mfbukowski Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Clearly little children can be tempted- the idea of a child reaching into a cookie jar when they know they have been forbidden to do so is commonplace; the question is whether or not that is classified as a "sin" since that same child may not be capable of knowingly disobeying God- and THAT is what defines "sin". But one can be tempted to do many things which are not classified as "sins"- certainly an adult who is on a diet reaching for a cookie is not "sinning".Children can be "tempted" even if they cannot commit "sin" because they don't yet fully understand willful disobedience to God. And of course each child's individual mental abilities must be factored in as well- the age of 8 as the age of "reason" is simply an arbitrary approximation of when this happens in most children, as defined by the church.
Log Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 "agency" in an LDS context is often used the way it has been in this thread.Yes, it is. That doesn't make it correct, no matter who does it. It's like "gay marriage."Clearly little children can be tempted.That's not clear at all.Children can be "tempted" even if they cannot commit "sin" because they don't yet fully understand willful disobedience to God. Children can only be tempted if they can be tempted by the devil. Then they can sin. There is no other temptation of relevance.
Nominee Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 I looked up free agency in a dictionary.http://www.thefreedi...com/free+agencyIt seems to me that the definition is, in so many words, ''the ability to choose" for oneself.Furthermore, it applies not only to "orthodox mormon cultural" but the realm of professional sports as well.
Log Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) I looked up free agency in a dictionary.http://www.thefreedi...com/free+agencyIt seems to me that the definition is, in so many words, ''the ability to choose" for oneself.I'm sorry it seems that way to you; it does not seem so to me, by the reference you have chosen. It seems a better definition is "the ability to submit yourself to the power of your choice," which, strangely enough, is exactly what Elder Eyring defined it as in the May 1997 Ensign.TL;DR: "agency" is not "the ability to choose." That is "free will." "Agency" is "the power to yield to either the devil or to God," scripturally speaking. Where the devil has no power to tempt a child, then that child has not got agency. Edited November 14, 2011 by Log
altersteve Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Logs, you have not answered my question. Is God forcing His will upon children?
Log Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Logs, you have not answered my question. Is God forcing His will upon children?Your question presupposes some wrong assumptions; it's like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
Calm Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Children can only be tempted if they can be tempted by the devil. Then they can sin. There is no other temptation of relevance.Well, if we are going by dictionary definitions, it would seem there is more temptation out there besides the devil: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Tempt
altersteve Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Your question presupposes some wrong assumptions; it's like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?"You're avoiding the question.
Log Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 You're avoiding the question.So, have you stopped beating your wife yet? If you answer this with a yes or no, then I shall likewise answer your question.
Log Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) Well, if we are going by dictionary definitions....We're actually going by scriptural definitions. That's why I said "there is no other temptation of relevance [to this conversation]." Edited November 14, 2011 by Log
splendidsun Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 The original question presupposes the tripartite model of Mormon cosmology that isn't normative. Any answers to the question are consequently only interesting within its particular context.
mfbukowski Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) Yes, it is. That doesn't make it correct, no matter who does it. It's like "gay marriage."There is no such thing as a "correct" definition- there are only words, contexts, and communicationYa unnastan wha I'm sayin?A single word in a certain context can mean volumes.I'm not going to debate it - it's pointless. What was "correct English" even in Joseph's time now sounds archaic, and no longer communicates the same meaning it once did. You can call out the "language police" all you like, but linguistic meaning shift is as inexorable a force as the tides.Good luck trying to combat it.Latin is now Italian, Spanish, French, Romanian, Portuguese, and who knows what else, all because of linguistic shifts and real humans speaking "incorrectly". Edited November 14, 2011 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 The original question presupposes the tripartite model of Mormon cosmology that isn't normative. Any answers to the question are consequently only interesting within its particular context.Huh?
mfbukowski Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Yes, it is. That doesn't make it correct, no matter who does it. It's like "gay marriage."That's not clear at all.Children can only be tempted if they can be tempted by the devil. Then they can sin. There is no other temptation of relevance.Tautologies.
mfbukowski Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) Logs, you have not answered my question. Is God forcing His will upon children?It's frustrating.All he does is make one line pronouncements without explaining himself. That's ignore-worthy behavior in my book- it's a waste of time to try and deal with it. Edited November 14, 2011 by mfbukowski
splendidsun Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) Huh?The tripartite model includes the idea that spirits are created from an uncreated mind/intelligence and then later receive a body. This is a fairly late development in Mormon thought...roughly to the last decade of the 19th and first decade of the 20th centuries. See here. It was rejected by most church leaders at the time. So asking if an intelligence has free will, presupposes the existence of a non-spirit intelligence, which isn't particularly evident.[editorial note: I accidentally mistyped earlier, hence the following two comments. Apologies all around.] Edited November 14, 2011 by splendidsun
Log Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) So asking if an intelligence has free will, presupposes the existence of a non-intelligence, which isn't particularly evident.Element would be a non-intelligence, necessitating only a bipartite cosmological model. Nevertheless, asking if an intelligence has free will is equivalent to asking if water has hydrogen. Edited November 14, 2011 by Log
splendidsun Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Whoops, that would be my bad. I mean to say: "So asking if an intelligence has free will, presupposes the existence of a non-spirit intelligence, which isn't particularly evident." I'll correct the post above.
Log Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 To my understanding, spirit is another form of element - hence, it is a non-intelligence also. We're still stuck in a bipartite existence.
splendidsun Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 To my understanding, spirit is another form of element - hence, it is a non-intelligence also. We're still stuck in a bipartite existence.That is correct if you take the Brigham Young view of spirit creationism.
CV75 Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) TL;DR: "agency" is not "the ability to choose." That is "free will." "Agency" is "the power to yield to either the devil or to God," scripturally speaking. Where the devil has no power to tempt a child, then that child has not got agency.This is interesting. Agency is accurately described as a power, but for it to be focused, operative and meaningful we need choices and accountability, which brings in the idea of functional agency, or the ability and privilege as well as the power to choose (see the explanations offered in http://classic.scrip....org/en/gs/a/23 and http://lds.org/study...agency?lang=eng ).All the children of God have this power, but they lack opportunity, choices and accountability in the early stages of their temporal existence. They are developmentally dependent on perceiving and making choices and so they are not accountable in this temporal world until a certain age or conditions are met.So I believe children do have agency, spiritually, but it is not operative temporally until the age and other conditions of accountability and opportunity for expression (for example, that which enabled them to choose to do what they did in 3 Nephi 26:16). They are not willingly subject to Satan and are protected from eternal consequences of apparent missteps through the virtue of the Atonement. The latter refers to those things children do that may appear to be sin to us, but are really exploitative manipulations of the temporal capacities of the innocent because of their fallen environment and by wicked people. Satan cannot tempt children but he can influence others to create a world and conditions that overpower and enslave their temporal and physical selves so as to cause them to act and feel as if they sin.Getting back to 3 Nephi 26:16, Jesus likewise created an environment and inspired righteous people to interact with the babes in such as way as to allow their spiritual selves, as perfect beneficiaries of the Atonement, full sway and expression. He prepared the wherewithal for them to display their atonement-liberated, spiritual selves, as perfect, innocent beings, so as to cause them to act as celestial beings in their temporal setting. Edited November 15, 2011 by CV75 2
mfbukowski Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 The tripartite model includes the idea that spirits are created from an uncreated mind/intelligence and then later receive a body. This is a fairly late development in Mormon thought...roughly to the last decade of the 19th and first decade of the 20th centuries. See here. It was rejected by most church leaders at the time. So asking if an intelligence has free will, presupposes the existence of a non-spirit intelligence, which isn't particularly evident. [editorial note: I accidentally mistyped earlier, hence the following two comments. Apologies all around.]Interesting- so including resurrection it would really be 4 parts right? Coin whatever term you will for that. If I am understanding correctly, 1= uncreated intelligence, 2= spirit "body" 3= physical body and 4= resurrected body. Is that what you are saying?It is not clear at all to me that "asking if an intelligence has free will, presupposes the existence of a non-spirit intelligence"; in fact if it does "presuppose" that, then the argument appears to be circular.Clearly I am missing something- could you clarify?Good post- thanks for the doctrinal history!
Log Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) This is interesting.... [interesting and enlightening post redacted]That's a great way to put things. However, I reject the notion that "the power to choose," or free will, is separate from intelligence. That which chooses is intelligence, and intelligence is that which chooses. Edited November 15, 2011 by Log
mfbukowski Posted November 15, 2011 Posted November 15, 2011 (edited) That's a great way to put things. However, I reject the notion that "the power to choose," or free will, is separate from intelligence. That which chooses is intelligence, and intelligence is that which chooses.And where does the "self" appear in this schema?I see the self as central to choice. Ultimately it comes down to the good old cogito. That makes it "real" to me. I can experience being "me"- I cannot experience "intelligence".OK I agree that last line left me open for a great joke, but I trust you will avoid the obvious. Edited November 15, 2011 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts