Does the Church control?

[mercyngrace]

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.

Forced to go on a mission? No.

[erichard]

...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.

Really?

If you were the adversary, and was able to infiltrate the top leadership of the Lord's church, would you not then raise up in multitudes the proud and foolish that contradict the leadership so that the leadership you had a grip on looked good?

In other words, because there are proud and foolish who rile against the leadership that does not logically prove that the leaders do not have some problem. Right?

Richard

[erichard]

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.

Hi,

Do I believe that you should have the right to put your trust in the present LDS church leadership and sustain and follow them?

I certainly do.

And considering Nemelka and a host of others I think your choice to stay with the main body of the Saints is a good choice.

Nonetheless, let me ask you this.

What about members who believe the LDS church is the Lord's church and yet claim the right (based on scriptures) to not reject evidences of controversies over the present leadership of the church-- and the right to NOT sustain them and to seek to settle the controversies before doing so?

Do you believe such members should be automatically excommunicated? Or should they retain their membership (assuming they are not doing criminal or immoral things of course) and be allowed to seek to resolve these controversies, even by a D&C 107:81-84 type trial if necessary?

Richard

[Monster]

Forced to go on a mission? No.

Maybe not forced but coerced for sure. Not sure there is to much difference for a young person relying on adults to tell them what to do.

[Monster]

Forced to go on a mission? No.

Maybe not forced but coerced for sure. Not sure there is to much difference for a young person relying on adults to ell them what to do. When I went I simply felt I did not have a choice.

[mercyngrace]

Maybe not forced but coerced for sure. Not sure there is to much difference for a young person relying on adults to tell them what to do.

I know it's different for women but obviously, I didn't feel coerced in the slightest. All of my brothers were likewise excited to go. Coming from a community where just as many kids didn't go as did, I considered myself blessed to be able to afford it and privileged to be considered worthy.

It wasn't until long after I got back that I learned how dissatisfied a few others felt.

[LDSToronto]

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.

I'm not suggesting that we throw the baby out with the bathwater - there must be some commonality, of course. What I'm suggesting is that the commonality should be loose, formed around a core belief (Christ as God, Christ as Saviour, for example), and should eschew a culture of rule-following. If such a church wants rules, then have rules. But hardline stances and exclusive privileges for those who follow rules should be done away with.

H.

[LDSToronto]

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."

While salvation can only come through Christ, the idea that one must follow a set of rules as defined by the Church today to attain that salvation, and the idea that Christ would force anyone to come to a realization of who he is, is a notion that is not supported by his life and ministry.

J.R. Holland's statement is a perfect example of the type of control that the church attempts to exert upon it's membership.

H.

[Deborah]

the idea that Christ would force anyone to come to a realization of who he is, is a notion that is not supported by his life and ministry.

How is the church "forcing" anyone to do this?

[Deborah]

Threats of eternal damnation if you do not comply

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

Good grief. Threats??? Really? Control? There are rules which missionaries are made aware of before they go. The make the choice to abide by those rules.

It's amazing how people use words to put a negative connotation on something that others freely choose.

[Deborah]

What about members who believe the LDS church is the Lord's church and yet claim the right (based on scriptures) to not reject evidences of controversies over the present leadership of the church-- and the right to NOT sustain them and to seek to settle the controversies before doing so?

Based on your interpretation of the scriptures. When do you not have the right to sustain someone? Has anyone ever held your hands up?

It's ridiculous to talk about coercion, force, etc over something that is and always has been a free choice. What I don't understand is why those who speak so openly here care to belong to an organization they feel they have to tiptoe around.

[Deborah]

When people speak of young men feeling pressure to go on a mission they need to realize it's not The Church but individuals, primarily family members, who are doing this. The Church in fact raised it's standards so that only those who were prepared and wanted to serve would do so. The Church of course would like all young men to qualify.

Having said that I know many young men who felt they had to go find out what a great experience it was and how wise their parents were to want them to go. I know others who went on their missions very willingly and then came home early because they couldn't handle it or hadn't resolved some prior issues. It's individuals, not The Church.

Seriously some people need to get perspective.

[LDSToronto]

How is the church "forcing" anyone to do this?

The quote - "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess" refers to the final judgment of the Lord, and not to anything that we will do while on Earth.

I said, specifically, that Christ will not force anyone to come to a realization of who he is, or to worship him. What Holland does is makes an inferential leap - We can't pick and choose, only those who are 100% compliant will receive salvation, and you will have to tell Christ what you did In a way, Holland set's the Saviour up as a bogeyman, something to fear!

I doubt the Saviour would approve.

H.

[Duncan]

I don't think the Church per se but individuals within the Church can "force" or coerce or intimidate or whatever into people doing things, I think the phrase used is "unrighteous dominion" I had a Bishop and his wife years ago who were controlling, he gave advice to further his own ego as Elder Maxwell would say. Not much good came from that experience. I think in the mission field assertiveness is defined as disobedience but disobedience obviously, to me, also goes beyond just being assertive.

[Deborah]

What Holland does is makes an inferential leap - We can't pick and choose, only those who are 100% compliant will receive salvation, and you will have to tell Christ what you did In a way, Holland set's the Saviour up as a bogeyman, something to fear!

And yet it was the Savior himself who said in Matthew 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

I think that is pretty much in line with what E. Holland said.

[mercyngrace]

I'm not suggesting that we throw the baby out with the bathwater - there must be some commonality, of course. What I'm suggesting is that the commonality should be loose, formed around a core belief (Christ as God, Christ as Saviour, for example), and should eschew a culture of rule-following. If such a church wants rules, then have rules. But hardline stances and exclusive privileges for those who follow rules should be done away with.

H.

If there are no rules to break (no law) and there is no punishment (or reward) which corresponds to the rules, then there is no sin and thus no need for a Savior. (2 Ne. 2)

The absence of hardline stances and exclusive privileges (or denials of blessings) equals no need for redemption.

Heaven/Hell

Life/Death

Liberty/Captivity

These are all hardline stances.

[erichard]

Based on your interpretation of the scriptures. When do you not have the right to sustain someone? Has anyone ever held your hands up?

It's ridiculous to talk about coercion, force, etc over something that is and always has been a free choice. What I don't understand is why those who speak so openly here care to belong to an organization they feel they have to tiptoe around.

Hi,

My concern is not over the "right" to sustain the church leadership. I agree that members obviously have that right.

My concern is over the "right" to NOT sustain the church leadership. You did not respond to that concern.

If you agree that sustaining the leadership is truly "a free choice", then does it follows that you agree that given that choice a member should not be excommunicated for choosing to NOT sustain the present leadership?

What kind of "free choice" is it if someone is demonized if they make one of the two choices?

Deborah, I sincerely believe the D&C allows for legitimate controversies over even the President of the church. This is found in D&C 107:81-84. I use the word "controversy" because that is the word that these verses use.

My concern is that even though these verses allow for legitimate controversies over the President of the church-- if a member actually tries to claim the right to have such a controversy, they will simply be excommunicated.

I find that coersive. I find it the politics of men.

The church allows men who admit they are gay but abstain to remain members of the church.

Why cannot the church allow men who claim the right to have legitimate controversies over the President of the church (based on the scripture I gave) to remain members of the church?

Do you see my concern now?

Richard

[erichard]

Hi,

My concern is not over the "right" to sustain the church leadership. I agree that members obviously have that right.

My concern is over the "right" to NOT sustain the church leadership. You did not respond to that concern.

...

Deborah,

Even if you do not believe that D&C 107:81-84 allows for legitimate controversies over the church President (or one of his counselors), the very fact that two options are presented to members (all in favor, and then all opposed) should convince you that one should not be excommunicated for choosing one of the options offered them. Right?

"All in favor or sustaining President Monson raise your right hand. All opposed just go to the back and we will excommunicate you right now." Is that real choice?

You can read about D&C 107:81-84 on the church CES site here. It acknowledges: "The Church is so organized that no member or officer, from the President to the last member received, is ‘exempted from the justice and the laws of God.’"

Richard

[LDSToronto]

And yet it was the Savior himself who said in Matthew 7:14 "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

I think that is pretty much in line with what E. Holland said.

Doesn't this scripture refer to baptism, specifically, and the ordinances, generally? I don't think it means, "follow lot's of rules".

H.

[LDSToronto]

If there are no rules to break (no law) and there is no punishment (or reward) which corresponds to the rules, then there is no sin and thus no need for a Savior. (2 Ne. 2)

The absence of hardline stances and exclusive privileges (or denials of blessings) equals no need for redemption.

Adam and Eve's transgression made necessary the atonement. If they were the only two human beings to ever transgress, the atonement would still be necessary because they brought death to humankind. The atonement satisfies some universal law of justice that was broken by Adam and Eve.

What I'm getting at, in my previous post, is that the church insulates it's members from the atonement and the true love of Christ by setting up a system of rules - no coffee, pay tithing, no tattoos, don't wear flip-flops, serve a mission, etc - and a set of corresponding punitive actions - deny blessings, can't hold callings, excommunication, social shunning, etc. Members focus more on the immediate outcomes of breaking a rule and avoiding the consequence than they do focusing on how Christ, his love, and his atonement work in their lives.

H.

[mercyngrace]

I was just reading a post at staylds where a forum member was explaining that when he was HPGL, he would often visit members who said they didn't want contact from the church. He said that he would offer pen and paper on the spot, inviting them to jot a note requesting that contact cease. Most of the time, people wouldn't bother to write the note. His exact words:

You'd be surprised the number of people who refused to put the effort into writing the note!!! They WANTED the visits and membership to stop, but wouldn't take the 3 minutes it takes to write out the letter. It was as easy as cancelling phone service, yet they wouldn't put the effort into it.

So, when they tell me it's a cult, I laugh -- it's not that hard to really get out. As a leader, it was nightmare to get the truly disaffected to take that simple step to get out.

Keep in mind, these are the words of one who acknowledges his own issues with the church. This isn't a "TBM" being defensive.

Anyway, it reminded me of this thread.

[LDSToronto]

I was just reading a post at staylds where a forum member was explaining that when he was HPGL, he would often visit members who said they didn't want contact from the church. He said that he would offer pen and paper on the spot, inviting them to jot a note requesting that contact cease. Most of the time, people wouldn't bother to write the note. His exact words:

Keep in mind, these are the words of one who acknowledges his own issues with the church. This isn't a "TBM" being defensive.

Anyway, it reminded me of this thread.

I can't explain this phenomena, but I don't believe the HPGL's story. Writing a letter to have your name removed from the record of the Church is the only way that you can guarantee no further contact. Writing a letter requesting no more visits may last a year or so, until the letter is lost, or a well-meaning bishop decides that it's been long enough, and wants to check-in and offer a challenge to go to the temple, or some such thing.

My experience has been that people, once they have made the decision to leave, they leave. Most stay friendly, welcoming members for visits, asking the missionaries to stay away (though they keep trying), and on seldom occasion, attend church for a special event. Most wait many, many years before they remove their name, if ever, and the removal is usually the result of turnover in the ward - no one familiar is in the ward any longer, and the inactive member just has strangers coming to visit.

I wonder why this account made you think of this thread? It's a serious inquiry.

H.

[mercyngrace]

Members focus more on the immediate outcomes of breaking a rule and avoiding the consequence than they do focusing on how Christ, his love, and his atonement work in their lives.

H.

Mostly, I agree with your point - we should be focusing on the atonement and the love of God. There is a necessary progression from the schoolmaster (scripted lower law) to the higher law that prepares us to need, receive, and accept God's love.

Remember Jude points out that there are two kinds of people when it comes to our preaching of the gospel:

And of some have compassion, making a difference:

And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

So sometimes we focus on the love and other times on the consequences of turning away from God in order to meet the needs of our audience. As Elder Holland pointed out, we have to know when the message is for us. Jacob also delivered a sharp rebuke with regret for the tender-hearted listeners who deserved a more peaceful discourse but the fact remains that some still need strictness.

IMO, if individual members focus more on rule-breaking, box-checking, and superficial consequences, that shows they are still in need of the spiritual training wheels of a scripted law. Once they experience the love of God, their priorities will change.

[mercyngrace]

I wonder why this account made you think of this thread? It's a serious inquiry.

H.

Because of comments earlier in the thread about the "controlling" nature of the church. I've read opinions of disaffected LDS and former members who describe this "control" as "cultish". Rather ironic that you can skip church for years, not pay tithing, break the WOW, etc, and the "cult" comes after you with a guy who then offers you pen and paper to write a do-not-contact letter. LOL. And that's only if you're (un)lucky. Most people simply fall through the cracks and don't even get bothered by a visit.

I'm not sure why you find the story unbelievable. My dad is doing another stint as HPGL and he does the same thing. He tells people exactly how to remove their names from the rolls and has encountered a number of people who were angry enough to be nasty on the doorstep but too apathetic to write a simple letter.

[LDSToronto]

Because of comments earlier in the thread about the "controlling" nature of the church. I've read opinions of disaffected LDS and former members who describe this "control" as "cultish". Rather ironic that you can skip church for years, not pay tithing, break the WOW, etc, and the "cult" comes after you with a guy who then offers you pen and paper to write a do-not-contact letter. LOL. And that's only if you're (un)lucky. Most people simply fall through the cracks and don't even get bothered by a visit.

I'm not sure why you find the story unbelievable. My dad is doing another stint as HPGL and he does the same thing. He tells people exactly how to remove their names from the rolls and has encountered a number of people who were angry enough to be nasty on the doorstep but too apathetic to write a simple letter.

Fair enough. The only reason I found the story unbelievable is because there is not a "Do Not Contact" switch on the membership record. It's up to the ward council to somehow maintain a separate record of members who shouldn't be contacted. Even then, my experience is that visiting General Authorities frown on this practice and usually ask for it to stop. They reason that an inactive member's life changes year to year, and some may not come back out of embarrassment for writing such a letter, while secretly pining to return. Personally, I've never seen anyone who secretly wanted to come back (I'm not saying it doesn't happen).

I'm also a little wary of ex-mo stories. I've got a pretty good view of how the church operates behind the scenes, and so when I hear stories that don't mesh with the inner workings, I tend to be a little skeptical. Of course, every skeptic is wrong now and then.

H.