Which is the dominant eternal principle

[The Folk Prophet]

Traveler - What, exactly, do you think agency is?

[Traveler]

Traveler - What, exactly, do you think agency is?

I think agency is defined by revelation as a gift provided by G-d allowing us to be independent and act for ourselves within the limits of the sphere that G-d has placed us (See D&D 93).  Do you have a different idea?

[The Folk Prophet]

I think agency is defined by revelation as a gift provided by G-d allowing us to be independent and act for ourselves within the limits of the sphere that G-d has placed us (See D&D 93).  Do you have a different idea?

 

Only that that ^ is incomplete. It's a nice definition of freedom. But one cannot conflate freedom and agency and then have a productive discussion about the latter.

[Traveler]

Only that that ^ is incomplete. It's a nice definition of freedom. But one cannot conflate freedom and agency and then have a productive discussion about the latter.

 

So you feel that it is a conflation of freedoml and agency to insert that things like the sacrifice and atomement of Christ is more important in the eternal scheme of things?

[The Folk Prophet]

So you feel that it is a conflation of freedoml and agency to insert that things like the sacrifice and atomement of Christ is more important in the eternal scheme of things?

 

I'm referring specifically to this, rather than the overall thread discussion:

 

Here is a thought.  Agency is a gift from G-d -- it is not something innate within us.  If we misuse agency it will be taken from us and we will be taken in bondage to Satan.   On the other hand if we sacrifice our agency in service to G-d; we in essence give up our will (agency) as Christ did submitting to the will of the Father. 

 

The idea that if we give up our agency by submitting to the will of the Father is false and, even if accurate (which I think debatable), is conflating agency with freedom.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think agency is defined by revelation as a gift provided by G-d allowing us to be independent and act for ourselves within the limits of the sphere that G-d has placed us (See D&D 93).  Do you have a different idea?

 

Hi Traveler. I've been thinking about this and I think maybe it's more about how it strikes me that you're interpreting this statement rather than the statement being wrong. And that may be unfair (on both counts).

 

I think it important that the key words in this concept are "for ourselves" and that defines what agency is more than being allowed to act. Clearly, and obviously, we are not capable of always acting (freedom), and clearly the ability to even choose certain things is also limited, and uneven throughout humanity.

 

My understanding of agency is simple. We are agents unto ourselves. We are accountable for ourselves. We represent ourselves. And we always will, not matter how good or evil we become. We will stand before God accountable for our choices and actions. Choice AND accountability. The reason this works, in spite of the fact that our freedoms (choice) can be taken away (quite easily and consistently throughout life) is that if we literally loose choice, then we also do not stand accountable, and our agency remains intact.

 

So, yes, it is valid to say that agency is the ability to act for ourselves, but we have to understand it in the context of reality, and how it only applies to our choice to be saved or damned, and not necessarily to the choice to, say, be tall, short, rich, strong, free, in slavery, smart or dumb.

[ztodd]

Regarding the principle of everyone being connected and affecting each other's lives... I started thinking about the seemingly unfair circumstances that many are born into- some of which are due to the actions of others, and which are very devastating, and could permanently stunt their future growth and potential.  To be clear, I'm thinking mostly of spiritual and emotional growth and potential.  For some, their whole mortal life is unquestionably affected by what happens to them in their childhood.

 

That got me thinking about the question of whether it's possible that things like that in this mortal life could forever change the course of our eternity?  Or do you all think we will be able to more easily forget the tramatizing things that happened to us in this life, after we have died?  If so, I wonder at what point we will be able to most easily shed those types of things from our souls. Perhaps not until the final judgment and resurrection?  Perhaps not even immediately after that?  At what point will the atonement be able to have the full effect upon us, in regard to those things that happen that can deeply scar a person for their entire mortal life?

 

My wife made the point to me that we know that nobody gets by on their own actions alone, because there is always at least one other person who we must rely on, whose actions paved the way for us.  So, if you consider our relationship with Jesus Christ, and what he did to save us, to be part of what you call the "Avatar principle", then I would say that of course that is the dominant principle that will affect our eternal destiny.

[JojoBag]

I struggle with two personal principals that seem to be in conflict to me.

 

The first principal is that of agency that we determine our ultimate destiny.   What we do is our business and we have the right to chose as we see fit according to our understanding.  That we are unique and independent and the results of our destiny will be of our own making - good or bad - but it is uniquely ours.

 

The other principle is what I call the Avatar principle - taken from the movie "Avatar".  This principle is that all things are connected and that what we do ripples through directly to others be it for good or evil.   That we are in essence a cog in an eternal cosmic machine and eventually our fate is not just our doing but is a product of all that takes place around us as well.

 

As I have discussed this with others (mostly LDS) they seem to think there is something of both.  That I can sort of understand - perhaps - but which one dominates?  and when does one takes presidence over the other and why?

 

I am tending towards the second principle - I wonder if many overplay, overuse and over think the doctrine of agency.

 

In my advancing years, I have learned that no matter what we or other people do that affects our lives or the lives of others does not matter when it comes to our agency.  No matter what we do that affects others or what someone else does that affects us, we choose how we will act and react to what happened.

 

A personal example from my life.  I was forcibly raped and molested as a little child starting about age 4.  The molestation continued for about 5 or 6 years.  Also during that time, when I was just 6 y/o, my neighbor introduced me to pornography.  Because of the violent abuse, I became the most extreme of untrusting introverts and never made friends.  The people who were supposed to protect me were my abusers.  I was a very sad and depressed little boy and that depression continued until I turned 54.  I also became a porn addict and stayed that way for several decades.

 

I blamed my problems on my childhood until I finally overcame both the depression and addiction.  What I finally realized was that I'd always had the power to overcome and go beyond the abuse and addiction.  I realized that nothing forced me to continue in my depression and extreme introversion, and addiction.  I used them as excuses for not changing; they were my golden calf that I worshipped.  I realized that my eternal fate rested entirely in my hands by my own actions and that nothing anyone did in my past or present mattered.  It doesn't matter what anyone else did or will do, but only what I do that matters.

 

I am clean and free of my addiction and depression.  My outlook now is that as long as I continue to make the Savior first in my life, I will have a chance to return to my Heavenly Father, no matter what anyone else does.

Edited July 23, 2015 by JojoBag