In Nephi’s vision recorded in 1 Nephi 11–14, the Spirit asks Nephi, “What desireth thou?” (11:2). Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

ABSTRACT: This article examines the role of desires and agency to choose and agency to act on one’s choices. In God’s plan of happiness, we are rewarded according to our desires. Our desires can be expressed only when we have agency to choose and agency to act on our choices. Agency to choose and agency to act on our choices are different. Agency to choose is limited by our knowledge, while agency to act on our choices depends on the conditions of mortality that define our opportunities.. Because our knowledge and opportunities to act on our choices are constrained, our choices and actions reveal our desires imperfectly. The parables of the talents and the laborers in the vineyard illustrate how God justly rewards his children according to their desires despite their differences in knowledge and opportunities to act one’s choices. The authors highlight a divine paradox: Although agency is essential for revealing our desires, our willingness to let God prevail in our lives refines those desires and strengthens our capacity to choose and act in ways that lead to eternal life.

KEYWORDS: moral agency, desires, conditions of mortality, Plan of Salvation, divine judgment, parable of the talents. parable of the laborers, free will

Introduction

This essay discusses the importance of desires and agency in God’s plan of happiness. In his plan, God rewards us according to our desires, which are revealed through our choices and actions. For these choices and actions to genuinely reflect our desires, they must be made freely. This freedom to choose and to act is called moral agency. Because of this divine gift, “we have within ourselves the capacity to choose what we will do or what we will become.”[1] The doctrine of agency stands in contrast to ideas such as predestination or determinism, which hold that what we do and become lies beyond our control.

In what follows, we explore agency from a Latter-day Saint perspective. We begin by discussing the central role of desires in God’s plan of happiness. Then we explain how agency enables us to express those desires through our choices and actions. Next, we examine the forces that influence and limit both forms of agency, along with God’s efforts to expand them. Drawing on the parables of the talents and the laborers in the vineyard, we illustrate how God deals justly with us given the imperfect connection between our desires, choices, and actions. We observe that, unlike God, we have limited understanding of what others know or what their opportunities are to act on their choices; therefore, we must be cautious when inferring others’ desires from their choices and actions. Finally, we highlight a profound paradox: While agency allows us to reveal our desires, it is through our willingness to let God prevail in our lives that our desires are refined, our capacity to choose and act is enlarged, and we can qualify for God’s greatest gift—eternal life (Doctrine and Covenants 14:7).

The Importance of Desires in God’s Plan

Heavenly Father rewards us according to the desires of our hearts. Alma taught that God “granteth unto men according to their desire, whether it be unto death or unto life; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable, according to their wills, whether they be unto salvation or unto destruction” (Alma 29:4). The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith, “For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts” (Doctrine and Covenants 137:9). Alma reminded his son Corianton that in the resurrection our reward will depend on our desires: “one [being] raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness . . . and the other [being raised] to evil according to his desires of evil” (Alma 41:5). Elder Neal A. Maxwell summarized, “Could the further education of my desires be the most important form of continuing education?”[2] Moreover, Alma taught, “I know that [God] granteth unto men according to their desire . . . ; yea, I know that he allotteth unto men . . . according to their wills” (Alma 29:4). Taken together, these teachings suggest that what we insistently desire, over time, is what we will eventually become and what we will receive in eternity (Jeremiah 17:10). It is also important to note that God so highly respects human agency that he allows people to choose actions that may harm others—within limits (14:11).

The Need for Agency in God’s Plan

To express our desires, we must possess agency—the freedom to choose and the freedom to act on our choices. Without agency, we would be like a clock that can only reflect the work of the clockmaker. We possessed agency and exercised it in our premortal existence, such as when we chose to follow God’s plan. Adam and Eve exercised their agency in the Garden of Eden, just as their descendants continue to do in the mortal world. Emphasizing its central importance, President David O. McKay taught that “next to the bestowal of life itself, the right to direct that life is God’s greatest gift to man.”[3]

Agency is a subject of intense interest across religions and philosophies. Without agency, laws would lack moral significance because we would not be free to choose whether to obey them or not. Without agency, we would lack dignity because we would not be free to choose and act for ourselves but would be controlled by others. And without agency, our existence would lack purpose because we would not be free to pursue a noble goal.[4] Given the central role in God’s plan, it is not surprising that Satan sought to “destroy the agency of man” (Moses 4:3).

Agency and Happiness

We are rewarded according to our desires to follow God’s plan, and we reveal those desires by our choices and acts (Doctrine and Covenants 137:9). To reward us on a different criterion would not produce joy because God’s plan and happiness must be freely chosen. To be happy, we must choose it (2 Nephi 2:25–27). As Abraham Lincoln is popularly claimed to have said, “Folks are usually about as happy as they make up their minds to be.”[5] C. S. Lewis taught that “the happiness which God designs for His higher creatures is the happiness of being freely, voluntarily united to Him and to each other in an ecstasy of love and delight compared with which the most rapturous love between a man and a woman on this earth is mere milk and water. And for that they must be free.”[6]

One profound source of unhappiness is being forced to accept conditions contrary to our desires. Furthermore, if those who desired not to follow God were forced to do so and return to his presence fully aware of their guilt, they would be glad “if [they] could command the rocks and the mountains to fall upon [them] to hide [them] from his presence” (Alma 12:14).

Agency and the Savior

God’s plan requires that we believe in Jesus Christ and acknowledge his role as our Savior and Redeemer, repent and seek forgiveness for our sins, correct our mistakes, and qualify for eternal life by obeying his commandments (2 Nephi 2:26–27). God’s plan recognizes that we all will misuse our agency and make mistakes and sin, thereby limiting our opportunities to progress spiritually. Because of our fallen nature, he sent Jesus Christ to atone for our sins. President Christofferson taught: “If our separation from God and our physical death were permanent, moral agency would mean nothing. Yes, we would be free to make choices, but what would be the point? The end result would always be the same no matter what our actions: death with no hope of resurrection and no hope of heaven.”[7]

Agency Is a Misunderstood Doctrine

Elder David A. Bednar has taught that despite its importance in God’s plan, the principle of moral agency is often taught and understood incorrectly, leading some people to behave in ways that are inappropriate.[8] Addressing new mission leaders, he encouraged them (and us) “to study, pray, ponder and seek by the power of the Holy Ghost to obtain a more complete understanding of the central role of moral agency in Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness and in our individual lives.”[9]

Confusing references to agency

It is not always clear what is meant by references to agency and agency-related terms such as agency, free agency, moral agency, human agency, free, freedom, God’s gift of agency, or God’s gift of divine agency. For example, President Dallin H. Oaks observed that the term free agency sometimes refers to both freedom (agency to act) as well as agency (agency to choose), and that the scriptural term free sometimes means agency or the freedom to choose and other times implies the freedom or the agency to carry out our choices.[10] Elder Bednar said that “moral agency can be understood as the ability and privilege to choose and to act for ourselves in ways that are good, honest, virtuous, and honorable.” It “empowers . . . God’s children to become agents to act and not simply objects to be acted upon.”[11] Here Elder Bednar’s reference to moral agency appears to include both the agency to choose and the agency to act.

Agency to choose and agency to act

President Christofferson distinguished between two kinds of agency: the agency to choose and the agency to act. He taught that the agency to choose and the agency to act on our choices make us “free to choose” (2 Nephi 2:27) and free to act (Helaman 14:30).[12] To choose is to identify or “select (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives.”[13] To act on another person is to influence their emotional, physical, or mental state or condition.

Clarifying vocabulary

To avoid confusion, in this essay we follow President Christofferson in distinguishing between the agency to choose and the agency to act on our choices. Both forms of agency are essential for us to express our desires and to be justly rewarded for those desires.

Free Will

Free will is the power inside us that activates our agency to choose (Doctrine and Covenants 58:27). Joshua commanded his people to exercise their free will and choose God (Joshua 24:15).

Our uncreated free will

If exercising our free will is to reflect our desires, then we must be capable of exercising it to think and reason independently of others. This can be possible only if our free will is uncreated, always having existed with us.. The Lord revealed to Joseph Smith that man existed as intelligence coeternally with God. Intelligence is often described as the core, eternal essence of a person that was not created and cannot be destroyed (Doctrines and Covenants 93:29). In his King Follett sermon, Joseph declared that “the mind of man is as immortal as God himself.”[14] Brigham Young taught that agency is possessed by every intelligent being and “has always existed from all eternity and will continue to exist throughout all the eternities to come.”[15]

A clarifying revision

Confusion arises in Joseph Smith’s translation of Moses, where God tells Enoch that man is the workmanship of his hands and that, in the day he created them in the Garden of Eden, “I [God] gave unto man his agency” (Moses 7:32). But man could not always have possessed agency if God gave it to him in the Garden of Eden, since in that case agency would not be an inherent attribute of man, and thus he would not be truly free or capable of expressing his desires through his own choices and actions.

In Joseph Smith’s later revision, he clarified this passage to read that “in the Garden of Eden man had his agency.”[16] Teryl Givens notes that, unfortunately, this inspired correction was not included in the current edition of the scriptures.[17]

Our knowledge and free will

Exercising our agency to choose is limited by our knowledge of what good and evil choices exist (Doctrine and Covenants 123:12). In addition, what we know depends in part on our opportunities to learn. Adam and Eve exulted because partaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil expanded their knowledge of available choices (Moses 5:10). Eve testified, “Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient” (v. 11). The Light of Christ and the Holy Ghost can expand our knowledge and increase our agency to choose between good and evil. Daniel K Judd described how the Light of Christ expands our knowledge of good and evil. He quoted Moroni, who wrote that this light “is given to every man, that he may know good from evil” (Moroni 7:16).[18]

A veil of forgetfulness and free will

Our choices reveal who we really are and what we really love—good or evil. However, it may be that too much knowing can eliminate the need for faith and opportunities to exercise agency to choose. Elder Dale G. Renlund taught that “to ensure that we would exercise faith and learn to use our agency properly, a veil of forgetfulness was drawn [by God] over our minds so we would not remember God’s plan.”[19]

Agency to Act and Choice Sets

Our agency to act on or realize our choices depends on what we know to be possible. President Dieter F. Uchtdorf described a traveler who saved money his entire life for a Mediterranean cruise. However, because money was scarce, he brought along subsistence rations to eat instead of spending money on meals served on the cruise. Only at the end of the cruise did he learn that all the food and entertainment available on the cruise was included in the price of his ticket.[20] This passenger’s lack of knowledge limited his choices to act.

Conditions of mortality and choice sets

What is included in our choice set (i.e., a collection of choices that can be acted upon) depends on what President Oaks referred to as the conditions of mortality: “What can be taken away or reduced by the conditions of mortality is our freedom, the power [agency] to act upon our choices. Free agency [agency to choose] is absolute, but in the circumstances of mortality freedom is always qualified.” He went on to illustrate: “When Pharaoh put Joseph in prison, he restricted Joseph’s freedom [choice set], but he did not take away his . . . agency [to choose]. When Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple, he interfered with their freedom to engage in a particular activity at a particular time in a particular place, but he did not take away their . . . agency [to choose].” The Savior reduced the money changers’ choice set. Pharaoh limited Joseph’s choice set.[21] The conditions of mortality that may limit our choice sets may include the acts of others, conditions associated with our birth, acts of nature, our own choices, and sometimes God’s interventions.

How God enables our agency

We can exercise our agency because God enables it. By allowing Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, he increased their agency to choose (Genesis 2:17; Moses 5:11). He also instructs us sufficiently that we know the difference between good and evil choices (2 Nephi 2:5). He enabled Adam and Eve’s agency to act on their choices by creating physical bodies for them (Genesis 1:27) and by placing them in an environment where they could experience both joy and hardship (3:19; Acts 17:26), a world full of opportunities to act.

The Parables of the Talents and the Laborers in the Vineyard

These two truths coexist: inequality persists among God’s children, yet his love for each of us is perfectly equal. By rewarding us according to our desires, he places us on equal moral ground before him. The Lord mercifully adjusts his judgments to account for the inequalities of our circumstances, declaring, “For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation” (Doctrine and Covenants 82:3).

The connection between our desires, choices, and acts

King Benjamin taught that desires matter even when we cannot act on them. He instructed that those who would “deny the beggar, because [they] have not,” but who in their hearts desire to give and would do so if they had anything to share, “remain guiltless” (Mosiah 4:24–25). On the other hand, we may offer a gift without good desires and be disqualified for a reward. Jesus taught, “Take heed that ye do not your alms [or charitable deeds] before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 6:1).

Two parables teach us how God adjusts our rewards according to our desires despite our differences in knowledge and choice sets. The parables also suggest the difficulty we face when attempting to distinguish the righteous from the unrighteous (Doctrine and Covenants 10:37), indicating that when tempted to judge, holding our peace may often be the better choice.

The parable of the talents (Matthew 25:14–30)

A wealthy man traveling to a far country entrusted his money (denominated in talents) to his servants to invest. To one servant he gave five talents; to another, two; and to a third, one. When he returned, he asked for an accounting. The servant who received five talents had doubled them and returned ten to his investor. The servant who had been given two talents had doubled them and returned four. The Lord commended them both similarly, “Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord” (v. 21).

The wealthy man rewarded them similarly even though their gains differed because they had the same desires but faced different choice sets. However, the servant who hid his talent in the ground and earned no profit was condemned because his desires were reflected in his lack of action—he could have at least “put [the investor’s] money to the exchangers” so it could be collected with interest (v. 27).

Parable of the laborers (Matthew 20:1–16)

The parable of the laborers in the vineyard describes a landowner who hired workers to care for his vineyard for different lengths of time. When the workers were asked to explain their partial unemployment, they explained it was “because no man hath hired us” (v. 7). Nevertheless, at the end of the day the landowner paid all the workers the same, leading those who had worked the most to complain.

The workers had similar desires but different employment opportunities. Each would have worked the same hours if they had the same opportunities. Defending his equal payments, the landowner responded, “I [did] thee no wrong,” for he had kept the terms of the agreement. “Take [thy pay],” he said, and “go thy way” (vv. 13–14). It’s as if the landowner had always determined to reward his workers based the intents of their hearts, their free will: “Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?” (v. 15).

Modern application of the parables

President Gordon B. Hinckley made the same point taught in the parables—that our reward depends mostly on our desires rather than the significance of our assignments in the kingdom that defines our choice set. He taught: “This church does not belong to its President. Its head is the Lord Jesus Christ, whose name each of us has taken upon ourselves. We are all in this great endeavor together. We are here to assist our Father in His work and His glory. . . . Your obligation is as serious in your sphere of responsibility as is my obligation in my sphere. No calling in this church is small or of little consequence.”[22]

Acting and Being Acted Upon

Lehi taught that God “created all things, . . . both things to act and things to be acted upon” (2 Nephi 2:14). As God’s children, we too act and are acted upon—and in doing so, we shape our desires, choices, behavior, and ultimately who we are.

Forces that act upon us

President Jeffrey R. Holland described being acted upon by worldly forces: “Most days we all find ourselves assaulted by immoral messages of some kind flooding in on us from every angle. The darker sides of the movie, television, and music industry step further and further into offensive language and sexual misconduct. Tragically, the same computer and Internet service that allows me to do my family history and prepare those names for temple work could, without filters and controls, allow my children or grandchildren access to a global cesspool of perceptions that could blast a crater in their brains forever.”[23] Positive forces that may act upon us include the promptings of the Holy Ghost and the ministering of angels around us (Alma 32:23).[24]

Responding to forces that act upon us

A Chinese proverb teaches that “birds of worry and care fly over our heads, but we need not let them build nests in our hair.” Similarly, President Russell M. Nelson promised that adding virtue to impure or cruel thoughts drives them away and brings peace.[25] We cannot always control what acts upon us, but we can choose how we respond—and in that choice lies our happiness.

The space between being acted upon and acting

Joseph Smith taught that “all the spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.”[26] Growth comes as we choose the right in response to life’s forces. A quotation often attributed to Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl describes the sacred space between stimulus and response: “In that space lies our freedom and power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our happiness.” The prophet Jacob likewise declared that we are “free to choose liberty and eternal life” (2 Nephi 2:27).

Accountability and Inviolable Will

Elder Maxwell taught that our will to choose is “inviolate.” While addiction, ignorance, and circumstance can limit our options, Satan “cannot compel men to do evil” unless we permit it.[27] President James E. Faust similarly affirmed that the adversary “has no authority over us that we do not give him.”[28] Even amid powerful external forces, there remains an “inner zone in which we are sovereign,” the essence of our individuality and accountability.[29]

Accountability

Accountability implies that we have used our agency to choose and to act. If we lacked opportunities to act, we could not be accountable for our actions. If we lacked knowledge of possible choices, we could not be accountable for our choices. Only when we understand the difference between good and evil and have the power to act does our will become truly inviolable. In such moments, Satan cannot force us to choose evil, and God will not force us to choose good (Moses 4:1–4). As the hymn reminds us, “He’ll call, persuade, direct aright . . . / But never force the human mind.”[30]

Limited accountability

For small children and for those with emotional, mental, or physical limitations imposed by the conditions of mortality, opportunities to choose and act are often restricted. Their accountability, therefore, is limited compared to those with greater knowledge and freedom to act. Yet the Lord’s judgment is perfectly just and merciful because it is adjusted to account for their difficulties.

Stephen E. Robinson illustrated this principle with an experience involving his son in a diving competition. Although his son’s dive appeared unimpressive compared to others, the judges awarded him first prize because the degree of difficulty of the dives he attempted was much higher than that of his competitors. Robinson likened this to the Lord’s mercy in judging us: “When we get to heaven, we may see some people wearing gold medals who we thought were only doing belly flops. But the Lord knew the degree of difficulty.”[31]

Respecting the Agency of Others

Just as Heavenly Father’s plan requires that we possess agency to choose, President Oaks reminded us that we should respect the agency of others to choose: “First, because agency is a God-given precondition to the purpose of mortal life, no person or organization can take away our agency in mortality.”[32] Nor should we try to do so. And praying to remove another person’s agency to choose would qualify as praying amiss (James 4:3; 2 Nephi 4:35). President Holland provided a practical guide “for praying not amiss.” He taught us to focus on why we are praying. “If we’re praying with purely selfish feelings, we may be asking amiss. . . . We should strive to be obedient and faithful and seek the Lord’s will rather than our own. Then when we pray, there are no limits to what we should pray about.”[33]

Changing choice sets

While failing to respect others’ agency to choose is forbidden, altering their choice sets under certain conditions may be acceptable. As a young boy, President Nelson smashed his parents’ liquor bottles.[34] Similarly, the Lord prevented the Egyptians from following Moses and his people through the Red Sea (Exodus 14), and he caused a deep sleep to come over the Lamanites, allowing Alma and his people to flee (Mosiah 24).

Natural consequences

Sometimes natural consequences influence the choices of others. On their voyage to the promised land, Laman and Lemuel rebelled against Nephi’s leadership. Nephi wrote that “Laman and Lemuel did take me and bind me with cords, and they did treat me with much harshness; nevertheless, the Lord did suffer it that he might show forth his power, unto the fulfilling of his word which he had spoken concerning the wicked” (1 Nephi 18:11). The Lord allowed Laman and Lemuel to experience the consequences of their actions so they could learn that they needed his help to guide their ship and survive the storm (vv. 12–15).

In sum, God respects our agency, yet he may, in mercy or justice, alter our circumstances and choice sets to instruct, protect, or fulfill his divine purposes.[35]

Changing Our Desires

After listening to King Benjamin, the people responded, “Yea, we [choose to] believe all the words which thou hast spoken unto us; and also, we know of their surety and truth, because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually” (Mosiah 5:2). By choosing to believe, King Benjamin’s people transformed their desires. Each time we choose to follow God’s plan, our capacity and desire to make that same choice again are strengthened. As Shakespeare expressed in Hamlet: “Refrain tonight, / And that shall lend a kind of easiness / To the next abstinence, the next more easy; / For use almost can change the stamp of nature / And either [master] the devil or throw him out / With wondrous potency.”[36]

The great irony

We are rewarded according to our desires. To express and act on our desires, we must have agency—the freedom to choose and act limited only by our knowledge and the conditions of mortality that define our choice sets. Yet with that freedom and independence alone, we can never reach our divine potential. Trying to do so would be something like attempting to lift ourselves up by holding on to our ankles. The only solution is to invite a higher power that resides beyond ourselves to inspire our choices and enable righteous acts. This requires exercising our agency to let God prevail in our lives.[37]

Elder Maxwell captured this great irony: “The submission of one’s will is really the only uniquely personal thing we have to place on God’s altar. The many other things we ‘give’ . . . are actually the things He has already given or loaned to us.”[38] When we submit our will to his, we unlock the promise expressed by the Apostle Paul: “[God] is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to his power that is at work within us” (Ephesians 3:20 NIV).

Summary

This discussion has centered on four main points:

1. God rewards us according to our desires, which we express through our choices and our efforts to act upon them. Reflecting our desires through our choices requires that we always possessed the ability to choose; otherwise, what we choose would depend entirely on our Creator.
2. Constraints on our choices and our choice sets make for an imperfect connection between our desires and what we choose and do. While God understands the connection perfectly, we do not. Lacking such insight, we should be cautious in judging others and follow the counsel to “judge not according to appearances, but judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24).
3. Our agency to act on our choices can be influenced by what President Dallin H. Oaks refers to as the conditions of mortality. These influence what actions are feasible and included in our choice sets. The conditions that define our choice sets may include the choices and actions of others, our previous choices and actions, nature, genes, God, and the extent of our knowledge. When our agency is limited, God adjusts our rewards according to the degree of difficulty we face when choosing and doing good.
4. The great irony is this: Our agency to freely choose and act is both essential to God’s plan of happiness and to how our true desires are revealed. Yet to inherit eternal life—God’s greatest gift—we must use that same agency to let God prevail in our lives. If we ask for his help and sincerely strive to follow him, he will grant the righteous desires of our hearts and, in the end, declare, “Well done, good and faithful servant . . . : enter thou into the joy of thy lord” (Matthew 25:23.

God judges and rewards us primarily according to the desires of our hearts, as revealed through our choices and efforts to act on our choices. In doing so he mercifully accounts for the limitations and circumstances that affect our ability to choose and act. Although agency is essential for revealing our true desires and helping us progress toward eternal life, the highest use of that agency is to allow God’s will to be manifest in our lives.

Notes

We thank Gary Babbel, Lana Bailey, Daniel K Judd, John Horowitz, Harriet Ogilvie, Julie Taylor, Meghan Wilson, Don Brugger, and two anonymous reviewers for suggested improvements and encouragement.

[1] Byron R. Merrill, “Agency and Freedom in the Divine Plan,” in Window of Faith: Latter-day Saint Perspectives on World History, ed. Roy A. Prete (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2005), 162.

[2] Neal A. Maxwell, “Free to Choose,” Brigham Young University devotional, March 16, 2004, https://speeches.byu.edu.

[3] David O. McKay, “Free Agency—The Gift Divine,” Improvement Era, February 1962, 86.

[4] Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity (Harvard University Press, 1989), 3–24, 25–52.

[5] “Quote Origin: Folks Are Usually About as Happy as They Make Up Their Minds to Be,” Quote Investigator, updated October 12, 2012, https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/10/20/happy-minds/.

[6] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (Simon & Schuster, 1996), 52–53.

[7] Elder D. Todd Christofferson, “Moral Agency,” Ensign, June 2009, 50.

[8] David A. Bednar, “Preguntas y Respuestas con Elder Bednar para JAS,” YouTube livestream, February 24, 2016, at 54 min., 3 sec., by Iglesia de Jesucristo, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P96APKw1EfQ.

[9] David A. Bednar, address given at seminar for new mission leaders, June 21, 2024, quoted in Sydney Walker, “Elder Bednar Explains How Moral Agency ‘Actuates Every Aspect of Our Missionary Purpose,’” Church News, June 21, 2024.

[10] See Dallin H. Oaks, “Free Agency and Freedom,” Brigham Young University devotional, October 11, 1987, https://speeches.byu.edu.

[11] David A. Bednar, “Things as They Really Are 2.0,” worldwide devotional for young adults, November 3, 2024, www.churchofjesuschrist.org.

[12] D. Todd Christofferson, “Moral Agency,” Brigham Young University devotional, January 31, 2006, https://speeches.byu.edu.

[13] See The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English, under “choose,” https://www.encyclopedia.com/literature-and-arts/language-linguistics-and-literary-terms/english-vocabulary-d/choose#choose.

[14] Joseph Smith, Discourse, 7 April 1844, as Published in Times and Seasons, 615, www.josephsmithpapers.org.

[15] Brigham Young, Remarks, October 10, 1866, as published in Deseret News, 355, https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/desnews2/id/35371.

[16] See Scott H. Faulring, Kent P. Jackson, and Robert J. Matthews, Joseph Smith’s New Translation of the Bible: Original Manuscripts (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2004), 618; and Kent P. Jackson, The Book of Moses and the Joseph Smith Translation Manuscripts (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University, 2005), 25.

[17] Terryl Givens, Wonder of Scripture Lecture, October 2024, Maxwell Institute Lecture Series: The Wonder of Scripture, https://mi.byu.edu/wonder-of-scripture.

[18] Daniel K Judd, “A Wonderful Flood of Light,” Brigham Young University devotional, December 7, 2004, https://speeches.byu.edu.

[19] Dale G. Renlund, “Choose You This Day,” Ensign, November 2018, 104.

[20] Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Your Potential, Your Privilege,” Ensign, May 2011, 58.

[21] Oaks, “Free Agency and Freedom.”

[22] Gordon B. Hinckley, “This Is the Work of the Master,” Ensign, May 1995, 71.

[23] Jeffrey R. Holland, “Place No More for the Enemy of My Soul,” Ensign, May 2010, 44.

[24] [3See Jeffrey R. Holland, “The Ministry of Angels,” Ensign, November 2008.

[25] Russell M. Nelson, “Confidence in the Presence of God,” Liahona, May 2025.

[26] Smith, Discourse, 7 April 1844, 615.

[27] Neal A. Maxwell, Deposition of a Disciple (Deseret Book, 1976), 68.

[28] James E. Faust, “The Forces That Will Save Us,” Ensign, January 2007, 6.

[29] Neal A. Maxwell, “According to the Desires of [Our] Hearts,” November 1996, 21.

[30] “Know This, That Every Soul Is Free,” Hymns, no. 240.

[31] Stephen E. Robinson, Believing Christ: The Parable of the Bicycle and Other Good News (Deseret Book, 1992), 126–27.

[32] Dallin H. Oaks, “Agency and Freedom,” in A Book of Mormon Treasury: Gospel Insights from General Authorities and Religious Educators (Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Deseret Book, 2003).

[33] “To the Point: Are There Things I Shouldn’t Pray About?,” For the Strength of Youth, April 2025.

[34] See Russell M. Nelson, “Revelation for the Church, Revelation for Our Lives,” Ensign, May 2018, 93–94.

[35] “Know This, That Every Soul Is Free,” Hymns, no. 240.

[36] William Shakespeare, Hamlet, ed. Barbara Mowat et al. (Folger Shakespeare Library, n.d.), 3.4.186–191, https://www.folger.edu/explore/shakespeares-works/hamlet/read/.

[37] Russell M. Nelson, “Let God Prevail,” Ensign, November 2020, 92–95.

[38] Neal A. Maxwell, “Swallowed Up in the Will of the Father,”Ensign, November 1995, 24.