Agency: Guns, Gays and Abortion

[ 28 ] Comments

by jendoop

which wayWith all the tumult about same sex marriage, gun rights, and other passionate political issues I think it is worth our while to discuss agency. If we can understand true doctrine concerning our God-given ability to act and not be acted upon, it can result in more productive community conversations and possibly even more harmony and hope.

My oldest child is 18 years old, an adult in the eyes of the world, still a child in my eyes. It is my goal for her to become self-sufficient; much of my teaching throughout her life has been towards this end. Now we are getting close to the separation point and I know that she does not know all that she needs to know to be fully functional and completely successful on her own in the world. So I have a choice to make: Do I keep her with me and continue to instruct her until she gains every iota of knowledge under my tutelage, or do I let her go into a world that will show her what she does not know and by so doing facilitate her learning?

If I look to my Heavenly Father’s example it is clear that I should send her out before she is fully prepared, even though this will result in some failures and mistakes. When God sent us to Earth He knew we were not ready to do all things perfectly; He knew we would experience failure and make mistakes. Still He sent us.

What do I want my daughter to do when she gets out in the world on her own, knowing that mistakes and failures are bound to come? I want her to go into life boldly, seeking after the best life she can, owning her mistakes and learning from them. I want her to exercise her agency, even though I know that means the bitter of life will afflict her because she will inevitably choose wrong at times. The reason I can do that is because I know that very few choices in this life are permanent because of the atonement of Christ. Our agency is a gift purchased with the blood of God’s Only Begotten Son. That is how important it is to our Heavenly Father that we each be allowed to choose freely, without dominion or compulsion.

If our Heavenly Father respects our agency so much that His eternal plan is built around its free use (even to the point of rejecting the son of the morning, Lucifer, because he didn’t want to allow us agency), what does that tell us about how we should treat the agency of others?


President David O. McKay said, “Next to the bestowal of life itself, the right to direct that life is God’s greatest gift to man.”

While political issues involve making choices about what kind of country we live in, and we are passionate about the world our children will grow up in, do we allow this to over ride our respect for another child of God’s agency?

Think back on a time that someone demanded something of you that you couldn’t give. You might remember a math class that was beyond your capabilities, a garden planted with great effort only to yield nothing, or employment that wasn’t a good fit for your skills. These situations stretch our souls as we try our best and fail. In my opinion it is not our ability to choose that is lacking in these types of situations, it is the knowledge on which we base our choice. The frustrating part is that we often don’t know what we don’t know.

In 4th grade I moved and changed schools. Back in the olden days we learned double digit multiplication in 4th grade. In my new school I failed horribly at math. For many weeks I continued failing, but still tried and did my homework. It wasn’t until my teacher watched over my shoulder as I wrote out every little step that she saw the problem. She found that I wasn’t moving the second row of results one place to the left before adding. Once she pointed out that little misunderstanding I suddenly got stellar marks in math.

This is how I try to view those who see major political issues differently than me. The information which they base their choices and opinions on is different than mine. The breakdown in this process which causes so many heated and ineffective discussions is that we assume others know what we know, or they should, or if they don’t they’re stupid or bull-headed. Neither is the case. Just like my work in math, it took time for me to practice math, to look at it long enough that I was ready for more information, at which time I was experienced enough to use it and get different results.

There is a chance that as you realize what I’m saying you might feel that I’m condescending because I think others have a lot to learn and then they’ll agree with me. That is not what I’m saying. It is not condescending to admit that we all have a lot to learn, me included. That is the reason we are here on earth. It could be that as time goes on and I have experiences that teach me I could change my stance on important issues. It could be that others will change their stance. At no point does the likelihood that I might change my mind in the future deter my decision-making now. Just as I want my daughter to go into life boldly making her own choices and learning from them, I must choose and learn for myself, and so must you. That is the beauty of this process of mortality, as we learn we can change.

Often when we have these discussions they get intense because all of our experiences and knowledge factor into our decision, so much so that it can be difficult to articulate exactly why we feel a certain way on an issue. When someone disagrees with our political stance we might subconsciously jump to the conclusion that they are disagreeing with our entire self and life. I often worry that those around me who choose a gay lifestyle think I am judging them in this way when I oppose same-sex marriage. I am not condemning the whole of who they are, nor am I negating their experiences or value as a human being.


Here’s another example in the political realm. I feel that my religious beliefs concerning  abortion should translate directly to law, resulting in abortion being illegal. Others, even within the Church, don’t see that direct translation. They believe that other people’s agency on this matter is vital, and a law which impacts the agency of a woman’s use of her body is infringing upon that God-given right. It is not a view I agree with; I think the rights of the embryo from conception take precedence over the mother’s rights. BUT I can understand how another LDS person might feel differently from me and it’s not because they are dumb or ugly or are people-killers. It is simply an understanding, or view of the doctrines, that is different from mine.

I can love people and support them with healthy boundaries while at the same time voting to retain traditional marriage, outlaw abortion, and support the right to bear arms.  I am expressing my opinion of what I think the consequences of those laws would be and whether I want those consequences for society. No man is an island and no marriage, birth, or shooting happens in a vacuum. All of those actions effect my community and so I have a right to speak and vote accordingly. And so do you. But, if I had a friend who had an abortion, the way I would treat her is similar to the same way I would treat a person who supports same-sex marriage, or the limiting of gun rights, or the proper way to eat spaghetti: with respect for their individual worth, which consists of their personal right to make choices and learn from the consequences.

This seems like the right time to talk about the trump card, which usually ends a discussion or makes it ugly: the authority of God’s living prophet.

general conference

On many of these passionate issues I turn to the prophet and have chosen to abide by what he has taught. There are some LDS people, faithful and righteous, who can’t quite align their will with the Lord’s by agreeing with the prophet. At times I have felt this way also. It is very important to me that people are allowed the space, intellectual freedom, and personal responsibility to resolve that on their own. It is not up to me to beat them with the trump card until they concede grudgingly or leave the fellowship.

There is a need for us to moderate our passion on these issues so that we can talk calmly and rationally with each other like the brothers and sisters we are. The media whips us up into a frenzy, tying our emotions and morals in a complicated tangle because they want us to keep watching, reading, ranting, and raving. It makes for good ratings and thus a good bank balance. It is good to keep up on current events and be involved in the public square; it is better to temper our passions and respect the agency of others. Keeping the eternal, extremely long-term view of God’s plan can help us feel calm and know that all will be well whatever happens politically. Our responsibility is for our choices, not the choices of others.

salt-lake-808x480-SLTEMPLEKIOSK2 The best place to readjust our sights is in the temple. Attendance there is one of the best ways I know of to align ourselves with God and quiet our hearts so that we can retain our unity as a nation and as the fellowship of Christ.

If we make choices in good faith, with one eye on God and another on where our choices are taking us, it will all work together for our good. Only we know what is in our hearts and from where our choices truly spring. I choose not to interpret other people’s choices, I don’t know what is in their hearts, what their true desires are, or where their eyes are pointed. I choose to give them the benefit of the doubt, that whatever choices they are making are the best ones they can make right now. Their choices will educate them, and sometimes if I can watch with compassion and support it can help me learn too. God has his eye on each of us as a loving Father, guiding us to greater light and knowledge. If he trusted me enough to come here and make choices then surely I can trust others to make their own choices also.

  • How does our right to choose impact how we vote and interact in the political realm?
  • Should our religious views impact our vote, or does agency play such a great role that we should let people make their own choices on everything but the most vile crimes (theft, rape, murder)?

Photo credits: Zanthia via Compfight2thin2swim via Compfight,, Creative Commons Licensewoodleywonderworks via Compfight

About jendoop

Jen writes, reads, paints, walks, prays, eats and sleeps. Paul is her co-conspirator in teaching these skills to 4 children.

28 Responses to Agency: Guns, Gays and Abortion

  1. Jenn says:

    Loved this post. Especially this line: “There are some LDS people, faithful and righteous, who can’t quite align their will with the Lord’s by agreeing with the prophet. At times I have felt this way also. It is very important to me that people are allowed the space, intellectual freedom, and personal responsibility to resolve that on their own. It is not up to me to beat them with the trump card until they concede grudgingly or leave the fellowship.”
    Thank you! Seriously, hearing messages like this means a lot to someone like me who can at times feel completely unwelcome in our religion, just because all my prayers and fasting have taken me in a very different direction than the mainstream church on issues like gay marriage.

    I think we could all use a reminder about the importance of agency. I agree, on some things, like abortion, it becomes pretty fuzzy- who’s agency do we value more, the prospective life, or the mother?

    But for other issues, like gay marriage, legalization of marijuana… we can debate the morality of it all day long. And while I may think certain actions are immoral, does that mean I have a right to legislate based on my understanding of morality, restricting the agency of others in a way that does not in fact preserve my rights in any way?
    I had a pretty intense debate with my other-end-of-the-political-spectrum father last week, and in the end we concluded we were both right but have very different priorities. He’s not stupid, I’m not ignorant, we just value different things, and that’s ok.

    • Michael Towns says:

      “And while I may think certain actions are immoral, does that mean I have a right to legislate based on my understanding of morality, restricting the agency of others in a way that does not in fact preserve my rights in any way?”

      Law is nothing more or less than the restriction of choices and the narrowing of options. If we value a civil society that is based on the rule of law, then I think we must accept that there is going to be some serious morality being legislated.

      In fact, you really cannot divorce morality from law. Law itself is rooted in explicitly religious conceptions: thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bear false witness, etc., etc.

  2. Sundy DeGooyer says:

    Our religious views SHOULD impact how we vote….

    • Jendoop says:

      I ask the question because I wonder where another’s agency to live a non-religious existence ends and my agency to live a religious one begins. Should religion be legislated? Are we making government into a religion when we want religious beliefs to be made law? Obviously I want a moral society, but we’ve should ask ourselves these hard questions to better understand our place in this democracy. (I hope it’s obvious that I’m talking about the US. I don’t have enough experience internationally to speak to these issues in other countries.)

      • Michael Towns says:

        “Should religion be legislated? Are we making government into a religion when we want religious beliefs to be made law?”

        It’s worth noting that the concept of “law” itself is rooted in a religious framework. Also, religion has informed the law for millennia. “Thou shalt not steal” is pretty religious — it’s also the basis for personal property rights. Very difficult to separate out the religion, noting that it came down from Mt. Sinai in an overtly and starkly religious setting.

        Elder Oaks has talked about these issues. He has noted that religiously informed voices also belong in the public square, and in fact, in the US, religiously informed voices have special protections.

  3. Lisa says:

    I believe we will be held accountable for how we vote. I will vote as if my salvation depended upon it.

  4. Mike Walton says:

    I read it. Your “Trump Card” is just another card in the deck for the rest of us. If praying with genuine intent is supposed to yield real communication with God. Why do the people of the world get different answers? Even those in your faith get different answers to the same questions. Seems like either God is an extremely ineffective communicator (especially considering he is all powerful) or, more likely, there is no God.

    • SilverRain says:

      Or maybe, people are not all exactly the same and are directed to do different things for different reasons.

      Don’t forget: the Lord’s work is our individual immortality and eternal life. He cares much more about that than about politics.

      • Lamplighter says:

        Yes, yes, yes!

      • Mike Walton says:

        Miss Rain, (Or should I call you silver) 😉 My understanding of the Mormon universe is that the plan of salvation is pretty much a one size fits all thing. Even in the “Proclamation” where they come the closest to recognizing that not everyone has the same circumstances, they still say there is one ideal that we should be striving for. Not “Different things for different reasons”. Plus, for those of us whom believe in mortality, ie this life is the only one we get. Politics matter a little more. I want happiness in this life.

        • Ja says:

          There is a single goal, but not a single order of instruction. I don’t now where you live, but if I asked you how to get to the airport, you might give me directions from where you are. Well, I couldn’t use those same directions if I was coming from a different direction. The start point may be very different and will impact when to turn right or left, but the end point is still the same. The spirit is like GPS and will give you the directions that are according to what you ask and where you start. The prophets direct you to hit the main reference points ie LAX is take the 405 and get off at Century Blvd, but that is not the only way. The prophet’s directions will get us there whether we are coming north or south, but the point is to guide people in the direction that will get them all there. It is a gospel of agency, but not micromanagement. There are other Century Blvds in California. There are other exits that will work to get you to LAX. There are flights that will get you to LAX without a roadmap. The goal is knowing the destination and seeking it. You will be at Century Blvd and 405 (even if you do not know it), if you get to LAX but that is the easiest way. you can walk if you like. It is ok to be different if you get where you need to be.

    • Jendoop says:

      Thank you for reading Michael. I can see your point, my answer goes back to the subject of the post. God wants us to choose. If he gives us overwhelming evidence there is no room for choice.

      • Mike Walton says:

        OK, to go back to the subject of the post. Agency, choice, free will etc. I have read and re-read this several times to try to understand where you are coming from. The best I can get is some bitter irony. A discussion of allowing people to make their own decisions about their lives, that somehow morphs into I should be allowed to vote to keep certain people, of whom I disapprove, from exercising their free agency in regards to their pursuit of happiness. And I shouldn’t have to feel bad about it.

        Now in society we agree that not every action should be free, you can’t go around murdering people, some things like abortion are more in the grey area. But for the moment, lets just talk about Gay Marriage. I don’t know how much you’ve been following the legal and moral arguments, but they have run out of steam. We as a nation don’t make requirements of the quality of any ones relationship in order to grant them the privilege of marriage. Even less so on the production of children. Anyone physically capable of producing children can do it. Even those under age who get pregnant can marry each other. People in prison for life can get married!

        In Loving VS Virginia, Chief Justice Earl Warren’s opinion for the unanimous court held that: “Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man…” If you hold that Homosexuality is so evil, so abhorrent as to deny a basic civil right as marriage then you need to change the definition of marriage drastically to remove lots of people from eligibility. I would suggest a legal relationship counselor, one who would determine the quality of relationships before granting a license. And for that matter, I’ve always wanted child bearing licenses. Single parents, people with genetic defects, severe emotional problems, people in poverty having children? Any of those are obviously much worse that children in a home with two committed parents of the same sex (who obviously wanted children since they couldn’t have them by accident).

        ” I often worry that those around me who choose a gay lifestyle think I am judging them in this way when I oppose same-sex marriage. I am not condemning the whole of who they are, nor am I negating their experiences or value as a human being.”
        No I don’t think you condemning the whole of who I am but you are certainly condemning a very important aspect of my life, my relationship. If you really knew me and had intimate knowledge of the ups and down of the 6 years I’ve been with Cody and then said, “you really shouldn’t get married” that would be quite different wouldn’t it. But instead you defer judgement of my choices to the prophet. Because hey, that’s easier than making a case by case judgement call on every relationship on the planet. (Most hetero relationships, good. Mormon ones, best. Gay ones always bad & bad for society.) It’s almost like you’re giving up your free agency, allowing someone else to make the hard decisions for you. Because let’s face it. This is a hard decision. To choose between what your faith tells you and what science and popular culture are saying & not wanting to insult your friends.

        I don’t know how the faithful handled it when their living prophet told them that people that who were not white were inferior and were not worthy to hold the priesthood. We are at a similar crossroad now. I hope you will use your free agency and look at the “overwhelming evidence” for your self and make the right decision.

        • jendoop says:

          I appreciate your desire to have a dialog but we’re at an impasse. You aren’t going to change my mind and I’m not trying to change yours. This post was not an about gay marriage, it was an explanation of how I make choices about many things. From your comment I can see that you don’t respect the way I make decisions or basics about my faith so at this point I don’t see anything good or productive coming from further discussion.

        • Ja says:

          If it makes you feel better, I would vote against lots of people getting married. I think that as a country marriage is not as sacred of a commitment as it used to be. There used to be a class required. It is too easy to marry and divorce without accountability. It should be more connected with spouses and awareness and with God. I can’t say I want government regulating it, but I think that people get married without being ready and for the wrong reasons way too often. I don’t see why people that do not want children, or prisoners, or those that do it for financial benefit should get married. A legal contract for financial matters and a common-law partnership and celebration should be sufficient. I see marriage as an eternal and sacred commitment to God that the union will be meant for Heavenly purposes. The family and children are a main component of that union and reason for it. Connection to God and the spouse through trials and struggles are the point. Divorces should not be outlawed, but it should not be as easy either. Marriage is about commitment to God and spouse. I do not have the opportunity to vote on marriage or divorce in other outlets, but I do not think all relationships are equal.
          I believe you have the right to vote how you choose, but I also vote what I believe is right. I do not feel it infringes on the rights of the people, but the validity of the commitment. Maybe they should have levels of commitment that are ranked by longevity, trials overcome and responsibility for kin or a common expectation for such. I would say God should be in there too but it is not PC.

  5. Brandi says:

    I wanted to make a comment about abortion . I am against abortion but i think if it is outlawed there should be some exceptions. For instance, if the mothers life is in danger and there is no way she can survive to a point that the baby would survive on its own without her. Or in the case of rape of a young girl. Especially if they’re so young that carrying a baby to full term would hinder her health. I understand the desire to have laws based on religious beliefs but in what way would the government determine which religious doctrine to follow? It would be great if it was the LDS one but what if the government chose one radically different from ours?

  6. templegoer says:

    An illuminating post.I was thinking today how earlier in my life I had made mistakes of great import, but with the best of intentions -or so I thought at the time. More experience has been illuminating- and actually it took until today for me to understand the real import of my actions, and not because anyone told me either. I was just thinking, and then I got it. It’s really pretty horrible to see it for what it is, and I’m so glad for the Atonement.
    Even the best of us can come to wrong conclusions, and realising this can help us approach our political rivals with greater civility. I love that word, and it’s rarely used. It’s good to talk and to hear how others have come to different conclusions about the same issues-that leads to greater civility, a more harmonious state of being than incivility.The internet can be a great tool for this, as we consider at our leisure what we understand and how we might respond, a privelege we don’t always have in life. Thanks for the reminder.
    One of the things that concerns me in the UK is that the debate is beginning to be framed as Christianity versus The Rest. Our history here would indicate that way lies madness.We need to create something that transcends tribal or religious difference, and that has worked for us by creating the state. That’s how we have created a civil society, and it is constantly under threat.It takes a great deal of work, both personal and political to remain civil-part of a society that transcends difference.

  7. Ray says:

    When I look at agency and unrighteous dominion, I am left to conclude that I can cast my vote but have no right to dictate how others cast theirs – and that I must honor their right to believe and vote differently than I – and also that I would rather err on the side of agency than on the side of compulsion. It helps to remember that Mormons were the extremist radicals in this type of discussion for almost 100 years – and that we fought passionately to not let the majority dictate what we saw as our moral choices. We cited God and the Constitution in our battle against the laws of the time, and I can’t help but note the irony when (the generic) “we” make the exact opposite arugments while citing the same authorities now.

    Moral issues are strictly moral issues when they deal exclusively with me. Once they become societal issues, they no longer are exclusively moral issues – and, thus, I have to consider them as more than exclusively moral at that point.

    I have written about abortion as an example, but I want to point out that, in many cases, it’s not as simple as “following the prophets” (since there are many topics where apostles and prophets have disagreed over time) – and, in many cases, the commonly accepted view within the Church actually is not aligned with the offiical position of the Church itself. Abortion might be the best example of this.

    The Church’s official position is that it does NOT get into the political arena of abortion by trying to influence specific policy. It also is pro-life in principle but pro-choice, ultimately, in practical terms. Most members have no clue that is the case and, therefore, believe that the only view consistent with a desire to follow the prophets is one that would abolish abortion completely or only allow specific exceptions. That isn’t the case (meaning there are other stances that can be taken and still be consistent with the Church’s official position), but it takes a careful reading of the official statement to understand the Church’s poltical position regarding abortion – and most members incorrectly assume they know what that position is and, therefore, don’t read the offiical statement, much less read it carefully.

    • Fraggle says:

      “It helps to remember that Mormons were the extremist radicals in this type of discussion for almost 100 years – and that we fought passionately to not let the majority dictate what we saw as our moral choices. We cited God and the Constitution in our battle against the laws of the time, and I can’t help but note the irony when (the generic) “we” make the exact opposite arugments while citing the same authorities now. ”

      The problem with that framing of the topic is that it is misleading. Homosexual couples already have what the 19th century church wanted but were denied: the right to celebrate unions and organise their families on their own terms, even without explicit state approval or support.

      • Ray says:

        Fraggle, at the time of the Edmunds-Tucker Act, no man was actively prosecuted for fathering children with multiple women – nor was any man prosecuted for providing support for multiple women and children – nor was any man prosecuted for having a sexual relationship with multiple women. There were laws forbidding adultery, but they generally weren’t enforced.

        The early LDS were prosecuted for claiming that their “unions” were more than just physical unions (that they were “marriages” and just as legitimate as monogamous marriages [or more so, according to some statements]) – and those unions were outlawed because the majority of people, including lawmakers, believed polygamy to be an abominable practice that was opposed to the will of God. The law was passed explicitly because people believed that polygamy was a direct assault on traditional, Christian, monogamous marriage and would weaken the fabric of society.

        How is that any different than most arguments against gay marriage today?

        • Ray says:

          In other words, as a group, Mormons of that time were even more radical than current homosexuals, since some Mormon leaders actually taught that monogamy was inferior to polygamy in totality for all – and I am unaware of any gay marriage activist now who says everyone should be in a gay marriage instead of a straight marriage (that gay marriage is better than straight marriage in totality for all).

        • Fraggle says:

          “at the time of the Edmunds-Tucker Act, no man was actively prosecuted for fathering children with multiple women – nor was any man prosecuted for providing support for multiple women and children – nor was any man prosecuted for having a sexual relationship with multiple women.”

          Under the Edmunds act five years before E-T, they were being imprisoned merely for *residing* with multiple women (it was termed ‘unlawful cohabitaion’), never mind anything else. E-T did nothing to change that.

          The key difference between now and then is that now the government recognises that just because someone wants to call their union a marriage, doesn’t mean they have to jump to the polar opposites of either agreeing or prosecuting. There are more options than that. And that holds true when people want to claim otherwise. For now, at least.

          • Ray says:

            Sorry I wasn’t clear, Fraggle. I meant that non-Mormon men weren’t being prosecuted for any of those things.

  8. Buddy says:

    I find it difficult to answer the question when should we use legislation to enforce behavior we want versus persuasion, teaching, and loving example.
    Most people would agree its not enough to simply teach people murder is bad, we want laws that force people to comply with our views on murder. At the other end of the spectrum, everyone would agree we don’t need a law banning coffee but can rely on teaching others about the word of wisdom. There is a lot of gray area in between. There are those that feel strongly any state enforced charity via welfare programs is a violation of one’s agency and right to choose if, and how, to help others. Often these same people do not feel it is an impermissible violation of agency to exclude same sex couples from marriage or to prevent a woman from having an abortion, even during the first trimester when the embryo could not live outside of her body. Perhaps the distinction with these examples is the prevention of doing harm versus and affirmative duty to help, or perhaps the perceived gravity of the harm, but its a difficult distinction for me to make.

  9. ji says:

    Those who are opposed to righteousness will use every tool, legal and illegal, to achieve their goals. But those who choose righteousness are citizens, too — they can’t use illegal means to achieve their goals (they simply don’t go together), but if they give away the public square, then their own society must suffer. The only thing necessary for evil to win is for good men and women to do nothing (that’s a paraphrase from somewhere).

    So yes, good people should vote their conscience — they should vote for laws that will help build a good society — a good society will not be the result if the good people choose silence under the banner of tolerance. The great thing about American society is that we do have a public square, and we can participate and vote — we can use the public square and be kind at the same time.

  10. Jendoop says:

    Great insights, thanks for commenting! Most of what I know about the law I learned from my college civics class, so I appreciate those who know more about it sharing that knowledge.

    One thing I remember from that class is that a government can only function if the people are moral. You can’t legislate morality. I kept thinking of that as the financial crisis brought trouble for millions of Americans because a few people broke the law, or kept the law but didn’t act morally. Which resulted in more financial sector laws, but a people that don’t have morals will always find a way to operate around the law. We have to first want to be a law abiding and upright people.

    So I’m asking myself if the above is true for the financial sector what does it say about the topics of the OP?

  11. Kristin says:

    Without reading any of the previous comments, I am going to hazard my own thoughts regarding the difference between freedom and agency. Doctrinally speaking, I understand that they are two different things, but are often talked about interchangeably in Mormon culture. Ultimately, freedom can be curtailed, and often is. Heck, that’s the reason we have laws in the first place–to motivate people to control bad behavior by promising unpleasant consequences. Notice, however, that a law still does not even control behavior and curtail freedom in any real sense. It simply promises a consequence, which consequence is the real loss of freedom. And that is only if you get caught. You are still free to do whatever you want.

    Agency, however, is only ever called moral agency in the scriptures–the ability to choose what direction one’s heart will take. In that sense, one can have every physical freedom removed, and still align one’s heart to God, or, reject Him. The fact is, no one can take away another person’s moral agency–that battle was won before this life began. Agency is the right to choose God no matter what is done to you by others, or the right to send yourself to Hell in spite of every blessing you are given.

    Thank you for considering my comment. I enjoyed this post very much.

    • jendoop says:

      I like your insights, thank you Kristin. That’s a powerful way to consider agency, we always have a choice in our minds. One that is only really known to God and ourselves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *