Agency In Lds Scripture

[David T]

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.

There's a difference between "not specifically opposing" and "justifying". As I read it, while many have used their idea of agency to oppose government programs, as I understand, David is saying usage of agency in this case to support or reject is, in a way, more of a non sequitur than anything. I may be understanding wrong, however.

[USU78]

I apologise for the thread derail, if it gets too distracting and OT, I'll take it somewhere else.

To me, the phrase seems an "us and them" thing. Not to sound flippant, but is like saying WE interpret scripture, THEY mingle it with the philosophies of men.

"Their rebellion" vs. "Our revolution" per Ben Franklin, yes?

[Rob Osborn]

There has been a big push in the church to try to define communism and socialism as Satan's plan of destroying agency. This comes from the misaligned definition of "agency" in and of itself. I think a lot of it is wrongly heaped up because of a general lack of understanding of what were or are Stan's plans. For starters, there is nothing in all of scriptures that states that Satan was going to force us into righteousness or force us into salvation. Second, there is nothing in all of scripture thatstates that Satan really desired to save anyone. in fact the scriptures are repleat with Satan being a liar and not wanting anyone to be saved.

Agency must be properly defined as "the power of operation" which includes free will and the ability and opportunity to act therein. But most importantly, it is the power of operation- the ability to act without confines such as chains, shakles, etc. We know for a fact that the condemnation of hell is to be chained down, held captive outside our will, etc. A person in hell has no true "power of operation" . That is why hell is referred to as being held captive, being chained down, etc.

It makes perfect sense that what Satan truly wanted was and still is the same plan he always had- lie to his children telling them they have no need to fear and it is ok to sin and that in the end they shall "all be saved". That is and always has been his lie so that he can trap them into surrendering/destroying their "power of operation" (agency) so that he can then reign over them according to his will.

[mfbukowski]

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.ne...off-the-church/

Well I think if we are to keep the BOM relevant for us today, indeed we do need to import modern political philosophies into the BOM.

On the other hand, if we are to use what the text "says"- I think we cannot possibly escape presentism since in fact we know very little about Nephite culture and language- the whole context of the BOM in an ancient perspective cannot possibly be reproduced without knowing much more about the culture than is found in the BOM.

If it is to be relevant to our lives, we must view it as we need to view it to solve present problems. On the other hand, we could take Captain Moroni's example and do what he did in Chapter 46 of Alma:

35 And it came to pass that whomsoever of the Amalickiahites that would not enter into a covenant to support the cause of freedom, that they might maintain a free government, he caused to be put to death; and there were but few who denied the covenant of freedom.

It is surprising that there were any at all who denied the covenant!

So would you also agree that those who died still did not have their agency removed by governmental force?

Of course I don't think that anyone is advocating such a thing- yet this is one case where clearly we need to "import modern political philosophies into the Book of Mormon" if we are to liken it to our situation.

Edited August 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

"Their rebellion" vs. "Our revolution" per Ben Franklin, yes?

One man's terrorist is another man's patriot.

Edit: The problem arises when one is convinced that one has the "correct" view and the other guy is therefore "incorrect" and deserves to have his agency limited or terminated- oh wait- I forgot that is not possible.

Edited August 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[supersnail]

If I had to combine the four points at http://seminary.lds.org/manuals/old-testament-seminary-teacher-resource-manual/ot-trm-03-gn1-3-4.asp --four conditions for agency to exist--into one statement, it would be: Agency is the actual ability to choose between things that have been defined as good or bad, according to God's commandments, which choice has known consequences so that the person has the ability to choose eternal life.

Without agency, neither repentance, salvation nor exaltation would be possible.

[supersnail]

I think the totalitarian examples may be doing more to cloud this issue than clarify it. What about the abolition of slavery.

Yes, the abolition of slavery took away the freedom of individuals to enslave others (at least in certain ways). But I conjecture that agency, as the OT teacher resource manual defines it, did not disappear (in any way) with the abolition of slavery. Some parameters may have changed, but that's it.

I am not advocating "social progress," liberalism, or whatever. I'm just saying that some of the examples being discussed may not be especially relevant to the concept of agency.

[supersnail]

I'm going to avoid using specific examples to avoid politicizing this thread. It is possible to offend both conservatives and liberals and everyone else when talking about this.

I would like to suggest that depriving people of knowledge of the gospel has more to do with the absence of agency than depriving people of the ability to choose this or that action that is bad or assumed to be wrong.

I know that sounds kind of abstract, but think about this. If there is a movement in the world somewhere that is denying people the opportunity to hear the gospel or alienating people from the gospel (despite what might be intended), it is threatening agency.

So perhaps people who have already heard the gospel generally cannot lose agency. So LDS individuals cannot lose agency regardless of their social and political circumstances.

The above is compatible with the idea that agency is not given to everyone once and for all without the ability to lose it in some way. There is a struggle over agency in the world today. Many things threaten agency, not necessarily in obvious ways.

[Ahab]

To conclude, I think you have overcomplicated the concept of agency as taught in LDS scripture. It simply means allowing mankind the freedom to choose between two or more moral options by allowing those options to be made available to them. It means nothing more or less than that.

Yes, but there are several ways those options could have been made available to us.

Some people seem to think there would automatically be a good choice and an evil choice to choose between, as if that is and always would be a given, but what if what Satan wanted was to make evil a good thing, or a "just as good as that if that's what you like" kind of thing. That's what we see in today's world, instead of Satan trying to control us like robots without us having any power to make our cholces.

If Satan and God had become aligned, with Satan receiving the honor of God while God retained his honor, what do you think would have happened to the concept of evil? As it is now God is the bastion of good and Satan is the bastion of evil, with each of them being on opposite sides of the spectrum, but what if both God and Satan stood for and accepted the same things, together. There would have been no choice between good and evil to choose from, so being an agent for God would have equated to being an agent for Satan.

Silly stuff, I know, but people today seem to show the same attitude Satan had when they think whatever they like is good because they like it, with liking something to be all it takes to consider something, anything, to be good.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Ahab

[ANACO]

Nice article.

I think you should have added the reason why God gave man his agency in the garden: Knowledge. Knowledge of right and wrong.

Adam and Eve were given knowledge - the choice between eating the fruit of each tree, and warned of the consequence of eating the fruit of the wrong tree.

Read Moses 4:28. D&C 101:78 provides further information on this - "Moral Agency" - a knowledge of right and wrong. And knowledge precedes action.

Moral Agency or the knowledge of right and wrong can be exercised by those who don't have the power to act - such as disabled persons with physical limitations or a prisoner of war, etc. - but in their hearts would choose to act to do what's right, if capable. This concept is also taught with the Prophet's brother Alvin, who though died before hearing the gospel, was still an heir of the Celestial Kingdom because the Lord knew he would have chosen to accept the gospel if had been permitted to live.

The scriptures also clearly indicate how Satan would have taken the agency of man - Moses 4:3. So the agency of man is clearly possible because of the Atonement of Christ. And He is ultimately why we are free to act.

[zerinus]

Yes, but there are several ways those options could have been made available to us.

Some people seem to think there would automatically be a good choice and an evil choice to choose between, as if that is and always would be a given, but what if what Satan wanted was to make evil a good thing, or a "just as good as that if that's what you like" kind of thing. That's what we see in today's world, instead of Satan trying to control us like robots without us having any power to make our cholces.

If Satan and God had become aligned, with Satan receiving the honor of God while God retained his honor, what do you think would have happened to the concept of evil? As it is now God is the bastion of good and Satan is the bastion of evil, with each of them being on opposite sides of the spectrum, but what if both God and Satan stood for and accepted the same things, together. There would have been no choice between good and evil to choose from, so being an agent for God would have equated to being an agent for Satan.

Silly stuff, I know, but people today seem to show the same attitude Satan had when they think whatever they like is good because they like it, with liking something to be all it takes to consider something, anything, to be good.

Thank you for your reply, but I am not connecting your comments with what I had written. I am sure it is true that Satan is a deceiver, and one way he tries to persuade us to choose evil is by making us believe that it is good. But that does not alter the fact that "agency" as defined in the scriptures consists of allowing mankind the the option of choosing between good and evil by making those two options available to them. This is done by allowing Satan to persuade them to choose evil, while God persuades them to choose good. How, with what subtlety, and by what deceptive means those two options are made available to them is not the point of the discussion. It may be that I have misunderstood your post, in which case you have to clarify.

[Ahab]

Thank you for your reply, but I am not connecting your comments with what I had written. I am sure it is true that Satan is a deceiver, and one way he tries to persuade us to choose evil is by making us believe that it is good. But that does not alter the fact that "agency" as defined in the scriptures consists of allowing mankind the the option of choosing between good and evil by making those two options available to them. This is done by allowing Satan to persuade them to choose evil, while God persuades them to choose good. How, with what subtlety, and by what deceptive means those two options are made available to them is not the point of the discussion. It may be that I have misunderstood your post, in which case you have to clarify.

You seem to want to stick with what we have now as a result of God sticking to his original plan. I'm talking about how our agency could have beentaken away by Satan's plan, as I understand it, with the removal of the choice you are taking for granted.

As it is now, true, we have a choice between good and evil, with God representing the good side and Satan the evil, but suppose it didn't work this way. Suppose evil was removed as an option and what is now considered to be "evil" was good, too.

You can't choose evil if all there is is good because evil would not exist in that case.

God didn't approve of that plan, though, and there is that choice between good and evil.

Now does what I am saying make sense to you, in this context?

You can go on now with the way it is now. It's the way things are instead of the way they could have been.

[zerinus]

Deleted duplicate post

Edited August 8, 2012 by zerinus

[zerinus]

You seem to want to stick with what we have now as a result of God sticking to his original plan. I'm talking about how our agency could have beentaken away by Satan's plan, as I understand it, with the removal of the choice you are taking for granted.

As it is now, true, we have a choice between good and evil, with God representing the good side and Satan the evil, but suppose it didn't work this way. Suppose evil was removed as an option and what is now considered to be "evil" was good, too.

You can't choose evil if all there is is good because evil would not exist in that case.

God didn't approve of that plan, though, and there is that choice between good and evil.

Now does what I am saying make sense to you, in this context?

You can go on now with the way it is now. It's the way things are instead of the way they could have been.

Can you tell me what relevance this has to the thread of the discussion, which is the definition and meaning of the word agency as used in the scriptures? David gave a definition in his blog entry which I thought was an unnecessary complication, and proposed an alternative definition based on scripture which I believe comes closer to reality. Can you tell me how your proposals if agreed upon would alter that definition one way or another?

Your post suggests that you are disagreeing with, or adding a clarification to something I had said. I am trying to fathom what that is.

Edited August 8, 2012 by zerinus

[WalkerW]

For those interested, my first contribution to the academic site Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable has been posted as of today. The site is well worth exploring and features contributions from various well-read believers, non-believers, and a few in-betweens, interested in Mormon Studies from an academic perspective. In this entry, I attempt to lay out my views on the concept of "agency" in LDS scripture.

http://www.withouten...rstood-concept/

Great stuff. I actually talked about this in a sacrament talk last year. I reviewed the etymological evolutions of religion, faith, agency, and freedom. I later incorporated it into a blog post:

Religion in our day is commonly understood as a set of supernatural propositions or an institution/denomination one belongs to. However, when we explore the meaning of religion in medieval Christianity, a different picture emerges. St. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest Western philosopher of the Middle Ages, understood religion (Latin religio) as a moral virtue. In his Summa Theologiae, he explained that the primary acts of religion are internal, while the secondary ones are external. Internal religious acts are identified as devotion and prayer, while external acts include reverence, offerings, sacrifices, etc. Religion was not objectified as an institute of beliefs and practices related to the supernatural until the Protestant Reformation, particularly John Calvin.[9]

While religioncame to mean the institute of particular beliefs and practices, faith came to be associated with the intellectual assent to the beliefs themselves.[10] However, this is a distorted view of the original usage. Placing the term within the context of the Greco-Roman world, New Testament scholar David DeSilva explains,

Faith (Lat. fides; Gk pistis) is a term also very much at home in patron-client and friendship relations...In one sense, faith meant “dependability.” The patron needed to prove reliable in providing the assistance he or she promised to grant. The client needed to “keep faith” as well, in the sense of showing loyalty or commitment to the patron and to his or her obligations of gratitude. A second meaning in the more familiar sense is “trust”: the client had to trust the goodwill and ability of the patron...while the benefactor would also have to trust the recipients to act nobly and make a grateful response.[11]

In his commentary on the epistle to the Hebrews, DeSilva touches on Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen":

In philosophical language [the Greek hupostasis] can signify the “substance” or “underlying essence” of something...The same term, however, carries the everyday legal or business connotation of “title deed” or “guarantee,” attested by numerous papyri as well as classical texts...Given this immediate context, ['substance'] should be heard in the sense of title deed in 11:1, linking the discussion of faith more closely with 10:32-36 and the Christians’ loss of property...In this reading, ['faith'] in Hebrews is being understood very much within the context of patronage or friendship. After a client receives the patron’s promise that a certain benefaction will be given to him or her..."trust" is all the client has. If the patron is honorable and reliable, however, having “trust” is a good as having the promised item itself. Conversely, showing “distrust” toward the patron means letting go of the grasp on the promised item not only psychologically (because distrust produces anxiety) but in reality (as “distrust” manifested itself in “disobedience,” which caused the wilderness generation to lose their possession of the promised land; 3:7-19).[12]

Instead of the childish wish fulfillment and blind obedience many critics purport it to be, faith is a mature sense of trust, commitment, and engagement.

A term well-known to Mormons is that of free agency or simply agency.[13] Most interpretations understand this simply as the power to choose. Once again, when we turn back time a couple centuries, we realize that this understanding is incomplete. Given Joseph Smith's early leanings to Methodism and the 19th century Methodist culture that Mormonism shared, it is worth noting that Methodists from this time "defined agency not as freedom to do what one wants but as the freedom to do what is right." It carried with it the notion of "obedience and ethical responsibility as well as freedom to make choices and act upon them." As historian Phyllis Mack explains, "The goal of the individual's religious discipline was to shape her personal desires and narrow self-interest until they became identical with God's desire, with absolute goodness. The sanctified Christian wants what God wants; she is God's agent in the world."[14] Agency seems closely related to stewardship; the handling of which we will ultimately be judged for.

Finally, the concept of freedom (a favorite among Americans in particular) has changed over time. Its evolution is similar to that of the word agency. While ancient pagan and Christian philosophers recognized freedom as the ability to realize and embrace "the Good" (understood as God: the ultimate end to which we are driven by nature), modern notions tend to twist the definition of freedom to mean free from all moral constraints without consequence (a form of liberationism). As Eastern Orthodox philosopher David B. Hart writes,

True freedom...is the freedom of a thing to flourish, to become ever more fully what it is...To be fully free is to be joined to that end for which our natures were originally framed, and for which — in the deepest reaches of our souls — we ceaselessly yearn. And whatever separates us from that end — even if it be our own power of choice within us — is a form of bondage. We are free not because we can choose, but only when we have chosen well.[15]

In his book The Infinite Atonement, Tad Callister declares that "the lives of gods are driven internally, rather than externally...Gods do not live oblivious of laws, but through obedience have mastered the laws so that they might use them to accomplish their purposes. Freedom is achieved through a step-by-step process of obedient compliance to God's will. Consequently the more we become like God, the freer we become. Freedom and godhood are parallel paths; in fact the are the same road."[16] As Nephi wrote, "Because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever" (2 Nephi 2:26). Callister's concept falls in line with the classical understanding: "Some might contend that freedom comes when there are no laws or restraints. They contend that freedom in its purest form is the right to do anything, anytime, anywhere, without consequence...[This freedom] is illusory."[17] In summary, Callister writes, "Obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel brings increased knowledge, a multiplicity of choices, and an enhanced power to execute, all of which result in added freedom."[18]

9. Peter Harrison, "

," 2011 Gifford Lectures at the University of Edinburgh, 14 Feb. 2011.

10. For a helpful overview of the word's history, see Karen Armstrong, The Case for God (Alfred A. Knopf, 2009), Ch. 4 - "Faith."

11. David A. DeSilva, Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity: Unlocking New Testament Culture (InterVarsity Press, 2000), 115.

12. DeSilva, Perseverance in Gratitude: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on the Epistle ‘to the Hebrews’ (Eerdmans, 2000), 383-384.

13. See Kevin Barney's recent discussion of these terms.

14. As quoted in Christopher C. Jones, "Mormonism and Agency: A Historical Inquiry," Juvenile Instructor (May 16, 2011).

15. For a more extensive discussion of this subject, see Hart's Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Yale University Press, 2009).

16. Tad R. Callister, The Infinite Atonement (Deseret Book, 2000), 251.

17. Ibid., 257.

18. Ibid., 261.

Note the Methodist interpretation of agency. Over the years, I've rejected the coercion interpretation of Satan's plan (i.e. forcing us to "be good") and embraced one linked to the erosion of eternal law and thus personal accountability.

Edited August 31, 2012 by WalkerW

[Alvino]

@David Bokovoy:

You say in your article that, "The idea that anyone, let alone a third part of the heavenly host, would ever accept a condition in which the individual could never, EVER make any decisions whatsoever seems impossible to fathom."

(Assuming you are correct in taking the word 'agency' to mean what you said it means and not modern free will) I wonder whether you think the third that followed Satan did so knowing full well what they were getting themselves into. If yes, then it seems hard to imagine why they would choose to follow Satan anyways (just as it is hard to imagine why they would want to get their free will taken from them). They would have known the suffering they were going to get and be slaves of Satan. It's clear that if what they wanted was a better state, they failed horribly. If they did not know, however, why were they cast out to outer darkness? It looks like punishing a victim of a con and a liar (Satan) to a punishment reserved for those who reject God with full knowledge of what they are getting themselves into is rather unfair.

I also take issue with what you simply assume to mean the term "power" in the definition of "agency" as given by 1828 definition of Webster's. The definitions of "power" from the same dictionary from the same year (available online) give the following results for "power":

POW'ER, n. [The Latin has posse, possum, potes, potentia. The primary sense of the verb is to strain, to exert force.] 1. In a philosophical sense, the faculty of doing or performing any thing; the faculty of moving or of producing a change in something; ability or strength. A man raises his hand by his own power, or by power moves another body. The exertion of power proceeds from the will, and in strictness, no being destitute of will or intelligence, can exert power. Power in man is active or speculative. Active power is that which moves the body; speculative power is that by which we see, judge, remember, or in general, by which we think. Power may exist without exertion. We have power to speak when we are silent. Power has been distinguished also into active and passive,the power of doing or moving, and the power of receiving impressions or of suffering. In strictness, passive power is an absurdity in terms. To say that gold has a power to be melted,is improper language,yet for want of a more appropriate word, power is often used in a passive sense, and is considered as two-fold; viz.as able to make or able to receive any change. 2. Force; animal strength; as the power of the arm, exerted in lifting, throwing or holding. 3. Force; strength; energy; as the power of the mind, of the imagination, of the fancy. He has not powers of genius adequate to the work. 4. Faculty of the mind, as manifested by a particular mode of operation; as the power of thinking, comparing and judging; the reasoning powers. 5. Ability, natural or moral. We say, a man has the power of doing good; his property gives him the power of relieving the distressed; or he has the power to persuade others to do good; or it is not in his power to pay his debts. The moral power of man is also his power of judging or discerning in moral subjects. 6. In mechanics, that which produces motion or force, or which may be applied to produce it. Thus the inclined plane is called a mechanical power, as it produces motion, although this in reality depends on gravity. The wheel and axle, and the lever, are mechanical powers, as they may be applied to produce force. These powers are also called forces, and they are of two kinds, moving power, and sustaining power. 7. Force. The great power of the screw is of extensive use in compression. The power of steam is immense. 8. That quality in any natural body which produces a change or makes an impression on another body; as the power of medicine; the power of heat; the power of sound. 9. Force; strength; momentum; as the power of the wind, which propels a ship or overturns a building.

10. Influence; that which may move the mind; as the power of arguments or of persuasion.

11. Command; the right of governing, or actual government; dominion; rule, sway; authority. A large portion of Asia is under the power of the Russian emperor. The power of the British monarch is limited by law. The powers of government are legislative, executive, judicial, and ministerial. Power is no blessing in itself, but when it is employed to protect the innocent. Under this sense may be comprehended civil, political, ecclesiastical, and military power.

12. A sovereign, whether emperor, king or governing prince or the legislature of a state; as the powers of Europe; the great powers; the smaller powers. In this sense, the state or nation governed seems to be included in the word power. Great Britain is a great naval power.

13. One invested with authority; a ruler; a civil magistrate. Rom.13.

14. Divinity; a celestial or invisible being or agent supposed to have dominion over some part of creation; as celestial powers; the powers of darkness.

15. That which has physical power; an army; a navy; a host; a military force. Never such a power-- Was levied in the body of a land.

16. Legal authority; warrant; as a power of attorney; an agent invested with ample power. The envoy has full powers to negotiate a treaty.

17. In arithmetic and algebra, the product arising from the multiplication of a number or quantity into itself; as, a cube is the third power; the biquadrate is the fourth power.

18. In Scripture, right; privilege. John 1. 1 Cor.9.

19. Angels, good or bad. Col 1. Eph. 6.

20. Violence, force; compulsion. Ezek. 4.

21. Christ is called the power of God, as through him and his gospel, God displays his power and authority in ransoming and saving sinners. 1 Cor.1.

22. The powers of heaven may denote the celestial luminaries. Matt.24.

23. Satan is said to have the power of death, as he introduced sin, the cause of death, temporal and eternal, and torments men with the feat of death and future misery.

24. In vulgar language, a large quantity; a great number; as a power of good things. [This is, I believe, obsolete, even among our common people.]

Power of attorney, authority given to a person to act for another.

Now, I don't see any of these that, when saying that is what a third of souls found enticing about Satan taking it away from us, sounds really appealing. Plus, very few of these definitions end up making sense and the one that makes the most is the first one, the philosophical use. Agency has several meanings and in some places (as in the Satan's plan case) it means exerting the philosophical use of 'power', and other times it may mean other things but I guess I just don't see how you can take the 1828 definition of agency ("The quality of moving or of exerting power") and turn it into something like "being responsible for our actions or having no punishment if they are bad" (since this is what you think was appealing about Satan's plan).

Edited August 31, 2012 by Alvino