Personal Revelation And Free Agency

[Messenger]

In another thread there has been discussions about a person acting on personal revelation. I don't think anybody would disagree that we can and should act on personal revelation. As one person mentioned, personal revelation trumps all. But, does it cross the line when a person acts on what they know to be true (real or not) to take away the free agency of another?

Here are some examples of what I am bringing up for discussion.

Hypothetical Situation 1

A person has been introduced to the gospel through friends and has gone through the entire process of taking the discussions with a set of missionaries. Then, after the last discussion and interviews, the current missionaries are re-assigned and a new set of missionaries have come to perform the baptism. The missionaries perform the baptism, but one of the missionaries doesn't feel the new convert is worthy. And does not turn in the paperwork to the church. There are plenty of witnesses, and photographs of the baptism, and the convert, after several months, convinces another bishop that it indeed has taken place and the records are created. Is it right for a single missionary to thwart or covertly disrupt the members records from being created?

Hypothetical Situation 2

A missionary is overseas and is serving in Russia. The missionary receives a letter from his mother that his father has had an accident and will not survive the next week. The father is drifting in and out of consciousness and is asking to see his son. This missionary is an adult, has prayed about it, and thinks that going home to be with his father is the right thing to do, and he would be willing to be re-assigned to the states because the cost of re-deploying back to Russia is cost prohibitive. He takes his plans to the Mission President (who holds his visa) and the mission president rejects the idea. While having interviews over the next 7 days, his father dies. Is it right for the Mission President to keep his missionary from seeing his father on his deathbed?

Here is a quote from a talk from a General Authority that might help....

To Act for Ourselves: The Gift and Blessings of Agency

ROBERT D. HALES

Of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles

"Now, none of us are on the narrow path all of the time. All of us make mistakes. That is why Lehi, who understood the Savior’s role in preserving and reclaiming our agency, taught Jacob—and us: “The Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. 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.” That is the key—“to act for themselves and not to be acted upon.” "

Source: http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2006/04/to-act-for-ourselves-the-gift-and-blessings-of-agency?lang=eng

[Lightbearer]

My take on both of these situations are that both the single Missionary and the Mission President were wrong. In the first instance the single missionary does not have the keys of baptism, therefore he is within his rights to oppose the baptism and to refuse to participate, but he has no right to withhold paperwork. The MP had the right to tell the missionary he cannot go, however the missionary is at liberty to leave if he chooses. However the consequences of leaving might mean he is going to be released, if it were my dad, I would leave no matter the consequences. Money or cost to me is irrelevant. It is people and relationships that matter the most in life.

[Darren10]

Messenger;

In hypothetical situation #1, whatever missionary Who felt that the baptized wasn't worthy should have resolved his concerns well before the baptism occurred. Said missionary should have at the very least contacted the Mission Home and spoken to the mission president. He also could have spoken to the local bishop or branch president. Withholding the records would be unjust for as I see it, they are to a written verification of the event and since the event occurred, the recipient being worthy or not, the records should be turned in.

In hypothetical situation #2, as an adult the missionary had already agreed to serve for years in Russia. He cannot just leave because he feels he needs to. My experience, however, is that if a missionary is insistent enough, the mission president will go ahead and grant the missionary his/her request to go stateside. At least my missionary president would have.

[Darren10]

Lightbear;

Not to pass judgement or to start a debate on the topic but during my mission if it were my dad I would have convinced that the best way to have loved him and to have blessed him would have been to fulfill a good and faithful mission. I do imagine though that each situation would be needed to be judged on their own merits. There is, perhaps, not one standard answer as what a missionary should do, stay on his mission, or leave it to see his dying father.

[Messenger]

Mission decisions can be difficult. Because we don't know if Heavenly Father wants us there to bring the gospel to a specific family or person. But, I think we have to be careful with this, how do we know that the missionary wasn't to meet someone while visiting his dad in the Hospital? Its been said that personal revelation trumps all. Does it trump other's free agency? In other words, if the missionary received personal revelation that it was ok to leave, wouldn't that be violating the people he could have meant to bring the gospel to in Russia, knowing that the church would not spend the money to send him back?

And if we do receive revelation to violate another person's Free Agency, (Nephi killing Laban), what if the act of killing Laban gave free agency of the greater mass of people who were repressed by Laban? Would that be congruent with the Law of Free Agency?

Also, if we receive revelation to do something that is against the law, and we choose to do it, it is fair that there would be consequences such as arrest? Would violating another person's free agency be considered against spiritual law?

Edited May 21, 2012 by Messenger

[BlueDreams]

On the first I'd say yes, that's not correct. The person decided to get baptized, the missionaries baptized him, and that's that. Whether or not the person is worthy isn't the deciding factor of sending in the paper work. It means you continue to work with the person after finding out.

#2 is, to me, up to the mission president, the Lord, and that missionary. I assume he wasn't trying to be insensitive, but on a mission there is a higher priority than our individual wants...even very good and honorable desires. As someone already mentioned, with persistence, most mission presidents would probably relent. Either way though, I don't think this is a case of the Mission President "taking away" someone's agency . He's a missionary, that means the mission president has the authority to move you to wherever. Your life is not your own anymore and that's that.

As an aside, I don't find the phrase "taking away someone's agency" correct for either of these scenarios....or all that correct period.

With luv,

Bd

Edited May 21, 2012 by BlueDreams

[Log]

OP: What exactly do you mean by "free agency?" Because what I would mean by that phrase does not appear to be what you would mean.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Log

[CV75]

In both cases, all particpants still have their agency.

In #1, the misionary was wrong to interfere, especially in a covert manner, by not involving his "chain or command" and other proper procedure. The rest (the convert convincing a bishop, creating a new record, etc.) is a matter of church policy and procedure and how people manage it (correctly or not) according to their agency.

In #2, the missionary can still go home even if his plan is rejected by his president, who has the right to veto his plan.

Only God can say what He really said and to whom.

Edited May 21, 2012 by CV75

[Doctrine 612]

The second situation is simple, Go home, Go home as fast as you can, family comes first to church.

In my family it goes God, Family, Church.

But that is my 2 cents other have there own.

[Scott Lloyd]

Re: the title of this thread.

In general conference of April 1992, Elder Boyd K. Packer gave a talk in which he pointed out that the term "free agency" does not appear in scripture.

Since then, that term has rarely, if ever, been used in talks by general Church leaders or in official Church publications and sources. The proper term is moral agency or, simply, agency.

No Free Agency

The phrase “free agency” does not appear in scripture. The only agency spoken of there is moral agency, “which,” the Lord said, “I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.” (D&C 101:78; italics added.)

Edited May 21, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[BlueDreams]

Someone was just telling me that going home if an immediate family member dies is handled differently now as a whole. It's either you stay or you go....there's no leave of absences anymore.

This is probably obvious from my first post but personally, I would've stayed. I'd call my family, talk to my father, express my love. But that's it. God comes first and the reason I was out there, to me, is because of Him.

With luv,

bd

[Buzzard]

Someone was just telling me that going home if an immediate family member dies is handled differently now as a whole. It's either you stay or you go....there's no leave of absences anymore.

This is probably obvious from my first post but personally, I would've stayed. I'd call my family, talk to my father, express my love. But that's it. God comes first and the reason I was out there, to me, is because of Him.

With luv,

bd

I have heard of missionaries coming home for a funeral and being honorably released for doing so. I am also aware of missionaries who have then returned to the field. Elizabeth Smart came home for several weeks to testify against Brian Mitchell in his kidnapping trial then went back to France to finish her service. Don't know if that means it is handled on a case by case basis or if it depends on the Mission President, or ???

When my daughter left, knowing about my disease, I told her that if I passed while she was gone, I wanted her to stay out, but it looks like she won't have to make that decision.

As for the missionary blocking the baptism, someone needs a toungue-lashing from the mission president. If the Zone Leader interviewed the convert and signed off on the baptism, it's frankly none of his business. If he has evidence of unworthyness, he should contact the ZL before the baptism, once it takes place, they are a member. In my ward in CA, a members girlfriend was baptised, then it became evident within a few weeks that she was pregnant. So a few weeks after he baptism she was on formal probation, along with her boyfriend. But there was no talk of abrogating her baptism, even though it became obvious that she and her boyfriend were being immoral at the time.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Buzzard

[Darren10]

Messenger #5;

I think what "trumps all" is the will of God. If it is God's will that said missionary, or any missionary really, needs or should leave his or her mission, then so be it. Hopefully all parties involved will be in tune wil the Holy Spirit as to what the will of God would be regarding placing the missionary in question. The parties for this particularly post which mentioned a missionary wanting to leave his mission, would be the mission president and the missionary desiring to leave. If it is the will go God, which never violates "free agency" (correctly identified as "moral agency" in his #10 post) that the missionary should go, thendefinitelythatmidsionary should go. If it's the will of God then I'm absolutely sure that anyone who that missionary was "supposed to meet" on his missionary will be take. Care of by the Lord. This is afterglow His work and His glory and thus His call to make.

[Darren10]

"Afterglow" in my #13post? OK, I really dislike posting from my IPod.

[Messenger]

OP: What exactly do you mean by "free agency?" Because what I would mean by that phrase does not appear to be what you would mean.

Log,

Thats why I gave a link to the talk on Free Agency from the church. I suppose there could be other meanings. But, we could go all the way back to the pre-existance where we had free agency to choose between two plans. One, would disolve our agency to fail and make incorrect desicions because those decisions would be Lucifers, thus we would all be saved (Lucifer) and we would give glory to him, the other would allow us to fail, which would mean we would need a savior, but we still might not live with God again because we may choose against repentance.

I would use that model against hypothetical senarios, even of your choice if you wish. Later tonight I might post more senarios.

[Scott Lloyd]

OP: What exactly do you mean by "free agency?" Because what I would mean by that phrase does not appear to be what you would mean.

I suspect that widespread clouding of the definition of agency is part of the reason why the Brethren have discontinued using the non-scriptural term "free" agency.

[Scott Lloyd]

Log,

Thats why I gave a link to the talk on Free Agency from the church.

Pardon, but where in the linked talk was the term "Free Agency" used?

[The Nehor]

As one person mentioned, personal revelation trumps all. But, does it cross the line when a person acts on what they know to be true (real or not) to take away the free agency of another?

You can't take away the agency of another....ever. It is impossible. You can restrict their freedom but not their agency.

"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

[Calm]

In the first case " And does not turn in the paperwork to the church" the missionary accomplishes nothing besides extra work for a clerk somewhere due to his choice of doing it in secret. Honestly this is rather a silly way to try and respond to a suspicion of unworthiness and totally misunderstands the relevancy of the written record to a performed ordinance.

In the second, initially I would have said that the missionary is an adult and therefore has the right to decide for himself whether or not he does so by the spirit and therefore the MP has no standing to stand in his way of going home, however after reading others' remarks I am reminded that accepting a missionary call is not the same thing as choosing to go out on a mission by oneself, it is a contract involving others. One does not just go home if one chooses when one signs up with the military, if one quits one's job out of the blue there can be penalties attached, etc.

Having said that, it is still the missionary's choice whether to abide by the covenant/contract he has made with the Church and God to fulfill a mission so no matter what the MP decides on his end is abiding by the covenant (some might decide going home does not violate the covenant, others might decide it does) I don't think it is appropriate it for him to withhold a visa, I think it violates the spirit of agency as it is taught in our faith where we can make a choice, but not choose the consequences of that choice. At most, he should have allowed for one or two days to make sure the missionary was not making an impulse decision (my choice would be have him pray and fast about it for 24 hours) and then allowed the missionary to choose. Holding on to the visa until the father was dead and no choice remained only would create resentment and even perhaps hatred in the heart of the missionary, not an acceptance that it was the will of the Lord for him to stay. The only thing that will create that in his heart and mind is his own personal revelation and even if the MP believes it is the Will of the Lord for the missionary to stay, again if the missionary chooses to reject that revelation for some reason, that is his choice.

We don't force people to go to the temple or be baptized (or shouldn't even though peer or family pressure), I don't think missionaries should be forced to serve if they make a personal choice not to. A reasonable effort to seek the Lord's guidance can be asked of them, but after that, it is their decision, imo.

And while refusing to allow the missionary to go home may have restricted his movements/freedom, it did not restrict his agency to choose what he wanted to do...which is one reason why requiring him to stay by holding on to his visa would be ridiculous and likely accomplish nothing save not what the MP intended.

[Messenger]

The OP is not a debate is not how to define agency as either moral or free. That's a very old argument and its not the purpose of this thread. So, for the purposes of this thread, agency is the ability and privilege God gives us to choose and to act for ourselves. Agency is essential in the plan of salvation. Without it, we would not be able to learn or progress or follow the Savior. With it, we 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” (2 Nephi 2:27).

Of course in our minds we have choices based on the knowledge we possess. If it is true that a man, can not receive revelation for another man, then is it Christlike to limit another mans choice through an act of coercion?

Hypothetical Scenario #3

An LDS woman is married and sealed to an LDS man. After 8 years, the Woman is unhappy. The woman feels that the marriage is dead. There is no more passion and the man is gone for weeks at a time. The Woman has tried to bring the man to a Councillor, but the man tells her there is nothing wrong, and he seems to be happy regardless of her feelings. Further, he starts to lose his temper every time she mentions needing outside help. He stops giving her money, and instead has the finances of the house done through his friend an accountant. In fact, we she complains, he strikes her across her face and tell her to stop. This has gone on for 4 years. The woman prays about it, and get her answer to file for divorce. She goes to her bishop and her bishop tells her she must stay married. She then realizes that if she gets a divorce, she will have lost the support from the Bishop and the ward, and if she stays married she will be losing support of Heavenly Father.

What should she do?

Does being married in the temple mean that she is forever sealed to unhappiness and abuse?

Edited May 22, 2012 by Messenger

[Scott Lloyd]

The OP is not a debate is not how to define agency as either moral or free. That's a very old argument and its not the purpose of this thread.

I only wish you would stop using the phrase free agency, since that is a doctrinal misnomer, even though it has only been in that last 20 years that it has been generally recongized as such.

Of course in our minds we have choices based on the knowledge we possess. If it is true that a man, can not receive revelation for another man, then is it Christlike to limit another mans choice through an act of coercion?

See Doctrine and Covenants 121:34-46. It essentially says that God will not validate the actions of one who exercises unrighteous dominion.

Hypothetical Scenario #3

An LDS woman is married and sealed to an LDS man. After 8 years, the Woman is unhappy. The woman feels that the marriage is dead. There is no more passion and the man is gone for weeks at a time. The Woman has tried to bring the man to a Councillor, but the man tells her there is nothing wrong, and he seems to be happy regardless of her feelings. Further, he starts to lose his temper every time she mentions needing outside help. He stops giving her money, and instead has the finances of the house done through his friend an accountant. In fact, we she complains, he strikes her across her face and tell her to stop. This has gone on for 4 years. The woman prays about it, and get her answer to file for divorce. She goes to her bishop and her bishop tells her she must stay married. She then realizes that if she gets a divorce, she will have lost the support from the Bishop and the ward, and if she stays married she will be losing support of Heavenly Father.

What should she do?

Does being married in the temple mean that she is forever sealed to unhappiness and abuse?

It's hard for me to take your hypotheticals seriously, because they are just make-believe anyway, and you can contrive them any way you want to suit your argument.

But in response to your parting question I would simply respond that an abuser would not be celestial material anyway, and as there is no sealing outside of the Celestial Kingdom, no woman would have to worry about being sealed to such a man. Theoretically, if she is righteous, a suitable mate will be provided for her with whom she can share all the happiness of celestial glory.

[Messenger]

I only wish you would stop using the phrase free agency, since that is a doctrinal misnomer, even though it has only been in that last 20 years that it has been generally recongized as such.

It's hard for me to take your hypotheticals seriously, because they are just make-believe anyway, and you can contrive them any way you want to suit your argument.

Scott,

Stay on topic please.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Messenger

[Messenger]

I would simply respond that an abuser would not be celestial material anyway, and as there is no sealing outside of the Celestial Kingdom, no woman would have to worry about being sealed to such a man. Theoretically, if she is righteous, a suitable mate will be provided for her with whom she can share all the happiness of celestial glory.

Again, this isn't about the woman "worrying" about being married to such a man (although that may be worth looking at in some other thread). The pattern of this thread is simple and I've given three examples or scenarios to help MD readers the point of the thread. Perhaps there are those that just don't want to conceive of the pattern ever materializing. But I would say, after doing many High Priest visits with inactive people, that these are indeed patterns that people deal with, some successfully, and some unsuccessfully. I welcome you to participate in the spirit of the discussion, within the bounds of the OP.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Messenger

[Messenger]

The real point of this exercise with these scenarios is to learn how people in today's L.D.S. church master dealing with other people that practice the very common "unrighteous dominion" that conflict with another person's choices. This is something that I think about quite often because I deal with a lot of people that tell me about some of their experiences. All of the scenarios above are all based on actual true events. I'm sure we have all gone through similar things that meet the pattern of the OP.

Knowing how to resolve conflict in the church social structure is something that we all need to practice. Saying it doesn't exist is probably a pipe dream. I often find the same type of resistance when it comes to Emergency Preparedness. Lots of people want to store some food, and a first aid kit, but when it comes to being in a building during an earthquake, and going over scenarios on how and what to do, most cringe. Yet, if we are prepared, we wont fear.

[CV75]

The real point of this exercise with these scenarios is to learn how people in today's L.D.S. church master dealing with other people that practice the very common "unrighteous dominion" that conflict with another person's choices. This is something that I think about quite often because I deal with a lot of people that tell me about some of their experiences. All of the scenarios above are all based on actual true events. I'm sure we have all gone through similar things that meet the pattern of the OP.

Knowing how to resolve conflict in the church social structure is something that we all need to practice. Saying it doesn't exist is probably a pipe dream. I often find the same type of resistance when it comes to Emergency Preparedness. Lots of people want to store some food, and a first aid kit, but when it comes to being in a building during an earthquake, and going over scenarios on how and what to do, most cringe. Yet, if we are prepared, we wont fear.

We each have our agency and can deal with others’ unrighteous dominion accordingly. The more we know, the better prepared we can be. The more charitable, forgiving, and realistic (Matthew 7:3-5) we are, the better we can deal with these situations. Personality and talents comes into play as well. Overall, we need to be well-grounded in Christ (Ephesians 3: 14-19; the parable of the sower).

Someone can disrespect another’s agency, but in most situations no one can take it away from him unless he allows it. In some cases where there is a genuine, deep-down power differential (such as between adults and children), abuse and injury do indeed result in the taking or twisting of another’s agency, which is why such unrighteous dominion is condemned so completely (Matthew 19:14, 18:6).

I once had someone in authority suggest that I might be living a double life completely out of harmony with the priesthood. This was not true, and I non-defensively asked for specifics. When he didn’t mention any, I asked him exactly what he wanted to know. He would not say and tried to divert the conversation another way. I told him kindly that I could not be effective serving under someone who could not trust me and if he felt this way about me, not to call me to serve in whatever capacity he had in mind, which he had previously explained was the reason he set up the appointment with me. I got out of that calling! And I never cared one bit whether he trusted me or not--that was his problem. It turned out he called me to work directly with him about six months later.