Blogger of Jared

I keep hearing about people who say things like, “The church is so suffocating; there’s no freedom!”  This seems silly to me… I think it implies a lack of understanding about freedom and about the church.

I think it’s good to start with a definition of freedom… (I’ve been reading about Socrates, does it show?)  There’s probably a better definition in every Philosophy 101 course, but I’ve never gotten to take a philosophy course, so I came up with my own: 

Freedom is a philosophy of governance which pushes decisions down as far as possible to the individuals directly affected by those decisions.

So if you’re the one making your own decisions, you have freedom in that area.  Sound good so far?

Here’s an observation to go with that definition: because time is always passing, you’re always doing something–even if it is just choosing to do nothing.

Since you’re always doing something, you have to choose something to do.  You usually don’t choose consciously, and maybe you have more options at some points in your life and fewer options at other points, but you always have a variety of options.  (Those options might be as simple as choosing what you’re thinking about, for example–there’s always some choice.)

So here’s the crux: I don’t see the church forcing people to choose one thing or another.  Ever.  People have their choices; they have their agency, their freedom, as far as the church is concerned.

Suppose a member were to take up smoking; yes, they’d lose their temple recommend, but that’s a fairly natural consequence (it’s someone else’s building, they get to set the rules).  The member would have to deal with stinky clothing too–another fairly natural consequence.  But no one’s going to come snatch the cigarette away.

What the church does do is gently point out which option, for a given situation, is most likely to lead to a happier life, and which options are likely to lead to a less happy life.  So the decision is still in the hands of the individual.

“But what about the loss of eternal rewards; isn’t that a punishment?”  I see it as more natural consequences of not living the best life you can.  This is part of why personal revelation exists–if you honestly feel that the best way you can live is, for example, to smoke, and you’ve prayed about it, and your sense is that it’s what Heavenly Father wants you to do… I can’t believe you’d be punished for it.  (I also doubt you’d ever honestly find that specific action sanctioned, but that’s another story.)

I think the reason the church can seem stifling to some is that in pointing out the good options, it brings us to a conscious awareness of those good options which makes it hard to justify choosing a less-optimal option.  Some part of a person might want to choose poorly in a given situation–I think we all feel petty and childish and selfish at times, and without the knowledge of good and evil, we’d be free to indulge those feelings. Having the suboptimal nature of that choice drawn to light, though, makes it much harder to justify acting on those “natural man” feelings.

So I don’t find the church stifling at all; I find I have quite a bit of freedom.  The church points out the difference between good and evil, reminds us at least weekly of that knowledge, and encourages us to honestly examine our own lives and to become better people.  This is a gift, not a loss of freedom; a blessing, which will lead us, step by step, to true happiness and eternal rewards.