Quotes on the “Liberty” Arguement

“Few concepts have more potential to mislead us than the idea that choice, or agency, is an ultimate goal.”

“We are responsible to use our agency in a world of choices.”

“Interesting how one virtue, when given exaggerated or fanatical emphasis, can be used to batter down another, with freedom, a virtue, invoked to protect vice.”

“People who are otherwise sensible say, “I do not intend to indulge, but I vote for freedom of choice for those who do.”

“Regardless of how lofty and moral the “pro-choice” argument sounds, it is badly flawed.”

Some have made the argument, “While I myself won’t ____, I vote for freedom of choice for those who do”. Here are a few quotes to think about. Again “borrowing” generously from JustandHoly (hope he doesn’t mind). Dallin H. Oaks: Few concepts have more potential to mislead us than the idea that choice, or agency, is an ultimate goal. For Latter-day Saints, this potential confusion is partly a product of the fact that moral agency—the right to choose—is a fundamental condition of mortal life. Without this precious gift of God, the purpose of mortal life could not be realized. To secure our agency in mortality we fought a mighty contest the book of Revelation calls a “war in heaven.” This premortal contest ended with the devil and his angels being cast out of heaven and being denied the opportunity of having a body in mortal life (see Rev. 12:7–9).But our war to secure agency was won. The test in this postwar mortal estate is not to secure choice but to use it—to choose good instead of evil so that we can achieve our eternal goals. In mortality, choice is a method, not a goal.
Of course, mortals must still resolve many questions concerning what restrictions or consequences should be placed upon choices. But those questions come under the heading of freedom, not agency. Many do not understand that important fact. We are responsible to use our agency in a world of choices. It will not do to pretend that our agency has been taken away when we are not free to exercise it without unwelcome consequences. (Dallin H. Oaks, “Weightier Matters,” Ensign, Jan. 2001)

Boyd K. Packer: While we pass laws to reduce pollution of the earth, any proposal to protect the moral and spiritual environment is shouted down and marched against as infringing upon liberty, agency, freedom, the right to choose.Interesting how one virtue, when given exaggerated or fanatical emphasis, can be used to batter down another, with freedom, a virtue, invoked to protect vice. Those determined to transgress see any regulation of their life-style as interfering with their agency and seek to have their actions condoned by making them legal.People who are otherwise sensible say, “I do not intend to indulge, but I vote for freedom of choice for those who do.”Regardless of how lofty and moral the “pro-choice” argument sounds, it is badly flawed. With that same logic one could argue that all traffic signs and barriers which keep the careless from danger should be pulled down on the theory that each individual must be free to choose how close to the edge he will go. (Boyd K. Packer, “Our Moral Environment,” Ensign, May 1992)

Dallin H. Oaks: The science of government is a consideration of the procedures by which and the extent to which the official representatives of one group of citizens can impose restrictions on the freedom of another group. Decisions on the extent to which government power should restrict the freedom of individuals are among the most difficult decisions we face in an organized society. How much should zoning laws restrict a person’s right to use his own property? How many taxes should we extract, and what compulsory functions should government perform with them? How much harm can society allow a person to do himself, such as by self-mutilation or drug use? These are all questions of freedom. We have to accept some government limitations on freedom if we who live in communities are to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A condition of uninhibited individual freedom would allow the strong to oppress the weak. It would allow the eccentric desires of one person to restrict the freedom of many. (”Free Agency and Freedom,” Oaks, Dallin H., October 11, 1987)

Hugh B. Brown: We live in an age when freedom of the mind is suppressed over much of the world. We must preserve this freedom in the Church and in America and resist all efforts of earnest men to suppress it, for when it is suppressed, we might lose the liberties vouchsafed in the Constitution of the United States. Preserve, then, the freedom of your mind in education and in religion, and be unafraid to express your thoughts and to insist upon your right to examine every proposition. We are not so much concerned with whether your thoughts are orthodox or heterodox as we are that you shall have thoughts. (”An Eternal Quest–Freedom of the Mind,” Hugh B. Brown, BYU Devotional,, 13 May 1969)-Emphasis added
So where do you think the line of individual liberty should be drawn? Surely in order to live in a civilized society we trade some freedoms for safety and for what otherwise in the interest of all people. What liberties should be asked of the people to curb in order to live in a peaceful, happy society?