My post yesterday was a bit heavy going so I thought I should throw something up today in case I scared anyone off :-) Since my original post entitled 'Law and Morality' was such a hit (I got zero comments) I figured this might be a good chance to refine my views.
I am aware that my blog is turning into something of an outlet for the views of Robert P. George. He really is one of my heroes and I am sorry for inundating my readers (all 3 of you) with a constant deluge of Catholic philosophy. But that is the kick I am on lately, so deal with it. I am reading a couple of books by Dr. George right now and he is certainly changing my views on the propriety of legislating personal morality. I'll use an example to illustrate:
As explained in an earlier post (Law and Morality), in my more libertarian days (like 3 weeks ago...yeah I'm that unstable) I considered racial discrimination laws to be immoral because they violate private property rights. Why shouldn't someone have the right to do what they want on their own property? If the general populace finds it vile that a business owner excludes blacks, the populace will not patronize that business and it will lose money.
While I still may think that it is more prudent for the government to refrain from legislating on racial discrimination issues, I do not regard it as immoral for the government to do so. I have come to believe that the whole idea of denying the government the right to 'legislate morality' is a 'practical absurdity' (in the words of Obama). As Obama said in a 2006 speech, "Our law is by definition a codification of morality." The rights that libertarians do esteem as appropriate for government enforcement (defense of life, liberty, property) are so esteemed based on a moral claim. Why are libertarians okay with the government enforcing these moral issues, but not other moral issues?
In the pre-civil rights era, there were states that actually had laws on the books that were meant to promote racism. These laws were clearly unjust. They were not unjust, however, because they legislated personal morality. They were unjust because they embodied a false morality. A racist morality.
There may be prudential reasons for denying the government the power to regulate certain aspects of personal morality, such as:
- A concern that the power of the state will grow excessively as a consequence
- A high cost to enforce, with minimal or questionable returns on the investment (the war on drugs would be a good example of this one)
As members of the LDS church, we often sense that morals legislation deprives people of agency. It is often mentioned that, "It was Satan's plan to destroy agency. Forcing people to do good is exactly what Satan wants." I have determined (with the help of a friend, and you KNOW who you are:) that this is a misunderstanding of scripture. Read the verses again: Moses 4:1-3
1 And I, the aLord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That bSatan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the cbeginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will dredeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely eI will do it; wherefore fgive me thine honor.
3 Wherefore, because that aSatan brebelled against me, and sought to destroy the cagency 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 dcast down
Satan made at least two mistakes:
- He rebelled against God. God had already presented his plan, and Satan thought he had a better idea. This was Lucifer's pride
- He offered to 'redeem all mankind that one soul shall not be lost'. To redeem means to make amends for wrongdoing. It means to remove the consequences. No where do the scriptures tell us that Satan sought to destroy the agency of man by trying to 'make them do the right thing.' Instead, it seems, he sought to destroy the agency of man by promising to remove the consequences of their bad decisions. He was telling God's children that they could come to earth, do whatever they wanted, not repent, and still be saved. Since this plan was clearly an illusion, God recognized that Satan was setting a trap for His children whereby they would become Lucifer's slaves. And we can see that those who did follow Satan are enslaved to him. I highly doubt that Satan is currently depriving any of his followers of agency by employing a tactic whereby he 'forces them to do good.' Their 'loss of agency' is reflected in their inability to make choices whatsoever. They are completely in Satan's control.
The idea that morals legislation takes away agency is a mistaken interpretation. Man is not being controlled by the law. The law is a teacher, and man still has the choice whether or not to obey the law. Those who follow Satan and lose their agency have no power of choice whatsoever. To claim that laws remove agency when legislating personal morality, one would also need to claim that laws prohibiting murder remove agency. But clearly people can still choose to murder.
So to repeat, laws are only immoral when they embody a false morality. That being said, it may very well be prudent for us to deny the government power of enforcement in certain moral spheres.
Posts
28 comments:
Interesting thoughts. Just a note on agency and Satan's plan: His objective was not to force everyone to choose good, it was to take away the consequences of choosing bad. But, as you know, it is necessary to have the consequences of both right and wrong in order to justly qualify us for joy or misery. This is satan's current objective. He is still trying to deceive mankind into thinking they can choose wickedness without its natural consequences.
So, I think we are in agreement, right? I suppose someone could challenge my line of thinking by using the example of an ultra-controlling parent trying to 'force' a child to do the right thing. But even in that case, the child can still choose to disobey the parent. The child retains their agency.
It is certainly unwise for a parent to discipline in this way, but I do not think it can be claimed that the child is deprived of agency in the same sense that Satan deprives his followers of agency.
When we choose to follow Satan, we forsake our agency. We lose our ability to make any choice other than the one Satan wants us to make. We can only regain our agency through the atonement.
---"In my more libertarian days I always considered racial discrimination laws to be immoral because they violate private property rights. Why shouldn't someone have the right to do what they want on their own property? If the general populace does not like that a business owner excludes blacks, they will not patronize that business and it will lose money."---
While I can see where you were coming from here, I still would have disagreed with you. And I do think racial discrimination is immoral. The fundamental morality of which the government is responsible to protect is life, liberty, and property. The reason I can be okay with government enforcing these issues, but not others, is the fact that any other enforced morality encroaches upon these. They are the 3 pillars if you will of all rights. You can not force another moral code without violating one or more of these fundamental ones. And without any one of these fundamental moral codes progress is damned.
In the case of racial discrimination, the business owner made the choice to allow for public entry into his property. That choice was his. As soon as that choice was made discrimination based upon something arbitrary that cannot be controlled or changed by the individual is a violation of his life. And the business owner already expressed his liberty to allow for public entry into his property both of which remain un violated. If he/she wants to discriminate based on something that is not a part of life, anything that can be changed or chosen by the individual, than that is fair game, but race is not, and therefore it is a part of ones life.
---“While I still may think that it is more prudent for the government to refrain from legislating on racial discrimination issues, I do not regard it as immoral for the government to do so. I have come to believe that the whole idea of denying the government the right to 'legislate morality' is a 'practical absurdity' (in the words of Obama). As Obama said in a 2006 speech, "Our law is by definition a codification of morality." The rights that libertarians do esteem as appropriate for government enforcement (defense of life, liberty, property) are done so in the belief that it is immoral to violate another person's life, liberty, or property. Why are libertarians okay with the government enforcing these moral issues, but not other matters of morality?”---
Denying the government the ability to legislate morality, may be a 'practical absurdity' as you say, but the problem I have is not the ability to legislate, but the legislation being in violation of any of the 3 principle rights about which the governments sole purpose is to protect. Anything else the government does is power mongering, about which I am strongly opposed.
---“In the pre-civil rights era, there were states that actually had laws on the books that were meant to promote racism. These laws were clearly unjust. They were not unjust, however, because they legislated personal morality. They were unjust because they embodied afalse morality. A racist morality.”---
While this is true, these laws were unjust because they violated the principle rights about which the governments purpose was to protect. If the government legislates anything to restrict one persons life or liberty, over that of anothers, by means beyond the control of the individual, than they are violating their primary purpose, and their legislation was immoral.
---“There may be prudential reasons for a government to refrain from legislating certain moral truths such as:
- concern that the power of the state will grow excessively as a consequence
- high cost to enforce with minimal or questionable returns on the investment (drug war would be a good example of this one)
I do not believe that one can claim that it is immoral for government to legislate on matters of personal morality though. I think it is better to say that in particular areas of morality it is not prudential for the government to legislate. And what is prudent in one epoch, or region, may not be prudent in another epoch or region. The starting questions for morals legislation should be: Is the morality being considered for legislation correct? And if so, is it prudent to legislate on this matter? In many cases we may answer yes to the first question, but no to the second. “---
While prudence is valid reasoning for opposing/supporting legislation, the morality/immorality of legislation can easily be determined by weighing said legislation against whether or not it violates the rights to life, liberty, or property. And that will not change throughout time, only peoples interpretation and justification will, and therefore effect the prudence. But the morality is sound and will remain constant.
---“One more thing (sorry for such a long email, I get on my rants sometimes):
You mentioned that 'taking away man's agency' was Satan's plan. While this is true, I think we misconstrue the scriptures on this point. Read them again:
1 And I, the aLord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That bSatan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from thecbeginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will dredeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely eI will do it; wherefore fgive me thine honor.
2 But, behold, my Beloved aSon, which was my Beloved and bChosen from the beginning, said unto me—cFather, thy dwill be done, and the eglory be thine forever.
3 Wherefore, because that aSatan brebelled against me, and sought to destroy thecagency 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 dcastdown
Satan made 2 mistakes:
1) He rebelled against God. God had already presented his plan, and Satan thought he had a better idea. This was Lucifer's pride
2) He offered to 'redeem all mankind that one soul shall not be lost'. To redeem means to make amends for wrongdoing. It means to remove the consequences. No where do the scriptures tell us that Satan sought to destroy the agency of man by trying to make them do the right thing. Instead, it seems, he sought to destroy the agency of man by removing the consequences of their bad decisions. He was essentially offering to allow man to do whatever he wanted and not have to repent, or pay the price for wrongdoing. Since this plan was clearly impossible, God recognized that man would necessarily become enslaved to Lucifer thereby losing his agency. And we can see that those who did follow Satan are enslaved to him. I highly doubt that Satan is currently depriving any of his followers of agency by forcing them to do good. Their 'loss of agency' is reflected in their inability to make choices whatsoever. They are completely in Satan's control”---
I agree with your number 1, so I will go right to number 2. I disagree that the redemption of which it speaks means to remove consequences. I strongly believe it means to remove choice. Jesus Christ atoned for all mankind. The price of redemption has been payed for every single person. The cost to us is our choice. We have to choose to accept what He did for us. Satan's flaw was to remove that choice, so he would have come here and done exactly what Christ did, but make it obligatory for everyone, so that everyone would return to God. Because had this plan been put into place man would not have been enslaved and therefore lose their agency, but there agency would have already been denied so that they could not choose whether or not to accept their redemption. I think this is a vital distinction, as the loss of ability to choose, necessarily prohibits progression. While it is possible to remove consequences while still progressing, albeit it would be much harder. It would still be possible.
---“The idea that morals legislation takes away agency is, I think, a mistaken interpretation. Man is not being controlled by the law. Man still has the choice whether or not to obey the law. Those who followed Satan and lost their agency have no power of choice whatsoever. To claim that laws remove agency when legislating personal morality, one would also need to claim that laws prohibiting murder remove agency. But clearly people can still choose to murder. “---
Not all morals legislation does take away agency, but it is a flawed argument to say that the law does not control. Obviously, the law prohibiting murder would seem to remove agency, the problem with this example is murder would violate the rights to life, liberty, and property. And the violation of all three of the principle rights about which the sole purpose of government is to protect, is governments duty to protect. So it would actually be immoral for the law not to prohibit murder.
Our world is very complex, and there are many people living within it. Agency should be absolute until it conflicts with another persons, at which time the law should always protect the person who is not violating the other person. That is the morality Government should legislate, and is responsible to legislate. When they overstep their bounds, than they are violating their fundamental purpose, and should be corrected.
---“So to repeat, laws are only immoral when they embody a false morality, although it may very well be prudent for the government to refrain from legislating on many aspects of personal morality.”---
So to reiterate, laws are immoral when they violate governments principle purpose for existing: Protecting life, liberty, and property.
hiorNate, those are some great (albeit numerous) thoughts. I do not have time to address each of them right now, so I would like to jump to one of your points toward the end where you argue with my interpretation of Satan's proposal. You said:
" I disagree that the redemption of which it speaks means to remove consequences. I strongly believe it means to remove choice. Jesus Christ atoned for all mankind. The price of redemption has been payed for every single person. The cost to us is our choice. We have to choose to accept what He did for us. Satan's flaw was to remove that choice, so he would have come here and done exactly what Christ did, but make it obligatory for everyone, so that everyone would return to God. Because had this plan been put into place man would not have been enslaved and therefore lose their agency, but there agency would have already been denied so that they could not choose whether or not to accept their redemption. I think this is a vital distinction, as the loss of ability to choose, necessarily prohibits progression. While it is possible to remove consequences while still progressing, albeit it would be much harder. It would still be possible."
If I understand your reasoning (let me know if I don't) you are suggesting that Satan's proposal was to come to earth and perform the atonement just as Christ did, then 'force' us to accept the atonement thereby removing our choice in the matter. I see the logic, but it doesn't line up with the way I see Satan actually doing business. And it supposes that Satan was willing to perform the atonement. I don't see that lining up with our understanding of Satan at all.
How does Satan deprive us of our agency now? He gets us to believe that we can perform immoral acts without facing the consequences. What we find, however, is that once we choose to follow Satan we can no longer choose to follow God. Take the example of an alcoholic: Once a person becomes an alcoholic they literally lose their ability to not choose to drink. They have lost their agency. The only way to regain that agency is through repentance and the atonement. Even alcoholics anonymous recognizes this: a key element of AA is for the alcoholic to admit their helplessness before God. It is only at that point, that their agency is restored by God.
I see Satan's plan to be a sham and a trap from the beginning. He wanted to convince us that we could do whatever we wanted and he would somehow 'redeem' us (he never explains how because the 'how' doesn't exist). God recognized that salvation without obedience, atonement and repentance was an illusion. He recognized that Satan was actually trying to set himself up as the master of His children with a lie. By following Satan we would enslave ourselves to his will, thereby losing our agency. And this is exactly what did, and does, happen to those who choose to follow Satan.
I've enjoyed the comments very much and especially the original post.
1) Satan's idea that not one soul would be lost destroys agency in the sense that no one has power to effect their own salvation and no one is instrumental in their own salvation. All would be saved regardless of their actions.
2) Another thought: Satan may have wanted to destroy agency because the law of agency is what connects our actions to consequences. Accountability is build upon the foundation of agency (i.e., the principal is legally bound by the acts of the agent). If no one is accountable, then consequences become meaningless. (Under the Father's plan, those who are unaccountable are saved as well.) Could Satan have suggested that he would make us unaccountable by destroying agency, therefore none would be lost?
** Look up the word Agency in the dictionary and you'll find that it has nothing to do with Freedom or Choice. It has to do with Power, Actions, Instrumentality, and Legal Represention.
Matthew: thanks for your comments. I visited your blog and I'm certainly going to read through some of the links when I have more time.
In the little bit that I already read there, I see that the question of how Satan sought to destroy agency is somewhat controversial: the scriptures are not particularly descriptive on this point. I liked one comment I read on your blog where someone said it doesn't really matter how Satan planned to 'save' us because it was a sham either way. On the other hand, I think Satan is still trying to accomplish his goals and perhaps we can see glimpses of what he attempted pre-mortally by understanding his tactics in the here and now.
My own experience with Satan leads me to think he is much more apt to take away my agency by convincing me that I can do wrong and 'get away' with it. I soon find myself in addictive and compulsive habits that can only be cured through the atonement. On the other hand, we can obviously not grow in the way God intended if we only obey because of the fear of punishment. This is certainly an interesting topic for rumination.
Nate:
Without addressing each of your points individually, it would be easier to look at the central premise that is the foundation of your entire argument. You say:
"The fundamental morality of which the government is responsible to protect is life, liberty, and property. The reason I can be okay with government enforcing these issues, but not others, is the fact that any other enforced morality encroaches upon these. They are the 3 pillars if you will of all rights. You can not force another moral code without violating one or more of these fundamental ones."
While I agree that the primary responsibilities of government are to protect life, liberty, and property I would probably provide a different justification. The standard libertarian explanation goes something like this (quoting myself from an earlier post):
"Since the government derives its just power from the consent of the governed, the government can only enforce morals on the citizenry that an individual, in the absence of government, could enforce on his neighbor. In other words, people can only lend to the government powers that they themselves possess.
For example, we all recognize stealing as wrong. If my neighbor steals one of my cars, I have the right to force my neighbor to give it back to me. Since I posess this power, I can empower my agent, the government, to take the car back for me. Now think of a racial discrimination example: What if I observe that my neighbor never lets black people on his property. Do I have the right to force him to let black people on his property? It does not seem so. Therefore I do not have the right to empower my agent, the government, to force my neighbor to allow black people on his property."
Whether you use my justification, or yours for the libertarian position there are a number of problems. For one thing it draws a line between personal morality and moral relations between individuals that does not really exist. Take the example of alcohol abuse: This may seem like a personal choice, but if the alcohol abuser decides to drink and drive he may very well infringe on my right to life.
The strict libertarian position also denies the government (in the words of Robert P. George) of its important subsidiary role of supporting those institutions that shoulder the primary burden of building a healthy moral ecology. Government can do much to support the work of churches, civic institutions, and families (not necessarily financially supporting). And without these vital institutions, keeping government limited to its primary role of defense is illusory.
Maybe this is the fundamental point of our disagreement: Although I would like government to be limited to defense of life, liberty, and property I recognize that this is impossible without a generally moral citizenry. I recognize that there is a risk of government growing in power as it starts legislating personal morality (as I noted in my original post). If society is crumbling around us though, I prefer that government starts legislating personal morality rather than see society descend into chaos. I do not see the legislation of personal morality as inherently immoral; The risk we take when legislating personal morality is the growth of the state.
I have some problems with the fairly new idea that Satan is still trying to implement his plan during mortality. Why would he propose a plan which removes agency in order to save everyone, then after his plan is rejected, continue to try to remove agency in order to damn everyone? Why do we hold to the idea that Satan is still trying to destroy agency? Isn't it more likely that if he wished to damn us, he would have a completely opposite plan? If agency is linked to accountability, and he destroys it, wouldn't we then become unaccountable, and therefore candidates for salvation?
I think it's more likely that he's using our agency (and accountability) against us. He'll tell us that there is no God, or that sinning doesn't really matter. Look at the first temptation in the Garden of Eden: God says that if Adam and Eve partake of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they will die; Satan says, "ye shall not surely die." Who do we believe? God says there will be accountability and consequences; Satan denies them knowing he can trap us with them. Using the very agency that God gave us to destroy us would have a certain poetic justice to it. "So you want agency do you? Then with that agency I shall drag as many as I can down to hell, and we'll see how well your plan works out."
What interesting thoughts Matthew had in the last post. In the premortal existence, Satan proposed saving us by taking away our agency. It wouldn't make sense for him to use the same tactic of taking away our agency now to damn us. Depriving us of agency both to save and to damn is illogical. That's a new idea for me. Hum . . .
That makes me wonder if it is even possible to truly take away agency. In 2 Nephi 2:10-14 we see a logical pattern. If punishment doesn't exist, sin doesn't exist. If there is no sin and wickedness, there is no righteousness and happiness. If there is no righteousness and happiness or punishment and misery, there is no God. Therefore, because there is a God, agency exists and cannot cease to exist or God ceases to be God. Right? So again we see that Satan's plan was a sham then and it always will be simply because there is a God. And with God there is agency. Period.
Another thought, agency by definition is not the power to choose, it is the power to choose what is right. Satan cannot ever destroy our power to choose what is right because he cannot destroy God. Only we can relinquish that power. He can only tempt us to willing give up that agency. We see that he continually seeks to do just that, as seen in the example Sam gave of an alcoholic.
Going back to the original thought, that depriving us of agency both to save and to damn is illogical, and keeping in mind that agency by definition is not the power to choose but rather the power to choose to follow God (as agents of Him), I have to conclude that what Satan proposed in the premortal realm was not any more benevolent that what he seeks to do now in mortality. He never sought to save us. He never changed plans from saving to damning. Surprise, surprise, the Father of Lies lied. He "sought to destroy the agency of man." He said, "I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost," (Moses1:1-4) but that is impossible while seeking to destroy agency. Again, if there is no agency, there is no God, there is no salvation. From the time he was blinded by his own ambition then to now he has always sought to destroy our agency. His purpose has not changed, it has always been to damn us, as a prideful person seeks to be elevated above all others. Of course destroying agency in general is impossible as already explained because God will not cease to be God, but it can be destroyed in individual lives, willing relinquished for ease or power or pride or whatever.
I hope what is clear in my noggin is coming across clearly on the blog (despite the late hour :). I'd love to hear what you think.
I like where this is going...it's nice that we have somehow attracted a guy into the conversation that has an ENTIRE blog dedicated to the discussion of agency (check him out at http://matthewandreasen.blogspot.com/) Google alerts in action I suppose Matthew?
So if we suppose that Satan is employing new tactics in the here and now, is it even relevant what his plan was in the preexistence? Whether it was to 'force us to do good'(perhaps by suggesting an 'instant' punishment scheme whereby we would constantly be afraid to choose evil), or to propose the removal of accountability, either way was a sham. Whatever he came up with was impossible so it might be pointless to get hung up on the details.
What we do know is that Satan's pride was wounded so badly at being rejected, that he rebelled against God. Why did the hosts of heaven follow him? Is it because they liked his plan (whatever it was) and their pride was also wounded when God rejected it?
MJ, explain to me why agency is 'the power to choose the right' and not just the power to choose. Matthew seems to imply that there is more to it than that...he even suggested that agency has nothing to do with freedom or choice. I don't quite follow the reasoning there...explain further if you don't mind.
Can agency not be destroyed? Hmm... It seems to me that because of the atonement, we always retain our agency. Even when we are in the grips of sin, we can exercise our agency to choose Christ's grace. Without the atonement could agency be destroyed? Without the atonement we would still have to willingly give it up in the first instance, but once it was gone we could not get it back.
I like Matthew's suggestion that Satan is currently trying to get us to abuse our agency. He helps us cook up a faulty justification for our sins, then watches us face the inevitable consequences. What does Satan get out of this? Are we enslaved to Satan or are we enslaved to the consequences?
MJ: I did not notice your most recent post until after I had already posted. My last comment does not take your recent thoughts into account. And its WAY past my bedtime, so I'll have to think about it tomorrow...
I just found a talk by Elder Christofferson, 2006. Here are a few excerpts (link to talk: http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=aed5ceb47f381210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD)
"When we use the term moral agency, we are appropriately emphasizing the accountability that is an essential part of the divine gift of agency. We are moral beings and agents unto ourselves, free to choose but also responsible for our choices."
"What, then, are the elements of moral agency? To me there are three...First, there must be alternatives among which to choose...Second, for us to have agency, we must not only have alternatives, but we must also know what they are...Third is the next element of agency: the freedom to make choices (see 2 Nephi 10:23). This freedom to act for ourselves in choosing among alternatives is often referred to in the scriptures as agency itself. For this freedom we are indebted to God. It is His gift to us."
"We recognize the gift of agency as a central aspect of the plan of salvation proposed by the Father in the great premortal council, and that “there was war in heaven” (Revelation 12:7) to defend and preserve it...Satan has not ceased his efforts “to destroy the agency of man.” He promotes conduct and choices that limit our freedom to choose by replacing the influence of the Holy Spirit with his own domination (see D&C 29:40; 93:38–39). Yielding to his temptations leads to a narrower and narrower range of choices until none remains and to addictions that leave us powerless to resist. While Satan cannot actually destroy law and truth, he accomplishes the same result in the lives of those who heed him by convincing them that whatever they think is right is right and that there is no ultimate truth—every man is his own god, and there is no sin."
So I'm going with MJ on this one. Satan's plan to 'save' us was no such thing. God had already presented a plan. God had chosen his Only Begotten Son to be the central figure in the plan. Satan's pride could not handle this. He wanted to be #1. When he presented his own 'plan of salvation' it was not to save. It was to ensure his place at the top. It was a plan to subject the children of God to his will whereby he would always know that he was the one in charge. The moment Satan presented an alternative to that which God had already decreed, his rebellion began. The 'Father of Lies' lied. Well said MJ
Agency if not synonymous is intrinsically connected with freedom, and liberty.
---"My brothers, sisters, and friends, one of God’s most precious gifts to man is the principle of free agency—the privilege of choice which was introduced by God the Eternal Father to all of his spirit children in the premortal state. This occurred in the great council in heaven before the peopling of this earth. The children of God were endowed with freedom of choice while yet but spirit beings. The divine plan provided that they be freeborn in the flesh and become heirs to the inalienable birthright of liberty to choose and act for themselves in mortality. It was essential for their eternal progression that they be subjected to the influences of both good and evil...
...A person’s freedom should never be suppressed by men, by Satan, nor by our Lord. Men should never be in bondage one to another. While Satan would like us under his control, God does not control the actions of men. He has given us our agency to combat the trials, temptations, and evils of every kind. However, he gives certain principles that, if followed, will lead us back to his presence. God’s kingdom is founded upon perfect liberty. Every man, woman, and child has the right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. Each person alone is responsible to his creator for his individual acts."---
---Delbert L. Stapley, “Using Our Free Agency,” Ensign, May 1975, 21
I too have problems with Satan trying to continue his original plan. Satan was in a position of authority. Pride was at the heart of his plan, and he wanted everyone to be saved, "that not one soul be lost." Once he was cast out, his pride still drives him, his plan was not put into effect, and I think now he is using the part of Heavenly Father's plan, that he thought was the flaw, against us to try and justify his original position. Agency. Without which we could have no progression, but with which, not everyone will be saved.
Nate said: "I too have problems with Satan trying to continue his original plan. Satan was in a position of authority. Pride was at the heart of his plan, and he wanted everyone to be saved, "that not one soul be lost." Once he was cast out, his pride still drives him, his plan was not put into effect, and I think now he is using the part of Heavenly Father's plan, that he thought was the flaw, against us to try and justify his original position. Agency. Without which we could have no progression, but with which, not everyone will be saved."
My problem with this interpretation is that it supposes that Satan was actually trying to propose a route to salvation and not captivity. That he was, perhaps unknowingly, being influenced by prideful ambitions, but that he was making a good faith effort at an alternative.
I think this is founded in a misinterpretation of the 'Council in Heaven.' I do not think this was a democratic type council. It was a council where God presented to His children THE plan. Satan's rebellion began the moment he suggested an alternative. I do not think his rebellion started after his plan was rejected. From the beginning, his plan was designed to ensure his eternal superiority by controlling us and placing us under his dominion. The details of his plan were merely designed to lure us into his control.
Note that Christ did not propose a plan. Christ simply said, "Thy will be done and the glory be thine forever." If Satan is, indeed, the 'Father' of all lies, his plan was the first of his bastard children.
Repeating what Elder Christofferson said on this subject:
"Satan has not ceased his efforts “to destroy the agency of man.” He promotes conduct and choices that limit our freedom to choose by replacing the influence of the Holy Spirit with his own domination. Yielding to his temptations leads to a narrower and narrower range of choices until none remains and to addictions that leave us powerless to resist."
We can discuss this some more, but I'd also like to get back to the original theme of the post. That is, does legislation on personal morality violate the principle of agency? Some thoughts?
Sam: Google Alerts! (Very good. You are correct.)
My view of Agency comes mainly from the dictionary. Here are Noah Webster’s definitions from “An American Dictionary of the English Language” (published in 1828) for Agency related words:
A’GENCY, n. [L. agens. See Act.]
1. The quality of moving or of exerting power; the state of being in action; action; operation; instrumentality; as, the agency of providence in the natural world.
2. The office of an agent, or factor; business of an agent entrusted with the concerns of another; as, the principal pays the charges of agency.
A’GENT, a. Acting; opposed to patient, or sustaining action; as, the body agent. [Little used.] Bacon.
A’GENT, n. 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; an attorney; a minister.
A’GENTSHIP, n. The office of an agent. [Not used.] We now use agency.
Notice that Elder Christofferson said, "Third is the next element of agency: the freedom to make choices." If one of the elements of Agency is, "the freedom to make choices," why do we commonly equate Agency with freedom of choice? Just something to think about. Needless to say, I think the correct definition of Agency is to be found in the dictionary. I have tried to understand our modern scriptures from that point of view.
Now I'll try to get back to the original theme of your post as you have requested. (I only wandered off because some of the ideas you originally wrote about agency and accountability, etc., caught my attention.)
Because I use a different definition for Agency, some of my ideas may be a bit out of the normal LDS viewpoint. Even before reading the dictionary I never felt that anything in this life could take away agency. (Of course I now recognize that if I were murdered, in a coma, a vegetable, completely out of my mind with psychedelic drugs, etc., I would not have agency, but that's a bit extreme.)
I can't imagine that the Soviet Union or the worst dictator that ever lived could bind the people with laws or constraints to the extent that agency would be completely lost. In other words, I can't image that the puny arm of man could destroy something that was so integral to God's plan. So many questions arise. Could a dictator destroy God's plan? Were the people of the Soviet Union somehow less accountable for their actions? Etc.
(to be continued)
The church generally speaks of Agency using the idea of, "free agency," so I will use that term so as not to confuse what I'm about to say with the dictionary.
I think one of our problems is that we sometimes think of "free agency" like "free love." We think we should be able to do anything we want without any consequences, without anyone telling us it's wrong, without any boundaries, and without anything interfering in any way with what we want to do. If the government passes a law saying we have to pay more taxes, we say that they are taking away our agency. If our spouse or children interfere with our ability to watch TV non-stop every Saturday, we say they are unfair and we have lost our agency. If the brethren say that certain "lifestyles" are not right, we scream that the church is taking away our agency. In my mind this is all baloney. Agency is not the right to choose or do whatever you want with no restraints and no consequences.
The traditional meaning of "free agency" is more like the "free market." (Now I'm playing to Sam's economist side.) We are able to act for ourselves without undue control over our actions. To a Mormon, this means that Satan cannot force us to do good or evil. (To an Arminian Protestant, this means that the God does not predetermine who will be unconditionally saved or damned.)
If God or any outside influence completely controlled us, there would be no true "free agency," like if a dictatorial government completely controlled all aspect of production and trade in an economy, there would be no free market. But likewise if no one's actions had any influence on us, or impacted us in any way, then we could not be tested by using our "free agency." This would be like a free market in which there was no competition. Wouldn't that be a monopoly, not a free market? If there were no outside influences on us at all (no governmental laws, morals, interferences, opposition) where would our agency be then? We would be like the monopoly. Or maybe we would be like a god, power to do what we wanted, and no one else could touch us.
So my point is, regardless of what the government or anyone else does, we retain our agency. That's God plan. Lehi said that opposition was necessary to God's plan. Abraham said that the purpose of mortality was to be tested. D&C 29:39 says that even the devil and temptation are necessary for men to be, "agents unto themselves." Don't get me wrong - there are plenty of evils and injustices in this world which can influence our use of "free agency," but I don't believe any of them destroy it, or take it away.
Now, it's late. If you want to start up a post in the future on Agency, I'm all in. (If I don't catch it, you can leave a post on my blog to get my attention.) Until then, I'll try to keep to your original topic if I have more to say.
When I defined agency not as the power to choose but rather the power to choose what is right I was spinning off the second of Webster's definitions of "A’GENCY . . . 2. The office of an agent, or factor; business of an agent entrusted with the concerns of another." If we are "agents" of God, we perhaps aren't "authorized" to act in a way that would displease our boss (though we still could maybe); hence, the true exercise of agency is acting in righteousness. However, this definition is probably not helpful in considering your question, "Does legislation on personal morality violate the principle of agency?" I appreciate Matthew's distinction of agency not as the freedom of choice but as the freedom to make choices. Hum . . .
Matthew and MJ:
Your comments got me thinking, what is the point in discussing whether or not moral legislation destroys agency if we can't even define what agency is?
So, if you're up for it, lets continue the discussion on what agency actually is. If we come to some sort of consensus on that, I think we'll be better suited to discuss the legal question (in other words, COME BACK Matthew...you're comments are very much appreciated:-)
If I understood the dictionary definition correctly, we can think of our agency as something of a stewardship. In the Garden, God gave Adam and Eve certain commandments such as 'don't eat the fruit', and 'multiply and replenish the earth'. As agents of God they were entrusted to 'do whatsoever the Lord had commanded them'. Nevertheless, God 'gave it unto them that they could choose for themselves.' At some point however they would be held accountable for what they did with the things they were entrusted. Salvation depended on God's children understanding their stewardship (or agency, or commandments) and choosing for themselves to obey.
So if this definition of agency is correct, then wherein did Satan 'seek to destroy the agency of man?' It must have been evident to the hosts of heaven that God's plan presupposed that certain of God's children would not act as wise agents and would necessarily not be saved. Salvation seemed marvelous, but the risk was that we might be lost, or those we cared about might be lost. In addition we had agency in the preexistence and we knew that certain spirits were more/less faithful in their office as agents of God. It might have been that many of us were aware of our poor performance thus far, and were fearful that we would be eternally damned as a result of this plan. And staying with God in the current state was not an option.
Lucifer's pride had just been hurt when God chose Christ as the key player in the plan. As we read in Abraham, "[Satan] was angry" at not being chosen. He wanted to be on top. He realized that the only way to be on top, would be to control everyone and make sure they were eternally beneath him.
I think it is important to realize that control of God's children was the motivation of Satan's plan. I do not think he ever intended to 'save' God's children. He was already 'angry' at God and in a state of rebellion. He could only get the children of God under his control by getting them to forsake their Father. So he tempted them: "Follow me and you won't have to be afraid anymore. I will ensure that 'one soul will not be lost.' Given the state of anxiety of many of God's children, it was apparently too much to resist. So they forsook their agency (ie stewardship, commandments of God) hoping for an easier way. And they became Satan's slaves.
Alright, my brain is cooked. Read it and tear me a new one:-)
Not enough time to write too much, so I will just make a few points at this time about my view of agency. I have yet to find someone who thinks about agency the way I do, so don't feel obliged to think that I have all the answers--just a different point of view.
1) Stewardship is related to Agency since a Steward is a type of Agent (so is a proxy, a mediator, and a servant), but in my mind Stewardship and Agentship (i.e., Agency) are used differently in the scriptures. If you compare the way the two terms are used you may notice a different pattern.
2) When we are baptized we certainly become an Agent of Christ and should strive to do his will (I think that's part of our covenant); however, we had our agency before baptism and we continue to retain it afterward. All men (and women) are given agency during mortality. Not all are agents of God.
3) If you're looking to use the second definition of Agency from Webster's 1828 dictionary, the scriptures consistently define whose agent we are.
Good night for now.
I'm sorry but I'm not sure I have anything to add to what has already been said. Perhaps I'm simple-minded, but I view agency more holistically and don't really feel a need to distinguish between agency and stewardship and free will or whatever. To me, agency is as simple a concept as faith with just as many manifestations and shades of meaning. Agency is inexorably connected to our divine heritage as children of God and to our potential to become like Him and therefore is inexorably connected to our divine stewardship (that is much more than just the covenant of baptism) and to the Atonement of Christ. Simply put, we are to act and not to be acted upon (Alma 12:31). Sam put it well. Satan sought to destroy agency before and he continues to wage war against it now. He entices us to forsake our agency for an easier path and thereby limits our ability to act in the future or he distracts us from acting in the first place, often by bombarding us with doubt and discouragement. But we are to act and not to be acted upon. The war over agency continues to be waged and our only true defense is the Atonement.
Oops, after saying I had nothing to say I did say a lot. Thanks for the food for thought and forgive my simple mind.:)
This probably is a discussion that could go on endlessly. As you said MJ, agency is one of those principles like the atonement. The implications and shades of meaning are vast.
I have one additional thought to add. Satan's scheme from the very beginning has been to present the children of God with a seemingly viable alternative to God's plan. In the preexistence we were filled with anxiety over the possibility of many of our loved ones being lost. So he tempted us with a plan that promised the salvation of all mankind. During Christ's life on earth, the Jews were filled with anxiety over their captivity to Rome. So he tempted them with the idea that the Christ would come to liberate them from their physical captors. In our day men and women want to indulge their sexual appetites. They feel constrained by the dictates of traditional morality. So Satan tells man that traditional morals are silly. He tempts them with a plan whereby society can flourish with 'gay marriage' and sexual anarchy.
The details of each plan that Satan presents may vary depending on the existing anxieties and weaknesses of mankind. But the pattern is the same. He tempts us with a plan that seemingly liberates us from our present anxieties and moral restraints. If we allow him, he will even paint an extremely detailed picture in our minds of how wonderful and rosy life will be if we follow his plan. But each plan is actually an illusion and a trap. It is designed to lure us into Satan's control whereby we forsake our agency and become his servants. As Elder Christofferson said:
"While Satan cannot actually destroy law and truth, he accomplishes the same result in the lives of those who heed him by convincing them that whatever they think is right and that there is no ultimate truth—every man is his own god, and there is no sin."
Satan cannot destroy agency in general (as you stated MJ), but he can destroy agency in individual lives as God's children embrace Satan's plan and eventually fall into his control.
With modern media it is so easy for Satan to spread his lies. He can create very complex and subtle plans to deceive and blind us. And he can broadcast them on a massive scale. With the internet he can even create custom plans of entrapment that are perfectly tailored to the weaknesses and anxieties of a particular individual. I think this is why temple building has surged in recent years. Temples are like re-programming stations. They cleanse our minds of the falsities that constantly bombard us. Temples fill our minds with a clear vision of God's plan.
Sheesh, I wonder what lies I am buying into right now. It's been 6 weeks or so since my last temple visit...I think I'll go today:-)
"In addition to the cleansing effect of the Atonement, God has given us agency--the power to choose between good (the path of life) and evil (the path of spiritual death and destruction [see 2 Ne. 2:27; Moses 4:3]). Although the conditions of mortality can limit our freedoms (such as by restricting our mobility or our power to act on certain options), when we have reached the age or condition of accountability (see Moro. 8:5-12 ; D&C 68:27; 101:78) no mortal or spiritual power can deprive us of our agency."
- Elder Oaks
Post a Comment