Agency In Lds Scripture

[volgadon]

Sorry David, but your post makes no sense as a response to what I had written.

A consistent tack is refreshing.

[supersnail]

I think that moral choice doesn't have much to do with stewardship or agency since stewards can make moral or immoral decisions regardless of their agency. The distinction is not clear to me, nor is it clear why we need to make that distinction. Perhaps I am just being dense. I am hoping for clarification.

I have to admit, I'm not sure why the distinction is needed either even if it is true. It may clear some things up intellectually, but I wasn't aware that the issue was a stumbling block for many people. Of course I have never been a missionary, not being LDS in the first place, so I may be missing something.

[supersnail]

OK, so I came across this:

"Invite one or two students to come to the front of the room, and offer them an enticing reward to just do the correct thing for the rest of the day. When they ask what the “correct thing” is, say that there are no rules—they are free to do whatever they want. They will probably think that is a good arrangement. Ask the class how the students will know if they have done the “correct thing.” Read 2 Nephi 2:11–13 with the class and help them understand that if there are no rules for behavior, there can be neither wrong nor right behavior. Therefore, there is no way to win the reward because in that situation agency could not exist. On the board write 1. There must be laws that define good and evil (see 2 Nephi 2:13 ). Explain that certain rules or commandments must be given, each with blessings and consequences. Without law there could be no sin (see 2 Nephi 2:13 ). This is an essential element of agency."

http://seminary.lds.org/manuals/old-testament-seminary-teacher-resource-manual/ot-trm-03-gn1-3-4.asp

In other words, it seems like what is being suggested in the WWE article is already being taught... I'm confused now. I look forward to reading more.

[mfbukowski]

OK, so I came across this:

"Invite one or two students to come to the front of the room, and offer them an enticing reward to just do the correct thing for the rest of the day. When they ask what the “correct thing” is, say that there are no rules—they are free to do whatever they want. They will probably think that is a good arrangement. Ask the class how the students will know if they have done the “correct thing.” Read 2 Nephi 2:11–13 with the class and help them understand that if there are no rules for behavior, there can be neither wrong nor right behavior. Therefore, there is no way to win the reward because in that situation agency could not exist. On the board write 1. There must be laws that define good and evil (see 2 Nephi 2:13 ). Explain that certain rules or commandments must be given, each with blessings and consequences. Without law there could be no sin (see 2 Nephi 2:13 ). This is an essential element of agency."

http://seminary.lds....-03-gn1-3-4.asp

In other words, it seems like what is being suggested in the WWE article is already being taught... I'm confused now. I look forward to reading more.

It seems to me that the article is ignoring the distinction David is trying to make. It sounds like the article conflates agency and choice, but I am still not sure why that is "bad".

[mfbukowski]

While I admit that this more exact definition of the word "agency" does correct certain problematic views some well-meaning Latter-day Saints have embraced when they have mixed the philosophies of men with scripture, I can assure you that this is a theological issue, not a political agenda. Speaking personally, I myself am a Zionist. Contrary to what many have supposed, I have no specific allegiances whatsoever in terms of US politics. The term that probably best sums up my personal position is theodemocratic, which puts me at odds with pretty much everyone.

Well now I have to admit that I did not read the comments or David's answers on the original article.

Looks like I was right about this being politically motivated after all?

David Bokovoy on August 5, 2012 at 1:04 pm said:

That’s a great summation, Chris. I kind of intentionally set this up for a possible part-two. Just to give one example of an implication, historically, some Latter-day Saints have used their understanding of “agency” as an ability to make choices and not be forced to perform righteous deeds as theological justification to oppose government programs that force citizens to contribute funds to welfare, etc., since any effort to make individuals do good violates the eternal principle of agency. I think a correct understanding of this term, however, shows one of the reasons that this political/religious argument is quite flawed.

David Bokovoy on August 5, 2012 at 5:57 pm said:

Thanks for the question, Andrew. I cannot give an instance or example when people would have freewill but not agency. Though freewill, meaning “voluntary choice or decision making” is a part of agency, it is not agency.

To offer somewhat of a crude analogy from my own world, a wave is an important part of surfing, but that does not mean that a wave IS surfing.

Making choices is a part of agency, no doubt. But as I understand its use in LDS scripture, agency simply means that you serve as an agent over those choices. With this in mind, it becomes clear that no outside force, whether another individual, a government institution, or even your own choices can even limit, let alone take away one’s agency.

In other words the government can make us do anything it wants but it's not a violation of "agency". Uh oh.

Edited August 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[David Bokovoy]

Well now I have to admit that I did not read the comments or David's answers on the original article.

Looks like I was right about this being politically motivated after all?

No, you were wrong. This is an important theological issue that fails to address any political ideologies whatsoever. I'm interested in Mormon Studies, and a precise understanding of words and texts is something worth striving for in an academic context.

However, I've never denied that there exist important political and spiritual ramifications to correctly understanding the scriptural concept of agency; even though this was not the focus of the essay (you won't even see those issues addressed). As I acknowledged, amongst other things, a correct understanding of the word "agency" eradicates the highly problematic argument that a government institution can somehow take away agency.

I believe that that is very much a helpful concept to understand.

Edited August 6, 2012 by David Bokovoy

[mfbukowski]

No, you were wrong. This is an important theological issue that fails to address any political ideologies whatsoever. I'm interested in Mormon Studies, and a precise understanding of words and texts is something worth striving for in an academic context.

However, I've never denied that there exist important political and spiritual ramifications to correctly understanding the scriptural concept of agency; event though this was not the focus of the essay (you won't even see those issues addressed). As I acknowledged, amongst other things, a correct understanding of the word "agency" eradicates the highly problematic argument that a government institution can somehow take away agency.

I believe that that is very much a helpful concept to understand.

Thanks for the clarification.

How does one know that an understanding is "correct"? Compared to what? Isn't meaning dependent on context?

What is the standard of "correctness"?

[David Bokovoy]

I appreciate the other comments and questions. I look forwarded to continuing the exchanges tomorrow.

[volgadon]

As I acknowledged, amongst other things, a correct understanding of the word "agency" eradicates the highly problematic argument that a government institution can somehow take away agency.

That argument is something my wife never understood, and she has little reason to like the Soviet Union, as her great-grandparents were repressed and even exiled.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps that relates to the first sentence I quoted which says essentially "In reality, it means...".

I find it hard to understand that there is such thing as a "correct" interpretation of a text.

[mfbukowski]

That argument is something my wife never understood, and she has little reason to like the Soviet Union, as her great-grandparents were repressed and even exiled.

As a former Marxist, that is why I brought it up in the first place. I understood the philosophy behind that tack instantly.

See also Lenin on "correctness" and the tendency of the left today to insist on political "correctness". It is, of course based on having the "correct" ideology. One who does not agree must be corrected.

But as a few have seen the distinction between "free will" and "agency" is a very tenuous one at best.

Edited August 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[volgadon]

As a former Marxist, that is why I brought it up in the first place. I understood the philosophy behind that tack instantly.

See also Lenin on "correctness" and the tendency of the left today to insist on political "correctness". It is, of course based on having the "correct" ideology. One who does not agree must be corrected.

What I am trying to say, it is not a philosophy which is shared even by many who did live under such a system, so it is nice to see yet another indication that scripture doesn't contain that welfare=evil argument either. All this, however, is getting political, so I'll shut up.

[Rob Osborn]

David,

Nice article. You bring up a valuable point which is indeed at the very heart of the debate. You made this statement about how Joseph Smith used the word or understood the word of being an agent-

“one that exerts power, or has the power to act,”

I agree with this statement but also would like to add some of my own insight that may indeed allow us to see into the reality of what Satan was championing for. In the online dictionary it offers this as one of the definitions of agency-

4.action, power, or operation:

In Moses we learn indeed that it was and is the plan of Satan to destroy our agency. Let me bring up one word here. That word being "captive". Look at the definition from the dictionary that best applies-

"kept in confinement or restraint".

A person who is thus captive is not in a position to excersize the power to act (agency). I bring this all important fact up because we are told in Moses (2 verses later) that those who ended up or who do end up following him are led captive down to destruction. Now let me ask. Is that not the very defining act of destroying ones agency? Being led captive down to destruction is the destruction of ones ability to exert power and control- the power to act.

What does all this mean? It means that Satan is still using the same plan of his to destroy our agency by encircling us in his chains- the chains of hell which power is the power of being acted upon. It was never Satans intent to save anyone. It was his lie to pretend to want to be the Savior claiming he could save everyone (the job the savior is supposed to do- save all that the Father gives for him to save). He was mimicking the Lord in this instance with no real intent of saving anyone. All he wanted was to destroy the kingdom and reign over all Gods children in his own kingdom.

Agency is a real tricky word because it is synonymous with "excersizing in righteousness". Agency is the right given to individuals who use free will to act in righteousness, kind of like a special hall pass given to the obedient to freely act in righteousness.

[Rob Osborn]

David,

Nice article. You bring up a valuable point which is indeed at the very heart of the debate. You made this statement about how Joseph Smith used the word or understood the word of being an agent-

“one that exerts power, or has the power to act,”

I agree with this statement but also would like to add some of my own insight that may indeed allow us to see into the reality of what Satan was championing for. In the online dictionary it offers this as one of the definitions of agency-

4.action, power, or operation:

In Moses we learn indeed that it was and is the plan of Satan to destroy our agency. Let me bring up one word here. That word being "captive". Look at the definition from the dictionary that best applies-

"kept in confinement or restraint".

A person who is thus captive is not in a position to excersize the power to act (agency). I bring this all important fact up because we are told in Moses (2 verses later) that those who ended up or who do end up following him are led captive down to destruction. Now let me ask. Is that not the very defining act of destroying ones agency? Being led captive down to destruction is the destruction of ones ability to exert power and control- the power to act.

What does all this mean? It means that Satan is still using the same plan of his to destroy our agency by encircling us in his chains- the chains of hell which power is the power of being acted upon. It was never Satans intent to save anyone. It was his lie to pretend to want to be the Savior claiming he could save everyone (the job the savior is supposed to do- save all that the Father gives for him to save). He was mimicking the Lord in this instance with no real intent of saving anyone. All he wanted was to destroy the kingdom and reign over all Gods children in his own kingdom.

Agency is a real tricky word because it is synonymous with "excersizing in righteousness". Agency is the right given to individuals who use free will to act in righteousness, kind of like a special hall pass given to the obedient to freely act in righteousness.

[mfbukowski]

What I am trying to say, it is not a philosophy which is shared even by many who did live under such a system, so it is nice to see yet another indication that scripture doesn't contain that welfare=evil argument either. All this, however, is getting political, so I'll shut up.

Well my belief is that the political misunderstanding is based on an underlying misunderstanding of the admittedly complicated way we view notions of freedom, and in my never-to-be-humble opinion, this alleged distinction is part of that semantic problem.

And to me, that is exactly what it is. There is a reason in English that we have different words for "agency" and "freedom" and "free will" and to say that we can still have "agency" in chains defies the LDS understanding of equating agency with "free will"

Clearly the LDS notion is that we are free to make choices- that is what defines "agency" in an LDS context and to somehow quote scripture to say that agency somehow is not equated with "free will" in LDS scripture is inaccurate.

Yes the term is ambiguous. But that's life. Language is ambiguous. We need to get over it and pretend that there are "correct" interpretations which then lead us to believe that we can be somehow "free" while we are in chains.

Yes, I have read the stoics too, and that is what they say. But they are talking about freedom to choose one's attitude- you I am sure are familiar with Viktor Frankl. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man%27s_Search_for_Meaning

I am absolutely certain that he would not agree that he was capable of being an "agent" while in a concentration camp. Free to choose his attitude yes- but given the choice (which he did not have) of being "free" and being just a tad restricted by barbed wire and armed guards while they starved him to death- I think somehow he would choose to be "free"

I think the distinction being proposed would be totally lost on him as being pragmatically ridiculous. Freedom in chains is a nice idea but a lousy way to live your life.

[supersnail]

It seems to me that the article is ignoring the distinction David is trying to make. It sounds like the article conflates agency and choice, but I am still not sure why that is "bad".

I interpreted that paragraph in the OT teacher resource manual as describing a situation in which there is free will, but no rules and thus no agency. The paragraph implies that agency requires rules. This seems paradoxical but agrees in some measure with what the OP article is saying. Stewardship suggests an obligation, a mandate, or covenants--rules of some kind. My confusion is about why this is being presented as new when the church seems to already teach this at the seminary level. As I said, maybe I am missing some nuance.

It is significant that the paragraph in the resource manual is only one of different examples given of a lack of agency. There are different ways for agency to be missing in a situation. In fact, the resource manual specifies four conditions necessary for agency to be present.

"1. There must be laws that define good and evil"

"2. There must be an alternate choice to what is defined as good"

"3. A person must have knowledge of what the choices and consequences are"

"4. A person must have complete freedom to choose between the two choices"

So clearly agency is not identical to free will or simple choice. I don't think I ever interpreted "agency" in LDS doctrine as simply being the ability to make choices of any kind.

[supersnail]

The OP article isn't controversial. I'm not saying that it's not original. It may very well suggest new reasons for teaching or believing what is already being taught. But I don't understand how many people could read http://www.lds.org/topics/agency/what-the-church-teaches?lang=eng and arrive at the conclusion that agency = free will. When M. Russell Ballard said, "The battle over man’s God-given agency continues today. Satan and his minions have their lures all around us, hoping that we will falter and take his flies so he can reel us in with counterfeit means," was he saying there was a question about free will disappearing in the 21st century or 2010? I don't think so. Notice also the Robert D. Hales and Dieter F. Uchtdorf quotes on the same page.

[mfbukowski]

Life intervenes- will return

Edited August 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[David Bokovoy]

David, I'm glad you've posted your thoughts on agency in a more expansive form. I've enjoyed your brief comments on it which you've made from time to time, so this is great.

I never got round to typing it up, but there seems a connection between Alma 32 and a certain trend in the Jewish interpretation of Exodus 24:7, where "We will do and obey" is taken to mean, we will do, then we will hear. That is, they undertook to accept the covenant (by acting upon whatever commandments would be given), rather than having the commandments explained before signing on the dotted line, so to speak. Other nations were offered the covenant, but they insisted upon being told the conditions, subsequently rejecting the offer In other words, there is a choice given, but the worthy response is via deeds.

This sounds fascinating. I would love to read the whole write up. I'm giving a paper on creation imagery in the Book of Mormon at the upcoming Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology symposium that explores some pretty subtle biblical allusions in Alma's sermon. I'll have to send it to you to get some feedback.

[David Bokovoy]

The OP article isn't controversial. I'm not saying that it's not original. It may very well suggest new reasons for teaching or believing what is already being taught. But I don't understand how many people could read http://www.lds.org/t...eaches?lang=eng and arrive at the conclusion that agency = free will. When M. Russell Ballard said, "The battle over man’s God-given agency continues today. Satan and his minions have their lures all around us, hoping that we will falter and take his flies so he can reel us in with counterfeit means," was he saying there was a question about free will disappearing in the 21st century or 2010? I don't think so. Notice also the Robert D. Hales and Dieter F. Uchtdorf quotes on the same page.

Thank you. I don't believe it's controversial either. I'm simply presenting my academic understanding of this issue from a historical-critical perspective. To clarify, I'm not trying to preach application and/or effect any sort of ideological change in the Church as an institution.

[David T]

This sounds fascinating. I would love to read the whole write up. I'm giving a paper on creation imagery in the Book of Mormon at the upcoming Society for Mormon Philosophy and Theology symposium that explores some pretty subtle biblical allusions in Alma's sermon. I'll have to send it to you to get some feedback.

David, I forget if you've sounded off on this or not, but have you read Joseph Spencer's "An Other Testament" from Salt Press yet? Sounds like some of his observations in that book are extremely relevant to your paper.

[David Bokovoy]

David, I forget if you've sounded off on this or not, but have you read Joseph Spencer's "An Other Testament" from Salt Press yet? Sounds like some of his observations in that book are extremely relevant to your paper.

I'm afraid that I've been out of the loop in terms of Mormon Studies the past couple years, and I was only made aware of it a month or two ago. I've heard really positive things about Spencer's work, and I've downloaded a PDF version of the book. I hope to read through it after Education Week and before the symposium. Thanks for the reminder.

[mfbukowski]

The OP article isn't controversial. I'm not saying that it's not original. It may very well suggest new reasons for teaching or believing what is already being taught. But I don't understand how many people could read http://www.lds.org/t...eaches?lang=eng and arrive at the conclusion that agency = free will. When M. Russell Ballard said, "The battle over man’s God-given agency continues today. Satan and his minions have their lures all around us, hoping that we will falter and take his flies so he can reel us in with counterfeit means," was he saying there was a question about free will disappearing in the 21st century or 2010? I don't think so. Notice also the Robert D. Hales and Dieter F. Uchtdorf quotes on the same page.

I never said that agency = free will- the point I was trying to make was that they are different ideas which do not present a unified picture in the BOM

There is a landmark essay by Isaiah Berlin which discusses these issues.

http://www.wiso.uni-hamburg.de/fileadmin/wiso_vwl/johannes/Ankuendigungen/Berlin_twoconceptsofliberty.pdf

I agree wholeheartedly that the church endorses the idea that rules and laws clearly create freedom- which is what Berlin would call "positive liberty".

Clearly by following the commandments we become free from the consequences of not following them - addictions, disease, a society in chaos, etc, and this idea parallels the notion that we need laws to protect our freedoms. Without law, we might drive through a school zone at excessive rates of speed or driving on any side of the street we pleased etc, which would obviously result in chaos

I am a strong proponent of the idea that indeed the entire notion of "inalienable" rights inborn into us is not a very coherent notion, precisely because it is society which gives us political rights, and I think it is up to society to protect them. These are not controversial notions at all as far as I am concerned.

What bothers me is the idea that somehow the notion of agency in the Book of Mormon could be used to justify the repression of basic rights.

Perhaps that is not what David is intending, but I think his words can be construed that way.

So I think it is clear that the BOM is in fact as ambiguous on this idea of agency and freedom as most discourse is, and looking at the quote you cited even makes it clearer.

Indeed those quotes are all over the map in discussing free will and agency. There is certainly no clear definition on that page anywhere.

[David Bokovoy]

What bothers me is the idea that somehow the notion of agency in the Book of Mormon could be used to justify the repression of basic rights.

Perhaps that is not what David is intending, but I think his words can be construed that way.

So I think it is clear that the BOM is in fact as ambiguous on this idea of agency and freedom as most discourse is, and looking at the quote you cited even makes it clearer.

I think we need to be careful about importing modern political philosophies into the Book of Mormon. I really appreciated this well-meaning criticism from a believing insider:

http://hughnibley.net/2012/07/27/religion-preach-against-socialism-while-living-off-the-church/

[wenglund]

Again, I'm not suggesting that free will is not an important part of agency, but that does not mean that agency is freewill. A wave exists as an important part of surfing; this doesn't make surfing a wave.

Can't one's surfing be infringed upon by taking away the waves?

The point of my question being, while I value very much the way your article got my mind to consider the accountability aspect of "agency" in ways that I hadn't thought of before, I don't view it as exclusionary, in terms of validity, of other common usage of the term. To me, it added a new dimension to what I have understood before. In other words, I saw it as you adding surfboarding to the waves, and not to the exclusion of the wave.

Buy the way, the word "surf" means: "waves of the sea as they break on the shore." It also can mean "riding the crest of the waves." In similar respects, I believe the word "agency" or "free agency" may refer to the ability to make choices, and also being accountable for those choices.

You, of course, have the freewill/agency to view it differently.

I think that Alma 42 and D&C 93:30-31 are instructive in this regard.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-