Can agency really be "stripped", or can it only be surrendered?

[Shoot_The_Moon]

I've heard many arguments (mainly from progressives / globalists / fear-mongers / etc.) that criticize many aspects of Church doctrine, policy, or culture because they think adherence to them "strips" people of their free agency.

We talk of Satan's plan as one of removing one's agency and "forcing" people into Heaven, but since I don't think any of us went that way and lost the ability to choose we can't really understand what that means, (and if you're still typing, it means you'll still living, and unless you're only able to post "WE ARE LEGION. WE ARE LEGION. WE ARE LEGION." your ability to use free agency is probably still intact and you really don't know what it's like to not be able to exercise...)

Do any of these warnings of people "stripped of agency" hold any water, or is it just another example of a lack of intellectual integrity that is common amongst those who use their voice to "kick against the pricks"?

Are there any "prerequisites" to being able to use free agency?  Does the exercise of agency require a lack of pressure / force from external entities, or are such consequences (righteous or otherwise) an essential part of learning to use our agency in spite of the immediate cost? 

Edited August 16, 2016 by Shoot_The_Moon

[estradling75]

It shows they at a minimum fundamentally do not understand what Agency is...

 

In Abraham 3 we read

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

The whole point of this Earthly existence is to see if we will do all things that God command.  That is what our Agency is all about.  That is its purpose.

Therefore teaching someone what God's commands are can not strip from a person their Agency... because it is precisely what enables it.

Those who understand this but still make such an argument are the ones attempting to strip people's Agency from them and thwart the plan of God.  Because you can't exercise your agency to follow God or not... until you know what God commands.

 

 

[LeSellers]

42 minutes ago, Shoot_The_Moon said:

Are there any "prerequisites" to being able to use free agency?

Not as far as I can tell. Agency was part of our heritage even as intelligences.

42 minutes ago, Shoot_The_Moon said:

Does the exercise of agency require a lack of pressure / force from external entities[?]

The Nephites under Alma who were disallowed to pray prayed any way. I suspect that, even if it were much harder to do an evil act, say, because of laws, or to do good ones because of similar laws, the intent of one's heart would still allow agency to prevail. Benjamin told the poor to give nothing with the underlying intent of giving, but with the reality of their having nothing to give.

This is not to say that unrestricted, active, use of agency is not preferable, but forces limiting actions don't necessarily mean we can't be agents, rather than "things to be acted upon".

There are two other minor points to make:
1) We become what we do. So if we are forbidden from operating a soup kitchen when we would like to do so because of zoning or hygiene laws, these laws make it impossible to exercise the spiritual muscles of charity, and they will probably atrophy, meaning, over time, we will become less charitable.

2) The loss of freedom to actively go where our intentions would lead us means we won't get there. I.E., those we would serve (or rob) are not served (or robbed). So the consequences of our acting don't happen, either, for other people. Can a man who's not experienced genuine charity, but only welfare, learn what charity is? It's less likely.

That, I believe, is the root cause of the Church's opposing communism (and socialism in all forms): we can't demonstrate and improve our upward tendencies and we can't share them, either.

Lehi

Edited August 16, 2016 by LeSellers

[theSQUIDSTER]

How does church doctrine and policy strip people of their agency?  Is the church trying to force people one way or another?  I don't believe it is.  I don't believe the Lord is.  The Lord wants us all on the same page.. but that's up to each of us.  He still will call those to lead us who He will call.  They will make decisions and be accountable to Him.  The Prophet and the apostles bear an especially heavy burden in this.  They don't answer to us... they answer to the Lord.  I believe this with all my heart.  If I became convinced this was just a church of men then I can't imagine that I'd be able to continue to be a member.  But I've experienced too much.  I know enough to know that this church is the Lord's church and that this is His work and His priesthood.  It's not found anywhere else.

If people want a church created in their own image they're welcome to start their own.  If they have a testimony that this is the true church then they need to take their doubts and questions to the Lord and reason with Him.  The Lord calls imperfect men and women to lead us.  I'm not saying that to justify any mistakes that individuals make.  I do believe that the Lord works with all of us in our imperfections... especially our leaders.

[Shoot_The_Moon]

I've heard this in several "quasi-Mormon" posts and discussions online, (they'll give anyone a blog these days...).

The most recent one was from an article someone forwarded on to me:

http://religionnews.com/2016/05/16/the-prophet-will-never-lead-the-lds-church-astray-and-other-mormon-heresies/

Quote

[The belief that] no prophet will ever lead the church astray removes this agency three times over.

First, we strip agency from LDS church members when we tell them there is only one way to think, and it happens to be whatever the prophet is teaching right now, at this particular moment, even if that contradicts what other prophets have said in the past about the same issue or will likely say in the future.

Second, we deny agency to the prophet when we teach that he has no choice but to do the Lord’s will. Prophets in scripture don’t typically carry this burden; they blunder often. They might run away (Jonah), ply their prophetic trade for financial gain (Balaam), or succumb to serious depression (Elijah, Jeremiah)—in other words, be human.

And third, we deny agency to the church as a living creation whenever we teach that it cannot make a real mistake. The church is a dynamic and life-giving organism with its own origin story, mission, and holy end. We do it a disservice when we cease to remember that it is not an institution that stands outside of the beautiful, agentic human beings who are its living members.

Am I missing something here, or is this just someone lamenting that because their own personal beliefs are outside the beliefs of the mainstream Church members they feel unjustly oppressed and are projecting their personal religious deficiencies on to the Church in an attempt to play the "sour grapes" line?

[Edspringer]

Let me suggest you to read and ponder 2 Nephi 2 and Alma 34, both in the Book of Mormon.

[estradling75]

Its is sour grapes... or wanting to sin and still be happy.

First:  If we need to know what the will of God is then we need to have a valid (and trusted) path for that will to be communicated.  That is what prophets do.  The idea that we might not like what the will of God is part of what makes it a test.  The fact that there is a set and identifiable path for this information is not an agency stripper.   Ideally we choose to follow God even if we don't like it.   That is not a stripping of agency that is exercising it

Second: Total lie and deflection.  Prophets have agency and can fall and mess up.  God knows all this and is prepared for it.  Note that Jonah's running away was planned for an turned for Good by God.  Note that Balaam did exercise his agency and was about to incure the wrath of God to stop him before he stepped to far out of line...  Note that all the prophets being Human and sometimes even rebelling a bit did not stop God from calling them as prophets and adapting their weakness to his ends...  It show a major lack of Faith in God to think he can't preserve the agency of his prophets while not allowing them to lead the people astray.

Three:  There is world of difference between "making a mistake" and failing to communicate the will of God.  If you read the scriptures (D&C) you will see many instances where the "Church" (technically the people of the church) make mistakes and don't follow the will of God... There is no way any reading of the scriptures support a 'flawless' church model...  But there are many scriptures that support the church knowing the will of God.

 

 

[theSQUIDSTER]

Looked at the link.  Seems rather like a convoluted argument to me.  I don't see how choosing to follow the prophet surrenders our agency.  It seems also rather disingenuous that they claim the prophet never leading the church astray is some kind of heresy.  It sounds like it's a sophisticated argument which is basically saying the brethren can't be trusted because they're human therefore they ARE leading us astray.  

As I said earlier, the brethren don't answer to us.  They answer to the Lord.  If there's corrections to be made, I trust the Lord has the ability to make these corrections.  In that sense the brethren will not be allowed to lead us astray... whatever "astray" means.  The Lord is mentoring his servants... trying to mentor ALL of us who trust Him.  If you can't wrap your head around something that is church doctrine or policy, take it to the Lord.  He can whisper peace to your heart as well as open your mind.  If you are not at peace in your heart with something the brethren are doing or not doing, trying to convince others that the brethren are wrong is really just saying, "I don't trust the Lord to correct this in His own time..."  ... IF correction is even needed.  More than likely, the correction needed is with the individual.. even if the brethren are making mistakes.  If this is the Lord's work then does He not have power to DO HIS WORK without our grassroots activism and rallying people to our opinions as though this were a democracy rather than a kingdom...?  We don't vote for our leaders.  Our leaders are called of the Lord.  We choose whether or not to sustain them.  If we don't sustain them it's to OUR condemnation, not theirs.  Again... they don't answer to us but to the Lord.

[NeuroTypical]

Agency, at it's most general level, is the ability to choose right from wrong.  Absolutely it can be taken from you against your will.  Plenty of stuff can be injected into the arm of someone who will wake up the next morning to discover they've committed many actions - those actions they had no control over.  Actions that may have serious and life-altering consequences.  Babies can be made, laws can be broken, even lives can be lost - actions from someone not accountable for their actions - no agency.  

The ability to chose to follow God or not, can be taken from you in similar ways, but the consequences are different than earthly consequences.  Again, it hinges on the ability to choose.  But where God is concerned, He can apply perfect tools to make perfect judgments on where your heart is, your motivation, your intent, your desires - He can perfectly judge you.  Earthly judging is restricted to actions and guessing at motivations.  

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Shoot_The_Moon said:

....

Are there any "prerequisites" to being able to use free agency?  Does the exercise of agency require a lack of pressure / force from external entities, or are such consequences (righteous or otherwise) an essential part of learning to use our agency in spite of the immediate cost? 

 

Yes there are prerequisites to agency.  Note I used the term agency rather than free agency because I do not believe the adjective "free" helps to understand agency in any way. 

I believe knowledge is a prerequisite to agency and is why the fall is necessary before we could stand before G-d at the resurrection and exercise our agency.  Agency requires knowledge and power to act.  Knowledge of how to act and power to so act.  Agency is never stripped, lost or removed - rather it is exercised and the manner in which we exercise agency has eternal consequences.   The consequences of exercising agency are either liberty (life) or captivity (slavery or death).

 

The Traveler

[Shoot_The_Moon]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Agency, at it's most general level, is the ability to choose right from wrong.  Absolutely it can be taken from you against your will.  Plenty of stuff can be injected into the arm of someone who will wake up the next morning to discover they've committed many actions - those actions they had no control over. 

Neruo -

I think we need to distinguish between "action" and "agency".

We are "spiritual beings" possessing a mammalian tabernacle. C.S. Lewis has said that we are of two minds - the "bios" or the biological mind of our physical natures that house our spirit but are made from the materials of a lost and corrupt world, (and seeks after such things), and the "zoe" or spiritual mind which is the offspring of God and is that potential to become as God since He is our spiritual lineage and literally our Father in Heaven.

For the vast amount of people, their bodies facilitate the ability for this "possession" to control the voluntary actions these bodies take, but certain actions (such as a beating heart, a working brain, digestion, cell reproduction) are automatic and (if left alone) have nothing to do with our agency. 

These mammalian bodies also have their own "firmware" and goals which, like other mammals, are necessary for the survival and reproduction of these species, (i.e. "a mind of their own").  These impulses speak in terms of emotions and feelings, not conscious thought.  Spiritual experiences and impressions also have "emotional aftershocks" that sometimes have words associated them but not always.  Since we don't remember what it was like to be a spirit without a body, (thanks to the veil), we have a hard time separating where our spiritual self ends and where our temporal body begins.  The combination of the two also enables some things that other animals don't have -- awareness that we will die, hope and faith that we will survive to live another day, and the combination of the two that enables us to lie to ourselves, (i.e. "self-deception").

It takes a while for these bodies to mature to the point of fully enabling the exercise of agency of the actions of them, and it takes a while for our spirits to learn the ropes. This is why I believe that the Lord has told us that babies are innocent until they reach the "age of accountability", or in other words the point where their bodies can facilitate agency.

There are, however, people who's tabernacles are formed in such a way that their actions are not a result of their agency because the wiring is off.  I believe we refer to these people as not being "accountable in the flesh", no matter how old they are.  Their spirits may have some control over their actions, but not enough to judged based on their actions.

Now, as far as "stuff" that "cant be injected into the arm", you are correct.  There do exist substances and conditions where the link between action and agency can be interrupted.  The accountability of these things has a lot to do with who's injecting who.  Why do you think the Lord is so big on avoiding things such as drugs, alcohol, or other substances (including sugar and other highly addictive substances or practices)?  These things can break the link, or weigh so heavily on the impulses of the body that they basically go full "mutiny" and throw the Captain overboard.  If we engage in these substances / practices, then we are accountable.  If, however, we are forced into a state where the link is disconnected, I doubt the Lord will hold us accountable for what our "natural man" did on auto-pilot, (but even then, the lives we lead when we are in control have a great deal of influence on our "inner mammal").

So our agency isn't really taken away, we either surrender it by our own actions, (and are accountable for the aftermath), or someone else breaks the link and they are accountable for cleaning up the mess if the actions are different then we would choose to act.  Either way, I wouldn't call either one "stripping"; it's more of a temporary "scrambling".

Edited August 16, 2016 by Shoot_The_Moon

[Shoot_The_Moon]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

I believe knowledge is a prerequisite to agency and is why the fall is necessary before we could stand before G-d at the resurrection and exercise our agency.  Agency requires knowledge and power to act. 

Not so sure I agree.  Obedience requires knowledge and power to act.  Exercise of agency is either action or lack of action, as well as intent.

I do, however, agree that it isn't "free".  We are unbound (i.e. "free") to choose for ourselves, but every action (or lack of) has a price.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Shoot_The_Moon

[zil]

The simple question is whether agency can be "stripped" from you (taken by another by force).  Here's what happens when someone tries to do that:

Quote

3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

4 And he became Satan, yea, even the devil, the father of all lies, to deceive and to blind men, and to lead them captive at his will, even as many as would not hearken unto my voice.

So, no, it cannot be taken from you by force.

Can it be surrendered?  I don't think so.  To surrender it is to say, "I refuse to be held accountable for my actions."  You can't surrender that.  Now you can, as @NeuroTypical pointed out, make a choice (for which you will be held accountable) or have something done to you against your best resistance (for which you will not be held accountable) which will cause you to do things you would not otherwise do.  But I'm not sure this is surrendering agency nor having it stripped.  In the first case, you made a choice and are accountable for everything which follows directly from that choice (you have surrendered conscious control, perhaps, but not responsibility for it).  In the second case, your control was taken from you against your agency.  You are responsible for your efforts to resist, but once control is removed, you aren't responsible for the actions taken or their consequences.

But I don't think "control" is "agency" (though it is needed in order to use your agency).  I think we don't have a pure enough language to describe this (at least, not easily).  I don't think "agency" is the same as "the ability to choose", I think there's more to it, at least part of which is accountability for choices.

The above scripture says God gave man his agency.  And yet, I cannot imagine an intelligent being who does not have the ability to choose and act.  Therefore, I believe agency must be something more.  And I think part of "more" is accountability, perhaps for our actions in relation to a covenant we made pre-mortally.

Anywho, I'm still working through this mentally and don't claim understanding, though my understanding thus far has changed much from where it started.

[Shoot_The_Moon]

2 hours ago, zil said:

Can it be surrendered?  I don't think so.  To surrender it is to say, "I refuse to be held accountable for my actions."  You can't surrender that.  Now you can, as @NeuroTypical pointed out, make a choice (for which you will be held accountable) or have something done to you against your best resistance (for which you will not be held accountable) which will cause you to do things you would not otherwise do.  But I'm not sure this is surrendering agency nor having it stripped. 

"Addiction of any kind means to surrender to something, thus relinquishing agency and becoming dependent on some life-destroying substance or behavior." (M. Russell Ballard, "O That Cunning Plan of the Evil One", Ensign, Nov. 2010, 108–10.)

"Relinquishing" sounds an awful lot like "surrendering" to me. And what better way to describe someone running away to addictions then the phrase "I refuse to be held accountable for my actions."

(Spoiler Alert: It never works, but that doesn't stop people from trying.)

Edited August 16, 2016 by Shoot_The_Moon

[Traveler]

4 hours ago, Shoot_The_Moon said:

Not so sure I agree.  Obedience requires knowledge and power to act.  Exercise of agency is either action or lack of action, as well as intent.

I do, however, agree that it isn't "free".  We are unbound (i.e. "free") to choose for ourselves, but every action (or lack of) has a price.

 

Perhaps I need to make some clarification.  There are consequences for actions - I can agree but where I differ slightly from your point of view is that to act without knowledge - at least in mortality - does not have eternal consequences; case in point are children that have not reached the age of accountability.   I do not believe actions without knowledge of opposing possibilities is an exercise of agency.  We are instructed by inspired scripture that there is opposition in "all things".  It is my understanding that in order to exercise agency one must have knowledge of what opposing actions they can employ.  We certainly cannot cognitively  behave in a manner we have no knowledge that is possible.

 

The Traveler

[Shoot_The_Moon]

44 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I do not believe actions without knowledge of opposing possibilities is an exercise of agency.  We are instructed by inspired scripture that there is opposition in "all things".  It is my understanding that in order to exercise agency one must have knowledge of what opposing actions they can employ.  We certainly cannot cognitively behave in a manner we have no knowledge that is possible.

According to LDS.ORG:

Quote

What Is Agency?

Agency is the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves. Agency is essential in the plan of salvation. Without agency, we would not be able to learn or progress or follow the Savior. With it, we are “free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil” ( 2 Nephi 2:27).

I don't believe that knowledge is required to exercise agency.  It is, however, required to use agency to follow our Lord and savior Jesus Christ back to our Heavenly Father since "It is impossible for a man to be saved in ignorance", (D&C 131:6).

Edited August 16, 2016 by Shoot_The_Moon

[Jane_Doe]

6 hours ago, Shoot_The_Moon said:

We talk of Satan's plan as one of removing one's agency and "forcing" people into Heaven, but since I don't think any of us went that way and lost the ability to choose we can't really understand what that means, (and if you're still typing, it means you'll still living, and unless you're only able to post "WE ARE LEGION. WE ARE LEGION. WE ARE LEGION." your ability to use free agency is probably still intact and you really don't know what it's like to not be able to exercise...)

Do any of these warnings of people "stripped of agency" hold any water, or is it just another example of a lack of intellectual integrity that is common amongst those who use their voice to "kick against the pricks"?

Are there any "prerequisites" to being able to use free agency?  Does the exercise of agency require a lack of pressure / force from external entities, or are such consequences (righteous or otherwise) an essential part of learning to use our agency in spite of the immediate cost? 

(*Blind post into an interesting discussion*)

Yes, agency (aka our ability to choose right or wrong) can be both stripped and surrendered.  It does have prerequisites: 1) having a choice, 2) having the knowledge & ability to make the choice.  External forces are irrelevant unless they are eliminating choices.  

Stripped agency would be when someone grabs the steering-wheel of your life and gives you no choice (hence stripping your agency).  For example: you did X because someone was literally holding a gun to your head.  We can also strip our own agency by eliminating options in our life, such as through the use of addictive substances.

Surrendered agency is when a person gives up the right to choose.  Often times it is through simple laziness (aka not standing up) that we surrender our ability to do the right thing.

 

 

Now, does the "many arguments (mainly from progressives / globalists / fear-mongers / etc.) that criticize many aspects of Church doctrine, policy, or culture" argument how weight?   Nope!  (I'm assuming this argument is made in the USA)  You may still do whatever you want.  Now, if you live in a country where someone will stone you for your choice in clothes, then I would agree.

 

 

[Shoot_The_Moon]

5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Stripped agency would be when someone grabs the steering-wheel of your life and gives you no choice (hence stripping your agency).  For example: you did X because someone was literally holding a gun to your head.  We can also strip our own agency by eliminating options in our life, such as through the use of addictive substances.

Ahh -- I was wondering when "holding a gun to your head" would show up...

Let's go back to the definition:

"What Is Agency? Agency is the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves..."

Does it say anything about only making choices that keep you safe, or only gives immediately favorable outcomes?  I'm not sure Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Daniel, Abinedi, and a few others would agree with you...

 

[estradling75]

I also have to disagree with the "gun to the head" reasoning as a stripper of agency...

If we break that down... it is "Someone threatened me with something I did not like" as a remover of agency...  And that makes it the exact same argument that people use to criticize the church.  The church teaches that "bad things" will happen if we don't follow God.

The idea that we don't like any of the choices we might have does not mean that we don't have choices

 

 

 

[Shoot_The_Moon]

38 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

It does have prerequisites: 1) having a choice, 2) having the knowledge & ability to make the choice.  

Agency is the ability to choose, not the ability to make any choice or have every opportunity one desires.

17 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

The idea that we don't like any of the choices we might have does not mean that we don't have choices

This.

Edited August 16, 2016 by Shoot_The_Moon

[Jane_Doe]

51 minutes ago, Shoot_The_Moon said:

Agency is the ability to choose, not the ability to make any choice or have every opportunity one desires.

This.

I never said prerequeste about having to like the choices you have, but simply that they exist.

[LeSellers]

56 minutes ago, Shoot_The_Moon said:

Agency is the ability to choose, not the ability to make any choice or have every opportunity one desires.

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

The idea that we don't like any of the choices we might have does not mean that we don't have choices

This.

One choice the few recognize is the choice to do nothing. In many cases, it's the best choice.

Lehi

[Blackmarch]

On 8/16/2016 at 9:01 AM, Shoot_The_Moon said:

I've heard many arguments (mainly from progressives / globalists / fear-mongers / etc.) that criticize many aspects of Church doctrine, policy, or culture because they think adherence to them "strips" people of their free agency.

We talk of Satan's plan as one of removing one's agency and "forcing" people into Heaven, but since I don't think any of us went that way and lost the ability to choose we can't really understand what that means, (and if you're still typing, it means you'll still living, and unless you're only able to post "WE ARE LEGION. WE ARE LEGION. WE ARE LEGION." your ability to use free agency is probably still intact and you really don't know what it's like to not be able to exercise...)

Do any of these warnings of people "stripped of agency" hold any water, or is it just another example of a lack of intellectual integrity that is common amongst those who use their voice to "kick against the pricks"?

Are there any "prerequisites" to being able to use free agency?  Does the exercise of agency require a lack of pressure / force from external entities, or are such consequences (righteous or otherwise) an essential part of learning to use our agency in spite of the immediate cost? 

most people mix up freedom- the choices that one has before them, and will- the ability to recognise and choose between those choices. Freedom can be stripped from an individual.... I don't have any reason to believe that will can, save it is voluntary.

[Anddenex]

On August 16, 2016 at 9:01 AM, Shoot_The_Moon said:

Do any of these warnings of people "stripped of agency" hold any water, or is it just another example of a lack of intellectual integrity that is common amongst those who use their voice to "kick against the pricks"?

This, just another example of a lack of intellectual integrity, or naivety, or ignorance regarding the gift of moral agency we have received. There are two prerequisites of our moral agency that I am aware of from scripture (openly admit there could be others).

1) Knowledge of opposites (2 Nephi 2: 11)

2) Enticed / Invitations (2 Nephi 2: 16) - this will either bring about righteousness or wickedness

Anytime we are taught, anytime a law is given, any time a invitation is extended our gift of moral agency is honored.