Mormon concept of "free agancy"?

[livecoug]

Angency is very very simple.. we can do whatever the hell we want.. just expect consequences, good and bad

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by livecoug

Angency is very very simple.. we can do whatever the hell we want.. just expect consequences, good and bad

Exactly, just like it was in fifteenth century Spain, the Soviet Union, and pre-American invasion Afghanistan. You're free: Do what you want but suffer the consequences.

[livecoug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Exactly, just like it was in fifteenth century Spain, the Soviet Union, and pre-American invasion Afghanistan. You're free: Do what you want but suffer the consequences.

You obviously just want Eat Drink and be Merry, don't you?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by livecoug

You obviously just want Eat Drink and be Merry, don't you?

Not at all. I very much believe in karma, universal justice, that sort of thing.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Exactly, just like it was in fifteenth century Spain, the Soviet Union, and pre-American invasion Afghanistan. You're free: Do what you want but suffer the consequences.

Hmm. Color me dense, but what's your point? POlitical/temporal liberty is not the same thing as spiritual/eternal agency. As I noted, the condition of agency exists outside and apart from the organization of the church or fo any government, etc. That some persons here have the ability to limit or remoive one's temproarl liberty does not empower them to eliminate one's condition of agency. Agaency may be exercised to the immeidate physical detriment of other persons, without their consent, and without apparent temproal consequence. THere is a consequence, however, but it will be paid later. No one and nothing on this earth can remove any person's condition of agency.

Indeed, your example of the once but not future professor proves this point. HIs economic liberty has been restricted but his eternal ocndition of agency was fully exercised. btw, are you seriously ocmparing BYU's decision not to renew a contract to the spansih inquisition? Even Monty Python would balk at that absurdity, IMO.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Exactly, just like it was in fifteenth century Spain, the Soviet Union, and pre-American invasion Afghanistan. You're free: Do what you want but suffer the consequences.

Are you saying that people should act in any manner they wish but do so without consequence, be it good or bad?

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

Clearly the letter did not mandate that every member support the amendment, but that we be politically active...

You can't possibly believe this. Of course the letter mandated that every member support the amendment, and that's what really bugs me about the whole issue. The Church words the letter as if they actually encourage independent thought from its membership, but nothing could be further from the truth. Here is the Church's statement following the shit-canning of Jeffrey Nielsen:

"...the column publicly contradicted and opposed an official statement by the First Presidency. Such contradiction is in violation of university policy."

If the Church were honest, they would say, "This is our opinion on the amendment, and we expect all members to share that opinion and encourage their legislators to support the ammendment."

But the Church isn't honest. Instead, they try to give the impression that they want their members to form their own opinions, while quashing any attempt by its membership to express contradictory opinions. If the Church leadership wants to compel its members to support its politcal agenda, so be it. Just be honest about it.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Are you saying that people should act in any manner they wish but do so without consequence, be it good or bad?

No.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

You can't possibly believe this. Of course the letter mandated that every member support the amendment, and that's what really bugs me about the whole issue. The Church words the letter as if they actually encourage independent thought from its membership, but nothing could be further from the truth. Here is the Church's statement following the shit-canning of Jeffrey Nielsen:

"...the column publicly contradicted and opposed an official statement by the First Presidency. Such contradiction is in violation of university policy."

If the Church were honest, they would say, "This is our opinion on the amendment, and we expect all members to share that opinion and encourage their legislators to support the ammendment."

But the Church isn't honest. Instead, they try to give the impression that they want their members to form their own opinions, while quashing any attempt by its membership to express contradictory opinions. If the Church leadership wants to compel its members to support its politcal agenda, so be it. Just be honest about it.

Only a naive eight year old would believe the letter encouraged independent thought.

First, they recited their view on marriage.

Second, they said contact your congressman about this.

It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots. Some lawyer advised them not to connect the dots.

You're being disengenuous about Nielsen.

He represented himself to be a BYU employee who opposed his employer. That's a far cry from even Harry Reid who opposed it on political grounds, but he did not critisize the Church as a church employee.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Only a naive eight year old would believe the letter encouraged independent thought.

First, they recited their view on marriage.

Second, they said contact your congressman about this.

It doesn't take a genius to connect the dots. Some lawyer advised them not to connect the dots.

You're being disengenuous about Nielsen.

He represented himself to be a BYU employee who opposed his employer. That's a far cry from even Harry Reid who opposed it on political grounds, but he did not critisize the Church as a church employee.

The church isn't going to stop anybody from disagreeing with it. I don't see why they should pay somebody to actively campaign against it.