Close Topic Options

Losing Our Agency - Page 2

Here is the problem with losing agency or giving it away.

If I give it away or lose it in anyway that has been referred too in this thread, then am I then accountable for the actions?

It seems counter intuitive because if I lose agency then how can I be held accountable for sin or choice, because be definition, If I have no agency then I lost the ability to choose. I think Lehi kind of states that this was remedied in the fall. He seems to say that it cannot be taken away.

Now with that said I do think agency is more then choice. It also means having to ability to choose along with the ability to not have ones judgment determined or interfered.

For example if I was hooked up to a brain probe that allowed scientist to manipulate my choices and thoughts, and they manipulated my thoughts so that I would choose to steal a candy bar would that make me free? After all I did choose to do it, but they manipulated my reasoning.
Now if I decided to steal the candy bar on my own, even though if I decided not to the scientist would make me, then am I using free agency? because the truth is no matter if I did decide to choose the steal the candy bar or not my final choice would be to steal it regardless.

thus in this case free agency is more then just choice, but in my ability to come to a conclusion without any manipulation.

Thus then if one is on drugs and his choice by addiction is manipulated then is that a free choice? I think that at times we make agency just as the ability to choose.

Here is a more radical idea. Can we extend agency to mean opportunity vs. reality? for example I had a fiend in high school who was in and out of children services, his mother was a drug addict. He was moved around from home to home, and was in and out of school. In his perspective of reality, going to college was never a option to him. He never could envision it as a viable choice or opportunity. The school system never labeled him as a college prospect, thus he never got the attention of the white kids in school. My question then is did he really have the opportunity or agency to exercise to go the college? I think not because it was never presented as a reality to him. When we talked about it he never saw it as a reality. Thus then was his agency hampered because his reality was limited by others? just some thoughts.

Agency Losing

One could argue that ultimately this is true. However, One could equally argue this is not true. For example, the scenario of a criminal holding a gun to your head and demanding your wallet. Yes, you have the choice not to give your wallet and get shot. So ultimately, the decision and agency are yours. However, your agency WAS taken because if you had the choice, you would not have chosen to be in that situation. And of all the possible choices that might have been yours to make, you are now limited to 2 choices, 1. Give the man EVERYTHING in your wallet or Don't. Both options forced on you, both with negative consequences and neither being based on "Natural Law".

This is what I am talking about. You said it very eloquently.

In the same way, if we are facing the disapproval of loved ones who are willing to enforce their desires on us with unnatural consequences like abandonment, for actions that we desire, it can be like having an emotional gun to our head. This being the case, they influence our decisions in a way that is effecting our choice unnaturally and so limits our free reign of conscience. Thus our judgment is being interfered.

This is why God did not kick us out even though we sinned, acted against the will of God, in the pre-mortal existence. It was only when agency was being threatened that Satan and his followers were removed from God's presence.

According to doctrine, if our agency is being manipulated or interfered with, then we do not have accountability for our actions. And that accountability falls on whomever is making the choice for us.

For example, If I am a bank teller and secretly and illegally handed money to my friend by my choice without manipulation, then I am accountable for stealing. On the other hand, if I were a teller and secretly handed money to a bank robber with a bomb or a gun, being manipulated, I am not accountable. Instead, my actions are not based on free conscious choice, and the accountability for my actions is handed to the bank robber. Even though I physically broke the law and gave the bank's money away illegally, I am not accountable for my actions.

In the case of a child, they "Begin" to become accountable at 8 years old. In the case of your friend, he did not really have the choice. Just as a child not taught the gospel by 8 years old does not have the choice to accept the gospel. Just as a solder does not have the choice to Not to go to war. In all these cases, the doctrine says, the choice, accountability and so the sin rests on those who had the un-inhibited and un-manipulated free exercise of conscience that they pressed on us, thereby removing or unnaturally influencing our agency. This is especially true in the case of "brain washing" in which we think we choose our actions, but really do not.

This is the key that I believe you were looking for as to why Satan or anyone else could be accountable for the sins of others and so be punished for them. This is the key to understanding some of the questions you had in "Day Of Atonement And The Mystery Of Azazel".

However, there also comes a point in which we cannot say that we have been manipulated in our Agency. For example, the Child who was not taught the gospel by its parents receives it from the missionaries, and so now has the choice. The teller who is no longer held at gun point still has the option of stealing or not, but being un-manipulated has the choice based on their own free conscience.

Ultimately, there comes a point in which after Calling and Election is achieved that the atonement can no longer cover our sins because of the agency we have gained. This is because we are no longer under the influence of Azazel/Satan. We have built on the Rock from which we cannot fall and Satan has become bound in our lives. When this happen, we can no longer say that our judgment or decisions are based on any influence from Satan/Azazel. And, so, Justice having no place to go for fulfillment, must be fulfilled/satisfied on our own heads, and the atonement can no longer protect us from the buffetings of Satan or the destruction of the flesh. However, those who are subject to this also have the promise or eternal life after suffering for their actions.

The idea is that at the age of 8 we BEGIN to become accountable. We continue to gain more agency and freedom as we grow spiritually. "The truth will set you free." Eventually we become completely free, agents unto ourselves like God is. If God sinned, could the atonement of Christ his son, or Christ his Mortal Savior protect him from the punishments? No. And so it is or will be with us.

Edited: Amonhi on 7th Oct, 2008 - 2:19pm

Losing Our Agency Studies Doctrine Mormon

thanks for the reply.

I am under that assumption that free agency is a more then a matter of choice as you described above. However still do not agree with the idea that the calling and election made sure takes away the effects of the atonement. That is because the atonement covers more then ignorance, it covers sin regardless of agency. I just do not see any scriptural support for this.

Rather off topic, but... As for satan being azazel...well I jsut will say this: it is not the idea that Satan can be accountable for sin that I disagree, it is the idea that punishment has to me mitigated. That is my issue with this thought. It is almost as if you make satan a scapegoat for our sin. A scapegoat is not saying that I am innocent, but rather I am guilty and putting the blame on another.

Page 2 Agency Losing

As this is a little explored doctrine and applies to relatively few, very little is written on it. I have read a number of quotes on the subject, but they are difficult to find. Bruce R. McConkie said,

Joseph Smith Said,

There are other better quotes, but I couldn't find them quickly. But in the end this doctrine is in D&C 132 which says that they have the promise of God of exaltation and regardless of what sins they commit as long as they are NOT the unpardonable sin, they will be exalted, after suffering the buffetings of Satan and being destroyed in the flesh.

As we gain agency, we gain accountability, it begins for most around eight and continues until they become like God having complete agency/accountability.

Rather off topic, but... QUOTE It is almost as if you make satan a scapegoat for our sin. A scapegoat is not saying that I am innocent, but rather I am guilty and putting the blame on another. The law says, "With what judgment we judge, we will be judged." So Satan who is the adversary which means something like Accuser of the brethren demands justice and so must receive justice. You are right that God is perfect and does not need an atonement to exhibit the perfect attribute of Mercy. We need to learn mercy to be like God. And yet, if the people demand a king, God must give them a king. If they Demand justice, then God must give them justice. But he must also give justice to those who demand it. For those who demand mercy he is able to give mercy. But still justice must be satisfied for those who demand justice! In our society, if a child stole a item from a store or burned down someone's house the parents are responsible and no one complains that justice has not been satisfied. And the person who house is burned who demands justice be done will be satisfied because the parents are answering the demand. But this does not work for those who are not responsible for the actions of the children. This is an example of how 2 possibilities are correct because if we are on the demanding justice side, then justice is required and must be fulfilled, and if we are on the demanding mercy side, then not only do we give mercy, but we receive mercy. And God allows us to choose which side we want to be on and we receive the results accordingly.

The law says, "With what judgment we judge, we will be judged." So Satan who is the adversary which means something like Accuser of the brethren demands justice and so must receive justice. You are right that God is perfect and does not need an atonement to exhibit the perfect attribute of Mercy. We need to learn mercy to be like God. And yet, if the people demand a king, God must give them a king. If they Demand justice, then God must give them justice. But he must also give justice to those who demand it. For those who demand mercy he is able to give mercy. But still justice must be satisfied for those who demand justice! In our society, if a child stole a item from a store or burned down someone's house the parents are responsible and no one complains that justice has not been satisfied. And the person who house is burned who demands justice be done will be satisfied because the parents are answering the demand. But this does not work for those who are not responsible for the actions of the children.

This is an example of how 2 possibilities are correct because if we are on the demanding justice side, then justice is required and must be fulfilled, and if we are on the demanding mercy side, then not only do we give mercy, but we receive mercy. And God allows us to choose which side we want to be on and we receive the results accordingly.