Mormon concept of "free agancy"?

[SeattleUte]

"Free agency" is such a muddled concept. I don't really know what "free agency" means. It's one of those Orwellian newspeak terms unique to Mormonism, that you don't see anywhere else. You constantly see it brandished as an all purpose explanation for difficut, quirky aspects of Mormon doctrine and culture.

The term that I use that I believe most Mormons would say is synonymous with "free agency" is liberty. But that's just not so. If you speak out against Church positions or policy, and you're a Church employee, you lose your job. Worse, many a member has been excomunicated for mere words. That doesn't sound like liberty to me.

[SeattleUte]

By the way, this is not sour grapes. So far as I know I'm still a member.

[JohnnyLingo]

The term "free agency" is not scriptural.

Just had to get that out of the way.

You're looking for plain ol' "Agency". Agency means you can do whatever you want. Agency does not mean you can do whatever you want free of consequence. The church does not teach that you can get away with murder because of Agency.

Hope that helps.

[creekster]

l

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

"Free agency" is such a muddled concept. I don't really know what "free agency" means. It's one of those Orwellian newspeak terms unique to Mormonism, that you don't see anywhere else. You constantly see it brandished as an all purpose explanation for difficut, quirky aspects of Mormon doctrine and culture.

The term that I use that I believe most Mormons would say is synonymous with "free agency" is liberty. But that's just not so. If you speak out against Church positions or policy, and you're a Church employee, you lose your job. Worse, many a member has been excomunicated for mere words. That doesn't sound like liberty to me.

The term "free agency" is actually not often, if ever, found in the scriptures. The term used is "agency" (search lds.org if you don't believe this). As in you are your own agent, beholden to no principal, especially as compared to Satan's plan where we would have been the plan leader's agent, bound by our principal's instructions. (btw, this last bit is the gospel according to Creekster, which could very easily be wrong). Instead, we are free, not bond, and we have our agency under our own control.

Most people in America have the liberty to call their employer a fat-headed moron, and most of them would lose their job for doing so. Short of a Marxist re-characterization of the term, few of these same people wouold say they had lost their liberty; they simply chose to act in a way that made them lose their job.

What is muddled about that?

Also, sour grapes could come from more than just loss of membership, so I'll reserve judgement. ;-)

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The term that I use that I believe most Mormons would say is synonymous with "free agency" is liberty. But that's just not so. If you speak out against Church positions or policy, and you're a Church employee, you lose your job. Worse, many a member has been excomunicated for mere words. That doesn't sound like liberty to me.

So, when the brethern came out and admonished the flock to "express themselves" concerning the SSM admendment, maybe they weren't being specific enough. Maybe they should have said, "We want you to express yourselves, and this is exactly what we want you to say when you express yourselves..." It sucks that Jeff Neilsen took them at their word and then got shit canned for it. Perhaps church leaders should stop referring to its congregation as "members" and simply refer to them as "constituents".

[creekster]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

So, when the brethern came out and admonished the flock to "express themselves" concerning the SSM admendment, maybe they weren't being specific enough. Maybe they should have said, "We want you to express yourselves, and this is exactly what we want you to say when you express yourselves..." It sucks that Jeff Neilsen took them at their word and then got shit canned for it. Perhaps church leaders shlould stop referring to its congregation as "members" and simply refer to them as "constituents".

You are expressing a multi-faceted bitterness that has little to do with SU's original comment, as far as I can tell. Agency is a condition of existence that operates apart from the organization of the church. Neilsen exercised his and suffered the consequence that he has conceded he knew was likely to follow. And somehow I should pity him? As to the clarity of the infamous letter, I believe that topic has been hashed and re-hashed quite thoroughly in other threads.

[stonewallperry]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

So, when the brethern came out and admonished the flock to "express themselves" concerning the SSM admendment, maybe they weren't being specific enough. Maybe they should have said, "We want you to express yourselves, and this is exactly what we want you to say when you express yourselves..." It sucks that Jeff Neilsen took them at their word and then got shit canned for it. Perhaps church leaders should stop referring to its congregation as "members" and simply refer to them as "constituents".

Oh give me a break! Nielsen went far beyond what was suggested. Writing to the trib isn't contacting your senator. I think had he just written, "I oppose the amendment to the constitution because I think we should be nice to gay people" things might've been different for him. But he presented a whole laundry list of complaints against the Lord's annoited, and even accused them of being less than honest. IMO, that's why he got hosed. Clearly the letter did not mandate that every member support the amendment, but that we be politically active (however, we do know from statements last summer exactly what position the First Presidency holds on the issue). "...took them at their word..." No he didn't. I don't remember them soliciting comments in the local paper about everything thing the members feel is wrong with the Church and its leadership (directed by the Lord, you knew that right?) - and that's what Nielsen did.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by stonewallperry

Oh give me a break! Nielsen went far beyond what was suggested. Writing to the trib isn't contacting your senator. I think had he just written, "I oppose the amendment to the constitution because I think we should be nice to gay people" things might've been different for him. But he presented a whole laundry list of complaints against the Lord's annoited, and even accused them of being less than honest. IMO, that's why he got hosed. Clearly the letter did not mandate that every member support the amendment, but that we be politically active (however, we do know from statements last summer exactly what position the First Presidency holds on the issue). "...took them at their word..." No he didn't. I don't remember them soliciting comments in the local paper about everything thing the members feel is wrong with the Church and its leadership (directed by the Lord, you knew that right?) - and that's what Nielsen did.

Even then, he might well have retained his employment. Signing his name as a BYU professor sealed his fate.

Of course, I doubt the Tribune gave a damn what "citizen" Nielsen thought.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Even then, he might well have retained his employment. Signing his name as a BYU professor sealed his fate.

Of course, I doubt the Tribune gave a damn what "citizen" Nielsen thought.

He was like a terririst. He knew he'd be fired but damaging the church was worth the price, especially since he was just a lecturer. He accepted that he'd take himself out, so he could get up close and inflict the damage. I don't know this guy personally, but I know deep inside he must really hate the Church, regardless of whatever he's telling people.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Even then, he might well have retained his employment. Signing his name as a BYU professor sealed his fate.

Of course, I doubt the Tribune gave a damn what "citizen" Nielsen thought.

That, to me, seems to be the big point. The guy did not merely oppose the ammendment-- he openly criticized the church and its leaders, and used his employment by the church as a platform for his tirades. The church should not be expected to dictate the thoughts, words, or actions of its members, but does that mean it should fund a campaign seeking to slander its image?

I maintain that almost any other employer would not let such a phillipic by an employee go unnoticed. The guy did not violate trust given to him as a member of the church (which membership was NOT jeopardized by the voicing of an opposing opinion), but as an employee of the church.