The Folk Prophet Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 EDIT: The only scriptural reference I can find to this wording is in D&C 29:35, where God says he made Adam "an agent unto himself" in the garden of Eden. In this context, it sounds like God is saying that Adam did not represent God or anyone else, only himself. See my above post with several other references. Plus vs. 39 in section 29. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 See my above post with several other references. Plus vs. 39 in section 29. yYs, I agree, your understanding of being an agent unto yourself is correct. I should have taken more time to consider the word usage in that context. The rest of what you wrote is common knowledge, and I don't see how it contradicts anything else I wrote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted July 31, 2015 Report Share Posted July 31, 2015 The rest of what you wrote is common knowledge, and I don't see how it contradicts anything else I wrote. Keep in mind, my primary kerfuffle concerns other's posts on the matter. It should be common knowledge, but clearly it isn't in every case. It is so common, if fact, that I can't believe I had to go search, find, and post it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anddenex Posted August 4, 2015 Report Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) This has been an intriguing conversation to read through. I am glad finally someone mentioned "Moral agency" rather than "Free agency." Our agency is intricately connected to our morality and accountability and it is not free as it was bought with a price. When on my mission we engage in missionary work and represent Christ, and while on a mission I could never understand why they trained us regarding how to ride a bike. They discussed posture, that we shouldn't ride to fast, and other things. I completely ignored this training as I enjoyed riding fast, bunny hops over curbs, etc... Upon returning home, I finally understood the training and how naive I was. Although, I was an agent unto myself, my actions reflected the Church -- as I was no longer representing myself, although I was still given moral agency to act for myself and not to be acted upon. I realize now, I should have remembered who I was representing. The younger son of Alma, misunderstood his moral agency and how his actions caused others not to believe in his father's words. Thus the statement, when we have covenanted to do perform God's will, "What would Jesus do?" is no different than The Traveler quoting the Lord, "I can of my own self do nothing...," (I would think Jesus would then say, "What would my father do"?) which then nurtures greater insight to the concept of acting for ourselves. An agent unto ourself appears to reflect the concept that when we stand before the Lord, final judgement, we will not be able to point a finger of scorn to anyone but ourselves as Samuel the Lamanite puts forth, "if they are condemned they bring upon themselves their own condemnation." Thus our moral agency, an ultimate time for an accounting of our deeds on earth, is the only time I can think that we represent ourself, and ourselves alone. All other times, our moral agency, to act for ourself and not to be acted upon, represents the Lord. What might this scripture have in common with our moral agency, he that looses his life shall find it and he that saves his life shall loose it. The gospel leads me to believe that we made covenants before coming to earth. My representation of Christ did not begin when I was baptized. I became a representative of Christ, the plan of Salvation, the moment I rejected Satan and accepted the plan of Salvation as declared by our Father in heaven. I am positive I made covenants with God before birth, made promises, to continue to represent my Savior. Baptism is one of the many covenants we make and is the first in this life specifying I again promise to follow my Savior -- which indeed is following Heavenly Father -- knowing that how I use the gift of moral agency will continue to reflect upon the Savior. Elder Bednar in his three book series provides some great insight to our moral agency. I love the example he provides regarding our covenants and how our covenants restrict, limit, our moral agency because we no longer represent solely ourselves. He mentioned the honor code. Those who go to BYU, accept through signature, they will honor the honor code. In this sense the honor code then defines ones choices (don'ts), and consequences when disobeyed. The moment we accept the code by our signature is the moment "Free" agency is removed. Free agency would mean the ability to act without any form of consequence good or bad; thus, agency then is truly free, but that is not the agency gifted by our Father in heaven. Moral agency means we act with knowledge full well knowing their is consequence to acting against our promise or to keep it. So, before we came to earth a covenant must have been made, a promise received, and our ability to act for ourselves and the concept of restoration so well taught in the Book of Mormon. Even without baptism, all of us represent our spiritual nature -- children of God with promise. Edited August 4, 2015 by Anddenex Traveler 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anddenex Posted August 4, 2015 Report Share Posted August 4, 2015 (edited) A short soap box, scientifically speaking, babies are not agents unto themselves as they have no knowledge of themselves. They know nothing. This is also why a disturbing article made it into a medical journal regarding the "right" for a parent (mother or father) to abort a new born, even a young toddler. The main emphasis, as long as a newborn does not have knowledge of its existence then it can be aborted, even after birth, because the child is not yet living aware of itself. One test of awareness is done by looking in the mirror. They say a child began to know oneself when they recognize a difference in the mirror between father and themselves, or between the reflection and themselves. When the baby first recognizes the reflection is their reflection, then they know themselves. Unlike animals which continually think a mirrored reflection is a potential threat from another competitor. Edited August 4, 2015 by Anddenex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted August 4, 2015 Report Share Posted August 4, 2015 Vort, I've got to extend the same challenge here to you: Can you show or validate that becoming an agent of Christ invalidates being an agent unto ourselves? I cannot quite understand how it must be one or the other in people's minds. Just because we choose to represent Christ and follow His law does not mean that we are not also representing ourselves. This whole "agents unto ourselves" = "self worship" thing does not strike me as in any way valid. Sure, that's one way we can exercise our agency. But that doesn't mean when we choose to follow Christ that we give up our agency. One test that demonstrates that we are not 100% free agents is that we are not singularly responsible for our sins is that we - despite our agency, are unable to over come our sins on our own but must rely on the source of our agency to free us. Despite what some advertise - we can only act in this life within the prescribed and agreed limits of the agency that is granted to us by G-d and sustained by him for each second we exist and each breath we take. And as G-d has given us life and agency in our sphere - he is the decider of when it ends - even if we try with all our agency to demonstrate or think otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdowis Posted August 4, 2015 Report Share Posted August 4, 2015 In those verses, Christ states we should take no thought for what's to come tomorrow, from what we eat to what we wear...but if you feel that you are being met with crazy challenges in life but you have agency of how we should deal with our cllenges, then what is God doing to guide us to a great life? He was addressing the apostles and those sent out to preach without purse or script, not to the general membership of the church according to Talmadge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted August 4, 2015 Report Share Posted August 4, 2015 to preach without purse or script Actually, that would be "scrip", meaning in essence "money". Since that is also the clear implication of the word "purse" in this context, the phrase "without purse or scrip" means "without money or money". Just making absolutely sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Folk Prophet Posted August 4, 2015 Report Share Posted August 4, 2015 One test that demonstrates that we are not 100% free agents is that we are not singularly responsible for our sins is that we - despite our agency, are unable to over come our sins on our own but must rely on the source of our agency to free us. Despite what some advertise - we can only act in this life within the prescribed and agreed limits of the agency that is granted to us by G-d and sustained by him for each second we exist and each breath we take. And as G-d has given us life and agency in our sphere - he is the decider of when it ends - even if we try with all our agency to demonstrate or think otherwise. It's nice to apply one's own definition to something and then argue from that standpoint, isn't it? If maybe you'd accept the fact that moral agency does not, not has it ever, meant 100% free agency, then maybe we'd be able to come to some sort of understanding. Or, I suppose we could all adapt your definition and disregard what the scriptures, prophets, apostle, and church materials teach on the matter. According to the way you're defining agency, sure...we don't have agency and it's a "lie". But your definition is wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traveler Posted August 4, 2015 Report Share Posted August 4, 2015 It's nice to apply one's own definition to something and then argue from that standpoint, isn't it? If maybe you'd accept the fact that moral agency does not, not has it ever, meant 100% free agency, then maybe we'd be able to come to some sort of understanding. Or, I suppose we could all adapt your definition and disregard what the scriptures, prophets, apostle, and church materials teach on the matter. According to the way you're defining agency, sure...we don't have agency and it's a "lie". But your definition is wrong. We do have agency - that is my point. But our agency is not ours for expression only in this life. We must answer to him that is the source of our agency. If we were agents unto ourselves as many - and I believe this includes you - are insisting. Then we would be responsible to no one but ourselves and we could not be brought before anyone to judge our choice. But what I am saying is that our agency as well as the sphere of our choices was decided before we were even born and are given us from G-d. Thus the exercise of agency by some was done entirely before they were born and they exercise no agency what-so-ever in this life and they die as children before they reach the age of 8. This does not mean that they had no agency and were forced into heaven. But it does mean that what many argue as agency really does not fit into the nifty little packets of logic some are insisting. It is by the agency - agents in G-d's plan of salvation (which is a gift from G-d) that we become what we are - which interestingly is or may not be what G-d would have us be. But then -- he already knew that from the very beginning -- which is explained in the D&C. But we cannot become of this of ourselves but it comes as a gift therefore we become children or agents of the giver of the gift and we never are a product of only our own choice. Of all possible terms that could by use that would allow us to become invested and take part in G-d's Plan of Salvation - I personally find the use of "agency" far more extensive and descriptive of what is going on - than free will, G-d's determination or any other use of terms I have found anywhere in man's efforts to understand such things. I see great advantage in such terms and am glad to explorer the possibilities beyond the standard and traditional (and as I see - stagnant) view of such things. Not because I believe such definitions to be wrong - just that I believe what ever we have learned that there is more to be considered. 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.