Does Mormonism Allow for Free Agency?

Yes – absolutely.

Frankly, I think it actually allows for a deeper exercise of agency than many other denominations, simply because there is so little that is unambiguously “creedal” in nature. Not everyone will see that, and there are plenty of people who live as if they have given up their agency, but that doesn’t change, for me, the fact that agency is taught so explicitly and that, ironically, as someone with heterodox views, I have abundant opportunities to exercise my agency – not only in what I believe but also in how I act as a result.

I think I agree with you both, but I think there is some nuance here.

To clarify or emphasize my point/question, do you think the punishments fit the crime? In so many other religions, disobedience or non orthodox living doesn’t even raise an eyebrow. In my world, when people who know I’m Mormon see me holding a Starbucks cup (regardless of its contents) they inevitably comment “I thought you were Mormon”.

I use this simply as an example of the expectations placed on Mormons, for better or worse, by members and otherwise. I feel sometimes like our culture of strict obedience and orthodoxy and the social consequences for disobedience STRONGLY COMPEL me to obey, regardless of what I ACTUALLY WANT TO DO. In this sense, I often feel like I have no agency and it makes me have animosity toward the institution (whether it’s warranted or not).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I echo Ray and SD – it absolutely allows for free agency.

I have thought about agency a lot. Elder Maxwell wrote a book, “All These Things Shall Give Thee Experience,” in which he essentially argues that God know all of us so well that he will know exactly what we will do and what decisions we will make. Even though it appears that we have agency, because we can’t see the big picture, He knows exactly how each of us will make all our decision because He knows us perfectly. It was one of the first times that I read something that I not only did not agree with, but seemed so antithetical to the concept of agency that I could not accept his thesis.

Which made me very sad because I really love Elder Maxwell and I love his writing; he is one of the great masters of prose the church has had. He has written many other things that I love, but I just couldn’t agree with him on that.

2nd Nephi Ch. 2 is one my favorite chapters in the BofM. Even though I am not sure where I stand with the BofM it is a chapter that rings true to me. The idea that opposition must exist so that we can have a range of experience, and those experiences will help us know what makes us happy and what makes us sad. And by having experiences on both spectrum’s we can know the divine nature in ourselves and the divine nature of the universe. It is a principle that I love, and cling to even through uncertainty.

I am currently reading the book ‘The God Who Weeps.” The author makes the point that Enoch, in his conversation with God was surprised at God’s tears because Enoch had no concept that God wept over his creations and could be saddened by their choices. IMO, that is the God I prefer to worship; The One who gives us agency, and although He knows us so well allows us to make choices that can make Him happy or sad. In a similar vein, I know my children very well, I see their potential, and I often know how will they react to things. Sometimes they surprise me in the positive, and I am filled with joy. Other times their human nature gets the better of them and it makes me sad. I offer rules and sometimes consequences, but in respecting their agency sometimes they make decisions that I was not expecting.

Perhaps Elder Maxwell was correct in that if God is omnipotent, He is able to hold an infinite number of alternate timelines in his mind, and one of those is the path we will follow, but IMHO, even He doesn’t know which of those will be the one we follow. [Edit] Then again, I may be wrong about all of this. 🙂

Sorry to wax a bit philosophical and these ideas are perhaps even a bit outside the box for this site, but it doesn’t really help you with your question.

I would say that despite the feeling that you are boxed in, your agency exists. Perhaps one path will not be as pleasant as another, perhaps you see your choices as the least bad choice, but you have the ability to choose what that path will be.

During dinner with one of my boss’s many moths ago we started talking about religion. She was raised in a home with no religion, only liberal politics and picket lines. She felt equally trapped by having no religion, and force fed political beliefs growing up. She felt like she had missed out on something amazing and beautiful as a child for lacking that sense of community and divinity and now as an adult did not have a starting point or know where to look. My point being, you feel trapped because of your religious upbringing and others feel the opposite. It’s mostly just a matter of perspective.

I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.

Well said Thomas Jefferson, well said.

…To clarify or emphasize my point/question, do you think the punishments fit the crime? In so many other religions, disobedience or non orthodox living doesn’t even raise an eyebrow. In my world, when people who know I’m Mormon see me holding a Starbucks cup (regardless of its contents) they inevitably comment “I thought you were Mormon”….I use this simply as an example of the expectations placed on Mormons, for better or worse, by members and otherwise. I feel sometimes like our culture of strict obedience and orthodoxy and the social consequences for disobedience STRONGLY COMPEL me to obey, regardless of what I ACTUALLY WANT TO DO. In this sense, I often feel like I have no agency and it makes me have animosity toward the institution (whether it’s warranted or not).

Maybe in theory Mormonism allows for free agency and certainly members can decide that they don’t want to have anything to do with the Church anymore which is especially common for people raised in the Church that don’t ever serve a mission or get married in the temple as well as new converts that often don’t have as many family/social ties to the Church as many longtime active members do. However, in practice once other members already expect you to go along with the Church’s doctrines then if you later change your mind and want to drink coffee, beer, or wine, say no to tithing settlement, stop wearing garments, get a tattoo, openly admit that you believe something significantly different from what the Church teaches, etc. it will often actually be much more difficult than just outwardly playing along with the Church’s expectations because going against these existing expectations is currently quite simply not acceptable to many other active members.

So the end result is that the Church has actually effectively limited freedom significantly regarding many everyday decisions that typical Church members make. To be honest the overbearing expectations in the Church that we absolutely need to believe and do all this and if not then it is not alright has generally bothered me even more than any doctrines and claims the Church makes that I don’t believe are true. I could easily shrug off hearing Church leaders preach doctrines I that think are wrong for a few hours per week but I mostly want to be able to believe what makes the most sense to me and not feel like I have to keep it secret and I also want to be able to make decisions for myself without having them already made for me in many cases by past Church leaders over 50 years ago but the truth is that having this kind of real freedom is much easier said than done in the Church at this point.

“Do you believe in the existence of God?” For many, an immediate “yes” would be considered the right answer. But what does an answer of “yes” constitute? Is it the love for their God? Is it faith? Or yet, is it fear? Erich Fromm states, “(Religion) is not as an act of faith but in order to escape an intolerable doubt; this decision not out of devotion but in search of security?” If Fromm is accurate, has humankind forgot the deeper meaning of religion? Has religion, with its gods and faith, forgot its essence – the soul? With Erich Fromm’s Psychoanalysis and Religion, we explore the authoritarian and humanistic religion; humankind’s disoriented feelings toward religion, and the relevance of Fromm’s argument.

Erich Fromm describes two branches of religion – the authoritarian and humanistic religion. The authoritarian religion describes an unseen higher being, controlling the life and destiny of humankind. “What makes it so is the idea that this power, because of the control it exercises, is entitled to ‘obedience, reverence, and worship,’” Fromm said. “The essential element in authoritarian religion and in the authoritarian religious experience is the surrender to a power transcending man. The main virtue of this type of religion is obedience; its cardinal sin is disobedience.” According to Fromm, an individual who follows an authoritarian religion is a helpless and insignificant figure. They have given up their independence, not able to think for one’s self. They are eventually a marionette in strings, being controlled by a strong, unseen force – their God. “In an authoritarian religion, God is a symbol of power and force,” Fromm argues. “He is supreme because He has supreme power, and man in juxtaposition is utterly powerless.”

The humanistic religion plays the opposite of authoritarian religion. While authoritarian religion restricts its followers from questioning their faith, the humanistic religion welcomes discussions to understanding one’s faith. Instead of religion owning its followers, the humanistic religion describes a religion where followers own their faith. “Humanistic religion is centered around man and his strength,” Fromm explains. “Man must develop his power of reason in order to understand himself, his relationship of his fellow men and his position in the universe. Man’s aim in humanistic religion is to achieve the greatest strength, not the greatest powerlessness; virtue is self-realization, not obedience.” If a humanistic religion displays the ideal religion, then why does it not play a major role in everyone’s life? Fromm answers that throughout time, humankind has lost touch in what a religion should be.

“The underlying theme of the preceding chapters is the conviction that the problem of religion is not the problem of God, but the problem of man,” Fromm states. Authoritarian religion is the most dominant type of religion out there. Instead of people celebrating their faith, they fear it. Fromm argues that authoritarian religion has restricted individuals from completely comprehending their faith. “Religious formulations and religious symbols are attempts to give expression to certain kinds of human experience,” he said. “What matters is the nature of these experiences.” Fromm explains that people are so preoccupied on obeying the rules and regulations of their religion that they forget the main essence of religion, the human soul. Most societies live with an authoritarian religion where having a religion and believing in God is enough but human growth and understanding have no strong importance. One must wonder: if religion is so important, do we need a God to show compassion and love?

“It is easy to see that many who profess the belief in God are in their human attitude idol worshippers or men without faith, while some of the most ardent ‘atheists,’ devoting their lives to the betterment of mankind, to deeds of brotherliness, and love, have exhibited faith and a profoundly religious attitude,” Fromm said. Many religious followers’ has abandoned and forgotten the foundation of religion. As Fromm presents, people hide behind their God and religion, feeling that they are secured and safe, when in reality, they are nothing more than zombies with no mind of their own. People like to feel comfortable and thinking having a God in their life and religion gives them that safety net in life. But comfortable does not give you liberation or understanding of who we really are as individuals. Religion should contain love, compassion, and finding ways to make life easier for everyone.

Fromm makes a valid argument. Religion seems to have become a joke to many people. It has become a walking contradiction and for years have lost its essence. Parents scare their young children by forcing them to go to church and damn them to hell if they ask questions. Churchgoers’ who attend church every Sunday seemed to have forgotten the lessons their own religion is teaching. Religious figures, from priests to politicians, become hypocrites as they preach about one thing but yet act in another. Where are the love and the compassion?

Fromm believes that a person who shows compassion for their mankind, with or without a God, performs the humanistic religion. People should not depend on their God to provide miracles or to control their life but rather use God’s teachings and help their fellow mankind. Even for atheists, who people consider “godless,” can show humanistic religion through appreciation for one’s life and helping their fellow kind. Fromm points out that you do not need a God to reach enlightenment or to be a respectable human being, but rather have good intentions in your heart and being true to yourself. According to a new book, Mother Theresa had lost her faith with God but yet, she continued to serve her people. She was not trying to fulfill an obligation to serve her religion and God but to fulfill her own destiny. Mother Theresa was serving her people because she felt in her heart, it was the right thing. And with that, is the true meaning of religion.

Erich Fromm does not dislike religion, but disapproves where religion has taken mankind. With authoritative religion, it has provided a blueprint for one’s life before even being born. Parents continue to pass down religious ideas and rituals that restrict one from exploring one’s individuality. We have come so far in life from the ancient cave men to a much more complex individuals who create technology based on our fantastic dreams. Though we have evolved so much, it seemed that we still can’t seem to think for our own self. People’s relationship with their religion and God is like a young child learning how to ride a bike. They need God and their religion to continue holding them from behind because they are afraid to fall. They feel safe, yet they are not going anywhere. Fromm suggests that we should learn from our religion and God and start exploring on our own. Because the greatest enlightenment, is telling our religion and God to “let go” and start seeing the world in our own eyes.

In order to escape fear, one must develop ones own authentic self and moral compass independent of authority and outside figures or orgs. Once you do that they hold no power over you. They can’t wield undo influence. Once you realize that like a family relationship or marriage, obedience isn’t a manifestation of love but insecurity, the actual manifestation of love is co-operation just as in family and marriage. I would never set rules to my wife or marriage, not because stuff shouldn’t be it should be done, but because we talk to each other in love about our individual needs and needs as a couple and work towards them that they aren’t necessary to establish.

Because obedience is the sign of a insecure authority figure,(authoritarian) co-operation is the sign of a mature person(authoritative, self determination). Self-determination through co-operation becomes the healthy unit of love, not the destructive force of insecure authority figure obedience.