Church Finances---official source

[stemelbow]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, admission to the temple is an entirely voluntary thing.  And the Church doesn't hide the requirements.  

If I want to go see a movie, I pay for the ticket.  The movie theater is not "coercing" me into buying the ticket.

But it's not coercive.  It's a farcicle claim to suggest that it is.  I do not say this lightly.  It's a farcicle claim.

Non-sequitur.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I'm with HappyJack, analytics and others here.  It simply doesn't make sense to not call the warnings of not paying tithing threats.  They are.  That is the definition of threat--if you don't do this, I will cause this damage to you.  The Church in speaking for God has done this all the time as it pertains to paying tithing.  The use of threats in this way is coercion.  That again is the definition of coercion--offering threats for doing or not doing something.  I think the issue is here to some the Church is just repeating God's threats.  To others the Church is being presumptuous.  Either way, it is still threat and coercion.  Denying that while comparing it to people who pay to see a movie is just silly.  

I've said my piece on this.  This type of thing happens all too often around here and it gets pretty absurd. Talk about a farcical claim, smac.   

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, admission to the temple is an entirely voluntary thing.  And the Church doesn't hide the requirements.  

If I want to go see a movie, I pay for the ticket.  The movie theater is not "coercing" me into buying the ticket.

But it's not coercive.  It's a farcicle claim to suggest that it is.  I do not say this lightly.  It's a farcicle claim.

Non-sequitur.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I like the analogy used earlier about paying protection money. It's totally voluntary for you to pay the money or not, but if you don't, there will be consequences so its cheaper just to pay. The fact that someone who requests protection money doesn't hide the requirements doesn't make it any less coercive.

So we pay for a ticket to religious rites that endow us with salvation. I think you're making my point for me. No I don't have to buy the ticket but if I don't I'm damned AND I won't be permitted to engage in meaningful family events like a wedding.

Regarding your argument about movie theaters and colleges- they are selling a product. Are you arguing that the church is selling  a product for which it should be compensated? Of so, what is that product? Salvation? Temple recommends? I seriously doubt that's the argument you want to make.

We disagree. I don't see that changing

Edited May 24, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[Steve-o]

12 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm with HappyJack, analytics and others here.  It simply doesn't make sense to not call the warnings of not paying tithing threats.  They are.  That is the definition of threat--if you don't do this, I will cause this damage to you.  The Church in speaking for God has done this all the time as it pertains to paying tithing.  The use of threats in this way is coercion.  That again is the definition of coercion--offering threats for doing or not doing something.  I think the issue is here to some the Church is just repeating God's threats.  To others the Church is being presumptuous.  Either way, it is still threat and coercion.  Denying that while comparing it to people who pay to see a movie is just silly.    

Whether someone wants to label it as coercion or not it is clear that if you don't pay tithing there will be a cost. Coercion / encouragement are different sides of the same coin.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

Who actually the money belongs to is not the point. The point is accountability by those who manage it. I expect those same LDS who do not consider the tithing money to be theirs, also do not believe it belongs to the men who actually control it either. If we are willing to concede that those men are imperfect then it is reasonable to ask them to account for what they do with the money.

It kind of is the point though.  If the money isn't your's, it doesn't matter who manages it or how transparent they are.  You wouldn't think it was appropriate to demand transparency for someone else's money, regardless of who managed it, would you?

I get why some people want transparency, but acting like the transparency we want with our own money means something in regards to transparency with someone else's money doesn't make a lot of sense.  Wanting transparency from the people who manage our money is a completely different issue than wanting transparency from the people who manage someone else's money.

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Duncan said:

can I have tithing settlement on your boat?🤣 we can talk as we sail off to sunny Acapulco!

You have a good memory.  Unfortunately, I am sailing in the Mediterranean this summer.  That is why my posts are at such odd hours.

[SteveO]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

You have a good memory.  Unfortunately, I am sailing in the Mediterranean this summer.  That is why my posts are at such odd hours.

Wait a minute...are you sailing to Greece by any chance?  And have you ever sailed by Bora Bora?  I may know you or someone you know without realizing it...

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

You have a good memory.  Unfortunately, I am sailing in the Mediterranean this summer.  That is why my posts are at such odd hours.

oh that's okay!!! I like Greek food too!

[smac97]

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I like the analogy used earlier about paying protection money.

Right.  Nothing beats analogizing Jesus Christ to a mafia don.

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's totally voluntary for you to pay the money or not,

Actually no, it's not.  The mob inflicts unlawful punishment on the individual who fails to capitulate to illegal demands for "protection money."

It is astounding that you are comparing Jesus Christ to mobsters.  

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

but if you don't, there will be consequences so its cheaper just to pay.

But the "consequences" are unlawful and wrong and unjust, and are inflicted by criminals.

So Jesus Christ is, in your view, comparable to a criminal who threatens to murder someone unless they pay "protection money."

Astounding.

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The fact that someone who requests protection money doesn't hide the requirements doesn't make it any less coercive.

Right.  Because the criminal is not entitled to make such demands.  And because the demand itself is unlawful and unjust.

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So we pay for a ticket to religious rites that endow us with salvation.

We obey commandments.  "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven"  (Matthew 7:21).  "I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise" (D&C 82:10).

It's a choice.  If we obey, we receive blessings.  If we don't, we do not receive all of the blessings available to us.  But even the most depraved and wicked of us will be given a kingdom, the glory of which "surpasses all understanding (D&C 76:89).

And the author of all of this, Jesus Christ, is - in your view - the moral equivalent of a mafia thug who threatens to murder someone unless they pay "protection money."

The mind reels.

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I think you're making my point for me. No I don't have to buy the ticket but if I don't I'm damned AND I won't be permitted to engage in meaningful family events like a wedding.

So you are proposing what, that you get into the movie for free?  Seriously?

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Regarding your argument about movie theaters and colleges- they are selling a product. Are you arguing that the church is selling  a product for which it should be compensated?

No.  These are comparisons.  From the verb "compare," meaning "to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences."

So I am comparing or analogizing two otherwise dissimilar things.

11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of so, what is that product? Salvation? Temple recommends? I seriously doubt that's the argument you want to make.

The concept is obedience.  The concept is that obedience brings blessings.  If you want to call that a "transaction," I guess you could.  

I think Stephen Robinson's "Parable of the Bicycle" is useful:

Quote

As my wife and I talked that night about feelings of inadequacy, I groped for some way to help. I finally remembered something that had happened a couple of months earlier. In our home it is now called the parable of the bicycle.

I was sitting in a chair reading. My daughter, Sarah, who was seven years old at the time, came in and said, “Dad, can I have a bike? I’m the only kid on the block who doesn’t have one.”

Well, I didn’t have the money then for a bike, so I stalled her. I said, “Sure, Sarah.”

She said, “How? When?”

I said, “You save all your pennies, and soon you’ll have enough for a bike.” And she went away.

A couple ofs weeks later I was sitting in the same chair when I heard a “clink, clink” in Sarah’s bedroom. I asked, “Sarah, what are you doing?”

She came to me with a little jar, a slit cut in the lid, and a bunch of pennies in the bottom. She said, “You promised me that if I saved all my pennies, pretty soon I’d have enough for a bike. And, Daddy, I’ve saved every single one of them.”

My heart melted. My daughter was doing everything in her power to follow my instructions. I hadn’t actually lied to her. If she saved all of her pennies, she would eventually have enough for a bike, but by then she would want a car. I said, “Let’s go look at bikes.”

We went to every store in town. Finally we found it—the perfect bicycle. She was thrilled. Then she saw the price tag, and her face fell. She started to cry. “Oh, Dad, I’ll never have enough for a bicycle!”

So I said, “Sarah, how much do you have?”

She answered, “Sixty-one cents.”

“I’ll tell you what. You give me everything you’ve got and a hug and a kiss, and the bike is yours.” Then I drove home very slowly because she insisted on riding the bike home.

As I drove beside her, I thought of the atonement of Christ. We all desperately want the celestial kingdom. We want to be with our Father in Heaven. But no matter how hard we try, we come up short. At some point all of us must realize, “I can’t do this by myself. I need help.” Then it is that the Savior says, in effect, All right, you’re not perfect. But what can you do? Give me all you have, and I’ll do the rest.

He still requires our best effort. We must keep trying. But the good news is that having done all we can, it is enough. We may not be personally perfect yet, but because of our covenant with the Savior, we can rely on his perfection, and his perfection will get us through.

Your reasoning is that the father in the above story "coerced" his daughter out of sixty-one cents.

Your reasoning is that Jesus Christ is the moral equivalent of a mafia thug who threatens to murder someone unless they pay "protection money."

I'm content to let the reader decide the reasonableness of these things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I like the analogy used earlier about paying protection money. It's totally voluntary for you to pay the money or not, but if you don't, there will be consequences so its cheaper just to pay. The fact that someone who requests protection money doesn't hide the requirements doesn't make it any less coercive.

So we pay for a ticket to religious rites that endow us with salvation. I think you're making my point for me. No I don't have to buy the ticket but if I don't I'm damned AND I won't be permitted to engage in meaningful family events like a wedding.

Regarding your argument about movie theaters and colleges- they are selling a product. Are you arguing that the church is selling  a product for which it should be compensated? Of so, what is that product? Salvation? Temple recommends? I seriously doubt that's the argument you want to make.

We disagree. I don't see that changing

Does it matter, in regards to whether something is a threat or coercion, if the stated consequences are actually true? Does it matter if the person making the claim has no power to actually carry out the consequence itself but is merely passing on information?

For example, if it's true that those who don't pay tithing will be negatively affected spiritually, is it still a threat by the church, which has no power whatsoever over the actual spiritual consequences of not paying tithing, to pass that information on?

[CA Steve]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It kind of is the point though.  If the money isn't your's, it doesn't matter who manages it or how transparent they are.  You wouldn't think it was appropriate to demand transparency for someone else's money, regardless of who managed it, would you?

I get why some people want transparency, but acting like the transparency we want with our own money means something in regards to transparency with someone else's money doesn't make a lot of sense.  Wanting transparency from the people who manage our money is a completely different issue than wanting transparency from the people who manage someone else's money.

It's not the money of the people who manage it either.

Are these men fallible or not?

If yes, then they should account for how they manage money that is not theirs either.

[SteveO]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

It's not the money of the people who manage it either.

Are these men fallible or not?

If yes, then they should account for how they manage money that is not theirs either.

Is this the Lord's church or not? 

[Analytics]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It is astounding that you are comparing Jesus Christ to mobsters.  

If you take what Jesus Christ allegedly said at face value, he sounds a lot worse than a mobster. The mobster might torch my business, torture me, and kill me. But at least with the mobster, the torture ends at death. With Jesus Christ, at death the torture is just beginning.

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm with HappyJack, analytics and others here.  It simply doesn't make sense to not call the warnings of not paying tithing threats.  They are.  That is the definition of threat--if you don't do this, I will cause this damage to you. 

So a movie theater owner says "If you want to see the movie, please buy a ticket," he is "threatening" the patron.

If a parent says to his child "If you want dessert, then eat your vegetables," he is "threatening" his child.

If a John encourages his friend Jim to start saving money for retirement, John is "threatening" Jim.

And so on.

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The Church in speaking for God has done this all the time as it pertains to paying tithing.  The use of threats in this way is coercion. 

No, it's not.

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That again is the definition of coercion--offering threats for doing or not doing something. 

No, it's not.  Coercion means "to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition."

"Especially without regard for individual desire or volition."

The LDS Church does not use force or intimidation.  And the "authority" is purely religious in nature, and is necessarily and materially constrained and limited.  See D&C 134:10:

Quote

We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

The only thing the Church does - and can do - is limit or withdraw fellowship.  But since that fellowship is entirely mutual, since the association is entirely voluntary, then the "authority" used by the Church here cannot reasonably be characterized as "coercive."

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I think the issue is here to some the Church is just repeating God's threats. 

No.  The issue here is the gross distortion of the word "coercion."  The issue here is comparing Jesus Christ to a mafia thug.

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

To others the Church is being presumptuous. 

Which presumptuousness can be utterly and totally disregarded by the individual.  Association with the Church is voluntary.  Fellowship in the Church is voluntary.  Obedience to the precepts taught by the Church is voluntary.  The Church simply lacks any power to coerce.

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Either way, it is still threat and coercion. 

No, it's not.

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Denying that while comparing it to people who pay to see a movie is just silly.  

Comparing Jesus Christ to a mafia thug is more than "silly."  

32 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I've said my piece on this.  This type of thing happens all too often around here and it gets pretty absurd. Talk about a farcical claim, smac.   

I'm not the one comparing Jesus Christ to a mafia thug.

I'm not the one bearing false witness and making absurd accusations against the LDS Church.

-Smac

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If you want to get your daughter back, you pay the ransom.

So now Jesus Christ is a kidnapper.

48 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The kidnapper isn't "coercing" you into paying.

The kidnapper has committed an evil act.  Jesus Christ hasn't.

The kidnapper is demanding something that is evil and unjust and unlawful.  Jesus Christ hasn't.

48 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It is an entirely voluntary thing.

No, it's not.  

48 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The kidnapper isn't hiding the requirements.

Again, you are comparing Jesus Christ to a kidnapper.

Appalling.

-Smac

[Analytics]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right.  Because the criminal is not entitled to make such demands.  And because the demand itself is unlawful and unjust.

Jesus Christ allegedly said that if I don't pay his representatives 10% of my gross income for life, he will burn me in this life and continue to burn me after I'm dead.

If anybody else threatened to do such a thing if I didn't give him 10% of my income for life would it be lawful? Would it be just?

Why does it become lawful and just when Jesus Christ does it?

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If you take what Jesus Christ allegedly said at face value, he sounds a lot worse than a mobster. The mobster might torch my business, torture me, and kill me. But at least with the mobster, the torture ends at death. With Jesus Christ, at death the torture is just beginning.

"The torture" being, at the absolute worst, . . . the Telestial Kingdom?  Eternity in a place that if full of glory which "surpasses all understanding" (D&C 76:89)?

I am at a loss for words.  I never had intended this discussion to devolve into evil-speaking of Jesus Christ.  But so far He has been characterized as a mafia thug, a kidnapper, a murderer, a torturer, and "a lot worse" than all of these hings.

By you and those who agree with you.

I am at a loss as to what to say to these things.

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Does it matter, in regards to whether something is a threat or coercion, if the stated consequences are actually true? Does it matter if the person making the claim has no power to actually carry out the consequence itself but is merely passing on information?

For example, if it's true that those who don't pay tithing will be negatively affected spiritually, is it still a threat by the church, which has no power whatsoever over the actual spiritual consequences of not paying tithing, to pass that information on?

Sure, it matters. Just because something is true, doesn't mean it's not a weapon. Blackmail is a good example of that.  A person may blackmail a person by threatening to release information/pictures etc that are true unless they are paid. Blackmail is a coercive crime (obviously far different than the church requesting tithing). What if someone blackmails another based on a bluff that damaging information or pictures would be released, even if the individual didn't have the power to carry through with the threat. What matters, isn't the ability to carry out the threat, but the belief of the individual being blackmailed that the blackmailer can carry out the threat.

Your example- it's true that the church has no power to negatively affect a person spiritually, but if they make the claim they can, and the person believes it, then that's coercion. For example, if the church threatens to excommunicate a person, stripping them of all temple/priesthood/ and even baptismal blessings which will impact the eternal kingdom the person will inherit, and the person being threatened believes it, then there is coercion. Whether or not the church has the power and authority to actually damn someone or not is irrelevant if the parties believe it. It is an attempt to change behavior or risk consequences inflicted by the church. If a church leader threatens to take away a temple recommend 2 weeks before a child is being married in the temple unless they pay their tithing up to date, then that is totally coercion. In that case the church is attempting to change a behavior by threat of inflicting a consequence they do have the power to carry out.

Earlier the comparison was made between a movie theater selling tickets and a patron voluntarily choosing to buy the ticket, and the payment of tithing. If the person doesn't pay, they don't see the movie. That's reasonable. That's called commerce. If a person doesn't pay tithing the threat is that they will be unable to go to the temple, receive their endowments, and therefore not qualify for the celestial kingdom. It's as if there is an attempt to commercialize religion. This was done by the catholic church regularly during the dark ages with the selling of indulgences etc. Mormons abhor the idea of paying for salvation through buying indulgences but don't seem to mind purchasing the possibility of salvation by paying tithing and getting a temple recommend.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, CA Steve said:

It's not the money of the people who manage it either.

Are these men fallible or not?

If yes, then they should account for how they manage money that is not theirs either.

Yes, they are fallible but that doesn't matter.  If they mess up with God's money, then I believe that God will handle it.  Ultimately, they account to the Being who's money it is that they manage.  Why should they account for it to someone else?  The church has internal procedures set up so that there is accountability, so this isn't an issue of accountability but of how broad that accountability should be.  Having fallible men in charge of money doesn't justify accountability to the world. 

I don't demand that your money manager account to me for your money, even though he's a fallible guy.  I can't use 'But he's fallible' as my reason for wanting such transparency for your money; people would think i was crazy.  Even if i gave you some money, i still wouldn't have the right to demand transparency for how it (or the rest of your money that I didn't give to you) was managed.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Jesus Christ allegedly said that if I don't pay his representatives 10% of my gross income for life, he will burn me in this life and continue to burn me after I'm dead.

If anybody else threatened to do such a thing if I didn't give him 10% of my income for life would it be lawful? Would it be just?

Why does it become lawful and just when Jesus Christ does it?

What started out as a critique of what I took to be an absurd and overwrought characterization of tithing as "coercive" has now turned into you and others profaning Jesus Christ.  That was not my intent.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, SteveO said:

Wait a minute...are you sailing to Greece by any chance?  And have you ever sailed by Bora Bora?  I may know you or someone you know without realizing it...

I probably shouldn't have commented on Duncan's post.  But I have to admit, I. was impressed that he remember I was on a sailboat from months back.  I am not in Greece this summer.  Nor have I sailed to Bora Bora.  So it looks like we are still strangers passing in the night.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If you take what Jesus Christ allegedly said at face value, he sounds a lot worse than a mobster. The mobster might torch my business, torture me, and kill me. But at least with the mobster, the torture ends at death. With Jesus Christ, at death the torture is just beginning.

In that scenario (and in the theology of the gospel), is Jesus the cause of the torture?

I mean, if someone drinks and drives and then is in a horrible accident that causes life long harm and suffering, is the guy who warned the person not to drink and drive and also offered to provide a ride home, the cause of the negative consequences?  Taken at face value, does that guy sound like a mobster?

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sure, it matters. Just because something is true, doesn't mean it's not a weapon. Blackmail is a good example of that.  A person may blackmail a person by threatening to release information/pictures etc that are true unless they are paid. Blackmail is a coercive crime (obviously far different than the church requesting tithing). What if someone blackmails another based on a bluff that damaging information or pictures would be released, even if the individual didn't have the power to carry through with the threat. What matters, isn't the ability to carry out the threat, but the belief of the individual being blackmailed that the blackmailer can carry out the threat.

Your example- it's true that the church has no power to negatively affect a person spiritually, but if they make the claim they can, and the person believes it, then that's coercion. For example, if the church threatens to excommunicate a person, stripping them of all temple/priesthood/ and even baptismal blessings which will impact the eternal kingdom the person will inherit, and the person being threatened believes it, then there is coercion. Whether or not the church has the power and authority to actually damn someone or not is irrelevant if the parties believe it. It is an attempt to change behavior or risk consequences inflicted by the church. If a church leader threatens to take away a temple recommend 2 weeks before a child is being married in the temple unless they pay their tithing up to date, then that is totally coercion. In that case the church is attempting to change a behavior by threat of inflicting a consequence they do have the power to carry out.

Earlier the comparison was made between a movie theater selling tickets and a patron voluntarily choosing to buy the ticket, and the payment of tithing. If the person doesn't pay, they don't see the movie. That's reasonable. That's called commerce. If a person doesn't pay tithing the threat is that they will be unable to go to the temple, receive their endowments, and therefore not qualify for the celestial kingdom. It's as if there is an attempt to commercialize religion. This was done by the catholic church regularly during the dark ages with the selling of indulgences etc. Mormons abhor the idea of paying for salvation through buying indulgences but don't seem to mind purchasing the possibility of salvation by paying tithing and getting a temple recommend.

So coercion exists whenever someone tells another about the negative consequences of their choices?  That seems like a definition that is too broad to be useful.  

Can you answer this question though, if tithing, and everything that the church teaches about it, is a result of God's teachings and His will, do you still feel comfortable describing it is an attempt to commercialize religion?  If it was all true, would you feel justified in accusing God of commercializing His religion?

Edited May 24, 2018 by bluebell

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What started out as a critique of what I took to be an absurd and overwrought characterization of tithing as "coercive" has now turned into you and others profaning Jesus Christ.  That was not my intent.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I fear there is no reasoning with such people. 

[Analytics]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"The torture" being, at the absolute worst, . . . the Telestial Kingdom?  Eternity in a place that if full of glory which "surpasses all understanding" (D&C 76:89)?

I am at a loss for words.  I never had intended this discussion to devolve into evil-speaking of Jesus Christ.  But so far He has been characterized as a mafia thug, a kidnapper, a murderer, a torturer, and "a lot worse" than all of these hings.

By you and those who agree with you.

I am at a loss as to what to say to these things.

-Smac

I'm not trying to be offensive. I'm just trying to articulate why, if you take the Church's teachings literally, the commandment to pay tithing seems an awfully lot like coercion. Of course if it is all said with the understanding that this is all just religious talk that nobody is supposed to take seriously then it isn't coercion--it's just tinkling brass in the land of make believe. But if it is taken seriously in the context of Mormonism, tithing isn't like a choice to see a movie or not. It is like being told I owe money to somebody who claims to be a preferred creditor, even though I never entered into a contract promising to pay. And it's like that creditor threatening a penalty for non-payment that consists of burning, both in this life and in the life to come. In fact it is not like that. It is that. Precisely.

Edited May 24, 2018 by Analytics

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

1- So a movie theater owner says "If you want to see the movie, please buy a ticket," he is "threatening" the patron.

2- If a parent says to his child "If you want dessert, then eat your vegetables," he is "threatening" his child.

3- If a John encourages his friend Jim to start saving money for retirement, John is "threatening" Jim.

 

-Smac

1- That is commerce, not coercion. It's selling a product. I'm still shocked you can't see a difference between commerce and religion. Perhaps that is part of the problem. I expect there to be a difference.

2- Yes, that is coercion. It is an attempt to change a behavior by threatening the child with a negative consequence. That doesn't mean that all coercion is some kind of terrible evil, but it's coercion nonetheless.

3- That's called encouragement, not coercion. Are you trying to be obtuse? If this friend said something like, you need to start investing in your retirement by allowing me to be your financial planner or I will tell your wife you don't care enough about her to plan for the future, that would be coercion. Lame coercion, but it is coercion.