Woah that 100 flew by! I'm happy to say that I've watched every one since the beginning (mostly on Facebook), and I've had an awesome experience. Totally expanded my knowledge and desire to study the gospel more and be a more peace-driven individual. It's also fun to get a little frustration out on the more frustrating topics that we deal with as members of the church; especially us that are more liberty minded. Thank you for the hundreds of hours in preparation that you've put in to these for us to enjoy and learn from. Much love. -Geoff
Satans plan finally makes sense to me. Remember, he wanted to supplant God. So with Satan as God, he wouldn’t judge anyone as unrighteousness. He wouldn’t judge anyone AT ALL. Therefore all would be free to live however they saw fit, and then return to Satan, the new God. “Not one soul shall be lost.”
Doctrine and Covenants section 93 verses 29 - 31 informs us: "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light." // So, the agency is embedded in our eternal nature and pertains to ourselves and not that we are agents of God. Of course, there are consequences and accountability but none of that says or implies that we are agents simply of God and not of ourselves. Overlooking this (the embedded eternal nature of agency) is just as misleading and harmful as saying 'free agency' means no consequences and accountability etc. Why do you overlook this???
Congrats on 100! D&C 29 and 58 specifically mention that we are “agents unto themselves”, not agents of god. We are children of God, but we are free agents (like in sports) in that we are not contractually bound to either God or Satan. We must choose. That doesn’t mean there are no consequences to our choices. Also, I think Satan can use more than one tactic at once. Yes, he strives to convince people that there are no consequences, but he also strives to convince people that they should be simply told what to do, and they don’t need to put in the effort to research options and make good choices. We saw that with Covid: many people didn’t want to learn any truth about masks, lockdowns, or vaccines, they just wanted to be told what to do.
Just saw this episode. Made me think of the parable of the talents in Matthew 25: 14-28. The master entrusted his servants with his wealth while he was away. When he returned each servant was held accountable for what each had been entrusted with.
This is just ridiculous semantic grandstanding. Yes you are free to choose. Yes you have agency. Using the two together is not bad and people using the term in the past weren’t saying you are free of consequences. A free agent is able to switch teams when they want. If you are free to choose life or death then you are free to switch teams. Just because one side will deceive you to join their team it doesn’t mean you were not free to become an agent of that side. This type of semantic nitpicking also relies on confusing different definitions of the word “free”
Welcome to pop theology. I will say though, you may have a flaw working within you as well, unless I'm misunderstanding, which is totally possible, as your retort seems rather on the fly. I'll express myself this way: What exactly, on a granular level, is going on within the deceived in this example of yours? What does it mean to be deceived? Is there will over in the receiving end of deception? If so, shouldn't we, in an effort to be precise, and therefore illuminating, use another word? And if so, aren't the scriptural authors culpable for not having done so (when referencing deception)? We are all free. But an examination of the meaning of this becomes immediately needed. Does it mean solely that there are lattitudes that stand before us upon which we can make moves? The same is true for computers, but we do not consider them free, because they chose solely based on their program, and cannot do otherwise. When you feel that certain things, like animal drives, or circumstantial passions, are beckoning us one way, and yet we refute these calls and act another way, is this evidence of not acting according to program? Or is it merely evidence, at the very least, of complexity in program? Computers can have multiple directives, each given hierarchical status. That the organic nature of our beings results in a changing program, and one that is so complex that it escapes our ability to consciously track it, does not mean that it is not all program. If free will were not real, we would of course not intuit it, because we can never stand in front of the making of the consciousness which is the very standing just mentioned - our awareness, in other words, if always emergent from causation, could never in the moment see its own making. When in reflection we see causation in our personal histories, we think, "Ok, that's that thing, but I am elsewhere free." But where is the evidence of a free move? Wasn't there always a sentiment behind every move? Could it not be the case that he who did not make our good move lacked the requisite sentiment? This does not mean that it does not behoove society for it to believe in free will and to hold people accountable as if they do. But this latter statement also does not declare that we cannot hold people accountable even if they don't have free will - this intuition has been fomented into us by our more recent beliefs that mix circumstantial causation and free will, but if there is no free will, we'll get around to creating order with power, regardless (just think it through, and be mindful that there are desires in us that will not have it any other way). Furthermore, when we say that we refuted the calling of our psychology and our animal self, are we not, subtly, suggesting something to be proud of, and is pride logical without variations by which we are above others? What this means is that the variation indicates a state of non-equalness, and if there is non-equalness in what we otherwise call our free wills, then said non-equalness demands explanation that is other than innateness, as to have been made, in our free selves, variably, either by the universe or a god, is a violation of the concept of free will. Our free will selves must be made equal, and then, from this state of sameness, somehow move off the mark. But what kind of free will choses to be right/good but a right/good free will? We have a problem, and resorting to infinite regressions (where a third player, the free, free will setting will, does the free will making) will not do (because then we need a free, free, free-will making free will). We are not free to be other than as we are, for when we strike upon a desire to change, we do so atop the crest of a wave that precedes us, thus being determinable not be any empirical probing, but by mere logic. One believes themselves to have both a psychology (within which all manner of causation is at work) and then a free self. But when we believe ourselves to be acting against our psychologies, is it not the case that we are consulting what amounts to content (opinion, belief, nature, sentiment)? If content, then variable content needs explanation. It's in the hunt for the cause of this variation that logic fails to fix what amounts to an Escher painting, in our sense of free will. There is no free will. There is no free will and there is no objective morality, and it's ok. What of morality is beautiful but that which, by love, stands against that which is painful, and what pain can exist but confusion and an ever decreasing level of what amounts to pain, when we are successful against evil?
@@kalosvoss5573 As long as the words chosen are the superior ones in terms of succinctness (hitting the desired meaning with the fewest words), I'm not sure where the fault might be, other than to leave out those who would be reached with a more roundabout style with fewer big words, but consequently longer, and thereby turning away even more people than already were, or a style with clever analogies (which I'm not clever enough for). The more important thing is if fault can be found in the reasoning.
This was a pretty good musing. But, allow me to present my version of "agency". Anyone, who knows a tiny bit about The Cosmos and its enormous size and activity, can presume that God is enormously powerful. And, astonishingly, God is eager to share His enormous power with all who qualify; with all who demonstrate an ability to properly utilize it. (If malignant people had real power, the universe would be drenched in Galactic Chaos). This qualification process is simple: on Earth, we utilize our current power in a manner that God approves; in a manner that God uses His power (but, on an intsy bintsy scale). For example: influence is power, speech is power, money is power, sex is power, physical strength is power, position is power. Being a big brother is power, being socially popular is power, being a motivational public speaker is power, being CEO is power, being a man is power, being a woman is power, etc, etc. How we used our power = choice = moral agency = behaving as mini gods here on Earth. Each of us is a God in embryo, so says the Restored Gospel, but I say that each of us is a mini God right now; we can use our current power in a manner that promotes goodness and well-being to others ... which is basically what God does.
If Christ came to do the will of his Father than he would be an agent of his Father. If they are one it could be assumed they are agents like we are. BTW…awesome way to articulate this issue of agency vs. free agency. Fantastic insight and I believe to be spot on!!!
This may be a logical contention for the settings of Heaven- where there is no sin. But while there is sin on the earth; to say there is no agency is to say that humans are just extension of God, or rather that people are just little God agents, committing acts that are against God's will but also Gods will. When they say this would make God both schizophrenic and evil, they aren't kidding.
That was my thought when I was initially listenting (I thought this was coming from more of the deterministic/ calvinistic p.o.v.)- after listening to the whole thing; I see more of what you're saying.
Hmmmm….what about obeying Prophets(agents of God)! That is a whole different category of accountability!….especially when they rule by check list and worthiness according to monetary donations…etc! Bednar was right when he explained “moral agency” not because he was right… but because he has power to punish believers in this life! Agency and deception are holding hands in this church! This simple CTR concept is driven by power (priesthood hierarchy) at every level! As we teach our children to “Follow the Prophet”in song! Even though I know the teachings are not always correct or true from the Prophet….i must obey! Because if I don’t, I will pay for it! This cut and dried Analysis is forgetting Prophet/priesthood authority. The human factor of Devine authority over the lambs!!!! Now what?
Can you please do an episode on the succession crisis, Brigham Young, and priesthood keys?
Woah that 100 flew by! I'm happy to say that I've watched every one since the beginning (mostly on Facebook), and I've had an awesome experience. Totally expanded my knowledge and desire to study the gospel more and be a more peace-driven individual. It's also fun to get a little frustration out on the more frustrating topics that we deal with as members of the church; especially us that are more liberty minded. Thank you for the hundreds of hours in preparation that you've put in to these for us to enjoy and learn from. Much love. -Geoff
Appreciate you listening!
How can anybody even be on Facebook when they ban people? Conservatives and others who speak the truth are silenced.
Satans plan finally makes sense to me. Remember, he wanted to supplant God. So with Satan as God, he wouldn’t judge anyone as unrighteousness. He wouldn’t judge anyone AT ALL. Therefore all would be free to live however they saw fit, and then return to Satan, the new God. “Not one soul shall be lost.”
Happy 100! I love your Sunday musings!
Doctrine and Covenants section 93 verses 29 - 31 informs us: "Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be. All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.
Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light." // So, the agency is embedded in our eternal nature and pertains to ourselves and not that we are agents of God. Of course, there are consequences and accountability but none of that says or implies that we are agents simply of God and not of ourselves. Overlooking this (the embedded eternal nature of agency) is just as misleading and harmful as saying 'free agency' means no consequences and accountability etc. Why do you overlook this???
Congrats on 100!
D&C 29 and 58 specifically mention that we are “agents unto themselves”, not agents of god. We are children of God, but we are free agents (like in sports) in that we are not contractually bound to either God or Satan. We must choose. That doesn’t mean there are no consequences to our choices.
Also, I think Satan can use more than one tactic at once. Yes, he strives to convince people that there are no consequences, but he also strives to convince people that they should be simply told what to do, and they don’t need to put in the effort to research options and make good choices. We saw that with Covid: many people didn’t want to learn any truth about masks, lockdowns, or vaccines, they just wanted to be told what to do.
But people don’t want to be told what to do if it means that their soda and processed meat aren’t good for them.
Just saw this episode. Made me think of the parable of the talents in Matthew 25: 14-28. The master entrusted his servants with his wealth while he was away. When he returned each servant was held accountable for what each had been entrusted with.
This is just ridiculous semantic grandstanding. Yes you are free to choose. Yes you have agency. Using the two together is not bad and people using the term in the past weren’t saying you are free of consequences. A free agent is able to switch teams when they want. If you are free to choose life or death then you are free to switch teams. Just because one side will deceive you to join their team it doesn’t mean you were not free to become an agent of that side. This type of semantic nitpicking also relies on confusing different definitions of the word “free”
Welcome to pop theology. I will say though, you may have a flaw working within you as well, unless I'm misunderstanding, which is totally possible, as your retort seems rather on the fly. I'll express myself this way: What exactly, on a granular level, is going on within the deceived in this example of yours? What does it mean to be deceived? Is there will over in the receiving end of deception? If so, shouldn't we, in an effort to be precise, and therefore illuminating, use another word? And if so, aren't the scriptural authors culpable for not having done so (when referencing deception)?
We are all free. But an examination of the meaning of this becomes immediately needed. Does it mean solely that there are lattitudes that stand before us upon which we can make moves? The same is true for computers, but we do not consider them free, because they chose solely based on their program, and cannot do otherwise. When you feel that certain things, like animal drives, or circumstantial passions, are beckoning us one way, and yet we refute these calls and act another way, is this evidence of not acting according to program? Or is it merely evidence, at the very least, of complexity in program? Computers can have multiple directives, each given hierarchical status. That the organic nature of our beings results in a changing program, and one that is so complex that it escapes our ability to consciously track it, does not mean that it is not all program. If free will were not real, we would of course not intuit it, because we can never stand in front of the making of the consciousness which is the very standing just mentioned - our awareness, in other words, if always emergent from causation, could never in the moment see its own making. When in reflection we see causation in our personal histories, we think, "Ok, that's that thing, but I am elsewhere free." But where is the evidence of a free move? Wasn't there always a sentiment behind every move? Could it not be the case that he who did not make our good move lacked the requisite sentiment? This does not mean that it does not behoove society for it to believe in free will and to hold people accountable as if they do. But this latter statement also does not declare that we cannot hold people accountable even if they don't have free will - this intuition has been fomented into us by our more recent beliefs that mix circumstantial causation and free will, but if there is no free will, we'll get around to creating order with power, regardless (just think it through, and be mindful that there are desires in us that will not have it any other way).
Furthermore, when we say that we refuted the calling of our psychology and our animal self, are we not, subtly, suggesting something to be proud of, and is pride logical without variations by which we are above others? What this means is that the variation indicates a state of non-equalness, and if there is non-equalness in what we otherwise call our free wills, then said non-equalness demands explanation that is other than innateness, as to have been made, in our free selves, variably, either by the universe or a god, is a violation of the concept of free will. Our free will selves must be made equal, and then, from this state of sameness, somehow move off the mark. But what kind of free will choses to be right/good but a right/good free will? We have a problem, and resorting to infinite regressions (where a third player, the free, free will setting will, does the free will making) will not do (because then we need a free, free, free-will making free will). We are not free to be other than as we are, for when we strike upon a desire to change, we do so atop the crest of a wave that precedes us, thus being determinable not be any empirical probing, but by mere logic.
One believes themselves to have both a psychology (within which all manner of causation is at work) and then a free self. But when we believe ourselves to be acting against our psychologies, is it not the case that we are consulting what amounts to content (opinion, belief, nature, sentiment)? If content, then variable content needs explanation. It's in the hunt for the cause of this variation that logic fails to fix what amounts to an Escher painting, in our sense of free will. There is no free will.
There is no free will and there is no objective morality, and it's ok. What of morality is beautiful but that which, by love, stands against that which is painful, and what pain can exist but confusion and an ever decreasing level of what amounts to pain, when we are successful against evil?
@@mh4zd Throwing a thesaurus at another person just to say we have no free will isn't a very useful way to argue your point.
@@kalosvoss5573 As long as the words chosen are the superior ones in terms of succinctness (hitting the desired meaning with the fewest words), I'm not sure where the fault might be, other than to leave out those who would be reached with a more roundabout style with fewer big words, but consequently longer, and thereby turning away even more people than already were, or a style with clever analogies (which I'm not clever enough for). The more important thing is if fault can be found in the reasoning.
@@kalosvoss5573😂
This was a pretty good musing. But, allow me to present my version of "agency".
Anyone, who knows a tiny bit about The Cosmos and its enormous size and activity, can presume that God is enormously powerful. And, astonishingly, God is eager to share His enormous power with all who qualify; with all who demonstrate an ability to properly utilize it. (If malignant people had real power, the universe would be drenched in Galactic Chaos).
This qualification process is simple: on Earth, we utilize our current power in a manner that God approves; in a manner that God uses His power (but, on an intsy bintsy scale). For example: influence is power, speech is power, money is power, sex is power, physical strength is power, position is power. Being a big brother is power, being socially popular is power, being a motivational public speaker is power, being CEO is power, being a man is power, being a woman is power, etc, etc.
How we used our power = choice = moral agency = behaving as mini gods here on Earth. Each of us is a God in embryo, so says the Restored Gospel, but I say that each of us is a mini God right now; we can use our current power in a manner that promotes goodness and well-being to others ... which is basically what God does.
So then we lose our agency when we go against God's commandments.
Makes sense. 💯👏
Congrats on hitting the big 1-0-0!!! 🎉
If Christ came to do the will of his Father than he would be an agent of his Father. If they are one it could be assumed they are agents like we are. BTW…awesome way to articulate this issue of agency vs. free agency. Fantastic insight and I believe to be spot on!!!
This may be a logical contention for the settings of Heaven- where there is no sin. But while there is sin on the earth; to say there is no agency is to say that humans are just extension of God, or rather that people are just little God agents, committing acts that are against God's will but also Gods will. When they say this would make God both schizophrenic and evil, they aren't kidding.
That was my thought when I was initially listenting (I thought this was coming from more of the deterministic/ calvinistic p.o.v.)- after listening to the whole thing; I see more of what you're saying.
OF COURSE THERE WAS SIN IN HEAVEN !!! 1/3 OF ITS HOSTS SINNED AND GOT KICKED OUT !!!!!!!
Hmmmm….what about obeying Prophets(agents of God)! That is a whole different category of accountability!….especially when they rule by check list and worthiness according to monetary donations…etc! Bednar was right when he explained “moral agency” not because he was right… but because he has power to punish believers in this life! Agency and deception are holding hands in this church! This simple CTR concept is driven by power (priesthood hierarchy) at every level! As we teach our children to “Follow the Prophet”in song! Even though I know the teachings are not always correct or true from the Prophet….i must obey! Because if I don’t, I will pay for it!
This cut and dried Analysis is forgetting Prophet/priesthood authority. The human factor of Devine authority over the lambs!!!!
Now what?