The Definition of Agency
Within the unique language that is mormon-ese, the term agency carries multiple definitions. Using the article “The Power and Gift of Agency” as a precursor, the pure definition of agency is:
The power to act righteously.
Within the doctrine of agency comes the most common belief that agency is the freedom of choice. I have heard it taught very often during Gospel Doctrine, Priesthood, various Sunday school classes, in Young Men’s and Young Women’s lessons, and from the pulpit.
Most teachers promulgate the doctrine that agency is the right to choose. It is used so often that the two thoughts have become synonymous in the terminology of the LDS mind. In other words, agency = God-given freedom or right to choose.
Comments such as:
· “We have our agency not to believe if we don’t want to.”
· “I don’t have to attend all my meetings, I have my agency.”
· “I turned down the calling from the Bishop because I have my agency.”
· “Our church teaches that we all have our agency on earth so we can do what we want to.”
· “No one can force you to obey the commandments, because you have your agency.”
Now study the pure definition of agency one more time and then think through each of the above statements. Each one of the five statements carries the mormon-ese doctrine that agency is the same as choice. From this perspective, each statement makes sense and appears to be in harmony with the church doctrine.
However, if the definition of agency is truly the power to act righteously, none of the above statements is sound doctrine, in fact, they are false doctrine.
Let’s examine why. In the pre-mortal existence we already chose sides. We agreed to find and live the gospel during mortal probation if possible. When we were baptized we agreed to take upon ourselves the name of Christ and to obey all His commandments.
Therefore, this is what agency doesn’t mean:
· You can still choose not to attend church.
· You can still choose not to do your home teaching or visiting teaching.
· You can still choose not to say your prayers.
· You can still choose not to accept a calling by your priesthood leaders.
· You can still choose not to obey the commandments.
The choice in agency was the first decision to obey, now the Lord simply holds you accountable for your actions. If you choose to obey, you receive an increase. You receive greater power to act righteously. You have greater agency.
If you choose to sin, the Lord removes His spirit and your powers atrophy. If you continue choosing poorly, agency is completely removed. Korihor had no agency. He violated everything and sinned against the Holy Ghost. He knew better. He could still make choices, but they had nothing to do with agency.
The only choice in agency then is the first choice, the covenant. From that point on, your choice only adds to or takes away your agency.
To believe that agency is the right to choose provides us with two distinct problems. “First, it fails to recognize that agency is a sacred trust given to us by God to act righteously. Second, it suggests that we have the right to do evil if we so choose. The capacity to do evil and the right to do evil are very different things.” (Understanding the Power God Gives Us, pg. 10, Joseph F. McConkie)
No one has ever done anything wrong with the blessings of heaven.
Question: Do I have the right to reject Christ and his gospel?
Answer: No. The penalty is damnation. (Mark 16:16; D&C 49:5)
Question: Do I have the right to break gospel covenants?
Answer: No. Doing so may bring upon you a “very sore and grievous curse.” (D&C 104:4) [Source, Ibid, pg. 13)
If agency is the right to choose and given to us from God, then a lawbreaker could theoretically argue that God gave him the right to sin. Which means God gave him the right to be a thief, a bully, and a liar and as such he, the lawbreaker, has a rightful place in heaven.
Such a doctrine prevents heaven from being heaven. There is no government, be it in heaven or on earth, that grants its citizens the right to break the law. Thus agency, in the context of the gospel is properly defined as the God-given power to believe and act in truth and righteousness.
Richard,
I often read your posts as they come to my email, but have never actually visited your blog before. This post got me thinking.
In Nephi’s description of the vision of the tree of life, he talks about the existence of only 2 churches: the church of the Lamb and the great and abominable church. He then teaches that if we fail to qualify to be a part of the church of the Lamb, we are by default part of the great and abominable church. There is no middle ground. Our only choice is to actively be a part of the one or to actively/passively be a part of the other. And, as you’ve taught here, we made that choice long before coming to earth. In making that choice, we were made ‘agents unto ourselves’, meaning that we were left to follow through on that original commitment.
‘Agency’ in my mind doesn’t mean freedom to choose. It means that we are literally set up as agents or representatives of an organization and of that organization’s standards. In real estate, sports, acting, music, and finance, the title agent signifies that someone has been trusted with the authority to represent the wishes/designs of someone else, be it an individual or a company that is being represented as a client. The moment that an agent acts of their own volition against the wishes of the client, they have broken a contract (written or otherwise) and lose authority to act as agent. The client is then left with the option to forgive and restore agency, or to revoke it permanently.
In the eternal realm, there is only One who bears any power. Only by being an agent of Him can anyone else have authority to exercise that power. Anytime our actions fail to faithfully represent the desires of Him who bears the power, we are left with less power.
Thanks for sharing your great thoughts.
Where do you get the definition of agency as, “The power to act righteously”?
It seems that this definition is a fairly new invention. I cannot find it in the scriptures, in early church writtings, or in the late 20th century.
(By the way, I agree that the definition of agency is not “freedom to choose” although the concepts are related.)
It comes from Joseph F. McConkies book “Understanding the Power God Gives Us.”
In listening to Br. Joseph McConkie, it is clear he learned this doctrine from his dad in his dad’s later years. In one of Joseph McConkie’s classes at Ed Week he was telling a story about his dad when he explained the doctrine. The book came out a couple of years later, if I remember the sequence correctly. Since it was clearly a different rendition of how agency has been taught from the pulpit and in classes, I paid particular attention to the concept. I’ve had many discussions with members over the past years and it continues to be a doctrine that creates confusion.
I guess I have a problem with saying that the pure definition of Agency is “The power to act righteously.”
If we were to look for a pure definition of Agency, we should try to understand what the word meant at the time of the revelations, including how Joseph Smith and his contemporaries used it, and determine if the Lord or Joseph Smith ever defined the word differently. After all, the Lord said, “…these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.” (D&C 1:24)
The words Agent and Agency did in fact have actual definitions at the time of the revelations (early 1800s) as shown by dictionaries of that time. The definitions are quite similar to the general meanings used today outside of the church. (The common idea in the church of ‘freedom to choose’, ‘right of free choice’, etc., are not found in the dictionary.) The pure definition of Agency would probably be something in line with the dictionary’s definition.
I have searched the words of Joseph Smith and other church writings during his lifetime, and I cannot find any that do not fit within the dictionary’s definitions. I have found no evidence that he, nor any other early church member, spoke of agency in a different manner.
I find it interesting that when modern speakers and writers in the church use the word Agency, they often feel a need to define it for their audience, but when I compare the early writings of the church, including the revelations, I find no redefinition of the word. It seems to be assumed that the audience of the early revelations, sermons, and writings of the church already knew what the word meant–the word that was then in common, everyday usage–the word defined in the dictionary.
Unfortunately, over time, the church began using a different term (Free Agency) and a different definition (Freedom of Choice, etc.). The term Free Agency has a historical meaning as well (the ability to act according to one’s own free will), so the Lord could have used that common term in His revelations if that was what He wanted to convey, but He did not.
In the 1980s and 90s, the church began to recognize that the term Free Agency was incorrect, but most have continued to use the same definition that came with the incorrect term. Why don’t we simply use the word Agency and try to understand its original meaning, not the new definitions we’ve attached to it?
Recently, some, like Joseph Fielding McConkie, have proposed a new definition. This is where we get the idea that Moral Agency is the power to act righteously. (When I search for the word Agency or Agent in all the books by Joseph Fielding McConkie in GospelLink 2001, I cannot find anything along those lines—in fact, his views prior to about 2000, at least, follow the traditional Mormon concept of agency. It would appear that his view changed some time after 2000.)
The term Moral Agency (like Agency and Free Agency) also had an actual definition during the time of the early church. This definition was in use at the time the revelations were received and it is not the definition that Brother McConkie is now offering. The original meaning of a Moral Agent was someone who was capable of acting with reference to both right and wrong, not just “righteously.”
Again, if we are trying to understand the revelations, shouldn’t we understand the original meanings of the words and terms which the Lord used? Remember, He said that He speaks to us in our language that we might understand. The words Agent and Agency had actual meanings when the Lord used them in the D&C. I think it’s a shame that we do not discuss the actual dictionary definitions of those words and try to gain understanding.
I’m afraid that we may be on the verge of accepting a new definition which is no more scriptural than the last one.
(I could point out other problems with the new definition as well, but I’ll stop for now.)