Moral Agency

[Seminarysnoozer]

It's not a question of degree here. I can choose to steal or I can choose to not steal. Even if I stole yesterday, I can choose to not steal tomorrow God, if the scriptures are to be believed, cannot make that choice. He cannot choose evil over goodness. Even if you disagree with the scriptures and claim that God could steal, or lie or some other evil, if he wants to, then other scripture tells us that he would cease to be God. He doesn't not, according to scripture have unlimited options to choose evil and remain God.

If you disagree with the scripture, perhaps you can explain why we should also disagree with it.

I disagree with the things I stated in my posts that I disagreed with. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that I don't also, even if I can't prove it to you. Maybe you can expand your understanding of what agency is by realizing that free agency is not just a choice between good and evil, free agency can also be measured by the amount of good one can do. It is a function of degree, not a question of degree. God is not good without bad options, that is impossible. Nobody is going to be able to explain that view any more without you getting past that primary principle, good options do not exist without a bad option. No more than I can win a game without the possibility of losing. Or get an A in a class without the possibility of getting an F. God cannot chose evil and continue to be God, but the choice is still there. Therefore, I do not disagree with the scriptures. I am sorry that you do not understand that and I will not fall into your traps.

Stealing hardens one's heart to understand things that are good, grossly limiting their future choices in life, unless they repent. But doing good opens your eyes to both good and bad options, seeing the error of the bad. Choices are limited by choosing evil. You really want to argue against that?

[Snow]

Because, Christ was a man. He had to be able to sin or perfection was not critical. If he had no choice, then, as you said, he was simply what he was created to be. Instead, he was created to be a man, able to sin, able to trip, and in overcoming that weakness, be able to stand up for us and answer for us. I am not a literalist Snow. I just don't toss out scripture or excuse it because God 'must be nice'. Can I answer WHY Heavenly Father might choose to have bears attack children? No. But, can I accept that he has the power and may have had a reason to do it and leave it at that? Absolutely.

Help me to understand. I asked why in this case you reject a literal interpretation of the scripture and you answer seems to be - because it interferes with your personal theology or is it because it is logically inconsistent?

Edited October 20, 2009 by Snow

[Gatorman]

I don't necessarily reject a literal interpretation. I don't know the answer. However, I do not reject the story as being a way to cover the falicy of the writer or otherwise. I accept that it is possible that Heavenly Father, in his love, could punish his children.

Another way to look at it. As a parent, I try to teach my children right from wrong. Sometimes, when they do something wrong, they are warned they will be severely punished. Does this mean I love them less? No. In fact, the serious punishments are to try to keep them on track. And, believe me, when they get punished, they think it is because I am a mean, vengeful father, at least for a bit. But, just as I did not when I was a kid, they do not understand the love it takes to dole out such a severe punishment. You look at a mean/vengeful Heavenly Father and seem to decide it does not fit your vision of him, so it appears you have decided those stories must be false. I see a Heavenly Father who loves us so much that, to teach us, he is willing to do that which seems mean and terrible to us.

But, remember, I am not a literalist. I have stated that before. Simply, I do not reject the alegorical stories that seem to conflict with what I would see as an easy 'loving' Heavenly Father. Instead, I recognize that I do not know all, that the story could be true, and that one day I will have the answer. Until then, I have faith in my Heavenly Father's words.

[Justice]

Which has greater value - a life that can only choose goodness (exercise free across a range of only good options) or a life that can choose between goodness and evil (choose to be moral or not)?

Wish I had been here to participate in this discussion.

[Connie]

Don't let that stop you, Justice. I say jump in there and tell us your thoughts. I always enjoy reading your comments. :)

[Justice]

Which has greater value - a life that can only choose goodness (exercise free across a range of only good options) or a life that can choose between goodness and evil (choose to be moral or not)?

Well, the original question was which has greater value.

If we believe the scripture that men are that they might have joy, the answer would have to be making the choice between the two. The scriptures make it clear that in order to feel real joy, you have to have known real sorrow. The godly sorrow that is expected of us comes from sin. Knowing sin and being freed from it must bring much more joy than not having the option.

The fact that Lucifer wanted to remove man's agency is an interesting thing. From what I have learned agency cannot be taken away from us. We must choose to give it away. The struggle over good or evil and life or death really comes down to who we choose to give our agency to.

Making the wrong choice cannot bring joy, which is the purpose for our existence. Not making the choice at all cannot bring joy. Only by experience and making a choice can we feel the joy we were meant to feel.

I don't mean to oversimplify it, but I believe that's the general concept.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Well, the original question was which has greater value.

If we believe the scripture that men are that they might have joy, the answer would have to be making the choice between the two. The scriptures make it clear that in order to feel real joy, you have to have known real sorrow. The godly sorrow that is expected of us comes from sin. Knowing sin and being freed from it must bring much more joy than not having the option.

The fact that Lucifer wanted to remove man's agency is an interesting thing. From what I have learned agency cannot be taken away from us. We must choose to give it away. The struggle over good or evil and life or death really comes down to who we choose to give our agency to.

Making the wrong choice cannot bring joy, which is the purpose for our existence. Not making the choice at all cannot bring joy. Only by experience and making a choice can we feel the joy we were meant to feel.

I don't mean to oversimplify it, but I believe that's the general concept.

The original question asked by Snow is an impossible question, involving an impossible situation "choosing between good only" as good cannot exist without bad. So really, the original question is the same asked in the pre-mortal life to all of us who already answered that question, that is why we are here. Even Snow answered that question and that is why Snow is here. The question being asked is; Is it better to stay in the state we were in before coming here or have a chance to come here and be tested with good and bad options?

For many, it is still a valid question that we have to remind ourselves of all the time because even though the battle is over as far as that goes, Satan still tries to make it an issue. He still tries to raise that doubt and question in our minds and pull us off the straight and narrow.

[Justice]

Since I came in late I didn't read most of the posts in this thread... just the first few. So, maybe what I said has been stated and hashed out already.

So, then we agree?

It is impossible to feel joy without having to make the choice between good and evil?

[Snow]

Well, the original question was which has greater value.

If we believe the scripture that men are that they might have joy, the answer would have to be making the choice between the two. The scriptures make it clear that in order to feel real joy, you have to have known real sorrow. The godly sorrow that is expected of us comes from sin. Knowing sin and being freed from it must bring much more joy than not having the option.

The fact that Lucifer wanted to remove man's agency is an interesting thing. From what I have learned agency cannot be taken away from us. We must choose to give it away. The struggle over good or evil and life or death really comes down to who we choose to give our agency to.

Making the wrong choice cannot bring joy, which is the purpose for our existence. Not making the choice at all cannot bring joy. Only by experience and making a choice can we feel the joy we were meant to feel.

I don't mean to oversimplify it, but I believe that's the general concept.

What I was struck by is the thought that man is a moral agent but that God is not because God cannot choose evil. Some posters think that where the scriptures say, for example, God CANNOT lie, what is really meant is that God WILL NOT lie. I'm thinking that if what was really meant was WILL NOT, then the scriptures would have said WILL NOT instead of CANNOT.

Other scripture implies that God CAN do evil and say that if He does do evil that he will cease to be God - meaning that God has the power to do bad but does not have the power to both do bad and continue to be God.

Either way, man is a moral agent but God is not.

[Justice]

I gotcha.

God is definately a moral agent. One thing I always point to is Jesus' perfect life. He was tempted. He never made the choice to go with the temptation. What would be the point if He couldn't make a bad choice? How is that overcoming anything?

Jesus said He does only what His Father did... make the right choice... everytime.

I really don't know why this is so difficult of a concept for many. Our trust and faith in God is not that He literally can't make a wrong choice... it's that He can't make a wrong choice and remain God. For LDS this should ring in our ears as similar to what the Lord has promises us of our prophet.