Does the Church control?

[dirtius maximus]

Some one told me that the LDS Church attempts to control, when I asked what they meant by control, I was told "If you have to ask you wouldn't understand". What I can understand is that all things are done in wisdom and order. I have the Priesthood, but that does not mean I can go outside and baptize to my hearts content, there are proper channels/chains of command; I suppose these channels could be control. There are "worthiness" standards for the LDS. But even in the Old Testament, there were standards, and there are standards in the New Testament. So I guess it is true, If I had to ask I wouldn't understand. Has anyone else encountered similar statements about "control"?

[CV75]

Has anyone else encountered similar statements about "control"?

Yes--the false accusation that, as a cult, it exists to benefit a few leaders by controlling the membership through commandments, covenants, priesthood structure, and other cult techniques.

[erichard]

... I have the Priesthood, but that does not mean I can go outside and baptize to my hearts content, there are proper channels/chains of command; I suppose these channels could be control. ...

Hi,

I am not one to argue, but I am one who does view a very subtle, but still coercive spirit among the LDS leadership.

The argument that there must be channels of authority is certainly correct. Otherwise there would be chaos.

But there should also be room for real legitimate dissent over even the President of the church, and room for such a controversy to be settled without simply casting members out of the church.

You might read this.

Richard

[CV75]

But there should also be room for real legitimate dissent over even the President of the church, and room for such a controversy to be settled without simply casting members out of the church.

The type of controversy to be addressed from D&C 107 has to do with the charge of a leader's transgression, not with a disagreement over his revelations, policies or views, or dissension from sustaining him or his revelations, policies or views. Dissension is also a matter of degree, and once it becomes apostasy, rightfully leads to a loss of membership.

[Doctrine 612]

I think that comment may come from people who know members that dont do anything with out first asking the bishop, I say Stop asking me if it is ok to buy a tv, new chair, and new car. I dont care what you do with your money or family as long as it is what the Lord wants.

[erichard]

The type of controversy to be addressed from D&C 107 has to do with the charge of a leader's transgression, not with a disagreement over his revelations, policies or views, or dissension from sustaining him or his revelations, policies or views. Dissension is also a matter of degree, and once it becomes apostasy, rightfully leads to a loss of membership.

I agree.

A D&C 107:81-84 trial over the President of the church before a common judge (a bishop) will not resolve spiritual issues, only temporal issues.

For instance, if there had been a trial over President Young because of the controversy of his Adam-God teachings, such a trial would not have resolved whether his teaching were correct or not, it would simply resolve if his claim that Adam-God was revealed to him was correct or not. A bishop is given discernment to know if any manifestation is of God or not.

And unto the bishop of the church, and unto such as God shall appoint and ordain to watch over the church and to be elders unto the church, are to have it given unto them to discern all those gifts lest there shall be any among you professing and yet be not of God. D&C 46:27

Notice that JST Mark 9 clearly shows that "every man" is responsible to stand or fall for himself. It specifically includes the "eye of the body" (the church Prophet) as one who can fall. Thus, every man is responsible to consider if there is any problem with the church Prophet and his claims.

40 Therefore, if thy hand offend thee, cut it off; or if thy brother offend thee and confess not and forsake not, he shall be cut off. It is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands, to go into hell.

41 For it is better for thee to enter into life without thy brother, than for thee and thy brother to be cast into hell; into the fire that never shall be quenched, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

42 And again, if thy foot offend thee, cut it off; for he that is thy standard, by whom thou walkest, if he become a transgressor, he shall be cut off.

43 It is better for thee, to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell; into the fire that never shall be quenched.

44 Therefore, let every man stand or fall, by himself, and not for another; or not trusting another.

45 Seek unto my Father, and it shall be done in that very moment what ye shall ask, if ye ask in faith, believing that ye shall receive.

46 And if thine eye which seeth for thee, him that is appointed to watch over thee to show thee light, become a transgressor and offend thee, pluck him out.

47 It is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God, with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. JST Mark 9

Richard

[CV75]

Thus, every man is responsible to consider if there is any problem with the church Prophet and his claims.

Not only unto the bishop of the church, but “unto such as God shall appoint and ordain to watch over the church and to be elders unto the church, are to have it given unto them to discern all those gifts lest there shall be any among you professing and yet be not of God.” This allows for change in the particulars of administration through the delegation of the keys of the kingdom by those at its head, and ultimately by Christ at its head. For the President of the High Priesthood, as for any member, to become “a transgressor and offend” he must reject the prophets (D&C 138:32), or violate the sacred oaths and covenants of baptism, priesthood or temple (D&C 51:4). He must do worse than simply offend someone by virtue of his revelations, policies or views, regardless of what one assesses to be their source, influence or veracity. The process and participants addressing such transgression is described in D&C 102 and 107.

Being offended by revelations, policies or views (regardless of their perceived error) does not justify one charging the prophet with transgression (D&C 121:16, 17). Christ is ultimately at the head and every man must align or stand with Christ, for himself. This includes rising above being offended by things that are not transgressions, which is the insight provided by JST Mark 9.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Some one told me that the LDS Church attempts to control, when I asked what they meant by control, I was told "If you have to ask you wouldn't understand". What I can understand is that all things are done in wisdom and order. I have the Priesthood, but that does not mean I can go outside and baptize to my hearts content, there are proper channels/chains of command; I suppose these channels could be control. There are "worthiness" standards for the LDS. But even in the Old Testament, there were standards, and there are standards in the New Testament. So I guess it is true, If I had to ask I wouldn't understand. Has anyone else encountered similar statements about "control"?

Of course the Church 'controls", it has standards of conduct that are required of it's membership, these standards are established by Jesus Christ.

Look at reality everyone is controlled by something, I am controlled by Jesus Christ and his restored Church, and I am proud of it.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The leaders of the LDS Church don't attempt to control anyone. They teach what they believe are certain obligations of believers that, if observed, gain them access to higher blessings. But they obligate no man to do anything. If you think they are wrong you are under no obligation to obey their counsel. If you are right God will consecrate it for your gain, if you are wrong you pay the consequence.

[erichard]

...Christ is ultimately at the head and every man must align or stand with Christ, for himself. ...

Right.

Christ has said that the Saints will be tried in ALL things. (D&C 136:31) That could clearly include serious problems with even the President of the church.

Mormon 8 warns that eventually the Gentiles will pollute the Holy Church of God. Because of this it is predicted that in the latter-days there will be an important SHIFT in which the Lord turns against the Gentiles because of all their pollutions and begins the literal restoration of the Twelve tribes of Israel-- restoring all their former blessings. (3 Nephi 16:7-13)

It sounds like a time will come like Heber C Kimball warned of:

Yes, we think we are secure here in the chambers of the everlasting hills, where we can cloes those few doors of the canyons against mobs and persecutors, the wicked and the vile, who have always beset us with violence and robbery, but I want to say to you, my brethren, the time is coming when we will be mixed up in these now peaceful valleys to the extent that it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy to the people of God. Then, brethren, look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great sifting time, and many will fall; for I say unto you there is a TEST, a TEST, a TEST coming, and who will be able to stand?

Orson F. Whitney, Life of Heber C. Kimball, pp. 446-7

So I think it is a serious mistake to be at ease in Zion thinking Christ would never allow His Gentile church leaders to ever lead us astray. We are on earth to be tested.

Richard

[TAO]

From what I understand.... God will only let his church go in worst case scenario I believe... total apostasy. Not a good thing... but no, a thing that has not happened yet, I think. No, I don't think it will happen... though the times may be pressing harder, soon, I suspect. But nah, I do not think it will happen. The prophets and apostles we have right now are really good... and it will take alot to turn things in a bad direction. Of course, the world can do that... but I don't think it will be 'easy' for things to change in a bad direction, if they were to at all. I am cautious, but also wary of over-caution, so to say XD.

[bookofmormontruth]

Right.

Christ has said that the Saints will be tried in ALL things. (D&C 136:31) That could clearly include serious problems with even the President of the church.

Mormon 8 warns that eventually the Gentiles will pollute the Holy Church of God. Because of this it is predicted that in the latter-days there will be an important SHIFT in which the Lord turns against the Gentiles because of all their pollutions and begins the literal restoration of the Twelve tribes of Israel-- restoring all their former blessings. (3 Nephi 16:7-13)

It sounds like a time will come like Heber C Kimball warned of:

So I think it is a serious mistake to be at ease in Zion thinking Christ would never allow His Gentile church leaders to ever lead us astray. We are on earth to be tested.

Richard

I believe it is a bigger mistake to start believing the Lord's anointed are leading us astray. This belief leads an individual right out of the Lord's Church, not the other way around with the Lord's anointed. And IMO, the Lord would remove that leader out of the Church before He lets His Church go astray. There is no time for another apostasy, but plenty of time for people to weed themselves right out of the Lord's Church and for some of the "elect" to fall away.

[Calm]

The problem with the claims of "control" in my experience is that if they are willing to get specific enough (and how in the world is asking for specifics evidence of not being able to understand? what an example of someone who doesn't want to put any work into his criticisms), they usually refer to claims of how cults control their members and point to similar actions done by the LDS Church. Unfortunately for that procedure, most---if not all---of the similarities actually used can be found in most organizations of any degree centralization or complexity. What they are trying to do is demonstrate guilt by association by claiming that because the LDS Church has some similarities to cults, it must be a cult, but the reality is that in the LDS Church does not use the more extreme methods of isolation, etc. At best one could make a minimal argument that missionary life is close to the cult indoctrination methods, but even there the isolation is not enough to qualify in my opinion with missionaries having pretty much constant contact with outsiders, including those who will challenge their claims. Of course, once a missionary comes home, that level of control is no longer in force and IIRC the studies show that cult indoctrination tends to fade quickly after the person is removed from that environment so even with that argument, the Church's "control" is too limited to meet the 'cult' standard.

The other form of commonly used arguments in my experience for "control" are based on family dynamics and will vary from family to family within the Church as well as without. Unless they can demonstrate that a certain form of family conformity is more common in the Church than in the general population, this demonstrates nothing beyond that we have flawed families within our ranks....something no church leader or member that I know has ever denied.

So summarizing my ideas on this...one can define "control" in such a way that even the most trivial type of peer pressure or parental discipline stands as evidence for the Church's controlling its members' lives. Therefore any useful conversation about "control" needs to be specific in not only defining what "control" means, but providing not only anecdotal examples, but evidence that this is church policy or statistics that such is more common among the Church membership than similar demographic groups not of the same faith (thus demonstrating at least a correlation between membership and controlled or controlling behaviour, if not a causal one).

[CV75]

So I think it is a serious mistake to be at ease in Zion thinking Christ would never allow His Gentile church leaders to ever lead us astray. We are on earth to be tested.

No one should give up following 2 Nephi 32:3, which is a far cry from either being at ease in Zion or looking for fault in its leaders, or expecting the day to come that its leaders as a quorum will indeed fall.

Mormon 8 refers to the apostate churches in the time of the restoration, not the fall of the Restored Church. This would include apostate offshoots of the Restored Church that claim authenticity over the original body. Of course such offshoots will cry foul against the Church and use scripture to support their position.

The "TEST, a TEST, a TEST" has been going on for years, but it is not imposed upon the membership by way of apostasy of the Church's highest quorums, according to the assertions found in the link you provided, which, incidentally, is notably coercive in getting its point across.

[mercyngrace]

Some one told me that the LDS Church attempts to control, when I asked what they meant by control, I was told "If you have to ask you wouldn't understand". What I can understand is that all things are done in wisdom and order. I have the Priesthood, but that does not mean I can go outside and baptize to my hearts content, there are proper channels/chains of command; I suppose these channels could be control. There are "worthiness" standards for the LDS. But even in the Old Testament, there were standards, and there are standards in the New Testament. So I guess it is true, If I had to ask I wouldn't understand. Has anyone else encountered similar statements about "control"?

This is an claim I've read online, usually made by disaffected, disappointed, and former members. I have never heard it in real life and it isn't something I can relate to because:

- no one has ever come to my home asking for money or demanding moral compliance

- I choose for myself whether I attend church meetings and activities, attend the temple, or sign up for tithing settlement

- I decide whether or not I am worthy to enter the temple

- I decide whether or not I am a full tithe-payer

- I decide the extent of my church service

- I decide whether to visit or home teach and whether to receive visiting or home teachers

etc...

Basically, the church only "controls" my participation in the sense that a rulebook and referee define the parameters of a basketball game. If you are going to play, you are expected to play by the rules. But no one is forcing you to play. And this isn't even the only game in town.

[LDSToronto]

This is an claim I've read online, usually made by disaffected, disappointed, and former members. I have never heard it in real life and it isn't something I can relate to because:

- no one has ever come to my home asking for money or demanding moral compliance

- I choose for myself whether I attend church meetings and activities, attend the temple, or sign up for tithing settlement

- I decide whether or not I am worthy to enter the temple

- I decide whether or not I am a full tithe-payer

- I decide the extent of my church service

- I decide whether to visit or home teach and whether to receive visiting or home teachers

etc...

Basically, the church only "controls" my participation in the sense that a rulebook and referee define the parameters of a basketball game. If you are going to play, you are expected to play by the rules. But no one is forcing you to play. And this isn't even the only game in town.

This is a narrow definition of 'control'; I've not heard of anyone physically strong-armed into paying tithing or into doing hometeaching, either. However, there is an expectation of compliance within the church. One can lose a temple recommend if tithing isn't paid. One can face charges of apostasy if they express public views that are critical of the church. There is pressure to comply to rules and official teachings at every turn, with consequences for everything from not doing hometeaching (you are derelict in priesthood duty) to not paying tithing (you are unworthy to attend the temple) to not agreeing with the brethren (you may be excommunicated).

I think 'control' is a poorly chosen word, but I do think 'expectation of compliance' sums it up fairly well.

H.

[mercyngrace]

This is a narrow definition of 'control'; I've not heard of anyone physically strong-armed into paying tithing or into doing hometeaching, either. However, there is an expectation of compliance within the church. One can lose a temple recommend if tithing isn't paid. One can face charges of apostasy if they express public views that are critical of the church. There is pressure to comply to rules and official teachings at every turn, with consequences for everything from not doing hometeaching (you are derelict in priesthood duty) to not paying tithing (you are unworthy to attend the temple) to not agreeing with the brethren (you may be excommunicated).

I think 'control' is a poorly chosen word, but I do think 'expectation of compliance' sums it up fairly well.

H.

I agree that control is a poor word choice. Of course there is an expectation of compliance but no one is forcing you to believe, attend, or anything like that. I think the sports team analogy I used earlier continues to apply. If you don't want to play by the rules and don't care about wearing the jersey, so what if you get kicked off the team or benched?

Yes - there are many people in the church who try to push people into "compliance" rather than inspiring them to want to comply. No one likes getting fussed at for not doing their home teaching every week in Priesthood, for example, I get that. But again, you still choose your response to those people who are out of bounds or who lack the level of Christlike love to inspire compliance without compulsion.

[LDSToronto]

I agree that control is a poor word choice. Of course there is an expectation of compliance but no one is forcing you to believe, attend, or anything like that. I think the sports team analogy I used earlier continues to apply. If you don't want to play by the rules and don't care about wearing the jersey, so what if you get kicked off the team or benched?

Yes - there are many people in the church who try to push people into "compliance" rather than inspiring them to want to comply. No one likes getting fussed at for not doing their home teaching every week in Priesthood, for example, I get that. But again, you still choose your response to those people who are out of bounds or who lack the level of Christlike love to inspire compliance without compulsion.

I feel as though a church should be nothing like a sports team or a game with defined rules and expectations to play within those rules, and penalties if one does not play by the rules. I can't really think of an apt analogy other than a church should be like a....church. When a church attempts to exert any type of compliance upon it's members, rather than just focusing on the love and sacrifice of deity, it becomes something less, something exclusive. Churches, in my opinion, can't be exclusive.

H.

[frankenstein]

When a church attempts to exert any type of compliance upon it's members, rather than just focusing on the love and sacrifice of deity, it becomes something less, something exclusive. Churches, in my opinion, can't be exclusive.

H.

is Heaven exclusive? is there a Hell - a metaphorical lake of fire and brimestone where the non-complaint will dwell?

I understand you point about expectations of compliance.

[mercyngrace]

I feel as though a church should be nothing like a sports team or a game with defined rules and expectations to play within those rules, and penalties if one does not play by the rules. I can't really think of an apt analogy other than a church should be like a....church. When a church attempts to exert any type of compliance upon it's members, rather than just focusing on the love and sacrifice of deity, it becomes something less, something exclusive. Churches, in my opinion, can't be exclusive.

H.

The analogy wasn't to show what a church "should" be like rather what any institution by nature is. Even the loosest body of believers must share some commonalities and belonging is measured by compliance. (Even if compliance is mrely a belief in Christ)

I don't know how you can eliminate that without a complete disintegration of the institution.

[Nathair/|\]

I find this tool rather useful.

The Advanced Bonewits’ Cult Danger Evaluation Frame

(version 2.6)

Factors: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Low High

1Internal Control: Amount of internal political and social power exercised by leader(s) over members; lack of clearly defined organizational rights for members.1_________________________

2External Control: Amount of external political and social influence desired or obtained; emphasis on directing members’ external political and social behavior.2_________________________

3Wisdom/Knowledge Claimed by leader(s); amount of infallibility declared or implied about decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations; number and degree of unverified and/or unverifiable credentials claimed.3_________________________

4Wisdom/Knowledge Credited to leader(s) by members; amount of trust in decisions or doctrinal/scriptural interpretations made by leader(s); amount of hostility by members towards internal or external critics and/or towards verification efforts.4_________________________

5Dogma: Rigidity of reality concepts taught; amount of doctrinal inflexibility or “fundamentalism;” hostility towards relativism and situationalism.5_________________________

6Recruiting: Emphasis put on attracting new members; amount of proselytizing; requirement for all members to bring in new ones.6_________________________

7Front Groups: Number of subsidiary groups using different names from that of main group, especially when connections are hidden.7_________________________

8Wealth: Amount of money and/or property desired or obtained by group; emphasis on members’ donations; economic lifestyle of leader(s) compared to ordinary members.8_________________________

9Sexual Manipulation of members by leader(s) of non-tantric groups; amount of control exercised over sexuality of members in terms of sexual orientation, behavior, and/or choice of partners.9_________________________

10Sexual Favoritism: Advancement or preferential treatment dependent upon sexual activity with the leader(s) of non-tantric groups.10_________________________

11Censorship: Amount of control over members’ access to outside opinions on group, its doctrines or leader(s).11_________________________

12Isolation: Amount of effort to keep members from communicating with non-members, including family, friends and lovers.12_________________________

13Dropout Control: Intensity of efforts directed at preventing or returning dropouts.13_________________________

14Violence: Amount of approval when used by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s).14_________________________

15Paranoia: Amount of fear concerning real or imagined enemies; exaggeration of perceived power of opponents; prevalence of conspiracy theories.15_________________________

16Grimness: Amount of disapproval concerning jokes about the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).16_________________________

17Surrender of Will: Amount of emphasis on members not having to be responsible for personal decisions; degree of individual disempowerment created by the group, its doctrines or its leader(s).17_________________________

18Hypocrisy: amount of approval for actions which the group officially considers immoral or unethical, when done by or for the group, its doctrines or leader(s); willingness to violate the group’s declared principles for political, psychological, social, economic, military, or other gain.18_________________________

http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html

[Questing Beast]

... I've not heard of anyone physically strong-armed into paying tithing or into doing hometeaching, either. However, there is an expectation of compliance within the church. One can lose a temple recommend if tithing isn't paid. One can face charges of apostasy if they express public views that are critical of the church. There is pressure to comply to rules and official teachings at every turn, with consequences for everything from not doing hometeaching (you are derelict in priesthood duty) to not paying tithing (you are unworthy to attend the temple) to not agreeing with the brethren (you may be excommunicated).

I think 'control' is a poorly chosen word, but I do think 'expectation of compliance' sums it up fairly well.

H.

I think that "control" is a completely appropriate word. There are stronger terms for defining cultism. Coercion, compulsion, force, for instance. "Control" is a fairly benign word.

There is nothing unreasonable about any religion exercising control over its membership. We have thousands of Christian denominations. Each has its own modus operandi. Anyone not enjoying that can leave, or, if they are being stinkers about their lack of joy, they can be told to leave. I would be mystified if religions were expected to continue without being able to establish and enforce their own set of rules. As long as said-rules do not break the law or infringe on civil rights there should be no objection to what any religion demands of its membership....

[Deborah]

I feel as though a church should be nothing like a sports team or a game with defined rules and expectations to play within those rules, and penalties if one does not play by the rules.

Really? To borrow from Scott Lloyd's thread on favorite quotes from Conference and Elder Holland's talk:

"Clearly anyone who thinks Jesus taught no-fault theology didn't read the fine print in the contract! No, in matters of discipleship the Church is not a fast-food outlet; we can't always have it 'our way.' Some day every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ and that salvation can only come His way."

[Deborah]

So I think it is a serious mistake to be at ease in Zion thinking Christ would never allow His Gentile church leaders to ever lead us astray. We are on earth to be tested.

It's a serious mistake to think that the leaders at the head of Christ's church today are leading us astray because you don't like what they teach. Being at ease in Zion has to do with not heeding what the Prophet and Apostles say, not in thinking they are leading us astray.

[Monster]

Here is an example of control. Missionaries!!

Told were to go

Told what to wear

Told what to read

Told where to live

Told how to act

No movies

No contact with the opposite sex

No TV

No intimate contact with family

No use of your first name

Threats of eternal damnation if you do not comply

If that is not control please explain to me what is.