Shoot_The_Moon

Agency is the ability to choose, not the ability to make any choice or have every opportunity one desires. This.

Ahh -- I was wondering when "holding a gun to your head" would show up... Let's go back to the definition: "What Is Agency? Agency is the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves..." Does it say anything about only making choices that keep you safe, or only gives immediately favorable outcomes? I'm not sure Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Daniel, Abinedi, and a few others would agree with you...

According to LDS.ORG: I don't believe that knowledge is required to exercise agency. It is, however, required to use agency to follow our Lord and savior Jesus Christ back to our Heavenly Father since "It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance", (D&C 131:6).

"Addiction of any kind means to surrender to something, thus relinquishing agency and becoming dependent on some life-destroying substance or behavior." (M. Russell Ballard, "O That Cunning Plan of the Evil One", Ensign, Nov. 2010, 108–10.) "Relinquishing" sounds an awful lot like "surrendering" to me. And what better way to describe someone running away to addictions then the phrase "I refuse to be held accountable for my actions." (Spoiler Alert: It never works, but that doesn't stop people from trying.)

Not so sure I agree. Obedience requires knowledge and power to act. Exercise of agency is either action or lack of action, as well as intent. I do, however, agree that it isn't "free". We are unbound (i.e. "free") to choose for ourselves, but every action (or lack of) has a price.

Neruo - I think we need to distinguish between "action" and "agency". We are "spiritual beings" possessing a mammalian tabernacle. C.S. Lewis has said that we are of two minds - the "bios" or the biological mind of our physical natures that house our spirit but are made from the materials of a lost and corrupt world, (and seeks after such things), and the "zoe" or spiritual mind which is the offspring of God and is that potential to become as God since He is our spiritual lineage and literally our Father in Heaven. For the vast amount of people, their bodies facilitate the ability for this "possession" to control the voluntary actions these bodies take, but certain actions (such as a beating heart, a working brain, digestion, cell reproduction) are automatic and (if left alone) have nothing to do with our agency. These mammalian bodies also have their own "firmware" and goals which, like other mammals, are necessary for the survival and reproduction of these species, (i.e. "a mind of their own"). These impulses speak in terms of emotions and feelings, not conscious thought. Spiritual experiences and impressions also have "emotional aftershocks" that sometimes have words associated them but not always. Since we don't remember what it was like to be a spirit without a body, (thanks to the veil), we have a hard time separating where our spiritual self ends and where our temporal body begins. The combination of the two also enables some things that other animals don't have -- awareness that we will die, hope and faith that we will survive to live another day, and the combination of the two that enables us to lie to ourselves, (i.e. "self-deception"). It takes a while for these bodies to mature to the point of fully enabling the exercise of agency of the actions of them, and it takes a while for our spirits to learn the ropes. This is why I believe that the Lord has told us that babies are innocent until they reach the "age of accountability", or in other words the point where their bodies can facilitate agency. There are, however, people who's tabernacles are formed in such a way that their actions are not a result of their agency because the wiring is off. I believe we refer to these people as not being "accountable in the flesh", no matter how old they are. Their spirits may have some control over their actions, but not enough to judged based on their actions. Now, as far as "stuff" that "cant be injected into the arm", you are correct. There do exist substances and conditions where the link between action and agency can be interrupted. The accountability of these things has a lot to do with who's injecting who. Why do you think the Lord is so big on avoiding things such as drugs, alcohol, or other substances (including sugar and other highly addictive substances or practices)? These things can break the link, or weigh so heavily on the impulses of the body that they basically go full "mutiny" and throw the Captain overboard. If we engage in these substances / practices, then we are accountable. If, however, we are forced into a state where the link is disconnected, I doubt the Lord will hold us accountable for what our "natural man" did on auto-pilot, (but even then, the lives we lead when we are in control have a great deal of influence on our "inner mammal"). So our agency isn't really taken away, we either surrender it by our own actions, (and are accountable for the aftermath), or someone else breaks the link and they are accountable for cleaning up the mess if the actions are different then we would choose to act. Either way, I wouldn't call either one "stripping"; it's more of a temporary "scrambling".

I've heard this in several "quasi-Mormon" posts and discussions online, (they'll give anyone a blog these days...). The most recent one was from an article someone forwarded on to me: http://religionnews.com/2016/05/16/the-prophet-will-never-lead-the-lds-church-astray-and-other-mormon-heresies/ Am I missing something here, or is this just someone lamenting that because their own personal beliefs are outside the beliefs of the mainstream Church members they feel unjustly oppressed and are projecting their personal religious deficiencies on to the Church in an attempt to play the "sour grapes" line?

I've heard many arguments (mainly from progressives / globalists / fear-mongers / etc.) that criticize many aspects of Church doctrine, policy, or culture because they think adherence to them "strips" people of their free agency. We talk of Satan's plan as one of removing one's agency and "forcing" people into Heaven, but since I don't think any of us went that way and lost the ability to choose we can't really understand what that means, (and if you're still typing, it means you'll still living, and unless you're only able to post "WE ARE LEGION. WE ARE LEGION. WE ARE LEGION." your ability to use free agency is probably still intact and you really don't know what it's like to not be able to exercise...) Do any of these warnings of people "stripped of agency" hold any water, or is it just another example of a lack of intellectual integrity that is common amongst those who use their voice to "kick against the pricks"? Are there any "prerequisites" to being able to use free agency? Does the exercise of agency require a lack of pressure / force from external entities, or are such consequences (righteous or otherwise) an essential part of learning to use our agency in spite of the immediate cost?

I think polygamy and the law of consecration/"United Order" go hand-in-hand. We won't be able to live either until we can fully live both, (which probably won't happen until Christ's encore...)

<Dup... Plz delete>

It may take a bit of a time investment, but the Venn Diagram between one of the groups discussed and the "Natural Man" is pretty much overlapping... It's a 5 part series, but parts 1-3 are really the "payload". https://youtu.be/W8N3FF_3KvU?list=PLMNj_r5bccUw40CpD-JYXJyVsDYsj7ITD

D&C 121:37: I know this mentions the "authority of man", but since women can also exercise Priesthood Authority, can their authority not also be "Amen'd" if they seek to cover sins / gratify pride / vain ambitions / control or dominion (through passive-aggressive, stonewalling, being overtly overbearing, or otherwise)? I guess what I'm getting at is does "unrighteous dominion" (which can be committed by either gender) mean that the "equal partnership" is temporarily suspended?

There is great talk of "equal partnership" in marriage, but is that equality a right by virtue of matrimony or a privilege that can be lost through sin, neglecing family responsibilities, misappropriating family funds/resources for vain ambitions, or other means?

My wife and I have been seeing someone from LDS Family Services for marital issues. During our discussions, the counselor has expressed the following: President David O. McKay’s teaching that “No success can compensate for failure in the home...” is not scripture given by a modern day prophet.Covenants made in the temple do not dictate responsibilities of the parents in the home.A parent’s “season” of their life is not determined first and foremost by the needs of the family and household.Self-medicating with things that are not drugs / alcohol / pornography is an acceptable coping mechanism because everyone does it.Cleanliness and order in the home is a matter of personal preference, not a duty or obligationThe various scriptures in the D&C that speak of the Lord’s house being a house of order have to deal with “priesthood order”, and not actually logistical or organizational order / cleanliness, and that when President Kimball said “Whatever your circumstance, let your premises reflect orderliness, beauty, and happiness”, he was talking about a particular period of time and not outlining a timeless principle. (Which is really confusing, because it’s pretty well spelled out here, here, and here). It was my understanding that LDS Family Services counselors are themselves members, and are expected to counsel in a manner that adheres to the mainstream doctrines of the church, not based first on secular ideology or their own opinions that go counter to the doctrines. This person is the only one available in our area, and we would have to travel for hours to see someone else. According to this page, apostasy is " is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine." So ... are they correct? Should we still be seeing them, or does this qualify as apostasy and something I need to bring up to their supervisor / Priesthood Leader?

So here is the question... Why does Hobby Lobby refuse to provide the Mirena IUD and the Paragard IUD as well as the morning after pills under their insurance? From The Atlantic magazine (http://theatln.tc/V7MKLL): "This case centers around specific religious objections to contraceptives that prevent an [fertilized] egg from implanting in a woman’s uterus, which plaintiffs believe are tantamount to abortion. Out of the 20 Food and Drug Adminstration-approved birth control methods, the two companies involved in the case—Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood—object to four: two kinds of emergency contraceptive or “morning after” pills, and two types of intrauterine devices, or IUDs." I know that there are several LDS women what use these IUDs, (my wife included). So, that brings up an interesting question. Does birth control that prevents a fertizlied egg from implanting and growing equate to abortion, or does the breath of life happen somewhere down the road?