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

[bluebell]

49 minutes ago, JamesBYoung said:

Probably not.

I think you are probably right, sadly. I think she’s likely to revel in the anger for a long time.

In her eyes she’s a woman wronged. 

[JamesBYoung]

Yes.

I imagine that Natasha and a memorial to Mike Quinn will be among the most Sunstone Symposium events this July in Salt Lake City.

[secondclasscitizen]

On 4/28/2021 at 12:32 PM, Fair Dinkum said:

One of the best posts I've ever read on this board.

I'll second that. Very true.

[smac97]

On 4/28/2021 at 11:22 AM, ttribe said:

Quote

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. 

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 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's not a legalistic reading.  It's a practical and realistic one.  And I think this passage *D&C 134:10) and others create a "very real impact" that is being obscured by folks like you.  

The leaders of the Church have very limited "authority" of the members of the Church, as evidenced by, well, people who regularly speak out against the Church with no repercussions beyond possible constraints on the individual's participation or membership in the Church.

The members of the Church are not cloistered.  We don't live in secluded compounds or communes.  We are spread throughout the world.  We live as regular citizens in regular cities and towns.  And the members of the Church are strong encouraged to not be dependent on the Church for food, clothing, shelter, employment, etc., except in temporary, as-needed circumstances.  The Church strongly encourages provident living.  Self-reliance.  Education.  Employment.  Hard work.  Living within one's means.  Buidling up food storage and emergency funds.  

Simply put, the Church wants its members to be strong and self-sufficient, while also working to serve our fellow man, and also support and build up the Kingdom of God.  The scriptural term is "agents unto themselves" per D&C 58:

Quote

25 Wherefore, let them bring their families to this land, as they shall counsel between themselves and me.
26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.
27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness;
28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward.

Your comment about "edicts ... passed down from the President of the Church" as evidence of authoritarianism doesn't work, as evidenced by . . . the everyday behavior we see on this board and others like it, on Reddit, on YouTube, on social media, and so on.  I think your position is derivative.  Efforts to paint the Church as malevolent and authoritarian come across as hollow, sometimes even funny, given how little actual authority the Church has over its members, how easy it is for members of the Church to stop participating or withdrawing their membership, how unfettered cranks and critics are to go out and publicly rail against and disparage the Church and its leaders, doctrines, etc.

What authority does the Church have over Denver Snuffer?  None.  It withdrew his membership, but he is otherwise alive and kicking.  He's still a lawyer.  He still has his home and other assets.  He has his liberty.  He can say and do whatever he wants.  

What authority does the Church have over John Dehlin?  None.  He's at liberty to "coach" whomever he likes, do his podcasts, and demonstrate his superior moral fiber.

What authority does the Church have over Kate Kelly?  None.  She's at liberty toi do whatever she likes.  Same with Bill Reel, Sam Young, Jeremy Runnells, Natasha Helfer, and so on.

Quote

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

This made me actually chuckle.

A religious group scheduling worship services?  Oh, the horror!  Oh, the humanity! 

Quote

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. 

You are only proving my point about D&C 134:10.

Give me a break.  The Church is moving heaven and earth to encourage people to join it, to become a part of a community of faith.  That community coheres around faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to His teachings.  Hence we have church meetings and Sabbath observance, temple worship, missionary work, service projects, and so on.  We also have behavioral standards, such as obedience to the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity. 

You are carping about the Church seeking to create a community, while still staying within the self-imposed constraints reflected in, inter alia, D&C 134:10 and D&C 58.  It doesn't work.  Your complaint comes across as contrived and tendentious.

Quote

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?

Nonsense.  

Are you at liberty to publicly disparage and speak against, say, your employer?  To turn other employees and the general public against your employer?  And all the while still drawing a paycheck?

Are you at liberty to publicly insult and denigrate your wife?  To encourage others to think ill of her?  To publicize her faults to strangers so as to subject her to ridicule and scorn?  And then saying "Hey honey, wanna go see a movie tonight?"

Are you at liberty to join a voluntary association of like-minded individuals, only to thereafter refuse to observe any of its conditions of membership, and to actively work against its foundational precepts, and then be shocked - shocked! - that the association finds such disruptive and distructive behavior incompatible with continued membership?

Shall I go on?

Quote

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,

Yes.  

Quote

but when it all gets boiled down to it, these are control mechanisms. 

Self-control mechanisms, yes.

Let's take a look at 2 Nephi 2 (emphases added) :

Quote

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit.

The Brethren are doing what Leh did.  Exhorting us to "act for {our}selves," telling us that we are "free to choose."  

Here we are, acting for ourselves, making choices every day.  And when those choices contravene the commandments, we repent and move forward.  If an individual continues in disobedience to the commandments, he is "free to choose" that, and per D&C 134:10 the Church has no power in his life, except that it can constrain or terminate the individual's membership.  

Quote

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. 

The Church asks its voluntarily associated members to constrain their behavior to the commandments set by God.  How is this surprising or problematic?

The Church believes it has mandates from God regarding sharing the gospel, redeeming the dead, perfecting the Saints and helping the poor.  How is "maintain{ing} the momentum of the organization" with these objectives surprising or problematic?

I am flummoxed at your attitude, which comes across as quite facile.  Have you ever worked in a group setting?  Ever been in a band?  A choir?  A sports team?  A political group?  A business?  

Every group has "predefined boundaries."

Every organization wants to "maintain the momentum" of its objectives.

Every organization has leaders.

Every organization requires some measure of compliance with internal rules, policies, guidelines, etc.

Quote

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. 

"Control mechanisms" are in place in every group.  Some groups, like governments or gangs, use coercion, violence, threats of violence, etc. to maintain cohesion and order.  On the other hand, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not.  It is constrained from doing so by its own doctrines.  Membership in the Church is voluntary.  There is no coercion.  There is no threat of deprivation of life, liberty or property.  There is no threat of physical punishment, no violence or threat of violence.  The only authority the Church has over its members is the authority the individual chooses to cede to it.  And if the member has a change of heart, he can alter the deal and walk away, for any reason or no reason whatsoever, and there ain't jack squat that the Church can do about it.  All we can and ought to do is continue to love the individual, pray for him, and encourage him to return.

This is "authoritarian?"  No.  No it's not.  

Quote

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.

You are diluting the concept of "authoritarianism" to the point of absurdity.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 21, 2021 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

54 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's not a legalistic reading.  It's a practical and realistic one.  And I think this passage *D&C 134:10) and others create a "very real impact" that is being obscured by folks like you.  

The leaders of the Church have very limited "authority" of the members of the Church, as evidenced by, well, people who regularly speak out against the Church with no repercussions beyond possible constraints on the individual's participation or membership in the Church.

The members of the Church are not cloistered.  We don't live in secluded compounds or communes.  We are spread throughout the world.  We live as regular citizens in regular cities and towns.  And the members of the Church are strong encouraged to not be dependent on the Church for food, clothing, shelter, employment, etc., except in temporary, as-needed circumstances.  The Church strongly encourages provident living.  Self-reliance.  Education.  Employment.  Hard work.  Living within one's means.  Buidling up food storage and emergency funds.  

Simply put, the Church wants its members to be strong and self-sufficient, while also working to serve our fellow man, and also support and build up the Kingdom of God.  The scriptural term is "agents unto themselves" per D&C 58:

Your comment about "edicts ... passed down from the President of the Church" as evidence of authoritarianism doesn't work, as evidenced by . . . the everyday behavior we see on this board and others like it, on Reddit, on YouTube, on social media, and so on.  I think your position is derivative.  Efforts to paint the Church as malevolent and authoritarian come across as hollow, sometimes even funny, given how little actual authority the Church has over its members, how easy it is for members of the Church to stop participating or withdrawing their membership, how unfettered cranks and critics are to go out and publicly rail against and disparage the Church and its leaders, doctrines, etc.

What authority does the Church have over Denver Snuffer?  None.  It withdrew his membership, but he is otherwise alive and kicking.  He's still a lawyer.  He still has his home and other assets.  He has his liberty.  He can say and do whatever he wants.  

What authority does the Church have over John Dehlin?  None.  He's at liberty to "coach" whomever he likes, do his podcasts, and demonstrate his superior moral fiber.

What authority does the Church have over Kate Kelly?  None.  She's at liberty toi do whatever she likes.  Same with Bill Reel, Sam Young, Jeremy Runnells, Natasha Helfer, and so on.

This made me actually chuckle.

A religious group scheduling worship services?  Oh, the horror!  Oh, the humanity! 

You are only proving my point about D&C 134:10.

Give me a break.  The Church is moving heaven and earth to encourage people to join it, to become a part of a community of faith.  That community coheres around faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to His teachings.  Hence we have church meetings and Sabbath observance, temple worship, missionary work, service projects, and so on.  We also have behavioral standards, such as obedience to the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity. 

You are carping about the Church seeking to create a community, while still staying within the self-imposed constraints reflected in, inter alia, D&C 134:10 and D&C 58.  It doesn't work.  Your complaint comes across as contrived and tendentious.

Nonsense.  

Are you at liberty to publicly disparage and speak against, say, your employer?  To turn other employees and the general public against your employer?  And all the while still drawing a paycheck?

Are you at liberty to publicly insult and denigrate your wife?  To encourage others to think ill of her?  To publicize her faults to strangers so as to subject her to ridicule and scorn?  And then saying "Hey honey, wanna go see a movie tonight?"

Are you at liberty to join a voluntary association of like-minded individuals, only to thereafter refuse to observe any of its conditions of membership, and to actively work against its foundational precepts, and then be shocked - shocked! - that the association finds such disruptive and distructive behavior incompatible with continued membership?

Shall I go on?

Yes.  

Self-control mechanisms, yes.

Let's take a look at 2 Nephi 2 (emphases added) :

The Brethren are doing what Leh did.  Exhorting us to "act for {our}selves," telling us that we are "free to choose."  

Here we are, acting for ourselves, making choices every day.  And when those choices contravene the commandments, we repent and move forward.  If an individual continues in disobedience to the commandments, he is "free to choose" that, and per D&C 134:10 the Church has no power in his life, except that it can constrain or terminate the individual's membership.  

The Church asks its voluntarily associated members to constrain their behavior to the commandments set by God.  How is this surprising or problematic?

The Church believes it has mandates from God regarding sharing the gospel, redeeming the dead, perfecting the Saints and helping the poor.  How is "maintain{ing} the momentum of the organization" with these objectives surprising or problematic?

I am flummoxed at your attitude, which comes across as quite facile.  Have you ever worked in a group setting?  Ever been in a band?  A choir?  A sports team?  A political group?  A business?  

Every group has "predefined boundaries."

Every organization wants to "maintain the momentum" of its objectives.

Every organization has leaders.

Every organization requires some measure of compliance with internal rules, policies, guidelines, etc.

"Control mechanisms" are in place in every group.  Some groups, like governments or gangs, use coercion, violence, threats of violence, etc. to maintain cohesion and order.  On the other hand, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not.  It is constrained from doing so by its own doctrines.  Membership in the Church is voluntary.  There is no coercion.  There is no threat of deprivation of life, liberty or property.  There is no threat of physical punishment, no violence or threat of violence.  The only authority the Church has over its members is the authority the individual chooses to cede to it.  And if the member has a change of heart, he can alter the deal and walk away, for any reason or no reason whatsoever, and there ain't jack squat that the Church can do about it.  All we can and ought to do is continue to love the individual, pray for him, and encourage him to return.

This is "authoritarian?"  No.  No it's not.  

You are diluting the concept of "authoritarianism" to the point of absurdity.  

Thanks,

-Smac

It seems a little odd to limit "coercion" or "control" to threats of violence, etc. Certainly there are social coercion and control mechanisms in the church (and any church, to varying degrees). I've been in a band and a choir and a sports team, and no one ever told me I was making a conscious decision to follow Satan when I left.

Edited May 21, 2021 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It seems a little odd to limit "coercion" or "control" to threats of violence, etc.

Well, let's take a look at what the law has to say:

Quote

The broad definition of coercion is "the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will." Actual violence, threats of violence, or other acts of pressure may constitute coercion if they're used to subvert an individual's free will or consent.

In legal terms, it's often said that someone who's been coerced was acting under duress. In fact, "duress" and "coercion" are often interchanged. Black's Law Dictionary defines duress as "any unlawful threat or coercion used... to induce another to act [or to refrain from acting] in a manner [they] otherwise would not [or would]."

Does the Church use "express or implied threats of violence?"  Nope.

Threats of "reprisal?"  Nope.  Imposing limitations or terminating voluntary membership in a private religious organization for conduct incompatible with that membership cannot reasonably be characterized as "reprisal."

"Other intimidating behavior?"  Nope.

"Actual violence, threats of violence, or other acts of pressure ... used to subvert an individual's free will or consent?"  Nope.

"{A}ny unlawful threat?"  Nope.

Here is a more generalized definition:

Quote

coerce

---

verb (used with object), co·erced, co·erc·ing.

1. to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition:They coerced him into signing the document.
2. to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact:to coerce obedience.
3. to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.:The state is based on successfully coercing the individual.

None of these works.

I think you run the risk of infantilizing adults when you stretch "coercion" this far.

Quote

Certainly there are social coercion and control mechanisms in the church (and any church, to varying degrees).

And in any organization, to varying degrees.

The Church is a voluntary association.  It becomes a bit absurd to characterize enforcement of reasonable rules and constraints as "coercion."  

Quote

I've been in a band and a choir and a sports team, and no one ever told me I was making a conscious decision to follow Satan when I left.

This is a normative communication given to people who leave the Church, is it?

Meanwhile, you left.  I hope you have recovered from that beatdown the Danites gave you.  They go after kneecaps, don't they?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 21, 2021 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, let's take a look at what the law has to say:

Does the Church use "express or implied threats of violence?"  Nope.

Threats of "reprisal?"  Nope.  Imposing limitations or terminating voluntary membership in a private religious organization for conduct incompatible with that membership cannot reasonably be characterized as "reprisal."

"Other intimidating behavior?"  Nope.

"Actual violence, threats of violence, or other acts of pressure ... used to subvert an individual's free will or consent?"  Nope.

"{A}ny unlawful threat?"  Nope.

Here is a more generalized definition:

None of these works.

And in any organization, to varying degrees.

The Church is a voluntary association.  It becomes a bit absurd to characterize enforcement of reasonable rules and constraints as "coercion."  

This is a normative communication given to people who leave the Church, is it?

Meanwhile, you left.  I hope you have recovered from that beatdown the Danites gave you.  They go after kneecaps, don't they?

Thanks,

-Smac

As I said, force is not necessarily violence. If you think there are no social or familial consequences to leaving the church, I can't help you. But yes, I got over it. Seems odd for you to mock what I and others have gone through. Oh, well. I forgive you.

Edited May 21, 2021 by jkwilliams

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, force is not necessarily violence.

It's typically used in that way.

Quote

If you think there are no social or familial consequences to leaving the church, I can't help you.'

Yes, there are.  But "consequences" is not synonymous with "coercion."

Quote

But yes, I got over it.

I'm glad to hear it.

And I'll be happy to welcome you back, should you ever have a change of heart.

Quote

Seems odd for you to mock what I and others have gone through. Oh, well. I forgive you.

I'm not mocking anything (I really did chuckle at the notion that a religious organization scheduling religious meetings is coercive).  I'm rejecting the absurdity of the allegations being presented here.  Voluntary membership in a religious organization is a bilateral thing.  It is absurd to fault the Church for doing what pretty much every organization in the history of the world has done: create a community and establish guidelines for membership.

Now, if the Church was into shunning (JWs, some Amish, FLDS, some Jewish sects), or violence or threats of violence (some Muslims threaten death for leaving the faith), or if the Church had custody and control over the individual's assets (such as the FLDS folks), or if the Church had cloistered its members into remote communes and compounds where individuals are compelled to rely on the group for food/clothing/shelter, etc., you might have a more legitimate basis for accusing the Church of being coercively authoritarian.  But none of these applies to the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 21, 2021 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's typically used in that way.

Yes, there are.  But "consequences" is not synonymous with "coercion."

I'm glad to hear it.

And I'll be happy to welcome you back, should you ever have a change of heart.

I'm not mocking anything (I really did chuckle at the notion that a religious organization scheduling religious meetings is coercive).  I'm rejecting the absurdity of the allegations being presented here.  Voluntary membership in a religious organization is a bilateral thing.  It is absurd to fault the Church for doing what pretty much every organization in the history of the world has done: create a community and establish guidelines for membership.

Now, if the Church was into shunning (JWs, some Amish, FLDS, some Jewish sects), or violence or threats of violence (some Muslims threaten death for leaving the faith), or if the Church had custody and control over the individual's assets (such as the FLDS folks), or if the Church had cloistered its members into remote communes and compounds where individuals are compelled to rely on the group for food/clothing/shelter, etc., you might have a more legitimate basis for accusing the Church of being coercively authoritarian.  But none of these applies to the Church.  

Thanks,

-Smac

You seem to think that unless an organization explicitly threatens a member with violence or shunning, it isn't coercive at all. I suppose we'll just have to disagree. I would agree that it isn't as coercive as the examples you gave, but that's a difference of degree. 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You seem to think that unless an organization explicitly threatens a member with violence or shunning, it isn't coercive at all.

No, that's not what I think.

What I think is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot be reasonably characterized as "coercive" or "authoritarian."  It's a voluntary religious association.  There is no physical punishment or threat of it.  There is no threat of violence or actualized violence.  There is no threat to an individual's life, liberty or property.  There is no intimidation.  There is no shunning.

That is not to say that there are no consequences.  Sure there are.  A divorce usually has an adverse impact on family members, and yet we as a society allow them.  The government does not "coerce" anyone into staying in a marriage.  

So it is with the Church.  A "divorce," someone leaving the community, can be painful.  But nobody prohibits the individual from doing it.  There is no threat of any of the above items, nor any actualization of those items.  The person just . . . leaves.  That's it.  Given this context, calling the Church "coercive" or "authoritarian" is absurd.  And it infantilizes adults.  Big time.

3 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I suppose we'll just have to disagree. I would agree that it isn't as coercive as the examples you gave, but that's a difference of degree. 

I don't think I can go along with that.  It dilutes "coercion" to an absurd degree.  It infantilizes adults.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No, that's not what I think.

What I think is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot be reasonably characterized as "coercive" or "authoritarian."  It's a voluntary religious association.  There is no physical punishment or threat of it.  There is no threat of violence or actualized violence.  There is no threat to an individual's life, liberty or property.  There is no intimidation.  There is no shunning.

That is not to say that there are no consequences.  Sure there are.  A divorce usually has an adverse impact on family members, and yet we as a society allow them.  The government does not "coerce" anyone into staying in a marriage.  

So it is with the Church.  A "divorce," someone leaving the community, can be painful.  But nobody prohibits the individual from doing it.  There is no threat of any of the above items, nor any actualization of those items.  The person just . . . leaves.  That's it.  Given this context, calling the Church "coercive" or "authoritarian" is absurd.  And it infantilizes adults.  Big time.

I don't think I can go along with that.  It dilutes "coercion" to an absurd degree.  It infantilizes adults.

Thanks,

-Smac

Far be it from me to infantilize anyone. We just disagree here. You seem to think that what I said is some kind of attack, fair or not. It isn't. Just an opinion based on experience. 

[AtlanticMike]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot be reasonably characterized as "coercive" or "authoritarian

Aren't all abrahamic religions authoritarian in their teachings and principles? I mean, we believe the first law of heaven is obedience. Also, the word Islam means submission. 

   

[CV75]

12 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Aren't all abrahamic religions authoritarian in their teachings and principles? I mean, we believe the first law of heaven is obedience. Also, the word Islam means submission. 

   

Some are and some are not, depending on their practices. Typically, "authoritarian" refers to favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. We teach that loving obedience to Jesus Christ enhances our personal freedom.

Some might argue that "personal freedom" is less free than "God's freedom" which is imparted to the lovingly obedient.

[smac97]

35 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Far be it from me to infantilize anyone. We just disagree here.

I think infantilizing adults in endemic in your argument.  An adult who feels that basic rules of behavior and decorum for membership in a voluntary organization are "coercive" is not behaving reasonably.  This is particularly so in the context of the Church, the "rules" of which are both pretty darn lenient and often laxly enforced.  

35 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You seem to think that what I said is some kind of attack, fair or not. It isn't. Just an opinion based on experience. 

Accusing the Church of "coercing" its members comes across as "some kind of attack."

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

For the semantically inclined:

"Do you think that people will obey the truth because it is true, unless they love it? No, they will not. Truth is obeyed when it is loved. Strict obedience to the truth will alone enable people to dwell in the presence of the Almighty (Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, 220)."

“There is not a man of us but what is willing to acknowledge at once that God demands strict obedience to his requirements. But in rendering that strict obedience, are we made slaves? No, it is the only way on the face of the earth for you and me to become free, and we shall become slaves of our own passions, and of the wicked one, and servants to the Devil, if we take any other course” (Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, 225). 

More from Brigham Young, qualifying "strict obedience": https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-brigham-young/chapter-11?lang=eng

“Live in strict obedience to the commandments of God, and walk humbly before Him, and He will exalt thee in His own due time.” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 1:408).

"...those who have kept the faith will be crowned with a crown of righteousness; be clothed in white raiment; be admitted to the marriage feast; be free from every affliction, and reign with Christ on the earth..." (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 2:19–22)

More from Joseph Smith on the same: https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-13?lang=eng

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think infantilizing adults in endemic in your argument.  An adult who feels that basic rules of behavior and decorum for membership in a voluntary organization are "coercive" is not behaving reasonably.  This is particularly so in the context of the Church, the "rules" of which are both pretty darn lenient and often laxly enforced.  

Accusing the Church of "coercing" its members comes across as "some kind of attack."

Thanks,

-Smac

I really don't know how to have a reasonable conversation when you are determined to treat my opinion as being some kind of debating point that must be refuted. Life is way too short.

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Quote

the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot be reasonably characterized as "coercive" or "authoritarian"

Aren't all abrahamic religions authoritarian in their teachings and principles?

There is a spectrum, I suppose.  My point is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot be fairly characterized as "authoritarian."

32 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

I mean, we believe the first law of heaven is obedience.

And yet there are no indicia of "coercion" in the Church.  Or "authoritarianism" either (see here).

32 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Also, the word Islam means submission. 

And in some areas Islam treats apostasy as a capital offense.  That fits within the parameters of "'coercive' or 'authoritarian.'"

Meanwhile, the Church doesn't do that, or anything remotely close to it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

There is a spectrum, I suppose. 

My point all along. Apparently it's not an attack when you say it.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I really don't know how to have a reasonable conversation when you are determined to treat my opinion as being some kind of debating point that must be refuted. Life is way too short.

If your opinion is not something that is subject to "reasonable conversation," then you are correct.  Otherwise, you are sharing your opinion, and I am sharing mine.

And the subject matter pertains to a risible accusation against my faith.  While you are correct the life is short, it's not so short that I lack the time to rebut false or unfair characterizations of my faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ksfisher]

47 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

we believe the first law of heaven is obedience

We also believe that God lets us choose whether to obey Him or not. 

[AtlanticMike]

23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

We also believe that God lets us choose whether to obey Him or not. 

 

23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

We also believe that God lets us choose whether to obey Him or not. 

After entering the waters of baptism and receiving the Holy ghost, your free to choose what the Lord would do in all things for the rest of your mortal life. As a representative of Christ, what you want to choose doesn't matter anymore. Your not free to just choose what you want. It's more important to represent him. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Quote

There is a spectrum, I suppose. 

My point all along.

Well, not really.  If the spectrum is from "coercive" to "not coercive," the Church would be very much in the latter area.

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Apparently it's not an attack when you say it.

Nope.  I am in no way attacking my faith by characterizing it as "coercive."  I am, in fact, defending it from such falsehoods.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, not really.  If the spectrum is from "coercive" to "not coercive," the Church would be very much in the latter area.

Nope.  I am in no way attacking my faith by characterizing it as "coercive."  I am, in fact, defending it from such falsehoods.

Thanks,

-Smac

I appreciate your strong feelings. I just think you are exaggerating what I said.  My response was to your statement that coercion requires the threat of violence. I still think that’s silly. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I appreciate your strong feelings. I just think you are exaggerating what I said.  My response was to your statement that coercion requires the threat of violence. I still think that’s silly. 

Ok.  I didn't say that, tho.

[Amulek]

8 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, force is not necessarily violence. If you think there are no social or familial consequences to leaving the church, I can't help you.

Just because there aren't zero consequences doesn't make it coercion though. I mean, your spouse might very well file for divorce if you commit adultery, but I don't think anyone would say she's coercing you into remaining faithful to her.

Or a political party might stop funding and supporting you if you were to register for a rival party, but I don't think we would call such behavior coercion either. 

I'm reminded of one of the lyrics from the old Hobbit movie (the cartoon one). It went, "If you never say hello, You won't have to say goodbye." 

Like it or not, the only way to ensure that you never experience any negative social consequences from other people is to not have relationships with other people in the first place. 

I suppose that's one way to live life, but it's not one most prefer.