As for blind obedience, the concept of authority always requires blind obedience in some sense, because as an analytic matter authority is offered as an exclusionary reason. In this sense, authority is analogous to promising. Normally, I am free to do X based on my all things considered decision of whether X is a good idea. However, when I promise to do X, the promise acts as a reason for excluding my all things considered judgements. (Note, my point here is analytic rather than substantive; I am talking about how the concept of promising works, not whether promise keeping is justified in particular cases.) Authority is similarlly exclusionary. (Again, the point is analytic not substantive. Note also that the analogy goes only to the question of how promisory and authoritative reasons function, not to their genesis. Distinguishing promises as voluntary misses the analytic point.)

This does not mean that any particular authority is justified, but it does mean that authority operates as a reason for rejecting our otherwise all-things-considered best choices.

It seems to me that you could be making one of two claims: (1) The practical authority of LDS leaders is not justified (or not justified to the extent implied by some); or, (2) the concept of authority is itself mistaken. These are perfectly respectable positions to take, but it seems a bit rich to suggest that those who disagree lack any concept of morality.

I imagine that everyone here believes the Church leaders have resilient conceptions of morality. They have simply chosen to define agency and conscience in terms of our relationship to God and the church and not in terms of our relationship to ourselves and others.

I would also suggest you’re creating a straw man, but in a different way.

Your argument is that because the article does not use the word “morality” it is not advocating the use the use of agency in terms of moral law, but of institutional law. You then go into a lengthy aside on the issue of moral law vs. institutional law, none of which has anything to do with agency and none of which has anything to do with the article presented.

The straw man that Nate correctly points out is yet another straw man within your first straw man.

I should also point out that agency is free by definition and that the term “free agency” is redundant. For some reason, the word has become popular in Mormon culture – I think some early prophets created the term by mistakenly blending the terms “free will” and “agency” into one term and that the phrase simply stuck within Mormon culture. You may notice that, in the Wiki, free agency is defined as an exclusively Mormon concept – while, of course, agency is not.

I would recommend the article on Agency in the Enclycopedia of Mormonism – an article that agrees with the TTTF passage while explaining the concept in greater depth.

You seem to suggest that the two don’t agree. I would contend that not only do LDS agency and traditional free will fully agree, but that they are virtually synonymous. I would be interested in hearing how they differ, but then, I have not yet taken the time to go through all the many lengthy discussions on agency that have occurred in the ‘nacle in the last year, so maybe this is old hat.

I believe there is substantial truth to that. We somtimes put limitations on ourselves or are blind to our poor choices that lead to lack of happiness. I’m not discounting that external forces can play a role, but our choices are important. (eg. I hate my job–am I willing to work for a better one? My spouse and I fight a lot–am I too eager to be right?)

As you pointed out, TTTF seems to be geared toward the youth. Teenagers are master excuse-makers, a talent that can be hard to shed.

Of course not too long ago the term “free agency” was used unapologeticly by our leaders. Here is an example of Pres. Hinckley using it old-school-style in 1995.

I am happy to report that the term “free agency” is also used liberally in quotes in the David O. McKay manual and has not been redacted out, although the term “agency” is preferred in places like chapter titles, captions, and introductions.

Just calling it “proper” authority doesn’t take away the moral dimension of one’s choice or action. It’s not like Isaiah would have said, “Oh, I forgot those are duly ordained priests officiating over the religious affairs of Israel; just ignore my earlier moral critique and do what they say.” Authority is not exclusionary in any sense related to morality. If anything, authority is contingent on its accordance with morality: “Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man” for those who attempt to exercise “dominion or compulsion” with “any degree of unrighteousness” is a familiar LDS formulation that expresses the point with admirable parsimony. [Not that I'm appealing to authority to make my point ...]

Eric, I put in headings to help readers notice section breaks. I thought it was pretty clear by context that the first section discusses the three articles I linked to in the first section, while the second section discusses an issue that seems to present itself to a careful reader of the TTTF articles (or at least to me). What exactly do you take to be the reason “free agency” was discarded in favor of just “agency” in current LDS discourse?

But I’ve noticed that President Hinckley and Faust have used “free agency” in General Conference in the last few years.

I have gone through or hosted many of those discussions on free will and agency and I am also of the opinion that libertarian free will and free agency and agency are all synonomous. Jeffrey likes to try to separate the meanings in an effort to defend his idea that we are all actually causally determined (and thus we do not actually have libertarian free will). But as far as I can tell he is the only Mormon on the planet that believes this… (but men are free to choose what to believe after all)