The other day I dusted off the “Please Stop Saying That” series. I’m ready to add another one today. Please stop saying this:
“You are taking away my agency.”
or “You are denying him his agency.”
or “We are giving him his agency.”
Why? Because all three of those statements, and any variation of the same, are not correct. They are not even possible. Most likely, anyone who says that their “agency is being taken away” does not actually know what “agency” means.
Here is the simple reason: Agency cannot be taken away.
Here are three supporting quotes from some very reliable sources:
• “Agency is precious. We can foolishly, blindly give it away, but it cannot be forcibly taken from us.” (Boyd. K. Packer, “Cleansing the Inner Vessel)
• “…free agency is a God-given precondition to the purpose of mortal life, no person or organization can take away our free agency in mortality.” (Dallin H. Oaks, Free Agency and Freedom)
• “We are not disposed, had we the power, to deprive any one of exercising that free independence of mind which heaven has so graciously bestowed upon the human family as one of its choicest gifts.” (Joseph Smith, Teachings, p. 49)
Three witnesses, making the following points:
1) Agency is a precious gift from God
2) Agency cannot be taken away from us by any person or organization.
3) Agency is an essential part of our mortal lives.
So why do so many people misunderstand? I think it is because there is often a confusion between two different words which are crucial to understanding the concept:
Agency & Freedom. They are not the same thing. How about an example?
Let’s say that I have a two-year old whose greatest desire in life is to toddle out on the highway and try and catch a car. Right – like I’m going to let that happen. He can exercise his agency all day long in attempting to get out the front door, back door, or doggy door, but I will not allow it. I will restrict his freedom in order to keep him safe. Even when he is securely tucked away in his playpen, he can still desire to escape, but he doesn’t have the freedom to exercise his agency.
Maybe I should let Elder Oaks finish his quote to explain it:
First, because free agency is a God-given precondition to the purpose of mortal life, no person or organization can take away our free agency in mortality.
Second, what can be taken away or reduced by the conditions of mortality is our freedom, the power to act upon our choices. Free agency is absolute, but in the circumstances of mortality freedom is always qualified.
Freedom may be qualified or taken away (1) by physical laws, including the physical limitations with which we are born, (2) by our own action, and (3) by the action of others, including governments. (Dallin H. Oaks, Free Agency and Freedom)
While agency is unassailable, the giving or taking of freedom is at the discretion of the person with the authority and/or power. In the example with the toddler, I have the power to constrain the child’s freedom. Not only do I have the power – I have the responsibility to limit that freedom for the sake of the child’s well-being and safety.
I believe that is where the struggle exists between those who have authority and those who decry their loss of agency. While the toddler story makes it obvious, it gets more complicated as life goes on – and the stakes can be raised.
A teenager says to his parents, “I don’t want to go to mutual.” Does he have the agency to say that? Of course!
Does he have the freedom to stay home? Perhaps.
It depends on what the authority figures think- who are they? Mom and Dad. I have heard parents excuse their youth from attending to their church responsibilities by saying, “I’m not going to make him go – I won’t take away his agency.” As we know, that is a flawed argument. What they mean is, “I’m not willing to interfere with the exercise of my teenager’s agency.” Depending on that specific child, it could be a good choice, or a total cop-out. Such are the joys of parenting…
That said, even if the teenager stomps into the church building for Mutual under duress, he still has his agency, and can march right out the back door if he so desires. Agency is still intact.
(Yes, I admit, my parents “grounded me” now and again – one of the most effective forms of freedom denial. But believe me, I still had my agency to want the denied freedoms.)
When there are two sources of authority, it gets even more complicated. For example, when one voice of authority condones a freedom, and another voice of authority condemns that same freedom, the “agency” issue always becomes a talking point. There are several such struggles currently being played out in the world and the church that highlight this divide. One of them is same sex marriage.
One authority, (whether it be the voice of the people, the government, or judges) has extended the freedom of same sex marriage to society – including members of the church.
The other authority has declared that such a freedom has not been extended to members of the Church. Who is that “other authority?”
God.
Agency is still intact. It is always intact. In this instance the choice is to follow the freedom offered by society, or the restricted freedom offered by God. As members of the church, we already committed to follow the latter, but as society embraces such freedoms, many expect the Lord to change.
He hasn’t. Yet each member of the church always has the agency to embrace society’s trends, or the Lord’s edicts. If someone in the Church desires to be married to a same-sex partner, no one will stop them – precisely because they have their agency. However, if we deliberately choose to follow society rather than God, we would be naive to expect that no consequences would come from that choice. Whenever a choice is made, consequences must follow. It has been that way since Adam and Eve were in the Garden. Choices offered, consequences explained and administered.
“Nevertheless, thou mayest choose for thyself, for it is given unto thee; but, remember that I forbid it, for in the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die” (Moses 3:17). They did…and they did.
Depending on the issue, exercising one’s agency can have tremendous consequences. Immediate consequences, and eternal consequences. Sometimes we can anticipate the consequences, sometimes we can’t. Exercising agency and embracing the freedoms society offers may result in loss of blessings, or membership. Exercising agency and embracing the limits imposed on those freedoms by a higher authority can result in blessings, and membership. The Church cannot make that choice for us, nor can it force us to choose one or the other. When someone shouts that the Church is denying someone their agency, the shouter, again, is showing that they do not understand the word.
Just because multiple choices are offered does not mean all choices are equal, or that more than one choice is the correct choice.
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, according to the commandments which God hath given.
Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself. (2 Nephi 2:26–27)
Or more simply put, as Joshua said, “Choose ye this day who ye will serve…” (Joshua 24:15)
We always have our agency. It is what we choose to do with it that matters.
Other resources on the topic:
“Agency: Essential to the Plan of Life,” Robert D. Hales
“To Act for Ourselves: The Gift and Blessings of Agency,” Robert D. Hales
“Atonement, Agency, Accountabilty,” Boyd K. Packer
Along with sharing this excellent post on Facebook, I posted some of my own thoughts on this topic, some of which are a bit redundant, but perhaps they will be helpful.
“This is a very good description of the concept of agency, that is, our freedom of choice. Our agency is inherent in our very existence as children of our Heavenly Father. He gave it to us when He created us, and no one can take it from us. It is the only thing that truly belongs to us.
“Agency is our power to choose from among all of the available choices. Our degree of freedom defines what choices are available to us. Our freedom may be restricted, that is, the number of choices available to us, but our freedom to choose is still there.
“We can make our own choices, but we cannot choose the consequences of those choices. And the consequences of our choices will increase or decrease our freedom. If I choose to smoke cigarettes, for example, I choose to experience the consequences of smoking, whether I want to or not.
“Agency, that freedom of choice, is the only thing that is truly ours; everything else that we have is a gift from God, and He owns it. He then asks us to give this agency, our only true possession, to Him. He does so, because He wants to make more of us than we can possibly make of ourselves, by following the example of Christ in loving and serving our fellow creatures, and thus becoming like Him. Ironically, in giving Him our agency, our freedom is expanded far beyond anything we can imagine. The problem for most of us is that so often in our lives, we just don’t believe it.”
You can’t hear it..but I am applauding you for writing about this. I think there has often been some confusion about freedom and agency,and I appreciate how you very clearly delineated the difference. My hubby is not a member,and often will jokingly call himself a “free agent”,which he uses at times to mean he can do what he wants. I tell him that he indeed has agency…but that does not give him absolute freedom.There are still things that govern us, and that we are responsible to do or not do,and consequences of our actions. Using our agency wisely gives us freedom,misusing it can cause heartbreak and bondage for ourselves and others.
THANK YOU!
Great followup to lots of good discussion on agency in ETB lesson #3 in RS today. Another insight into agency that I have heard mentioned in Ward Council 2x recently is from Elder Bednar:“When you make covenants, in effect you exercise your agency to accept the conditions of that covenant. In pledging that you will keep the commandments, the only option you have is to be faithful…Brethren, once you have accepted that covenant, you do not have the option to say, ‘I am tired; I don’t want to do my home teaching.’ Now you may think, ‘I have my agency. I can choose not to do those things,’ but having accepted covenants, we have the responsibility to represent Him, not just do what we want.”
https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/understanding-heavenly-fathers-plan?lang=eng
Powerful post… much to contemplate and share.
This thought comes to mind.
“It’s not a matter of whether or not you will obey. The matter is to whom will you be obedient.”
Excellent, I will be all set for our lesson next week. (We are behind because of Stake Conference). But I am curious to here your thoughts on how this applies to boys going on missions. There is a lot of PC going around to not say “when you go on a mission” to our sons. And this is from grown men that did not like that assumption from their folks. I realize they have to make their own choice if they are going to be a successful missionary and parents should not assume they are going to make that choice. But shouldn’t we have expectations?
I have a son that will be going a year from now.
I think using the phrase “When you go on a mission” is an expression of faith. To say anything less implies that we don’t have the expectation that our sons will serve missions, and lack faith that they will make the right decision. God expects them to go, and has said so through his prophets. I think we are on solid, loving ground to echo the same sentiment.
The grown men who did not like the assumption have their agency, and can interpret something faithful as something negative.
Thank you. That has always bothered me. And it was said today in a talk. The brother said he didn’t want his parents to make that decision for him and that it was ultimately up to him. And by them using that phrase all the time made it their decision not his. He did go.
But I like the likening to the scriptures and prophets.
That’s an interesting topic and I think you are correct that a statement of assumption can have a negative impact rather than good.
If I throw that comment into the group discussion of a lesson, like the teachers quorum I serve in, I may be creating that situation and possibly have as many responses (expressed or not) as there are boys. I would offer, however, that the phrase itself isn’t the problem.
With my own sons, who are younger, I know my wife and I have used that exact phrase many times. When we do, it is in reference to many other conversations where we have expressed our expectations and they in turn have expressed their desire to serve missions. One might argue that’s a manipulated discussion and it could be, but I do try very diligently to avoid that scenario and they have expressed their desires independent of any discussion where that could be the case. So, when I do use that phrase with my own boys, it is in reference to other discussions and with intended reinforcement of their own goals.
Additionally it serves as a call to focus their attention for a moment and consider what it might be like when or even if they make the choice to realize that goal. That comment can then promote them to choose to make specific considerstion and preparation … which my sons, and my daughter, have been taught is our actual expectation – that they Prepare to Serve.
On that subject perhaps the author may like to consider that topic. The brethren have stated it is the duty of every worthy young man to serve a full time mission but have also acknowledged a mission isn’t right for everyone. Apart from worthiness, that reality includes mental and physical health limitations but also opportunities to serve as ambassadors where individual lives inspire varied audiences – several athletes and artists come to mind. The choice to serve in a setting other than a full time mission may be the right one, does that mean a young man has failed to fulfill his duty? Certainly not.
Perhaps that duty needs to be expressed as I believe it is intended and have seen given as individual instruction … a duty to worthily prepare and be willing to ask the Lord if it is right that they serve a full time mission.
And perhaps as a part 2, that we as a body of Saints, actually celebrate when our youth fulfill THAT duty especially if the answer happens to be Not Yet or altogether No.
I welcome your thoughts
For a young man, serving a mission is the default. I hope my sons have made that determination years before coming to an epic last minute moment where they have a LeBron James announcement to make regarding serving or not. We expect them to serve. We also expect them to graduate for High School. We don’t hint that there are other options.
Of course there are exceptions. I agree with President Packer’s teachings on the subject:
“Now, what are you to do in your lives? Accommodate the rule first! If you’re to be an exception, or if others are to be an exception, that will become obvious in the inspiration that comes. But there is great power and great safety in holding to the scriptures and having an abounding obedience to our constituted priesthood authority. We are able to pray and receive revelation on our own, then to consider something like this letter from the First Presidency and to obediently say, “Lord, I don’t ask to be an exception.”
Full talk here: http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1051
MMM, thank you for that link to the article, an excellent read to all btw. I’ll admit I was in the womb at the time given but obviously as inspired then as it is today – and of course points out that I’m still learning. What a remarkable story of how that counsel came to light and then be promoted as promised to a world wide forum. That’s a great story.
I appreciate the self-check in allowing me to post and providing me a great way to identify ways to improve. I think I was implying the rest of the phrase but I need to be more specific and say it boldly so that I teach to the rule. Worthily prepare and plan to serve.
We (EC and I) expect missions and we expect college. And I believe it is another decision entirely to choose to finish them. But I stand corrected in that I have been looking for exceptions among the ward, perhaps not among my own sons but I need to make sure I say it right in both settings. Its hard to see some choose other options even when of significant value in its own right. I guess I want to believe that all are making a conscious effort to consider service, but maybe not. Man, I need to work harder as a leader, even after a few months I feel the significant importance of doing it right.
Another quote from the same article also stood out.
“You will have far more of what matters most than you would have if you should go elsewhere seeking your fortune. When you come to find that which matters most, you will always find in the long run that to be the rule and not the exception is to see the fulness of life. Should there be exceptions, the Lord will designate those in an unmistakable way.”
I think in my advise I was trying to show faith in the process of preparation. Believing then that they would arrive at their own conclusion to meaningfully serve if they just took the steps. That may actually be promoting a different purpose.
Again the statement: “Lord, I don’t ask to be an exception.”
Yes, as the article states, we can all think of examples of exception, even some very close to home … but the real test of faith is to apply the default rule then witness the miracles unfold.
There was a military draft going on when my 3 uncles were of age to serve missions. None of them got drafted. The oldest went; the youngest went. For some reason the middle one never even got talked to about it by his branch president at the time. He graduated from high school, went away to college for a semester, then returned, baptized and married his high school sweetheart. ( I was the ring bearer)
He served as an Elder for most of my early life, ordaining me to be a Teacher and Elder and was my escort at 19. Nine years later, just before my great-Grandfather crossed the veil, Uncle was called to the H.C. and grandpa (who ordained me a Deacon and Priest) ordained him a H.P., the first of his generation. A year later grandpa was gone, and I had a new calling. Uncle flew across the country to ordain me one more time. Even though he was the second youngest, he has become the patriarch of the family. 7/10 of his children have served missions (one was actually in Phoenix until Dec 2014)
He has often said that he has always wondered why he never was expected to go on a mission, even though he had fleeting desires to. Now he feels that he knows, and is looking to go on one with his EC in a couple of years. When ever he has counseled any of his plethora of nephews and sons, it has always been “when” not “if”
The term “many are called, but few are chosen” comes to mind, and the exceptions are chosen for something different, they just don’t know it until the time comes…..so be obedient until you know the path you are to take.
I had an epiphany on free agency during my business associations class in law school. An agent is a representative for another person or entity, and a free agent is a person who isn’t under contract and can choose at will who to represent (a la La Bron “taking his talents” to South Beach). I don’t have the freedom to choose the consequences of my choices, and there are plenty of things I can’t choose because those choices are not available to me. But no one can control who I choose to represent through my actions and my attitude. And I have covenanted to represent the Lord as His agent.
Your post is a great extension of the Priesthood/ Relief Society lesson of today, “Freedom of Choice, and Eternal Principle.” As as result of my training in reading scientific literature I like to read some of the references listed in articles. The article you referenced/quoted by Elder Oaks is outstanding and needs to be studied and understood by every member of the Church. It will take me several readings and hours of study to internalize all the doctrine Elder Oaks presented. As he says in his talk/article “… when I speak about doctrine my talks are pretty dry, …”
Wish I had better understood the difference between freedom and agency when my children were growing up.
Great post….I just wish two of my children would understand this concept
Can’t we just talk about bacon still? YOU ARE TAKING AWAY MY AGENCY!!!!
Not sure why I approved that comment. Tired, I guess.
It was supposed to be ridiculous. Like most comments associated with “you are taking away my agency.”
I always “really disliked” when one of the FOML’s would try using that line. I agree, and you pointed out very candidly that it is impossible to take away someone’s agency.
On the other hand, for those spreading their wings that don’t see a difference, my response was always…..
“No, I am denying you the opportunity to have a negative impact on my ability to choose.”
for some reason, the “really disliked” that answer because they couldn’t argue against it…or any following argument about it being “their life”.
Excellent post and very timely application. No accident, I am sure. Another excellent source on this, while not doctrinal but nevertheless a classic, is Man’s Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl.
What would be the best way for a reader to suggest topics for your consideration for future posts? i can’t seem to get your email address correct and I don’t twitter or tweet . . . or toot, for that matter.
Thx,
Linda Petersen
Cedar Hills, Utah
mmm@middleagedmormonman.com
Excellent! I will never confuse the two again . . .