Agency: More Info Please!

[applepansy]

I never said that. You'll have to read my comments and the context of the discussion which was going on at the time.

What you said is:

If you can quote a Book of Mormon scripture with the word Agency in it, I would be very interested (Since it does not appear in the actual Book of Mormon text).

So my question still stands but I'll rephrase . . .why are you concerned that the word agency is not in the Book of Mormon? The concept is most definitely taught there.

applepansy

[Webster]

. . .why are you concerned that the word agency is not in the Book of Mormon?

At first, you wanted to know why I was only interested in a definition of Agency from the Book of Mormon, but I never said or even implied that. Now you think I'm concerned about it not being in the Book of Mormon. I'm not concerned at all.

Right before my comment you are referring to, was a comment which said:

The agency of man boils down to the ability to choose between good and evil.

* * *

I could quote some Book of Momron scriptures. :)

I replied to that comment:

If you can quote a Book of Mormon scripture with the word Agency in it, I would be very interested (Since it does not appear in the actual Book of Mormon text).

Again, I don't know where you got the idea that I was concerned.

I was merely pointing out that it would be hard to learn anything about the definition of a word (Agency) by quoting from a book which never uses that word.

The concept is most definitely taught there [Meaning the Book of Mormon <-- my insertion].

Which I also acknowledge in my very next sentence:

If you quote a Book of Mormon scripture which speaks of Acting for themselves, like the D&C and Book of Moses talk about Agents unto themselves, then I'll fully agree, since Agent and Acting are related terms and the structure of the two phrases is very similar. ....

Providing this much information about a single statement I made, is too time consuming and draining.

I would like to get back to the real subject of this post, discussing various points of view that people may have about Agency that go beyond the common "free to choose" definition (see my comment #1).

I thanked you for your comment (#44) above when you made it, and thanked you a few more times when I was commenting on what you had said. I thought you had some interresting points to bring into the discussion of Agency, and I hope you'll feel free to add more if you wish.

[applepansy]

Webster, I apologize if I've offended you. That was not my intention. I asked because I wanted to know the answer. Constructive dialogue has to start from some common ground.

I'm truly sorry it came across different from my intent,

applepansy

[Webster]

I'm sorry too. I really hate communication by typing; it's very problematic. It's too slow, prone to misunderstandings (I'm sure I misunderstood your intent as well -- sorry), and not easy to resolve issues quickly. If anyone wants to send a private message to me (click on my user name), I could send a phone number to them or give them a call to facilitate communication.

I probably have offended some by comments. I guess I need to learn how to better communicate through typing.

I really do appreciate the various views that have been expressed so far, even in spite of the difficulties associated with this form of communication.

[Webster]

Just_A_Guy:

Remember, the scripture teaches that men are agents "unto themselves" (D&C 58:28). So, in the legal sense, we are both agents--enjoying the capacity to act--and principals--accountable for those actions.

I once read an interesting piece (drawing heavily on 2 Nephi 2, IIRC) suggesting that without opposition there is no real agency, and without law there is no real opposition. By this theory, Satan's plan to deprive us of agency was actually a plan whereby we would be sent to earth, but without any law to govern us (and, incidentally, without any need for a "savior" who would actually suffer for the sins of mankind, since there could be no sin in the first place. No wonder he was so willing to volunteer for the job!). I'm particularly fond of this idea because it turns the common liberal meme of "you're trying to control me! That's Satan's plan!!!" on its head.

I find that idea very compelling as well.

Can you tell me where I can find the piece you once read? It sounds very interesting.

Edited February 13, 2009 by Webster
Fix typo. Remove question about IIRC's meaning (If I Recall Correctly).

[Just_A_Guy]

Webster -

I wish I could. I was evaluating manuscript submissions for an LDS-oriented publisher when I came across the piece, and (over my strenuous objection) my employer decided not to publish the manuscript.

I don't even know the author's name.

[Justice]

Although the word Agency does not appear in the Bible Dictionary (wish it did), I found that the description for War in Heaven used the term and implied a specific meaning.

BD War in Heaven

This term arises out of Rev. 12: 7 and refers to the conflict that took place in the premortal existence among the spirit children of God. The war was primarily over how and in what manner the plan of salvation would be administered to the forthcoming human family upon the earth. The issues involved such things as agency, how to gain salvation, and who should be the Redeemer. The war broke out because one-third of the spirits refused to accept the appointment of Jesus Christ as the Savior. Such a refusal was a rebellion against the Father’s plan of redemption. It was evident that if given agency, some persons would fall short of complete salvation; Lucifer and his followers wanted salvation to come automatically to all who passed through mortality, without regard to individual preference, agency, or voluntary dedication (see Isa. 14: 12-20; Luke 10: 18; Rev. 12: 4-13; D&C 29: 36-38; Moses 4: 1-4). The spirits who thus rebelled and persisted were thrust out of heaven and cast down to the earth without mortal bodies, “and thus came the devil and his angels” (D&C 29: 37; see also Rev. 12: 9; Abr. 3: 24-28).

I told my son that I was going to get the butter out of the refrigerator. He said, "We don't have any butter." I looked and there were sticks of margarin, to which I was referring. I said, "Yes we do, they are right here." He said, "That's not butter, it's margarin."

I said, "Well, I know it's not actual butter churned from cow milk, but I was using the term generically." I showed him in the dictionary where butter can mean:

Main Entry: but·ter

Function: noun

1: a solid emulsion of fat globules, air, and water made by churning milk or cream and used as food

2: a buttery substance: as a: any of various fatty oils remaining nearly solid at ordinary temperatures b: a creamy food spread ; especially : one made of ground roasted nuts <peanut butter>

I'm afraid that's all we have here. I think Agency means man's ability to choose for themselves... the VERY thing we gained when Adam partook of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil.

That it has synonyms or more specific traits, like "moral agency" or "dominion" is what this discussion is about.

Agency is man's ability to choose between good and evil.

We are the ONLY being on earth with this ability. This is because we are children of God and have a far superior intellect than animals. We can study and analyze our behavior, and change it. Animals cannot. This is why we will be judged and animals will not. Animals obey God because they meet the purpose of their creation each and every day.

We have been given Agency which allows us to go against God's will for us.

It allows us to act contrary to God's commandments if we choose to.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Justice

[Webster]

This is just an interesting point I thought I'd throw out just for fun. I would say that the concept of Agency in the Book of Mormon would most likely be represented by the idea of acting for oneself. (Stay with me here; I know others would see it more in the idea of "free will" or "free to choose", but this is just my opinion.)

The Book of Mormon speaks of choosing between good and evil in a number of places (2 Nephi 17:15; 26:10; Mosiah 2:32-33, 37; 29:25; Alma 3:26-27; 10:19; 13:3, 10; Helaman 13:29) so that concept was understood and spoken of among the Nephites. There are three passages which talk about acting for oneself where the idea of choosing is present nearby (see 2 Nephi 2:26-29, 2 Nephi 10:23, and Helaman 14:30-31). But get this, the choice is never between good and evil—it is always a choice between life and death!

The choice between life and death is not equated with Agency, but rather the result of that agency. Three separate Book of Mormon prophets declared that we are 'free to act for yourselves---to choose eternal life or everlasting death' [that's a paraphrase of all three passages, but especially 2 Nephi 10:23 which is the most concise]. They did not equate Agency (acting for oneself) with everyday choices, but taught that by using the ability to act for oneself (and thus to do good or evil), man is able to choose the consequences of eternal life or everlasting death.

[Justice]

Again, I think you are delving into semmantics.

Choosing evil = death

Choosing good = life

Choosing Christ means life, not choosing Christ means death.

[Webster]

Darn right I'm using semantics (definition: "the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text"). I'm trying to let the text speak for itself.

In the preface to the Doctrine and Covenants (section 1), the Lord declared that the revelations were given using the language of his servants:

D&C 1:24

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.

The prophet Nephi similarly testified that, " . . . the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding." (2 Nephi 31:3), and Moroni said that Jesus spoke with him face to face in his own language (Ether 12:39). The revelations were given of the Lord through his servant Joseph Smith and were presumably recorded using terms known to and used by Joseph, or at least using terms that were known to Joseph's contemporaries.

The Book of Mormon uses English words translated by a prophet, through the gift of God. I don't think the words he used were chosen lightly. You can read anything you want into those words, but I'd prefer to try to understand them as they are.

Choosing evil = death

Choosing good = life

Choosing Christ means life, not choosing Christ means death.

You basically say the same thing I said:

. . . by using the ability to act for oneself (and thus to do good or evil), man is able to choose the consequences of eternal life or everlasting death.

So, here's the point of all of the above: We basically seem to be saying the same thing, although using different words. If by referrencing 'semantics', you meant that I should not study the meaning of the words that the Lord and his prophets have used, then I firmly disagree. If, however, your point is that we basically agree, and that I get there by seeking to understand the words of the revelations, while you get there by using a more fluid approach that still uses true principles, then I'm perfectly okay with that. I don't know what was in your heart when you wrote that, but I'm hoping the latter.

As always, I invite newcomers to read my comment #1 to understand the idea behind this post. I'm looking to get different points of view about the meaning of Agency in the scriptures that maybe are different, or go deeper than the standard, "free to choose" definition. I have received quite a number of very good insights, and hope for more.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Webster
Saved too soon, and had to get back in a finish.

[Justice]

Oh no, I did not mean you shouldn't study anything. :)

Often I even used opposites to learn a more rich and full definition of a word.

I would never encourage you to not study Agency or any other principle of the Gospel.

I'm just saying I think you have done well in finding synonyms and pulling together what it might mean. By using semantics we can gain a more complete understanding. I have enjoyed the thought and dialog put into this thread, mostly by you.

I was just pointing out that when you come full circle, through using synonyms, it's a good sign you have gained understanding.

Thank you for a good discussion.