Celebrating America's 250th Anniversary: Freedom and Agency

Happy anniversary America!

For anyone who might have missed it, on May 31st the Church released a video of Elder Christofferson and Elder Cook discussing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as part of a fifth Sunday lesson. I absolutely loved this discussion and the invitation for members to participate in a unified fast for religious liberty on July 5th.

Freedom and Agency

During their discussion, Elder Christofferson and Elder Cook reiterated a truth we learn in the Doctrine and Covenants: that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States were inspired by God.

“And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.” - Doctrine and Covenants 101:80

“And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.” - Doctrine and Covenants 98:5

Some of the words that came up frequently during this discussion between Elder Christofferson and Elder Cook included agency and freedom. They spoke especially of the freedom of religion, with mentions of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. They also reiterated our doctrinal understanding of the premortal existence, in which we, as spirit sons and daughters, were given the choice of whether to follow Satan or our Father in Heaven. Satan intended to take away our ability to make choices for ourselves, destroying our agency and our ability to grow. 

The Abortion Debate

As we all know, freedom, agency, and choice are words which feature prominently in the abortion debate. Pro-choice Latter-day Saints often use the eternal principle of agency in defense of abortion protection. While listening to Elder Christofferson and Elder Cook’s discussion, I couldn’t help thinking about how a pro-choice Latter-day Saint might view statements such as:

“We believe that the most important aspect of the constitution is its role in promoting and protecting the individual moral agency of God’s children everywhere.”

and

“In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we know that agency is fundamental to God's great plan of happiness. God revealed to Moses that in the grand council of heaven when the Father's plan was proposed and accepted with immense joy, Satan rebelled against it and sought to destroy the agency of man which God declared: ‘I the Lord God had given him.’”

Since pro-life laws prohibit the choices that a woman can make, they must then be an attack on agency, and therefore, contrary to the laws of God, right? A Latter-day Saint might oppose abortion personally, but be convinced that making it illegal is contrary to God’s plan, as it limits agency and freedom. 

But let’s take a deeper look into these words and how they apply to the abortion debate. What do freedom and agency mean in the context of the Gospel? Setting aside the fact that Church leaders have openly and roundly condemned elective abortion, the “pro-choice” position does not withstand either a Gospel or a constitutional interpretation. 

The Difference between God-Given Agency & Mortal Freedom

In 1987, Dallin H. Oaks gave an excellent speech at BYU titled Free Agency and Freedom, in which he discussed the concepts of agency and freedom in depth. Here are some of the important highlights. 

“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."

"Many losses of freedom are imposed by others. The science of government is a consideration of the procedures by which and the extent to which the official representatives of one group of citizens can impose restrictions on the freedom of another group. Decisions on the extent to which government power should restrict the freedom of individuals are among the most difficult decisions we face in an organized society."

"We have to accept some government limitations on freedom if we who live in communities are to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A condition of uninhibited individual freedom would allow the strong to oppress the weak. It would allow the eccentric desires of one person to restrict the freedom of many."

"Interferences with our freedom do not deprive us of our free agency. When Pharaoh put Joseph in prison, he restricted Joseph’s freedom, but he did not take away his free agency."

"Freedom is obviously of great importance, but as these examples illustrate, freedom is always qualified in mortality. Consequently, when we oppose a government-imposed loss of freedom, it would be better if we did not conduct our debate in terms of a loss of our free agency, which is impossible under our doctrine. We ought to focus on the legality or the wisdom of the proposed restriction of our freedom.” - Dallin H. Oaks

In other words, we have had free agency since our premortal life; it is a gift from God that cannot be taken away in this life except when we “voluntarily surrender our will to [Satan’s]” (Dallin H. Oaks). Freedom is not the same thing as our agency. It is necessary for a civilized society to restrict some freedoms (NOT our free agency), otherwise, we would live in anarchy, which would restrict “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” These laws necessarily restrict what individuals can do with their bodies. The protection of life, by criminalizing the killing of others (murder, manslaughter) is one of the restrictions of freedom which we accept. Hence, the abortion debate should not center around discussions of our eternal agency. 

Responsibility

In continuing the discussion of freedom and agency, we cannot neglect to mention another word: responsibility. Throughout the years, our understanding of the words freedom, agency, and liberty seem to have morphed. We now seem to think that these words mean the right to do anything we want, whenever we want. Freedom, however, is inextricably tied with responsibility. Individuals who live their lives in bondage are not responsible for many of their own actions, as they do not have the ability to choose to do what is right. By contrast, those who live in freedom are largely responsible for their every action, and are therefore obligated to participate in actions which are right. Consequences, whether positive or negative, will follow their actions. 

“True liberty in individuals consists in the enjoying of every right that will contribute to one’s peace and happiness, so long as the exercise of such a privilege does not interfere with the same privilege in others. It consists not in doing what one likes to do, but in doing what one ought to do. It is the right of each individual to be master of his own time and actions consistent with fairness and justice to his fellow men and with harmony with the laws of God. … It is freedom of choice, a divine gift, an essential virtue in a peaceful society.” - David O. Mckay, Teachings of Presidents of the Church, Chapter 22: Agency and Responsibility

Elder Christofferson and Elder Cook also touched on this by reminding us that there is evidence that the phrase “the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,”  was meant by the founding fathers to mean the pursuit of doing good, or being virtuous, rather than the pursuit of personal pleasure. In other words, the freedom we are granted in the Constitution is meant to allow us to do what is right, to worship God, and protect others, rather than freedom to participate or encourage debauched actions. 

Right to Life

Last, but certainly not least, we cannot discuss our freedoms and rights under the Constitution and Declaration without acknowledging the explicitly stated right to life. When it comes to abortion, we are discussing more than one human life, and the rights which both individuals have. The clash of rights that occurs during the situation of an unplanned pregnancy is a subject which deserves its own article, but we will keep it simple for today. Here is an excellent quote by Emily Geiger of the Equal Rights Institute explaining this conflict in the context of a pro-life position:

“Abortion is a conflict of rights issue. There’s inherently a conflict between the woman’s right to bodily autonomy and the fetus’ right to life. We know through biology that the unborn are alive because they’re growing, and we know they’re human because they have two human parents, and I think all living humans are valuable and deserve to be equally protected from violence. The bodily autonomy of pregnant women definitely complicates the issue, but I can’t think of a consistent reason to allow someone’s right to do what they want with their own body to let them kill an innocent person. Innocent people being subject to violence, which is what elective abortion is, is the kind of thing the government should have laws against. I’m pro-equality and anti-violence against innocent people, and that’s why I’m pro-life.” - Emily Geiger, Equal Rights Institute - Abortion and Medical Necessity: Press Talking Points

Because abortion is a conflict between innocent life and bodily autonomy, one right must supersede the other. Again, this deserves its own article, but the right to bodily autonomy (as important as it is) does not grant the right to kill an innocent human being. In other words, for the inalienable right to life to be respected, bodily autonomy must be infringed upon, as it is infringed upon with all laws, to some extent. 

From a Latter-day Saint perspective, taking someone’s life denies them of the opportunity to experience mortality, taking away their ability to exercise agency in this mortal life. 

“When the controversies about abortion are debated, “individual right of choice” is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual do not allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely an individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman’s choice for her own body does not include the right to deprive her baby of life—and a lifetime of choices that her child would make.” - Russel M. Nelson, 2008, Abortion: An Assault on the Defenseless

Conclusion

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were inspired by God. They honor the agency which we possessed before we were born and allow us to learn and progress through responsibility for our actions. Some restrictions on our freedom are necessary for the privilege of living in a civilized society which honors the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. As Latter-day Saints, we are taught to uphold the right to life and to follow God’s plan of happiness for his children. It is our responsibility to use our freedom and agency to advocate for and defend innocent life, including the preborn. Protection of the innocent is one of the primary functions of government, and should be advocated for by Latter-day Saints on both a personal and a legal level.

Happy fourth of July! 

Did you like this article? Leave your thoughts in a comment below.