I Would Still Be Born Despite the Abortion

[Traveler]

....

. So I agree with you that we existed before this life, and it's a pleasant thing to be aware of. But beyond the big choice to follow Christ I don't perceive the need nor the likelihood of choices regarding parentage, times and locations of birth, etc. And in the end I ask myself what's the difference between a choice I don't remember making and not making any choice at all. The only answer I come up with is: there is no difference.

 

I would submit that there is a difference between making a choice and not remembering making the choice at all.  That difference is the essence of agency.  I would also submit that even the "not remembering making a choice" was part of the plan we accepted through our agency and selection of Christ and the great plan of happiness (plan of salvation).  Thus the great destiny of this mortal existence is to submit ourselves to the very path that we created with G-d through our agency in the pre-existence.  There is nothing in this life that can happen to us that is not for our benefit and according to our agency - there is nothing to fear in following G-d for all things through him are according to our agency.  Nothing is left to chance and nothing outside of our agency.  Nothing - though forgotten to us all things are known to G-d.

[Traveler]

Faramir and I have been talking a lot about agency, even in relation to prophecies. I don't suspect that it's ever in Heavenly Father's plan that any child is born to a teenage girl, or a crack addict. But an enormous part of this life is agency. Even if we had been given the choice or been able to plan or even be preordained to end up in a certain family, that can't be guaranteed because it would depend on the choices of a lot of people. However, it's been said a few times here lately that in the end, our family is really our spouse, and I still believe that there are for most of us a few people in the world that we can be very happy with. That part is within our agency. 

 

Why do you think that Heavenly Father's plan did not account for and include any child being born to a teenage girl, or crack addict?

 

It is my conclusion that almost nothing in this life can be accounted to agency as long as we apply the parameters of agency beginning at birth and ending at death.  Such effort will only result in confusion of agency and unfairness of circumstance and place.

[Guest]

I would submit that there is a difference between making a choice and not remembering making the choice at all.  That difference is the essence of agency.  I would also submit that even the "not remembering making a choice" was part of the plan we accepted through our agency and selection of Christ and the great plan of happiness (plan of salvation).  Thus the great destiny of this mortal existence is to submit ourselves to the very path that we created with G-d through our agency in the pre-existence.  There is nothing in this life that can happen to us that is not for our benefit and according to our agency - there is nothing to fear in following G-d for all things through him are according to our agency.  Nothing is left to chance and nothing outside of our agency.  Nothing - though forgotten to us all things are known to G-d.

Again, we agree that the so-called veil of forgetfulness is a part of our Heavenly Father's plan.  Again, where we part is on the point of having chosen our parents and the details of our births (along with the logical extensions of your claims). Again, we agree that everything that happens to us is for our spiritual benefit. And again, where we disagree is on your insistence that everything was chosen before we were born. Help me to understand how you justify claiming there is no agency without us having chosen everything, every potential occurrence, every eventuality, etc--indeed that seems to be what you claim. It seems that your position is that which robs us of the concept of free will, of agency. But perhaps I simply misunderstand the wording you choose. Is there any evidence or counter evidence we could agree upon?  If so, what would that evidence be? 

Edited September 22, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[Guest]

...

It is my conclusion that almost nothing in this life can be accounted to agency as long as we apply the parameters of agency beginning at birth and ending at death.  Such effort will only result in confusion of agency and unfairness of circumstance and place.

 

I don't perceive that anyone who has participated on this thread has even insinuated that agency begins at birth and ends at death. But there are constraints to agency--it is not limitless--in this life and before this life, and after this life.  Want to talk about *that*?

[Traveler]

I don't perceive that anyone who has participated on this thread has even insinuated that agency begins at birth and ends at death. But there are constraints to agency--it is not limitless--in this life and before this life, and after this life.  Want to talk about *that*?

 

Lets talk about *that* - what do you think happens that was not previously known?  It it was known - how can we say we have agency if we were not in the know and choose loop?  If it was not known and could not be known - that is not quite what I understand as the foreknowledge of what G-d knows.  I do not believe G-d has left anything to chance.  Do you believe something different?  If so - perhaps we could discuss why.  Why do you think this life is not a product (even a direct product) of our choice?

[Guest]

Lets talk about *that* - what do you think happens that was not previously known?  It it was known - how can we say we have agency if we were not in the know and choose loop?  If it was not known and could not be known - that is not quite what I understand as the foreknowledge of what G-d knows.  I do not believe G-d has left anything to chance.  Do you believe something different?  If so - perhaps we could discuss why.  Why do you think this life is not a product (even a direct product) of our choice?

When I wrote *that* I was referring to the limits on agency.  Now I think you are changing from agency to foreknowledge. But I don't want to appear combative, so I'll go where you want to go. Your questions are interesting, but I think first I'm going to need you to offer me a once-and-for-all definition of agency so that we can stick to it. I probably would define agency differently than you in the first place, but that's alright. I'm willing to play on your field by your rules. So what is agency?

Edited September 22, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[Traveler]

When I wrote *that* I was referring to the limits on agency.  Now I think you are changing from agency to foreknowledge. But I don't want to appear combative, so I'll go where you want to go. Your questions are interesting, but I think first I'm going to need you to offer me a once-and-for-all definition of agency so that we can stick to it. I probably would define agency differently than you in the first place, but that's alright. I'm willing to play on your field by your rules. So what is agency?

 

Thank you for wanting to go forward and avoid contention.  I am a little more blunt but desire the same.  I would define agency as the knowledge of possibilities as well as the outcomes from choosing such possibilities and then the power to choose from all possible choices.  If you have different understanding - I would be interested in what it is you believe and why.  Not so much to argue though it may appear so - I just want to ask questions to be sure I understand your logic and reasoning.  If I find what I believe to be a rhetorical flaw or contradiction to you logic - I would like to point it out - not to upset you but that you can consider the flaw - I would expect you to do the same.

 

As a side note - often I agree with a conclusion but wonder how they came to their conclusion - so I ask and if they have taken a different path than I have - that is of great interest to me.  But I will admit that some on the forum are offended if they are asked questions concerning their logic paths to conclusions.  I have speculated this is because they have not clearly considered their logic.

[Guest]

 

 

Why do you think that Heavenly Father's plan did not account for and include any child being born to a teenage girl, or crack addict?

 

I didn't say His plan doesn't account for it. Pain and suffering are covered by the Atonement as much as sin is. The Church has an adoption program, and encourages adoption in these cases. I just don't think that he designed for babies to be born out of wedlock or to drug addicts. They make choices that put them where they are in life, and the baby is the innocent victim.  His design, as we are taught, is that 

 

 

THE FAMILY is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. 

 

THAT is his design. Not to throw certain spirits intentionally into a situation where they don't have what they are entitled to. That is not His doing. That's where agency comes in. His part is providing compensation for the lack of what they are entitled to. (See: Elder Wirthlin's discussions on the principle of compensation).

 

I don't believe that most trials are intentionally thrown at us because we are supposed to learn a specific lesson from that trial. I don't believe that nonsense quote that says, "You were given this life because you were strong enough to live it." I believe we were born in a fallen world, where most of our trials are the consequence of bad choices made by ourselves our others. I don't believe we are strong enough for all of our trials. I believe we are made stronger and able to cope by the grace of Jesus Christ. I believe Heavenly Father provides us healing and sometimes deliverance from the things that happen, but I don't believe He makes them happen.

[Guest]

...I would define agency as the knowledge of possibilities as well as the outcomes from choosing such possibilities and then the power to choose from all possible choices.  If you have different understanding - I would be interested in what it is you believe and why. ..

I accept the following definition as being simple and succint, accurate--and workable. "Agency is the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves." Source: https://www.lds.org/topics/agency?lang=eng

 

I would have rejected your definition because it makes too many unwarranted assumptions.  Making unwarranted assumptions often leads one to reason from a false premise.

[Traveler]

I didn't say His plan doesn't account for it. Pain and suffering are covered by the Atonement as much as sin is. The Church has an adoption program, and encourages adoption in these cases. I just don't think that he designed for babies to be born out of wedlock or to drug addicts. They make choices that put them where they are in life, and the baby is the innocent victim.  His design, as we are taught, is that 

 

THAT is his design. Not to throw certain spirits intentionally into a situation where they don't have what they are entitled to. That is not His doing. That's where agency comes in. His part is providing compensation for the lack of what they are entitled to. (See: Elder Wirthlin's discussions on the principle of compensation).

 

I don't believe that most trials are intentionally thrown at us because we are supposed to learn a specific lesson from that trial. I don't believe that nonsense quote that says, "You were given this life because you were strong enough to live it." I believe we were born in a fallen world, where most of our trials are the consequence of bad choices made by ourselves our others. I don't believe we are strong enough for all of our trials. I believe we are made stronger and able to cope by the grace of Jesus Christ. I believe Heavenly Father provides us healing and sometimes deliverance from the things that happen, but I don't believe He makes them happen.

 

Eowyn - thank you very much for your response.  You have touched on a critical principle that I have tried to understand.  This statement by you is important: "to throw certain spirits intentionally into a situation where they don't have what they are entitled to".  What I have tried to understand is - according to Gospel principles - what determines that certain spirits are thrown into situations where they don't have what they are entitled to.  That is the question I am trying to understand and answer.

 

I am not trying to say I have it all figured out - but I think by trying to understand I have some ideas.  My idea is that the primary principle in play in determining such things is "AGENCY".  What I do not believe is that any spirit is forced unknowingly or against their will to be born into conditions in this life that they were not entitled to.  Sometimes I think we may be looking at this all wrong.  I am thinking that the truth is and according to the plan of salvation - that every spirit that comes into mortality does so as a great sacrifice.  As a parent I realize two things:  First as a partaker in the new and everlasting covenant - I provide a very rare experience and highly favorable (compared to so many others) condition for my children.  Second - because of my personal flaws and failures - I do not provide anywhere near what the spirits I have been given to parent here on earth as to what they are entitled to. 

 

I have concluded that mortality by design and plan is a sacrifice of entitlements.  Not just for me and my household but even for the very Son of G-d who came here as the greatest sacrifice.  I have concluded that some pure spirit did agree knowingly to be a crack baby and sacrifice their entitlements - otherwise I do not believe it possible that there would be any crack babies.  I also want to point out that because they were willing to make such a great sacrifice that we should not think in any way that they deserve to be born crack babies. 

 

We tend to see good and evil in this life as a result of things between birth and death - that view - according to my understanding of the plan of salvation - is an incomplete view.  I wonder if Satan and those that follow him did so because they were unwilling to sacrifice their entitlements - that they believe such sacrifice is "unjust" and that they are not willing to even consider mortality where there is a possibility that anyone ends up a crack baby - especially them.

 

We know that our pre-existence does have impact on our conditions here - there are scripture that indicate such.  According to Abraham some of the noble and great exercised their agency to accept and sacrifice their lives with great responsibility for others - but I wonder if some of the noble and great exercised their agency to accept and sacrifice their lives to be born without entitlements they otherwise deserve.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Traveler

[estradling75]

Traveller you seem to be conflating the idea that God is Just, True, and Fair with Agency.   After all one way for God to be Just, True, and Fair could have been for him to layout all the details so that we had a complete knowledge and then asked us if we were willing to do so.   And I agree that it could have happened that way.  I disagree that it is the only way God could have done it.

 

The other way I see is the way I have been experiencing my mortal life right now.  That is that I am asked to exercise my agency based on incomplete knowledge.  That I am to exercise faith that the Lord is Just, True, and Fair and will make it right.  Therefore I see it as also quite possible that God told us mortal life will be hard, that we  will suffer and hurt, but it is also necessary and that God will help make it right if we will let him.  And that is what we acted on to come to earth rather then complete knowledge.

[Guest]

You're complicating it. I quoted the words of the Prophets that said that children are entitled to be born into the bonds of matrimony, with a mother and father who live in fidelity. There are children who are not born into that situation, so they are not born with what, according to the words of Heavenly Father through His servants, they are entitled to. 

[Guest]

Traveller you seem to be conflating the idea that God is Just, True, and Fair with Agency.   After all one way for God to be Just, True, and Fair could have been for him to layout all the details so that we had a complete knowledge and then asked us if we were willing to do so.   And I agree that it could have happened that way.  ...

Yet if Heavenly Father placed all the details [so that we had a complete knowledge] before us, wouldn't that very act make it impossible for us to live by faith? And as an aside, wouldn't that very act be counter to Godliness in terms of the Plan of Salvation? This is perhaps a major problem I have with the conflation [of knowledge with agency] that I've been seeing in some posts in this thread.

[Vort]

We were incapable of understanding all the ramifications of our choices -- exactly as we are now. We were, and are, expected to exercise faith and confidence in Him Who knows best.

[Traveler]

Again - I want to thank everyone thinking and responding.  There are a lot of points that are very important and I will try to respond to as many as I can.  First concerning faith.  It is obvious to me, maybe not to everyone, that there must be knowledge of truth in order to have true faith.   For example, if someone has faith in a G-d that according to their knowledge - is a G-d of attributes that are not real - then such faith is false.   But there is another caveat to this example of false knowledge and false faith - that is that when we create things that are false - as in this case; false attributes of G-d - then our knowledge or what we think is knowledge; becomes inconsistent.

 

In order to have agency - we all agree we must have choices.  But I am putting forward that there is more to agency than choice.  Ignorance or lack of knowledge is a way to prevent agency.  A person cannot make a choice of which we have no knowledge to exist.  In addition if we do not have correct knowledge - I contend that we cannot have agency to make actual choices.

 

I realize that there is concern that knowledge prevents faith.  I am not of this thinking.  I believe that correct knowledge enhances faith.  I also want to point out that knowledge of information is a little different or not as complete knowledge from experience.  For example a person can possess all the knowledge of information concerning a marriage.  The can possess the knowledge that marriage can be hard - but until a person has experience that do not have knowledge of marriage.  The knowledge of information will lead a person to have faith in marriage but they cannot initiate a marriage without faith in marriage and that they can succeed in marriage.   Truth and the knowledge of truth strengthens one's faith .

 

In addition I would point out that in the Book of Abraham we learn from scripture that G-d identified his noble and great children and placed them into circumstance in this life to be his rulers.  In the Book of Mormon - Alma chapter 12 we learn that in order to hold the priesthood - as a circumstance in this life we had to be ordained to do so in the pre-existence.

 

I would also point out that to come to this life we had to do so by choice in exercising our individual agency.  We also know from scripture that there are examples of very carefully planned and outlined circumstances and work to be done that was determine in some known cases.   We also know that there are no surprises to G-d.  He knows the future before it happens - or should I say before we exercise our agency to choose.

 

I submit that there is no more exercise of faith to live out our lives - than to have the knowledge of our life in the pre-existence but still willing to make the sacrifice to come to earth - believing that we will be redeemed of our sins and flaws and able to return to our Father if we so desire.

 

Finely - I do not believe anyone is forced or tricked by G-d to do anything.  I believe our coming to earth was a direct result of our agency - which included knowledge.  In fact I cannot understand why those that fell with Lucifer would or could have rejected G-d's plan unless they did so and chose so with knowledge of the choice they were making.

 

The other point that is obvious to me is that for all the information (knowledge) we have of the atonement and resurrection we still live and act in faith based on that knowledge.

[estradling75]

In order to have agency - we all agree we must have choices.  But I am putting forward that there is more to agency than choice.  Ignorance or lack of knowledge is a way to prevent agency.  A person cannot make a choice of which we have no knowledge to exist.  In addition if we do not have correct knowledge - I contend that we cannot have agency to make actual choices.

 

 

Then by our own statements and logic we can not ever have agency to make actual choice while on this earth...  A fact clearly disputed in the scriptures as the whole point of why we are here.

 

After all in this life we do not have correct knowledge... at best we see through a glass darkly at what we hope and think might be true

[The Folk Prophet]

The problem with Traveler's agency theory is that it puts a false "all or nothing" variable on the ability to choose as it relates to knowledge. Whereas it is true that we need knowledge for agency to work, it is not true that we need all knowledge for it to work.

 

After all, the test of this life is not merely in the exercising of agency. That would be no test at all. The test is to exercise agency with faith.

[Guest]

The problem with Traveler's agency theory is that it puts a false "all or nothing" variable on the ability to choose as it relates to knowledge. Whereas it is true that we need knowledge for agency to work, it is not true that we need all knowledge for it to work.

 

After all, the test of this life is not merely in the exercising of agency. That would be no test at all. The test is to exercise agency with faith.

 

Yes, I think you put it succinctly. It seemed to me that it would be impossible for us to possess "all" knowledge. Only our Heavenly Father is omniscient. Moreover, possessing "all" knowledge seems to me to be that which comes after the trial(s) of our faith, and not before.

 

...Whereas it is true that we need knowledge for agency to work, it is not true that we need all knowledge for it to work.  ...

 

I suspect (from other comments I've read) that the speculative nature of some posts in this thread does not interest you. Am I right? Or, do you have thoughts as to what knowledge we were given individually prior to this life in terms of the where, when, and with whom of our births beyond that which is already revealed generally to us in our mortality?

[Guest]

... In fact I cannot understand why those that fell with Lucifer would or could have rejected G-d's plan unless they did so and chose so with knowledge of the choice they were making. ...

This is very interesting to me, and I have tried to reason it, too. For that matter I have wondered how Lucifer, himself, could conclude that his "plan" would produce the results he claimed. At best it seems that his methods and his claims would be seen by all to be self-contradictory at best. But perhaps the answer is simply that he lied and thought no one else could see through his lie. Or, perhaps somehow he felt that he can't really lose if only one soul is robbed--how much greater then if many souls are lost. Still, I feel amazement that others would buy-in. Perhaps it isn't a question of choosing in terms of knowledge, but of choosing in terms of their own nature (being more akin to Lucifer's nature) from before the foundations."

[Traveler]

The problem with Traveler's agency theory is that it puts a false "all or nothing" variable on the ability to choose as it relates to knowledge. Whereas it is true that we need knowledge for agency to work, it is not true that we need all knowledge for it to work.

 

After all, the test of this life is not merely in the exercising of agency. That would be no test at all. The test is to exercise agency with faith.

Lets drill down and perhaps I can understand what you are purporting - Can you give me an example of the use of agency where a particular knowledge if missing; would make the choice of agency more sure more G-d like or eternally binding?

 

What points me in the direction of an actual or real choice in agency being because of knowledge is - if with such knowledge we would have made a different choice how can it be argued that the initial choice (without knowledge) was real and actual agency?  How can you even argue that it was a fair and just expressions of agency?

 

 

If the choice was not changed by the additional knowledge - then it cannot be argued as knowledge necessary or even recommended - or in reality associated to the choice.  So I agree with you that all knowledge is not necessary - but for sure any knowledge associated and having direct consequence to the choice - would have to be known or there is no exercise of agency.

 

But there is another question - how do we gain the knowledge?  How do we start the process so that we may become a being capable of agency.  That is what I think is missing from our discussion.

Edited September 27, 2015 by Traveler

[Guest]

What about accepting a job in another town because you felt spiritual confirmation that you should, even though you have no idea what life will be like when you get there?

[estradling75]

D&C 93:

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

 

This is the Lord describing what the agency man is.  That we act within the sphere God placed us.  The idea is to seek "truth, light, knowledge, etc."  How do we gain light and truth... well further on we learn how we can lose it.

 

39 And that wicked one cometh and taketh away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers. 

 

If we lose light and truth through disobedience then it seems very likely  that we gain it through obedience.

 

Therefore if agency (by obedience) is the means that we gain light, truth, knowledge etc.  Then is it impossible that having all light, truth, knowledge is a prerequisite to using agency.  We do require enough knowledge to be obedient which begins the process of gaining more light, truth, knowledge which then requires obedience to that.  This cycle continues until we stop being obedient and become condemned or we gain all light, truth, knowledge, etc.     

[Traveler]

I appreciate the responses - obviously there is more to agency than choice.  For example I think of faith as an element of agency which is in essence moving beyond one making a choice and allowing the choice be be made by powers outside of their choice while still having power to choose - in essence allowing the choice outside of self.

 

I realize that some would argue that to exercise faith is a choice - I would classify it more as a guess because of a definite unknown element that by the nature of being unknown cannot possibly be a choice.  There are advantages and disadvantages of guesses over choices - but that is a different discussion of a different point and concept.  

[Blackmarch]

This OP has nothing to do (in my mind) with current political issues--just so you know. I'm just thinking about it. I suppose [because I was raised in a faith that teaches the eternal (back and forward) nature of the spirit] that I feel compelled to believe that every abortion results in the person being born somewhere and some-when else. In other words, if it is true that I was me before birth and I will continue to be me after death, then had my mother undergone an abortion I would have just been born to some other woman--or to the same woman later. Maybe I’d be better off in this world, or maybe I’d be worse off.  But I would still be born.  No?

No clue. I've known spiritual mothers who strongly felt that when their body naturally terminated the pregnancy that the person came when they had their next child... I've also known others in a similar situation who felt that it happened just so that the person could get a body and go through death.

would either of these apply to an abortion? I have no idea... My personal feelings is that a mother who has an abortion will one day have to face their child.

[Bee Sweet]

Isn't it wonderful that Heavenly Father will make everything right?

 

My heart aches for women who've had abortions, I distain the act but not the women. It has been said that it is a forgiveable sin,

so the Savior atoned for these women. His suffering for these sins is un-imaginable.

 

I would also like to think that these spirits get another chance to live their mortal life, Again, so many un-answered questions,

just faith in God that all we be made right! For the child and the Mother.