wenglund

Do you view agency and force in binary terms, or as arrayed along a spectrum? In other words, do you assume, according to the Plan of Progression, that in mortality agency would be unlimited or with no varying degrees of limitations? I ask because I see aspects of mortality that are absolutely forced, while other aspects are allow for varying degrees of agency. I can provide examples if you would like. And, are you assuming that since no other options were verbalized to Jonah, that no other options existed? Clearly, the option to go elsewhere (Tarshish) existed, sine that is where he headed. Jonah thus had the power to act contrary to the command of God. The option not to go anywhere also existed,. In short, Jonah had the agency to obey or disobey (through commission or omission) the command of God. Was Jonah "forced" to go to Nineveh? I suppose in a relative sense, yes, in that he was given compelling reasons to go. But, he still had agency. It wasn't as though he was transported to Nineveh by a power not his own. He still acted under his own power. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Granted, one may reasonably debate the point at which the disparity in consequences for certain choices, particularly in terms of severity, may render the decision one of compulsion rather than agency, or in other words, no real choice at all.. For example, one may be given the choice to lie about something and live, or tell the truth and die. One may reasonably conclude that such a choice amounts to compulsion to lie, and isn't really a choice at all--not that such a reasonable argument settles the debate. Reasonable arguments can also be made that there is still agency. One may also reasonably debate the point at which the severity of each consequences for certain choices may render the decision pointless, or in other words no decision at all. Fore example, one may argue that Jonah was faced with two life-threatening options (i.e. face the distinct prospect of a wicked and angry mob in Nineveh after being called to repentance, or a wind and storm-tossed sea if he doesn't do what the Lord commanded) , and conclude that the choice is pointless because the consequences appear to be the same, or in other words it wasn't really a choice at all--not that such a reasonable argument settles the debate. Reasonable arguments can also be made that agency still exists, particularly if one has faith in the protective powers of God when people do as he asks, or at the very least faith in God's mercy and justice and love in making things right in the eternities. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I will note that some people may inadvertently, though mistakenly confuse reserved judgement as if it were a defense.of one's own. I WILL NOTE, that people are people, and people and circumstances are complex, and too often people are not sufficiently acquainted with other people's complexities. As such, it is wisdom in such cases to admit to ignorance, or attempt to become more informed,, or in other words reserve judgement until all the facts are in--and this includes assuming that people may be defending their own when they aren't--not that you have necessarily done so in this case. Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

It certainly helps. Just out of curiosity, n the second case, since only two people were intended to be kept, was one of the two who were originally planned to be kept, ultimately laid off in place of your acquaintance? From what you have since clarified, there appears to me to be an increasing number of relevant differences between the two cases, and I suspect were we able to explore deeper I would find even more differences. It is the initial ambiguity of the cases and the additions of the clarified difference and remaining ambiguity, that constrains me from judging one way or another about the supposed irony. But, I wish you well in discussing this with others. Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

I can only speak for myself, when I have struggle under the perception that my prayers weren't being answered, it was because my heart wasn't soft. It is only when I softened my heart that I discovered that my prayers were always being answered. But, that may just be me. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

One other point to consider: when "the Lord shared with him that he could not force the heart or mind of his children," is it possible that the heart the Lord was referring to was that of the one doing the praying and receiving the help of the Lord, rather than the managers? I bring this up because, to me, prayers are personal between the God and the person praying, and typically involve guiding the prayer giver in changing his or her heart and mind for the better, rather than whether the Lord may or may not have been successful in changing the hearts of other people. on their behalf Is it possible that the struggle a person may have perceiving that their prayers may not have been answered, might be a function of the hardness of their own heart? If so, wouldn't that be ironic? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes,. However, there is still a bit of ambiguity that necessitates further clarification. What do you mean by "they fought to keep him employed?"Are you saying that in one or both cases the managers didn't have the final say on the firing, but that one set of managers fought on the last day to change the mind of those who did have the final say? Or are you saying that in both cases the mangers had the final say, but one set fought on the last day to back their previous decision out of the firing process? This may be key. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Okay. This is helpful. From what I gather, you mistakenly assumed that I was speaking of "wicked or good" when I mentioned the "state of the heart, " when in fact I was referring to your statements in the OP about the softening or hardness of the heart. Now that this mistaken assumption on your part has been corrected, hopefully you can reasonably see that you were also mistaken in assuming that I was making assumptions rather than taking you at your word. Whew, with that now out of the way, lets move on to your core two-part question, which I have taken the liberty to rephrase in a way I find more cogent and useful Why would a practicing member of Christ's Church defy the whispered will of God, whereas a former member complied with the whispering? And, is this ironic? There are number of speculative permutations that can be proffered, some of which may be viewed as ironic. For example, if we charitably assume that the practicing member may have reasonably lacked certitude that the whispering was from God rather than a whim prompted by what was for dinner or even personal torn sentiments of rocks and hard places (not uncommon conclusions), whereas the whispering to the former member may have comported perfectly with his personal sentiments and thus not be viewed as a whispering, then one may chalk it up to reasonable coincidence rather than irony. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just to be clear, given that the softening or hardness is descriptive of the "state of the heart," you are now saying that the Lord did not reveal, implicitly or otherwise, that the hearts of the bosses couldn't or could be softened respectively? If so, then, as I quoted from your OP (see my previous post, particularly the emphasized portion), was it you or your acquaintance who assumed that the bosses hearts couldn't or could be softened respectively? (Again, I didn't assume anything. I took your OP at its word) This will be my last attempt to gain clarity. If it fails, I will happily leave the thread for want of capacity for me to productively communicate with you on this topic. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

To me, agency is the varied capacity to make choices with consequences, and the exercise thereof is the point at which we act upon those choices twith consequences. The first choice for Jonah that we are made aware of in the biblical book in his name, is whether or not to act upon the expressed will of God (Jonah 1:1-2). Jonah made the choice to defy the will of God , and he exercised his agency by fleeing to Tarshish, and this under the false assumption that he could flee the presence of God.(v.3), or in other words, he believed he could evade the consequences of his choice. However, the consequences were nevertheless realized when the Lord sent out a great wind and tempest that threatened the survival of the ship in which Jonah was traveling.(v. 4) . We are given indication that Jonah understood the wind and tempest to rightly be the consequence of the exercise of his agency (verses 6-10)--which suggests that he came to somewhat understand that he couldn't evade the consequences. I suppose it could be said that Jonah was made somewhat aware of the fundamental law of obedience and its implied inverse. (D&C 130:20-21) Thus far this corresponds consistently with my understanding of agency. I can go on, but I would like to know what you think of what I have said so far. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In your account of the first experience, you said: "Without going into private details, he [the father] shared that with the first experience the Lord was there seeking to help him, and that the Lord shared with him that he could not force the heart or mind of his children. " You then went on to clarify,: "First experience, temple recommend holders whose hearts could not be softened although the Lord attempted." and later asked: "How is it that the Lord could not soften the heart (because he will not force his children's mind) of those who are supposed to be close to the Spirit? Wouldn't those who are closer to the Spirit be easier to soften the heart?" (Emphasis mine) How can this reasonably be interpreted in some other way than that you and/or your acquaintance is clearly saying that the Lord revealed that, in the first experience, the hearts of the temple recommend holders (men) could not be softened by the Lord --i.e. their hearts were hard.? Is this not the same as saying the the Lord revealed to your friend the hearts of his bosses? I ask because I didn't see that I was making assumptions, but rather taking you at your word. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Like @Fether, this strikes me as irregular on a number of levels, but most particularly, it seems that heavenly Father is supposedly revealing the hearts of men to someone who has no spiritual stewardship over them. In some respects, the "father" has become a judge in Israel over his bosses at work. Is that how God works? Or, could it be that the father is inadvertently answering his own prayers--something thatr isn't all that unusual? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You neglected at least one other rightful choice כנסיית ישוע המשיח שלי אחרי קדושי אחרית הימים I hope the point is clear. Thanks, - Wade Englund-

Not that I disagree with anything that has been said, but there is a natural tendency for adults to automatically answer questions of children rather than modeling how they can think for themselves---a skill-set that becomes increasingly more vital the older the child gets, though increasingly absent in today's world. Granted, some questions and circumstances lend themselves better to teaching how to think rather than what to think, though we don't always avail ourselves of the opportunities to teach the how when age appropriate.. For example, in response to the first question (What are good ways to help me feel strong when I really feel weak/tempted?) One may socratically ask questions like: What ideas have ideas they have already come up with and tried? What has worked and what hasn't, and why? Do some strategies work better than others? Are you strong in some areas of your life? Where does your strength come from in those areas? What makes us weak? Do you involve others in your strengthening strategies--Particularly the Lord? What happens if you give in to the weakness? Etc. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hale Swift, of the Interpreter Foundation, sees the Parable of the Sower as not only having temple imagery, but also as symbolic of the three kingdoms of resurrected glory, though he views the fruits (30 fold, 60 fold, 100 fold) as indicative of the Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial glories:, rather than the three degrees within the Celestial kingdom (the transcript can be viewed HERE): Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In Matthew 13, we are told that Jesus spoke in parables so that some would come to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, while others would not. I am wondering if one of the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven is that the parable of the sower portends of the final judgement and resurrection? It not only speaks in binary terms of those to whom it is given to know, and those to whom it is not given (v. 11); as well as those who hath and hath not. (v.12), but it also speaks in matters of degree in relation to the ground upon which the seeds fell--i.e the wayside (outer darkness?), the stoney place (Telestial Kingdom?), the thorny place (Terrestrial Kingdom?), and the good earth (Celestial kingdom?) with its three types of fruit production (3 degrees of Celestial glory--30 fold, 60 fold, 100 fold?) ; where hell consists of those who hath not or once hath but the hath was taken away, whereas heaven consists of those to who once or still hath,. What do you think? Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Good questions. The biblical record available to the Jews at the time of Christ's mortal ministry (i.e the Old Testament) only mentioned Eve twice. In neither case was any indication given of redemption. And, while the Book of Moses does mention the redemption of Adam and Eve (Moses 5:10-11), it is hardly the focus of the Eve narrative.; whereas redemption was the focus in healing the woman with an issue. In a way, then, the healing of the woman with an issue may be considered a redemptive history in that it was a metaphoric representation of the redemption of Eve, particularly to those observing the miracle in that day. According to :Leviticus 15:19-30, during the time that women are menstruating, they are considered unclean, and aren't to be touched (and by implication they aren't to touch others), else-wise others would likewise be made unclean. This is, in part, why the woman who was healed by Jesus "trembled with fear" (see Mk 5:32) when Jesus inquired who had touched him. As for Jonah/Jonas as a type for Christ, this is only in the very limited sense , particularly in the sense that both would be "entombed" for three day before being raised therefrom. Jesus doesn't refer to Jonas as a type, but rather as a "sign" (Lk 11:29-30). And, in verse 32, Jesus indicates that "a greater than Jonas is here." referring of course to himself. For a nice list of where Jonah/Jonas and Jesus compare and contrast, see HERE. Of relevant note is where both were asleep during a raging storm on the waters, and were confronted by others in the respective boats, who viewed them as the means for calming the raging storm. In this regard, given the divergent methods employed to calm things, and the differing results thereof, the story of Jesus and his power over the elements, may rightly be viewed as a redemption of Jonah who was sacrificed into, but impotent in calming the storm. Said another way, the pertinent events in the Old Testament used individuals like Eve and Jonah to symbolize the descending of mankind/Israel, whereas the events in the New Testament focused on Christ, and symbolized the ascension of mankind/Israel. In a sense, the New Testament is a "redemptive reading" of the Old Testament. I hope this helps. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I see these kinds of word games as entirely missing the point. Call it compulsion or call it addiction or cal it a Streetcar named Desire. The issue, to me, has less to do with the label nit pickers wish to affix and more to do with the harm resulting from what ever one wishes to call it. Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Speaking of the right, if not only love relevant to this thread: Thanks, -Wade Englund-

If you look carefully, you will notice that I didn't use the word "all" or even "most." Rather, I spoke of "possible" mental illnesses. And, you might also notice that I didn't use the words "only" or "sole" or even "primary" or "prevailing." Rather, I used the unqualified "related" and "if not cause." This means that while you make some good points that I agree with, they don't apply to what I actually said. In fact, further down the thread, I went on to point out a couple of examples, citing mental health professionals, in response to your request for further clarification. Did you not see it? I had thought to also mention professional studies on the deleterious effects of pornography on the brain (i.e. stress disorder, addiction, desensitization, etc.) If interested, Information is available here: Your Brain on Porn.. And, while the mental health diagnostic tool, DSM-5, illogically avoided classifying internet porn as a disorder in its last edition (ibid. this may change in the future due to additional studies), the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), contains the new diagnosis of “Compulsive Sexual Behavior Disorder.” (ibid) I hope this helps. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I love your certainty. [Thumbs up]. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Since the New Testament is written in Greek, and in @LiterateParakeet's defense, there are 4 Types of Love in the Bible. More to the point, this is a problem with language, particularly in cases where there are layers of translations from diverse languages and cultures. You, and the English translation of the Bible, are using the English word "love," which has multiple standardized connotations and even more slang meanings, and this in addition to the underling Greek words used to translate Hebrew and Aramaic, etc.. You are also having an online conversation in English. It is easy to talk past each other when one party dogmatically assumes only a single meaning of a word. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It was the slurred spelling...which should tell you something about my own inebriated state of mind. Thanks, -Wade Englund-

While I suspected it was a joke, it was anything but clear--which is why I wanted to give you a chance to clarify. Now, go and sobber up, you idiot. Than ks -Wade Englund-

? Thanks, -Wade Englund-