Coercion vs Persuasion

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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

death may have been a merciful way to give him an opportunity to reset in teh spirit world.

What guiding principles are in play for when God steps in to kill or stop someone and when he respects their agency through a hands off approach. Take all the child abusers in the world. When would God show mercy to them the way he showed mercy to Laban?

[Teancum]

22 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Desiring to return to first estate testing? 

I have no evidence of a first estate nor do you.

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I have no evidence of a first estate nor do you.

Don't need to.  The concept is still there.  We all proved that we could believe in follow God with evidence in the first estate.   The capacity to believe and follow something with evidence is not a noble concept or anything impressive.  Any moron can believe something if they have evidence first.    I show you a banana in my hand.  You say its a banana because you have the evidence.  Now I go to two complete idiots and ask them what I have in my hand.  They say banana based on the same criteria and conditions as you used.  What separates you from those two idiots?  The dumbest people on the planet can believe and follow something with evidence.  I would hope you would desire to rise above that and separate yourself from everyone else and their capacity.  

You require evidence before you believe.  Fine.  Don't think believing after evidence makes you special.  It just makes you baseline.  To believe something and follow something without evidence might be stupid to you but it is what separates those few from everyone else. God is impressed with those people.  He is not impressed with those who can do what everyone else does.  You desired to return to first estate testing.  Testing where we believe after evidence.  You want to retest things you have passed long ago.  Fine but that is moving backwards, not forwards. 

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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

It's about context.  More "obey God or lose your life".  I think God has every right to give us that choice.  It's no different than "obey God and receive eternal life".

It's a basic gospel principle that doesn't remove choice in any way.  Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Quote

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. 

Life is God's to take any way he sees fit.  He delivered Laban's life.  It was his to deliver.  Laban could have chosen righteousness.  He could have given the plates.  He could have bankrolled the entire expedition.  There are always choices.  But God has authority over all our lives, period.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

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

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. 

Polemics and rhetoric, with some association fallacy mixed in; good job! effective barriers to intelligent discussion

49 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What guiding principles are in play for when God steps in to kill or stop someone and when he respects their agency through a hands off approach. Take all the child abusers in the world. When would God show mercy to them the way he showed mercy to Laban?

I did say “may”… Your question is addressed in the rationale given Nephi when the Spirit urged him on (I'm sure been through this multiple times; see D&C 50: 10 - 12). The guiding principle for persuasion of course is that God gave us our agency and respects it. The guiding principle for administering justice and mercy, which go past persuasion and based in the atonement of Jesus Christ, is divine wisdom. Justice and mercy can be viewed as coercive because all are subject to, and no one can undo, God’s exercise of justice and mercy.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

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

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. 

People forget how dark the pre-electric world was once the sun went down. It would be more shocking if the servant did notice the blood. The only thing Nephi really had to disguise was his voice and he probably said very little. The sound of Laban’s armor was probably the biggest identifier Zoram had other than the voice. The only real oddity in the story is why Nephi told Zoram to come with him. Hell of a risk.

Laban’s death prevented a likely pursuit. Stealing the records probably went unnoticed for a long time.

Edited September 13, 2022 by The Nehor

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Laban’s death prevented a likely pursuit. Stealing the records probably went unnoticed for a long time.

I personally think that Laban probably needed killing (sounds like a Nazi  ). 
 

That said, I’m not sure why the brass plates were that important. In a world filled with Liahona’s that appear outside your tent, and in a world where a good seer stone and a top hat can produce a record, it seems like other, easier (and less troubling for Nephi) options were available. 

Edited September 13, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[The Nehor]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I personally think that Laban probably needed killing (sounds like a Nazi  ). 
 

That said, I’m not sure why the brass plates where that important. In a world filled with Liahona’s that appear outside your tent, and in a world where a good seer stone and a top hat can produce a record, it seems like other, easier (and less troubling for Nephi) options were available. 

I am usually only for punching Nazis in a non-lethal violence situation but I will make it an exception in this case.

Short of some mostly imperishable record popping up out of nowhere I think God would have gotten tired of having to redictate the Law of Moses repeatedly when the previous seerstone copy was destroyed. Would the Mulekites have believed in the authenticity of a written copy of the Law that could have been altered in any number of ways over the centuries.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/12/2022 at 10:58 AM, Nofear said:

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

We have had this problem elsewhere this week.

You have yet to define "truth" coherently in a spiritual context, so I don't know what you are talking about. Your point is circular. You use your own INTERPRETATION to assert God coerces us, then conclude that God is coercive.

How do we find a spiritual story to be " true" or "false"?  "Testimony."  Relational experience in which emotions "count"

And that is confirmed by contemporary philosophers, even atheists- as the only conclusion that actually works ; human experience in a relational sense as seen in theories like "radical empiricism".

Arguing about the contents of another's dream is pointless.

The truth of spiritual stories are proven by their emotional interpretation for the individual. Alma 32.  If the story is "sweet" TO THE INDIVIDUAL it is true TO THE INDIVIDUAL.

What "really happened" is 1- unknowable and therefore 2- irrelevant.  We have stories and interpretations, and your guess and my guess.

Seeing beliefs as functional, pragmatic tools about what is unknowable takes the discussion to a higher level than a fundamentalist attempt at pretending to know " what really happened" in a historical context. Without a theory of "truth" which is acceptable neither conclusion is rationally justifiable

One cannot get past "yes it is" " no it isn't " when debating an unknowable based on no evidence, interpretations and stories from dreams.

It becomes a fully religious discussion which depends on an individual's testimony, or lack thereof. 

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Don't need to.  The concept is still there.  We all proved that we could believe in follow God with evidence in the first estate.  

The only reason you believe it some first estate is because it is what your religion teaches.  Other religions lack this concept.  Who is right? Who is wrong?

 

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

 

The capacity to believe and follow something with evidence is not a noble concept or anything impressive.  Any moron can believe something if they have evidence first.  

I did not call it a noble concept though it does seem to be a reasonable method to determine where one should devote substantive amount of their time, money and lives to before making such commitments.  And your comment about any moron can believe anything with evidence is ironic.  Actually any moron can have "faith" in anything without evidence that is what religion is all about.  Some humans used to think Odin was God.  Other Zeus.  Hindus have thousands of Gods.  ALl with little to no evidence.  I can believe in hobbits and wizards and middle earth if I wish. No evidence.  Because any moron can believe anything they want and often do.  You really ought to rethink your comment.

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

 

 

  I show you a banana in my hand.  You say its a banana because you have the evidence.  Now I go to two complete idiots and ask them what I have in my hand.  They say banana based on the same criteria and conditions as you used.  What separates you from those two idiots?  The dumbest people on the planet can believe and follow something with evidence.  I would hope you would desire to rise above that and separate yourself from everyone else and their capacity.  

This is really a poor argument and example.  Rise above everyone else?  WHat is it that makes believing in something  that has little to no evidence a noble virtue?  Why is faith put on some pedestal?  People have done more stupid and bad things because of faith in some belief than anything else really.

 

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

You require evidence before you believe.  Fine.  Don't think believing after evidence makes you special.  It just makes you baseline. 

Straw man. Never said it makes me special. And yes I so want a level of evidence before I make major commitments.  The Church and other faith systems expect commitment with little to no evidence.  Huge commitments.  Life commitments.  An 8 year old who is unable to make such a commitment makes it all the time. Then the church later uses that "covenant" to coerce the now teen to serve a mission and on and on.  The Church baptizes converts with the scantist of information and then expects huge commitments.  And this they loose most of these converts.  And you think I am the moron?  😏

16 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

 

To believe something and follow something without evidence might be stupid to you but it is what separates those few from everyone else. God is impressed with those people.  He is not impressed with those who can do what everyone else does.  You desired to return to first estate testing.  Testing where we believe after evidence.  You want to retest things you have passed long ago.  Fine but that is moving backwards, not forwards. 

Your argument is quite frankly, ludicrous. 

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

It's about context.  More "obey God or lose your life".  I think God has every right to give us that choice.  It's no different than "obey God and receive eternal life".

It's a basic gospel principle that doesn't remove choice in any way.  Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Life is God's to take any way he sees fit.  He delivered Laban's life.  It was his to deliver.  Laban could have chosen righteousness.  He could have given the plates.  He could have bankrolled the entire expedition.  There are always choices.  But God has authority over all our lives, period.

Sounds like a horrible god to me.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, CV75 said:

Polemics and rhetoric, with some association fallacy mixed in; good job! effective barriers to intelligent discussion

Feel free to point out the flaws and fallacy in my comment if you can.

[teddyaware]

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Your argument is quite frankly, ludicrous. 

The Book of Mormon testifies that virtue of the atonement of Jesus Christ we are all free to believe what we want to believe. But just because we are free to believe whatever we want to believe won’t help us to avoid the consequences of what we believe.

I’m quite certain that your comment about soundly reasoned defenses of the gospel of Christ being ludicrous is exactly the kind of thing one would have heard in during the war in heaven when one-third of God’s spirit children were be cast into perdition. And I think it’s quite likely if one were able to ask some of that one-third host today if they still believe the gospel is ludicrous they would most passionately answer in the affirmative. So at least you can take some comfort in knowing that there a billions who think as you do, in absolute certitude that they’re right. It’s very natural for the natural man to believe the gospel of Christ is a load of hogwash because spiritual blindness prevents the mind from seeing the full picture.

[BlueDreams]

18 hours 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.

Honestly, I kinda doubt this, but not for CO2's reasoning. Mine's based on agency and personal experience. 

I doubt anyonef would really go against their most valued beliefs and assumptions about the world simply by the appearance of a God saying "yo, do this thing that completely opposes 20-50 years of strongly held values you follow." I believed/followed God, received strong answers (no god appearances via physical eyes FWIW), and still really struggled when what I was asked to do went against just about everything I naturally felt or believed was good. It's unnatural to contradict oneself. And I believe and experience a God that expects change from us and the world around us when we choose Them.   

Even on a non-god basis, it's well known that the hardest thing to change in therapy is people's values. Most the time, unless it's obviously toxic, it's best not to touch them...even if you think there may be better values to hold. The few time's I have to, doing so ain't easy. I can't just go up and give them stats and figures as to why they should change their beliefs (evidence). It doesn't sink in, or worse it get's reincorporated in unhealthy ways in their pre-existing system. What becomes easier for them is to either find a way to reject the source or to dismiss the advice as mere opinion. 

This brings me to agency. I don't think agency is completely gone just because God or an angel shows up. We still have choice and our current paradigms that may make it really difficult to shift one's beliefs just because we saw God. If one's asked to change a fundamental part of who you are or do something antithetical to how you behave, it may be easier to dismiss the experience in one way or another. Visions and angels become hallucinations or a psychological break due to stress. Or simply something hard to explain, but that must have natural reasons for why they occurred. If no one else saw God or signs of God when you were having the manifestation this would make it even easier to dismiss. If you fell asleep from exhaustion after, you could dismiss it as a really weird dream. Maybe one doesn't deny the manifestation but just the message. There is always an answer or means to dismiss the experience in favor for what we prefer to do and value. 

In short, God can't force someone to belief let alone faith. Even more blatant and strong answers can't touch our ability to choose otherwise. What does change IMHO is accountability and responsibility to the answer we received. To the experiences where someone with little faith did get a potent answer, it was usually a decision weighing between the damage they were causing and the damage to their potential salvation if they rejected the message. And some still chose otherwise to God to one degree or another.   

 

With luv,

BD

[Rain]

On 9/12/2022 at 10:49 AM, 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 

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"

I think God can inspire us in ways we understand, but I don't think he becomes an imperfect parent so that children with imperfect parents will understand. What you are saying is that God becomes abusive so that children with abusive parents will understand.

And yes I get context.  I understand that many (I doubt all) parents whipped and beat children, but that doesn't mean it was not abusive. When we know better we do better and God certainly knows  how to parent his children better than an 1830s parent who beats his child with a whip.

 

[Teancum]

44 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The Book of Mormon testifies that virtue of the atonement of Jesus Christ we are all free to believe what we want to believe. But just because we are free to believe whatever we want to believe won’t help us to avoid the consequences of what we believe.

I am not worried. 

44 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I’m quite certain that your comment about soundly reasoned defenses of the gospel of Christ being ludicrous is exactly the kind of thing one would have heard in during the war in heaven when one-third of God’s spirit children were be cast into perdition. And I think it’s quite likely if one were able to ask some of that one-third host today if they still believe the gospel is ludicrous they would most passionately answer in the affirmative. So at least you can take some comfort in knowing that there a billions who think as you do, in absolute certitude that they’re right. It’s very natural for the natural man to believe the gospel of Christ is a load of hogwash because spiritual blindness prevents the mind from seeing the full picture.

Your myth is nice. But it is just that.  A myth.  Keep preaching from the wall Samuel.

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Rain said:

I think God can inspire us in ways we understand, but I don't think he becomes an imperfect parent so that children with imperfect parents will understand. What you are saying is that God becomes abusive so that children with abusive parents will understand.

And yes I get context.  I understand that many (I doubt all) parents whipped and beat children, but that doesn't mean it was not abusive. When we know better we do better and God certainly knows  how to parent his children better than an 1830s parent who beats his child with a whip.

 

I am making God abusive because the translation of some words INSPIRED in a prophet's heart - the FEELING the prophet felt was that God will punish us as children were then punished 3000 years ago SOUND harsh to us today?

We tend to forget sometimes- we ALL do, that the nuanced feelings that a human attributes to God in a context we cannot even pretend to understand in a foreign language and culture we cannot even fathom are not necessarily God's actual spoke "words".

Unless they are "translated correctly".  And honestly I don't even know what that means in this context. This stuff ain't easy.

 

[Stargazer]

On 9/12/2022 at 6:17 PM, 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 flaming sword thing... interesting, isn't it? It's akin to Paul on the road to Damascus, Jonah with his whale, and the Tower of Babel. Sometimes, it seems that people are just not going to be allowed a choice. How many people perished in The Flood? All of those above had a choice. A limited choice, but a choice nevertheless. The Flood people had a choice, too, and rejected Noah's message. What happened to them was the result of disobedience/sin.

I once prayed to know whether I should do a certain thing, or rather, not do a certain thing, and for the first and so far last time in my life, got the "stupor of thought." Pretty remarkable, all things considered. I knew freaking darned well and unmistakably what God wanted me to do. And so I did it. Was I being coerced or persuaded?

The thing I take away from the coercion vs persuasion thing is that God gives us that rule. He's not subject to it, and will do as seems Him best. 

• Nephi and Laban: Nephi tried persuasion. Twice. On the third attempt, God made him do the necessary thing -- because He couldn't let the Lehites go to the New World without the scriptures. Laban's life was less important than that.
• God evidently felt that introducing plural marriage to the Saints was worth His prophet's life. If Joseph Smith had stood in the way of it, then it was important enough to remove the roadblock. There was still a backup: Joseph Knight, Jr.
• Abraham was not coerced to take Hagar as a concubine. Hagar was offered to Abraham by Abraham's wife, Sarah, in order to fulfill Sarah's own responsibility to provide an heir, in this case via proxy. It was part of the mores of the age.
• Alma the Younger was the Saul of Tarsus of his age. Like Paul, he was sufficiently important to the Lord's purposes, that his agency was discounted in favor of what he needed to do.
• Joseph Smith being told by God himself not to join any church. Seriously? He came to God asking what he should do. You count God's response as coercion? Joseph surely didn't expect to not get guidance, since that was what he came for.

Add to your list Noah and Jonah.

Some individuals are important enough to the process of testing that they are given less choice in what they do. But I think it's safe to say that every single one of them have already demonstrated to God that they are willing to "go the distance" well before they are confronted by so-called coercive situations.

[Teancum]

53 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Honestly, I kinda doubt this, but not for CO2's reasoning. Mine's based on agency and personal experience. 

I doubt anyonef would really go against their most valued beliefs and assumptions about the world simply by the appearance of a God saying "yo, do this thing that completely opposes 20-50 years of strongly held values you follow." I believed/followed God, received strong answers (no god appearances via physical eyes FWIW), and still really struggled when what I was asked to do went against just about everything I naturally felt or believed was good. It's unnatural to contradict oneself. And I believe and experience a God that expects change from us and the world around us when we choose Them.   

Even on a non-god basis, it's well known that the hardest thing to change in therapy is people's values. Most the time, unless it's obviously toxic, it's best not to touch them...even if you think there may be better values to hold. The few time's I have to, doing so ain't easy. I can't just go up and give them stats and figures as to why they should change their beliefs (evidence). It doesn't sink in, or worse it get's reincorporated in unhealthy ways in their pre-existing system. What becomes easier for them is to either find a way to reject the source or to dismiss the advice as mere opinion. 

This brings me to agency. I don't think agency is completely gone just because God or an angel shows up. We still have choice and our current paradigms that may make it really difficult to shift one's beliefs just because we saw God. If one's asked to change a fundamental part of who you are or do something antithetical to how you behave, it may be easier to dismiss the experience in one way or another. Visions and angels become hallucinations or a psychological break due to stress. Or simply something hard to explain, but that must have natural reasons for why they occurred. If no one else saw God or signs of God when you were having the manifestation this would make it even easier to dismiss. If you fell asleep from exhaustion after, you could dismiss it as a really weird dream. Maybe one doesn't deny the manifestation but just the message. There is always an answer or means to dismiss the experience in favor for what we prefer to do and value. 

In short, God can't force someone to belief let alone faith. Even more blatant and strong answers can't touch our ability to choose otherwise. What does change IMHO is accountability and responsibility to the answer we received. To the experiences where someone with little faith did get a potent answer, it was usually a decision weighing between the damage they were causing and the damage to their potential salvation if they rejected the message. And some still chose otherwise to God to one degree or another.   

 

With luv,

BD

My issue with religion, and especially with Mormonism, is I am supposed to trust a few select people that God speaks to.  Why does God speak to a few?  Can I trust them?  Joseph Smith, in his famous happiness letter where he tries to persuade Nancy Rigdon to marry him, that whatever God says is right.  And that God can command and revoke.  ell if that is the case Joseph I better be sure I can trust what you say is from God. And based on his track record, IMO. I don't think I can trust him. Same is true for the track record of many LDS leaders on a number of what I believe are substantive issues.  See even with other religions this is the same.  Muhamed got the message from Gabriel and wrote it down and is the last prophet.  I don't know.  It seems a sketchy way to base one's life on such things.  It used to work for me. It doesn't any longer. Maybe it will some day. I am open. I search.  I talk to God though I wonder if a God is there. 

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Sounds like a horrible god to me.

Maybe...but He's still our God, regardless of what you think of Him.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Jim Dandy said:

No, you're supposed to trust God to help you know what is true and good.  When people say "follow the Prophet" they are sending a mixed message.  They say that because God has helped them to know that man is a prophet of God, which is why they think you should follow that man.  What they should say is "Follow who I know God is inspiring to share God's message" while telling you how you can find out that man is inspired by God.  But the phrase "follow the Prophet" is so ingrained in Church culture that it will likely never go away regardless of how badly worded that messaging is.

This exactly.

D&C 46:13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.
14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

Funny how nobody thinks verse 14 applies to them, only verse 13.

[Teancum]

17 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Maybe...but He's still our God, regardless of what you think of Him.

I think in  few hundred years he will go the way of Zeus and Odin.

[Stargazer]

17 minutes ago, Jim Dandy said:

You may think so now but you will think differently later and I think you'll be surprised that you didn't catch on earlier to how this "faith" thing is supposed to work.  You already know better.  You just can't remember because of the veil.

T is very much acquainted with things like this. You're new, so you wouldn't remember the time in the distant past where he was active on this forum (and others I suppose) defending the Church. That's originally why he chose the screen name Teancum, or so I seem to remember anyway. Nowadays, unlike his namesake, he's gone over to the Lamanites.

[Nofear]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

• Abraham was not coerced to take Hagar as a concubine. Hagar was offered to Abraham by Abraham's wife, Sarah, in order to fulfill Sarah's own responsibility to provide an heir, in this case via proxy. It was part of the mores of the age.

The question was actually about Hagar being coerced (slaves, of course, are coerced, but this was a man of God doing it).

Nonetheless, quibble aside, thank you for the insightful comments throughout the reply.

Edited September 14, 2022 by Nofear

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Jim Dandy said:

You may think so now but you will think differently later and I think you'll be surprised that you didn't catch on earlier to how this "faith" thing is supposed to work.  You already know better.  You just can't remember because of the veil.

Not worried.  Lots of gods have been abandoned on the scrap heap of history.

Edited September 14, 2022 by Teancum