Agency

[Vort]

I taught a Sunday School class yesterday in which we discussed what it meant to be an "agent". I wrote "________ agent" on the whiteboard and asked for words to fill in the blank. We got "secret", "free", "re-", and a few others. I added "moral".

Then I asked them what a "secret agent" did. We talked about what it meant that a professional athlete was a "free agent". After some short discussions, the students decided that an "agent" was someone who acted in behalf of another.

So then I asked the obvious question: When we exercise "our free agency" (or "our moral agency"), for whom are we acting in behalf? What are our choices? In what ways can we be an "agent" for e.g. Jesus Christ (or for that matter, Satan)? How does this idea of moral agency relate to our baptismal covenants?

In response to one young sister's answer that we can be "agents" for our own selves, we also discussed D&C 88:34-35:

Quote

And again, verily I say unto you, that which is governed by law is also preserved by law and perfected and sanctified by the same. That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still.

Not entirely sure about my students, but I personally enjoyed the lesson quite a bit. Sixteen-year-olds have some spiritual insights, and they can show them when given a chance.

Any additional thoughts on this topic? I have the sense that it's a mother lode of truth that we have barely begun to mine.

[NeuroTypical]

We can make many choices.  We have zero power to chose the consequences of those choices.  Consequences flow naturally as if they were a fundamental law of the universe.  

The trick is to have a good grasp on what the consequences will probably be, and then make the choices that have the most favorable outcomes.  

[Connie]

Totally blown away by this topic which i very recent became aware of from reading chapter 2 "Acting in Doctrine and Moral Agency" in Act in Doctrine by David A. Bednar. Very great reading on the topic. Here's one of his videos discussing some of these ideas: 

 

[skalenfehl]

I like referencing a standard missionary scripture taught by Lehi.

Quote

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they 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; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.

 

[Fether]

On 2/27/2017 at 2:46 PM, Vort said:

So then I asked the obvious question: When we exercise "our free agency" (or "our moral agency"), for whom are we acting in behalf? What are our choices? 

I love this question! Though we ourselves are the decision maker, for whom we make the decision decides, in large portion, the consequences. 

[Guest]

Dictionaries to the rescue!!! I found it quite telling how the definitions have changed since Joseph's Day:

DICTIONARY.COM (today's definitions)

Quote

noun

1. a person or business authorized to act on another's behalf:

2. a person or thing that acts or has the power to act.

3. a natural force or object producing or used for obtaining specificresults:

4. an active cause; an efficient cause.

5. a person who works for or manages an agency.

6. a person who acts in an official capacity for a government or privateagency, as a guard, detective, or spy:

7. a person responsible for a particular action:

Webster's 1828 dictionary:

Quote

A'GENT, adjective Acting; opposed to patient, or sustaining action; as, the body agent [Little used.]

A'GENT, noun

1. An actor; one that exerts power, or has the power to act; as, a moral agent

2. An active power or cause; that which has the power to produce an effect; as, heat is a powerful agent

3. A substitute, deputy, or factor; one entrusted with the business of another; and attorney; a minister.

Notice that the true meanings of our doctrine are closer to the first and second definitions in 1828.  But it is relegated to the 7th definition which is only used in legal language today.

• When we are agents unto ourselves, we are responsible for our actions.  
• We are not simply sitting there, we're active.
• We exert power to act, especially in a moral sense.
• We have power to produce effect, whether for good or for evil.

 

Edited February 28, 2017 by Guest

[Traveler]

On ‎2‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 3:23 PM, NeuroTypical said:

We can make many choices.  We have zero power to chose the consequences of those choices.  Consequences flow naturally as if they were a fundamental law of the universe.  

The trick is to have a good grasp on what the consequences will probably be, and then make the choices that have the most favorable outcomes.  

 

We assume small children are not responsible - Does this mean that children do not really have agency?

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

We assume small children are not responsible - Does this mean that children do not really have agency?

The Traveler

That takes us to the Fall of Adam discussion.  Therein, we find the answer.

[Traveler]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That takes us to the Fall of Adam discussion.  Therein, we find the answer.

We call it the Fall of Adam - one question is - were all "things" that make up the fall -- the plants, the rocks, the creatures, the sun and the moon and even our solar system.  Did all that fall and was all that granted agency?  Or does only man have agency and only man is subject to ordinances and salvation?  How extensive was the fall?

 

The Traveler

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Traveler said:

We call it the Fall of Adam - one question is - were all "things" that make up the fall -- the plants, the rocks, the creatures, the sun and the moon and even our solar system.  Did all that fall and was all that granted agency?  Or does only man have agency and only man is subject to ordinances and salvation?  How extensive was the fall?

 

The Traveler

I'd like to stay on topic.  Remember it's mostly allegory.

[Traveler]

33 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'd like to stay on topic.  Remember it's mostly allegory.

I thought the topic is agency - Since you brought up the fall (I think this is a very good point to bring up concerning the fall and agency) - I ask, within the framework of justice - if agency is necessary for a fall?  But the scriptures only speak in terms of mankind concerning the fall and redemption.  But then I must admit that there is a trick in this question - a "trick" few consider when addressing agency and the fall.  BTW - It seems to me that scripture and revelation is mostly allegorical but most think in empirical terms of literal intent.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

We assume small children are not responsible - Does this mean that children do not really have agency?

 

Yes.

[NeuroTypical]

When God says that unbaptized children get a free pass into the celestial kingdom, that would seem to indicate they are not held accountable for their actions and have no agency.  I've encountered some children who seem to be pretty dang evil at times.