himself once he or she accepts Jesus Christ as their savior.

I know of no scriptural passage, Biblical or otherwise, that implies a person ceases to be an agent unto himself once he accepts Christ. Even then, freedom to choose is present — as are the consequences for the choice.

[cksalmon]

The concept of agency or being a free agent is actually quite simple to understand. An agent is one who acts. A free agent is one whose actions are self-determined rather than being imposed or constrained by force or agreement to the will of another. A servant or slave or employee is bound to act on the wishes of their master or employer. A free agent is not bound by such an agreement.

The Bible teaches that those who have received the teachings of the Law and the Prophets and accepted the covenants of being a member of God's chosen people are bound by the law and are no longer free agents; they are either slaves to sin and Satan or they are slaves to God and Christ.

The Bible further teaches that those outside the law or covenants are neither slaves to Satan nor slaves to God and will be judged according to their own conscience. Such are the only true Free Agents as they are neither slaves to God or to Satan, as the law has no claim upon them.

Hi AL,

With Brade (and you, I think!), I'd just reiterate that the term "free agent" has a specific, well-attested, long-used meaning in the literature.

"A free agent is one whose actions are self-determined rather than being imposed or constrained by force or agreement to the will of another." That's not a bad definition.

But, your melding of the philosophical usage of the term with the biblical concepts of slavery to [righteousness] vs. slavery to [sin] (a very important concept, to be sure), is less than helpful.

To press your usage, if those who become slaves of God are no longer "free agents," then their subsequent actions are no longer self-determined; that is, they no longer possess "agency," either in the philosophical sense or in the modified LDS sense (which are, in reality, pretty darn synonymous, it would seem).

So, I don't think yours, here, is a helpful distinction.

With regard to how LDS writers and authorities may have ditched "free agency" in favor of "agency" secondary to concerns about what the philosophical term may imply for some LDS hearers (immunity from consequences), I think a cleaner solution would be to simply teach that, by "free agency," we (i.e., LDS) do not mean "immunity from the consequences attending our choices," but rather we mean X. Because, then, what LDS mean by "agency" is going to be pretty much what everyone else means by "free agency."

Having said that, I think LDS should use whatever term they prefer. It doesn't bother me. It just seems like an unnecessary and confusing step to argue that LDS "agency" is "'free agency' plus the entailed consequences of personal choice." Because that just is what the literature generally means by "free agency." I thought Brade might make that point, but then he might not have thought it worth the trouble of pointing out.

There are other, larger issues, but this one seems fundamental.

Best.

cks

eta: I should note that one of those larger issues is, indeed, how one defines "agency," and tightly bound up with that, how one defines constraint, etc. But, assuming libertarian freedom, which is the view that 99.9% (my rough guesstimate) of my LDS friends propound, I sincerely tender my basic analysis supra.

[AmorLibertas]

I know of no scriptural passage, Biblical or otherwise, that implies a person ceases to be an agent unto himself once he accepts Christ. Even then, freedom to choose is present — as are the consequences for the choice.

I would recommend you consider 1 Corinthians 6 as a starting place, with emphasis on v 19 & 20.

19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? (empahsis mine)

20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

Simply because you are no longer a free agent doesn't mean you don't have the capacity to choose to rebel. I'm not suggesting that agency is the same as the ability to choose, it is the liberty to choose. A free agent is at liberty to choose according to their own will; a servant or slave is obligated to obey the wishes of their master or lord.

[Scott Lloyd]

I would recommend you consider 1 Corinthians 6 as a starting place, with emphasis on v 19 & 20.

19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? (empahsis mine)

20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

I don't agree with the interpretation that the above nullifies the agency of one who has accepted Christ. In effect, and taken in the context of other scriptural doctrine, the above is saying that no mortal being can save himself, that one is totally dependent upon Christ's atonement for salvation. But one is at liberty to accept or reject that offer of salvation through one's own obedience/disobedience to God's commandments.