Agency

[JLHPROF]

Several times in the past couple of days I have had to respond to the "God doesn't use force" argument.  The idea being upheld is that God always gives us agency.  (Yes, this was about plural marriage.)

 

I have argued on a couple of threads that every time we use our agency to go against God's will we lose some of that agency. 

 

I will give just one example to get the ball rolling:

In the premortal existence 1/3 part of the hosts of heaven CHOSE using their agency to fight against God's plan and law.

They had that right.

In doing so they stopped their progression cold.  No bodies.  No repentance.  No option to have children, spouse, resurrection, kingdom, glory, a future.  They chose.  And now they have no choice about their future.

 

So, is agency really a permanent condition?  If exercising our agency to make incorrect choices reduces our agency does that change the way we approach our choices and actually limit our agency?

Thoughts?

[Mormonmaniac]

Satan seeks to destroy our agency. When we follow Satan in disobedience our agency is destroyed,

[mfbukowski]

JLH

I think it's not that simple, but I agree with you basically.

I think that last sentence was redundant.

Choices which limit our agency are DEFINED as "bad" within our system. (ie, LDS)

Even an amoeba has agency, in moving toward food and away from painful stimuli

But in our way of seeing the world, you are totally right.

Edited April 25, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

This is the sentence I am having trouble with:

S If exercising our agency to make incorrect choices reduces our agency does that change the way we approach our choices and actually limit our agency?

Thoughts?

[JLHPROF]

This is the sentence I am having trouble with:

 

I understand that.  I agree with you.  I was having difficulties expressing it correctly.

 

Here is the issue.

People say that "God doesn't use force".

But God does uphold laws with their natural consequences.

 

The example that was being used was Joseph and the drawn sword and polygamy.  The idea is that God wouldn't force Joseph to live that law, it goes against agency.  I don't agree.  The examples of God taking away agency from people who refuse to follow his laws are numerous.

So if we know about the consequences to violating a law and CHOOSE to follow that law is that a reduction in our agency.

 

But my main topic here is "God's force vs Agency".  Where is the line?

[mfbukowski]

I understand that. I agree with you. I was having difficulties expressing it correctly.

Here is the issue.

People say that "God doesn't use force".

But God does uphold laws with their natural consequences.

The example that was being used was Joseph and the drawn sword and polygamy. The idea is that God wouldn't force Joseph to live that law, it goes against agency. I don't agree. The examples of God taking away agency from people who refuse to follow his laws are numerous.

So if we know about the consequences to violating a law and CHOOSE to follow that law is that a reduction in our agency.

But my main topic here is "God's force vs Agency". Where is the line?

I think it is not God who does it-- in all cases, it is natural consequences.

A drunk driver kills a whole family. Clearly God didn't do that, but it is a consequence of agency.

We take away our own agency. God made the world in such a way that actions have consequences.

I see the angel and sword as Joseph saying that God really REALLY wanted him to go forward with it.

Not doing so would have been a sin, and the wages of sin is death. We all hve sinned,and get a death sentence for it.

If you think about it, the fall was required for exaltation.

Knowledge of good and evil was required, "for that is the way Father gained his knowledge".

So yes, Joseph faced death for disobeying God, but guess what, we all do as well. That was what the fall was about.

So Joseph obeyed, but as all mortals do, the sword eventually catches us.

So the revelation, in my opinion, was God underlining one principle for Joseph personally. Disobey, and die. Underlining what is true for all of us anyway.

Could Joseph have sinned and disobeyed? Of course. Was he "forced"? Was Christ "forced" to do "nothing but what his Father does"?

Christ voluntarily gave up his own will to be fully obedient, as if he had no will of his own. Was he "forced"? Of course not.

So that's my take on it all.

Edited April 25, 2015 by mfbukowski

[JLHPROF]

Christ voluntarily gave up his own will to be fully obedient, as if he had no will of his own. Was he "forced"? Of course not.

 

Once again Christ plays the perfect example.  Willingly exercising his agency to give up his own choice in favor of the Father's will.

Perhaps if when we spoke of exercising our own "agency" in terms of the degree to which we obey God we wouldn't have so many people thinking their agency trumps law.

[mfbukowski]

Once again Christ plays the perfect example.  Willingly exercising his agency to give up his own choice in favor of the Father's will.

Perhaps if when we spoke of exercising our own "agency" in terms of the degree to which we obey God we wouldn't have so many people thinking their agency trumps law.

Yes.

But to me, that last part is like saying that gravity does or does not "trump" agency.

No, we cannot fly, nor jump to the moon.

Natural consequences are, well, natural. There is not much we can do about them, or that they can do to us.

We need learn to live with the limitations of nature. About that, we have no choice.

Jump off a cliff, and the fun is sure to stop in a few seconds.

[BCSpace]

So, is agency really a permanent condition?  If exercising our agency to make incorrect choices reduces our agency does that change the way we approach our choices and actually limit our agency?

Thoughts?

 

An interesting thought might be that consequences, especially those obviously and specifically stated by God, are often considered to be representative of a loss, or non existence, of agency.

Edited April 25, 2015 by BCSpace

[CCRW]

If exercising our agency to make incorrect choices reduces our agency does that change the way we approach our choices and actually limit our agency?

 

It is illegal to steal a car.  The consequences of stealing a car could end me up in jail, also its a sin.  How bad do I want that car?

 

The tree of Knowledge of good and evil, opposites ... we will allow Lucifer our common enemy to test and try, that by their own experience they may learn to choose.

 

I suppose the consequences of individual actions within ones life time will have its affect from/on that action.  But what of the sum of the whole of ones life?  For example I steal the car and get caught and end up in jail.  When I get out, I see another nice car.  Did I learn anything from my life's experience, how will I now choose now?

Edited April 25, 2015 by CCRW

[CV75]

So, is agency really a permanent condition?  If exercising our agency to make incorrect choices reduces our agency does that change the way we approach our choices and actually limit our agency?

I think agency has to be nourished and exercised, just like faith and knowledge, so of course we can lapse and backslide. But we can always repent as long as the Lord extends His arm of mercy, and regain ground and gain new ground.

[JLHPROF]

Thank you all for your responses.

It comes as no surprise to me, but it seems that the allpowerful great "AGENCY" entails far more complex ideas than the simplistic idea that God never forces us and always lets us choose.

[ALarson]

The example that was being used was Joseph and the drawn sword and polygamy.  The idea is that God wouldn't force Joseph to live that law, it goes against agency.  I don't agree.

I agree. If that truly happened, it didn't take Joseph's agency away from him.  He still had a choice.

 

As far as your example of those who chose to follow Satan in the preexistence, that's interesting.  However, I'm not sure that they have no choice about their future.  Certainly, they limited their choices.  But, do you think they may have choices within what they do even while following Satan?  I'm not sure if I'm expressing that correctly.

Edited April 25, 2015 by ALarson

[CCRW]

But, do you think they may have choices within what they do even while following Satan?  I'm not sure if I'm expressing that correctly.

 

Hey joe, what do you say, should be attack CCRW or ALarson today?

 

joe: CCRW, he's an easy target

Edited April 25, 2015 by CCRW

[ALarson]

Hey joe, what do you say, should be attack CCRW or ALarson today?

 

joe: CCRW, he's an easy target

Funny!  

 

As I think about this, I do know that in the war in heaven, Satan's plan was one of force.  I guess my question is, if force is always his only way?

Edited April 25, 2015 by ALarson

[mfbukowski]

Thank you all for your responses.

It comes as no surprise to me, but it seems that the allpowerful great "AGENCY" entails far more complex ideas than the simplistic idea that God never forces us and always lets us choose.

There are always exceptions and ambiguities in abstract statements like that. Making them usually gets us nowhere.

On the other hand, as a general statement I think it is true that God never forces us.

Language is inherently ambiguous, and we need to understand that

One can deconstruct any statement and make it sound ridiculous, but in its original context, with the original intent it may make perfect sense.

[theplains]

The example that was being used was Joseph and the drawn sword and polygamy

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng says, "When God

commands a difficult task, He sometimes sends additional messengers to encourage His

people to obey. Consistent with this pattern, Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to

him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage

when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with

a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the

commandment fully".

 

Apart from Joseph and Emma, are there other Latter-day Saints that were threatened with

destruction if they did not obey polygamy?

 

If Joseph was practicing plural marriage before 1942, why did this messenger have to appear

to him for the third time?

 

Thanks,

Jim

[JLHPROF]

https://www.lds.org/topics/plural-marriage-in-kirtland-and-nauvoo?lang=eng says, "When God

commands a difficult task, He sometimes sends additional messengers to encourage His

people to obey. Consistent with this pattern, Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to

him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage

when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with

a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the

commandment fully".

 

Apart from Joseph and Emma, are there other Latter-day Saints that were threatened with

destruction if they did not obey polygamy?

 

If Joseph was practicing plural marriage before 1942, why did this messenger have to appear

to him for the third time?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Because he was hemming and hawing around keeping God's commandments.

 

We don't have a clear record of when the angel appeared.

After Fanny Alger 5 years passed before he made a second attempt marrying Lucinda Harris around 1838.

He then didn't marry Louisa Beaman until 1841.

 

So in the time period referenced as having the 3 angelic visits Joseph made 3 sporadic attempts at plural marriage, only 2 of whom stayed with him and the Church and none of whom lived with him as a wife.

 

Only AFTER the fall of 1841 (and presumably the third angelic visit with the drawn sword) did Joseph begin to marry multiple women and attempt to have a living relationship with any at all as actual wives.

 

It took three warnings for Joseph to stop hesitating or trying to live the law half-heartedly.

The only dispensation where tradition forbade plural marriage was the only dispensation where it had to be commanded.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I am so happy for the gift of agency, but sometimes I wish I knew what exactly I am supposed to do and how to do it. I know agency will result in a million mistakes in life. But then again, if we had all the answers and had a free ride, that was Satan's plan.

[cksalmon]

If Joseph was practicing plural marriage before 1942, why did this messenger have to appear

to him for the third time?

It's complicated and there were some time travel issues. 'Nuff said.