Agency Smagency - Why You Don't Get to Choose Your Ward

[Five Solas]

On 10/4/2016 at 8:51 AM, ERayR said:

..

It is within the agency of the Church to accomplish that in the manner that its leadership deems best (Officers guided by the best revelation they can receive).  They do not force you to accept it(thus preserving your right to choose (agency).  There is no 'taking precedence' each has their agency preserved.  Thee Church to offer what they want, the way the want and you and me to reject or accept what is offered.

The notion of the LDS Church as an "entity" (from your previous post) and thereby having "agency" of its own is a bit reminiscent of Mitt Romney's argument, "corporations are people" (about 20 seconds in).  Reminiscent is all I'm saying, I'm not offering a political opinion one way or another. 

But I get the thrust of your argument:  Any club gets to establish rules for membership (within the limits of the law).  Here in Seattle, I'm a member of the Washington Athletic Club (locally referred to as "the wac").  To join, they require letters of reference from existing members (to vouch for your worthiness), a hefty up-front initiation fee and monthly dues thereafter.  They get to decide the rules, I get to decide whether I want to be a part of it.  Do I complain?  No.  I actually get a lot out of it.  I use it mostly for business meetings and related activities (truth told, I'm not all that "athletic" anymore), my wife uses it during the week for exercise (she's a different story), my kids go there Saturday mornings for swimming lessons.  I made my choice.  No regrets. 

Is the LDS Church just like the WAC or any other club?  Perhaps.  But it's at least interesting (if not ironic) that so, so very much is said about agency, but for those who opt in--they are given so little actual choice. 

But maybe it's just me.  Maybe it makes perfect sense to everyone else. 

--Erik

_____________________________________________

Here it ends
No one's gonna shed a tear
No need to shout
Just to stand the silence

--Moderat, "Bad Kingdom"

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

The notion of the LDS Church as an "entity" (from your previous post) and thereby having "agency" of its own is a bit reminiscent of Mitt Romney's argument, "corporations are people" (about 20 seconds in).  Reminiscent is all I'm saying, I'm not offering a political opinion one way or another. 

But I get the thrust of your argument:  Any club gets to establish rules for membership (within the limits of the law).  Here in Seattle, I'm a member of the Washington Athletic Club (locally referred to as "the wac").  To join, they require letters of reference from existing members (to vouch for your worthiness), a hefty up-front initiation fee and monthly dues thereafter.  They get to decide the rules, I get to decide whether I want to be a part of it.  Do I complain?  No.  I actually get a lot out of it.  I use it mostly for business meetings and related activities (truth told, I'm not all that "athletic" anymore), my wife uses it during the week for exercise (she's a different story), my kids go there Saturday mornings for swimming lessons.  I made my choice.  No regrets. 

Is the LDS Church just like the WAC or any other club?  Perhaps.  But it's at least interesting (if not ironic) that so, so very much is said about agency, but for those who opt in--they are given so little actual choice. 

But maybe it's just me.  Maybe it makes perfect sense to everyone else. 

--Erik

_____________________________________________

Here it ends
No one's gonna shed a tear
No need to shout
Just to stand the silence

--Moderat, "Bad Kingdom"

A corporation IS legally a "person".  Look it up if you need to 

[Kenngo1969]

10 hours ago, Five Solas said:

...  But it's at least interesting (if not ironic) that so, so very much is said about agency, but for those who opt in--they are given so little actual choice. ...

--Erik

You're right, in a sense, Erik.  If one wants to be a part of any organization, one follows the rules.  If one does not want to follow the rules, perhaps one should not be a part of the organization.  (And one is perfectly free to make that CHOICE [Emphasis mine].)  The crucial difference is that, from our perspective, for this organization, God sets the rules. You're right: there are many people, even members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who misunderstand agency.  Agency is about both choices and consequences.  Too many people forget, discount, or disregard the and.  From our perspective, God has given us pretty much everything we have.  See, e.g., Mosiah 2:21-24 in The Book of Mormon.  The only thing we have left to surrender back to Him that He did not give us in the first place is our will.  

I had some things to say about that once.

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/on-submitting-my-will-to-gods/

[ERayR]

12 hours ago, Five Solas said:

The notion of the LDS Church as an "entity" (from your previous post) and thereby having "agency" of its own is a bit reminiscent of Mitt Romney's argument, "corporations are people" (about 20 seconds in).  Reminiscent is all I'm saying, I'm not offering a political opinion one way or another. 

But I get the thrust of your argument:  Any club gets to establish rules for membership (within the limits of the law).  Here in Seattle, I'm a member of the Washington Athletic Club (locally referred to as "the wac").  To join, they require letters of reference from existing members (to vouch for your worthiness), a hefty up-front initiation fee and monthly dues thereafter.  They get to decide the rules, I get to decide whether I want to be a part of it.  Do I complain?  No.  I actually get a lot out of it.  I use it mostly for business meetings and related activities (truth told, I'm not all that "athletic" anymore), my wife uses it during the week for exercise (she's a different story), my kids go there Saturday mornings for swimming lessons.  I made my choice.  No regrets. 

Is the LDS Church just like the WAC or any other club?  Perhaps.  But it's at least interesting (if not ironic) that so, so very much is said about agency, but for those who opt in--they are given so little actual choice. 

But maybe it's just me.  Maybe it makes perfect sense to everyone else. 

--Erik

_____________________________________________

Here it ends
No one's gonna shed a tear
No need to shout
Just to stand the silence

--Moderat, "Bad Kingdom"

Just one little question.  Don't you think it odd that there those who choose to join because it is different and once they get in they start lobbying to change so that can/will be just like all the rest? 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/6/2016 at 9:55 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

You're right, in a sense, Erik.  If one wants to be a part of any organization, one follows the rules.  If one does not want to follow the rules, perhaps one should not be a part of the organization.  (And one is perfectly free to make that CHOICE [Emphasis mine].)  The crucial difference is that, from our perspective, for this organization, God sets the rules. You're right: there are many people, even members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who misunderstand agency.  Agency is about both choices and consequences.  Too many people forget, discount, or disregard the and.  From our perspective, God has given us pretty much everything we have.  See, e.g., Mosiah 2:21-24 in The Book of Mormon.  The only thing we have left to surrender back to Him that He did not give us in the first place is our will.  

I had some things to say about that once.

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/on-submitting-my-will-to-gods/

A fine blog post, Ken.

The link within your post to Dan Peterson's blog post appears to be broken, though.

[UtahTexan]

the idea of being assigned to a particular ward based on Geography makes perfect sense  The LDS Church is the best at providing help for members in need.  Monthly Home and Visiting teaching is an example.  When the Bishop discovered my wife was changing apartments to a 2-bedroom as I was moving to join in SLC, he appeared with 20 people to help (she did not ask for help, she is not LDS).  These kinds of things would not be possible if people had to travel miles to help.  

 

[Guest]

The problem with letting people choose other Wards, for whatever reason sends them wondering in the wilderness...mummering all the way. We also attend assigned Wards, so that the assigning of Home Teachers does not put the HT, (or present him with) undue burdens in travel. 

[Five Solas]

On 10/6/2016 at 8:55 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

You're right, in a sense, Erik.  If one wants to be a part of any organization, one follows the rules.  If one does not want to follow the rules, perhaps one should not be a part of the organization.  (And one is perfectly free to make that CHOICE [Emphasis mine].)  The crucial difference is that, from our perspective, for this organization, God sets the rules. You're right: there are many people, even members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, who misunderstand agency.  Agency is about both choices and consequences.  Too many people forget, discount, or disregard the and.  From our perspective, God has given us pretty much everything we have.  See, e.g., Mosiah 2:21-24 in The Book of Mormon.  The only thing we have left to surrender back to Him that He did not give us in the first place is our will.  

I had some things to say about that once.

https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/on-submitting-my-will-to-gods/

I recall that explanation, when "free" was dropped from "free agency."  But it all seemed a little silly:  My 3 year-old could tell you choices have consequences.  Okay, he wouldn't use that word, but he certainly understands making a choice produces an outcome or result (and sometimes unintended ones, he's learned a degree of caution).  Or as my 6 & 7 year-old girls might say, "duh!"  Which isn't a very nice retort--we're working on that...

;0) 

Regarding your blog and "The List" -- Your defense of it & the leaders who make such mandates:  Forgive me for saying so, but therein you call to mind Boxer, the faithful and strong horse in George Orwell's Animal Farm, whose maxims might well be your own.  Readers can judge if I'm being unfair. 

Let's briefly have a look at your list, acknowledge its incompleteness, and then ask a question pursuant to the topic of this thread--

• Told what you can wear or must wear while sleeping
• Told how to spend Monday evenings
• Told how to spend10% of your money
• Told what sexual acts in marriage are and aren’t acceptable
• Told when to start a family
• Told how to dress in everyday life (modestly)
• Told how to spend your time on Sundays
• Told how NOT to spend their time on Sundays
• Told what NOT to drink
• Told when and how to do Charity work
• Told when to visit neighbors (HT/VT)
• Told what to read
• Told what NOT to read
• Told what to do when you first wake in the morning
• Told what you’re to do just before going to bed
• Told how to act in public
• Told what Movies you can watch
• Told what TV not to watch
• Told what color shirts to wear to Church
• Told how men should groom their faces without facial hair particular if called to a leadership position
• Told what music is and is not appropriate
• Told how many earrings a woman can have
• Told not to have a Tattoo
• Told that your caffeine must be cold
• Told what footwear one should not wear to church services
• Told which friends are appropriate to associate with and which ones are not

The question is this: Can the above be reconciled with Galatians 5:1 ("It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery") or does it sound more like the product of rule-making, rule-loving Pharisees?  I would suggest it's the latter, and that Mormonism would make the good news of the Gospel--into bad. 

Afraid my post reads a bit harsh, but at least I've given you something to sink your teeth into, Ken

:0)

--Erik