The Death of "Free Agency"

[Tacenda]

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Years of studying what sensible folks won't even look at! 

Just kiddin with you, I had seen this post. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

Never mind; responded to wrong post. 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, pogi said:

It's in the video he posted in the OP.

From minute 2:45-2:57 he says:

I am pretty sure that Stake counselor is playing off of this.

I think the idea of his message is that we can't just choose whatever we want without breaking covenants and without consequences - at least I hope that is all he is saying.  I have to say, the way he says it is pretty...bad, TBH.  It is not true that we can't choose whatever we want.  Yes, we can!  We just can't choose what we want without consequences.  If that is what he meant, he did a pretty terrible job at explaining it, and now we see other leaders parroting his terrible delivery. 

Then what is at issue here is a fundamental misconception at the outset of what agency is. The Church of Jesus Christ has NEVER authoritatively taught that agency is license to do whatever you want with impunity, free of consequences. If that is what Unclean Deacon and others think agency means, they are quite plainly wrong. There is no “death of agency” as he is conceptualizing it, because agency never meant that in the first place. 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

It was copied and pasted from a post by Bill Reel on reddit.  I'm not going to post the link, but it's titled:  "Mormon Discussion: 369: The Death of Free Agency in Mormonism"

I am not impressed given he didn’t bother to look up the fifth Sunday lesson while still making claims about it.

What the clip of Pres. Nelson says about expectations of young men and women for missions.

Quote

Today I reaffirm strongly that the Lord has asked everyworthy, able young man to prepare for and serve a mission. For Latter-day Saint young men, missionary service is a priesthood responsibility. You young men have been reserved for this time when the promised gathering of Israel is taking place. As you serve missions, you play a pivotal role in this unprecedented event!

For you young and able sisters, a mission is also a powerful, but optional, opportunity. We love sister missionaries and welcome them wholeheartedly. What you contribute to this work is magnificent! Pray to know if the Lord would have you serve a mission, and the Holy Ghost will respond to your heart and mind.

Not seeing any real difference.  Pres. Monson was the one who added “able” (a very important change so that disability is not seen as an issue of worthiness) to Pres. Kimball’s “every worthy young man” (which has been quoted endlessly by other church leaders, including presidents).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2022/04/11nelson?lang=eng

”every worthy, able young man”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2011/02/a-call-for-missionaries?lang=eng

“Every worthy young man”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/1977/11/it-becometh-every-man?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1976/05/the-blessing-of-building-a-temple?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1992/05/but-the-labourers-are-few?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1978/01/have-a-dream?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1999/03/my-small-and-simple-answer?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1985/10/the-blessings-of-sharing-the-gospel?lang=eng

There are a number of personal stories quoting Pres. Kimball’s remark that “every worthy young man should go on a mission” as well.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

If we enter into an agreement (covenant) the terms of the agreement do not give us the option to do something contrary to the agreement. If you want to do something contrary to the terms of the agreement, but you want to stay compliant, you do not have that option.  Certainly you may choose to break the agreement, but you will lose all the benefits of the agreement and you have surrendered the agency you exercised to enter the agreement.  The agreement grants you freedom to do and receive things that those outside of the agreement do not have.  By acting contrary to the agreement, you lose that freedom.

Yes, if he would have phrased it like that (which he probably would have had he prepared written remarks) it would have made much more sense. 

I can see how a strong emphasis on this can quickly overshadow the principle of mercy and grace though and lead to judgment and shame.  What needs to be emphasized is a balance between obedience/covenants and grace.  God expects us to fall and make mistakes and that it is critical that we not beat ourselves up, or judge others for it.  That is not required for repentance and forgiveness and is toxic.   We can repent and realign back on the covenant path (cue fair Dinkum).  All is not lost.  

It needs to be clarified that while the covenant is a promise to obey, the atonement gives us options when (not if) we fall.  The covenant doesn’t strip us of that larger freedom to choose.  It needs to be clarified that we do have free choice (2 Nephi 2:27) to align with the covenant or not. 

To say that we are not free to choose whatever we want.  Period. I’m sorry but that is contrary to scripture.  It would be better phrased - we are not free to choose whatever we want if we are to remain faithful to the covenant, but that is indeed a free choice we have.

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by pogi

[carbon dioxide]

Man has agency but our agency is not free.  There is always a consequence to our decisions whether immediate or delayed, good or bad.  Free agency implies God allows you to do whatever you want and he will overlook it at judgement.  Your choices are free without any consequence ever. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

@The Unclean Deacon, did you copy/paste this from someone else or write it yourself?  The formatting makes it look like the former.

added:  I see others think the same.  FYI, this is against the board rules without credit to the original compiler/author since it is plagiarism.

Not to mention highly unethical. In the profession I retired from, it would be an offense that warranted termination. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, pogi said:

It needs to be clarified that we do have free choice (2 Nephi 2:27) to align with the covenant or not. 

Got to quote it as it is such a perfect verse:

Quote

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they 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; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not to mention highly unethical. In the profession I retired from, it would be an offense that warranted termination. 

It will get you terminated from the board too if not corrected or if one makes a habit of it.

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

@The Unclean Deacon, did you copy/paste this from someone else or write it yourself?  ... FYI, this is against the board rules without credit to the original compiler/author since it is plagiarism.

Maybe The Unclear Deacon is Bill Reel ... 

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then what is at issue here is a fundamental misconception at the outset of what agency is. The Church of Jesus Christ has NEVER authoritatively taught that agency is license to do whatever you want with impunity, free of consequences. If that is what Unclean Deacon and others think that’s what agency means, they are quite plainly wrong. There is no “death of agency” as he is conceptualizing it, because agency never meant that in the first place. 

I don’t think that is what he is implying.  I doubt he is misconstruing agency in that way.  I think he is suggesting that the way Elder Bednar taught it sounds more like we are trapped in compulsory obedience rather than a willing choice to obey.  I agree in that he could have said it better.

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not to mention highly unethical. In the profession I retired from, it would be an offense that warranted termination. 

 

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

It will get you terminated from the board too if not corrected or if one makes a habit of it.

Perhaps I should clarify I meant termination of employment, not termination of one’s life. That probably goes without saying, but I never know for sure. 😂 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don’t think that is what he is implying.  I doubt he is misconstruing agency in that way.  I think he is suggesting that the way Elder Bednar taught it sounds more like we are trapped in compulsory obedience rather than a willing choice to obey.  I agree in that he could have said it better.

Hmm. Seems like somebody (Bill Reel, as it turns out; no surprise there) is making a man “an offender for a word.” 

[InCognitus]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Not to mention highly unethical. In the profession I retired from, it would be an offense that warranted termination. 

 

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Perhaps I should clarify I meant termination of employment, not termination of one’s life. That probably goes without saying, but I never know for sure. 😂 

Once you are retired from the profession there's only one other kind of termination possible after that.  So it's a good thing you clarified  

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Maybe The Unclear Deacon is Bill Reel ... 

Hmm. A very real possibility. I have a hunch Reel has been banned from the board, so it would make sense that he would use a sock puppet. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

It was copied and pasted from a post by Bill Reel on reddit.  I'm not going to post the link, but it's titled:  "Mormon Discussion: 369: The Death of Free Agency in Mormonism"

Sounds like his usual..... drivel.

[pogi]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hmm. Seems like somebody (Bill Reel, as it turns out; no surprise there) is making a man “an offender for a word.” 

Has that been confirmed that Bill Reel is the source?  Wouldn't surprise me.

Edit: It appears as that is the case - just read InCognitus' post. 

Edited August 19, 2022 by pogi

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

Has that been confirmed that Bill Reel is the source?  Wouldn't surprise me.

That or Mr Reel plagiarised the OP. I just checked: word for word after the first two paragraphs.

[The Nehor]

53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

Perhaps I should clarify I meant termination of employment, not termination of one’s life. That probably goes without saying, but I never know for sure. 😂 

*Enters room eagerly with a garrote*

Oh……sorry, never mind.

*whistles innocently and exits*

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hmm. A very real possibility. I have a hunch Reel has been banned from the board, so it would make sense that he would use a sock puppet. 

I don’t think so.  I don’t believe Reel has been banned plus Unclean signed up for the board in 2015.  Don’t think he hangs around long enough to get banned.  Why would Reel have been banned?  Posters don’t get banned for doing low quality research or even for posting falsehoods.

I think if Reel is going to post these days, he will do so under his own alias/name.

Hmmm…maybe he might get banned for using the board to advertise his stuff.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Calm

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t think so.  I don’t believe Reel has been banned plus Unclean signed up for the board in 2015.

To clarify, I was just being cheeky, as I'd hoped the emoji would confirm ...

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I don’t think so.  I don’t believe Reel has been banned plus Unclean signed up for the board in 2015.

I think if Reel is going to post these days, he will do so under his own alias/name.

Last time I saw Reel post here, he used a blatantly disrespectful nickname to refer to President Nelson. I know at least one person reported  him, and I’ve not seen him post since. That’s why I think he might have been banned. 

Furthermore, I believe it has happened before that an individual has posted under more than one screen name. 
 

But I have no conclusive proof, and you might well be right. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

To clarify, I was just being cheeky, as I'd hoped the emoji would confirm ...

I figured, but Scott was thinking otherwise.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Last time I saw Reel post here, he used a blatantly disrespectful nickname to refer to President Nelson

That could definitely get him banned depending on how disrespectful and if repeated (similar to using “Joe” a lot for Joseph Smith).

Edited August 19, 2022 by Calm

[Raingirl]

5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Maybe The Unclear Deacon is Bill Reel ... 

Given that he’s previously posted Reel’s stuff, that wouldn’t be surprising. Posters have been known to preemptively create sock puppets.