Light of truth - agency and free will - Deja vu

[Traveler]

I would, if I may, add some more thoughts about the light of truth and agency.  I am not sure what others are thinking in regards to free will and agency but it is my observation and belief that if we only take into account what happens after a person is born and that which occurs up to and including their death – I do not honestly think one can argue free will and agency – especially without some mitigating explanations.  I see too many exceptions, disruptions, mistakes and outside interferences preventing the argument that each individual in mortality has total and complete control (agency) of their lives and circumstances without any outside interferences beyond their control, altering outcomes or limiting their choices. 

 

It is not that I do not believe in agency and free will as a part of this life – just that I cannot find any sense in believing that choices we made before we were born really do not have far reaching (eternal) implications as well as implications in this life – and it would appear that my observations of defining agency based from birth alone does not make sense and stirred a great deal of controversy over the possibility that the vast majority of our choices and plausible destiny is mostly if not completely in place (known in every detail) before we were born.  

 

I have tried to reconcile that in the pre-existence we (including G-d) were ignorant of some or any details concerning our mortal life but I honestly cannot find any reason to support that notion.  It has been argued that we only knew generalities and that the plan of Salvation would be completely thwarted if the full truth was known.  I do not see how truth alters adversely our ability to exercise choice, free will or agency.  In fact it appears to me that the opposite is actually what the case is – the more truth we have the more choice, free will or agency has an actual chance of really occurring and being legitimate.  I had hoped that someone could provide something worth considering but mostly it seems I have only created enemies in my own religious circle of faith for asking questions relating to principles I cannot otherwise resolve. 

 

I have seen many holding on to the idea that we cannot control what happens to us in this life – that the only control we have is how we react to things that happen to us.  This is hardly the definition of freewill, agency or choice as I understand such as an eternal principle.   Despite all the contrary claims and arguments, I remain convinced that knowledge is a primary and necessary element of freedom.  I certainly do not believe that ignorance has any part in the kind of agency that G-d exercises for himself or the kind of agency we will or should exercise in order to become like him or one with him.

 

The only way that I can see that we can justify that we have free will and agency in this life is if this life is dependent on our expression of our agency and free will based in choices me made before we were born – that we chose our life and we played a part in planning it all out or at least we agreed to all the important and relevant details of our experience – in what the scriptures call the full light of truth.  If someone planned it out for us important elements of our destiny without our input and choice – I do not think what is going on can honestly be argued as our choice, free will or agency considering only this life. 

 

The idea that all of us in the pre-existence knew the all the truth that G-d knew makes so much more sense to me.  It makes sense as to why Satan and his followers would rebel and be cast out – and why they do not like the truth – why they hate truth and are an enemy to it and prefer lies (prefer darkness to light).  In fact I do not believe anyone can obtain “outer darkness” without making such a decision without the full light of truth.  I believe Satan is the arc enemy of both truth and agency because he cannot oppose one without being in opposition to the other (not for himself but allowing truth or agency to others).  Thus I do not believe that there can be agency without truth nor can there be truth without agency.  And I cannot believe that anyone can decide to be Celestial or hope or strive for such a thing – or to be kept eternally from such without knowledge of what they are rejecting or working to obtain.     I do not believe it is possible to live a law, or even desire a law in ignorance.   It is my understand that in order to achieve and obtain blessings we must be obedient to the principles that govern that blessing – and I do not believe we can be obedient to things we do not know of or understand.

 

It is my belief that the reason we can repent in our fallen state is because we are not sinning against the full light of truth.  Which means to me – we really do not know what we are doing.  Which BTW is why Jesus Christ said that forgiveness should be granted.  My point being – if we know what we are doing we are making a real choice and exercising our free will and agency – for which there can be no forgiveness if and when we choose sin and evil by exercising our free will and agency in the full light of truth – that we cannot be forgiven.

 

There is also an idea presented that if we know the outcome – that we will become less engaged.  I disagree – it has been my experience and understanding that the better I understand my contribution the more I am engaged and desirous I am in being a part – It is when I have doubts that I matter or that I do not have input of consequence that I become disconnected or disengaged.  When I know my input matters that I become engaged and involved.

 

I also find that the connection of knowledge and agency playing out in just about all (if not all) gospel doctrines, covenants and definitions.  That all things will become connected (tightly coupled in scientific lingo) and that we will better understand the Plan of Salvation, revelation and our relationship to G-d when we understand that we have and play a critical part – that we should “awake” and remember who we are and what me made covenant to do.   That the more we act in faith the more we will come to remember and understand that we did once know.  I can give some many examples – or if you like – you can simply call it deja vu.

 

The Traveler

Edited March 21, 2016 by Traveler

[priesthoodpower]

I like your way of thinking, very complex and thought provoking. The Hindu religion could have some answers for you, reincarnation. My wife told me that she feels deeply impressed that her marriage to me is a sort of punishment for her previous life ..and through reincarnation she has the opportunity to better her next life by performing well in this life. Multiple chances of living on this earth would surely offer various situations at free will and agency opportunities.

 

 

[Anddenex]

In order to try to be concise in my response I will highlight principles I read being taught. If I have misunderstood, then clarify the main principle.

1) All sons and daughters of God have complete control of their circumstance and choice.

2) Knowledge is requisite for us to have complete agency, and this knowledge encompasses the three pillars of eternity, truth (creation, fall, and atonement)

3) All blessing are predicated upon a specific law, and when we obtain a blessing it is because we obeyed a predicated law

4) Our agency and accountability, due to the fall, is largely due to a lack of knowledge (truth), we do not have full light of truth

5) Through our agency, our individual choices, we gain knowledge not only of eternal truths, we gain knowledge of who we were/are.

Principle #1: All sons and daughters of God have complete control of their circumstance and choice.

Let me begin with a caveat, as I may have misunderstood the first paragraph, particularly the last sentence, by which the first principle and my thoughts are rooted. Our agency, moral, is a gift for us to act and not to be acted upon (2 Nephi 2: 26). When an experience offers opposition, an enticement from one source in comparison to another source is provided, and I am then able to make a choice according to my knowledge of the opposites. Are all my experiences in life in my control?  Experience, empirical, would tell me no. I do have control over my thoughts, my words, and my deeds, but I do not have control over my life circumstances. The only way I could have complete control over circumstance would be if I had control over other people's agency -- thus ending God's desire for agency. The need for random, or uncontrolled circumstance, appears to be a necessity for agency to exist.

If I controlled all my circumstances, in totality, how then might I truly be tried? Was not Satan's plan (I know some people don't like to call it a plan) to control our lives such that all who lived would be saved? Chaos, randomness, appears needed for order to exist, and in the randomness (good and evil) of circumstance righteousness is brought to pass -- segues into the next principle.

Principle #2: Knowledge is requisite for us to have complete agency, and this knowledge encompasses the three pillars of truth (premarital, mortal, and glory)

This principle is one element, doctrine, that separates us from every other Christian denomination, and other religions too. In order for our agency to be complete we must have knowledge of truth (D&C 50: 24), and truth is "knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" (D&C 93:24). Abraham appeared to understand the correlation between agency, knowledge, and blessings.  In the Pearl of Great Price we read this prophetic statement of truth (knowledge), "finding there was happiness and peace and rest for me I sought for the blessings of the fathers...having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness" (Abraham 1: 2). Abraham would have known Adam's teaching from his father.  He would have known who Adam was (creation), what he accomplished in life (fall), and who he would become and what he would still do (A general council of dispensations -- atonement).

Would it be better said that our agency is "whole" rather than complete? In order to be saved, I must have knowledge as we can not be saved in ignorance (D&C 131: 6). My knowledge, which can only be obtained through agency (a doer of the word rather than just a hearer), must be sufficient then to be saved -- whole -- rather than complete. Our understanding of the creation leads us to make different choices during the fall, which ultimately determines the glory I obtain through Christ. The knowledge of Christ's role -- creation, fall, and atonement -- and my love will determine the glory I obtain (the inheritance I receive). Laws in the creation, laws of the fall, and laws of the atonement lead us to the third principle, and the reason why I love the verse Moses 6:60, almost to a religious hobby (but it isn't, I just love this verse and finally understood why my mission president shared this with me).

I openly do not agree that God's knowledge is limited as specified here, "I have tried to reconcile that in the pre-existence we (including G-d) were ignorant of some or any details concerning our mortal life but I honestly cannot find any reason to support that notion." I have found nothing specifying that God's knowledge is limited. If we put limits on his knowledge then how can we place full trust in his power to save?

Principle #3: All blessing are predicated upon a specific law, and when we obtain a blessing it is because we obeyed a predicated law

This is a true principle (D&C 130: 18-21). In the Church, i believe, we have done ourselves a major disservice to younger generations through "hopeful" statements of exaltation. All to often exaltation is expressed as an inheritance out of our control, when exaltation is wholly in our control. The control is our thoughts, our deeds, and words. Exaltation is a matter of desire, like principle #2 Abraham's choices, his faith, his hope, and his charity.  We all to often say, "I hope I will be exalted," rather than I know I will be exalted because I will control my thoughts; I will control my words; and I will control my deeds...and should I sin I will repent.  I don't think much more needs to be said then, I agree, whole heartedly in this principle which needs to be expressed more in our public meetings (and privately in our hearts).

Principle #4: Our agency and accountability, due to the fall, is largely due to a lack of knowledge (truth), we do not have full light of truth

This principle I completely agree with. I have often pondered the Lord's words to Joseph Smith, "little ones" (D&C 121: 19, D&C 133:58), and "little children" (D&C 61:36).  I remember when I read the second verse defining us as little children and wondering why the Lord would call us children. He refers to us as little children because we are little children in correlation with knowledge.  Like little children, look at all the sons and daughters of God who throw tantrums (like 3 year olds) when the Church doesn't do something they agree with. They believe their tantrums (millennials) and their fits (gnash of teeth) will change God's will -- for good -- and like little children when a parent decides to give in and allow natural consequences to occur -- they reap what they sow -- and think they have won a great battle. Yes, our current state as little children, little ones, is why we can be exalted through the blood of Christ, and is why I believe blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is one sin that is unforgivable -- obtaining "adult" knowledge and then forsaking it.

Principle #5: Through our agency, our individual choices, we gain knowledge not only of eternal truths, we gain knowledge of who we were/are.

Our history, as LDS, speaks of a quote from Joseph Smith specifying that he could tell people who he was in the pre-existence (creation). This knowledge could have only been obtained if he, like Abraham, pursued a course of righteous and then obtained knowledge -- an example set by Adam and other faithful patriarchs.

As to my studies, the purpose of knowledge, is to bring us back into the presence of God (during the fall) as Enoch was able to do with his city.  Adam desired this for his posterity. Noah the same, and all other faithful patriarchs who obtained blessings through predicated laws, not fate, but by sheer will, desire, and choice -- God's will.  

I assume then, how much is God's will in our control? I think none, which is why we move forward with faith.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2016 by Anddenex

[The Folk Prophet]

Yes the philosphies of men. Very intriguing.... Of course until one realizes that they are counter to the truths God has proclaimed himself.

Not only are you denying that we have agency, @Traveler, something God has proclaimed that we do, indeed have, again and again by His prophets, but you're denying, entirely, the need for faith.

[The Folk Prophet]

@Anddenex when I read your response it seems to have very little correlation to the OP. Either you or I are misunderstanding something in what Traveler is saying.

[Guest]

On 3/21/2016 at 11:18 AM, Traveler said:

1.  ...I see too many exceptions, disruptions ... altering outcomes or limiting their choices. 
2. ...I cannot find any sense in believing that choices we made before we were born really do not have far reaching (eternal) implications...
3. I have tried to reconcile that in the pre-existence we (including G-d) were ignorant of some or any details concerning our mortal life. 
4.  It has been argued that we only knew generalities and that the plan of Salvation would be completely thwarted if the full truth was known.
5. ...the more truth we have the more choice, free will or agency has an actual chance of really occurring and being legitimate.  
6. ...the idea that we cannot control what happens to us ... is hardly the definition of freewill, agency or choice as I understand such as an eternal principle.
7. I certainly do not believe that ignorance has any part in the kind of agency that G-d exercises for himself or the kind of agency we will or should exercise in order to become like him or one with him.
8. ...this life is dependent on our expression of our agency based in choices ... before we were born.  If someone planned it out for us ... without our input and choice... (it is not free will). 
9. (We) in the pre-existence knew the all the truth. (Satan and 1/3 rebel)...
10. ...we really do not know what we are doing.  Which BTW is why Jesus Christ said that forgiveness should be granted.  My point being – if we know what we are doing we are making a real choice and exercising our free will and agency – for which there can be no forgiveness if and when we choose sin and evil by exercising our free will and agency in the full light of truth – that we cannot be forgiven.
11. ...the better I understand my contribution the more I am engaged and desirous I am in being a part...
12. ... that we should “awake” and remember who we are and what me made covenant to do (and experience) deja vu.

I wanted a shorter reference than your quite lengthy OP. I tried to only cut out the exposition and keep the primary points of each paragraph.  I did read the exposition.

1. There is a difference between responding and reacting.  To act and be acted upon.  Animals react.  Only humans can respond. When humans react, they are only being animals -- the natural man.  It is when we access the power  of agency that we can actually exercise it and truly respond as man was meant to.
2. Of course they did.  The simple choice of accepting our second estate has eternal consequences.  But you went further.
3. Who ever said God was ignorant of anything?  He's all-knowing.  Then again, I heard a brother in Sunday School once say (in reference to an Old Testament passage) that God didn't know how to be a good father and He "had to learn just like we do".  I very vocally dissented to that comment.  As for us, I have a hard time believing we knew all our life's path.
4. Yes, I'd say generalities. Absolutely.  Thwarted?  I believe in many reasons we now have the veil.  As for before birth, I don't see anything about laying out our lives in a step-by-step pattern.  You even argued against that later on.  So, I don't know what your position on this actually is.  In fact, I'd believe that laying it out step-by-step would be the antithesis of free agency.
5. Yup.  100% agree on that one.
6. How?  To believe the converse would mean we take others' agency from them.  If I'm responsible for a crimminal robbing my home, then they are not at fault?  Then, they shouldn't be punished for it.
7. I agree with the words as I've edited.  But I get the impression that means something different to you than it does to me.
8. I have a separate theory on that which I will expound at length.
9. Your logic about the 1/3 seems solid.  That still doesn't mean it is the truth.
10. We do not know what we are doing.  The rest of this line item doesn't allow for the gradations in intelligence which we are given.  As written, you seem to be saying that unless we have a perfect knowledge, we don't really have agency at all.  But this is at odds with the very conditions of this life -- namely, we'd have a veil; and we'd have agency.
11. That's cool.  But what if you KNEW that no matter what you did, nothing would change?  Wouldn't that make you NOT want to participate?
12. Nice thought.  But I don't see this in any solid doctrine as spoken by the prophets.

REGRDING #8: I had often wondered about the intricacies of how agency worked when we're all interacting as we are.  When does someone else's actions remove our agency?  When does it only partially effect us? ...

But I've been observing a lot of people in the past few years.  Most particularly, I had spoken in another thread about a relative of mine who "jumped off the deep end."  She and I were so much alike.  What would have happened to me if I'd had that one different experience that she had which I didn't?  Was her life too hard?  Was it too easy?  Was she taught correct principles?  What about me?  Certainly, there were differences.

I've also watched my children grow.  I see similarities and difference in each of them -- both with each other and with others in the family whom I know very well.  I know so much of all their life stories.  I was there every day in the raising of my sister and my daughter (who are very similar).

While I cannot put into detail the observations of years and years between dozens of people, my conclusion is this: (I know many will call foul, but hear me out) With some extreme exceptions, what happens in our lives make very little difference in who we become.  The reason is that we all have very similar archetypes for our lives.  We all have some kind of raising.  We all have information given to us from multiple sources.  We all have trials.  We all have strengths and weaknesses.  We all have to eat, work, sleep, and go to the bathroom.  We are all, in part, products of the societies we grow up in.  We all have dreams.

To make my point, I'd look at just one facet of these qualities I've enumerated.  Trials.  We may all think we have vastly different trials.  And from the mortal man's perspective, they vary in the extreme.  But the Son of Man hath descended below them all.  Compared to His trial, all our trials are virtually meaningless.

In the same vein, all the other experiences in our lives which we consider to be "life-altering", are not really so different from an eternal perspective.  It is merely the illusion that "we're the only ones who have to go through this" that gives us an illusion that we don't really have agency.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Guest

[zil]

31 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

With some extreme exceptions, what happens in our lives make very little difference in who we become.

I tend to agree with this.

(Slight change of topic. The below is full of repeats, for emphasis.  Please read the entire thing before you react.)

Also, and I know Traveler won't agree with this, but I here is what I think "Agency" is:  It is our ability to make choices, and I think it's an on/off thing.  God has given us agency.  We have it.  You don't have more than I do.  I don't have more than the vilest sinner does.

Agency is not the choice you make (that's the use of agency, but it's not the agency itself).  Agency is not knowledge, or opposition, or truth.  Agency is your ability to make choices.  Opposition (choices) is necessary in order to use agency.  Knowledge is necessary in order to use agency well.  Experience will either help you to use your agency better, or lead you to use it (more) poorly.  As you increase in knowledge, wisdom, and/or intelligence, you are better able to use your agency for good, because you have a better understanding of the truth.  But you are no more able to choose than you were before - you're just able to choose better because you have learned better.  The vilest sinner, as he descends into the depths learns even worse ways to use his agency.  He's not losing or increasing the "amount" of agency he has, though he may be limiting the choices open to him by destroying himself.

And that is why I don't believe omniscience is necessary in order to make the right choices. God has given all (except perhaps some handicapped individuals) enough knowledge, coupled with the light of Christ, to enable us to choose either to seek more light, or to turn away from the light.  That's agency. Once you choose one, the available options change, and you are free to choose another.  In this way, if you choose right, you learn and are brought line upon line and precept upon precept to a full knowledge of the truth - but you don't need to start with full knowledge in order to choose.  If you choose poorly, and persist in that, your knowledge of the good will decrease, your knowledge of evil will increase, and if you don't turn around, eventually you will choose the depths of hell.  But either way, your ability to choose, your agency, is still there and operative.

IMO, far too many discussions of agency mix it up with opposition, knowledge, intelligence, which choices you make, and similar things.  IMO, this clouds the discussions.

Interpretation by Zil - worth every penny you paid for it!

[LeSellers]

It seems that, at any point in anyone's life, he can make one choice from among the options available. One of those alternatives is always "do nothing", what the others are is situation-dependent. Irrespective of one's background, there is always a choice.

What the choice is makes a difference in the person making it. We become what we do. Thieves becomes thieves by stealing. Liars, liars by lying. Righteous people become righteous by making righteous choices.

To assume that one's choices are defined due to lack of information or lack or other resources ignores the fact that there is a choice. I might not be able to lift a car off of someone under it, but the choice to try or not is still mine, and I will become "that guy".

It may be that I have the disposition to try. My attempt, or desire to try, will re-enforce who I am. The opposite is also true. But, at one point, my previous choices led me to have that disposition.

But, let's say that I arrive at a point where I do not like who have become, that I want to make other choices and become another guy entirely. My background has not changed, but my disposition has, although not definitively: my background will still push me to make the same choices I had theretofore.

In short, agency, or "free will" is a real thing. The situation does not make the choice, the person does. And that choice makes the person.

To believe it does not exist is to imagine we are mere puppets, that any reward or punishment we get is not based on our own character, but on some arbitrary dice roll, with God playing craps.

That is philosophically and theologically unacceptable.

Lehi

[Traveler]

17 hours ago, Anddenex said:

In order to try to be concise in my response I will highlight principles I read being taught. If I have misunderstood, then clarify the main principle.

.......

 

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

In regards to Principle #1: All sons and daughters of God have complete control of their circumstance and choice: 

I am not sure we have complete control but I do believe we exercised agency, free will and choice between viable and possible options.  I believe, despite claims by some that this is not doctrine, even concerning the mission of Messiah – When the Father said, “Who shall I send”.  That Jesus exercised his agency and said, “Here am I send me”.  I think he made his choice and exercised his agency in the Full Light of truth – not sort of generalities.  Some obviously think otherwise and criticize but I do not think the Plan of Salvation to be based in half-baked sort of generalities – rather I believe that even the smallest possibilities were dealt with and known – meaning that we exercised our agency (choice) in the pre-existence and those choices had effects in this life.

In regards to Principle #2: Knowledge is requisite for us to have complete agency, and this knowledge encompasses the three pillars of truth (premarital, mortal, and glory):

I personally have difficulty distinguishing between agency and complete agency.  However I do have some questions about the exercising of faith as a demonstration of agency.  Mostly my questions arise around the possibility of “changing our mind and heart” when we have a better understanding of things.  This is because of my understanding from scripture that agency is the power to act and not be acted upon.  I have long struggled with the idea that when we exercise agency there are “fixed” consequences.  This I believe to be a fundamental element of agency.  If we do not have knowledge of the all consequences – I do not comprehend how such a choice can be called agency consequences.

The closest I have come to a resolution is that as long as we act in faith (as we do in mortality) that it is not an act of choice in the full light of truth and can be repented of – that our agency or choice has not been completed.  In essence it is not really yet an act of agency.  The only reconciliation I have been able to justify is that we do indeed have agency as part of the Plan of Salvation but in this life we live by faith and therefore have opportunity to repent and alter consequences.  So I have concluded that if consequences can be changed agency is not exercised until a choice is made with unalterable consequences.  In essence that in this life we make choices that can be undone.  If a choice can be undone – from what I understand of agency and choice – I conclude anything changed for eternal results the fulfillment of agency – meaning that the initial act was iffy at best to be labeled as an “eternal” choice.  As I have pondered this and the importance of agency I have concluded that in order to preserve agency we had to have known what would become of us and we chose our destiny in the pre-existence.  Thus the law of agency is met. I would further reference Alma Chapter 13 that points out that those ordained to the priesthood (Melchizedek) had to have qualified (exercised their agency) in the pre-existence in order to have that possibility in this life.   This principle is taught as doctrine by Cleon Skousen as a professor at BYU and in published works.

In regards to Principle #4: Our agency and accountability, due to the fall, is largely due to a lack of knowledge (truth), we do not have full light of truth:

In short, by definition of the fall – something had to have changed – One aspect that changed was that we would suffer death (both physical and spiritual).  This means that something acts upon us and we do not have a choice.  That meets all the requirements that I know of to indicate that for this matter we cannot act to overcome death and therefore have lost our agency to choose otherwise.  If anyone can demonstrate that we can choose not to die – I would be interested in how that that is done.  So the only way that agency is preserved is if the choice was made in the pre-existence before we were born.   Also it would seem to me that doctrine dictates that spiritual death is – at least in part defined as a loss of agency.  Certainly it is doctrine that there is a great difference in the choices we can exercise as a Celestial being compared to a being damned to outer darkness.  This defines to me that a Celestial being has agency that a damned being of outer darkness does not have.  Agency and the light of truth are so coupled that - at least as far as I can determine - they cannot be seperated.  The loss of one results in a corresponding loss of the other.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I had often wondered about the intricacies of how agency worked when we're all interacting as we are.  When does someone else's actions remove our agency? 

Never. Agency is not freedom. Agency cannot be removed by anyone but ourselves. Freedom can. Agency is not "the right to choose". It is "the right to choose between salvation and damnation". Or, in other words, it is the fact that we will stand accountable for the choices we can make. If we had no choice whatsoever (an impossibility) then we would not have agency, and we would not stand accountable. As long as there is a choice to make -- any choice -- we are accountable for those choices. We are accountable justly. God will judge perfectly. If we were taught wrong then we are not accountable. But we are still accountable for how we handle the things we do understand. In other words, a man who swears because he never learned from any source that he should not will not be accountable for that until he learns otherwise. But if he steals when he knows darned well that he should not...accountable.

We do not have to have all knowledge to exercise agency. The idea is silly. We only need to have some knowledge, at which point we are agents unto ourselves in the choice we make based on that knowledge, and it is by those choices that we will stand accountable.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, zil said:

here is what I think "Agency" is: 

It is our ability to make choices, and I think it's an on/off thing.

I disagree with this, for what it's worth (although it's a bit nit-picky, but methinks in an important way). Agency requires the ability to make choices, but that is not what agency is. Agency is more accountability for choice. It is, as the Young Women term it, choice and accountability.

[zil]

25 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I disagree with this, for what it's worth (although it's a bit nit-picky, but methinks in an important way). Agency requires the ability to make choices, but that is not what agency is. Agency is more accountability for choice. It is, as the Young Women term it, choice and accountability.

I'll go with agency is the ability to make choices and being accountable for those choices.  FYI, in my mind, the two are inseparable and therefore redundant, but I understand the need to be explicit.  (My brain: if you are able to make choices, then of course you are accountable for what you choose. It's not the accountability that gives you agency, it's having agency that makes you accountable.)

To put it another way: can you be accountable if you don't have the ability?  I think not (certainly not fairly).  Thus, the agency (ability) comes first, and accountability is a natural consequence, an inseparable attachment to that ability.

(And I fully understand that not everyone's going to agree on this, and I'm OK with that, it just makes a discussion easier when you know each others' definitions....)

[Guest]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Never. Agency is not freedom. Agency cannot be removed by anyone but ourselves...

I can see how you got that from my post.  But I believe you misinterpreted.

First, I was referring to a time when I was simply pondering ideas about it and so some concepts and ideas weren't completely fleshed out.

Second, what I was referring to was the impacts to others' decisions that we have.  Salesmen, evil kings (King Noah), bullies and abusers.  I had the unfortunate experience of getting to know a young woman who had been abused by almost every man who had any power over her (father, brother, boyfriend, boss, and minister).  Through those experiences, she eventually decided that there was no God.  I'm not justifying, excusing, or condemning.  I'm not stating who's responsible.  I'm pointing out the reality that one person's decisions can affect another person's decisions.  And it was this thought that I was pondering.

Edited March 22, 2016 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, zil said:

I'll go with agency is the ability to make choices and being accountable for those choices.  FYI, in my mind, the two are inseparable and therefore redundant, but I understand the need to be explicit.  (My brain: if you are able to make choices, then of course you are accountable for what you choose. It's not the accountability that gives you agency, it's having agency that makes you accountable.)

To put it another way: can you be accountable if you don't have the ability?  I think not (certainly not fairly).  Thus, the agency (ability) comes first, and accountability is a natural consequence, an inseparable attachment to that ability.

(And I fully understand that not everyone's going to agree on this, and I'm OK with that, it just makes a discussion easier when you know each others' definitions....)

I think it quite plain that people can make choices without accountability.

[zil]

13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think it quite plain that people can make choices without accountability.

We may not see evidence of the accountability in mortality, but I assure you, there will be full accountability before it's all over.  No person with agency will escape being held accountable for his/her choices.

[The Folk Prophet]

15 minutes ago, zil said:

We may not see evidence of the accountability in mortality, but I assure you, there will be full accountability before it's all over.  No person with agency will escape being held accountable for his/her choices.

That is right. But there are a great many who will not be accountable because of one reason or another who were still able to make choices. Children is one prime example.

[zil]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That is right. But there are a great many who will not be accountable because of one reason or another who were still able to make choices. Children is one prime example.

I think that's only true if we consider "accountable" a negative.  It's not just what choice I made that goes into accountability, it's everything that was involved in getting to that point.  I'm perfectly happy to be held accountable for time spent in church, or at the temple, for example, and I believe I will be held accountable.  If I did well, the account will be in my favor.  Little children make choices (using their agency - from my definition of the word), and their "accountability" will consist of "you were too young to know any different".  I know, we talk about "age of accountability" - I just see this one like consequences - they're not just bad things...

Anywho, are you suggesting that they made choices without agency?  It's an interesting idea.  From a certain perspective, I can understand that idea.  (And from that perspective, I agree with it.)  And that would explain why you separate ability to make choices from agency (earlier in the thread).  I shall now ponder further - there's value to this perspective as it adds more dimensions to the way I already think about this.

This is the trouble with mortal language: it's so imprecise.  No wonder some events from Christ's visit to the Nephites couldn't be recorded - our language (and theirs) is inadequate to the task.  (Which now gives me something more to ponder in regard to how those 24 Jaredite plates could have held so much - a more precise language would allow for much greater efficiency.)

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, zil said:

Anywho, are you suggesting that they made choices without agency? 

Yes. This is exactly what I am suggesting. Little children cannot choose their own salvation or damnation. <-- That is what agency is (from another perspective). They are not accountable. They cannot stand as agents unto themselves.

[The Folk Prophet]

Another example might be one who is severely mentally incapacitated one way or another. This can lead to a variety of evil actions that in some cases (up to God to judge) they will not be accountable for. But to claim that such people cannot make choices isn't accurate. Some serial killers, for example, became such after severe head trauma or the like. Will they stand accountable for their evil? In some cases, perhaps not. But they could still choose things.

[zil]

37 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Another example might be one who is severely mentally incapacitated one way or another. This can lead to a variety of evil actions that in some cases (up to God to judge) they will not be accountable for. But to claim that such people cannot make choices isn't accurate. Some serial killers, for example, became such after severe head trauma or the like. Will they stand accountable for their evil? In some cases, perhaps not. But they could still choose things.

Agree, and for the record, I never thought children or those like you describe, would be punished for things that cannot be sins (because once all the circumstances are taken into account, they can't be sins).  I just hadn't thought of agency from this direction.  It's like looking at a forest: from the middle, it looks one way; completely different from outside at eye level; and completely different again when looking down on the canopy from above.  It's still the same forest, but depending on where you are, you see different things.  I like things which cause me to see from a different perspective because I find it increases my understanding.

[The Folk Prophet]

21 minutes ago, zil said:

Agree, and for the record, I never thought children or those like you describe, would be punished for things that cannot be sins (because once all the circumstances are taken into account, they can't be sins). 

Right. I'm only addressing the idea that choice always goes hand in hand with accountability. I don't think it does.

Agency requires a third component to make it all work: knowledge (or understanding).

The way I see it is agency is accountability for choice because of knowledge. It goes in that hiearchy to my mind:

Agency is:

Accountability <-----------------------<-------------------<------------------------<

     (which requires)                                                                                ^

     ---> Choice                                                                                        |

          (which in order to make one accountable requires)                     |

          ---> Knowledge                                                                            |

               (which leads us back to)                                                         |

               >------------------------------>---------------------->----------------------^

Edited March 22, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[Anddenex]

11 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

@Anddenex when I read your response it seems to have very little correlation to the OP. Either you or I are misunderstanding something in what Traveler is saying.

I may have been misunderstanding what Traveler mentioned and the reason why I specified if I had misunderstood please clarify.  The principles I shared were pulled right from his post focusing on what principles I could ascertain as being taught by Traveler.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

I may have been misunderstanding what Traveler mentioned and the reason why I specified if I had misunderstood please clarify.  The principles I shared were pulled right from his post focusing on what principles I could ascertain as being taught by Traveler.

Interesting. Here's my point by point read of his post:

• We can't argue that we have free will and agency in this life because we don't have total control.
• Choices we made before this life have far reaching implications and therefore our destinies are set in stone
• Truth doesn't alter our ability to exercise free will - the more truth we have the more the more agency we have.
• The definition of agency is not how we react to things we cannot control.
• We exercise our free will to make choices about what our life would be and now we're just riding the roller coaster of life as it plays out without further ability to alter the course.
• If someone else imposes a situation on us then we do not have free will or agency.
• We must have had all the knowledge God did in the pre-existence.
• We cannot reject the Celestial Kingdom unless we fully understand what we are rejecting.
• We can't be obedient unless we have understanding.
• We can only repent because we are ignorant, if we sin against full light and truth there is no forgiveness.
• Knowing our outcomes wouldn't cause us to be less disengaged.
• If we act in faith we'll come to realize that we already know all the above (which kingdom we're already destined to be in, and the path that is already set for us in life)

Maybe by way of interest you can address these points where they differ from any you have addressed. ??

Here's my quick take on each:

• We can't argue that we have free will and agency in this life because we don't have total control.

This is counter to the teachings of the prophets and the scriptures. We do have agency and free will in this life and we have the only control that is necessary for that. Those who do not have such control (children, crazy folk, etc.) are not accountable and do not exercise agency.

• Choices we made before this life have far reaching implications and therefore our destinies are set in stone.

I think the fact that our pre-earth life choices have far reaching implications is well established. The destinies being set in stone part is anti-scriptural.

• Truth doesn't alter our ability to exercise free will - the more truth we have the more the more agency we have.

This is true, but it's misguided and denies the importance of what our agency means. Agency is not accountability for every little thing nor is it free will in every little thing. The scriptural and doctrinal scope of "agency" is clearly defined as our right and ability to choose salvation or damnation. We do not need to exercise a fulness of choice for this, nor do we need a fullness of knowledge. We only need a partial knowledge. The rest requires faith.

• The definition of agency is not how we react to things we cannot control.

This is exactly and perfectly wrong. This is exactly (at least a great deal of) the import of agency -- how we react to things we cannot control (as well as how we react to things we can control).

• We exercise our free will to make choices about what our life would be and now we're just riding the roller coaster of life as it plays out without further ability to alter the course.

This seems so obvious that it's hard to choke down a serious response. It is anti-scripture as well. It is contrary to the teachings of the prophets. Our decisions determine our destiny in this life.

• If someone else imposes a situation on us then we do not have free will or agency.

This is wrong and simply tells me that Traveler, like many, simply doesn't understand what agency is in doctrinal terms. Agency is not freedom. It is not synonymous with free will. It is only free will in terms of the choices that will lead us to salvation or damnation -- and we cannot be imposed upon (forced) to choose contrary to our agency. We can be forced to do things against our wills. That is not taking away our agency, as we will not stand accountable for such things.

• We must have had all the knowledge God did in the pre-existence.

I've addressed this before, but if we had God's knowledge then we would have had God's power.

• We cannot reject the Celestial Kingdom unless we fully understand what we are rejecting.

And yet...

Once more -- this denies the importance of faith. We are to act without complete knowledge. That is the test of life. The very idea that we must have all knowledge to act denies the whole point of life and the plan of salvation -- to put us behind the veil and see if we'll act in faith.

We do not choose the Celestial Kingdom like choosing a car -- I prefer the truck to the SUV ..... we choose to be and act according to principles on faith that will, through the atonement, mold us into Celestial characters by so doing. It's not like preferring to live in Idaho over New Jersey.

• We can't be obedient unless we have understanding.

Once again -- denying faith. We can be obedient by exercising faith and doing as we trust God has asked us to regardless of our lack of perfect knowledge. This is, once more, the whole point of the veil.

• We can only repent because we are ignorant, if we sin against full light and truth there is no forgiveness.

I think I agree with this for the most part. But it doesn't really have anything to do with the point at hand. We can certainly use our agency to exercise faith unto repentance without "full" light and truth.

• Knowing our outcomes wouldn't cause us to be less disengaged.

I agree with Traveler here. Our engagement in the matter isn't the point though. I don't deny his theories because I think people would be less engaged if they knew their final outcomes already. I disagree because it is non-doctrinal, non-scriptural, and nonsensical.

• If we act in faith we'll come to realize that we already know all the above (which kingdom we're already destined to be in, and the path that is already set for us in life)

I'm interpreting his last paragraph a bit, I'll grant...but I don't see how I can read it any other way in light of his other statements.

Edited March 23, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[Anddenex]

9 hours ago, Traveler said:

In regards to Principle #1: All sons and daughters of God have complete control of their circumstance and choice: 

....................

In regards to Principle #2: Knowledge is requisite for us to have complete agency, and this knowledge encompasses the three pillars of truth (premarital, mortal, and glory):

....................

In regards to Principle #4: Our agency and accountability, due to the fall, is largely due to a lack of knowledge (truth), we do not have full light of truth:

...................

 

As I understand the principle highlighted -- Agency was exercised in our first pillar (Creation) with full knowledge of the most minute possibilities which affected our second pillar (fall, or mortality).

A term I have found intriguing, in the Book of Mormon, regarding accountability is the word "sufficiently."  There are two verses of scripture which highlight the notion of being "sufficiently" taught is enough (2 Nephi 2:5, 2 Nephi 25:28). The first scripture explains how "men" (all sons and daughters of God) were instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. The second verse gives second witness that sufficient knowledge is able to condemn or bring about righteousness through the improper/proper use of agency.  Light had been spoken plainly, sufficient to teach any heir/heiress the "right way", and that if one chooses to disobey they will suffer consequence. 

In reference to a Full light of truth, I am unable to grasp such a concept and yet it is plausible. Was our knowledge whole, or merely sufficient enough, that agency in all examples was whole -- enough to liberate -- enough to captivate (both options being fixed, or eternal)? Elder Bednar highlights an interesting notion as taught by the Lord's elected servants of our agency being "exhausted," "exercised," or "expended" is necessary for us to 1) be agents unto ourselves 2) ability to choose a life in accordance with revealed truth 3) binding ourselves to blessings, ongoing obligations, and consequences associated with action.

He further iterates that in order for this to be true we must have been taught (knowledge, known), we adequately understood, and we agreed.  This appears to be true in our first pillar (creation).  We were adequately taught, we adequately understood, and we agreed (those that kept their first estate). As per my understanding, knowledge at this point, sufficient knowledge is adequate for agency to be complete. I would not be surprised however if Christ did not know in full detail his choice. He was one with the Father during creation, fall, and atonement. I on the other hand was not.

I agree whole heartedly that our choices affected our outcome in mortality. I am not sure why some saints reject the notion of people being more valiant in our pre-mortal life. We accept that Jesus was more bright, more valiant, than any of God's other sons and daughters such that he is the ONLY name under heaven by which we can be saved. Joseph Smith was foreordained due to his faithfulness exercised as spirits, which indicates that others were not as valiant and that, as here, our choices do indeed affect our outcome.  That is a true principle.

Principle #2 -- clarified -- If agency existed, then we would have had a full knowledge of our destiny, such that we chose it.

I tend to agree that calling agency "complete agency" is pedantic. Agency exists, and can only exist in correlation with knowledge. As I have read the scriptures and prophetic modern statements, faith appears to be an eternal principle and was exercised during the creation, is now exercised during the fall, and will continue to be exercised after death. In referencing the first thoughts, scriptures express the notion of "sufficient" knowledge that we might exercise our agency, and by exercising our agency determines our outcome.

Were we instructed sufficiently? Yes. Are we now being instructed sufficiently? Yes. Whether or not we have ears to hear is our choice. Surely, the creation plays a greater role in our overall judgment than many might believe (simply because we can't remember). The closer we draw toward truth the more we remember, as guided by the Spirit. 

Did Satan rebel with Full knowledge, or Sufficient knowledge that his punishment is fixed? Aspects of our experience I would agree we knew full well, and were provided a choice to accept or reject God's will pertaining to birth, and life experiences, and yet I still believe we exercised faith, because our knowledge wasn't perfect, but sufficient.

Principle #3 -- Knowledge (light of truth) and agency are inseparably connected.

I would agree with this thought, this principle.  The Doctrine and Covenants highlight the salvation and condemnation of the sons and daughters of God by simply "accepting light of truth" or "rejecting light of truth" when it is taught plainly. 

Truth shall make us free has more meaning in light of Telestial, Terrestrial, and Celestial beings (even the three degrees inside the Celestial), thus the gnashing of teeth, save those who are exalted.

How do you reconcile Christ, who indeed could have said "No" to death and would have never died until he chose it? We can't say no to death, agreed. Christ could and did.  Is it due to the notion that nothing could act upon Christ? He was an agent, like no other agent. Yet, I personally believe, only death would act upon us (mortal parents, both), if we like Christ, loved God more than the flesh, in that we also could have had no sin in us, but we choose sin and thus are acted upon by its predicated laws.

[Traveler]

9 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Never. Agency is not freedom. Agency cannot be removed by anyone but ourselves. Freedom can. Agency is not "the right to choose". It is "the right to choose between salvation and damnation". Or, in other words, it is the fact that we will stand accountable for the choices we can make. If we had no choice whatsoever (an impossibility) then we would not have agency, and we would not stand accountable. As long as there is a choice to make -- any choice -- we are accountable for those choices. We are accountable justly. God will judge perfectly. If we were taught wrong then we are not accountable. But we are still accountable for how we handle the things we do understand. In other words, a man who swears because he never learned from any source that he should not will not be accountable for that until he learns otherwise. But if he steals when he knows darned well that he should not...accountable.

We do not have to have all knowledge to exercise agency. The idea is silly. We only need to have some knowledge, at which point we are agents unto ourselves in the choice we make based on that knowledge, and it is by those choices that we will stand accountable.

You do realize that all the die before reaching accountability, according to your definition, have no agency.