mfbukowski Posted August 19, 2022 Posted August 19, 2022 4 hours ago, Calm said: Posters don’t get banned for doing low quality research or even for posting falsehoods. Shocking! 🥵
The Unclean Deacon Posted August 19, 2022 Author Posted August 19, 2022 17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: CFR that Elder Bednar ever said that or anything to its effect. Elder Bednar's teaching that Free Agency is no more and is replaced with Moral or representative agency is in the OP. It is a video of him teaching such. First he creates a strawman where believing saints believe they "can do what they want to" but such seems like a caricature of believing members. Reality is that the old framing for agency was that the Church would "teach them good principles and let them govern themselves" meaning that each member was permitted space to choose the right without any coercion and could decide for themselves what choices to make as to progress and move forward in the gospel. But at 2:10 in the video He limits moral agency not to one is permitted to make choices after having been taught good principles but rather at baptism and even more fully at the temple, one gives up their free agency and is now obligated to choose the "covenant path" Then if you immediately follow that up with the video of the member of the stake presidency in the OP you can see he is definitely using Bednar's rationale to impose that potential males youth or young adults have no choice. They gave up agency at baptism and now MUST go on missions. Then the image above shared on Reddit is a second witness that such rhetoric is permeating the Church with someone above local leaders imposing that local leaders at least in some places go out and teach Bednar's Doctrine of agency and use it to impose all young men must serve missions. No one I have ever known in the Church has said "I have agency, I can do what I want" Also part of the issue is that Mormonism absolutely taught "free Agency" for two hundred years emphasizing "I teach them good principles and they govern themselves" as seen in the quotes above and has also taught that members are under covenant even if that covenant is made at an age when one can't understand what they are getting into that one is obligated by covenant to perform certain operations & behaviors. But this talk by Bednar goes slightly further and you can see how such a subtle shift can be used by local leaders to teach concept that run counter to the 200 years of "free agency" that the Church taught.
The Unclean Deacon Posted August 19, 2022 Author Posted August 19, 2022 17 hours ago, ksfisher said: Do you have a source from actual church doctrine? Something published by the church, teaching by a member of the First Presidency or an apostle, etc. Because as far as I'm aware 1st counselors in stake presidencies, although good men who are trying their best to serve the Lord, are not sources of official church doctrine. So, to your assertion that we give up our free agency at the age of 8 and "...have to choose to do what the Church tells you to do," do you have a source for this assertion based on actual church doctrine? Please not also that in the remarks above that the speaker never says that we give up our agency and do what the "Church" tells us to do. He's saying we should do what the Lord asks us to do. I think you're unfairly putting words in the speakers mouth. Two pieces of data - One we know on a multitude of occasions the Church has quietly behind the scenes instructed local leaders to begin teaching ideas without any formal statement or teaching from the Church first. Second the Stake presidency member is teaching not only a new concept but one that resembles Bednar's teaching so closely that it seems obvious to me at least that such is not coincidence. Third the image with an anonymous person stating it is a mass effort. This will be too anecdotal for some but time will tell and we shall see if I turn out to be right that this is happening. We should do what the Lord asks us to do is separate from another place where he says at baptism we give up our free agency and do not have a choice about going on a mission? You did hear that part too? right
The Unclean Deacon Posted August 19, 2022 Author Posted August 19, 2022 FYI - It is happening in other places https://speeches.byuh.edu/devotionals/using-our-agency-to-follow-gods-plan I was in a discussion recently where the question was asked, “If we are supposed to conform to God's will, what does that mean for our free agency?” It’s an interesting question that probably has been asked in various situations and a number of ways. I heard being asked that day, “We have agency, which means that we are free to do what we want. But if we have to do what God wants us to do, how is that really free agency?” Today I want to spend some time trying to answer this question. Again time will tell
The Unclean Deacon Posted August 19, 2022 Author Posted August 19, 2022 The main crux in the two teachings of "free agency" and "Moral Agency" is that in one you are the one responsible and permitted to use spiritual means to decide what is right and to make the choice accordingly. In the other someone else decides what is right and you must always conform to another's expectation of your choices or you become a covenant breaker. The Church better figure out the negative ramifications of getting too far away from "Free Agency" because it has ripples that make us look much more Culty or certainly more of a unhealthy high demand fundamentalist religion.
The Unclean Deacon Posted August 19, 2022 Author Posted August 19, 2022 14 hours ago, Stargazer said: Good grief, what a hokey pile of baloney. All baptism does is make it possible for one to repent and be forgiven of one's sins through the atonement of Christ. All accountable human beings born upon the earth have moral agency, regardless of baptismal status. They may choose for themselves in all the choices available to them. There's no such thing as "free agency". Just because we've been habitually using the wrong term for decades does not mean we're not allowed to correct ourselves. Free agency is something that exists in professional sports. Once you've been released from your contract you become a free agent, and you may freely contract with another sports club. But in terms of morality, there is no free agency, because in order to act without committing sin, you must obey God's law. You are free to violate God's law, of course, but then you are no longer a free agent because the law will come for you in the end. Unless you are baptized and repent. If there were no God, only then would there be free agency, because then there would be no law to break, and you would truly be free to do everything that entered into your heart. Except there still would be no true free agency, because there are consequences for every act, good or evil. So "free agency" is really just a non-thing. Unless you want to define "free agency" in the same terms as "moral agency". Then it's OK. Decades? Prophets, Seers, And revelators who can't lead us astray taught for CENTURIES "Free Agency" combined with "I teach them good principles and they govern themselves". It certainly was part of the discussions taught in the 90's https://archive.org/details/Discussion4EternalProgression/page/n5/mode/2up section 4-7 "We Are Free to Make Choices - In addition, we are free to choose between good and evil. We are responsible for our choices. As we come to know good from evil and choose the good, we become more like our Father in Heaven" You can't be free to choose if you are coerced. For one to be "free" to make choices those choices must be free of coercion, shame, manipulation. Otherwise we aren't proving anything to God other than we cave into pressure. We must perceive a balance and see room for faith. If Church leaders impose that one is not "free" to choose and must XYZ then I don't see how such can be framed in a healthy way that represents the gospel as I taught it/ was taught it in the 90's
The Unclean Deacon Posted August 19, 2022 Author Posted August 19, 2022 Also how can I be under a covenant to obey the gospel in a certain set of ways when the gospel that was taught to me taught the covenant differently. Which covenant am I under? The one where I am free to choose or the one where I am not?
The Unclean Deacon Posted August 19, 2022 Author Posted August 19, 2022 13 hours ago, Calm said: CFR please. the image in the OP that imposes such. The only question is if you believe the comment real? Along with at least 3-4 other places where such suddenly in this moment seems to be being taught. Could all of these folks be simply coming to the same idea in a vacuum at the same time? hmmmmm -1
The Unclean Deacon Posted August 19, 2022 Author Posted August 19, 2022 11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Not to mention highly unethical. In the profession I retired from, it would be an offense that warranted termination. are the quotes that originated by one human and then stated with credit given to the original author then reposted with credit still given to the original author, plagarism? That seems weird. The op contains a multitude of quotes with the original author credited in each quote. -1
ksfisher Posted August 19, 2022 Posted August 19, 2022 41 minutes ago, The Unclean Deacon said: we know on a multitude of occasions the Church has quietly behind the scenes instructed local leaders to begin teaching ideas without any formal statement or teaching from the Church first. Such as?
The Unclean Deacon Posted August 19, 2022 Author Posted August 19, 2022 3 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Such as? Oral Sex in the 70's wasn't taught first by a leader from a pulpit but rather a letter sent to local leaders, Tithing on Gross as the expectation, and now Moral agency.
pogi Posted August 19, 2022 Posted August 19, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Unclean Deacon said: Also part of the issue is that Mormonism absolutely taught "free Agency" for two hundred years emphasizing "I teach them good principles and they govern themselves" as seen in the quotes above and has also taught that members are under covenant even if that covenant is made at an age when one can't understand what they are getting into that one is obligated by covenant to perform certain operations & behaviors. But this talk by Bednar goes slightly further and you can see how such a subtle shift can be used by local leaders to teach concept that run counter to the 200 years of "free agency" that the Church taught. I really don't think he is trying to alter any doctrines on agency. He is simply trying to clarify it. I have been doing a little digging to try and understand what he is saying and found another video where he says the following: Quote There is no such thing as free agency. Now, if you go back 50 years, you can find that many of the GA's used the phrase "free agency". Free agency is not wrong, but various apostles and prophets have taught that agency is not free. We think about it differently when we remove the word free. Agency is made possible through the atonement of Christ... A similar thing is a term in English the pre-existence. Elder Maxwell said there is no such thing as existing pre. It's the pre-mortal existence. Line upon line, precept upon precept, we become a little more precise. It is not that what was done in the past was necessarily wrong, but there is a more clear expression of what we now understand. It seems clear to me that he is not changing any doctrines on agency, simply trying to be more linguistically precise. Unfortunately, I think his off the cuff remarks caused more than a little confusion. Edited August 19, 2022 by pogi 2
ksfisher Posted August 19, 2022 Posted August 19, 2022 3 minutes ago, The Unclean Deacon said: Oral Sex in the 70's wasn't taught first by a leader from a pulpit but rather a letter sent to local leaders There is no church doctrine on this subject. 4 minutes ago, The Unclean Deacon said: Tithing on Gross as the expectation Never heard this. I've spent the last 20 years in ward and stake leadership positions. I've served as a counselor to 2 bishops. Never heard this. 5 minutes ago, The Unclean Deacon said: now Moral agency. Free agency, moral agency, whatever you want to call it it all refers to the same thing. God has put us on this planet and given us the freedom to choose what we will believe and how we will act. We are then responsible, to Him, to use that freedom within the bounds of His commandments. 2
ksfisher Posted August 19, 2022 Posted August 19, 2022 2 minutes ago, pogi said: I think his off the cuff remarks caused more than a little confusion. Which is why we don't base our doctrine on off the cuff remarks, but the united teachings of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It's not hard to figure out what they are teaching. 2
jkwilliams Posted August 19, 2022 Posted August 19, 2022 Just now, ksfisher said: There is no church doctrine on this subject. Never heard this. I've spent the last 20 years in ward and stake leadership positions. I've served as a counselor to 2 bishops. Never heard this. Free agency, moral agency, whatever you want to call it it all refers to the same thing. God has put us on this planet and given us the freedom to choose what we will believe and how we will act. We are then responsible, to Him, to use that freedom within the bounds of His commandments. The prohibition on oral sex thing was in a letter in the early 80s. It's never been "doctrine," per se, but it certainly was taught as an "idea" without a formal public statement, as our unclean deacon friend puts it. 1
ksfisher Posted August 19, 2022 Posted August 19, 2022 1 hour ago, The Unclean Deacon said: Elder Bednar's teaching that Free Agency is no more and is replaced with Moral or representative agency is in the OP. It is a video of him teaching such. First he creates a strawman where believing saints believe they "can do what they want to" but such seems like a caricature of believing members. Reality is that the old framing for agency was that the Church would "teach them good principles and let them govern themselves" meaning that each member was permitted space to choose the right without any coercion and could decide for themselves what choices to make as to progress and move forward in the gospel. But at 2:10 in the video He limits moral agency not to one is permitted to make choices after having been taught good principles but rather at baptism and even more fully at the temple, one gives up their free agency and is now obligated to choose the "covenant path" Then if you immediately follow that up with the video of the member of the stake presidency in the OP you can see he is definitely using Bednar's rationale to impose that potential males youth or young adults have no choice. They gave up agency at baptism and now MUST go on missions. Then the image above shared on Reddit is a second witness that such rhetoric is permeating the Church with someone above local leaders imposing that local leaders at least in some places go out and teach Bednar's Doctrine of agency and use it to impose all young men must serve missions. No one I have ever known in the Church has said "I have agency, I can do what I want" Also part of the issue is that Mormonism absolutely taught "free Agency" for two hundred years emphasizing "I teach them good principles and they govern themselves" as seen in the quotes above and has also taught that members are under covenant even if that covenant is made at an age when one can't understand what they are getting into that one is obligated by covenant to perform certain operations & behaviors. But this talk by Bednar goes slightly further and you can see how such a subtle shift can be used by local leaders to teach concept that run counter to the 200 years of "free agency" that the Church taught. Sounds like the Mormon version of Qanon.
pogi Posted August 19, 2022 Posted August 19, 2022 1 hour ago, The Unclean Deacon said: The main crux in the two teachings of "free agency" and "Moral Agency" is that in one you are the one responsible and permitted to use spiritual means to decide what is right and to make the choice accordingly. In the other someone else decides what is right and you must always conform to another's expectation of your choices or you become a covenant breaker. The Church better figure out the negative ramifications of getting too far away from "Free Agency" because it has ripples that make us look much more Culty or certainly more of a unhealthy high demand fundamentalist religion. You are fundamentally misunderstanding him. He is suggesting that "free agency" connotes that choices are free from responsibility while "moral agency" is more precise in connoting moral responsibility. He is not absolutely is not saying what you are suggesting, though I agree he said it poorly. Here is how he explains it in another video: Quote We almost universally say that agency is the ability to choose. That's accurate but incomplete. Agency is much more than just choosing. Agency is the capacity to act and not be acted upon. He then goes on to give some good examples of what he means. h
ksfisher Posted August 19, 2022 Posted August 19, 2022 2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: The prohibition on oral sex thing was in a letter in the early 80s. It's never been "doctrine," per se, but it certainly was taught as an "idea" without a formal public statement, as our unclean deacon friend puts it. I'm aware of the letter. If I recall correctly it originated with the secretary to the First Presidency, and not the First Presidency or the Twelve themselves. I also recall the it was quickly withdrawn. (correct me if my recollection is wrong on this) Leaders may have their personal opinions, which they may choose to share, but it was never taught by the church.
jkwilliams Posted August 19, 2022 Posted August 19, 2022 2 minutes ago, ksfisher said: I'm aware of the letter. If I recall correctly it originated with the secretary to the First Presidency, and not the First Presidency or the Twelve themselves. I also recall the it was quickly withdrawn. (correct me if my recollection is wrong on this) Leaders may have their personal opinions, which they may choose to share, but it was never taught by the church. It was a letter signed by the First Presidency dated January 5, 1982. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 19, 2022 Posted August 19, 2022 9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: It was a letter signed by the First Presidency dated January 5, 1982. How quick we are to shift blame to those pesky underlings. How many times have those power hungry secretaries struck out on their own to issue false doctrine. When will they learn. 1
jkwilliams Posted August 19, 2022 Posted August 19, 2022 Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said: How quick we are to shift blame to those pesky underlings. How many times have those power hungry secretaries struck out on their own to issue false doctrine. When will they learn. I have to say that's the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest it was just the secretary to the First Presidency, who at the time would have been Arthur Haycock.
ksfisher Posted August 19, 2022 Posted August 19, 2022 4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: I have to say that's the first time I've ever heard anyone suggest it was just the secretary to the First Presidency, who at the time would have been Arthur Haycock. Like I said, I was going off recollection. I appreciate being corrected. I must have been confusing this with something else. 1
ksfisher Posted August 19, 2022 Posted August 19, 2022 8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: How quick we are to shift blame to those pesky underlings. How many times have those power hungry secretaries struck out on their own to issue false doctrine. When will they learn. I appreciate the gloating. It makes sincere communication so much easier.
jkwilliams Posted August 19, 2022 Posted August 19, 2022 Just now, ksfisher said: Like I said, I was going off recollection. I appreciate being corrected. I must have been confusing this with something else. No worries.
jkwilliams Posted August 19, 2022 Posted August 19, 2022 Just now, ksfisher said: I appreciate the gloating. It makes sincere communication so much easier. I'm certainly not gloating. Like I said, I hadn't heard that before.
Recommended Posts