Coercion vs Persuasion

[Nofear]

One of the complaints from the nay-saying sphere is that the Church and scriptures portray a coercive God and not one who persuades (and hence doesn't respect moral agency in all situations). How to best respond?

1. What do you use as a the defining feature that separates coercion from persuasion

2. Apply 1. to specific examples:

• Nephi cutting off Laban's head
• Joseph Smith being threatened with a flaming sword
• Abraham taking a slave (Hagar) to wife
• Alma the younger told by angel to stop persecuting the church
• Joseph Smith being told by God himself not to join any church*
• other examples (those not believing the Church are welcome to add other examples too)

 

* Does one really refuse when God directly/in-person tells you to do something, or does his mere presence constitute coercion?

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, Nofear said:

One of the complaints from the nay-saying sphere is that the Church and scriptures portray a coercive God and not one who persuades (and hence doesn't respect moral agency in all situations). How to best respond?

1. What do you use as a the defining feature that separates coercion from persuasion

2. Apply 1. to specific examples:

• Nephi cutting off Laban's head
• Joseph Smith being threatened with a flaming sword
• Abraham taking a slave (Hagar) to wife
• Alma the younger told by angel to stop persecuting the church
• Joseph Smith being told by God himself not to join any church*
• other examples (those not believing the Church are welcome to add other examples too)

 

* Does one really refuse when God directly/in-person tells you to do something, or does his mere presence constitute coercion?

The bible was written long ago in an ancient culture.

I am not surprised that humans who were inspired with feelings from God wrote them down- yes, down- as they did

We need to not take things in context, in mind that our context is still just a human context .

It is inescapable 

I wonder how the ancients would view your comment.

I see literalism as a danger to seeing things through cultural sunglasses.

Context IS meaning. Without considering it there are only words, not concepts. We ALL need to take our understanding to a higher level imo

 

 

Edited September 12, 2022 by mfbukowski

[teddyaware]

4 minutes ago, Nofear said:

One of the complaints from the nay-saying sphere is that the Church and scriptures portray a coercive God and not one who persuades (and hence doesn't respect moral agency in all situations). How to best respond?

1. What do you use as a the defining feature that separates coercion from persuasion

2. Apply 1. to specific examples:

• Nephi cutting off Laban's head
• Joseph Smith being threatened with a flaming sword
• Abraham taking a slave (Hagar) to wife
• Alma the younger told by angel to stop persecuting the church
• Joseph Smith being told by God himself not to join any church*
• other examples (those not believing the Church are welcome to add other examples too)

 

* Does one really refuse when God directly/in-person tells you to do something, or does his mere presence constitute coercion?

Why would anyone think all the above examples leave no room for agency? In each case, they were free to choose to believe and obey or choose to not believe and obey. And before anyone should conclude that there actually was no room for choice in each example,, consider the following case in point: The 1/3 host who were cast out of heaven were told directly by God that he had chosen the preexistent Christ to be the earth’s Redeemer and that he had rejected Lucifer and his plan, yet they rejected God’s will even while fully knowing they would be cast into outer darkness. Alma was also informed that he had choice when he was confronted warned by the angel.

[Nofear]

Just now, teddyaware said:

Why would anyone think all the above examples leave no room for agency? In each case, they were free to choose to believe and obey or choose to not believe and obey. And before anyone should conclude that there actually was no room for choice in each example,, consider the following case in point: The 1/3 host who were cast out of heaven were told directly by God that he had chosen the preexistent Christ to be the earth’s Redeemer and that he had rejected Lucifer and his plan, yet they rejected God’s will even while fully knowing they would be cast into outer darkness. Alma was also informed that he had choice when he was confronted warned by the angel.

Valid as that response might be, that's not going to persuade anybody from believing that Joseph Smith wasn't coerced when an angel threatened his life with a flaming sword if he didn't continue his practice of polygamy and that he didn't truly have a choice in the matter.

[mfbukowski]

12 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Valid as that response might be, that's not going to persuade anybody from believing that Joseph Smith wasn't coerced when an angel threatened his life with a flaming sword if he didn't continue his practice of polygamy and that he didn't truly have a choice in the matter.

That itself was written in the context of its day, with folks of their time as his audience.

It was also Joseph's context. It was an authoritarian culture 

Children were whipped for mistakes, literally and only understood coercion

I'm sure God inspires us in ways we will understand "in our own tongues"

Edited September 12, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Nofear]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That itself was written in the context of its day, with folks of their time as his audience.

It was also Joseph's context. It was an authoritarian culture 

I'm sure God inspires us in ways we will understand "in our own tongues"

I agree that cultural context is important. Hagar and Abraham is example. By modern standards, since Hagar was a slave, Abraham taking her to wife would have been rape. Culturally that isn't consistent and the record may not have included many details (for example Abraham could have offered Hagar her freedom or being his wife or just continuing as she was -- thus making her choice a non-coerced one).

Still, just saying "cultural context" isn't going to satisfy one thinking Joseph was coerced into polygamy by threat of death from an angel. Not that those who are critical actually believe the story, it's just that they want to point to an inconsistency. A) LDS teach God respects agency. B) LDS God doesn't respect agency (e.g. above examples). Therefore C) LDS God is incoherent and not true.

[CV75]

46 minutes ago, Nofear said:

One of the complaints from the nay-saying sphere is that the Church and scriptures portray a coercive God and not one who persuades (and hence doesn't respect moral agency in all situations). How to best respond?

1. What do you use as a the defining feature that separates coercion from persuasion

2. Apply 1. to specific examples:

• Nephi cutting off Laban's head
• Joseph Smith being threatened with a flaming sword
• Abraham taking a slave (Hagar) to wife
• Alma the younger told by angel to stop persecuting the church
• Joseph Smith being told by God himself not to join any church*
• other examples (those not believing the Church are welcome to add other examples too)

 

* Does one really refuse when God directly/in-person tells you to do something, or does his mere presence constitute coercion?

God does respect moral agency in all situations. In the events above, His method of influence perfectly respects the participants' individually agency and humankind's agency on the whole. To whom much is given, much is expected, and His assertion of influence follows when expectations are challenged.

Nephi could still choose, as indicated by his struggle in deciding what to do. Laban had compromised and eroded his agency (despite how much God tried to influence him in his lifetime), and death may have been a merciful way to give him an opportunity to reset in teh spirit world.

[smac97]

On 9/12/2022 at 11:17 AM, Nofear said:

One of the complaints from the nay-saying sphere is that the Church and scriptures portray a coercive God and not one who persuades (and hence doesn't respect moral agency in all situations). How to best respond?

A few thoughts:

Principle No. 1: Define terms.  I think some people use words like "coercion" and "duress" in idiosyncratic or loose ways.  

• To "coerce" means "to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition ... to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion ... to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc."
• "Duress" is "compulsion by threat or force; coercion; constraint."  In legal parlance, duress arises "{w}hen a person makes unlawful threats or otherwise engages in coercive behavior that cause another person to commit acts that the other person would otherwise not commit."

It seems rather difficult to ascribe "coercion" to God since we seem to sin on a regular basis.

Principle No. 2: The Lord is, when speaking forcefully, often speaking to His covenant people.  He is calling on people who are in breach of their covenants to return to them.  It is not "coercion" to expect the other side of a contract to comply with it.

Principle No. 3: Lord is, when speaking forcefully, often speaking of conduct that is harming others.  Jacob 2 is a good example.  It's hard to argue that condemning/prohibiting behavior that is harmful to others amounts to "coercion."

Principle No. 4: We need to retain an emphasis on agency.  Obedience to the Lord's commandments is a choice, as is disobedience.  The Lord seeking to induce us toward obedience is not "coercion."

On 9/12/2022 at 11:17 AM, Nofear said:

1. What do you use as a the defining feature that separates coercion from persuasion

Coercion typically leaves the victim with no viable option except to capitulate.

Coercion disregards agency, whereas persuasion does not.

On 9/12/2022 at 11:17 AM, Nofear said:

2. Apply 1. to specific examples:

• Nephi cutting off Laban's head
• Joseph Smith being threatened with a flaming sword
• Abraham taking a slave (Hagar) to wife
• Alma the younger told by angel to stop persecuting the church
• Joseph Smith being told by God himself not to join any church*
• other examples (those not believing the Church are welcome to add other examples too)

* Does one really refuse when God directly/in-person tells you to do something, or does his mere presence constitute coercion?

Nephi cutting off Laban's head

From 1 Nephi 4:

Quote

10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.
11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.
12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;
13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.
14 And now, when I, Nephi, had heard these words, I remembered the words of the Lord which he spake unto me in the wilderness, saying that: Inasmuch as thy seed shall keep my commandments, they shall prosper in the land of promise.
15 Yea, and I also thought that they could not keep the commandments of the Lord according to the law of Moses, save they should have the law.
16 And I also knew that the law was engraven upon the plates of brass.
17 And again, I knew that the Lord had delivered Laban into my hands for this cause—that I might obtain the records according to his commandments.
18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.

"I did obey the voice of the Spirit."

Nephi said this after he "remembered" the things enumerated in v. 14-17.

Sounds like Nephi was persuaded, not coerced.

Joseph Smith being threatened with a flaming sword

These recollections are not canonized.  However, believing them to be substantively true, was Joseph "coerced?"  Hard to say definitively, as we lack a lot of context, and we are also dealing with a miraculous event (or series of events).

Also, I don't think Joseph was functioning in his individual capacity, but rather his prophetic one.  Paul repeatedly declared himself to be "a prisoner of Jesus Christ."  See Philemon 1:1, 9, Ephesians 3:1, Ephesians 4:1 ("prisoner of the Lord"), 2 Timothy 1:8 ("Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner...").  Here is Elder Condie's exegesis of this concept:

Quote

As Saul of Tarsus began his mission, he changed his name to Paul and turned his life to Christ. On several different occasions the apostle Paul referred to himself as a “prisoner” of Christ (see Ephesians 3:1, 4:1; 2 Timothy 1:8; Philemon 1, 9, 23). Once he had made the decision to serve the Lord, that decision was irrevocable.

Paul’s frequent use of the term prisoner of Christ is very significant, for he was very familiar with prisons and prisoners. Before his conversion he had personally sent numerous Saints to prison (see Acts 26:10), and after his conversion he himself had been forcibly committed to prison (see Acts 23:10–11, 28:17–18). He had observed firsthand the restricted latitude of free will in the lives of other prisoners and had experienced this confinement in his own life when imprisoned.

Thus, when Paul confessed that he had become a willing prisoner of Christ, he disclosed that he had willingly chosen to use his moral agency to do only the will of the Lord. In doing so, he unraveled the mystery of the Savior’s paradoxical promise that “he that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it” (Matthew 10:39). Those who willingly become prisoners of Christ “shall know the truth, and the truth shall make [them] free” (John 8:32). ...

As Paul became Christ’s prisoner, his life began to more closely approximate the Savior’s life. His relationship with Christ became more like the Savior’s relationship with his Father. 

The key bit: "Those who willingly become prisoners of Christ..."

It seems that prophets are, when functioning in that capacity, obligated to surrender some measure of their agency, or else subordinate their preferences to those of the Lord.  This is not a new concept.  Anyone who, under the law, functions as a "fiduciary" (lawyers and accountants, for example) are obligated to act in the best interests of the principal (the client), even if doing so contravenes the preferences of the fiduciary.  And a fiduciary, having willingly taken upon himself that role, cannot thereafter claim to be "coerced" when the principal expects him to do his job.  See Principle No. 2 above.

Abraham taking a slave (Hagar) to wife

Per the Church, the Lord commanded Sarah to give Hagar to Abraham for his wife and commanded Abraham to take Hagar as his wife (see D&C 132:34–35). 

What sort of "coercion" do you see implicated here?

Alma the younger told by angel to stop persecuting the church

See Principle Nos. 2 and 3 above.

Joseph Smith being told by God himself not to join any church*

What sort of "coercion" do you see implicated here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 30, 2022 by smac97

[LoudmouthMormon]

God is our Heavenly Father.  Have any of the parents here really never used coercion or force when raising their children?  Have your kiddos truly never even given a single ounce of behavior that caused you to temporarily not respect their moral agency?

[manol]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Valid as that response might be, that's not going to persuade anybody from believing that Joseph Smith wasn't coerced when an angel threatened his life with a flaming sword if he didn't continue his practice of polygamy and that he didn't truly have a choice in the matter.

My understanding is that the "angel with a flaming sword" is at best a second-hand story which was first told many years after Joseph's death.  I don't think we have it in Joseph's own words, so we don't know what he actually said, nor whether he portrayed the encounter a certain way for effect, nor whether he really was the original source. 

Regarding the scriptures, evidently God deliberately uses harsh language for effect.  See D&C 19:6-12.

Personally, I think we "find" that which we "seek", or that which we are "in tune with", whether it be in reading the scriptures, or in life in general.  If we are in tune with "God is love", then that is what we will perceive, and anything less than that, or inconsistent with that, is no longer of primary importance to us, and becomes background noise.

 

Edited September 12, 2022 by manol

[JLHPROF]

Affixing a penalty to a command and then following through on said penalty doesn't impact agency.

"Free" agency is an incorrect principle.  We don't get to choose without consequence.
Agency means the ability to choose and live with the consequence.

The existence of a penalty may be viewed as coercive but it's a natural consequence too.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Abraham taking a slave (Hagar) to wife

Per the Church, the Lord commanded Sarah to give Hagar to Abraham for his wife and commanded Abraham to take Hagar as his wife (see D&C 132:34–35). 

What sort of "coercion" do you see implicated here?

Um... Hagar's agency? You know Sarah's slave?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, Nofear said:

One of the complaints from the nay-saying sphere is that the Church and scriptures portray a coercive God and not one who persuades (and hence doesn't respect moral agency in all situations). How to best respond?

1. What do you use as a the defining feature that separates coercion from persuasion

2. Apply 1. to specific examples:

• Nephi cutting off Laban's head
• Joseph Smith being threatened with a flaming sword
• Abraham taking a slave (Hagar) to wife
• Alma the younger told by angel to stop persecuting the church
• Joseph Smith being told by God himself not to join any church*
• other examples (those not believing the Church are welcome to add other examples too)

 

* Does one really refuse when God directly/in-person tells you to do something, or does his mere presence constitute coercion?

I think it is an interesting question. If none of these amount to coercion or a violation of agency, how does that impact the problem of evil? One of the most common justifications used for the presence of things like child rape in this world is that God can't violate human agency. If an angel with a flaming sword doesn't violate agency, shouldn't we be seeing a lot more of them?

Edited September 12, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Um... Hagar's agency? You know Sarah's slave?

Ah.  Okay.  I had not construed Hagar marriage to Abraham as being without her consent.  The biblical narrative is pretty sparse.

Thanks,

-Smac  

[Nofear]

Thank you for the replies. Special props to smac97 for taking the time to detail some thoughts from a legal perspective.
Wouldn't mind some more push back from SeekingUnderstanding and others with the same mind. Not because I agree with them (I don't) but so as see some good responses. It's usually easy to respond to a complaint or criticism that one imagines the other makes.

[MrShorty]

I think it is a really interesting question.

First to definitions. I don't know about dictionary definitions for "coerce" or "persuade." To me, the major difference between "persuade" and "coerce" is whether or not the person truly changes their desires in favor of the new desires/actions. For those familiar with Dr. Willard Harley and his book His Needs, Her Needs, I am reminded of his "Policy of Joint Agreement." This "policy" states that you never make a decision until you have "enthusiastic agreement" from both spouses. Anything less than enthusiastic agreement (begrudging agreement or capitulation etc.) is unacceptable. There's probably a broad gray area for begrudging agreement in between full coercion and full persuasion, but the goal is full persuasion.

As noted, we often talk about consequences when we talk about agency. Considering those two things with respect to the scenarios:

Laban and Nephi. Ignoring the quest for the brass plates, Lehi had already decided to abandon his wealth in Jerusalem and leave it all behind. Nephi et al's attempt to use that "abandoned" wealth to purchase the plates didn't work, because of Laban's greed (no mention of swords, yet). At the point where Nephi finds Laban incapacitated, Nephi is given the choice between "descendents dwindling in unbelief" and "kill Laban to obtain Brass Plates which prevents dwindling in unbelief." As I read it, Nephi is ultimately mostly persuaded to buy in, and he follows through. Looking at consequences, they still abandon their wealth in Jerusalem, Laban is killed, and many descendants still dwindle in unbelief. From my view in the 21st century, it still seems morally ambiguous at best.

Abraham and Sarah and Hagar. Abraham was promised numerous posterity (a Very Valuable Thing in those days, I am told). His first wife, Sarah, however, seems barren. At some point, Abraham is given the choice between taking a second wife (Hagar) in order to realize the promise of posterity or risk having no posterity at all. Scripture lacks much detail of Abraham's internal wrestle. Based on him later casting Hagar out after Sarah had also produced posterity, I am going to guess that Abraham was much less than persuaded. He at best begrudgingly accepted the second wife and seems to have never truly embraced Hagar and her posterity. Long term consequences -- this rift in a polygamous family is cited as a major source of the animosity among Abraham's modern posterity.

Joseph Smith and polygamy: I'm not fully convinced that Joseph Smith was a reluctant polygamist. From what I have gathered from the histories (like Rough Stone Rolling) suggest that, if he was ever reluctant, he became persuaded and willingly pursued polygamy. Emma, on the other hand, was never persuaded, and was, at best, begrudgingly capitulated (consider law of Sarah as described in D&C 132). Considering her denials after Joseph's death, coercion would seem to apply to Emma's acceptance of polygamy. A presentist note here -- in our modern thoughts around sexual assault, any kind of threats to life/health ("you will die or I will die if you don't have sex with me") is automatically considered coercion, no matter what consent is verbally given. I'm not sure how Joseph or Emma felt about the threats against them if they did not comply, nor can I say anything about eternal principles governing agency and such threats, but such threats sure seem antithetical in an eternal principle kind of way to any kind of genuine persuasion with the goal of getting "enthusiastic agreement." I don't think it is any secret that the secretive practice of polygamy figured very prominently in the events and attitudes leading up to the martyrdom. In addition, polygamy is and will probably forever be a thorn in the church's side that contributes to some not accepting the restored church and others disaffecting from the church. Some try to point to the strength of the core polygamist families as a positive consequence of polygamy. At best, the consequences of Joseph's polygamy are a mixed bag.

Alma the younger and the church of his day: Another case of "stop this or else you will be destroyed." In the end, Alma is fully persuaded to embrace the Christian church of his day and eventually goes on to lead the church. This example might introduce the question of whether "the ends justifies the means." Are coercive methods like threats of destruction morally acceptable to God as long as the outcome is true conversion? Consequences of Alma's conversion seem to be mostly positive. He becomes a strongly converted defender and leader of the faith.

Joseph being told not to join any church: As Joseph describes it in his 1838 (canonized) history, he did not have a strong inclination towards any one church at the time. He was concerned about knowing God and finding God's path for him in life. I'm inclined to say that his visionary experience persuades him that he need not join any church (recall that he wasn't strongly inclined to join any one church anyway), perhaps in part because he was confident God would direct him on the correct religious and/or spiritual path. In consequence, he remained open to revelatory experiences, and later continued to seek God for direction, eventually resulting the Restoration.

As eternal principles go, I am inclined to believe that God really wants our enthusiastic agreement when we accept His commands and instructions. I do find myself bothered by the coercive examples (like Joseph Smith's flaming sword), because those kinds of "persuasive" tactics don't seem to be conducive to getting enthusiastic buy in, but maybe the ends justifies the means, when such tactics are successful at bringing about conversion, but I find myself still uncomfortable with them. I also find that, when it comes to "choosing consequences," the examples given often lead to mixed consequences -- neither clearly "good" or clearly "bad."

In the end, it seems like moral ambiguity is a solid feature of this fallen existence. Sometimes I wonder if we even begin to understand any of God's eternal principles, which can make it difficult to believe in and follow God as presented by the church, because who knows how much of our idea of who or what God is (or what constitutes Eternal Principles espoused by God).

Edited September 12, 2022 by MrShorty
minor typos

[Nofear]

This is an example of trying to wrestle with Nephi's slaying of Laban. https://latterdaysaintmag.com/was-nephis-murder-of-laban-legal/

The push back one can give is that while it may have been culturally appropriate for Nephi to have killed Laban 1) is God the same today and tomorrow or is God culturally contextual? Today it would be wrong. And 2) Why did Laban have to die (and hence remove opportunity for him to exercise his agency later and repent -- even if he wouldn't have, shouldn't he have the opportunity?), was not God capable of providing the same ends without Laban's slaying?

Admittedly the complaints here have the potential to be different than the concept of coercion vs persuasion. An example of how a nay-sayer might "move the goal posts" as it were. That's not to say the new goal posts aren't worthy of response. But if one does that, it's important to have the interlocutor acknowledge the coercion point exists separately from the morality of the slaying issue. But they may be similar enough in thought that even that concession may be a hard pill for the critic to swallow.

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Um... Hagar's agency? You know Sarah's slave?

God commanded/Sarah commanded (depending on your perspective).

Hagar had agency to obey or disobey.  

There were consequences to either choice.

I'm missing the lack of agency part.

Edited September 12, 2022 by JLHPROF

[SeekingUnderstanding]

59 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

God commanded/Sarah commanded (depending on your perspective).

Hagar had agency to obey or disobey.  

There were consequences to either choice.

I'm missing the lack of agency part.

I think that is a fine tact to take. Agency is still preserved in some form I guess under the “obey or die” command. That said, I think taking this approach raises significant challenges for defending the problem of evil based on God respecting our agency. 

Edited September 12, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[manol]

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

In the end, it seems like moral ambiguity is a solid feature of this fallen existence. Sometimes I wonder if we even begin to understand any of God's eternal principles, which can make it difficult to believe in and follow God as presented by the church... 

Maybe things are deliberately "set up" such that we are presented with the opportunity to follow what our inner voice tells us, or what an established and respected external authority (the church in this case) tells us, neither choice being necessarily "wrong".  Maybe we learn from and benefit from the experience either way. 

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, Nofear said:

One of the complaints from the nay-saying sphere is that the Church and scriptures portray a coercive God and not one who persuades (and hence doesn't respect moral agency in all situations). How to best respond?

1. What do you use as a the defining feature that separates coercion from persuasion

2. Apply 1. to specific examples:

• Nephi cutting off Laban's head
• Joseph Smith being threatened with a flaming sword
• Abraham taking a slave (Hagar) to wife
• Alma the younger told by angel to stop persecuting the church
• Joseph Smith being told by God himself not to join any church*
• other examples (those not believing the Church are welcome to add other examples too)

 

* Does one really refuse when God directly/in-person tells you to do something, or does his mere presence constitute coercion?

Interesting set of thoughts.

On 1 I would say I'm okay with the basic context of the googled definitions. Coercion is trying to persuade someone via threats and force or to restrain/dominate by force. Persuasion is to cause (someone) to believe something, especially after a sustained effort; convince. Or to (of a situation or event) provide a sound reason for (someone) to do something.

The other thing I would add is a distinction between threats and divulging consequence/effect. For example, Yelling to someone to stop or they'll drive off a cliff and die is different than saying "stop or I'll drive you off a cliff or die." More realistically, when I sit someone down and telling them they need to change ASAP cuz they're in the wrong and xyz will happen on this course, this isn't a threat, it's divulging consequence that they're ignoring/unaware of. 

Ok, on to 2. The ones that are easily strong persuasion, IMO are crossed out above. The ones in bold are tangential to me. Abraham taking Hagar isn't really clarified as to why it began. There's not really a mention of God till Hagar runs away and it counseled to go back to Abraham because she's preggo and the kid/she have a great purpose to fulfill. That part I would consider persuasion, what got her into the situation in the first place isn't openly defined as directed by God in the first place, so I don't feel a need to call it either in terms with God. JS not joining church was a direct answer to him sincerely asking what God wanted from him in this regards. This is different to both persuasion or coercion as the directive was initiated by JS asking for direction on this and God answering him, albeit in a way he didn't foresee but that he also wasn't opposed to. But on the *question, people have refused, found work arounds, or half-obey directives from God, even in powerful answers. Alma the younger compared to Laman and lemuel's angel visit for example. Balak finding a way to not curse Israel while still giving the prince something to work with against Israel is another. 

That last one leads to the last italicized part, which is likely the most difficult to suss from coercion and persuasion. Let's say the accounts around this are accurate. He's at this point made more than one promise out of choice to follow whatever God asks of him. God asks one that he finds difficult to follow and he's wishy washy on this. Partially (assumptions follow) from the stress it puts on his marriage with Emma that's most obviously his major partner and mate.  Partially from knowing or sensing he's sitting on a powder keg socially with this one, both within the faith community and outside with increasingly more hostile situations. Maybe partially from his own mixed feelings about what this is entailing. So this seems dangerous and a bad idea when he's focused on the literal concerns right in front of him. God can't lie. He can't promise that this will be a basket of joy and blessings and goodness in his temporal circumstance. It won't be. But if true, something about this was absolutely necessary long term. In short God can't persuade him by carrots. So the question is then is there space for sticks in persuasion? Where the consequence of disobeying God can be laid really bare? I can see an argument for this being coercive, I can also make an argument for how it can fit into being persuasive by laying out real consequence for failing God on a command made 3 times clearly and directly while acting as a Prophet of God.  

 

 I'm sure how one sees God will also differ based on one's experience with God. One of my most formative experience around this was when I was in an unhealthy relationship I didn't want to be in anymore because God had told me to. I'd begun griping about it a ton in my prayers...and probably to anyone who knew the situation well enough for me to gripe to. I felt pushed (coerced) into this circumstance I wouldn't have chosen for myself. One day while praying it became clear that I had a choice. That I could live a decent life without doing this thing or that I could follow God and have something greater. Humbled, I reaffirmed that I wanted to choose and follow God, wherever. God had told me when I sought God well before this to stay, the experiences of this persuasion were strong but peaceful answers to stick this through. When I didn't I often became off balance in weird ways I refused to name because I was trying really hard to ignore God and parts of myself in order to pull it off (which again could be seen as coercion...or natural consequence for going against light, truth, and God's ways). I was choosing not a earthly relationship, but God in obeying, and I'd lost track of that in my pain and frustration. I still view this as being persuaded to follow God...but I can easily see how someone may see these same circumstances as being coerced by God too. It's a matter of where we stand and what outcomes we see as defining choice.

 

With luv,

BD    

Edited September 13, 2022 by BlueDreams

[teddyaware]

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Interesting set of thoughts.

On 1 I would say I'm okay with the basic context of the googled definitions. Coercion is trying to persuade someone via threats and force or to restrain/dominate by force. Persuasion is to cause (someone) to believe something, especially after a sustained effort; convince. Or to (of a situation or event) provide a sound reason for (someone) to do something.

The other thing I would add is a distinction between threats and divulging consequence/effect. For example, Yelling to someone to stop or they'll drive off a cliff and die is different than saying "stop or I'll drive you off a cliff or die." More realistically, when I sit someone down and telling them they need to change ASAP cuz they're in the wrong and xyz will happen on this course, this isn't a threat, it's divulging consequence that they're ignoring/unaware of. 

Ok, on to 2. The ones that are easily strong persuasion, IMO are crossed out above. The ones in bold are tangential to me. Abraham taking Hagar isn't really clarified as to why it began. There's not really a mention of God till Hagar runs away and it counseled to go back to Abraham because she's preggo and the kid/she have a great purpose to fulfill. That part I would consider persuasion, what got her into the situation in the first place isn't openly defined as directed by God in the first place, so I don't feel a need to call it either in terms with God. JS not joining church was a direct answer to him sincerely asking what God wanted from him in this regards. This is different to both persuasion or coercion as the directive was initiated by JS asking for direction on this and God answering him, albeit in a way he didn't foresee but that he also wasn't opposed to. But on the *question, people have refused, found work arounds, or half-obey directives from God, even in powerful answers. Alma the younger compared to Laman and lemuel's angel visit for example. Balak finding a way to not curse Israel while still giving the prince something to work with against Israel is another. 

That last one leads to the last italicized part, which is likely the most difficult to suss from coercion and persuasion. Let's say the accounts around this are accurate. He's at this point made more than one promise out of choice to follow whatever God asks of him. God asks one that he finds difficult to follow and he's wishy washy on this. Partially (assumptions follow) from the stress it puts on his marriage with Emma that's most obviously his major partner and mate.  Partially from knowing or sensing he's sitting on a powder keg socially with this one, both within the faith community and outside with increasingly more hostile situations. Maybe partially from his own mixed feelings about what this is entailing. So this seems dangerous and a bad idea when he's focused on the literal concerns right in front of him. God can't lie. He can't promise that this will be a basket of joy and blessings and goodness in his temporal circumstance. It won't be. But if true, something about this was absolutely necessary long term. In short God can't persuade him by carrots. So the question is then is there space for sticks in persuasion? Where the consequence of disobeying God can be laid really bare? I can see an argument for this being coercive, I can also make an argument for how it can fit into being persuasive by laying out real consequence for failing God on a command made 3 times clearly and directly while acting as a Prophet of God.  

 

 I'm sure how one sees God will also differ based on one's experience with God. One of my most formative experience around this was when I was in an unhealthy relationship I didn't want to be in anymore because God had told me to. I'd begun griping about it a ton in my prayers...and probably to anyone who knew the situation well enough for me to gripe to. I felt pushed (coerced) into this circumstance I wouldn't have chosen for myself. One day while praying it became clear that I had a choice. That I could live a decent life without doing this thing or that I could follow God and have something greater. Humbled, I reaffirmed that I wanted to choose and follow God, wherever. God had told me when I sought God well before this to stay, the experiences of this persuasion were strong but peaceful answers to stick this through. When I didn't I often became off balance in weird ways I refused to name because I was trying really hard to ignore God and parts of myself in order to pull it off (which again could be seen as coercion...or natural consequence for going against light, truth, and God's ways). I was choosing not a earthly relationship, but God in obeying, and I'd lost track of that in my pain and frustration. I still view this as being persuaded to follow God...but I can easily see how someone may see these same circumstances as being coerced by God too. It's a matter of where we stand and what outcomes we see as defining choice.

 

With luv,

BD    

The angel and the flaming sword must be understood within the extraordinary context of the fact that at this point in his ministry, if Joseph disobeyed God in a matter of such paramount importance,  he would have become a son of perdition due to the fact that he had a sure and certain knowledge of the truth that exceedingly few ever obtain. Disobeying the Lord at this point in time would have had the most dire consequences and the angel with the flaming sword was only reminding Joseph of this reality.. Even as far back as his first vision Joseph was already facing dire consequences if he refused to remain faithful to God. Where much is given, much is expected.

25 So it was with me. I had actually seen a light, and in the midst of that light I saw two ^aPersonages, and they did in reality speak to me; and though I was ^bhated and ^cpersecutedfor saying that I had seen a vision, yet it was true; and while they were persecuting me, reviling me, and speaking all manner of evil against me ^dfalsely for so saying, I was led to say in my heart: Why persecute me for telling the truth? I have actually seen a vision; and who am I that I can withstand God, or why does the world think to make me deny what I have actually seen? For I had seen a vision; I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not ^edeny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by teddyaware

[Teancum]

On 9/12/2022 at 1:17 PM, Nofear said:

Does one really refuse when God directly/in-person tells you to do something, or does his mere presence constitute coercion?

If there is a god and it tells me something in person I am likely to do it. Still waiting for this.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

If there is a god and it tells me something in person I am likely to do it. Still waiting for this.

Desiring to return to first estate testing? 

[Teancum]

On 9/12/2022 at 2:13 PM, CV75 said:

God does respect moral agency in all situations. In the events above, His method of influence perfectly respects the participants' individually agency and humankind's agency on the whole. To whom much is given, much is expected, and His assertion of influence follows when expectations are challenged.

Himmm "Joseph, take many wives or this angel chops off your head with this flaming sword."  Not much of a choice.

On 9/12/2022 at 2:13 PM, CV75 said:

Nephi could still choose, as indicated by his struggle in deciding what to do. Laban had compromised and eroded his agency (despite how much God tried to influence him in his lifetime), and death may have been a merciful way to give him an opportunity to reset in teh spirit world.

Are you serious?  Poor Laban ( if he existed) was out cold drunk.  Nehi could have just taken his clothes and obtained the brass plates the same way he did.  And Laban's clothes would not have been covered in blood. One wonders why that did not raise the eyebrows of Laban's servant.