Snow Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Hmm...or put it in a plainer term Snow - do I choose to follow Lucifer plan or do I choose to follow Jehovah plan? I would opt for the second....:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Just for clarification--how are you defining "value"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connie Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 One of the apostles talked about moral agency in general conference. It was Elder D. Todd Christofferson. Here it is: Moral Discipline Don't know if that helps any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted October 19, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Just for clarification--how are you defining "value"?That's a good question and I probably can't give a completely satisfying or very specific answer other than to say: having intrinsic worth, worthy of praise, preferable state of affairs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 So many mistakes in life teach us lessons that enable to us to learn and to grow. However, if only "good" choices were available to us..how would that help? I think having choices makes us stronger in so many ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 If you only have 'good' choices to make, it really doesn't matter what you choose, you will still be successful. There is no chance of failure for a 'wrong' choice and the consequences are miniscule, so you don't put much thought into the decision other than your whim at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 I vote for moral agency . . . again. (a life that can choose between good and evil.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connie Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 2 Nephi 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seminarysnoozer Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 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)?There is no good without bad. "Good" loses its meaning without also having bad. So, the theoretical question is impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 Depends on whether we want only goodness or goodness with some evil on the side. If only decisions could be that clear cut, we would have an easy time of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted October 19, 2009 Report Share Posted October 19, 2009 *studies teachings of the bible *studies teachings of the BoM *studies teachings of the Latter Day Prophets *studies teachings of the temple Welp...May seem counter intuitive, but, I agree with snoozer. There is no good without evil. There is no progression without choice. The question, to me, when I review it, distills down to lucifer vs Christ's plan. I will continue to choose Christs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted October 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 What I think I am hearing/seeing is that a life that can only choose between good options but no bad or evil options is a Satanic concept - a plan proposed by Satan and at least 2 posters have said that it is a theoretical impossibility. So, generally speaking, there is a superiority to moral agency over no moral agency. It is certainly more praiseworthy - you wouldn’t give praise if someone could only choose good choices - that is, you wouldn’t praise water for boiling at 212 degrees. That’s what water does. It has no choice. Likewise you wouldn’t praise good actions if only good actions were possible. Here’s what I was thinking about: We believe that God is perfectly good. That is, there is no way in which God is not good. We know that “God cannot lie” (Enos 1:4). He is thus limited to not lying, (for the time being let’s ignore the scriptures that say that good can and does lie/deceive). Alma (11:34) tells us that “[God] cannot save [persons] in their sins; for he cannot deny his word;... it is impossible for him to deny his word” So we know that God cannot deny his word and God cannot save people in their sins. The implication is clear - God is good and it is impossible for God to genuinely bring about evil. Since we understand that an “agent” is only free so long as he/she has legitimate options from which to choose - that is, one cannot act morally unless one has the choice to either do moral good or do evil, it stands to reason that God is not a moral agent in that God cannot freely choose between good and evil. God can only choose good. That is not to say that God is not an agent, just not a moral agent. Moreover, we are told in Alma 42:13 that if God acted in a way that contradicted his divine just nature, he would cease to be God. It is interesting to contemplate how man possesses an agency that has value and is praiseworthy that God does not seem to possess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Snow, I think I understand what you're saying. However, I would change the word 'can' in your treatise to 'will'. He has chosen to be perfectly good, and as such, he will not lie, he will not suffer evil to be in His presence. He chose to bind Himself by to His word, and thus will not break it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Snow, I think I understand what you're saying. However, I would change the word 'can' in your treatise to 'will'. He has chosen to be perfectly good, and as such, he will not lie, he will not suffer evil to be in His presence. He chose to bind Himself by to His word, and thus will not break it.Agreed. Christ COULD sin, he could choose evil. He chose not to. And, thus, we see that even in perfection, Christ had a choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seminarysnoozer Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 What I think I am hearing/seeing is that a life that can only choose between good options but no bad or evil options is a Satanic concept - a plan proposed by Satan and at least 2 posters have said that it is a theoretical impossibility. ...Yes, that shows you how deceitful Satan is, trying to sell something as 'good' when it is theoretically impossible. Of course, when we had no idea what good and bad really were it was probably even more appealing, luckily all of us born into mortality saw through his deceit. But even then, Satan still tries to convince people of this deceitful plan. At least make them think about why it isn't that way. Then doubt the plan they already picked, the plan requiring a probationary state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted October 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Snow, I think I understand what you're saying. However, I would change the word 'can' in your treatise to 'will'. He has chosen to be perfectly good, and as such, he will not lie, he will not suffer evil to be in His presence. He chose to bind Himself by to His word, and thus will not break it.Far be it from me to alter scripture. The scripture says "can" [not].You could argue that the author of Enos, and Alma, and Titus and Romans were mistaken... is that what you are arguing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 (edited) But if you buy into the idea of eternal progression and God's having once been a man, doesn't it follow that God at one point was an agent, but willingly gave up that agency in order to completely subject Himself to His creator?EDIT: Sorta puts a new perspective on that quote (from Elder Maxwell, I think?) about how the only thing we have to give to the Father is our wills. Edited October 20, 2009 by Just_A_Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted October 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Agreed. Christ COULD sin, he could choose evil. He chose not to. And, thus, we see that even in perfection, Christ had a choice.Would you care to comment on why you choose to interpret Alma, Enos, Titus and Romans allegorically instead of literalistically? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seminarysnoozer Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Since we understand that an “agent” is only free so long as he/she has legitimate options from which to choose - that is, one cannot act morally unless one has the choice to either do moral good or do evil, it stands to reason that God is not a moral agent in that God cannot freely choose between good and evil. God can only choose good. That is not to say that God is not an agent, just not a moral agent. Moreover, we are told in Alma 42:13 that if God acted in a way that contradicted his divine just nature, he would cease to be God. It is interesting to contemplate how man possesses an agency that has value and is praiseworthy that God does not seem to possess.I think you have this part backwards. When someone chooses bad they limit their options and become less of an agent. Only by choosing good can you maintain and even increase your options. God has unlimited options because of his good choices. God has more free agency than us because we occasionally choose bad as we are not perfect and in doing so limit our choices, becoming less of a free agent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webster Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 If God, being ultimately good, always does what is good and right, why would He give moral agency to His children? Did He give something which was not good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted October 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 I think you have this part backwards. When someone chooses bad they limit their options and become less of an agent. Only by choosing good can you maintain and even increase your options. God has unlimited options because of his good choices. God has more free agency than us because we occasionally choose bad as we are not perfect and in doing so limit our choices, becoming less of a free agent.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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatorman Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Would you care to comment on why you choose to interpret Alma, Enos, Titus and Romans allegorically instead of literalistically?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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 Far be it from me to alter scripture. The scripture says "can" [not].You could argue that the author of Enos, and Alma, and Titus and Romans were mistaken... is that what you are arguing?Not at all. But to me, the reasons why He 'can' is because He 'will'. He 'can' or 'cannot' do things because He made the decision to be that way. I believe that God has the same agency He has given us, He just chooses to be bound by His words. When He says He can or cannot do something that is because He has chosen to be bound by His word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Connie Posted October 20, 2009 Report Share Posted October 20, 2009 What ever happened to "your ways are not my ways?" See Isaiah 55:8-9LDS.org - Ensign Article - Moral Agency Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.