Do God's people eschew violence?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

are we saying the phrase "free agent" is nonsensical, or rather has specific meaning, but just doesn't apply in a Mormon theology framework?

For example, when someone's contract expires and they can sign with any team in the NFL, we often call these people "free agents" and we don't get riled up about whether they are really free or not.

I don't understand the insistence on a distinction between "free agent" and "agent".

I view it as nothing more than an attempt to bring common cultural language in harmony with the scriptures. Kind of like how someone (All-American?) noted in another thread that Russell Nelson seemed to try to take repentance a little away from the "5 R's" and back to D&C 58, or at least circumscribe them inside it.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

are we saying the phrase "free agent" is nonsensical, or rather has specific meaning, but just doesn't apply in a Mormon theology framework?

For example, when someone's contract expires and they can sign with any team in the NFL, we often call these people "free agents" and we don't get riled up about whether they are really free or not.

I don't understand the insistence on a distinction between "free agent" and "agent".

I don' think it is non-sensical, although SU and at least one of my active LDS freinds do (although my firend is a lawyer, too). Free, in this context, may not add much to the idea of agent. I think it is at worst redudant and may add some menaing; SU and others think it is at best redundatn. The whole thing is a little silly, however, as we all understand the concept.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

I don' think it is non-sensical, although SU and at least one of my active LDS freinds do (although my firend is a lawyer, too). Free, in this context, may not add much to the idea of agent. I think it is at worst redudant and may add some menaing; SU and others think it is at best redundatn. The whole thing is a little silly, however, as we all understand the concept.

The term was effectively written off, due to a lack of scriptural support for it, and a reference I believe now to "the agency of man". A further explanation was that agency, although a gift, is not free, but connotes responsibility and consequences. Hence, it is not free from connection or libertarian in nature.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The term was effectively written off, due to a lack of scriptural support for it, and a reference I believe now to "the agency of man". A further explanation was that agency, although a gift, is not free, but connotes responsibility and consequences. Hence, it is not free from connection or libertarian in nature.

neither is being a free agent in the NFL.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

neither is being a free agent in the NFL.

I understand the legal connotation attached to an NFL "free agent", but apparently due to a lack of scriptural support for the term, the costless gift of agency should not be referred to as free.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I understand the legal connotation attached to an NFL "free agent", but apparently due to a lack of scriptural support for the term, the costless gift of agency should not be referred to as free.

but it seems that some form of agency existed before Christ's atonement. Was that "not free" either?

When I say "free" I mean "not compelled". When you say "free" you think it means "without price or consequence".

[creekster]

Arch and the rest of us lawyers are too colored on this one by our legal background. We think of agents and agency in terms of a principal and an agent. In fact, this definition is usually about the 3rd or 4th given. An agent is somone or somethign capale of acting or producing an effect, and efficient cause, if you will. So a free agent is one that does this freely? Perhaps but if so this then gets into other doctrinal issues that muddy up the matter. It is simply most accurate to say agent or agency, but adding the word free really doen't make much difference. I have heard the explanantion Arch gave about agency, but IMO that is a bit overwrought and an unecessary effort to expalin away some merely innaccurate word choice.

Just to be clear, this is all my opinion.

[SeattleUte]

I think the main reason my hackles go up about free agency is that it was always talked about like your gun you have up in the cabinet and you hope you will never have to use except on rare highly controlled situations for sport and only breifly.