Anddenex, you're not alone, FWIW. I tend to think as you do. Vort's description in #55 of the difference between agency and stewardship is how I've always thought of them. I think of agency as an inherent part of an individual, something which cannot be separated from them. I think of stewardship as an assignment with some duration attached to it - it may or may not (seem to) last eternity. Further, when I think of agency, I am an agent unto myself - I represent myself (and I'm the one who gets all the consequences of the choices my agent - me - makes). When I think of stewardship, however, I think I am representing someone else. When I act in my calling at church, I am representing the Lord, for example. I'll have to ponder a while longer to determine whether I think stewardships always involve representing someone else, sometimes, mostly, or whatever; but my initial thought is that I'm carrying out an assignment given by someone else and am therefore representing them. (I can understand the idea that mere existence - at least as a spirit child of God, and then as a mortal - is a stewardship, but I need to ponder that further - as existence is another of those things which cannot be separated from the individual. But if we call mere existence a stewardship, it does indeed become more like agency - though I still see a distinction.) I can certainly understand the tight linking of the two, and how pondering that relation can provide understanding which can be used to improve one's handling of either / both. And I certainly see a fair amount here to ponder - both what's been said and what I have thought in response. Perhaps it comes down to whether you prefer the parts of your dinner to be kept separate from each other or whether you like to mix them all up into an ad hoc casserole.