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

[Anddenex]

I appreciate your thoughtful response – especially your experience.  I would ask a question; if you would respond?  Should you receive a dream or vision that conflicts with the dreams or visions of others – not those that hold covenant keys (priesthood leaders) but devout seekers like yourself that claim to have also sought, knocked and asked – do you seek more or another witness or perhaps different symbolism? (See Genesis 41: 25 & 32  “I think”).

 

If I were to have a dream that conflicted with the dream or vision of another seeker of truth there are a couple of principles I would first ponder:

 

1) Agency

2) Truth within both dreams (known truth that can be affirmed through cannon scripture, and words of the prophets)

3) Recognizing there is more to learn

 

If both dreams are given by God, then I do not believe they would conflict with each other.  They may have the appearance of conflicting, but through further study I believe the truths would be shown to actually compliment.  In this case I would then pray for further understanding.  If that further understanding was delivered through pure intelligence flowing through my heart and mind, great.  If the Lord provided another dream, great. If through the avenue of let us say General Conference, I was enlightened, great.  

[Traveler]

If I were to have a dream that conflicted with the dream or vision of another seeker of truth there are a couple of principles I would first ponder:

 

1) Agency

2) Truth within both dreams (known truth that can be affirmed through cannon scripture, and words of the prophets)

3) Recognizing there is more to learn

 

If both dreams are given by God, then I do not believe they would conflict with each other.  They may have the appearance of conflicting, but through further study I believe the truths would be shown to actually compliment.  In this case I would then pray for further understanding.  If that further understanding was delivered through pure intelligence flowing through my heart and mind, great.  If the Lord provided another dream, great. If through the avenue of let us say General Conference, I was enlightened, great.  

 

 

Anddenex,

 

I asked this question because like you I had a vision/dream just before coming home from my mission.  This revelation was in response to things that are hard to explain and though related to things I was searching for – it was not associated to what I thought I was asking.  In short it was about the spirit world in the next life and contradicts just about every “Near death experience” I have encountered.  Mine was not a NDE.  

 

I did not understand or appreciate my experience as to the most important parts for several years afterwards and in essence it falls more in line with scripture and published experiences by general authorities than what is generally passed around the religious crowd.  Seldom do I express anything associated with this experience because it seems to tick a lot of religious types off – even within the LDS community.  But I would put forward two concepts - #1. The priesthood (especially Melchizedek) is far more important than most realize or talk about.  #2. What is going on in the spirit world is also far more important than most realize or talk about – dare I say; perhaps even more important than what is taking place here in mortality. 

[LeSellers]

If I were to have a dream that conflicted with the dream or vision of another seeker of truth there are a couple of principles I would first ponder:

 

1) Agency

2) Truth within both dreams (known truth that can be affirmed through cannon scripture, and words of the prophets)

3) Recognizing there is more to learn

I'd add a fourth: Stewardship.

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

Lehi

[Traveler]

I'd add a fourth: Stewardship.

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

Lehi

It does seem to me that divine revelation in the form of visions or dreams are overly glamorized in that, for the most part, such revelations are most likely to be given more as a warning and call to repentance than nifty information or indication of some kind of spiritual or otherwise superiority.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

I'd add a fourth: Stewardship.

Agency and stewardship are the same thing.

[LeSellers]

Agency and stewardship are the same thing.

Disagree.

Agency is the ability to react to stimuli without constraints.

Stewardship is one's responsibility for and authority in regards to others.

Lehi

[Guest]

Well, if we're going to pick nits, I'd say that agency is not "reaction" to stimuli.  I'm invoking Dr. Frankl.  I could be persuaded that reaction is a part of agency.  But proper agency is exercised in response rather than reaction as logotherapy would dictate.

[LeSellers]

Well, if we're going to pick nits, I'd say that agency is not "reaction" to stimuli.  I'm invoking Dr. Frankl.  I could be persuaded that reaction is a part of agency.  But proper agency is exercised in response rather than reaction as logotherapy would dictate.

Which nits did I pick?

Agency and stewardship are not the same thing. If they are the same thing, how in the world are they the same?

Lehi

[Guest]

Well, for one thing, you're asking what nits you picked.

[LeSellers]

Well, for one thing, you're asking what nits you picked.

Not as helpful as one might hope.

Lehi

[Traveler]

Which nits did I pick?

Agency and stewardship are not the same thing. If they are the same thing, how in the world are they the same?

Lehi

 

I think I am with the camp that agency and stewardship are indeed very similar.  Both are granted by a higher authority and are not a power that comes from within.  Also both grant and encourage individual initiative.  Both go beyond the intellectual concept of simple choice into the realm of controlled structured disciplined behavior in order to continue and be sustainable.

[Anddenex]

I would like to understand the reasons why some believe stewardship and agency are the same.  I am inline with the thoughts from LeSellers.

 

Agency is a gift from God given to all his sons and daughters otherwise there would be no God.

 

How we use our agency often will determine our stewardships.  Stewardships are what we have been given by God that we use our agency to magnify.

 

The office and calling of a Bishop is a stewardship.  How the bishop uses his agency will determine the honoring of his stewardship, as with the stewardship of father and mother, brother and sister, etc...

 

I am unable to comprehend how they are the "same." 

[The Folk Prophet]

Agency is the ability to react to stimuli without constraints.

 

Nope. That's freedom.

[The Folk Prophet]

I would like to understand the reasons why some believe stewardship and agency are the same.  I am inline with the thoughts from LeSellers.

 

Agency is a gift from God given to all his sons and daughters otherwise there would be no God.

 

How we use our agency often will determine our stewardships.  Stewardships are what we have been given by God that we use our agency to magnify.

 

The office and calling of a Bishop is a stewardship.  How the bishop uses his agency will determine the honoring of his stewardship, as with the stewardship of father and mother, brother and sister, etc...

 

I am unable to comprehend how they are the "same." 

 

Agency is not freedom. It is, simply put, the right we have to stand for ourselves according to our choices. Agency is choice and accountability.

 

Stewardship is also choice and accountability. We have the right to choose what to do with the stewardship given to us, and we are accountable for what we do with it.

 

I'm not sure how it is not plainly and blatantly obvious that these are the same.

 

In any given stewardship, whether narrowly or broadly defined, we are accountable for the choices we make therein.

 

We are only free to choose in the capacity that we have been given to choose. We cannot, for example, choose to fly like Superman, etc. (A more realistic example would be the choice to be smarter or taller...and even better, the fact that sometimes, oft times even, we have freedoms removed by a variety of things.) But within the choices we can make, we are responsible for those choices. This is agency. This is stewardship. Same same.

Edited January 21, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[Anddenex]

Agency is the not freedom. It is, simply put, the right we have to stand for ourselves according to our choices. Agency is choice and accountability.

 

Stewardship is also choice and accountability. We have the right to choose what to do with the stewardship given to us, and we are accountable for what we do with it.

 

I'm not sure how it is not plainly and blatantly obvious that these are the same.

 

In any given stewardship, whether narrowly or broadly defined, we are accountable for the choices we make therein.

 

We are only free to choose in the capacity that we have been given to choose. We cannot, for example, choose to fly like Superman, etc. (A more realistic example would be the choice to be smarter or taller...and even better, the fact that sometimes, oft times even, we have freedoms removed by a variety of things.) But within the choices we can make, we are responsible for those choices. This is agency. This is stewardship. Same same.

 

Thank you.  I am still unable to recognize how they are the same from what has been given.  Agency is our "ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves." We are thus "free to choose" eternal life or captivity.

 

Stewardship is our "responsibility to administer or attend to the assignments one receives in a Church calling, or to take care of those things with which we are blessed from God, including families, neighbors, and even temporal blessings."

 

We can choose to act (agency) responsibly in our stewardships, or we can choose to act irresponsibly in our stewardships.  In other words one can choose (agency) to ignore a stewardship, if so, then how could they be the same.  It appears they are being conflated.  

 

We have our Aaronic and Melchizedek stewardships, but I have never heard any reference to the notion that we would have Aaronic and Melchizedek agencies.  Agency is the same for the Aaronic priesthood holder as it is for the Melchizedek priesthood holder, but the stewardships are different.  

 

Other given definitions of stewardship, "A steward is a person [agency isn't a person] who has been given responsibility for someone else or for something belonging to someone else. President W. Kimball defined a stewardship in the church: "[it] is a sacred spiritual or temporal trust for which there is accountability."

 

Here are three basic principles of Stewardships in the Lord's Kingdom:

1) A steward is entrusted with something that belongs to the Lord

2) A steward exercises agency in caring for his stewardship

3) A steward is accountable for his stewardship

 

Elder D. Todd Christofferson mentioned there are three elements of moral agency, our ability and privilege to choose to act:

1) Alternatives among which to choose (2 Nephi 2: 11)

2) We must know what the alternatives are

3) The freedom to make choices....Freedom of choice is the freedom to obey or disobey existing laws -- not the freedom to alter their consequences.

 

The elements of what a stewardship is and what moral agency is are not the same.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Anddenex

[The Folk Prophet]

Thank you.  I am still unable to recognize how they are the same from what has been given.  

 

*Shrug*

 

If you can't recognize it, you can't recognize it. Seems plain to me.

 

The "elements" of agency you are giving are incomplete, however. Agency is not agency without accountability.

[Guest]

All pigs exist.  All people exist.  Therefore all pigs are people.

[The Folk Prophet]

All pigs exist.  All people exist.  Therefore all pigs are people.

 

Sure. Funny.

 

Except this is more like looking at duties vs. responsibilities.

 

It's not a logically fallacy.

 

A steward is someone who makes decisions and is responsible for something.

 

An agent is someone who makes decisions and is responsible for something.

 

It's really not a big leap.

 

Perhaps it would be easier if the words were stewardship and agentship. Or agency and...uh...stewardcy??? 

Edited January 21, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[Anddenex]

Agency and stewardship are the same thing.

 

 

This was the statement.  Not agent and steward.  Agency and stewardship aren't the same thing. A four year old still has agency without having any stewardship. 

 

Edit: Agency is exercised to honor stewardships.  Once cannot exercise stewardships in order to honor agency.  

Edited January 21, 2016 by Anddenex

[Traveler]

Thank you.  I am still unable to recognize how they are the same from what has been given.  Agency is our "ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves." We are thus "free to choose" eternal life or captivity.

 

Stewardship is our "responsibility to administer or attend to the assignments one receives in a Church calling, or to take care of those things with which we are blessed from God, including families, neighbors, and even temporal blessings."

 

We can choose to act (agency) responsibly in our stewardships, or we can choose to act irresponsibly in our stewardships.  In other words one can choose (agency) to ignore a stewardship, if so, then how could they be the same.  It appears they are being conflated.  

 

We have our Aaronic and Melchizedek stewardships, but I have never heard any reference to the notion that we would have Aaronic and Melchizedek agencies.  Agency is the same for the Aaronic priesthood holder as it is for the Melchizedek priesthood holder, but the stewardships are different.  

 

Other given definitions of stewardship, "A steward is a person [agency isn't a person] who has been given responsibility for someone else or for something belonging to someone else. President W. Kimball defined a stewardship in the church: "[it] is a sacred spiritual or temporal trust for which there is accountability."

 

Here are three basic principles of Stewardships in the Lord's Kingdom:

1) A steward is entrusted with something that belongs to the Lord

2) A steward exercises agency in caring for his stewardship

3) A steward is accountable for his stewardship

 

Elder D. Todd Christofferson mentioned there are three elements of moral agency, our ability and privilege to choose to act:

1) Alternatives among which to choose (2 Nephi 2: 11)

2) We must know what the alternatives are

3) The freedom to make choices....Freedom of choice is the freedom to obey or disobey existing laws -- not the freedom to alter their consequences.

 

The elements of what a stewardship is and what moral agency is are not the same.

 

Often the problem is in understanding definitions of terms.  When we explorer a particular term we find that there are two very important considerations.  First is the intent and second is extent of definition.   The intent is a very narrow definition that the user intends to have understood for a specific purpose and circumstance.  The extent of definition is every possible understanding a term can but used to portray.

 

One mistake you, Anddenex are making, is specific to this statement of yours "Other given definitions of stewardship, "A steward is a person [agency isn't a person].""  The mistake you are making is that term stewardship is not a person but the term steward is a person.  Likewise agency is not a person but an agent is a person.  Thus the similarities are between stewardship and agency on a conceptual basis and on a person basis the similarities are between steward and agent. 

 

Every "agent" is given a stewardship and that stewardship is called agency.  The essence of agency and stewardship is assignment or something that is done according to the particular task that has been given.  If you are called into a court of law it would be wise for you to heir an agent to represent you.  That agent is called a lawyer.  And while that lawyer is acting as your agent - they are given a specific stewardship where by they can act in your behalf.  This stewardship or agency allows your lawyer to say things before the court to represent you - but is likely limited and does not allow them to represent you at your bank - thus he cannot sign your checks and cash them. 

 

If you have a will for when you die then there will be an agent that represents you after you die - their agency and stewardship is appointed by your will and gives them power over your estate according to the specifications you have made - in other words your legal agent is given a stewardship to deal with your estate.  This agent is thus called the executor of the estate.

 

In scripture we are told that those that exercise their agency as given them by G-d for their own benefit or purpose are "agents unto themselves".  But we are also given understanding that being an agent unto one's self is a bit of a misnomer because in essence we are either agents of good (G-d) or agents of evil (Satan).   Clearly there are differences between between being a agent of G-d and an agent of Satan.  Thus we act in our agency as appointed by G-d or Satan.  For me the understanding of the war in heaven was not because Satan wanted to do away with agency but rather Satan opposed the Father and wanted to take away the agency given to man by the Father and make man agents to him (Satan)- to do what he appointed to them in the stewardship he allowed.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Traveler

[Traveler]

 

.....

 

Edit: Agency is exercised to honor stewardships.  Once cannot exercise stewardships in order to honor agency.  

 

 

Really? You do not have an insurance agent that exercise a stewardship which bind the insurance company to pay for damages you cause while using you automobile?

[The Folk Prophet]

 

This was the statement.  Not agent and steward.  Agency and stewardship aren't the same thing. 

 

I'm really quite confused at how you aren't able to make the connection here. Oh well.

 

A four year old still has agency 

 

Disagree. I'll say it again. There is no agency without accountability.

 

 Once cannot exercise stewardships in order to honor agency.  

 

Very much disagree. That would be exactly how one honors agency.

[Guest]

Sure. Funny.

 

Except this is more like looking at duties vs. responsibilities.

 

It's not a logically fallacy.

 

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...

Edited January 21, 2016 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

Often the problem is in understanding definitions of terms.  When we explorer a particular term we find that there are two very important considerations.  First is the intent and second is extent of definition.   The intent is a very narrow definition that the user intends to have understood for a specific purpose and circumstance.  The extent of definition is every possible understanding a term can but used to portray.

 

One mistake you, Anddenex are making, is specific to this statement of yours "Other given definitions of stewardship, "A steward is a person [agency isn't a person].""  The mistake you are making is that term stewardship is not a person but the term steward is a person.  Likewise agency is not a person but an agent is a person.  Thus the similarities are between stewardship and agency on a conceptual basis and on a person basis the similarities are between steward and agent. 

 

Every "agent" is given a stewardship and that stewardship is called agency.  The essence of agency and stewardship is assignment or something that is done according to the particular task that has been given.  If you are called into a court of law it would be wise for you to heir an agent to represent you.  That agent is called a lawyer.  And while that lawyer is acting as your agent - they are given a specific stewardship where by they can act in your behalf.  This stewardship or agency allows your lawyer to say things before the court to represent you - but is likely limited and does not allow them to represent you at your bank - thus he cannot sign your checks and cash them. 

 

If you have a will for when you die then there will be an agent that represents you after you die - their agency and stewardship is appointed by your will and gives them power over your estate according to the specifications you have made - in other words your legal agent is given a stewardship to deal with your estate.  This agent is thus called the executor of the estate.

 

In scripture we are told that those that exercise their agency as given them by G-d for their own benefit or purpose are "agents unto themselves".  But we are also given understanding that being an agent unto one's self is a bit of a misnomer because in essence we are either agents of good (G-d) or agents of evil (Satan).   Clearly there are differences between between being a agent of G-d and an agent of Satan.  Thus we act in our agency as appointed by G-d or Satan.  For me the understanding of the war in heaven was not because Satan wanted to do away with agency but rather Satan opposed the Father and wanted to take away the agency given to man by the Father and make man agents to him (Satan)- to do what he appointed to them in the stewardship he allowed.

 

Traveler and I disagree somewhat on what it means to be an agent unto yourselves (and the reality of being able to do this), but at least he seems to understand what I'm saying.

[Vort]

I have never considered the idea that agency and stewardship are synonyms. This is food for thought, indeed. It's beyond dispute that an agent and a steward are similar ideas; in both cases, they are a person acting in an official capacity in behalf of another. I will have to mull this over. Thank you for the insight, TFP.