Negative and Positive Freedom

[2ndRateMind]

It was the thinker, Isaiah Berlin, who distinguished between two, quite separate, forms of freedom.

Negative freedom is about anything I am not stopped from doing. It is my freedom to think, speak, and do what I please, for any arbitrary reason. It is my freedom to be free of interference from anyone else. It is my lack of coercion, or obstruction, as I go about my daily life and personal projects. If someone, or some law, or some authority stops me from my purposes, to that extent, my negative freedom has been curtailed.

Positive freedom is a slightly more tricky concept. While negative freedom is about freedom from interference, positive freedom is about my capacity to think, say, or act. I may have the freedom to spend my afternoon drinking (negative freedom) or studying (positive freedom). I may also be an alcoholic dependent on my drinking, and provided I can buy my whisky, my negative freedom has not been affected at all. But my positive freedom to study is then no more than the wisp of a pipe-dream.

Berlin claims in his essay 'Two Concepts of Liberty' (1969) that the idea of positive liberty is the one that tends to get misused the most. He cites secular authorities, nation states, as his implied examples, but I have little doubt that religious authorities have misused the concept, also. The idea is that there are two selves: a 'higher' and a 'lower' self. The lower self is concerned with the satiation of bodily cravings; the higher one, with the development of the individual's realisation of it's potential, the capacity of a human to be all he or she can be. Berlin thinks that a feature of several authoritarian governments is/was their tendency to justify repression in terms of the individual's longer term best interests.

My question for the forum, then, is this. What is the proper balance, between positive and negative liberties, or freedoms? (Berlin uses the two words interchangeably) At what point do authorities, in the pursuit of their subject's best interests, overstep the mark, and wrongly curtail their negative liberties? At what point do authorities, in championing negative liberties, wrongly admit behaviour that curtails their citizen's positive freedoms?

Best wishes, 2RM.

[marc]

D&C 121: 39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile

In other words, as soon as a father or bishop or apostle, etc says, essentially, " I am your (dad/bishop/leader), therefore do what I say," he oversteps his bounds. People tend to confuse a position of authority with the right to control. Even God will not force us to be saved, though He is our King and our Ruler. But instead, He says, if you love me, keep my commandments. Love is the key to the two greatest commandments. And though He gives us commandments, he gives us the choice not to obey. This is His world and His people (who claim to be His sheep).

My dad used to always say, "This is my house. These are my rules. You don't like it? Get out." Religious leaders sometimes take similar license. But none of it is their property or their rules. Instead what they have done is taken control. "I am your leader. You will wear a white shirt and a necktie or you cannot participate in ___."

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

It isn't uncommon to be reproved by someone who is not moved upon by the Holy Ghost and without showing love whatsoever. People in charge tend to reprimand when they are offended or inconvenienced because their efforts are frustrated and they resort to return offense. As a result, the underling tends to esteem the person of authority as an enemy. "I hate you, dad!" or "I can't stand my (leader)."

Jesus Christ is the perfect example of one in authority, whom He has commanded we emulate, because He proved that His faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. As fathers or anyone in position of authority, when we show that our motives are not to control, but rather to inspire, then all are truly free.

[Separatist]

Negative justice vs positive virtue.

An excellent discussion is Actual Ethics by James Otteson

[Separatist]

D&C 121: 39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;

42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile

In other words, as soon as a father or bishop or apostle, etc says, essentially, " I am your (dad/bishop/leader), therefore do what I say," he oversteps his bounds. People tend to confuse a position of authority with the right to control. Even God will not force us to be saved, though He is our King and our Ruler. But instead, He says, if you love me, keep my commandments. Love is the key to the two greatest commandments. And though He gives us commandments, he gives us the choice not to obey. This is His world and His people (who claim to be His sheep).

My dad used to always say, "This is my house. These are my rules. You don't like it? Get out." Religious leaders sometimes take similar license. But none of it is their property or their rules. Instead what they have done is taken control. "I am your leader. You will wear a white shirt and a necktie or you cannot participate in ___."

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;

44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.

45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven.

It isn't uncommon to be reproved by someone who is not moved upon by the Holy Ghost and without showing love whatsoever. People in charge tend to reprimand when they are offended or inconvenienced because their efforts are frustrated and they resort to return offense. As a result, the underling tends to esteem the person of authority as an enemy. "I hate you, dad!" or "I can't stand my (leader)."

Jesus Christ is the perfect example of one in authority, whom He has commanded we emulate, because He proved that His faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. As fathers or anyone in position of authority, when we show that our motives are not to control, but rather to inspire, then all are truly free.

I agree marc, but sometimes adult kids just need to move along, and start their own lives, and hints suggesting such are healthy. A certain level of house rules seems appropriate. Of course we should all strive to do things in love. Good thing that as kids get older, they have a natural inclination to be on their own and parents have a natural inclination to want them to be on their own.

[marc]

I agree marc, but sometimes adult kids just need to move along...

Well, yeah. I don't disagree with any of that. It's weird how you worded it, though. Do you mean then that sometimes adult kids don't need to move along? Or are you essentially saying,

"Boy! Get out already! You need to find a job and stop bugging me for things!"

Because that is how I am inclined to perceive it. What might really be happening here is that while adult kids do need to grow up, the parent might really be saying,

"I need you somewhere else." -- I need rather than you need.

[Separatist]

Well, I just woke up, so I wasn't seeking precision on language, but I think you know what I mean. Good thing it is a natural inclination for kids to leave, because wife and I are softies. And I think it's healthy for us and them. And they will always know that in case of emergency/tragedy etc, they will always have a place to lay down their head

[Rose Garden]

My question for the forum, then, is this. What is the proper balance, between positive and negative liberties, or freedoms? (Berlin uses the two words interchangeably) At what point do authorities, in the pursuit of their subject's best interests, overstep the mark, and wrongly curtail their negative liberties? At what point do authorities, in championing negative liberties, wrongly admit behaviour that curtails their citizen's positive freedoms?

Best wishes, 2RM.

If you look at the work of the Lord, he permits a great deal of injustice and permits it for a lot longer than we do. However, he also knows when to come in and wipe people out. That is the proper balance. What we are doing in our families and governments is playing house, acting like God as we seek to understand the laws he functions under.

[2ndRateMind]

My question for the forum, then, is this. What is the proper balance, between positive and negative liberties, or freedoms? (Berlin uses the two words interchangeably) At what point do authorities, in the pursuit of their subject's best interests, overstep the mark, and wrongly curtail their negative liberties? At what point do authorities, in championing negative liberties, wrongly admit behaviour that curtails their citizen's positive freedoms?

Best wishes, 2RM.

If you look at the work of the Lord, he permits a great deal of injustice and permits it for a lot longer than we do. However, he also knows when to come in and wipe people out. That is the proper balance. What we are doing in our families and governments is playing house, acting like God as we seek to understand the laws he functions under.

That's interesting. Do you (and LDS in general) think, then, that God 'functions under' laws to which He is subject? I am reminded of the Plato's Euthyphro dilemma - is the good good because God wills it, or does God will the good, because it is good? If the former, the good is a mere matter of divine whim, and God could will anything, and it would be good. If the latter, then why don't we just dispense with God altogether, and pledge our allegiance directly to the good?

Yes, I think God is tolerant of evil. But He also insists we suffer the consequences, either directly, ourselves, through our own plight, or indirectly through the plight of others. God lets us make mistakes, so that we can learn by them, by suffering these consequences, I think. We learn by our own mistakes more readily than we learn from the experience, wisdom and advocations and admonitions of others.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[Rose Garden]

My question for the forum, then, is this. What is the proper balance, between positive and negative liberties, or freedoms? (Berlin uses the two words interchangeably) At what point do authorities, in the pursuit of their subject's best interests, overstep the mark, and wrongly curtail their negative liberties? At what point do authorities, in championing negative liberties, wrongly admit behaviour that curtails their citizen's positive freedoms?

Best wishes, 2RM.

If you look at the work of the Lord, he permits a great deal of injustice and permits it for a lot longer than we do. However, he also knows when to come in and wipe people out. That is the proper balance. What we are doing in our families and governments is playing house, acting like God as we seek to understand the laws he functions under.

That's interesting. Do you (and LDS in general) think, then, that God 'functions under' laws to which He is subject? I am reminded of the Plato's Euthyphro dilemma - is the good good because God wills it, or does God will the good, because it is good? If the former, the good is a mere matter of divine whim, and God could will anything, and it would be good. If the latter, then why don't we just dispense with God altogether, and pledge our allegiance directly to the good?

Yes, I think God is tolerant of evil. But He also insists we suffer the consequences, either directly, ourselves, through our own plight, or indirectly through the plight of others. God lets us make mistakes, so that we can learn by them, by suffering these consequences, I think. We learn by our own mistakes more readily than we learn from the experience, wisdom and advocations of others.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I can't speak for the LDS in general. For me personally, I believe that there are laws, or rather one law which is love, that governs everything, and that God is God because he has made this law a part of his being.

We need God because we are incapable of living this law on our own, just as little children are incapable of caring for themselves. Jesus' sacrifice makes it possible for him to care for us spiritually, and so if we want salvation and exaltation, we need to turn to him. I believe under his tutalage, we can learn to live the laws as he does and therefore will not have need of him to uphold us, although his sacrifice for is will bind us in love to him as family members are bound together in love.

That is the belief system I function under.

[2ndRateMind]

That's all reasonable. I go by 1 John 4:8 KJV

He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

For me, God and Love are the same thing; whoever loves, manifests God, and any attempt to separate God and Love is to diminish both concepts. God without Love is not God; love without God is not Love.

Cheers, 2RM.

[Rose Garden]

That's all reasonable. I go by 1 John 4:8 KJV

He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

For me, God and Love are the same thing; whoever loves, manifests God, and any attempt to separate God and Love is to diminish both concepts. God without Love is not God; love without God is not Love.

Cheers, 2RM.

My current thinking, which may be wrong, is that God is a being with a body limited to certain physical boundaries, like our own bodies, and Love is a power which fills the universe, like the idea of ether. God has mastered the principles of Love and so Love can flow freely in and through him. I think it is possible for God to stop being God, if he stopped living the principles of Love. But Love can never stop being Love. I believe there are other beings beside the God we worship who are also filled with Love and therefore, there would never cease to be Gods, even if our God ceased to be God.

I realize this disagrees with your explanation. I am open to what you have said and if there comes a time when I learn I am wrong and you are right, I will most certainly accept the alternative explanation. I am functioning on the fact that I don't really know and am just using the tools I have on this earth to discern truth. I figure my understanding of these things is like a little child trying to understand adult concepts. They sure do get the funniest ideas sometimes.

[manton]

...

In other words, as soon as a father or bishop or apostle, etc says, essentially, " I am your (dad/bishop/leader), therefore do what I say," he oversteps his bounds. People tend to confuse a position of authority with the right to control. Even God will not force us to be saved, though He is our King and our Ruler. But instead, He says, if you love me, keep my commandments. Love is the key to the two greatest commandments. And though He gives us commandments, he gives us the choice not to obey. This is His world and His people (who claim to be His sheep).

My dad used to always say, "This is my house. These are my rules. You don't like it? Get out." Religious leaders sometimes take similar license. But none of it is their property or their rules. Instead what they have done is taken control. "I am your leader. You will wear a white shirt and a necktie or you cannot participate in ___."

I kind of get what you are saying, but I think some clarification is needed. There is righteous dominion, even righteous compulsion. It's interesting to see in the times in the scriptures God says, "I am God, do what I say or else I'll destroy you" How can He get away with that? Because He has dominion over all things and His laws are just. Unrighteous dominion is when we act beyond our jurisdiction either directly or via a 3rd party. God says, "this is my house, obey or you will be kicked out." Of course, He's not going to force us to obey, but there is a consequence for disobedience. It is righteous dominion for a Dad to say "this is my house, these are my rules, and these are the penalties" as long as his rules are just and based on true principles, God's law, golden rule, etc. "If you keep my rules, you'll be rewarded, if you don't there will be penalties"

It is unrighteous dominion for a bishop to say, "I am your bishop, and you need to root for the Jazz, or you need to support the BSA or you will be disciplined" because those are beyond his "dominion." But he can say, "as your bishop, you need to repent of you unchastity or you will be cast out." or something along those lines where he is enforcing divine law. Now, if a bishop said, "you are required to wear a white shirt and tie to receive the sacrament", then that exceeds his dominion and affects your "negative" freedom.

In the context of the post, the definitions for positive and negative freedom must include the requirement to conform to divine law and need to also include that those freedoms do not infringe on the freedoms of others. When we make a choice to enter into the jurisdiction of another, we submit to the rules/consequences of that choice. To say, I want to go to church naked, and my negative freedom is adversely affected because they want me to wear clothes is absurd because your expression of freedom is infringing on the rights and jurisdictions of others.

This is why law is essential to liberty and must be based on universal, divine laws. Leaders/authorities/governments are within their dominion/jurisdiction when they are protecting the opportunity to choose according to divine law. But when they start making the choice for us, which creates an inequality, then they have exceeded their power. I haven't read the essay to know if this was touched, but freedom requires just and equal rules/consequences, without it, there is no freedom.

[marc]

I kind of get what you are saying, but I think some clarification is needed. There is righteous dominion, even righteous compulsion...

There is no such thing as righteous dominion or compulsion. We ultimately decide where we want to go (heaven/hell) by the things we choose to do.

D&C 121: 36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion...

The Lord never compels. Ever. Instead, He says IF you love me, keep my commandments. The Lord does, however, persuade. And he uses things like famines, floods, pestilences and killer bees to reduce the opportunity cost of repentance until there's nothing left to offer up except a broken heart and contrite spirit, which is all He ever wanted in the first place. But He NEVER compels. Control is not in the program. That was Satan's program.

[ajax]

The Lord does, however, persuade. And he uses things like famines, floods, pestilences and killer bees to reduce the opportunity cost of repentance until there's nothing left to offer up except a broken heart and contrite spirit, which is all He ever wanted in the first place. But He NEVER compels. Control is not in the program. That was Satan's program.

These aren't tools of compulsion? What a loving God. Perhaps I can used these to persuade my children.

[2ndRateMind]

Yes. I doubt though, that God sends fire and flood and famine and plague to bend us to His will. Such thinking seems to me more likely to be the kind of rationalisations a primitive people would leap to, for justification of their occurrence and their circumstances. These days, with the sciences to guide us, we have more proximate explanations. This does not mean that God has not devised the world to support the objective morality that is the implementation of His Will, just that it is far more subtle, and allows us far more latitude, than the ancient writers could be expected to conceive. Consequences, good and bad, follow from actions, moral and immoral, to be sure. But, I think, those consequences are far more just and far more subtle than fire-bombing entire cities, or wiping out entire populations, the innocent along with the guilty, for some sorry ethical transgression among some portion of the people.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[marc]

The Lord does, however, persuade. And he uses things like famines, floods, pestilences and killer bees to reduce the opportunity cost of repentance until there's nothing left to offer up except a broken heart and contrite spirit, which is all He ever wanted in the first place. But He NEVER compels. Control is not in the program. That was Satan's program.

These aren't tools of compulsion? What a loving God. Perhaps I can used these to persuade my children.

As long as freedom to choose is part of the equation, how can it be compulsion?

[manton]

I kind of get what you are saying, but I think some clarification is needed. There is righteous dominion, even righteous compulsion...

There is no such thing as righteous dominion or compulsion. We ultimately decide where we want to go (heaven/hell) by the things we choose to do.

D&C 121: 36 That the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and that the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

37 That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion...

The Lord never compels. Ever. Instead, He says IF you love me, keep my commandments. The Lord does, however, persuade. And he uses things like famines, floods, pestilences and killer bees to reduce the opportunity cost of repentance until there's nothing left to offer up except a broken heart and contrite spirit, which is all He ever wanted in the first place. But He NEVER compels. Control is not in the program. That was Satan's program.

How can you have unrighteous dominion if there is no righteous dominion? What about the opposites? Yes, I can't compel you to believe as I do, only through persuasion, but there is always righteous compulsion in the execution of a just punishment. Are you saying the Lord "persuaded" Lucifer to leave Heaven? As with all debates, definitions are vital. Search the scriptures for dominion, and it's all over; think about the promised blessings in the temple. Yes, the Lord doesn't compel you to stay, you want to be there, but there is compulsion in the enforcement of the law. Law without consequence is not law it's just new age. The phrase "any degree of unrighteousness" absolutely means there are "degrees of righteousness."

DOMINION, noun [Latin See Dominant.]

1. Sovereign or supreme authority; the power of governing and controlling.

The dominion of the Most High is an everlasting dominion Daniel 4:3.

2. Power to direct, control, use and dispose of at pleasure; right of possession and use without being accountable; as the private dominion of individuals.

COMPEL, verb transitive

1. To drive or urge with force, or irresistibly; to constrain; to oblige; to necessitate, either by physical or moral force.

PERSUA'DE, verb transitive [Latin persuadeo; per and suadeo, to urge or incite.]

1. To influence by argument, advice, intreaty or expostulation; to draw or incline the will to a determination by presenting motives to the mind.
2. To convince by argument, or reasons offered; or to convince by reasons suggested by reflection or deliberation, or by evidence presented in any manner to the mind.

According to the scriptures, Satan being "cast down" does not sound like he was persuaded. Persuasion implies that the persons freedoms are still available. I do not consider if your options to be obey, or lose your freedom to be a persuasive argument, it is compulsion. Holding a flaming sword to someone is no longer persuasion, it is compulsion. To have an angel appear and shake the earth is no longer persuasion, it is to "urge with force" which is compulsion. If you are saying the examples in the scriptures are not compulsion, but forceful persuasion, then I have to disagree. That logic is what Harry Reid uses when he says income taxes are voluntary. For something to be voluntary, the option to not comply must not result in loss of freedom, life, property. If your options are obey, or die, go to prison, etc, then that is compulsion, not persuasion in my opinion.

I'm not trying to argue semantics, just providing the basis for my view. I have often seen debates go round and round when people are saying the same thing but are using different definitions. H.V. Anderson's "many are called few are chosen" has some great explanations for righteous compulsion if you haven't read it yet.

[ajax]

A threat is a tool of coercion. Real persuasion, imo, results in the person who says "No, thank you" not being made worse off by the other party.

[marc]

Manton, those verses are clear.

Ajax, are we not a covenant people?
What does that mean?
Do you believe Christ is not a loving God?
Do you believe He is unrighteous?
Do you believe that He is forcing us to return to live with Him in His kingdom?
Is there anything you want from Him that He has not given to us, offered to us or even done for us?

[ajax]

I believe God is love, which means I think most of the OT is man's made up justification for bad deeds and hanging God's name on it.

You said famines, floods, pestilences and killer bees are God's tools of persuasion. I say they are tools of coercion. Even Alma talks of being compelled to be humble. So there may be a case for that.

Do tools of coercion become ok in covenant relationships? I can't imagine so, nor can I imagine my wife thinking so as well.

*btw, you used the term "opportunity cost". How naughty of you ;)

[marc]

I believe God is love, which means I think most of the OT is man's made up justification for bad deeds and hanging God's name on it.

Well, we believe it is correct as far as it's translated correctly. Wanna see a train wreck in super slow motion? Read Noah's story again.

You said famines, floods, pestilences and killer bees are God's tools of persuasion. I say they are tools of coercion. Even Alma talks of being compelled to be humble. So there may be a case for that.

What is the alternative?
Do you believe that He is forcing us to return to live with Him in His kingdom?
Is there anything you want from Him that He has not given to us, offered to us or even done for us?

We have a choice. It was our choice to participate in creation. It was our choice to covenant to follow Jesus Christ. We proved it by being baptized. We choose to be saved. Or maybe we really don't? Maybe some of us changed our minds. Who of us is chained or handcuffed to the iron rod? Or do we have the freedom to choose and wander off into the dark paths of destruction? And even when we prefer our worldly ways over happiness, God does not excuse Himself of the promise He made. And so, he sends floods to destroy our fancy toys. He sends famines to stir us in the ways of remembrance that what He has freely given ought not to be used by extortion or excess, but that we should all be equal in our temporal things.

3 And it came to pass that in this year Nephi did cry unto the Lord, saying:

4 O Lord, do not suffer that this people shall be destroyed by the sword; but O Lord, rather let there be a famine in the land, to stir them up in remembrance of the Lord their God, and perhaps they will repent and turn unto thee.

5 And so it was done, according to the words of Nephi. And there was a great famine upon the land, among all the people of Nephi. And thus in the seventy and fourth year the famine did continue, and the work of destruction did cease by the sword but became sore by famine.

6 And this work of destruction did also continue in the seventy and fifth year. For the earth was smitten that it was dry, and did not yield forth grain in the season of grain; and the whole earth was smitten, even among the Lamanites as well as among the Nephites, so that they were smitten that they did perish by thousands in the more wicked parts of the land.

7 And it came to pass that the people saw that they were about to perish by famine, and they began to remember the Lord their God; and they began to remember the words of Nephi.

8 And the people began to plead with their chief judges and their leaders, that they would say unto Nephi: Behold, we know that thou art a man of God, and therefore cry unto the Lord our God that he turn away from us this famine, lest all the words which thou hast spoken concerning our destruction be fulfilled.

It seems that we are able to remember after all that it is God who has provided creation for our benefit. He supplies the very air we breathe at no cost. Nephi persuaded the Lord to help the Nephites remember the covenant they made with Him. And they did remember. And they were spared their destruction. But it was self destruction they imposed upon themselves. They departed the path. They were not chained to the iron rod. But before they could wander far enough into extinction, the Lord put stumbling blocks in their way long enough for them to realize their error.

As for Alma talking about being compelled to be humble, the poor Zoramites were Nephite dissenters. They chose to let go of the iron rod and build up churches unto themselves, only they found themselves on the outs with the rich who manipulated them into building the churches wherein they could praise each other on rameumptoms. They brought upon themselves their own poverty because what they valued was praise and also riches. They did not value the safety and peace that came with being covenant keeping Nephites. But because they were brought low in humility, they were ready to again hear the word and after repenting, they joined the Anti-Lehi-Nephis in Jershon where they could prosper and be equal with them there.

Do tools of coercion become ok in covenant relationships? I can't imagine so, nor can I imagine my wife thinking so as well.

Of course tools of coercion are not ok. The Lord does not coerce. He persuades. Coercing is what tyrants do. It is what dictators do. In the beginning was a plan. Christ offered Himself a sacrifice and all the glory be the Father's. Satan swore to save us all and wanted the glory. Now you tell me why would a God NOT choose a plan that would guarantee that every last one of His children would be saved? Sounds perfect, right? Not one soul lost. Why did God not choose Satan's plan? Was it because Satan did not have the power to save us all IN our sins? Or what kind of society would the celestial kingdom be with all kinds of uncleanliness? Or how would Satan coerce us all to be saved? Maybe you and your wife can work that out together.

[manton]

Manton, those verses are clear.

Ajax, are we not a covenant people?
What does that mean?
Do you believe Christ is not a loving God?
Do you believe He is unrighteous?
Do you believe that He is forcing us to return to live with Him in His kingdom?
Is there anything you want from Him that He has not given to us, offered to us or even done for us?

Either my post was not worthy of your time as your dismissiveness indicates you made no effort to understand, or you are so firmly set in the book of Marc that everyone else is a fool. At any rate, it shows neither of us succeeded in persuading which ironically is the common outcome of such threads.

[marc]

Wanton, Forgive me for not replying to you sooner and thank you for your thoughtful reply before this one. I am in a hurry to get to work, but I will reply more thoughtfully this afternoon. Some quick things from the "book of Mark" as you gently put it:

1. We may inherit thrones, principalities, dominions, etc. I don't know if these dominions are the same as you're referring to.
2. Priesthood authority is not the same as the "powers of heaven." There are also powers of earth.
3. The "powers of heaven cannot be controlled."
4. What are the principles of righteousness if not control?
5. What are the rights of the priesthood? How are they conferred upon man and why can they be revoked (Amen)?

I do not consider you or anyone else a fool. I am a fool and unworthy before the Lord.

[manton]

Sorry for whining, I should have included there is obviously a "book of Manton" of course "book of Wanton" is probably accurate too
We all have a book of our definitions, sometimes they match God's, and sometimes they don't. Trying to eliminate false definitions and understandings is our challenge. We naturally gravitate towards those with similar definitions as it is more easy to be edified. I believe that is a major key to becoming "one in heart and mind" is our definitions match.

So, ultimately, I am just frustrated that we so easily misunderstand one another because of our personal definitions. So, I understand the drain it is to always try to define what we mean, and trying to interpret the "book of definitions" of others. Power of thought will be fantastic as we should more immediately understand each other.

You have some great topics in your book

[marc]

...How can you have unrighteous dominion if there is no righteous dominion? What about the opposites? Yes, I can't compel you to believe as I do, only through persuasion, but there is always righteous compulsion in the execution of a just punishment. Are you saying the Lord "persuaded" Lucifer to leave Heaven? As with all debates, definitions are vital. Search the scriptures for dominion, and it's all over; think about the promised blessings in the temple. Yes, the Lord doesn't compel you to stay, you want to be there, but there is compulsion in the enforcement of the law. Law without consequence is not law it's just new age. The phrase "any degree of unrighteousness" absolutely means there are "degrees of righteousness."...

I believe this is the crux of your position. Was Satan persuaded to leave. Well, all we have are some few verses that say he was cast out. Frankly, we just don't know the details and have a huge gap to fill. There just isn't enough information. But it is clear to me that Satan wanted a different way. Likewise, we will not be persuaded to inherit a kingdom, which we will have chosen by the kind of life we chose to live. We will be judged and "cast into" a kingdom, so to speak. Will we be compelled? I don't know know how it will work. IN other words, Satan was no longer compatible to abide God's presence. And so, if we choose a path other than what clothes us in glory, we will not be compatible with His kingdom. We simply will not be able to abide His presence. Perhaps by virtue of being consumed, well, *poof*, we burn up and go somewhere else. Maybe this is what being cast out means. I don't know. Satan and his "followers" forfeited their first estate and could no longer physically (for lack of a better term) abide or endure God's presence. Perhaps the word is spiritually. They became as ice cubes in a furnace, not destroyed, but simply changed into another state. This is the best way I can explain what I believe.

As for the passages in D&C, well, as none of us are righteous, being in our fallen state continually before the Lord, I cannot comprehend any man exercising righteous dominion simply because he isn't righteous. We are all under God's dominion and power. His Spirit and light sustain us in creation for the purpose of furthering His work, which is to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life. And that encompasses doing His will His way. When we change the way He has decreed something be done, it becomes man's way--polluted. The heavens withdraw and priesthood authority is void. The powers of heaven, which I believe are God, Angels and other heavenly beings are not motivated by control. When Christ told Peter that He could summon twelve legions of angels to protect Him if He chose, rather than give Himself up to be sacrificed, He was referring to some of the powers of heaven. In heaven, I believe the motivation to obey God is pure love, or as we call it, the pure love of Christ.

We do not have power or authority to force God's hand or that of the angels. When we attempt such things with our fellow man because heaven gives us a little authority to act in God's name, we forfeit that power because love is no longer our motivation. Nor will God ever force His will upon man, God being pure love. Love motivates. "If ye love me, keep my commandments." So when man seeks to cover his sins or to seek the praise of others, which is to exalt himself, amen to his priesthood, or in other words his authority to act in God's name and his association with heavenly beings, such having the same power and authority. There are passages that mention powers of heaven and also powers of earth.

3 Nephi 20:22 And behold, this people will I establish in this land, unto the fulfilling of the covenant which I made with your father Jacob; and it shall be a New Jerusalem. And the powers of heaven shall be in the midst of this people; yea, even I will be in the midst of you.

3 Nephi 28:7 Therefore, more blessed are ye, for ye shall never taste of death; but ye shall live to behold all the doings of the Father unto the children of men, even until all things shall be fulfilled according to the will of the Father, when I shall come in my glory with the powers of heaven.

versus

Alma 37:16 But if ye keep the commandments of God, and do with these things which are sacred according to that which the Lord doth command you, (for you must appeal unto the Lord for all things whatsoever ye must do with them) behold, no power of earth or hell can take them from you, for God is powerful to the fulfilling of all his words.

3 Nephi 28:39 Now this change was not equal to that which shall take place at the last day; but there was a change wrought upon them, insomuch that Satan could have no power over them, that he could not tempt them; and they were sanctified in the flesh, that they were holy, and that the powers of the earth could not hold them.

The powers of the earth are Satan and his angels.

3 Nephi 9:2 Wo, wo, wo unto this people; wo unto the inhabitants of the whole earth except they shall repent; for the devil laugheth, and his angels rejoice, because of the slain of the fair sons and daughters of my people; and it is because of their iniquity and abominations that they are fallen!

Anyway, this is according to the "book of Marc." God persuades. He never forces, coerces or compels. A man is not saved in ignorance. That probably means he is not damned in ignorance either.