inquiringmind Posted November 13, 2011 Posted November 13, 2011 Do uncreated intelligences have agency, or is it given to them by God?Also, do we have any part in our own creation/organization?
LeSellers Posted November 13, 2011 Posted November 13, 2011 Do uncreated intelligences have agency, or is it given to them by God?Yes.All "sentient" entities have agency.Also, do we have any part in our own creation/organization?From intelligence to spirit?To the extent that we could have remained intelligences, I believe we chose to advance from the first to the second nature. But we were incapable of making that transition on our own, not any more than we were able to become physical beings without our parents.From spirit to physical beings?To the extent that we could have remained spirits, we know that some did (e.g., Satan and his minions). We can conjecture that others have chosen to remain as spirits, fearing to fail, while having no desire to reject Father as their Patriarch and Sovereign. This is, however, nothing more than conjecture. We do not know. Other interpretations are equally logical (and perhaps more so). Still others are less logical (but may still be true—logic does not define truth).Whatever one imagines, absent a definitive statement from authorized prophets, we must be certain to recognize that conjecture is not doctrine, and therefore be willing to jettison it when more light and knowledge are available.Lehi 1
Log Posted November 13, 2011 Posted November 13, 2011 Yes.All "sentient" entities have agency.Therefore, children are not sentient.
ldsfaqs Posted November 13, 2011 Posted November 13, 2011 I'm not sure if I would say for sure like LeSellers that "intelligences" have Agency.Maybe because the word intelligence is used, it's implied in it, but I'm wondering if there might be a different degree of agency. Are intelligences actually sentient? Maybe? I know spirits would be.Anyway, I'm not an expert on this. LeSeller is likely right though.
ldsfaqs Posted November 13, 2011 Posted November 13, 2011 (edited) Therefore, children are not sentient.What gives you that idea from his statement?There are levels of agency. From the simple ability to choose between one thing and another, and then the ability to know all the consequences etc. of a choice. Children have agency because they can choose, but until they reach the age of accountability, they don't start to understand all aspects of choice, to then start making choices based on good and evil, right and wrong etc. and understanding why. Edited November 13, 2011 by ldsfaqs
LeSellers Posted November 13, 2011 Posted November 13, 2011 Therefore, children are not sentient.Non sequitor: "agency" and "accountability" are not synonymous.Children are not accountable. They do have agency. Lehi
altersteve Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Therefore, children are not sentient.CFR that children don't have agency.
Log Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 A) Power is not given unto Satan to tempt little childrenandB) It must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves.Children cannot be tempted, therefore they they don't have agency. Since they don't have agency, they aren't sentient, according to LeSellers.That's the problem with using bad definitions in the first place - the OP erred in using the word 'agency'. Intelligences have free will, that being their defining characteristic, but they need not have agency.
altersteve Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 A) Power is not given unto Satan to tempt little childrenandB) It must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves.Children cannot be tempted, therefore they they don't have agency. Since they don't have agency, they aren't sentient, according to LeSellers.That's the problem with using bad definitions in the first place - the OP erred in using the word 'agency'. Intelligences have free will, that being their defining characteristic, but they need not have agency.I'm not following you. Why can't children have agency if they can't be tempted?
Log Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 I'm not following you. Why can't children have agency if they can't be tempted?Because agency is the ability to submit to either the enticings of the Holy Spirit or the temptations of the devil. As for following me, I'm quoting the D&C - section 29, I believe.
altersteve Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) Because agency is the ability to submit to either the enticings of the Holy Spirit or the temptations of the devil. As for following me, I'm quoting the D&C - section 29, I believe.Everybody had agency in the pre-earth life. So if children don't have agency, did God take it away from them when they were born?Children can still choose to do something wrong, even if they don't know it's wrong. They simply aren't held accountable for the transgressions they commit. If they don't have agency, then God is forcing them to do everything they do. This, of course, is not true. Edited November 14, 2011 by altersteve 1
Log Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Everybody had agency in the pre-earth life. So if children don't have agency, did God take it away from them when they were born?Children can still choose to do something wrong, even if they don't know it's wrong. They simply aren't held accountable for the transgressions they commit. If they don't have agency, then God is forcing them to do everything they do. This, of course, is not true.Agency does NOT mean "the ability to choose." That's where you err.
BCSpace Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Do uncreated intelligences have agency, or is it given to them by God?Also, do we have any part in our own creation/organization? I like to think that intellegence is not a living being of any sort until organized. Couldn't tell you why though.
jo1952 Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 name='inquiringmind' timestamp='1321154038' post='1209065292']Do uncreated intelligences have agency, or is it given to them by God?Also, do we have any part in our own creation/organization?I lean toward Lehi's pov. He included a comment about some spirits (other than Satan and his minions) who have probably decided (I would add, "at least for now or, IOW, as far as this world is concerned) not to take the chance of falling should they receive a body. I have also contemplated this. I have thought that these spirits will continue in their eternal existence as "angels", even though I believe we all serve/exist as angels during at least a portion(s) of our eternal "being"/existence. Of course, this IS only conjecture.Regards,jo
altersteve Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Agency does NOT mean "the ability to choose." That's where you err."Agency is the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves."http://lds.org/study/topics/agency?lang=eng&query=agency
Log Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) I'm sorry; that is the "orthodox mormon cultural definition," which is in contradistinction to the dictionary and the scriptures at times (as it is now). Edited November 14, 2011 by Log
mfbukowski Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Do uncreated intelligences have agency, or is it given to them by God?Also, do we have any part in our own creation/organization?1- Hard to say- perhaps this is a false dichotomy. I believe they do have agency AND it is given to them by God- were this not so, the whole story of the war in heaven and the fight to preserve agency would be meaningless. So to me, that shows that they both have agency AND it was part of the plan that they would- God's plan2- We definitely have a major role in our own self-creation- every decision we make in our lifetimes (and afterwards) contribute to what we become. We often hear from GA's about what we voluntarily "become".Personal decisions make the difference between Charles Manson and Thomas Monson. They have each created themselves totally differently.
mfbukowski Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) I'm sorry; that is the "orthodox mormon cultural definition," which is in contradistinction to the dictionary and the scriptures at times (as it is now).So?Meaning is derived from the context, and the context is clear. Dictionaries are dead bones in a museum- language is a living thing. Edited November 14, 2011 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) A) Power is not given unto Satan to tempt little childrenandB) It must needs be that the devil should tempt the children of men, or they could not be agents unto themselves.Children cannot be tempted, therefore they they don't have agency. Since they don't have agency, they aren't sentient, according to LeSellers.That's the problem with using bad definitions in the first place - the OP erred in using the word 'agency'. Intelligences have free will, that being their defining characteristic, but they need not have agency.So you never heard of a 6 year old murderer?http://query.nytimes...4D9415B808CF1D3Surely he was "tempted" at the very least.Why baptize 8 year olds if they cannot sin?http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/03/05/loc_kentucky_6-year-old.html Edited November 14, 2011 by mfbukowski
Log Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 So you never heard of a 6 year old murderer?http://query.nytimes...4D9415B808CF1D3Surely he was "tempted" at the very least.Says who?Why baptize 8 year olds if they cannot sin?http://www.enquirer....6-year-old.htmlI agree that some 8 year olds can sin.
Log Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 So?Meaning is derived from the context, and the context is clear. Dictionaries are dead bones in a museum- language is a living thing.Do you have a point?Either we are communicating meanings or we are just flapping our gums.
Log Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 1- Hard to say- perhaps this is a false dichotomy. I believe they do have agency AND it is given to them by God- were this not so, the whole story of the war in heaven and the fight to preserve agency would be meaningless. So to me, that shows that they both have agency AND it was part of the plan that they would- God's planThe story as you understand it is, in fact, meaningless - the one where 'agency' is largely synonymous with 'free will'.
mfbukowski Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Do you have a point?Either we are communicating meanings or we are just flapping our gums.Whatever that means.
mfbukowski Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) The story as you understand it is, in fact, meaningless - the one where 'agency' is largely synonymous with 'free will'.According to your silly definitions.There is no point in this- this is quibbling over words, not communication.You make up definitions and create a straw man to prove your point- "agency" in an LDS context is often used the way it has been in this thread. Edited November 14, 2011 by mfbukowski
altersteve Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 So is God forcing children to do everything they do? If they don't have agency, then He must be.
Recommended Posts