Success

[Stone holm]

Bravo. You seem to be of the opinion that this is some how a good thing. That loss of freedom is great. It sounds as if even under Lucifiers plan you would also argue that you would still have agency? Agency and freedom might not be exactly the same thing but they are very closely related. And I am sorry but less freedom is not something I would ever advocate for. I would say that agency is the freedom of choice. When we speak of agency we are essentailly talking about choice and when one losses freedom the ability to make certain choice is gone. In Communist Russia when they told you a kid at age 5 what you were going to do for a living would you argue that that 5 year old really had a choice? That he still had his agency to chose? The government says "You are going to be a garbage man" The Nehor says "You still have agency". 5 year old kid says "Cool I'll be a police man". Reality .5 year old kid is then shot for refusing to go along with the plan. The Nehor syas" He still had his agency even though he had no freedom".

More reality is that 5 year old is dead and now has even less choice.

Freedom and anarchy have never been considered synonymous. We have said that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man. Nobody here is advocating Soviet style communism, in fact we are not even advocating the transfer of jobs from America to Communist China. Christ did not rebel against or even denounce taxation, instead He ate with Publicans and paid His taxes when requested to. And the Jews under the Romans enjoyed much less freedom than we do in America.

[The Nehor]

Bravo. You seem to be of the opinion that this is some how a good thing. That loss of freedom is great. It sounds as if even under Lucifiers plan you would also argue that you would still have agency? Agency and freedom might not be exactly the same thing but they are very closely related. And I am sorry but less freedom is not something I would ever advocate for. I would say that agency is the freedom of choice. When we speak of agency we are essentailly talking about choice and when one losses freedom the ability to make certain choice is gone. In Communist Russia when they told you a kid at age 5 what you were going to do for a living would you argue that that 5 year old really had a choice? That he still had his agency to chose? The government says "You are going to be a garbage man" The Nehor says "You still have agency". 5 year old kid says "Cool I'll be a police man". Reality .5 year old kid is then shot for refusing to go along with the plan. The Nehor syas" He still had his agency even though he had no freedom".

More reality is that 5 year old is dead and now has even less choice.

Agency is the power to choose. Freedom often determines what choices are available. If you are chained in a dungeon with no freedom of movement you still have agency. You can choose to scream. You can choose to be silent. You can choose to pray or choose to sing. The five year old has agency to attempt anything he wishes. Freedom may determine whether or not he gets it. Actually the five year old is dead and now has a lot more in the way of choices.

In general I am pro-freedom but I am also in favor of giving up some freedoms in exchange for better ones. We call this "law"

Since you seem to imagine I made this up I present Elder Oaks making the same distinction you are ridiculing:

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=573

Shame on you for mocking the teaching of an apostle.

[Stone holm]

Unanumously agreed? Really?? There are plenty of people that disagree with this even today. Why is there not a progressive tithing system in the church? Think about it for a second.

Because we have a progressive Fast Offering system and other donations than tithing. See my response above.

[Ahab]

I personally could do with out an income tax. Lets just abolish that. I don't see any good coming from that.

An income tax is the basically the secular equivalent of our Lord's tithing system, in principal, even though secular governments usually want more than just 10%. It's how those in government pay for the costs of running the country/kingdom, whether or not money is the basis of exchanges for goods and services.

[The Nehor]

Unanumously agreed? Really?? There are plenty of people that disagree with this even today. Why is there not a progressive tithing system in the church? Think about it for a second.

I was talking about the fathers of capitalism like Adam Smith. I was talking about great and influential thinkers not wealthy people butthurt about taxes or deluded internet libertarians convinced that they would all be millionaires if the big bad government would go away.

I personally could do with out an income tax. Lets just abolish that. I don't see any good coming from that.

Indeed roads, national defense, and national parks are all unmitigated evils.

[Stone holm]

I was talking about the fathers of capitalism like Adam Smith. I was talking about great and influential thinkers not wealthy people butthurt about taxes or deluded internet libertarians convinced that they would all be millionaires if the big bad government would go away.

Indeed roads, national defense, and national parks are all unmitigated evils.

It was once said that the reason that communism never got any traction in America was that unlike other countries, Americans tended to view themselves as temporarily embarrassed millionaires rather than oppressed poor. Personally, I believe it was because of the existence of a frontier for so long in America that it always felt that you could escape to the West and strike it rich. Whenever you bring up the subject you always have people bringing up the handful of people who somehow manage to burst through the various obstacles and become massively economically successful. Yeah that's nice, and the system would still allow that -- not necessary for everyone else to do without in order for that to still happen. People tend to forget that one of the most vigorously prosperous times in America and the golden age of the middle class there was very, very high taxes of the wealthy and a massive economic stimulus in the form of building the interstate highway system and very little in the way of foreign competition because much of the world had been obliterated in WWII. So now we think the recipe for success is low taxation, no stimulus, and open unrestricted foreign trade. Does anybody bother to read history anymore?

[JarMan]

I have to disagree there. From the beginnings of capitalism it was virtually unanimously agreed that a progressive tax system is the most efficient method of keeping money moving through the system under the logical assumption that the wealthy benefit more from government spending.

CFR.

From the beginnings of marxism, marxists have agreed that a progressive tax is best. And I will provide my reference up front. Look in Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto.

I am having a hard time understanding your definition of agency as opposed to freedom. What does agency mean to you?

[Stone holm]

CFR.

From the beginnings of marxism, marxists have agreed that a progressive tax is best. And I will provide my reference up front. Look in Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto.

I am having a hard time understanding your definition of agency as opposed to freedom. What does agency mean to you?

I suspect we all agree that we do not support Marxism as consistent with freedom or any form of "success" that Mormons would believe consistent with our religion. So what is your point? Marxist Communism is essentially a deadletter except maybe in Cuba and with our biggest trading partner China.

[JarMan]

That is not necessarily true.

Under a flat tax a person with a higher income necessarily pays more taxes. This is necessarily true.

[JarMan]

I suspect we all agree that we do not support Marxism as consistent with freedom or any form of "success" that Mormons would believe consistent with our religion. So what is your point? Marxist Communism is essentially a deadletter except maybe in Cuba and with our biggest trading partner China.

My point is that you are arguing for a progressive tax system. That is a marxist ideal not a capitalist ideal. And you're right, it is not consistent with our religion.

[The Nehor]

CFR.

From the beginnings of marxism, marxists have agreed that a progressive tax is best. And I will provide my reference up front. Look in Chapter 2 of the Communist Manifesto.

I am having a hard time understanding your definition of agency as opposed to freedom. What does agency mean to you?

I am not going to summarize several years of economic studies and plow through the writings of dozens of thinkers to write you a quote list. I have more important things to do like playing Minesweeper. It is just true.

Am I supposed to wring my hands at agreeing with a communist? Am I supposed to assume we should do the exact opposite of everything they say? Yes, communists are in favor of progressive taxation. Historically so have capitalists, socialists, feudalists, and even primitive taxation practiced in tribalism and city-states.

Read Elder Oaks brilliant speech on the subject. If you could not get it from my explanation hopefully his will help. Here is a great quote of his opposing your view:

"Freedom is obviously of great importance, but as these examples illustrate, freedom is always qualified in mortality. Consequently, when we oppose a government-imposed loss of freedom, it would be better if we did not conduct our debate in terms of a loss of our free agency, which is impossible under our doctrine. We ought to focus on the legality or the wisdom of the proposed restriction of our freedom."

[JarMan]

You make a lot of assumptions, and the ones you are making aren't necessarily true. Just because someone corners you with a gun and says that to you doesn't mean what he says is going to come true. Suppose that you just take that gun away from that punk, or you just walk away with an assurance from God that he won't do you any harm to you. He could be a wimp you could easily take the gun away from, if you can get over your fear of death and the fact that he has a gun in his hand. Or he may not actually shoot you even though he has said that he will. No need to assume you only have 2 choices, even though he has tried to give you that impression. You still have many options and your freedom or agency will never be taken away even if he were to somehow succeed in killing you. Freedom and agency also apply to the immortal realm, and not just here among us mortals.

Once he takes your money you cannot spend it any more. Therefore you have lost agency. If you want to fight a mugger with a gun over $100, then go ahead, but you'll probably get killed. And that will be a loss of agency, as well, because you still won't be able to spend the money.

[JarMan]

I am not going to summarize several years of economic studies and plow through the writings of dozens of thinkers to write you a quote list. I have more important things to do like playing Minesweeper. It is just true.

Am I supposed to wring my hands at agreeing with a communist? Am I supposed to assume we should do the exact opposite of everything they say? Yes, communists are in favor of progressive taxation. Historically so have capitalists, socialists, feudalists, and even primitive taxation practiced in tribalism and city-states.

Read Elder Oaks brilliant speech on the subject. If you could not get it from my explanation hopefully his will help. Here is a great quote of his opposing your view:

"Freedom is obviously of great importance, but as these examples illustrate, freedom is always qualified in mortality. Consequently, when we oppose a government-imposed loss of freedom, it would be better if we did not conduct our debate in terms of a loss of our free agency, which is impossible under our doctrine. We ought to focus on the legality or the wisdom of the proposed restriction of our freedom."

The CFR stands. You made a statement, now either support it with evidence or withdraw the statement. And I'll even make it easy for you. Just show me where Adam Smith supports progressive taxation since you implied earlier that he was a supporter of it.

As far as the Elder Oaks quote (he truly does have a brilliant mind) I happen to disagree with him on this issue. And I am not asking Elder Oaks, I'm asking you what your definition of agency is.

[The Nehor]

The CFR stands. You made a statement, now either support it with evidence or withdraw the statement. And I'll even make it easy for you. Just show me where Adam Smith supports progressive taxation since you implied earlier that he was a supporter of it.

As far as the Elder Oaks quote (he truly does have a brilliant mind) I happen to disagree with him on this issue. And I am not asking Elder Oaks, I'm asking you what your definition of agency is.

Oh no!!!!!! Not the flesh burning CFR. I would not withdraw the statement but since you reduced the requirement from doing your homework for you to a few quotes from one man a simple Google search will suffice. Alright, Adam Smith:

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed."

Need more? There are tons of them.

Elder Oaks said exactly what I said. I agree completely. I have reiterated it multiple times. Agency is the right to choose. It is impossible to remove. Freedom can restrict your options and relates to the circumstances you are in. If you are falling to your death you have agency to scream or do a pencil dive but your freedoms are more limited compared to someone not falling. Law does not infringe agency. It does limit some freedoms, usually to enhance others. Even under the most totalitarian state in existence a quadriplegic buried alive has agency. They are lacking in freedom.

[Ahab]

Once he takes your money you cannot spend it any more. Therefore you have lost agency.

If I give my money to a merchant I can't spend it any more either. Do you consider that to be a loss of my agency? Someone who manages to steal my money isn't taking my agency, either. What I choose to give someone doesn't take away from my agency.

If you want to fight a mugger with a gun over $100, then go ahead, but you'll probably get killed.

Eh, I probably wouldn't, but the point is that I could if I chose to do that.

And that will be a loss of agency, as well, because you still won't be able to spend the money.

You don't seem to understand what agency is. It is the power to choose, and whatever I choose to do by my own actions is the exercise of my agency which shows that I have it.

[Stone holm]

There is I believe, since I have not read it, a scene in Dante's Inferno where these people are sitting around a table with a luscious stew in a caldron before them they each have their left hands tied behind their backs, a long ladle is strapped to their right arm so they cannot bend their elbow. In this position they can only feed the person next to them on the left, but not themselves. So of course they are all sitting there with hunger eternally gnawing at their innards. Not sure why that came to mind, but somehow it seemed relevant.

[JarMan]

Oh no!!!!!! Not the flesh burning CFR. I would not withdraw the statement but since you reduced the requirement from doing your homework for you to a few quotes from one man a simple Google search will suffice. Alright, Adam Smith:

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state."

This statement is one of Adam Smith's four maxims on taxation. This maxim advocates a flat tax, not a regressive one. The word "proportion" in relation to taxes means "flat" not "progressive." So you're working against your own statement with this quote.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

This statement is not in reference to income tax, but refers to what he calls a "peculiar tax" which essentially is a tax on items rather than income. In this particular case he is talking about a tax on rents which he disagrees with because of its inherent unfairness. If you read carefully he is not endorsing this, but speaking against it. Again, you've pulled a quote that speaks against regressive taxation, not for it.

"It must always be remembered, however, that it is the luxuries, and not the necessary expense of the inferior ranks of people, that ought ever to be taxed."

The point of Adam Smith saying this is that he thinks taxes should be levied on the lower classes as well as the middle and upper, not just on the middle and upper. His reasoning is that, collectively, the lower classes own more than all of the middle and upper classes combined. So far from being a statement about taxing the rich more, this is a statement about taxing the poor.

Need more? There are tons of them.

Yes, please!!!! I would love to have some more quotes from Adam Smith that speak for a flat tax and against a regressive tax. You're doing marvelous (3/3) so far!

Elder Oaks said exactly what I said. I agree completely. I have reiterated it multiple times. Agency is the right to choose. It is impossible to remove. Freedom can restrict your options and relates to the circumstances you are in. If you are falling to your death you have agency to scream or do a pencil dive but your freedoms are more limited compared to someone not falling. Law does not infringe agency. It does limit some freedoms, usually to enhance others. Even under the most totalitarian state in existence a quadriplegic buried alive has agency. They are lacking in freedom.

But what is your definition of agency besides being something that is impossible to remove?

[The Nehor]

Your mental gymnastics are impressive. Your dedication to truth....less so. I think I have even seen those radical interpretations of the text online before. They are bad misreadings meant to turn a partial ally into an ally akin to seeing the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard as justification for removing the minimum wage (yes, it has been done).

[JarMan]

Your mental gymnastics are impressive. Your dedication to truth....less so. I think I have even seen those radical interpretations of the text online before. They are bad misreadings meant to turn a partial ally into an ally akin to seeing the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard as justification for removing the minimum wage (yes, it has been done).

You walked right into a trap. . . but now lack the honesty, humility, or intelligence to recognize you've been ensnared.

But I'll go easy on you. I will suspend my CFR if you promise to go read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. (It's free you know.) For extra credit you can read the Federalist Papers (also free). Then we can discuss what these classical supporters of free markets think about taxes. (I'll give you a little primer: none of them support a progressive income tax.) But don't take my word for it. . .

[JarMan]

If I give my money to a merchant I can't spend it any more either. Do you consider that to be a loss of my agency? Someone who manages to steal my money isn't taking my agency, either. What I choose to give someone doesn't take away from my agency.

If you give money to a merchant or if you decide to throw it into the sewer, then you have made a choice. But that's a choice you couldn't have made if the money was stolen from you.

You don't seem to understand what agency is. It is the power to choose, and whatever I choose to do by my own actions is the exercise of my agency which shows that I have it.

If agency is the power to choose, then it certainly can be taken away from you. If someone takes your hundred bucks you no longer have the power to choose what to do with that money. You may wish you could have given it to someone who needed it or you may have planned to pay a bill with it. But without that money you are deprived of the power to choose.

[The Nehor]

You walked right into a trap. . . but now lack the honesty, humility, or intelligence to recognize you've been ensnared.

But I'll go easy on you. I will suspend my CFR if you promise to go read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations. (It's free you know.) For extra credit you can read the Federalist Papers (also free). Then we can discuss what these classical supporters of free markets think about taxes. (I'll give you a little primer: none of them support a progressive income tax.) But don't take my word for it. . .

So you admit you were trying to dig a pit for me? Huh, the Book of Mormon says something about those who imagine themselves cunning and dig pits for their neighbor.

Of course your pit is basically one quick dig with a child's shovel and then giggling when an adult walks over it without noticing it imagining you have pranked them.

I've read the Wealth of Nations twice. Your reading is insane and pulled off one of the top google searches. Well, let's look at some more Adam Smith:

“The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.

There we go. They should pay more then their "proportion" which is progressive taxation even if not an income tax. Ouch........ Are you sure you've read the book and are not just running to Google?

The Federalist Papers do not mention progressive income taxes. Of course there was no income tax then. Before the 16th amendment vitually all federal revenue came from tariffs and excise taxes. It was hoped that income taxes would never be needed though the papers did argue that the federal government may need at some point to implement an income tax (in times of emergency/war) and the papers did argue that the federal government had the right to implement such a tax. Whether it would be progressive or flat was not discussed at all so your little supporting document is completely ambiguous. Ouch number two.

Nice try though for going off internet searches and talk radio points. In all other respects bad try.

Edited August 3, 2013 by The Nehor

[Calm]

Look around you and think back.

That proves to me you were wrong and my husband the professor who studies these things backs up my perception with his own research background. For one point, technology and culture have created a huge amount of opportunities for small business that were never available 'back in the day'. Just came across one last winter where they are doing a great business filling a niche left by blockbluster hollywood films, B movies...maybe even C and D, movies that are pretty much mass produced with little resources that can do some decent work due to the tech that makes high quality video and fun special effects available to pretty many anyone leaving the quality dependent on acting, writing and directing again. (Technology now that I think of it probably driven by the Porn industry, lol). Another group just came up with a 'cast' for broken tools by adapting materials used by doctors IIRC.

Online stores are now allowing anyone with a computer and the internet to start a business out of their home with little or nothing to invest. My husband has one class that includes starting a business with one dollar...and some have taken their business past the class and not only made a good life for themselves out of it, but have grown into significant businesses (remember every corporation started out as a small business) that have morphed into award winning and quite likely with projected sales will have his former students becoming millionaires not in the distant future....all from a class project. If you want to edit and publish books, much easier these days. If you want to be a researcher, get online and find someone who needs that done for them and demonstrate your ability...technology allows connections to be made with so much more flexibility, there is always some new business I hear about that is just brilliant in taking advantage of the moment.

The possibilities of business to start up is limited only by imagination and persistence and figuring out the need of one's customers.

I'd look for rates on survival of small business but too often the rates are not actually measuring what they think they are measuring, for example they measure if a business is still around in five years, ten years, etc. but they don't always track business who make name changes, who merge with another business but are fully functioning still, nor do they usually track reason for failure...a family business going under not due to business issues, but because of a death or a divorce. Or just someone deciding to retire as just happened down the street with a great little restaurant that looked like it was doing well. If I remember I will ask my husband if there are rates out there that are reliable for measuring actual success and failure due to business issues.

And it would appear that startups are doing quite well, even after a significant decline in some recent years:

http://www.businessweek.com/small-business/startup-rates-surge-in-the-us-and-abroad-01202012.html

Now if you want to demonstrate that you were right, you will have to do better than depending on my personal experience that you appealed to that is completely contradictory to what you have claimed.

CFR still stands and I will ask the mods to require you to defend your position or remove it as board rules (written or unwritten) require.

Edited August 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

under the logical assumption that the wealthy benefit more from government spending.

Is this a valid assumption? Could you summarize it so I can see where you mean this to go as I can think of a few ways (government programs make for happier population, makes for stability, wealthy can spend less on security in a stable community and more on toys or getting more wealth)...but I can also see how one could claim that to make a difference in the lives of wealthy would take much more money and much less in the lives of the poor so wouldn't the poor benefit more especially if they are the actual targets of the spending?

[Calm]

It sounds as if even under Lucifiers plan you would also argue that you would still have agency?

Agency is about having to deal with consequences or not. Remove the need to deal with eternal consequences as was Lucifer's plan (perhaps by removing the law itself and creating a world with no sin but completely wrong) and one would could have endless freedom of choice, just no more agency/accountability over the choice than an infant choosing which toy to play with.

“Agency is to act with accountability and responsibility for our actions. Our agency is essential to the plan of salvation. With it we are 'free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil.' ”

http://www.lds.org/topics/agency/what-the-church-teaches?lang=eng

[Calm]

Agency is the power to choose. Freedom often determines what choices are available. If you are chained in a dungeon with no freedom of movement you still have agency. You can choose to scream. You can choose to be silent. You can choose to pray or choose to sing. The five year old has agency to attempt anything he wishes. Freedom may determine whether or not he gets it. Actually the five year old is dead and now has a lot more in the way of choices.

In general I am pro-freedom but I am also in favor of giving up some freedoms in exchange for better ones. We call this "law"

Since you seem to imagine I made this up I present Elder Oaks making the same distinction you are ridiculing:

http://speeches.byu....viewitem&id=573

Shame on you for mocking the teaching of an apostle.

Also here:

“The Fulness of the Gospel: Agency,” Liahona, Mar. 2006

“A basic tenet of Christianity is that God has given His children free will, the ability and privilege to choose. But the concept of agency, taught in the Book of Mormon and by latter-day prophets and apostles in concert with other gospel truths, is a doctrine rich in power and eternal in its implications.”

“Agency Is Essential to Our Eternal Progress,” Liahona,June 2010

“Our Heavenly Father has given us agency. This ability to choose for ourselves is an essential part of the plan of salvation.”

Robert D. Hales, “Agency: Essential to the Plan of Life,”Liahona, Nov. 2010

“Agency is to act with accountability and responsibility for our actions. Our agency is essential to the plan of salvation. With it we are 'free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil.' ”

Robert D. Hales, “To Act for Ourselves: The Gift and Blessings of Agency,” Liahona, May 2006

“Agency used righteously allows light to dispel the darkness and enables us to live with joy and happiness.”

Wolfgang H. Paul, “The Gift of Agency,” Liahona, May 2006

“As we obey our Heavenly Father’s commandments, our faith increases, we grow in wisdom and spiritual strength, and it becomes easier for us to make right choices.”

“Agency and Accountability,” in For the Strength of Youth

“Your Heavenly Father has given you agency, the ability to choose right from wrong and to act for yourself. You have been given the Holy Ghost to help you know good from evil. While you are here on earth, you are being proven to see if you will use your agency to show your love for God by keeping His commandments.”

“Freedom to Choose,” in Gospel Principles Manual

Chapter 4 in the Gospel Principles manual provides a basic overview of the principle of agency.

Donald L. Hallstrom, “Using Agency Wisely,” Liahona,Jan. 2006

“Moral agency, the ability to choose for oneself, is fundamental to our Heavenly Father’s great plan of happiness. As the Lord told Adam, 'It is given unto [thy children] to know good from evil; wherefore they are agents unto themselves' (Moses 6:56).”

Charles W. Dahlquist II, “18 Ways to Stand Strong,”Liahona, Oct. 2008

“Choose righteousness and happiness, no matter what your circumstances. Take responsibility for the choices you make. Develop your abilities and talents, and use them for good. Avoid idleness and be willing to work hard.”

M. Russell Ballard, “O That Cunning Plan of the Evil One,” Liahona, Nov. 2010

“The battle over man’s God-given agency continues today.”

Thomas S. Monson, “Choose You This Day,” Liahona, Nov. 2004

“The choices we make determine our destiny.”

James E. Faust, “The Forces That Will Save Us,” Liahona,Jan. 2007

“Our agency, given us through the plan of our Father, is the great alternative to Satan’s plan of force. With this sublime gift, we can grow, improve, progress, and seek perfection. Without agency, none of us could grow and develop by learning from our mistakes and errors and those of others.”

David A. Bednar, “Did You Know?” Liahona, Sept. 2009

“The fundamental purposes for the gift of agency were to love one another and to choose God.”

M. Russell Ballard, “Be Wise,” Liahona, Nov. 2006

“Because the eternal principle of agency gives us the freedom to choose and think for ourselves, we should become increasingly able to solve problems. We may make the occasional mistake, but as long as we are following gospel principles and guidelines, we can learn from those mistakes and become more understanding of others and more effective in serving them.”

Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “On the Wings of Eagles,” Liahona, July 2006

“You have agency, and you are free to choose. But there is actually no free agency. Agency has its price. You have to pay the consequences of your choices.”

http://www.lds.org/topics/agency/what-the-church-teaches?lang=eng