So perhaps people who profess to believe merely in Heaven and Hell are missing the main purpose in life – to repent, and attain a better reward. One of the most wicked influences in the world today is that very acceptance of mediocrity that Joe spoke of. It’s the compromising of morals, rather than black and white principles. I like this reasoning that God’s plan involving the casting out to the darkest abyss is the plan we chose to follow.

1. Regarding watching and praying, I wonder if Enos’s prayer might not be a productive model for thinking this: first praying out of fear for one’s own salvation, but then praying out of fear/love for others’ salvation.

2. I think it is very important that making ourselves God’s agents preserves agency/liberty, in a significant sense, whereas Satan is so frequently described in terms that lead to our captivity. I think this is a very important part for any Mormon theology of agency, but I don’t think you really addressed this (though this is probably a critique of the manual more than your thought per se—so I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on this point).

“If we keep His commandments and make right choices, we will learn and understand. We will become like Him.”

but what if God’s commandments are not consistent? What happens when a woman must choose between two opposing commandments of God? What happens when the author of all lies tells the truth and that truth provides the context for the woman’s decision, a decision that can’t not be made? It might be made differently, but one way or another it will be made. Certainly it would be wrong to call one of those commandments of God evil in such a situation? This context tells us a good deal about what it means to be human. The decisions that matter, are not a matter of calculation, or execution of a program, or even of knowing.

I submit that the essence of agency or the structure of the decision, needs to be contextualized by the impossible. What is the decision that can’t be made but that must be made nonetheless? What is the decision that can’t be calculated, where calculations give an incomplete or incorrect answer? Opposition here is not the poles or outcomes that one is approaching or avoiding in the making of a decision. Opposition in this setting is our resistance to the structure of the choice itself, our recognition that no decision we make or action we take will be adequate to the challenge we have fallen into. And, or, that not acting or choosing is already caught up in the decision and moves in one direction or another despite our intentions. Even this under describes but perhaps it moves in the direction of agency.

“Our choices there made us worthy to come to earth. Our Heavenly Father wants us to grow in faith, power, knowledge, wisdom, and all other good things.”

Speaking of choices, one could ask the question of what God chooses. What is it in the human experience that finds God’s favor, that God chooses to align himself with? One answer in available to us in 1st Cor. 27-28 where God is not so sure of the goodness of knowledge, wisdom, or power.

read Alma 42 with Alma 41 and it may read differently for you. Justice is not being used as retributive ( as it would be in a penal model) but as restorative.

Also I suggest looking at NT Wright’s latest book on Pauline justification. It seems fairly clear that the early NT saints did not see penal substitution but either believed in a “cosmic battle” type analogy or later a ransom theory (which theory anselm was responding to directly in his Cur Deus Homo)..

also, i see penal substitution theory all over Alma 42 (id have to think about others). then again, i tend to lean closer to Evangelical theology along the spectrum within mormonism.

Im just up in Highland, 20 minutes. So yeah, lets get together sometime. Id love to discuss Girard, atonement, etc…

But I think we might differ in important ways on how we make sense of the passion, or perhaps on how we read Girard. It would be nice if we could get a chance to talk some of this out. I don’t remember where you live (I currently reside in Provo), but if we’re close enough to each other, we ought to do lunch sometime so we can talk Girard and Book of Mormon atonement theology….

I agree that its not in the scriptures. I think those who find it in there are only doing so because they are using the scriptures as a proof text. The problem with using Alma 34 is that he specifically says that a man cannot pay for the sins of another.

There is of course the infinite and eternal line, therefore it must be… but I read that as explaining that the atonement works on an entirely different principle. As to God’s nature, Im not sure where we agree or disagree.

I should clarify again: I don’t see the penal substitution theory as being present anywhere in the Book of Mormon except—and then only with a very hesitant maybe—in Alma 34. I’m not at all an expansion-theorist (a la Ostler), so even if it can be shown to appear, I don’t see it coming from Joseph—but as coming from the ancient Nephites. (In the end, I think I’d be more comfortable with it coming from the ancient Nephites than from Joseph’s own cultural contribution!) Incidentally, for what it’s worth, my problem with the penal substitution is less a question of its being at variance with the “nature of God” as revealed in the Passion (a “nature” I think I read in a somewhat different way from you?), and more a question of its simply not actually appearing in scripture. (I think I’ll reread Morgan’s paper tomorrow or Thursday and do a post on it, trying to make sense of his claims in light of the work I’m doing on Amulek right now.)

Andrew,

As I read the Book of Mormon, it is very difficult to draw a sharp distinction between the resurrection and the atonement. But to explain that would require a long aside that would largely be a distraction from the discussion here. I can, however, offer a brief synopsis of my reading if you like.

Susan,

Glad to see I finally provoked you to say something! And thanks for focusing on that particular snippet from the lesson. As I mention in the notes, this is one of the facets of the texts that seems a bit foreign to me. I like the way you’ve inflected the idea by taking it as a sharp clarification of the passage from 1 Corinthians. Very helpful.

“And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day,”

and then the second blockquote i included =p

the answer lies in your earlier comment that for father Lehi, agency is possible only through the resurrection. I would extend that to the Atonement in general. In verse 26 (you know, the one we always skip over) we find the following:

this ability to act for ourselves is granted us because we are redeemed from the fall. Agency is a gift of God, made available through the Atonement. for me its important in that everything we have in life is a gift from God. And the fact that agency also comes from God goes along with 1 Corinthians 6:19 and the idea that I am not my own (I have been bought with a price), and, having been paid for by Christ, i therefore fall more closely under the category of agent (even non-members), and will still give an accounting to God at the Judgment of how I used this agency (regardless if i used it to seek death or life).

“Note that the reference to Alma 13:28 has been added. I find that interesting, because it ties the question of not being tempted above one’s capacity to the question of watching and praying. That probably deserves closer attention: it is only if one watches and prays that one receives the promise of not being tempted above one’s abilities”

But it is this thought which has finally induced me to comment:

<>

I believe this whole heartedly. Most people are more prone to quote 1 Cor 10:13: ..”but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able”..the way of escape being Christ and the Atonement.

But the reference in Alma states that there may in fact be situations where our abilities are not enough on their own to withstand the fiery darts of Satan, and if we do not watch and pray we may succumb beyond our ability to find faith in Christ and take hold of the power of the Atonement. And therefore our choice to seek God and ask for his love to sustain us may be one of the most basic ways in which we use our agency in this life.

I taught this class two days ago (Gospel Essentials). I actually didnt use the manual at all (I prefer not to). here’s what I did: I wrote down the title of the lesson, and the 3 subheadings given in the manual, and then we went to the scriptures.

We started in 2 Nephi 2:24-30 for a brief overview of agency
Then we read Alma 41:3-8 to draw the connection between agency and judgment
Romans 6:12-23 an examination of consequences of agency, as well as the notion of slavery/servitude related to agency
1 Chronicles 29:3-17 A historical example of agency in action, as well as the willing giving as a part of agency.

not entirely sure what this might contribute to the discussion, but the lesson went well in any case.

So you found it in the dictionary, just not as an actual definition.

Jacob’s paper is a good paper especially on many of the issues your grappling with here.

I used to think that the BoM presented a pretty standard penal substitution model but the more I read Amulek and the later Alma dialogues with his son (which I think were influenced by Amulek’s ideas) there seems to be a move away from that model. I think we bring in a lot of modern notions of the atonement (anselm, luther, etc) that are not really there. You can certainly get some of it in 2 nephi 9 for example but even 2 nephi 2 seems to be talking about the distinction Jacob mentions in his paper between temporal (temporary laws) and eternal laws (like the law of harvest). If there are elements of penal subst. i think they prob came in through the translator (see Ostler’s expansion theory). Those later models are just so antithetical to the nature of God as demonstrated in Jesus and his passion. interesting stuff for sure. I look forward to seeing your thoughts.

What I have done is taken the definition of words and used them to find the antonym and synonym that best fits the biblicaldefinition and how they are used. Here-

Agency: the state of being in action or of exerting power; operation

Bondage: the state of being bound by or subjected to some external power or control.

Now lets look at the Mormon definition of both as used in 2 Nephi-

Agency/freedom: to act for themselves
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 2:26)

Bondage: be acted upon
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 2:26)

You will notice that I coupled the word “freedom” with agency. lets look at the dictionary definition of “freedom”-

freedom: the power to determine action without restraint.

As you can see through comparison, freedom and agency are used synonymously to describe the ability as Lehi uses in 2 Nephi 2:26 as “free forever…to act for themselves”. This verse is describing “agency” and how it applies scripturally. Needless to say, the word “agency” doesn’t appear in scripture until modern times- Joseph Smith’s day. That is why the word is used exclusively only in latter day interpretation as found in the D&C and PoGP. The BoM did not use the word, or, Joseph elected to use a different term. As such, we can substitue words in the BoM for how “agency” may apply. “free to act” is one such use in the BoM in place of agency. In each use of this term in 2 Nephi 2:26, 2 Nephi 10:23, Helaman 14:30, it specifies that men are free because of the atonement has made them free, without the which, they would still be in bondage.

Have you actually found a dictionary or thesaurus which says that the opposite of agency is captivity, or that agency and freedom are synonymous? I have seen old dictionaries that say that the opposite of agent (used as an adjective) is patient and patient is that which is acted upon, which nicely fits Lehi’s words in 2 Nephi 2.

I’m still wrestling with the earlier material in Alma 34 and what it might have to say about the penal substitution theory (which will require a full engagement of Jacob Morgan’s fantastic paper on the subject). There is a whole lot of work to be done on this.

I’ll have more to say on this soon.

thats interesting.very interesting. I actually think that chapter and that verse is some of the clearest stuff ive read on the atonement.

i always felt it ties in really well with alma 42 (and 41 since I think 42 only makes sense when read with 41 in mind).

It seems to me that Amulek is saying that the atonement operates on an entirely different principle than penal substitution earlier in that chapter and concludes that what the atonement does do is give us the ability to change so that the demands of “justice” that alma 42 talks about (law of harvest, restorative justice not retributive justice) can be overcome.

I’ve been wrestling a good deal for the past month or so with that very verse from Alma 34. I’m not at all sure what to make of it. In fact, I’ve worked through a series of (so far 8) podcasts (and many more on the way) trying to work out the character and position of Amulek in the Book of Mormon, all with an eye to making sense of that single verse. (The basic reason, without enough explanation to make any real sense, is that I find that verse to be at odds with everything else said about atonement in the Book of Mormon.)

At any rate, my reasons for not drawing on Amulek are rooted in my complete bafflement at what he has to say.

im surprised you didnt quote alma 34 in conjunction with the statement below ( I think the words means in this verse speaks specifically to how the atonement which i see bundled up with the resurrection gives us the agency/ability to change)

” this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.”

“Agency as we actually experience it, then, is the ability to choose good, against the constant appeal of Satan’s blinding temptations. Agency is the remarkable power granted through faith, the gained ability—an almost paradoxical ability—to break free of the hold of the Fall in an act of doing something good and positive and productive.”

First off from the book-

“One purpose of earth life is to show what choices we will make (see 2 Nephi 2:15-16). If we were forced to choose the right, we would not be able to show what we would choose for ourselves. Also, we are happier doing things when we have made our own choices.”

This to me is still not right. It leaves us with the incorrect thinking that without our agency we would have been “forced” to obey. A lot of bad conjecture here on the manuals part. I did a very indepth syudy of the word “agency” and have found a few interesting aspects to it.

Every action word has it’s opposite- The antonym for agency is guess what? That’s riagth- it is “captivity/ bondage”. “Agency” is most synonymous with the word “freedom”- the action phrase would be “free to act”. The antonym phrase of agency is “to be acted upon”. 2 Nephi words this very well understanding it’s true meaning. So, when our agency is destroyed or limited, what we mean literally is that we are in “bondage” and are no longer free to act for ourselves. 2 Nephi also points out here that in the beginning we had our agency intact, but that through sin we come under bondage to be “acted upon”. At this point we have no true agency. But, because of the atonement, we can through Christ be freed from that eternal bondage and once again activate our agency. Because of this established principle we can thus further clarify what “agency” is and how it applies.

“Agency” is a right and privelage for those acting within law to preserve that ability to freely act and choose. It is when misuses that power that the priveledge gets limited or taken away. Think about this- As we sin our choices to “freely act” become more and more limited. We may even get to the point to where we are both held physically in bondage because of moral law(in the public jail) and spiritually (addictions that control us).

So, when Satan sought to destroy our agency, all he was literally seeking was to bring us into physical and spiritual bondage. He does this through causing us to fall in mortality through sin. He hasn’t changed any aspect of his original intent- he is still seeking to destroy our agency through bringing us into his chains by the allure of sin. Because he sought to bring evryone into captivity he was cast out. He “continues” his ill intentions still to this day- he has not changed at all!

I prefer to use the definition of Agency which is found in the dictionary. (I like that you have Webster’s 1828 dictionary as a link above.) In the church we tend to use a definition which comes to us by way of the term, “free agency,” which is not found in our scripture. We focus on the Free Will aspect of Free Agency, and never get around to defining what Agency actually is. (Free Agency in sports is a new concept, and so it’s use, in my opinion, doesn’t help us to learn what Agency really means.)

I like where you tie the word Agency to an Agent. An Agent has Agency, therefore we must define what an Agent is to understand Agency. You mentioned Agents in the D&C, and that Agents represent others. The D&C and the Book of Moses always define who the Principal is–Men are, “agents unto themselves.” We are both the Principal and the Agent in the Agency relationship. We are allowed to act for, and legally represent, ourselves. Accountability, Consequences, etc., are therefore built upon the foundation of Agency. Free Choice is necessary for Agency, but is not its definition.

When men as, “agents unto themselves,” (as the D&C says) “act for themselves,” (as the Book of Mormon says), they are legally representing themselves and as a Principal is bound to the contract entered into by his Agent, so we become accountable for our actions. God’s plan requires that we be accountable. Satan’s proposal would have destroyed our accountability and our instrumentality, not necessarily our choice.