- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Orson wrote:SilentDawning wrote:
BKP gave a talk in which he indicated that he has willingly given up his agency to God.
Wow! That is so Satan’s plan. Is there a chance that he used different words? Can you point me to the talk?
In my view God wants us to keep a handle on and even offer up our will to His, but we cannot do that unless we retain ownership and full rights of our agency. It MUST be our choice under our complete control without compulsion – or it defies the divine plan and ultimately gains us nothing.
I don’t remember the exact talk. But I remember sitting in a chapel and heard him say it. But I don’t agree that what BKP is saying is Satan’s Plan as you mention. Satan’s plan was to take people’s agency from them, and force them to heaven.
BKP ‘s plan was to wiillingly give up his agency to the will of the father. Christ indicated he came to do the will of the father — and the reason Christ was not on Satan’s plan was because Christ made the agency sacrifice willingly. He still had control over his agency “Let this cup pass from me — I don’t want to do this — but if you want me to do this — I will”. he never gave up the right to his agency, but he did sublimate his own will to the will of God — willingly.
I have no problem with the concept of giving up my will to God – but I also have no confidence in my ability to determine the pure will of God – and I have even less than no confidence in other people’s ability to determine God’s will for me – so, in practical terms, to me, “giving up my will to God” means following the dictates of my own conscience. I will do all kinds of things I wouldn’t choose to do on my own if asked by someone else (in any setting), but I try hard not to act in opposition to my conscience.
Having said that, I also think we tend to put WAY too many things in the category of “against my conscience” that really, at the most basic level, are better defined as in the category of “things I don’t want to do”.
:ugeek: Old-Timer wrote:Having said that, I also think we tend to put WAY too many things in the category of “against my conscience” that really, at the most basic level, are better defined as in the category of “things I don’t want to do”.
:ugeek: I agree, that is is why I think the average person should feel a lot of pressure to assess their motives, exert discipline, and have the courage to do what is right — even when the natural man dictates otherwise.
SilentDawning wrote:BKP ‘s plan was to wiillingly give up his agency to the will of the father. Christ indicated he came to do the will of the father — and the reason Christ was not on Satan’s plan was because Christ made the agency sacrifice willingly. He still had control over his agency “Let this cup pass from me — I don’t want to do this — but if you want me to do this — I will”. he never gave up the right to his agency, but he did sublimate his own will to the will of God — willingly.
Yes, it looks like ultimately we are saying the same thing, but using different words. Agency to me is the ability to choose, “will” can be many things but commonly is used to name what I want for myself. I am all about aligning my will to that of God, but in order for it to have any meaning I have to have agency. If I have no agency there is no ability for personal growth and the divine plan is null, we become puppets and there is no purpose for life. In my mind if I tried to give my agency to God the offering is rejected by default and God is disappointed in my lack of understanding. Surrendering our personal will for something greater is Godly, but trying to surrender the very ability to choose is effectively sticking our head in the sand – or refusing all responsibility (and therefore growth) – or becoming “wasted” to numb the pain of consequence, or even spiritual suicide. Agency is
essentialto the eternal plan, and if we don’t preach personal responsibility and give room for its exercise I think we end up fighting the purposes of God. I would make a couple simple changes to your above quote, but the heart of the message is the same:
Quote:BKP ‘s plan was to wiillingly give up his will to the will of the father. Christ indicated he came to do the will of the father — and the reason Christ was not on Satan’s plan was because Christ made his sacrifice willingly. He still retained his agency “Let this cup pass from me — I don’t want to do this — but if you want me to do this — I will”. he never gave up the right to his choice of action, but he did sublimate his own will to the will of God — willingly
John Taylor said (paraphrasing):
Quote:“I will not be a slave, not even to God. I am God’s free man.”
I have no problem with giving my will up to God. Giving it up to other human beings, or an organization is an entirely different matter! Quote:“I will not be a slave, not even to God. I am God’s free man.”
I have always loved that quote, Orson.
Who said that quote? It goes counter to just about everything I have heard or been taught in our church, so I know its not an LDS quote. Our church would have you denying every bit of free agency you had to obey inspired leaders, or divine beings. Sometimes, for no other reason than proving loyalty. SD, it was President John Taylor. The extended quote is: Quote:I was not born a slave! I cannot, will not be a slave. I would not be a slave to God! I would be His servant, friend, His son. I would go at His behest; but would not be His slave. I would rather be extinct than be a slave. His friend I feel I am, and He is mine: a slave! The manacles would pierce my very bones; the clanking chains would grate against my soul; a poor, lost, servile, crawling wretch, to lick the dust and fawn and smile upon the thing who gave the lash! .. . But stop! I am God’s free man I will not, cannot be a slave! (Oil for Their Lamps, p. 73)
“I am God’s free man” is a statement that has been said multiple times in history. It was not coined by Pres. Taylor.
On a related note, just read a fascinating book on cults. The author is not exactly anti, and in fact criticizes Rick Ross, who he implicates directly in the Waco business, and interviews ex-Davidians. His line is that cults are essentially eccentric, and other than taking up a lot of time, money and commitment, are not quite the menace they’re portrayed up. He does criticize on various other grounds though.
There seems to be a growing body of evidence that the US government
screwed up big time in the Waco stake out, and then tried to cover
itself royally. Waco, unlike Jonestown, the Solar Temple and Heaven’s
Gate, might have just continued on if it had been left alone. Some of
the more lurid stories about Koresh, as with JS and maybe even Jim
Jones, may well have been manufactured or exaggerated by the press. Yes,
he had guns, but guns are popular in Texas, and the claim he wanted an
army is dubious. The ex-Davidians who survived paint a picture at odds
with official accounts… makes you wonder.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.