Force and Agency

[ChelC]

I think you have demonstrated that punishments have become out of control. I'd agree. The answer is not to abandon all law, it's to abandon stupid laws and to affix more appropriate consequences.

God's law removes no one's agency. The fact that you cannot choose to live in the Celestial kingdom and be an adulterer violates no one's agency. The fact that murder is illegal on earth does not violate agency. Agency is in tact. Laws do not = force. Violation of laws leads to it. Most people seem to agree we have the right to use force when it comes to dealing with a murderer. What gives us that right?

[ChelC]

ChelC wrote:
I've said before in another thread, let's talk about appropriate consequences for things, but the answer to having many dumb laws and many ill conceived punishments is not abandoning all law.

I agree. I think where we draw the line is the question. I am not in favor of the total libertarian view. We cannot let someone own the whole earth or peddle porn to kids. I do think we need to preserve agency as much as possible. Right now this country has more people in prison than any other country in the world and I think we are getting more wicked. not more righteous.

Laws in this country, no matter how trivial have the power of life and death for us. We should be careful about making them. Too many are losing their lives over petty things. several years ago,an eighty year old women in UT county was given a black eye and brusises in the face for not clearing weeds in her yard. A man in West Valley was shot and killed for asking police why they were parked in front of his house.

We already have way more laws than we need. Laws don't make people righteous.

I agree completely.

[Thomas]

I think you have demonstrated that punishments have become out of control. I'd agree. The answer is not to abandon all law, it's to abandon stupid laws and to affix more appropriate consequences.

God's law removes no one's agency. The fact that you cannot choose to live in the Celestial kingdom and be an adulterer violates no one's agency. The fact that murder is illegal on earth does not violate agency. Agency is in tact. Laws do not = force. Violation of laws leads to it. Most people seem to agree we have the right to use force when it comes to dealing with a murderer. What gives us that right?

We have the right to protect ourselves,famlies, etc.

[jonesde]

The use of force is a sin and is wrong unless it is justified. There are certain things that people may do that justify other people to use force to defend themselves (ie fight off an attack) or correct a wrong (damage done, something stolen, etc)... basically to counter violation of natural, negative rights (ie the D&C 134:2 rights) in an aggressive manner (ie unjustified).

What gives us the right to use force under those circumstances?

Before getting into that... consider that there is no action done collectively that is more justified than action done individually, just because it is done collectively. This is a general principle of proper government that goes way back in history, that ET Benson wrote about, and that D&C 134:1 also mentions ("he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them").

In other words, if there was no such thing as justified violence then ALL people involved with government would be sinning... as they use violence every day to enforce laws (unfortunately these days that includes both bad and good laws... if it were only good laws, like those against acts mentioned D&C 134:8, and that more generally violate the rights enumerated in D&C 134:2).

Anyway, the right to use force? Well, I don't know about the right, other than philosophically perhaps in that if someone violates or attempts to violate my natural, negative rights (again, see D&C 134:2) then I am justified in violating their rights to prevent the violation or to reverse/correct it after the fact.

If I follow those guidelines and only respond in kind, then I shouldn't have much to worry about at the judgment bar... but that is also a concern. There are various examples in the scriptures of people responding to defend their rights, including:

- title of liberty: Moroni justified the violence of defensive war "In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children" because other people were acting in an aggressive manner and attempting to steal from them and to kill or enslave them

- the "Law of Nephi":

23 Now, I speak unto you concerning your families—if men will smite you, or your families, once, and ye bear it patiently and revile not against them, neither seek revenge, ye shall be rewarded;

24 But if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you.

25 And again, if your enemy shall smite you the second time, and you revile not against your enemy, and bear it patiently, your reward shall be an hundred fold.

26 And again, if he shall smite you the third time, and ye bear it patiently, your reward shall be doubled unto you four-fold;

27 And these three testimonies shall stand against your enemy if he repent not, and shall not be blotted out.

28 And now, verily I say unto you, if that enemy shall escape my vengeance, that he be not brought into judgment before me, then ye shall see to it that ye warn him in my name, that he come no more upon you, neither upon your family, even your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.

29 And then, if he shall come upon you or your children, or your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation, I have delivered thine enemy into thine hands;

30 And then if thou wilt spare him, thou shalt be rewarded for thy righteousness; and also thy children and thy children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.

31 Nevertheless, thine enemy is in thine hands; and if thou rewardest him according to his works thou art justified; if he has sought thy life, and thy life is endangered by him, thine enemy is in thine hands and thou art justified.

32 Behold, this is the law I gave unto my servant Nephi, and thy fathers, Joseph, and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham, and all mine ancient prophets and apostles.

These verses make it clear that there is a better way to resolve many problems, and that will also be looked upon more favoribly in heaven.

That said, here is the literal statement of justification from verse 24: "if ye bear it not patiently, it shall be accounted unto you as being meted out as a just measure unto you".

If collective action (ie through government) does not follow this pattern, the people involved will be judged the SAME way as if they did it individually. That is the concern we should all have with our involvement with government, and support of the various government policies.

There is sin in acting without justification, and even with justification there is a better and higher way to respond that many in our current government and those of us who are subject to them fail to benefit from.

[jonesde]

We already have way more laws than we need. Laws don't make people righteous.

Yes, good point. In fact, they are often used as an excuse to justify sin.

[Thomas]

Well said Joneside. We have run amok it seems. I worry about our collective responsiblity myself. So many who need help have been given prison or death. Conservative views have called for more punishment, more war, more pain. Where are the teachings of Christ in all of this.

My view is to preserve freedom as much as possible, unless we we are in danger of harm.

[davedan]

The point of this post is to dispell the common misunderstanding about agency. An individual is not an agent and have no agency to act for themselves unless they are equally enticed on both sides

In fact, a person is only an agent when they are obeying Gods will.
Once a person begins following Satan, they are a slave to sin.


The agency argument is usually used in a very one-sided way to limit the influence of good by those who want to do bad. When Gods people want to limit the pressure to do bad, Satan claims "censorship". When Satans people want to limit pressure to do good, Satan yells, "agency".

Truth is that Satan never stops tempting to do evil, and people are NOT free to be agents for good unless we have a religious system that provides a culture where people are encouraged to always choose the right. In addition, like the Nephites, we cannot be agents unless our government has laws that threatens us with the use of force if we violate the rights of others (lie, steal, murder).

So, government threat of force and appropriate fear is actually a necessary component to agency. A free people should be afraid to violate the liberties of others.

So, to me agency has less to do with force and more to do with man having Gods commandments we can obey and a society that that positively pressures people to do good, and dissuades people from doing evil and forcfully punishes for infringing on liberties of others.


I'm tired of "agency" always falsely being use as a reason to limit the influence for doing good in society

" stop pressuring and guilting me to do good". " I'm a slave to evil and want to keep on being a slave to evil and free to choose evil and sin without hearing or being pressured or guilted about consequences.

[Original_Intent]

davedan, interesting thoughts. I don't see where there is any limitation on what you believe government must not regulate in our lives. I also wonder whose standard gets put into place to determine what is right. Yours? The majority? The president's?

I'd appreciate more specifics on what areas, if any, government has no business regulating.

I do agree with you that government is force. Washington said as much.

However, because of that, the Constitution was constructed to restrain government, not unleash it.

I agree with you that committing evil results in a loss of FREEDOM, but not of agency. Otherwise, by your own definition, since all men sin, agency would be non-existent.

Since agency does indeed exist, this disproves your statement. Also the fact that even after sinning, there still remains a choice - continuing in sin, or repentance. But sinning does bind us with "silken cords" and continued sin certainly makes us more likely to continue sinning, and less likely to repent. Thus the GRADUAL loss of freedom, however, you are incorrect to state there is a loss of agency - and the difference between the two is huge (as big as the difference between the plan of salvation and the plan of the devil.

If you persist in your idea in the face of what I consider clear evidence, then please answer my questions above - is there any limitation, and if so what limitation, and second who makes the determination, for the purpose of law, of what constitutes evil, what punishments are affixed, etc.

You see, I believe there is a natural law, and we are punished by our sins as much as for our sins. When we teach the gospel, we teach about natural law and that we can avoid the negative consequences of breaking those eternal laws by either obeying the law, or thru repentance. Interested to hear your thoughts.

[ChelC]

I think you have demonstrated that punishments have become out of control. I'd agree. The answer is not to abandon all law, it's to abandon stupid laws and to affix more appropriate consequences.

God's law removes no one's agency. The fact that you cannot choose to live in the Celestial kingdom and be an adulterer violates no one's agency. The fact that murder is illegal on earth does not violate agency. Agency is in tact. Laws do not = force. Violation of laws leads to it. Most people seem to agree we have the right to use force when it comes to dealing with a murderer. What gives us that right?

We have the right to protect ourselves,famlies, etc.

I agree. To what extent? We seem to agree about violent crimes. How about this - an obscene person flashes your children. There was no violence or physical contact. Do we have the right to punish that person to protect other children? What about if that guy just hold us large pornographic signs outside of playgrounds. Is there anything we can do then? Or what if there is no nudity, and they just decide to have a lingerie fashion show?

Each of these is a similar violation of our children's right to virtue, just to varying degrees. I think it is very important that we be crystal clear about how we get the justification to use force when our rights are violated. If we don't understand how we get that justification we will never ever understand what makes one punishment just and another unjust.

[ChelC]

davedan, interesting thoughts. I don't see where there is any limitation on what you believe government must not regulate in our lives. I also wonder whose standard gets put into place to determine what is right. Yours? The majority? The president's?

I'd appreciate more specifics on what areas, if any, government has no business regulating.

I do agree with you that government is force. Washington said as much.

However, because of that, the Constitution was constructed to restrain government, not unleash it.

I agree with you that committing evil results in a loss of FREEDOM, but not of agency. Otherwise, by your own definition, since all men sin, agency would be non-existent.

Since agency does indeed exist, this disproves your statement. Also the fact that even after sinning, there still remains a choice - continuing in sin, or repentance. But sinning does bind us with "silken cords" and continued sin certainly makes us more likely to continue sinning, and less likely to repent. Thus the GRADUAL loss of freedom, however, you are incorrect to state there is a loss of agency - and the difference between the two is huge (as big as the difference between the plan of salvation and the plan of the devil.

If you persist in your idea in the face of what I consider clear evidence, then please answer my questions above - is there any limitation, and if so what limitation, and second who makes the determination, for the purpose of law, of what constitutes evil, what punishments are affixed, etc.

You see, I believe there is a natural law, and we are punished by our sins as much as for our sins. When we teach the gospel, we teach about natural law and that we can avoid the negative consequences of breaking those eternal laws by either obeying the law, or thru repentance. Interested to hear your thoughts.

The government should be limited to the protection of all rights. Actual rights, not contrived ones. That is precisely why the Constitution is inadequate for wicked people. If they are unfamiliar with right, how can they recognize when it is violated?

I agree with you that agency is a gift that isn't lost, but freedom is lost when we violate law.

[Thomas]

ChelC wrote:
I agree. To what extent? We seem to agree about violent crimes. How about this - an obscene person flashes your children. There was no violence or physical contact. Do we have the right to punish that person to protect other children? What about if that guy just hold us large pornographic signs outside of playgrounds. Is there anything we can do then? Or what if there is no nudity, and they just decide to have a lingerie fashion show?

Each of these is a similar violation of our children's right to virtue, just to varying degrees. I think it is very important that we be crystal clear about how we get the justification to use force when our rights are violated. If we don't understand how we get that justification we will never ever understand what makes one punishment just and another unjust.

Society is too complex for us to understand. I don't think we will get it right in this life. The examples you have described are what I would consider to be agressive acts. They should be controlled by society. Those commiting them are putting them in you face. Where I have a problem, is with controlling people's passive behaviors, like someone drinking a beer in their house or growing weeds in their yard. They aren't hurting anyone.

[Original_Intent]

I think you have demonstrated that punishments have become out of control. I'd agree. The answer is not to abandon all law, it's to abandon stupid laws and to affix more appropriate consequences.

God's law removes no one's agency. The fact that you cannot choose to live in the Celestial kingdom and be an adulterer violates no one's agency. The fact that murder is illegal on earth does not violate agency. Agency is in tact. Laws do not = force. Violation of laws leads to it. Most people seem to agree we have the right to use force when it comes to dealing with a murderer. What gives us that right?

We have the right to protect ourselves,famlies, etc.

I agree. To what extent? We seem to agree about violent crimes. How about this - an obscene person flashes your children. There was no violence or physical contact. Do we have the right to punish that person to protect other children? What about if that guy just hold us large pornographic signs outside of playgrounds. Is there anything we can do then? Or what if there is no nudity, and they just decide to have a lingerie fashion show?

Each of these is a similar violation of our children's right to virtue, just to varying degrees. I think it is very important that we be crystal clear about how we get the justification to use force when our rights are violated. If we don't understand how we get that justification we will never ever understand what makes one punishment just and another unjust.

I think this is a very important distinction. Obviously, a person who flashes others, or displays pornography, or has a lingerie show, does it for the purpose to be seen - not just because they feel like being naked, or viewing porn themselves, or dressing up in lingerie. When the PURPOSE is to have an effect on others, then those others rights come into play, and need consideration. The right not to be exposed to porn, etc. In fact, even if it is not the primary purpose (for instance someone just likes being naked in their back yard, but not to be seen, they just like nudity) even in this case where the purpose is not exhibitionism, reasonable effort needs to be made, I think, to protect those who chose not to see their nudity. Just as a person has a right to smoke, but does not have a right to expose others to second hand smoke. And at this point, things do stop being black and white and begin to be a balancing act between the individual rights and the rights of society. And in those cases, I believe that the correct remedy is not to puynish the individual, but rather to protect their freedoms and also protect society. It is very difficult to think of a scenario where both objectives are mutually exclusive.

[ChelC]

I think this is a very important distinction. Obviously, a person who flashes others, or displays pornography, or has a lingerie show, does it for the purpose to be seen - not just because they feel like being naked, or viewing porn themselves, or dressing up in lingerie. When the PURPOSE is to have an effect on others, then those others rights come into play, and need consideration. The right not to be exposed to porn, etc. In fact, even if it is not the primary purpose (for instance someone just likes being naked in their back yard, but not to be seen, they just like nudity) even in this case where the purpose is not exhibitionism, reasonable effort needs to be made, I think, to protect those who chose not to see their nudity. Just as a person has a right to smoke, but does not have a right to expose others to second hand smoke. And at this point, things do stop being black and white and begin to be a balancing act between the individual rights and the rights of society. And in those cases, I believe that the correct remedy is not to puynish the individual, but rather to protect their freedoms and also protect society. It is very difficult to think of a scenario where both objectives are mutually exclusive.

So, in your scenario, we ought to really bring the hammer down on those who produce pornography or alcohol or whatever, and advertising it should be against the law. Correct? What I understand you to be saying is that the hand of government should not be actively looking for the misdeeds of others, but should enforce laws when those misdeeds are thrust upon others. I'd whole heartedly agree with that.

[Thinker]

No,what I am saying is I don't know where to draw the line. I think government's job is to protect the weak from the strong. The weak need to band together to protect thmselves from be dominated by the strong.

On moral issues, and of course they are all moral issues, I believe we should stay out of enforcing them unless they hurt others. Not living the United Order hurts others. We know it's a sin to force the United Order on people.

Thanks for clarifying, Thomas.
The government is NOT protecting the weak from the strong, otherwise, our country wouldn't be waging war so much, legalizing killing millions of children every year through abortion, & other "bullying" behaviors & so many going along with it.
Some try to use this argument of the government's need to protect the weak/minority by legalizing gay marriage.
But gay marriage denies the value of mothers & fathers & disrespects the future society (children) - by denying either a mother or father to children adopted by gay couples. It also gives the wrong signal that homosexuality is fine, when statistically, & medically there are increase health risks of STDs, AIDS, anal fissures/cancer, infection & colon rupture. Unfortunately many are too lazy to think for themselves & rely on governments or other leaders to do their thinking & deciding for them, as if that gets them off the hook from suffering consequences of their actions. Then, when you have corrupt leaders, many follow suit.

I'd say it is the government's job to do what is best for society currently & for the future society (esp. children).
It's the government's job to say "yes" & "no" at the right times, to spending...so we don't get into debt but rather maintain a budget.
It's the government's job to ensure that we take care of the earth we depend on (recycling, enforcing environmental responsibility).
It's the government's job to only support humane treatment, including supporting fair international trade policies.
Basically, the government's supposed to keep the big picture in mind and do what's best for all, so we can thrive as a society.

[Original_Intent]

I think this is a very important distinction. Obviously, a person who flashes others, or displays pornography, or has a lingerie show, does it for the purpose to be seen - not just because they feel like being naked, or viewing porn themselves, or dressing up in lingerie. When the PURPOSE is to have an effect on others, then those others rights come into play, and need consideration. The right not to be exposed to porn, etc. In fact, even if it is not the primary purpose (for instance someone just likes being naked in their back yard, but not to be seen, they just like nudity) even in this case where the purpose is not exhibitionism, reasonable effort needs to be made, I think, to protect those who chose not to see their nudity. Just as a person has a right to smoke, but does not have a right to expose others to second hand smoke. And at this point, things do stop being black and white and begin to be a balancing act between the individual rights and the rights of society. And in those cases, I believe that the correct remedy is not to puynish the individual, but rather to protect their freedoms and also protect society. It is very difficult to think of a scenario where both objectives are mutually exclusive.

So, in your scenario, we ought to really bring the hammer down on those who produce pornography or alcohol or whatever, and advertising it should be against the law. Correct? What I understand you to be saying is that the hand of government should not be actively looking for the misdeeds of others, but should enforce laws when those misdeeds are thrust upon others. I'd whole heartedly agree with that.

No. I do agree with your last staement, but your examples do not fit, in my opinion. Producing something does not equate to thrusting it upon someone. Now they often do thrust it on others, and that is the point that needs to be addressed, but the act of producing and or making something available is NOT forcing it on someone (like the guy flashing the playground).

At what point is the right to virtue violated? That is the point that government should be empowered to intervene.

[ChelC]

I think this is a very important distinction. Obviously, a person who flashes others, or displays pornography, or has a lingerie show, does it for the purpose to be seen - not just because they feel like being naked, or viewing porn themselves, or dressing up in lingerie. When the PURPOSE is to have an effect on others, then those others rights come into play, and need consideration. The right not to be exposed to porn, etc. In fact, even if it is not the primary purpose (for instance someone just likes being naked in their back yard, but not to be seen, they just like nudity) even in this case where the purpose is not exhibitionism, reasonable effort needs to be made, I think, to protect those who chose not to see their nudity. Just as a person has a right to smoke, but does not have a right to expose others to second hand smoke. And at this point, things do stop being black and white and begin to be a balancing act between the individual rights and the rights of society. And in those cases, I believe that the correct remedy is not to puynish the individual, but rather to protect their freedoms and also protect society. It is very difficult to think of a scenario where both objectives are mutually exclusive.

So, in your scenario, we ought to really bring the hammer down on those who produce pornography or alcohol or whatever, and advertising it should be against the law. Correct? What I understand you to be saying is that the hand of government should not be actively looking for the misdeeds of others, but should enforce laws when those misdeeds are thrust upon others. I'd whole heartedly agree with that.

No. I do agree with your last staement, but your examples do not fit, in my opinion. Producing something does not equate to thrusting it upon someone. Now they often do thrust it on others, and that is the point that needs to be addressed, but the act of producing and or making something available is NOT forcing it on someone (like the guy flashing the playground).

At what point is the right to virtue violated? That is the point that government should be empowered to intervene.

I see your point of view about that, but don't really agree with it. Their business would only succeed if advertised in one form or another. So do you think all forms of advertising such things should be illegal? At what point do you consider it to be thrust upon someone?

Continuing with the analogy, what if the pornographic signs are billboards? What if outside the playground, curtains covered the signs, tempting and enticing the children to look under the curtains, but the kids must exercise their agency to see the images?

Same principle but it isn't thrust upon them.

I'm not trying to be tedious here, but I really want to tease out where you think the line is crossed.

[Original_Intent]

Where the line is crossed is where those who desire virtue have non-virtue thrust upon them against their will. In the case of children, obviously, those things should not be available for them to exercise their agency against the will of the parent.

And my other questions were never addressed - if government can enforce right and wrong, who gets to decide what qualifies? What is regulated, what isn't? Any power that you grant government to enforce your values, can also be turned against you to enforce someone else's values. So what boundaries are set, if any?

Do you propose that advertising of alcoholic beverages should not be allowed? How about caffeinated drinks? How about double quarter pounders with cheese? It's important to go down those paths and see how much we want to be ruled, how much freedom are we willing to sacrifice in order to be kept safe?

Your billboard example is no different than the example I addressed above. A billboards purpose is TO BE SEEN. So of course, community standards of what a reasonable person would not want to see or that children should be shielded from would apply.

We must be so very careful though. So much of what we aim for, with good intentions, the devil is able to turn against us. We give the state power to take away children from parents that are abusive, and then raising your child in a religious environment is portrayed as inflicting mental abuse on your child, and your child has a "right" to be raised in a guilt free environment - suddenly, the government is showing up at the door of the very folks who wanted government to have that authority for the good of the children - never dreaming that said power would be turned against them, because they are good parents. And it was only intended to apply to bad parents.

Far more harm has been caused by government given too much power than is caused by individuals exercising too much freedom.

[ChelC]

Where the line is crossed is where those who desire virtue have non-virtue thrust upon them against their will. In the case of children, obviously, those things should not be available for them to exercise their agency against the will of the parent.

And my other questions were never addressed - if government can enforce right and wrong, who gets to decide what qualifies? What is regulated, what isn't? Any power that you grant government to enforce your values, can also be turned against you to enforce someone else's values. So what boundaries are set, if any?

Do you propose that advertising of alcoholic beverages should not be allowed? How about caffeinated drinks? How about double quarter pounders with cheese? It's important to go down those paths and see how much we want to be ruled, how much freedom are we willing to sacrifice in order to be kept safe?

Your billboard example is no different than the example I addressed above. A billboards purpose is TO BE SEEN. So of course, community standards of what a reasonable person would not want to see or that children should be shielded from would apply.

We must be so very careful though. So much of what we aim for, with good intentions, the devil is able to turn against us. We give the state power to take away children from parents that are abusive, and then raising your child in a religious environment is portrayed as inflicting mental abuse on your child, and your child has a "right" to be raised in a guilt free environment - suddenly, the government is showing up at the door of the very folks who wanted government to have that authority for the good of the children - never dreaming that said power would be turned against them, because they are good parents. And it was only intended to apply to bad parents.

Far more harm has been caused by government given too much power than is caused by individuals exercising too much freedom.

I keep trying to comment within your quote and my iPad is not liking that, so I will try to address everything. So in the case of the kids, is it wrong at 17 3/4 but okay at age 18? Where is the line. Is enticement to do wrong okay?

About who decides, well the elected representatives have to do it based upon the belief system of the people. That's why the Constitution will not work for wicked people.

I agree with you about the problem with out of control government. That is what is a miracle about the Constitution, it reigns it in for as long as is possible. In a way, it postpones the judgment a little and gives us time to repent. But it won't hold past a certain point.

The only right government is one based on eternal truth. Everything else is in varying states of chaos and hypocrisy.

[jonesde]

...

And my other questions were never addressed - if government can enforce right and wrong, who gets to decide what qualifies? What is regulated, what isn't? Any power that you grant government to enforce your values, can also be turned against you to enforce someone else's values. So what boundaries are set, if any?

...

We must be so very careful though. So much of what we aim for, with good intentions, the devil is able to turn against us. We give the state power to take away children from parents that are abusive, and then raising your child in a religious environment is portrayed as inflicting mental abuse on your child, and your child has a "right" to be raised in a guilt free environment - suddenly, the government is showing up at the door of the very folks who wanted government to have that authority for the good of the children - never dreaming that said power would be turned against them, because they are good parents. And it was only intended to apply to bad parents.

Far more harm has been caused by government given too much power than is caused by individuals exercising too much freedom.

These are very good points OI. I've often wondered if persecution of the Church might not be done by way of the very laws that Church members used to persecute their neighbors with different beliefs... thinking those different beliefs to be wicked and thereby trying to justify the violent persecution against them.

Very rarely do the wicked punish the righteous or the righteous punish the wicked in scriptural accounts, it is generally the wicked punishing the wicked... and usually the wicked who think they are righteous committing the greatest offenses. I fear this is the path that many in the Church are on, and it is clearly a path that has corrupted Christianity since practically the beginning and continues to corrupt much of Christianity (and other religions and non-religious belief systems) to this day.

So many people seem to think that allowing other people to be free in their way so that we can be free in our way will result in loss of liberty and even destruction of the Church. Certain actions of the Church can perhaps be interpreted that way, but I don't think those are the correct interpretations and even some lower Church leaders seem to spread it.

As George Washington wrote: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." Using it irresponsibly to force the behaviors of others, especially when there are many other ways to influence behaviors in more effective and Christlike ways, may lead to the very calamities we fear.

[jonesde]

So, in your scenario, we ought to really bring the hammer down on those who produce pornography or alcohol or whatever, and advertising it should be against the law. Correct? What I understand you to be saying is that the hand of government should not be actively looking for the misdeeds of others, but should enforce laws when those misdeeds are thrust upon others. I'd whole heartedly agree with that.

No. I do agree with your last staement, but your examples do not fit, in my opinion. Producing something does not equate to thrusting it upon someone. Now they often do thrust it on others, and that is the point that needs to be addressed, but the act of producing and or making something available is NOT forcing it on someone (like the guy flashing the playground).

At what point is the right to virtue violated? That is the point that government should be empowered to intervene.

I see your point of view about that, but don't really agree with it. Their business would only succeed if advertised in one form or another. So do you think all forms of advertising such things should be illegal? At what point do you consider it to be thrust upon someone?

Continuing with the analogy, what if the pornographic signs are billboards? What if outside the playground, curtains covered the signs, tempting and enticing the children to look under the curtains, but the kids must exercise their agency to see the images?

Same principle but it isn't thrust upon them.

I'm not trying to be tedious here, but I really want to tease out where you think the line is crossed.

Is there even really a line here? In Matthew 15:11 we have a relevant teaching from Christ: "Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man; but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."

I don't believe we have a right to a virtuous environment, that is not the environment we were born into. This does not excuse the sins of others, but seeing the sins of others does not defile us. We can choose whether or not to be offended. Elder Bednar covered this pretty well in fall conference of 2006:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... m?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If your children are exposed to bad things, what do you want to teach them? Do you want to teach them about the error of that person's ways and teach them to forgive and do differently? Or, do you want to teach them that force should be used against such people, even if that force is applied through the "legitimate" means of government?

[ChelC]

...

And my other questions were never addressed - if government can enforce right and wrong, who gets to decide what qualifies? What is regulated, what isn't? Any power that you grant government to enforce your values, can also be turned against you to enforce someone else's values. So what boundaries are set, if any?

...

We must be so very careful though. So much of what we aim for, with good intentions, the devil is able to turn against us. We give the state power to take away children from parents that are abusive, and then raising your child in a religious environment is portrayed as inflicting mental abuse on your child, and your child has a "right" to be raised in a guilt free environment - suddenly, the government is showing up at the door of the very folks who wanted government to have that authority for the good of the children - never dreaming that said power would be turned against them, because they are good parents. And it was only intended to apply to bad parents.

Far more harm has been caused by government given too much power than is caused by individuals exercising too much freedom.

These are very good points OI. I've often wondered if persecution of the Church might not be done by way of the very laws that Church members used to persecute their neighbors with different beliefs... thinking those different beliefs to be wicked and thereby trying to justify the violent persecution against them.

Very rarely do the wicked punish the righteous or the righteous punish the wicked in scriptural accounts, it is generally the wicked punishing the wicked... and usually the wicked who think they are righteous committing the greatest offenses. I fear this is the path that many in the Church are on, and it is clearly a path that has corrupted Christianity since practically the beginning and continues to corrupt much of Christianity (and other religions and non-religious belief systems) to this day.

So many people seem to think that allowing other people to be free in their way so that we can be free in our way will result in loss of liberty and even destruction of the Church. Certain actions of the Church can perhaps be interpreted that way, but I don't think those are the correct interpretations and even some lower Church leaders seem to spread it.

As George Washington wrote: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." Using it irresponsibly to force the behaviors of others, especially when there are many other ways to influence behaviors in more effective and Christlike ways, may lead to the very calamities we fear.

I understand your concerns and share them, but I think this conversation has us arguing whether we should move more toward totalitarianism or anarchy. They are both losing scenarios.

I don't know which is preferable between the two, so I don't see the point in getting hot and bothered by which candidate to choose. Both roads suck for me and mine. On the anarchy side, my kids get to see advertisements for abhorrent things and evil IS thrust upon them. Onthe totalitarian side my kids lose their liberties.

I don't give a hoot anymore which candidate wins. Until we have repentance we will have poo on a stick.

[John Michael Kane]

The point of this post is to dispell the common misunderstanding about agency. An individual is not an agent and have no agency to act for themselves unless they are equally enticed on both sides

In fact, a person is only an agent when they are obeying Gods will.
Once a person begins following Satan, they are a slave to sin.


The agency argument is usually used in a very one-sided way to limit the influence of good by those who want to do bad. When Gods people want to limit the pressure to do bad, Satan claims "censorship". When Satans people want to limit pressure to do good, Satan yells, "agency".

Truth is that Satan never stops tempting to do evil, and people are NOT free to be agents for good unless we have a religious system that provides a culture where people are encouraged to always choose the right. In addition, like the Nephites, we cannot be agents unless our government has laws that threatens us with the use of force if we violate the rights of others (lie, steal, murder).

So, government threat of force and appropriate fear is actually a necessary component to agency. A free people should be afraid to violate the liberties of others.

So, to me agency has less to do with force and more to do with man having Gods commandments we can obey and a society that that positively pressures people to do good, and dissuades people from doing evil and forcfully punishes for infringing on liberties of others.


I'm tired of "agency" always falsely being use as a reason to limit the influence for doing good in society

" stop pressuring and guilting me to do good". " I'm a slave to evil and want to keep on being a slave to evil and free to choose evil and sin without hearing or being pressured or guilted about consequences.

Just finished reading half a dozen conference talks from the past decade on agency, force, and law. You nailed it!

davedan, interesting thoughts. I agree with you that committing evil results in a loss of FREEDOM, but not of agency. Otherwise, by your own definition, since all men sin, agency would be non-existent.

Since agency does indeed exist, this disproves your statement. Also the fact that even after sinning, there still remains a choice - continuing in sin, or repentance. But sinning does bind us with "silken cords" and continued sin certainly makes us more likely to continue sinning, and less likely to repent. Thus the GRADUAL loss of freedom, however, you are incorrect to state there is a loss of agency - and the difference between the two is huge (as big as the difference between the plan of salvation and the plan of the devil.

If you persist in your idea in the face of what I consider clear evidence, then please answer my questions above - is there any limitation, and if so what limitation, and second who makes the determination, for the purpose of law, of what constitutes evil, what punishments are affixed, etc.

You see, I believe there is a natural law, and we are punished by our sins as much as for our sins. When we teach the gospel, we teach about natural law and that we can avoid the negative consequences of breaking those eternal laws by either obeying the law, or thru repentance. Interested to hear your thoughts.

It is possible to lose agency -

And God said, “Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, … I caused that he should be cast down.” Those who followed Satan lost the opportunity to receive a mortal body, live on earth, and progress. Because of the way they used their agency, they lost their agency.

Though He “was in all points tempted like as we are,” 16 with every choice and every action He exercised the agency to be our Savior—to break the chains of sin and death for us. And by His perfect life, He taught us that when we choose to do the will of our Heavenly Father, our agency is preserved, our opportunities increase, and we progress.

In our mortal journey, it is helpful to remember that the opposite is also true: when we don’t keep the commandments or follow the promptings of the Holy Ghost, our opportunities are reduced; our abilities to act and progress are diminished. When Cain took his brother’s life because he loved Satan more than God, his spiritual progress was stopped.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... e?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ChelC]

Is there even really a line here? In Matthew 15:11 we have a relevant teaching from Christ: "Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man; but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."

I don't believe we have a right to a virtuous environment, that is not the environment we were born into. This does not excuse the sins of others, but seeing the sins of others does not defile us. We can choose whether or not to be offended. Elder Bednar covered this pretty well in fall conference of 2006:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... m?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If your children are exposed to bad things, what do you want to teach them? Do you want to teach them about the error of that person's ways and teach them to forgive and do differently? Or, do you want to teach them that force should be used against such people, even if that force is applied through the "legitimate" means of government?

I do teach them to forgive and do differently. I also shield them from evil. I don't think we have to be exposed repeatedly to evil in order to take up sides. We were indeed sent here to choose, but not to be bathed in filth.

[jonesde]

Is there even really a line here? In Matthew 15:11 we have a relevant teaching from Christ: "Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man; but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."

I don't believe we have a right to a virtuous environment, that is not the environment we were born into. This does not excuse the sins of others, but seeing the sins of others does not defile us. We can choose whether or not to be offended. Elder Bednar covered this pretty well in fall conference of 2006:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... m?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If your children are exposed to bad things, what do you want to teach them? Do you want to teach them about the error of that person's ways and teach them to forgive and do differently? Or, do you want to teach them that force should be used against such people, even if that force is applied through the "legitimate" means of government?

I do teach them to forgive and do differently. I also shield them from evil. I don't think we have to be exposed repeatedly to evil in order to take up sides. We were indeed sent here to choose, but not to be bathed in filth.

Is that not the very false dichotomy that you mentioned above?

[ChelC]

Is there even really a line here? In Matthew 15:11 we have a relevant teaching from Christ: "Not that which goes into the mouth defiles a man; but that which comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man."

I don't believe we have a right to a virtuous environment, that is not the environment we were born into. This does not excuse the sins of others, but seeing the sins of others does not defile us. We can choose whether or not to be offended. Elder Bednar covered this pretty well in fall conference of 2006:

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2 ... m?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If your children are exposed to bad things, what do you want to teach them? Do you want to teach them about the error of that person's ways and teach them to forgive and do differently? Or, do you want to teach them that force should be used against such people, even if that force is applied through the "legitimate" means of government?

I do teach them to forgive and do differently. I also shield them from evil. I don't think we have to be exposed repeatedly to evil in order to take up sides. We were indeed sent here to choose, but not to be bathed in filth.

Is that not the very false dichotomy that you mentioned above?

I'm not following how you are making that connection.