21 Feb
Freedom To Choose
I’ve touched several times on The Plan of Salvation, also know as The Plan of Happiness, presented to all of us in the pre-mortal life by our Father in Heaven. This Plan would give us the chance to gain a physical body and test our faith and devotion to the Lord. Central to The Plan was the concept of free agency. Although I think it must be hard to witness, Heavenly Father knew that letting His children make mistakes would give them the opportunity to grow and prove themselves as disciples of Christ and obedient children of God.
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 2:27
Free agency turns mortal life into a test and we all have a basic sense of right and wrong as part of our basic sense of self from birth. This is commonly referred to as a conscience, but in the LDS Church we refer to this sense as the Light of Christ. We believe this Light is the divine energy, power, or influence that proceeds from God through Christ and gives life and light to all things. When we choose to live according to God’s plan for us, our agency is strengthened. Right choices increase our power to make more right choices.
For free agency to exist there must exist opposition. Lehi, a great Book of Mormon prophet, told his son Jacob that in order to bring about the eternal purposes of God, there must be “an opposition in all things. If not so, … righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad” (2 Nephi 2:11). God allows Satan to work among us in order to provide that opposition. Satan works hard to make us as miserable as he is. One of his favorite tricks is to attempt to convince us that we are limited if we live by God’s rules. Satan often tries to convince me that the standards of the LDS Church limit my happiness. Wouldn’t I be happier if I could drink at social events if I chose or if I didn’t have to wait until marriage to engage in sexual acts? Sneaky Satan, sometimes he comes close to tricking me into thinking this is so, but then I remember that although I have absolute freedom of choice when it comes to my actions, I don’t get to control the consequences of those actions. Not drinking saves me money, ensures that I will never hurt myself or others because I was driving impaired, and guarantees I will never become addicted to a harmful substance. Waiting until marriage to be intimate with someone prevented unplanned pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases. I am only better for choosing to live by these standards.
One thing that brings me great comfort is the teaching that Heavenly Father will never allow us to be tested beyond that which we can withstand. He knows my limits, my abilities, even better than I know myself, and those times when I feel overwhelmed are an opportunity to reach out and draw closer to Him. I am working daily to discern what is right, and what is wrong, and choose the right.
Also:
I'm a farm-raised almost-crunchy stroller-pushing picture-taking lifestyle-blog-writing gastronomy-obsessed divine-seeking thrift-store-combing cheese-inhaling pavement-pounding laughter-sprinkling lover of individuality and taking chances.
Thanks, as always, for an interesting Sunday post.
I just wanted to say something which makes me absolutely crazy about couples who wait until marriage (and to that I say, good for you). This idea that waiting until marriage prevents unplanned pregnancy. With all due respect, using birth control prevented unplanned pregnancy, even in your situation. I realize that because you wanted children right away, no pregnancy would have seemed terribly unplanned, but for many, many couples, a ring does not make an unplanned pregnancy any easier to deal with.
While I think what you meant is that waiting until marriage meant that you did not have to deal with an unplanned pregnancy with a total stranger, or with somebody you did not love, it is very frustrating for sexual health educators (as I used to be) to deal with people that think that marriage is somehow a form of birth control, and I truly think this idea is perpetuated by people who express the idea that waiting until marriage means not dealing with an unplanned pregnancy.
(Also, if you felt comfortable about it, I would LOVE it if you would write about your choosing to use birth control at the beginning of your marriage and how that jibes with the LDS faith because I find it very interesting.)
Miss Nomer Reply:
February 21st, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Re: Birth Control and the LDS church…
One of the things I’ve really appreciated as a newly-married woman is how much the LDS church stays out of the bedroom. We believe that children are a gift from God, and are encouraged to have children quickly, but the time table is between each couple and the Lord. If we wish to use birth control, that is our choice. Hope this answered your question!
Sophia Reply:
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:17 am
I’ve heard other sexual health educators say that they are frustrated with the message that waiting until marriage = STD protection. There is no guarantee that one will not contract an STD within a marriage situation due to a spouse taking an outside sexual partner. I understand it is a matter of parsing the words, because of course *anything* bad could happen to anyone at any time, but I’ve often heard the protection against STD argument, and I think it’s a bit faulty in the assumption of permanence it tends to impart. One could say you will be protected from STD’s prior to marriage by waiting, but that protection goes out the window as soon as you become sexually active, because people are people and they do break promises.
As always, an interesting tangent on the Sunday post thread, haha
Jenna Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
“because people are people and they do break promises.”
I realize it’s realistic, but don’t you find this thought incredibly depressing?
Sophia Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Oh, yes, yes indeed. One of my friends ended up with an STD due to a husband cheating, and it just destroyed her
Jenna Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 1:13 pm
Although I’ve certainly known women who got pregnant faster than they had intended or had a “surprise” child later in life, I’m not sure I think that pregnancy out of wedlock can ever be compared to that within. But I come from a culture/religious background that emphasizes the importance of family and the idea that “children are an heritage to the Lord”. Although a pregnancy might not fit in with the plans we have at the moment, I’m not sure I think there are many things more important in life than raising children.
As far as birth control (I’ll put it on my post life for sure!) the LDS Church has no stance on it, couples are free to choose to choose how and when to have children. The Church has very little to say about the sex lives of married couples and I like it that way.
As you mentioned, the most important thing about realizing we have choices is realizing we also have consequences. Teenagers (and immature adults!:) often demand choices and to ‘be treated as adults’ but don’t understand the myraid of consequences to each choice they make.
I know the kite analogy is often referenced, but we live in a breezy/windy area and often take the boys out to fly our kite. As the kite flys higher and higher and pulls more powerfully, you almost want to let go - free it from any restrictions - and let it go as high and far as it wants. But of course, that would result in the kite becoming uncontrollable and ultimately plummeting to the ground. We think that delaying sex or not drinking is so confining, but it protects us from so many negative consequences - the immediate ones and the ones that may affect us for years down the road.
2Oops - I pushed submit too soon…I had more to say!:)
I was by no means a perfect little angel teenager, but if there was one thing I did well that my own siblings never mastered, it was that I always thought ahead to what my choices would lead to. I never just thought about the moment in front of me, but thought of all I wanted to do and become when faced with various choices. I also saw the effect that negative choices had on the lives of family and friends and I knew I didn’t want to make the same mistakes. (what is the definition of stupidity?? Doing the same thing and expecting different results).
My siblings are great people - they aren’t in jail or anything - but to examine us on paper, the choices they have made have led to lives of financial and emotional insecurity. If they could have seen and understood what lay ahead of them, I bet they would have kicked the trash out of their teenage/young adult selves!
3I’m an atheist, so my perspective on morality is a bit different.
I drink, but I’ve never driven impaired, nor am I addicted to alcohol (or any other substance). I was sexually active prior to marriage, but I never had an unplanned pregnancy nor contracted an STD. I’m no less moral of a person than you for having done these things.
I’m a good person, but I’ve never needed any religious authority or ancient text to tell me what’s right and what’s wrong. I’ve learned that on my own through intuition, observation, and experience.
I hold only myself accountable for both my good decisions and my bad ones. I don’t thank God when I do the right thing. I don’t blame Satan when I do - or think - the wrong thing.
I believe attributing the evils of the world to some invisible force is an easy way to shirk responsibility. Likewise, I think attributing basic, human morality and good decision making to any religious establishment both discounts your intelligence and sells yourself woefully short.
Sophia Reply:
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:24 am
Nonny-
I agree with the points you are making about moderation. I think that a lot of times, when it comes to any “rule”, be it a law, or a religious principle, or even a disciplinary strategy parents use with children, the tendency is to gravitate to black or white, all or nothing, because of an inherent mistrust of the individual to moderate themselves. Therefore, it is easier to say “don’t drink at all” than to say “drink in moderation” because moderation is nebulous and can have a wide spectrum of applications.
Of course, this nebulous definition of moderation is not practical in most religious systems, especially ones where one must do A to get B, or fulfill A duties to get B blessings. There has to be a definite path of “doing the right thing” so that members can be sure they are being faithful. I always just assumed that that is why many orthodox, conservative religions of all stripes prohibit certain things, rather than teach moderation with certain things- it gives a certainty to the member.
I’m with you in that I believe in moderation, even though I personally don’t drink, smoke, or take recreational drugs.
Jenna Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
I would be curious to hear how one could argue that it would be better for the Church *not* to have such strict guidelines. Is there ever a time when drinking, smoking, taking recreational drugs, having sex outside of marriage, would make me a better person? That is why I don’t have problems with such strict pronouncements in these areas, because I can’t see how engaging in such activities would ever make me better.
Sophia Reply:
March 7th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
I agree with you that it wouldn’t be better for the Church to give up strict guidelines, because that’s how members know they are doing the right thing per their belief system.
As to the second part of your comment, I don’t necessarily think that drinking, smoking, having sex outside of marriage, etc. make someone a better or worse person. To me those are neutral acts, that neither make someone better or worse morally because I don’t think that drinking, smoking, or having sex outside of marriage are *inherently* immoral. Yes, smoking can give you cancer, yes, drinking can make one wreck, yes, having sex can give one STD’s, but there are lots of actions than can have good or bad consequences that are not moralized. I personally have decided that I don’t want to drink, I’ve never smoked, and I’ve never done drugs, but I’ve decided that pre-marital sex is something I’m comfortable with. But I don’t attach moral weight to those activities, if that makes sense. I might personally think smoking is thoughtless given the risks, but I don’t think its sinful. As another random example, I disagree with eating meat, but I don’t think its immoral. But that’s because I don’t believe in absolute truth, and I think most ethics are situational and relative to our cultural norms, not relative to a single authoritative source.
Cristin Reply:
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:53 pm
Nonny,
I’m curious about your statement that having had pre-marital sex and consumed alcohol, you believe you are no “less moral of a person.” I am not saying that you are or you are not. I am also not a member of the LDS church.
But would you agree that the moral yardstick against which Jenna measures herself is vastly different than that which you use? I think its interesting that you chose to defend yourself with the word moral, given how subjective morals are. Particularly, why would you argue that you are of the same moral “level” that someone else is, given that they very plainly consider a different standard of morals than you do?
It is not simply the absence of STDs or a drunk driving incident of two people that makes them the same degree of “moral”. I think its fair to say that Jenna, you, and I could all agree on that statement.
Nonny Reply:
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Cristin - I’m not sure why you think I was defending myself in my comment, as I have nothing to defend myself from. I was simply contributing an alternative perspective (that of a nonreligious person) to the discussion, because I find it interesting to compare the ways in which Jenna and I navigate the world, philosophically.
What most of us call our moral conscience Jenna calls “The Light of Christ” - she goes on to explain that this light necessarily has a counterpoint (whom she believes is Satan).
My point is that as a nonreligious person, I don’t credit my moral or immoral actions or thoughts to the machinations or whims of supernatural forces (i.e., gods or devils).
Whether the morality in question hinges on STD contraction, unplanned pregnancy, or something more profound, I believe morality exists innately.
I believe that to blame the supply or lack of it on the supernatural is to greatly discount and devalue both oneself and one’s fellow human beings.
Cristin Reply:
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:28 pm
Sorry for the use of “defend.” I realize it was ill-phrased.
I understand your point that you’ve developed your own abilities to know right from wrong, based on your understanding of the world. You take full credit for this ability and don’t fault an outside force when you’ve succumbed to any temptations.
Regardless of the source of our moral compass (divine or internal), there are different moral standards to which we hold ourselves. You said that you are “no less moral” than Jenna. This is where I’m confused.
What I don’t understand is how you can equate yourself with someone who holds herself to a different standard than you, given that you don’t meet that standard.
Nonny Reply:
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:28 pm
Cristin - LDS church authorities have outlined for Jenna what parameters of acceptable behavior define morality; I have defined morality for myself.
It was Jenna who chose the examples of 1. avoiding an unplanned pregnancy, 2. avoiding STD contraction, 3. avoiding alcoholism, and 4. avoiding a drunk driving accident as proofs that her religious choices have protected her.
My point is that without the same protection afforded to me, I, too, have avoided those consequences. Hence, Jenna and I both arrived in exactly the same place.
That is how I can conclude that I’m no less moral than her.
Cristin Reply:
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:49 pm
We may be spending entirely too much time on this issue. I’ll confess that what drove me to start poking is that I’d just gotten out of an ethics class when I first saw your comment. I still think that you haven’t answered my questions about how you define morality for yourself. That is, how do you KNOW you are moral? Jenna knows it because her God tells her so. But you’ve argued, almost, that because you have the same outcomes as Jenna, you therefore know you are moral. Aren’t you somehow saying that you believe that you are moral because you have arrived in the same place as a Mormon? Are you then holding yourself to the same ruler as a Christian? Your definition of morality seems to be assessing yourself relative to the morality of a very devout Latter-day Saint.
You’ve been adamant that you have an inherent knowledge of what is moral, in spite of no spiritual allegiance or faith, but you haven’t articulated what that code is here (and maybe you don’t have to - its just part of the discussion board, not an obligation, clearly). Jenna did articulate her yardstick of morality, which she defined as “the standards of the LDS Church.”
You’ve also not really acknowledged that you and Jenna have different moral codes (I believe you’ve only said that you attribute the source of your morality to different powers). The four outcomes you and I have cited are just some of the negative consequences that come from deviating from Jenna’s moral code, not the standard of her code itself. I disagree that you can say you and Jenna have achieved the same degree of morality based on the outcomes we’ve discussed. If Hitler made it through life without STDs, addictions, or DUIs, I think we could all still conclude he is not a moral individual.
What then of the positive consequences from following the LDS standards? You write that she is “protected” because she followed God’s code, and because you have the same outcomes (that is, the absence of a baby, STD, or addiction), you are equally moral. But that doesn’t make sense. Jenna’s positive outcomes include that she can continue to be a member of the Church and be exalted to the highest level of heaven (I think - I’m not LDS, could be some more specific kingdom) someday. So your positive outcomes are not equal.
Jenna wrote that she can apply human-logic to the God-directed standards, which makes them easier for her to intellectually argue when she feels she’s being tempted. I don’t think she wrote that because she wasn’t pregnant before marriage, she is therefore living up to the code. She’s offering an academic justification that she might have used when she questioned God’s code - earthly consequences are more tangible than a heavenly kingdom, therefore, for a young person or new Christian, perhaps another deterrent.
Nonny Reply:
February 23rd, 2010 at 12:31 am
Cristin - to be honest, I’m much less keen to dissect the nuances of my vs. Jenna’s moral code with you than I was to point out that there exist, independent of religious dogma, many ways to be a good person. That is the crux of what I wanted to contribute to the discussion, and I feel I did just that.
So while I sincerely appreciate your fresh-from-ethics desire to delve (quite a bit) deeper and quantify moral yardsticks, but I’m just not that invested in the discussion.
I’m quitting with unanswered charges, but you invoked Godwin’s Law - so to my mind, it’s a draw.
Peace.
Chelsea McGowan Reply:
February 23rd, 2010 at 8:49 am
Although I realize Nonny is done with this conversation, and I totally agree with her reason for being done, I thought I’d add my two cents:
I don’t think we can judge morality based on the evasion of consequences.
That’s like putting two teenage boys on top of a bridge, and having them both jump off, and then saying that the one who doesn’t break his legs is the smarter of the two. No. They’re both equal in the choices they made… one just managed to evade consequences.
I don’t think Jenna is trying to say that the avoidance of these consequences is her moral goal. The avoidance of these consequences is a BONUS to having protected herself from the other emotional and spiritual side effects that come from those decisions. While she may never be able to completely avoid these things as long as we live in a world with other people, she can make decisions that mean she will never lead herself into those consequences.
Jenna’s choosing to not drink means Jenna will never drink and drive. She could also accomplish this by always drinking responsibly, but who cares? At the end of the day, she’s reached a moral conclusion that both religious and non-religious persons can agree is good. And she got there in a way that works best for her.
The last point I want to make is that someone outside a religious context probably won’t understand the “emotional and spiritual” ramifications that Jenna and other Christians reference. That’s not any sort of reflection on your intelligence, just so no one gets their panties in a wad. I believe that being a Christian meant that when I made the decision to have sex outside of marriage, it had serious emotional ramifications and did damage to my spiritual life, because I was breaking a promise to my God. I had no physical consequences of my years of living outside the rules I set for myself… no STDs, no unplanned pregnancies, no horrid breakups with sex tapes online ;). But there were definitely consequences.
Just my two cents as a (non LDS) Christian who’s made choices outside the dogma, and considers herself a moral person.
Jenna Reply:
March 5th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Nonny
This line “I don’t blame Satan when I do – or think – the wrong thing” makes me think that maybe you misunderstood my post? Satan deserves no blame for our actions. He certainly provides the opposition that puts us in a situation where temptation could be a challenge, but he has no part in how we choose to act. God doesn’t either. We have absolute free will, in every sense of the phrase.
God said that there must be “opposition in all things” and Satan and God are the ones who provide the two extremes. We choose what direction we want to gravitate.
Jenna, I cannot thank you enough for this post. You don’t know how much I needed to read this tonight.
Sometimes I get so focused on feeling stuck that I forget that God gives us choice and that I did choose Him and the LDS faith and the life I lead. And I remember why I did. This most reminded me of the reasons I am proud of my choices and my faith.
Seriously, seriously, our Heavenly Father led me to this post.
Thank you.
5Sophia - Indeed. A church allowing its members to decide for themselves what constitutes enough - or right, or wrong - is a church that concedes control and self-determination to the individual.
And that doesn’t make for a very obedient congregation.
6Regarding Satan’s temptation to tell us that our morals limit us:
7I’ve always been taught that we are freer within the boundaries of our morals than we would be outside of them, because we do not have to deal with the fallout that comes with sinful actions. While I tend more towards the idea of moderation in terms of things like consuming alcohol or tobacco (I like a beer with my pizza on a Friday night, and every few months my husband smokes a pipe), with things like premarital sex I absolutely agree. While Mr. W and I found it hard to abstain, it was not impossible, and we live every day in our marriage with light consciences because we did not succumb to temptation like so many of our friends, even other Christians.