Is it possible/common/normal for church members to have a tree of life vision?

[Anddenex]

Agency has two meanings and one is spiritual and one is temporal.  Here is the temporal definition of agency: an office, organization, government entity that is responsible or accountable for particular activities.

 

This is agency as defined through gospel standards (spiritual).  Agency is our freedom to choose between opposites, we know what those opposites are, and we have the freedom to choose either but not the consequences (accountability).

 

If you are defining agency as the former, then yes steward == agent, and stewardship == agency.  If you are defining agency as the latter (as given by Elder D. Todd Christofferson), then no they cannot be the same.

 

@Traveler, what you are describing is the former definition of agency.  The agent honors his stewardship/agency (an organization) that is responsible to honor their given specification they agreed upon when I paid them money.  They are not honoring agency (as defined as the freedom to choose) by exercising stewardship.

 

@TheFolkProphet -- What stewardship does a child of 4 years old have that equates with agency (latter definition, not former)?

 

This is what I am hearing/reading, the elements of a stewardship/agency:

1) Alternatives among which to choose

2) Knowledge of those alternatives

3) Freedom to make choices..not to alter their consequences (which by the way is accountability, which wasn't left out as suggested previously).

 

Yet, lds.org (apostles/prophets) doesn't appear to give the same definitions for both as I am being told.  They are different, at least the gospel definitions of agency, not agency specifying an institution. 

 

I suppose my request, is where in scripture, words of the prophets, am I able to confirm the thoughts provided?  All I have searched do not equate stewardship with agency (the freedom to choose, the knowledge of opposites, and the inability to alter consequences).

 

EDIT: @TheFolkProphet, as I once specified I believe I agree with about 85% of what you have shared on lds.net.  This appears to be falling into the %15; however, I do agree with what Vort said.  More to ponder.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Anddenex

[Anddenex]

Yeah, I know.  But for the past several days I've just been feeling really playful.  Don't take statements like this too seriously from me for a while.  I'm just teasing and having fun.

 

I've just been following the thread like...

 

Ah, I see, you are just a watcher of the word, not a doer

[The Folk Prophet]

Let me try another approach.

 

If we were to describe agency in lay terms, I believe, it would be as follows:

 

In order to be properly tested and proved in life we were given agency which is the right to choose and act on good or evil. It is, in short, the ability for us to determine our own salvation by choice. This doesn't mean we save ourselves, but that we are given the right to make the choice to accept or reject the salvation given us. Based on these choices, we are held accountable.

 

We are given things. Life. Freedom. Relationships. Family. Knowledge. Etc. We are allowed to make decisions on how to act concerning these things. We are then responsible for the decisions we make.

 

This is agency. We have to be given something to act on. We have to have the right to act according to our own choices on those things. And we have to be accountable for the decisions we make.

 

Now apply to stewardship. Even if we narrowly define stewardship as only, for example, a temporary church calling. The same principles apply across the board. We are given something. We have the right to act according to our own choices on that thing. And we will be held accountable for how we act.

 

Honestly...even explaining this seems so simple that I feel like I'm being a bit patronizing in doing so. I've said before that I don't know how this isn't obvious. But apparently it isn't to all.

 

Anyhow...

 

More broadly applying stewardship, everything we have in this life is our stewardship. We are given our lives, our freedom to choose, our knowledge, our families, our friends, the food we eat, the homes we have, the fortunes we gain... It is all God's, but we are stewards of it.

 

Agency is given us. Stewardship is given us. They are the same principles approached from different angles. Most people focus on the things we're given with stewardship and the choices we make with agency, but they both require the other as well. We are not stewards without choices to make concerning what we have been given and we have no agency if we have nothing given us to make choices concerning. And both require accountability.

 

We do, I grant, oft times use stewardship in a narrowly defined way (as in many references in the D&C as related to church assignments). And we don't tend to use agency narrowly. But broadly speaking, they refer to the same principles. The choices we make in administering to the things the Lord has given us and the fact that we will stand accountable for those choices.

[Traveler]

Agency has two meanings and one is spiritual and one is temporal.  Here is the temporal definition of agency: an office, organization, government entity that is responsible or accountable for particular activities.

 

This is agency as defined through gospel standards (spiritual).  Agency is our freedom to choose between opposites, we know what those opposites are, and we have the freedom to choose either but not the consequences (accountability).

 

If you are defining agency as the former, then yes steward == agent, and stewardship == agency.  If you are defining agency as the latter (as given by Elder D. Todd Christofferson), then no they cannot be the same.

 

@Traveler, what you are describing is the former definition of agency.  The agent honors his stewardship/agency (an organization) that is responsible to honor their given specification they agreed upon when I paid them money.  They are not honoring agency (as defined as the freedom to choose) by exercising stewardship.

 

@TheFolkProphet -- What stewardship does a child of 4 years old have that equates with agency (latter definition, not former)?

 

This is what I am hearing/reading, the elements of a stewardship/agency:

1) Alternatives among which to choose

2) Knowledge of those alternatives

3) Freedom to make choices..not to alter their consequences (which by the way is accountability, which wasn't left out as suggested previously).

 

Yet, lds.org (apostles/prophets) doesn't appear to give the same definitions for both as I am being told.  They are different, at least the gospel definitions of agency, not agency specifying an institution. 

 

I suppose my request, is where in scripture, words of the prophets, am I able to confirm the thoughts provided?  All I have searched do not equate stewardship with agency (the freedom to choose, the knowledge of opposites, and the inability to alter consequences).

 

EDIT: @TheFolkProphet, as I once specified I believe I agree with about 85% of what you have shared on lds.net.  This appears to be falling into the %15; however, I do agree with what Vort said.  More to ponder.

 

I agree that agency has extended meaning with spiritual application but your insistence that there is nothing in common is - at least I think a misunderstanding of Elder Christofferson.  I think he is trying add something to the general understanding not completely change it.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Traveler

[Vort]

Honestly...even explaining this seems so simple that I feel like I'm being a bit patronizing in doing so. I've said before that I don't know how this isn't obvious. But apparently it isn't to all.

 

It is not obvious because we use the two terms differently. When we use "stewardship", we are almost always speaking of the accomplishment of our duties assigned us by God or through his kingdom. We have stewardship over our spouse, our children, our calling, our property, and so forth. When we (LDS) use "agency", however, we are usually talking about the abstract concept of our Godly ability to choose our path and accept the consequences of that choice.

 

The key for me was your pointing out that "agent" and "steward" are words closely related in meaning, perhaps even synonymous to some degree. This opens a new world of nuance and interpretation, something I need to take some time to explore. But my initial sense is that there is a great deal to be mined from this, and that it is true in a deep and fundamental way that I have yet to understand well.

[The Folk Prophet]

It is not obvious because we use the two terms differently. When we use "stewardship", we are almost always speaking of the accomplishment of our duties assigned us by God or through his kingdom. We have stewardship over our spouse, our children, our calling, our property, and so forth. When we (LDS) use "agency", however, we are usually talking about the abstract concept of our Godly ability to choose our path and accept the consequences of that choice.

I do not mean to say it should be obvious never having had it pointed out. I only mean that once it is pointed out that it strikes me that the explanations shouldn't be necessary...at least not to the degree they seem to be. It strikes me that the basic idea, once presented, should be plenty to go on for the deeper consideration.

Actually, as I write, what I'm really unsure of is why anyone would reject/resist the concept.

*shrug*

[Anddenex]

I do not mean to say it should be obvious never having had it pointed out. I only mean that once it is pointed out that it strikes me that the explanations shouldn't be necessary...at least not to the degree they seem to be. It strikes me that the basic idea, once presented, should be plenty to go on for the deeper consideration.

Actually, as I write, what I'm really unsure of is why anyone would reject/resist the concept.

*shrug*

 

Simple, because it is not as obvious as you make it out to be.  In the last response you specified one requires the other, or let me quote it from your words, "We are not stewards without choices to make concerning what we have been given and we have no agency if we have nothing given us to make choices concerning."

 

If the same how then do they require each other?  Without agency we are unable to be wise stewards.  Also, I don't accept personal interpretation, as you haven't quoted or provided anything besides personal thoughts on how they are the same.

 

I haven't read any scripture you have pointed to.  I haven't read any words of the prophets you have pointed to.  I have never read any prophetic statement that agrees with what you are specifying, but I have read, as provided, two different definitions of stewardship and agency from our leaders.

 

I also pointed out how we will say "Aaronic/Melchizedek Priesthood Stewardships" and how we have never read or heard the term "Aaronic Priesthood Agency" (agency as in the freedom we have to choose, not an agency as in an organization which is the same as stewardship). If the same they should be interchangeable; although, if someone specified the latter (or we have family agency, children agency, calling agency,...)  people would do as you have suggest "*shrug*" which is what I have been doing -- shrugging, and think what "children agency"?  If the same, they should then be interchangeable.  They do not appear to be such.

[Anddenex]

I agree that agency has extended meaning with spiritual application but your insistence that there is nothing in common is - at least I think a misunderstanding of Elder Christofferson.  I think he is trying add something to the general understanding not completely change it.

 

I never said nothing common, I said they are different.  I have things in common with my wife, but I am not the same as my wife.  I have things in common with my sons, but I am not my sons.  Jesus is in the likeness of Father; he has things in common with his Father, but they are not the same.

 

He didn't change the definition of agency, he defined it in a different way then simply saying as noted in lds.org, "Agency is the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves. 

 

What did Elder D. Todd Christofferson say?  He said agency is our freedom to choose between alternatives, we have knowledge of those alternatives, and we are not inhibited from choosing between the alternatives, but we can't choose consequences (outcome).  I don't read any change in definition of agency. 

[Vort]

 

Also, I don't accept personal interpretation, as you haven't quoted or provided anything besides personal thoughts on how they are the same.

 

That's what it is: A thought. Something for consideration. The fact that you can't find a recognized prophet that has taught exactly that nuance is beside the point.

 

I haven't read any scripture you have pointed to.  I haven't read any words of the prophets you have pointed to.  I have never read any prophetic statement that agrees with what you are specifying, but I have read, as provided, two different definitions of stewardship and agency from our leaders.

 

I totally don't get the hostility here. TFP offered a fascinating and potentially paradigm-changing thought. Why the blowback? Why not just spend some time considering it? It's not as though he said something that threatens the very foundation of our understanding of God or the atonement. He suggested another way to think about these issues, possibly a very valuable way. In what way does this threaten you? If it does not, why the harsh response?

 

I also pointed out how we will say "Aaronic/Melchizedek Priesthood Stewardships" and how we have never read or heard the term "Aaronic Priesthood Agency" (agency as in the freedom we have to choose, not an agency as in an organization which is the same as stewardship). If the same they should be interchangeable; although, if someone specified the latter (or we have family agency, children agency, calling agency,...)  people would do as you have suggest "*shrug*" which is what I have been doing -- shrugging, and think what "children agency"?  If the same, they should then be interchangeable.  They do not appear to be such.

 

That is an issue of usage. TFP was not talking about usage; I expect he would concede your point, but then say that it was not relevant. The point is not how we currently use the words, but how they might be intimately connected, thus changing our understanding of the nature of agency.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Vort

[Anddenex]

That's what it is: A thought. Something for consideration. The fact that you can't find a recognized prophet that has taught exactly that nuance is beside the point.

 

Precisely, with the caveat of "it is obvious."  Something more than just a thought.  Yes, prophetic statements are important, and not beside the point, which is why I asked for scripture, words of leaders, or prophetic statements that would highlight.  I didn't say "exact."  

 

I totally don't get the hostility here. TFP offered a fascinating and potentially paradigm-changing thought. Why the blowback? Why not just spend some time considering it? It's not as though he said something that threatens the very foundation of our understanding of God or the atonement. He suggested another way to think about these issues, possibly a very valuable way. In what way does this threaten you? If it does not, why the harsh response?

 

 

There isn't any hostility Vort.  Asking for authoritative statements isn't hostility, not in the least.  Strange even to say such.  Where did I mention I was threatened? Asking for clarification, asking for prophetic statements is now somehow being threatened, really?

 

Harsh?  Wow...apparently you and I have a completely different definition of hostility and harsh. 

 

How a word is used, yes, it is very important, not irrelevant.  But from this post I can see you haven't read all my posts otherwise you would have read this statement, "however, I do agree with what Vort said.  More to ponder."

 

Imagine that, and asking TFP for authoritative statements that have further enlightened his understanding, which I could read and then ponder further, isn't hostility, and I am surprised you see this as hostility, the feeling of being threatened, and harsh.  

Edited January 22, 2016 by Anddenex

[Vort]

Precisely, with the caveat of "it is obvious."

 

Not to me.

[zil]

Anddenex, you're not alone, FWIW.  I tend to think as you do.  Vort's description in #55 of the difference between agency and stewardship is how I've always thought of them.  I think of agency as an inherent part of an individual, something which cannot be separated from them.  I think of stewardship as an assignment with some duration attached to it - it may or may not (seem to) last eternity.

 

Further, when I think of agency, I am an agent unto myself - I represent myself (and I'm the one who gets all the consequences of the choices my agent - me - makes).  When I think of stewardship, however, I think I am representing someone else.  When I act in my calling at church, I am representing the Lord, for example.  I'll have to ponder a while longer to determine whether I think stewardships always involve representing someone else, sometimes, mostly, or whatever; but my initial thought is that I'm carrying out an assignment given by someone else and am therefore representing them.  (I can understand the idea that mere existence - at least as a spirit child of God, and then as a mortal - is a stewardship, but I need to ponder that further - as existence is another of those things which cannot be separated from the individual.  But if we call mere existence a stewardship, it does indeed become more like agency - though I still see a distinction.)

 

I can certainly understand the tight linking of the two, and how pondering that relation can provide understanding which can be used to improve one's handling of either / both.  And I certainly see a fair amount here to ponder - both what's been said and what I have thought in response.

 

Perhaps it comes down to whether you prefer the parts of your dinner to be kept separate from each other or whether you like to mix them all up into an ad hoc casserole.

[The Folk Prophet]

 

 

Precisely, with the caveat of "it is obvious."  Something more than just a thought.  Yes, prophetic statements are important, and not beside the point, which is why I asked for scripture, words of leaders, or prophetic statements that would highlight.  I didn't say "exact."  

 

 

There isn't any hostility Vort.  Asking for authoritative statements isn't hostility, not in the least.  Strange even to say such.  Where did I mention I was threatened? Asking for clarification, asking for prophetic statements is now somehow being threatened, really?

 

Harsh?  Wow...apparently you and I have a completely different definition of hostility and harsh. 

 

How a word is used, yes, it is very important, not irrelevant.  But from this post I can see you haven't read all my posts otherwise you would have read this statement, "however, I do agree with what Vort said.  More to ponder."

 

Imagine that, and asking TFP for authoritative statements that have further enlightened his understanding, which I could read and then ponder further, isn't hostility, and I am surprised you see this as hostility, the feeling of being threatened, and harsh.  

 

 

Vort may have overstated things with his wording (hostility), but there is a definite tone of "prove it" to your reply (particularly, a "prove it with a quote -- logic and reasoning doesn't count") vibe. (Edit: Which I will grant, would make sense if it were more of a contrary idea that was against the church or potentially harmful otherwise...but...)

 

I'm not really interested in proving it. I suppose I might be able to put together solid trail of thought by way of quotes and scriptures*...but I'm not sure it would prove anything. Frankly, I don't particularly care that much if anyone sees it this way or not. I think it obvious. If others do not, oh well (hence the repeated *shrug*).

 

* Edit: I really don't have the time to put together that kind of research though. Otherwise I might give it a shot. Maybe I'll get to something at some point.

Edited January 22, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

In the last response you specified one requires the other,

 

You misunderstood. I was not meaning to say that agency requires stewardship and vice versa. I was meaning that the core element we speak of in stewardship (begin given something) requires the core element we speak of in agency to be true stewardship, and vice versa. My point was not that they require each other, but that both require three things: 1 given something 2 ability to choose how to interact with said thing 3 accountability for the choices made.

 

Let me quote myself and clarify with boldness and [inserts]:

 

Agency is given us. Stewardship is given us. They are the same principles approached from different angles. Most people focus on the things we're given with stewardship and the choices we make with agency, but they [meaning stewardship and agency] both require the other [meaning the things we're given and/or the choises we make] as well. We are not stewards without choices to make concerning what we have been given and we have no agency if we have nothing given us to make choices concerning. [Note that this last sentence stated just this]

 

If the same how then do they require each other?  

 

Addressed?

 

They do not require each other. They require the same elements.

 

That being said, it could be phrased that they require each other if one wanted to phrase it that way. That is beyond my point, as I think Vort has addressed.

 

Also, I don't accept personal interpretation

 

I'm okay with that. It is, honestly, only to your loss, in my opinion. The insight here is only meant as a benefit to broadening understanding of the two notions. If you reject them I don't see much value in that. But I don't see much harm either -- for you. (By this I mean that you, at least, seem to accept that accountability is a key component of agency, which is the biggest misunderstanding that this idea might usefully address.)

 

I also pointed out how we will say "Aaronic/Melchizedek Priesthood Stewardships" and how we have never read or heard the term "Aaronic Priesthood Agency" (agency as in the freedom we have to choose, not an agency as in an organization which is the same as stewardship). If the same they should be interchangeable; although, if someone specified the latter (or we have family agency, children agency, calling agency,...)  people would do as you have suggest "*shrug*" which is what I have been doing -- shrugging, and think what "children agency"?  If the same, they should then be interchangeable.  They do not appear to be such.

 

I am fully aware that the usage of the words is not interchangeable in all instances. But the core principles are the same.

[LeSellers]

Agency: the God-given (and possibly inherent) right to choose for oneself among competing actions. Agency began, as near as I can tell, prior to our being "born" into the pre-mortal existence with Father and Mother, it will extend beyond eternity.

Stewardship: A God-given (and possibly inherent) responsibility regarding oneself, ones' family, or others, it resembles ownership in that the steward may do as he chooses (using his agency), but he has an accountability to the true owner (either God or the other person(s)) for the results of his actions. One must be called to a stewardship, either by a Priesthood leader or by assuming the responsibility oneself, as in becoming a spouse or having children. Our stewardships over ourselves are eternal, but for all others, there was/is a beginning. Some, like parenthood, are eternal; some, like a bishop's, are temporary

The two things share some characteristics, but differ in some respects. Agency is always about personal choices, even when acting as a steward. It is a right. Except for the stewardship over oneself, all stewardships result from a calling (even parenthood and being a spouse).

they are not the same thing irrespective of their common elements.

I understand the arguments on the other side. I simply do not accept them.

Lehi

[zil]

You misunderstood. I was not meaning to say that agency requires stewardship and vice versa. I was meaning that the core element we speak of in stewardship (begin given something) requires the core element we speak of in agency to be true stewardship, and vice versa. My point was not that they require each other, but that both require three things: 1 given something 2 ability to choose how to interact with said thing 3 accountability for the choices made.

 

FWIW, I did not get this from the first explanation, but this explanation is much clearer.  So yes, what you were trying to communicate was misunderstood (by me, at least - Anddenex will have to speak for himself).  Ah, the joys of asynchronous, remote communication - it takes longer to get to understanding. :)

[Vort]

Vort may have overstated things with his wording (hostility), but there is a definite tone of "prove it" to your reply (particularly, a "prove it with a quote -- logic and reasoning doesn't count") vibe.

 

I may have perceived hostility where none was present. If that's so, I apologize, Anddenex.

[The Folk Prophet]

I think there are a few problems. First, there is conflict in how the church has traditionally used the terms, which cannot be denied is beyond synonymous, and the principles behind the two which render them "the same" -- which might be too constricted a way to express it. I'm okay with backing off on the literal "the same"-ness of it all.

 

edit: Garr...the above paragraph is convoluted. Hopefully it makes sense.

 

We can certainly see usage of the word stewardship in ways where "agency" would not be common. Particularly this comes into play with the use of the word as it relates to temporary assignments. In those regards, I would say, that stewardship is being used as a specific instance as compared to a broad idea.

 

It would be like talking about "a responsibility vs. talking about "responsibility".

 

"A responsibility" is a very specific, assigned thing. "Responsibility" is a principle. The two cannot be used interchangeably in all cases, but we always must exercise responsibility within a responsibility. In this case (and many other examples) the difference is defined by a conditioner -- the word "a". With stewardship the "a" is often implied. But the idea remains. "A stewardship" is different (in the specificity of it's application) than "stewardship". I am talking about the latter. And we cannot, in every case, replace the words (agency/stewardship) because there is no proper usage of "an agency" in common usage. So stating that stewardship and agency are the same does not equate to the same thing as "a stewardship" being equivalent to agency. That doesn't work from a language perspective, and is trying to compare a principle to an instantiation.

Edited January 22, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

I'd add a fourth: Stewardship.

What applies to one person, family or other entity may not apply to another.

Lehi

 

You know what...after going back and looking at how this all started, I realize that, unquestionably, by adding "stewardship", you are clearly talking about "a stewardship" (as per my previous post), which does, indeed make for a fourth point that is separate from agency. So as to the topic of the thread, I was mistaken.

 

As to the broad principles I maintain my view.

 

My apologies.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

It looks like my response got lost with the recent forum changes. But since I consider this a very important topic I'll try to summarize it here.

First, this talk and this New Era article should be required reading:
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1971/04/the-lords-people-receive-revelation?lang=eng
https://www.lds.org/new-era/1980/06/how-to-get-personal-revelation?lang=eng

A quote from one of them:
"Because he operates on principles of eternal, universal, and never-deviating law, any individual who abides the law that entitles him to get revelation can know exactly and precisely what President Kimball knows, can entertain angels just as well as Joseph Smith entertained them, and can be in tune in full measure with all of the things of the Spirit."

And another quote:
"Now I say that we are entitled to revelation. I say that every member of the Church, independent and irrespective of any position that he may hold, is entitled to get revelation from the Holy Ghost; he is entitled to entertain angels; he is entitled to view the visions of eternity; and if we would like to go the full measure, he is entitled to see God the same way that any prophet in literal and actual reality has seen the face of Deity."

And my two bits:
If you are not entertaining angels and visions of eternity, it is more likely you and not God that is preventing you from having that experience. By this I mean something akin to "It's not that I believe that God can't show me these visions, but I believe He won't because I'm not good enough." And we tend to have a list of excuses:

• I'm not worthy because of XYZ sin or discretion
• I'm not spiritual enough
• There's no purpose or reason for me to have this experience (i.e. it's not expedient )
• It's not the Lord's time for me to have this experience
• Just because the Lord promises it doesn't mean it will happen in this life

As long as those reasons come from us and not from the Spirit, we are holding ourselves back and limiting the influence of God in our lives. All that is really required of us to have the grand visions and visitations and to see the face of God is repentance. The formula is clearly laid out in those links I shared. 

As TFP pointed out - this lack of faith in ourselves circles back to a lack of faith in God: God has clearly and repeatedly promised us these blessings. If we don't believe that we can receive them, then we are disbelieving the God's promises and the Atonement which enables us to receive them.

There, I hope that answers the OP's question  though I think the way I'd put it the first time was probably better worded....

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Oh look at that, double posting forums again

Edited February 11, 2016 by puf_the_majic_dragon

[Blackmarch]

On 1/12/2016 at 4:58 AM, Sunday21 said:

Reading 1 nephi, nephi seems to suggest to his older brother that it might be possible for them to have their own visionary experience. I assume that lamen and Lemuel would have to improve their behaviour and pray sincerely. Is this part of Mormonism? Do rank and file church members have such experiences? Is this something to aspire to?

I've met individuals who have had visions, heard voices, got visited by angels, and other sacred experiences. yes such things do occur. I have no idea as to the frequency of such a specific vision tho.