My mission president often told us (the missionaries) that we had put our free agency on the shelf—or signed it over to the Lord—when we accepted a mission call. That always bothered me, even though in a way I knew he was right. We did agree to be missionaries and follow certain rules. It’s like when you take a job, your employment is conditional on your obedience to certain rules—punctuality, dress code, performance, etc. When you accept responsiblity and enter into an employment contract or agreement, you do give up some freedoms (e.g., to dress casually at work) in exchange for other, greater freedoms (salary, job satisfaction, authority, or whatever). Same thing when you get married. You give up the freedom to have other romantic relationships, to have total control over your money and time, etc. In exchange you gain a commited relationship, security, intimacy, etc.

Isn’t that what the church is trying to establish, something like an employee-employer relationship? You agree to follow rules that limit some freedoms, and they’ll provide greater freedom (eternal families, exaltation, or whatever it is they’re promising nowadays). Sometimes I feel a little bad that I’m not keeping the temple promises, even though I feel they are silly and were dishonestly obtained. Even though I know that there are “bonds that make us free,” I just can’t stand the thought that the thinking has been done, and the only thing that remains for us is to obey. I feel instinctively like the church crosses the line somewhere, but it’s hard to put my finger on where, exactly.

I think the key to the Mormon abuse of the freedom/responsibility concept lies in the concept of afterlife rewards and punishments. Let me explain:

I can choose whatever action I like, but I am not free the choose the consequences of my actions. So when I get a job, I can certainly choose to wear shorts and a tank-top to work, but I can’t choose the results (which may probably include my being fired). When I get married, I can choose to cheat on my wife, or do take control of all the finances, or not spend any of my time with my wife, but I’m not able to choose the results (which will probably include not being married much longer). This freedom extends to less black-and-white issues: I’m free to drink alcohol moderately if I’m willing to accept the risks that go along with drinking. I’m free to drive over the speed limit if I’m willing to accept the results of my actions. I’m free to read novels, not brush my teeth, listen to loud music, sing in church, paint the house, etc. etc., but I, eventually, will have to face the consequences of my actions.

The Church destroys this idea completely by inserting the idea of Eternal punishment or reward based on our choices. If we accept their claims as the truth, we can no longer (for example) drink alcohol if we’re willing to accept the risks that go along with drinking—we now have to also accept that fact that drinking alcohol means damnation in the afterlife. Few rational individuals (assuming the afterlife story to be true) would choose to drink alcohol in such a situation. If your employer could say, “If you don’t work 80-hour weeks for $2 an hour, you’ll be damned eternally,” then the logical thing to do would be to acquiesce to your employer’s demands. If your wife could say, “If you don’t give me all your money and spend all your time on me and remain faithful to me no matter what I do, you’ll be damned forever,” you’d better do what she says.

It might happen that you have a benevolent employer or a benevolent wife, and they say, “Be faithful to me or be damned,” and being faithful to them does turn out pretty well for you, but the concept of free will has still been damaged beyond recovery. You no longer really have a choice of employer or choice of spouse—the choice has been made for you by threatening eternal doom if you don’t toe the party line, and that’s really the only choice available for you to make. To choose otherwise is foolishness.

When your mission president says that you no longer have free agency in certain areas, because you’ve contracted yourself (in the same way one might contract with an employer), it’s different in a crucial way: you have no choice. If at any time as an employee you feel that the terms are no longer in your favor, you are free to walk away to pursue other interests. As a missionary, the alleged terms are always in favor of staying on a mission and keeping the mission rules—to choose otherwise is to risk eternal torment.

The choice offered by the church is no choice at all. You are free to choose, but the only logical choice, the only choice that will make you “happy” (even if it makes your life on earth miserable), is the one they have already chosen for you.