Church discipline proceedings on a member who no longer lives in the stake boundaries?

[ttribe]

31 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

You just described literally every voluntary association. I belong to a political party. Members who publicly criticise the party's majority-supported leadership are removed from the party. It's that simple.

Some years ago, our senator lost at pre-selection. (In American terms, he lost to a primary challenger, though we don't have open primaries.) Embittered, he started to wage public war on the party. Result: he was booted out. Then last year, in contrition, he re-applied for membership, and we took him back. Sound familiar?

The alternative is a party that is ripped apart, loses relevance, and then dies. I get that some people would like to see that happen to the Church, but those people are nuts if they think the Church and its members must cooperate in that process.

[sigh] I am again reiterating - it is a matter of degrees.  The degree to which you think it is a good (or even necessary) thing or a bad thing is a matter of judgment.  I'm simply pointing out that the Church is not authoritarianism-free.

[Hamba Tuhan]

36 minutes ago, ttribe said:

The degree to which you think it is a good (or even necessary) thing or a bad thing is a matter of judgment.

There’s actually a wealth of academic literature on this topic. I’m not just sharing my personal judgement.

Labelling a voluntary association authoritarian because it has and enforces rules for membership may be fun, but it’s essentially meaningless. 

Edited April 28, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[ttribe]

26 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

There’s actually a wealth of academic literature on this topic. I’m not just sharing my personal judgement.

Labelling a voluntary association authoritarian because it has and enforces rules for membership may be fun, but it’s essentially meaningless. 

So, do you apply this same reasoning to Scientology?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

So, do you apply this same reasoning to Scientology?

I know nothing about Scientology. But if you’re going to label it authoritarian in any meaningful way, you’ll need better reasons than that it has and enforces membership rules that may include not openly seeking to destroy the organisation.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[smac97]

47 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

There’s actually a wealth of academic literature on this topic. I’m not just sharing my personal judgement.

Labelling a voluntary association authoritarian because it has and enforces rules for membership may be fun, but it’s essentially meaningless. 

Particularly when the association (the Church) specifically disclaims essentially all forms of "authority" over the individual except constraints on the individual's membership in the association.  See D&C 134:10.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Fair Dinkum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

That is singularly wrong.  Discipline in the Church is not about "punishing" a "crime."

Also, D&C 134:10:

The Church can't "punish" its members in any sense except to limit or withdraw membership.

It's an analogy.  A comparison of two otherwise dissimilar things.

That said, the analogy works pretty well.

We are in a community relationship with the Church.  

But we have made covenants.  

A contract need not be written and signed in order to be enforceable (except for contracts governed by the Statute of Frauds).

Wow.  Glossed right over that, didn't ya?

A husband and wive make covenants/promises to each other when they marry.

An individual makes covenants to God when he is baptized.  The Church is the nascent "Kingdom of God on the Earth."  The Church is the "agent," and the Lord is the "principal."

So what?  Let's remember that you were expressing indignation that the local leaders of the Church can and do read published-to-the-world statements by members of their ward/stake.

In your world, a bishop reading a FB post is - how'd you put it? - "disturb{ing}."

That is just silly.  There is nothing wrong with local leaders in the Church listening to public statements from members who are within their stewardship and jurisdiction.  It would be absurd and unreasonable of them to ignore such public statements (which is what you want, right?).

Then how on earth can you be complaining about a bishop reading a Facebook post?  How can you call for "truth, transparency and full disclosure," and then label a bishop reading a published-to-the-world statement written by a member as "disturb{ing}?"

Thanks,

-Smac

You are arguing that the church or one of its representatives has the legal right to monitor the social media of its members and if offence is drawn from those monitored posts that the church has the right to exact church discipline.  The church does have both of these rights and can set any boundaries or guard rails it wants to set on its members.  I merely find this type of Orwellian Big Brother kind of monitoring disturbing.  I believe it crosses a line and obviously you disagree with my opinion.

I'm in my 60's.  The church has given itself permission, within my life time, to cross multiple boundaries that by todays standards are viewed as completely inappropriate and in hind sight are very disturbing to me now.  The church through both general authorities and my own priesthood leaders invaded my bedroom, gave detailed instruction to both my wife and me on what would and would not be appropriate there.  It also counseled us on the evils of birth control, subsequently we did not use any and had a child during our very first year of marriage during a time when our financials were extremely modest.  Of course we had also been instructed not to take advantage of government entitlements so we did not. When I hear of BYU students who now go on Medicaid to fund their children delivery costs its makes me bristle.  Of course we still paid a full 10% of what meager means we earned. 

Prophets told my wife not to work outside of the home so she dropped out of university and gave up a very promising career both to heed the instruction of prophets and because we now had a child.  And yes we have survived and by most standards thrived as I've been very blessed financially. But I suspect that we are the exception.  But man it was a lot of very hard work and being in the right place at the right time.

So yes I get disturbed when the church crosses boundaries that are beyond the pale. 

Edited April 28, 2021 by Fair Dinkum

[ttribe]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

There’s actually a wealth of academic literature on this topic. I’m not just sharing my personal judgement.

Labelling a voluntary association authoritarian because it has and enforces rules for membership may be fun, but it’s essentially meaningless. 

 

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Particularly when the association (the Church) specifically disclaims essentially all forms of "authority" over the individual except constraints on the individual's membership in the association.  See D&C 134:10.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Hmmmm, appealing to a legalistic reading of scripture avoids the very real impact of living within a culture which subscribes to the notion that "Follow the Prophet" means one should subordinate his/her judgment to the edicts which are passed down from the President of the Church through their various channels.  It avoids the very real imposition of dictating where, when and with whom one worships dressed up as orderly administration.  It avoids the very real restrictions placed on access to ordinances tied to personal obedience to direction on the minute details of one's day-to-day activities which must be disclosed through a male gatekeeper.  It avoids the very real likelihood that expressing an opinion which is in conflict with the spoken word of local and/or general leadership could land one in a disciplinary council, potentially resulting in additional restrictions on one's ability to access ordinances and to worship.  It avoids the very real result of not "Follow[ing] the Prophet" leading to damage to family relationships.  Shall I go on?

You may respond with all manner of examples of the necessity for all of these things, individually or collectively, from scripture, metaphor, personal examples, special pleadings, and even the promise of hoped for blessings and after-life results, but when it all gets boiled down to it, these are control mechanisms.  They keep the people within predefined boundaries and maintain the momentum of the organization in a direction desired by both leadership and a compliant portion of the membership.  Whether those control mechanisms are imposed by a benevolent divine being who seeks our welfare, or are actually the result of the musings of man is, ultimately, a matter of faith.  But, I don't think it is reasonable to deny that they are a part of a largely top-down structure which includes elements of authoritarianism, even if it purports to be a benevolent one.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Labelling a voluntary association

For the most part I think your posts are spot on, but I do believe there is a bit of tension here. Most voluntary organizations don’t believe themselves to be the sole authority on Earth that can speak for and act in the name of God. That said, for people like Dehlin and Helfer, who clearly don’t believe that, I have a very difficult time accepting their tears and hurt at face value. I’m not saying Helfer’s pain isn’t genuine, just that I don’t understand it. 
 

I guess from my perspective the church is simply an organization withdrawing its membership. But it is jarring to see church members describe it that way, since I thought they believed it has eternal significance and consequences. 

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

You are arguing that the church or one of its representatives has the right to monitor the social media of its members

Please spare me the "Big Brother" hyperbole.

There is nothing wrong with the local leaders of the Church reading social media content that is published to the world.

20 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

and if offence is drawn from those monitored posts that the church has the right to exact church discipline. 

There is nothing wrong with the Church disciplining members who engage in inappropriate conduct.

And the Church's "discipline" is, by any secular measure, quite anemic.

And the objective of the discipline is to help the individual, protect others, and protect the integrity of the Church.  There is nothing wrong with these objectives.

20 minutes ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The church does have both of these rights and can set any boundaries or guard rails it wants to set on its members.  I merely find this type of Orwellian Big Brother kind of monitoring disturbing.  I believe it crosses a line and obviously you disagree with my opinion.

Yeah.  That you are trying to characterize this as sinister and "Orwellian" and "disturb{ing}" is overwrought and unserious.

It is unreasonable and unwarranted to suggest that a person who publishes a statement to the world cannot reasonably foresee that his local leaders can read it too.

The Church has no investigative authority or infrastructure.  It doesn't hack into emails.  it doesn't plant listening devices.  It doesn't burglarize homes or businesses looking for inculpatory evidence.  It doesn't secretly or nonconsensually record private conversations of its members.  It doesn't set up false flag operations.  It doesn't use covert agents.  And it doesn't do anything like unto any of these things, either.

You are substantially mischaracterizing the Church, seemingly to the point of bearing false witness against it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Please spare me the "Big Brother" hyperbole.

There is nothing wrong with the local leaders of the Church reading social media content that is published to the world.

There is nothing wrong with the Church disciplining members who engage in inappropriate conduct.

And the Church's "discipline" is, by any secular measure, quite anemic.

And the objective of the discipline is to help the individual, protect others, and protect the integrity of the Church.  There is nothing wrong with these objectives.

Yeah.  That you are trying to characterize this as sinister and "Orwellian" and "disturb{ing}" is overwrought and unserious.

It is unreasonable and unwarranted to suggest that a person who publishes a statement to the world cannot reasonably foresee that his local leaders can read it too.

The Church has no investigative authority or infrastructure.  It doesn't hack into emails.  it doesn't plant listening devices.  It doesn't burglarize homes or businesses looking for inculpatory evidence.  It doesn't secretly or nonconsensually record private conversations of its members.  It doesn't set up false flag operations.  It doesn't use covert agents.  And it doesn't do anything like unto any of these things, either.

You are substantially mischaracterizing the Church, seemingly to the point of bearing false witness against it.

Thanks,

-Smac

With the notable exception of your paragraph on investigative authority, do you see how you can replace "Church" with "Government" and "members" with "citizens" and the entire discussion gets turned on its head?  What happened to "teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves?"

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

But it is jarring to see church members describe it that way, since I thought they believed it has eternal significance and consequences. 

It does have eternal significance.  In that light it is merciful for those who no longer desire to live within the covenants that they have made with the Lord to have those covenants, as well as membership in the church, removed.  When they receive their final judgement they will no be punished for breaking those covenants.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, ttribe said:

What happened to "teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves?"

This would seem to be the ideal way for any organization or government to handle things.  However, when individuals do not follow or actively oppose the principles that are meant to allow them to govern themselves it would seem as though some intervention would needs to be made.

[ttribe]

25 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This would seem to be the ideal way for any organization or government to handle things.  However, when individuals do not follow or actively oppose the principles that are meant to allow them to govern themselves it would seem as though some intervention would needs to be made.

Which could be, and has been, used to rationalize incremental increases in control in all manner of organizations, governments, countries, etc.

Edited April 28, 2021 by ttribe

[SeekingUnderstanding]

16 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It does have eternal significance.  In that light it is merciful for those who no longer desire to live within the covenants that they have made with the Lord to have those covenants, as well as membership in the church, removed.  When they receive their final judgement they will no be punished for breaking those covenants.

Then why doesn’t the church go after every single inactive member “living in sin” or breaking some other covenant if it’s so merciful!? And why did my parents take it so hard when I withdrew my association with the church?

Edited April 28, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Fair Dinkum said:

The church through both general authorities and my own priesthood leaders invaded my bedroom, gave detailed instruction to both my wife and me on what would and would not be appropriate there.  It also counseled us on the evils of birth control, subsequently we did not use any and had a child during our very first year of marriage during a time when our financials were extremely modest.  Of course we had also been instructed not to take advantage of government entitlements so we did not. When I hear of BYU students who now go on Medicaid to fund their children delivery costs its makes me bristle.  Of course we still paid a full 10% of what meager means we earned. 

I am also in my sixties, met my husband at BYU and married by 21.  Both my BYU branch president and home Bishop told me birth control was between us and the Lord (I was curious because of talk among other students and know I asked my Branch Pres about it when interviewed for temple recommend or whatever the marriage interview involves).  We used it all but a year of our marriage (I got easily pregnant the first time as we were so worried he would be born a week or two early and before the baby insurance was valid, took almost a year the second) while necessary and never had a leader question us in 40 plus years.  My memory says most of my BYU roommates were planning on using it the first year of marriage or until they graduated at least as well as limiting their families.  I also remember many students at the time making use of WIC or whatever program that it was that gave them cheese and butter among other items, including my sister.  We didn’t use it though it was suggested as my husband had good summer jobs and then a great teaching assistant job while he got his doctorate while I babysat a kid or two most days as our best friends worked, big reason was I didn’t like the cheese they provided (extra sharp cheddar or Munster  all the way) And it wasn’t worth the effort for the other stuff I knew was available for the amount we would use.  We did use Pell grants to pay for my schooling.  We lived in Married Student Housing and such was well known and not frowned upon by our branch leadership over the years we were there.  I also heard that in the past there was counsel against birth control, but iirc it was said to be in the 60’s when that happened.  Wouldn’t surprise me if there were more traditional leaders out of step with the Handbook at the time (it was 1969 when the consideration of the mother’s health and strength condition was added to the Handbook), but we were making jokes about it while we were there.

Edited April 28, 2021 by Calm

[helix]

24 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I guess from my perspective the church is simply an organization withdrawing its membership. But it is jarring to see church members describe it that way, since I thought they believed it has eternal significance and consequences. 

We are a church fundamentally rooted on the concept that people sin, including leaders.  This means mistakes happen, including membership councils (for example, I think that Oliver Cowdrey's removal was incorrect.)     We are judged by God at the last day, not by the actions of our local leaders.  Local leaders are simply trying to learn and grow and keep the church in order, just as the rest of us are trying to learn and grow. 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Quote

Particularly when the association (the Church) specifically disclaims essentially all forms of "authority" over the individual except constraints on the individual's membership in the association.  See D&C 134:10.  

Hmmmm, appealing to a legalistic reading of scripture

It's not a legalistic reading.  It's a pragmatic and realistic reading.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

avoids the very real impact of living within a culture which subscribes to the notion that "Follow the Prophet" means one should subordinate his/her judgment to the edicts which are passed down from the President of the Church through their various channels. 

This is nonsense.  There is no society on earth that can function where its constituent members get to create laws unto themselves.  That's a recipe for anarchy.  

Everyone in every culture or community has to "subordinate his/her judgment" in some ways.  Are you free to physically assault random strangers in the street with a baseball bat or a machete, provided that your personal "judgment" has rendered such conduct acceptable?  Or do you "subordinate" your unlawful predelictions "to the edicts which are passed down" from state and federal legislatures, regulatory agencies, etc.?  And if you do subordinate your personal preferences and judgments to the laws of the community, are you contributing to an authoritarian regime?

As regarding the Church, it is not, and cannot be, "authoritarian" in any meaningful sense of the word.  It exercises no compulsory influence over its members.  None.  Zip.  Nada.  The association is bilaterally voluntary.  It exercises no punitive authority over its members.  It cannot and does not deprive the individual of his property, liberty or life.  It cannot and does not inflict any physical punishment.  It cannot and does not use force or the threat of force against the individual.  It is dissembling and dishonest to imply otherwise, or to ignore these basic but important facts.

I submit that people like you, who try to characterize the Church as some menace to civil liberties, as some threat to the welfare of its members, are gaslighting.  You are trying to foment a moral panic.  You are trying to foment ill will against a religious minority.  You are bearing false witness against the Church, its leaders and its members.

I hope you stop it.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It avoids the very real imposition of dictating where, when and with whom one worships dressed up as orderly administration. 

Piffle.  Membership in the Church is voluntary.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It avoids the very real restrictions placed on access to ordinances tied to personal obedience to direction on the minute details of one's day-to-day activities which must be disclosed through a male gatekeeper. 

Facile nonsense.  The Church has only as much authority over the individual as the individual willingly grants to it.  If a person disagrees with the Church, there is no compulsion keeping him within it.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It avoids the very real likelihood that expressing an opinion which is in conflict with the spoken word of local and/or general leadership could land one in a disciplinary council, potentially resulting in additional restrictions on one's ability to access ordinances and to worship. 

Absolutely nothing wrong with that.  It is completely acceptable for a voluntary religious association to set behavior standards and expectations for its members.

The relationship between the institutional Church and its constituent members is bilaterally voluntary.  

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

It avoids the very real result of not "Follow[ing] the Prophet" leading to damage to family relationships. 

A voluntary member of a religioius group chooses to disregard the behavioral standards expected of its members.  That member's behavior results in some sort of tension in or damage to family relationships.

Ergo . . . what?  Are you channeling Korihor here?  It sure sounds like it.

Quote

14 Behold, these things which ye call prophecies, which ye say are handed down by holy prophets, behold, they are foolish traditions of your fathers.

15 How do ye know of their surety? Behold, ye cannot know of things which ye do not see; therefore ye cannot know that there shall be a Christ.

16 Ye look forward and say that ye see a remission of your sins. But behold, it is the effect of a frenzied mind; and this derangement of your minds comes because of the traditions of your fathers, which lead you away into a belief of things which are not so.

17 And many more such things did he say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime.

18 And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.

Moreover, how is it that the individual going against the previously agreed-upon standards of behavior bears no culpability for the ensuring damage to the family relationship?

Meanwhile, what are we to make of the various scriptures where we are told that following Jesus Christ may be difficult?  The Savior said "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  

He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."  

He also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  

He also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

Today, the Church and its members are heavily criticized for its adherence to the Law of Chastity (the biggest grievance being the prohibition against homosexual behavior) and other commandments that regulate our behavior.  We are also criticized for, well, pretty much everything we do and say.  

These commandment are not, as people like you would have us believe, arbitrary diktats from a bunch of cloistered old geezers in Salt Lake.  They are scriptural.  They are revelatory.  They are from God.  And they are very important, as evidenced by our making covenants with God to keep them.

The Church is a wonderful organization.  It is certainly not perfect, but it teaches sound principles, does a lot of good, and helps a lot of people.  And most importantly, it houses the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, and administers its saving ordinances and is guided by revelation given through prophets and apostles.  

Having said all this, the individual is at liberty to choose.  Membership and activity in the Church is bilaterally voluntary.  The Church isn't hiding the ball here.  You are free to choose.  An individual can exercise faith, join the Church, keep the commandments (repenting when he messes up), serve others, and basically lead a good life.  The individual can also choose to not do some or all of these things.  I would hope that we choose the former, but the autonomy is left to the individual.

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

You may respond with all manner of examples of the necessity for all of these things, individually or collectively, from scripture, metaphor, personal examples, special pleadings, and even the promise of hoped for blessings and after-life results, but when it all gets boiled down to it, these are control mechanisms. 

In a sense, yes.  The Law of Chastity controls and sets revealed parameters on our sexual behavior.  That's a good thing. 

The Word of Wisdom controls, to an extent ("influences" would be more apt) how we treat our physical bodies.  That's a good thing.

The Ten Commandments constrain and control our baser impulses.  That's a good thing.

The Beatitudes regulate how we interact with each other.  That's a good thing.

We have mandates to repent and forgive regulate our personal conduct, our interactions with others, our efforts to make amends, our turning away from wrongful conduct, and so on.  These are good things.

We have mandates to serve each other, preach the gospel, provide for the poor and the sick, perform family history and temple work.  These are all beautiful and ennobling.

And yet here you are, trying to paint the Church as a villain.  As some sort of evil, conniving regime lusting after power, looking for ways to manipulate its members toward nefarious ends.

What you are peddling here is contrived nonsense and falsehoods.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, ttribe said:

With the notable exception of your paragraph on investigative authority, do you see how you can replace "Church" with "Government" and "members" with "citizens" and the entire discussion gets turned on its head? 

No. 

Again, membership in the Church is bilaterally voluntary.  You get to choose whether to join it, or not.  Whether to follow its behavioral standards, or not.  In contrast, the "Government" exercises jurisdiction over you regardless of your particular consent.

The Church has no authority or ability to punish or control, no ability to deprive its members of life, liberty, or property, and in fact expressly disclaims any such authority in its scripture (D&C 134:10).  In contrast, the "Government" has the authority to do all of these things.

The Church has no means to enforce compliance with the law through force or the threat of force.  In contrast, the "Government" has the Police Power.  It has armed law enforcement.  It can detain.  It can arrest.  It can use violence or the threat of violence to compel compliance.

So no, the discussion doesn't get turned on its head.  The Church's relationship with its members is vastly different from the "Government's" relationship with the citizenry.

Quote

What happened to "teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves?"

Indeed.  What happened?  You are demonizing the Church for teaching correct principles.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 28, 2021 by smac97

[ksfisher]

17 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Then why doesn’t the church go after every single inactive member “living in sin” or breaking some other covenant if it’s so merciful!?

 The church would need to set up some sort of department to investigate which inactive members were or were not living in sin and exactly what kind of sin they were committing.  Right now the church mainly relies on voluntary confession.

 

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And why did my parents take it so hard when I withdrew my association with the church?

I can't speak for your parents.

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's not a legalistic reading.  It's a pragmatic and realistic reading.

This is nonsense.  There is no society on earth that can function where its constituent members get to create laws unto themselves.  That's a recipe for anarchy.  

Everyone in every culture or community has to "subordinate his/her judgment" in some ways.  Are you free to physically assault random strangers in the street with a baseball bat or a machete, provided that your personal "judgment" has rendered such conduct acceptable?  Or do you "subordinate" your unlawful predelictions "to the edicts which are passed down" from state and federal legislatures, regulatory agencies, etc.?  And if you do subordinate your personal preferences and judgments to the laws of the community, are you contributing to an authoritarian regime?

As regarding the Church, it is not, and cannot be, "authoritarian" in any meaningful sense of the word.  It exercises no compulsory influence over its members.  None.  Zip.  Nada.  The association is bilaterally voluntary.  It exercises no punitive authority over its members.  It cannot and does not deprive the individual of his property, liberty or life.  It cannot and does not inflict any physical punishment.  It cannot and does not use force or the threat of force against the individual.  It is dissembling and dishonest to imply otherwise, or to ignore these basic but important facts.

I submit that people like you, who try to characterize the Church as some menace to civil liberties, as some threat to the welfare of its members, are gaslighting.  You are trying to foment a moral panic.  You are trying to foment ill will against a religious minority.  You are bearing false witness against the Church, its leaders and its members.

I hope you stop it.

Piffle.  Membership in the Church is voluntary.

Facile nonsense.  The Church has only as much authority over the individual as the individual willingly grants to it.  If a person disagrees with the Church, there is no compulsion keeping him within it.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that.  It is completely acceptable for a voluntary religious association to set behavior standards and expectations for its members.

The relationship between the institutional Church and its constituent members is bilaterally voluntary.  

A voluntary member of a religioius group chooses to disregard the behavioral standards expected of its members.  That member's behavior results in some sort of tension in or damage to family relationships.

Ergo . . . what?  Are you channeling Korihor here?  It sure sounds like it.

Moreover, how is it that the individual going against the previously agreed-upon standards of behavior bears no culpability for the ensuring damage to the family relationship?

Meanwhile, what are we to make of the various scriptures where we are told that following Jesus Christ may be difficult?  The Savior said "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."  

He also said (several times, actually) : "Behold, I am God; give heed unto my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow; therefore give heed unto my words."  

He also said: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."  

He also said "For if ye will not abide in my covenant ye are not worthy of me."  

My dad and I were talking about these things a while back, some of which have been described as the "dark sayings of Jesus."  My dad noted that some people focus on the "sweetness and light" sayings of the Savior, which is probably fine - unless that focus is exclusionary.  Christ had warnings for us, after all.  Such as this: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."  And this: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil."   And this: "Therefore, fear not, little flock; do good; let earth and hell combine against you, for if ye are built upon my rock, they cannot prevail."   And this: "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory."

Today, the Church and its members are heavily criticized for its adherence to the Law of Chastity (the biggest grievance being the prohibition against homosexual behavior) and other commandments that regulate our behavior.  We are also criticized for, well, pretty much everything we do and say.  

These commandment are not, as people like you would have us believe, arbitrary diktats from a bunch of cloistered old geezers in Salt Lake.  They are scriptural.  They are revelatory.  They are from God.  And they are very important, as evidenced by our making covenants with God to keep them.

The Church is a wonderful organization.  It is certainly not perfect, but it teaches sound principles, does a lot of good, and helps a lot of people.  And most importantly, it houses the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, and administers its saving ordinances and is guided by revelation given through prophets and apostles.  

Having said all this, the individual is at liberty to choose.  Membership and activity in the Church is bilaterally voluntary.  The Church isn't hiding the ball here.  You are free to choose.  An individual can exercise faith, join the Church, keep the commandments (repenting when he messes up), serve others, and basically lead a good life.  The individual can also choose to not do some or all of these things.  I would hope that we choose the former, but the autonomy is left to the individual.

In a sense, yes.  The Law of Chastity controls and sets revealed parameters on our sexual behavior.  That's a good thing. 

The Word of Wisdom controls, to an extent ("influences" would be more apt) how we treat our physical bodies.  That's a good thing.

The Ten Commandments constrain and control our baser impulses.  That's a good thing.

The Beatitudes regulate how we interact with each other.  That's a good thing.

We have mandates to repent and forgive regulate our personal conduct, our interactions with others, our efforts to make amends, our turning away from wrongful conduct, and so on.  These are good things.

We have mandates to serve each other, preach the gospel, provide for the poor and the sick, perform family history and temple work.  These are all beautiful and ennobling.

And yet here you are, trying to paint the Church as a villain.  As some sort of evil, conniving regime lusting after power, looking for ways to manipulate its members toward nefarious ends.

What you are peddling here is contrived nonsense and falsehoods.

Thanks,

-Smac

One, I'm asking (nicely) one time for you to stop telling me what my motives are.  I am the sole expert on what is going on inside my brain.

Two, the substance of your argument is one that you could argue in a legal setting, but does so at the expense of your belief that the Church does have actual authority over an individual with respect to their standing before God.

[ttribe]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, that's the end of the conversation.  If you cannot, or will not, engage in an intellectually honest evaluation of the potentially negative implications of those statements, there is nothing left to discuss.

[ksfisher]

33 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Which could be, and has been, used to rationalize incremental increases in control in all manner of organizations, governments, countries, etc.

So you would advocate that organizations do nothing when members of their organization break rules or guidelines that are fundamental that organizations purpose? 

What would you expect to have happen to a member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving who was convicted of drunk driving?

[ttribe]

Just now, ksfisher said:

So you would advocate that organizations do nothing when members of their organization break rules or guidelines that are fundamental that organizations purpose? 

What would you expect to have happen to a member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving who was convicted of drunk driving?

MADD doesn't purport to be acting for God.  Tell me, why does God care whether I have a low opinion of ANY church leader?

[smac97]

50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

For the most part I think your posts are spot on, but I do believe there is a bit of tension here. Most voluntary organizations don’t believe themselves to be the sole authority on Earth that can speak for and act in the name of God.

Many religions have some sort of exclusivistic truth claims.  

50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

That said, for people like Dehlin and Helfer, who clearly don’t believe that, I have a very difficult time accepting their tears and hurt at face value.

Yeah, it is kind of hard to take at face value their claimed appreciation of membership in the Church.

50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’m not saying Helfer’s pain isn’t genuine, just that I don’t understand it. 

It's a pretty dysfunctional thing.  Consider, by way of comparison, an abusive relationship where the abuser actually and genuinely thinks that his abusive behavior is appropriate and justified because he has strong emotions.  "Yes, I verbally abuse my wife, humiliate her in public, try to turn her friends and family against her, and so on.  But it's only because I love her, you see..."

There may well be affection in the mix here.  But there's also a lot of anger and animosity.  And a desire to control or, failing that, to punish.

50 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I guess from my perspective the church is simply an organization withdrawing its membership. But it is jarring to see church members describe it that way, since I thought they believed it has eternal significance and consequences. 

Oh, same here.  I think membership withdrawal has huge eternal consequences.

But the dynamic in play in this thread is that the Church is "authoritarian" in the same sense that we saw in, say, the Soviet Union, 1980s Romania, modern-day North Korea, and so on.  Some folks are drawing this sort of false equivalence about authoritarianism despite there being no corollary of "authority" claimed or exercised by the Church.

The Church only has as much authority as the individual is willing to grant to it.  And the individual can walk away at any time.  For any reason or no reason at all.  And the worst thing the Church can do in terms of disciplining its members is to place some constraints on, or else withdraw, the individual's membership.  To characterize this as "authoritarianism" is to insult our intelligence, reeks of bad faith, and IMO constitutes bearing false witness.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

MADD doesn't purport to be acting for God.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.  You were commenting on organizations exerting increasing control over their members.  My point is that their is a right and need for all organizations, whether they are a church or a community organization or a government to expect it's members to abide by rules. 

 

12 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Tell me, why does God care whether I have a low opinion of ANY church leader?

I'm not sure why you're asking this.