Personality defects vs Free agency

[Stargazer]

20 hours ago, Ahab said:

I meant a question of demonic possession, or not, which is what the thread is about.  In that thread we're talking about whether or not something is demonic possession, and I see this question in this thread as pretty much the  same kind of thing.

No, it's not.  This thread is not that thread.  If you think it's demonic possession you're entitled to your opinion, but keep demons out of this thread please.

My youngest son suffers from Paranoid Personality Disorder.  He isn't possessed.  He has a tendency to think everyone is out to get him.  Any new person in his life is eventually judged to be his enemy.  He conceived a special animus against one of his older brothers, and was convinced that he was out to "get" him.  Another of his brothers, who came to the house to sleep off being drunk (he was living elsewhere), was also one of his many enemies, and he demanded that his mother and I make him leave the house (at 3 am). When we refused, he grabbed a baseball bat and threatened to beat him with it (he was asleep at the time) if we didn't get him out of the house.  He eventually dropped the bat and attacked his brother without it, waking him up.  The fight lasted until the police showed up (I called 911).  I am certain that he was initiating the attack in order to get us to throw his brother out, to force our hands in other words.  This son eventually believed his own mother was one of his worst enemies, with no evidence whatsoever.  As evidence for everyone being against him he cited the fact that nobody in the family wanted to be around him.  His paranoid delusion was the reason why that was true, but he couldn't see the self-fulfilling prophecy inherent in the situation.

Despite all this, he is a fairly decent person.  He is law-abiding, and even though he keeps away from us now, occasional sightings show him to be healthy and in good shape all around.  

But his freedom of choice seems to be curtailed by the his mental condition.  

 

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

No, it's not.  This thread is not that thread.  If you think it's demonic possession you're entitled to your opinion, but keep demons out of this thread please.

My youngest son suffers from Paranoid Personality Disorder.  He isn't possessed.  He has a tendency to think everyone is out to get him.  Any new person in his life is eventually judged to be his enemy.  He conceived a special animus against one of his older brothers, and was convinced that he was out to "get" him.  Another of his brothers, who came to the house to sleep off being drunk (he was living elsewhere), was also one of his many enemies, and he demanded that his mother and I make him leave the house (at 3 am). When we refused, he grabbed a baseball bat and threatened to beat him with it (he was asleep at the time) if we didn't get him out of the house.  He eventually dropped the bat and attacked his brother without it, waking him up.  The fight lasted until the police showed up (I called 911).  I am certain that he was initiating the attack in order to get us to throw his brother out, to force our hands in other words.  This son eventually believed his own mother was one of his worst enemies, with no evidence whatsoever.  As evidence for everyone being against him he cited the fact that nobody in the family wanted to be around him.  His paranoid delusion was the reason why that was true, but he couldn't see the self-fulfilling prophecy inherent in the situation.

Despite all this, he is a fairly decent person.  He is law-abiding, and even though he keeps away from us now, occasional sightings show him to be healthy and in good shape all around.  

But his freedom of choice seems to be curtailed by the his mental condition.  

This is difficult to talk with you about now because it is so personal with you, rather than a matter of simple curiosity, but if it were me I would be wondering if it was a case of demonic possession. If t was that wouldn't necessarily make it his fault, or your  fault, or the fault of anyone in your family.  It would be someone else who had come into your life to influence your son with something that I would consider to be a form of evil.  But perhaps the evil influence is outside of the body of your son and not in his body with him.  As I see things, there are both good influences and evil influences all around us, even when most of the time we cannot see them. I would certainly classify thoughts of that kind as bad/evil thoughts rather than good thoughts, the thoughts that he gets that tell or whisper to him that your family is out to get him.  That isn't good stuff, so whether he is getting those thoughts from within his own body or from outside of his body I would say that somebody is influencing him to have those bad/evil thoughts.  You can choose to think those thoughts are coming from your son's own spirit or from some defect in his own brain or body chemistry, but I wouldn't rule out that he is getting those thoughts from some bad/evil persons.  I would be trying to find the source of those problems and I wouldn't prematurely rule anything out.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 9/28/2019 at 11:41 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, being a free agent in the NBA is bit different than having "moral agency" (D&C 101:78):

Another part of the problem may be that General Authorities have been using the phrase "free agency"  for a long time, which is really a natural consequence of the way in which Scripture speaks of it:

they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act … and not to be acted upon....men are free … to choose  2 Nephi 2:26-27.

ye are free to act for yourselves, 2 Ne. 10:23.

that ye may … do according to your own will, Mosiah 2:21.

under this head ye are made free, Mosiah 5:8.

ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves, Hel 14:30.

act according to their wills, Alma 12:31.

in the first place being left to choose, Alma 13:3.

thou mayest choose for thyself, Moses 3:17.

Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, Moses 4:3

gave I unto man his agency, Moses 7:32.

he rebelled against me, saying, Give me thine honor, which is my power; and also a third part of the hosts of heaven turned he away from me because of their agency; D&C 29:36

That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment. D&C 101:78

the free exercise of conscience, . . . holding sacred the freedom of conscience. D&C 134:2,5

It’s true that Church leaders used the term free agency for a very long time. That pretty much ceased about 30 years ago when Elder Packer pointed out in a general conference talk that the scriptures call it agency or moral agency but not free agency. The “free” part of the phrase disappeared from authoritative Church discourse thereafter, except for the quotation of older statements. 
 

I wrote for a Church-correlated publication, and we were instructed not to use the older phrase, just say “agency” or “moral agency.”

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s true that Church leaders used the term free agency for a very long time. That pretty much ceased about 30 years ago when Elder Packer pointed out in a general conference talk that the scriptures call it agency or moral agency but not free agency. The “free” part of the phrase disappeared from authoritative Church discourse thereafter, except for the quotation of older statements. 
 

I wrote for a Church-correlated publication, and we were instructed not to use the older phrase, just say “agency” or “moral agency.”

We are free to choose, which is what agency is.  The problem with saying "free agency" is in using both words together.  If we're trying to talk about how we are free to choose we should just say "agency" and not "free agency" because while agency refers to having the freedom to choose "free agency" refers to that agency being free, as if our freedom to choose comes at no cost or with no consequences.

If you haven't noticed already none of those scriptures Robert quoted have the 2 words "free" and "agency" together.  They refer to agency.and how we are free to choose from among whatever our options are.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Ahab

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

We are free to choose, which is what agency is.  The problem with saying "free agency" is in using both words together.  If we're trying to talk about how we are free to choose we should just say "agency" and not "free agency" because while agency refers to having the freedom to choose "free agency" refers to that agency being free, as if our freedom to choose comes at no cost or with no consequences.

If you haven't noticed already none of those scriptures Robert quoted have the 2 words "free" and "agency" together.  They refer to agency.and how we are free to choose from among whatever our options are.

Yes. Redundancy is reason enough alone not to keep saying “free agency.” 

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes. Redundancy is reason enough alone not to keep saying “free agency.” 

Yes, I think you are right, even so much that I am willing to say you are right 3 times in the same sentence... and while using the word "even", even.

OR I COULD ALSO SAY

No, I don't think you are right, even so much that I am willing to say you are wrong 3 times in the same sentence... and even while using the word "even", even.

Your choice to choose whichever answer you like the mostest.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Ahab

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes, I think you are right, even so much that I am willing to say you are right 3 times in the same sentence... and while using the word "even", even.

OR I COULD ALSO SAY

No, I don't think you are right, even so much that I am willing to say you are wrong 3 times in the same sentence... and even while using the word "even", even.

Your choice to choose whichever answer you like the mostest.

???

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

???

It's all about agency?  You get to choose!

Have fun, and for heaven's sake come up with the right answer, would ya?

[blarsen]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes. Redundancy is reason enough alone not to keep saying “free agency.” 

I personally think removing the ‘free’ from agency is an unfortunate development.  Why?  Because it de-emphasizes the precious liberty we all inherently possess, and that, inalienably.

Using agency alone, has a strong connotation that you are the agent of someone or some group who have condescended to give you the agency to act on their behalf (look up the dictionary definitions).   Free agency means it is an inherent quality I possess independent of anyone or any group. 

For me, in so far as I'm an eternal intelligence, I inherently possess my own free agency, i.e., intelligence implies free agency.

And decoupling the word 'free' from agency doesn't cure or change the idea that we still suffer or benefit from our freely chosen actions.  So to conflate free agency with the idea that the consequences aren’t ‘free’ just doesn’t wash.

A very unfortunate move, imho.  Especially in a day when our freedoms are eroding more rapidly than ever.

[Ahab]

12 minutes ago, blarsen said:

Using agency alone, has a strong connotation that you are the agent of someone or some group who have condescended to give you the agency to act on their behalf (look up the dictionary definitions).   

That's more like what it actually is.  We ultimately have only 2 choices in any choice we make:  1) to act as our Father would like us to act, or 2) to rebel against how our Father would like us to act and act in some other way.

Even how you choose to think about agency is like that. You either think about it how our Father would like you to think about it or you choose to rebel against how our Father would like you to think about it, perhaps even desiring to totally get rid of agency.

12 minutes ago, blarsen said:

Free agency means it is an inherent quality I possess independent of anyone or any group. 

If that were true then it would not be correct for our Father to say that he gave us our agency in the day that he created us, and yet that is what he has said.  He gave it to us, our freedom to choose, and we can either agree with our Father or rebel against him.

 

[blarsen]

38 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That's more like what it actually is.  We ultimately have only 2 choices in any choice we make:  1) to act as our Father would like us to act, or 2) to rebel against how our Father would like us to act and act in some other way.

Even how you choose to think about agency is like that. You either think about it how our Father would like you to think about it or you choose to rebel against how our Father would like you to think about it, perhaps even desiring to totally get rid of agency.

If that were true then it would not be correct for our Father to say that he gave us our agency in the day that he created us, and yet that is what he has said.  He gave it to us, our freedom to choose, and we can either agree with our Father or rebel against him.

 

Ultimately, we have myriad choices in this sphere.  I doubt there is a person alive who references or asks how our "Father would like us to act" in only but a very few of the multitude of choices we make in a day, or even longer periods of time; and about the same number of these choices really can't be construed as being in rebellion regarding how we think the Father would have us act.

I see it as God setting us up in this sphere to act as our own agents, which we inherently are.  Think of the war in heaven.  Did the 3rd of the host not heaven, as well as our selves, not have the freedom to choose which side we would support?

Intelligence has it owns independent freedom to rove where it wants.  That's what it does; and in so far as it has the capacity to pick one thing or direction (thought or action) over another, it is free to do so, regardless of the consequence.  The only limitation of this process is that there are some 'actions' I simply cannot perform, despite wanting to do so.  My question is:  am I an eternal intelligence, or not?

De-emphasizing this capacity of freedom of thought or action seems unfortunate, imho.  I personally greatly cherish my free agency, or my free will, if you will . . . . or if you don't will. 😉

Edited October 2, 2019 by blarsen

[Ahab]

22 minutes ago, blarsen said:

 My question is:  am I an eternal intelligence, or not?

My question is, will you believe the truth I could tell you regarding that issue?

The issue concerns where we came from, and the simple truth is that we came from our parents who created us.  Not from out of nothing or nowhere, but from who and what they were when they reproduced themselves into other separate individuals who then were the same kind of intelligent being they were and always have been.  Like begets like, and we are the children of God because God is our parent, both male and female.  Meaning we have a Father as well as a Mother who created us as their offspring, with the same kind of intelligence that they have.  Reproductions of the kind of being they are and were when they created us.  And they also had parents who created them from who they were when they created their children.  And so on and so on forever and ever back in history, with no beginning, just as there will never be an end to the kind of being God is.  God, as a kind of being, is eternal, and each male and female can join to become one and create another individual who is the same kind of intelligent being they are. And the kind of intelligence you have is the kind of intelligence they gave to you when they created you as reproductions of themselves.  Not that we are or have or had the same level of intelligence that they had when they created us.  Intelligence is light and truth and the glory of God is intelligence but not everyone has the same level of intelligence as each other who is the same kind of being we refer to as God.  We grow in intelligence as we accept more light and truth from our Father who desires to teach us all that he knows, here a little and there a little as we go on, with some having a celestial degree of glory/intelligence while others have a terrestrial degree of glory/intelligence and still others have a telestial degree of glory/intelligence and yet others don't have much glory/intelligence at all because they have rejected and continue to reject the glory/intelligence they were offered by our Father in heaven.

Anyway, yeah, you are, but you're not as intelligent as our Father is yet so you better keep working on it while knowing you still have a whole lot to learn, as I do, too.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Ahab

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, blarsen said:

I personally think removing the ‘free’ from agency is an unfortunate development.  Why?  Because it de-emphasizes the precious liberty we all inherently possess, and that, inalienably.....

 

A very unfortunate move, imho.  Especially in a day when our freedoms are eroding more rapidly than ever.

So how can inalienable liberty that we all possess "erode"? 

Just stirrin' the pot.... 

My answer would be that we must BELIEVE in inalienable rights in order for them to exist because in reality socio-political factors determine who really gets to use their "inalienable" rights, and who ends up in concentration camps.

So it becomes almost a religious issue - "Thou shalt believe in inalienable rights" for them to actually exist politically.

My concern is that THAT is where the erosion comes from.  As always it is socio-political pressures that both give and takes away these "inalienable" rights.

The rights are "inalienable" only if people believe they should be.

[blarsen]

26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

My question is, will you believe the truth I could tell you regarding that issue?

The issue concerns where we came from, and the simple truth is that we came from our parents who created us.  Not from out of nothing or nowhere, but from who and what they were when they reproduced themselves into other separate individuals who then were the same kind of intelligent being they were and always have been.  Like begets like, and we are the children of God because God is our parent, both male and female.  Meaning we have a Father as well as a Mother who created us as their offspring, with the same kind of intelligence that they have.  Reproductions of the kind of being they are and were when they created us.  And they also had parents who created them from who they were when they created their children.  And so on and so on forever and ever back in history, with no beginning, just as there will never be an end to the kind of being God is.  God, as a kind of being, is eternal, and each male and female can join to become one and create another individual who is the same kind of intelligent being they are. And the kind of intelligence you have is the kind of intelligence they gave to you when they created you as reproductions of themselves.  Not that we are or have or had the same level of intelligence that they had when they created us.  Intelligence is light and truth and the glory of God is intelligence but not everyone has the same level of intelligence as each other who is the same kind of being we refer to as God.  We grow in intelligence as we accept more light and truth from our Father who desires to teach us all that he knows, here a little and there a little as we go on, with some having a celestial degree of glory/intelligence while others have a terrestrial degree of glory/intelligence and still others have a telestial degree of glory/intelligence and yet others don't have much glory/intelligence at all because they have rejected and continue to reject the glory/intelligence they were offered by our Father in heaven.

Anyway, yeah, you are, but you're not as intelligent as our Father is yet so you better keep working on it while knowing you still have a whole lot to learn, as I do, too.

I'm simply going off the doctrine that we are eternal intelligences, whatever that may mean.  Also, regardless of that doctrine, as beings in this world, we have free will to think and do (within limitations of course) whatever we choose or are capable of doing.  I see it as an unfortunate direction to de-emphasize our free will/agency, especially when we are in a severe and protracted battle for freedom as we speak.

 

[blarsen]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So how can inalienable liberty that we all possess "erode"? 

Just stirrin' the pot.... 

My answer would be that we must BELIEVE in inalienable rights in order for them to exist because in reality socio-political factors determine who really gets to use their "inalienable" rights, and who ends up in concentration camps.

So it becomes almost a religious issue - "Thou shalt believe in inalienable rights" for them to actually exist politically.

My concern is that THAT is where the erosion comes from.  As always it is socio-political pressures that both give and takes away these "inalienable" rights.

The rights are "inalienable" only if people believe they should be.

Well put.  Can't see any way to disagree with your comments.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, blarsen said:

I'm simply going off the doctrine that we are eternal intelligences, whatever that may mean.  Also, regardless of that doctrine, as beings in this world, we have free will to think and do (within limitations of course) whatever we choose or are capable of doing.  I see it as an unfortunate direction to de-emphasize our free will/agency, especially when we are in a severe and protracted battle for freedom as we speak.

 

I think it is helpful to point out what our agency actually is.  It doesn't come without consequences or with no costs involved.  Our exercise of our agency doesn't always result in freedom.  Some prophet, I don't remember which one, said something about how we are free only when we use our agency to do what is good, otherwise we are in bondage to sin or to someone else as a servant.  When we use our agency wisely as our Father wants us to use it we are not servants to him but his friends and joint heirs with Jesus Christ of all that our Father has.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, blarsen said:

nd decoupling the word 'free' from agency doesn't cure or change the idea that we still suffer or benefit from our freely chosen actions

I have over the years seen a number of people arguing consequences shouldn’t be applied otherwise agency isn’t actually “free”, so I believe the phrase tends to lead to misunderstanding what agency actually is....though not using it won’t prevent all misunderstandings.

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So how can inalienable liberty that we all possess "erode"? 

Just stirrin' the pot.... 

My answer would be that we must BELIEVE in inalienable rights in order for them to exist because in reality socio-political factors determine who really gets to use their "inalienable" rights, and who ends up in concentration camps.

So it becomes almost a religious issue - "Thou shalt believe in inalienable rights" for them to actually exist politically.

My concern is that THAT is where the erosion comes from.  As always it is socio-political pressures that both give and takes away these "inalienable" rights.

The rights are "inalienable" only if people believe they should be.

You are persuading me here.  The benefit (greater commitment to these rights) may very well outweigh the cost (misunderstanding that consequences and limitations are legitimate parts of agency).

Edited October 2, 2019 by Calm

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So how can inalienable liberty that we all possess "erode"? 

Just stirrin' the pot.... 

My answer would be that we must BELIEVE in inalienable rights in order for them to exist because in reality socio-political factors determine who really gets to use their "inalienable" rights, and who ends up in concentration camps.

People can choose to believe some things they call their rights are inalienable rights when they're really not inalienable, though.  D&C 132 has something in it about how our Father is going to get rid of a lot of things unless they are sealed by the Holy Spirit, for example.

And sometimes it's just a matter of understanding what our inalienable rights really are, if we see that we have some.  Freedom to choose is one of those things but how we choose doesn't necessarily result in our freedom.

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

So it becomes almost a religious issue - "Thou shalt believe in inalienable rights" for them to actually exist politically.

My concern is that THAT is where the erosion comes from.  As always it is socio-political pressures that both give and takes away these "inalienable" rights.

The rights are "inalienable" only if people believe they should be.

Or only if they actually are inalienable rights.

[mfbukowski]

45 minutes ago, blarsen said:

Well put.  Can't see any way to disagree with your comments.

Well from the way things are going on other threads, that comes as a breath of fresh air.  Thanks. 

 

[mfbukowski]

56 minutes ago, Calm said:

You are persuading me here.  The benefit (greater commitment to these rights) may very well outweigh the cost (misunderstanding that consequences and limitations are legitimate parts of agency).

So really here this becomes the cornerstone of a pragmatic approach.  Pragmatism looks at the EFFECTS beliefs have in people and society and doesn't worry about "truth" which is too abstract and inevitably requires some kind of wacky metaphysics to justify it, like "substance theology" in Christian history for example.

The belief becomes "justified" for the direct effects and and wider affects it has in people in making them better humans and coming up with better ideas.  And what is "better"?  You know it when you see it, and yes we get to disagree on that, but for the most part belief in the Ten Commandments can be seen as justified simply by the "better" society it produces in believers.   Such beliefs affect every aspect of our lives.  

And so to me the belief that an Ideal Human Family actually exists and that we can become a part of that family is the most powerful force for good mankind can conceive, and is largely, from an intellectual point of view, why I am LDS.

Little issues like BOM historicity melt away into oblivion- it is the affects of BELIEF in its wisdom is its own justification.   And what Joseph Smith "really" did and how he lives is even less of an issue for me.

THAT is why I see Pragmatism as what should become the cornerstone of LDS theology.  It justifies the First Vision right there- as a confirmation of the belief in Ideal Humanity, etc.  That is what William James speaks of in the Varieties of Religious Experience and is the whole book in 25 words or less.  Religious experience, as an example of direct wordless experience, unclouded by  the confusion of linguistic description and language games is the only "reality" we can know

I know you get this Calm, those remarks are mostly for those who have been asking questions offline about how pragmatism relates to church theology

It justifies beliefs by their effects and we have all the good ones. 

I stand up proudly and say "I know the church is true" because for me every one of those words is well defined- at least for me, in a pragmatic sense.

I = The speaker.

"know"= the mental state of psychological and intellectual certainty that a belief is justified

"church"= a community of believers who share a language game of descriptions which they have justified communally

"true"= a belief held with certainty by a community of believers based upon their own definitions of what qualifies as justifiable beliefs.

 

Edited October 2, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Pragmatism looks at the EFFECTS beliefs have in people and society and doesn't worry about "truth" which is too abstract

I was going to point out the second was about “truth” in that I was thinking of misunderstanding truth, but the reason I see that as important is primarily because it affects attitudes towards restrictions on behaviour (consequences) and whether or not people are resentful of them and push against or accept them as part of the package and work with them so to speak. 

So yeah, pragmatism.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I was going to point out the second was about “truth” in that I was thinking of misunderstanding truth, but the reason I see that as important is primarily because it affects attitudes towards restrictions on behaviour (consequences) and whether or not people are resentful of them and push against or accept them as part of the package and work with them so to speak. 

So yeah, pragmatism.

And I added to that post- see the ending part.  I defined each word a little bit.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I have over the years seen a number of people arguing consequences shouldn’t be applied otherwise agency isn’t actually “free”, so I believe the phrase tends to lead to misunderstanding what agency actually is....though not using it won’t prevent all misunderstandings.

In Pragmatism it all becomes simple.  There is no difference between "appearance" and "reality" because both rely upon ambiguous descriptions which are at their core, nothing more than human constructions which are automatically NOT what "really is" since what we speak is by definition a SYMBOL of reality "as it is"

We only speak in symbols and cannot describe anything "as it really is".  But if we DEFINE "reality " as "what we experience" then we can EXPERIENCE  reality as it is but not speak about it!

So what "agency" becomes is the ability to move around and make decisions etc.  There is no worry about "determinism" or "freedom" as if either are real- because both are human constructs in language and therefore AUTOMATICALLY NOT "real" but only symbols!

So there are no doubts about "agency" in the sense that we can stand up and move around and get in the car etc because clearly we can do those things

Any other view becomes quibbling about language and a distinction without a difference.  Regardless of whether we are "determined" or "free" we can still swing our arms when we want to , eat a burger and watch the game if that is what we want to do.

Yet of course there are constraints- if we have a broken leg or no money then obviously our ability to do things is constrained.  But it is a waste of time to worry about "determinism" as some kind of abstract entity because it becomes irrelevant in our lives as we actually experience them.

And the way we EXPERIENCE IS what is "real"

So yes we can be constrained from doing certain things due to our own mental states.

We are all so constrained in a sense, none of us can see in the infrared spectrum and others are blind.

So it becomes somewhat of an academic exercise without much value in my opinion to worry about what is included in "agency" and what is not.

We can do what we can do and not do what we cannot.

We can also presumably judge in a court of law whether or not a person should be "innocent by reason of insanity".

But making it any more complex than that, in my opinion, is not worth the effort since there is no describable criteria which will fit all cases.

Edited October 2, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, blarsen said:

I personally think removing the ‘free’ from agency is an unfortunate development.  Why?  Because it de-emphasizes the precious liberty we all inherently possess, and that, inalienably.

Using agency alone, has a strong connotation that you are the agent of someone or some group who have condescended to give you the agency to act on their behalf (look up the dictionary definitions).   Free agency means it is an inherent quality I possess independent of anyone or any group. 

For me, in so far as I'm an eternal intelligence, I inherently possess my own free agency, i.e., intelligence implies free agency.

And decoupling the word 'free' from agency doesn't cure or change the idea that we still suffer or benefit from our freely chosen actions.  So to conflate free agency with the idea that the consequences aren’t ‘free’ just doesn’t wash.

A very unfortunate move, imho.  Especially in a day when our freedoms are eroding more rapidly than ever.

Yes, and with the connotation that free agency isn't really free.