Church and control

[MustardSeed]

Short summary:  

Smac requested an example of how family (church) can be controlling. 

Long summary: 

The Hugh Grant movie thread spurred a slightly separate conversation, and I thought I would start a new thread on it. 
A position was taken in review of the movie, asserting that the church, (or churches in general) operates in a controlling manner. This position was extrapolated from the movie, as this was Hugh Grant’s character’s grievance. 
 

After some discussion of whether the church is controlling or not, I made a comparison to families using a family systems theory, the idea of being that, like a church member, adult family members are free to leave familles. They have free will to break rules. They have free will to sever relationships. Nobody forces them to stay or to “get along”.  (This was the argument asserting that church is not controlling).  My view is that like church, family can be very controlling when we cannot see the dynamics that rigidly keep us locked in to patterns of behaviors that have us operating in ways we otherwise would not demonstrate. 

Smac was asking questions about my ideas, requesting I define “control” and “influence”.  He also requested an example of my description of a family system being in control of a family member the way I describe in the end of the paragraph above.  

I hope I have summarized adequately.

——- 

Heres a real life example.  

Last weekend, I was visiting my adult daughter for dinner. She seemed fairly tired and reserved. Almost in a negative mood. I chalked it up to being a young mother and decided to be helpful to ease her burden by cleaning up and preparing dinner. After dinner, everyone went into the living room, and I finished up all the dishes. I imagined her being relieved not to have to do any of the cleanup.

When I was finished, I went in and sat on the sofa. After about 15 minutes of chatting, my daughter stood up from her sofa and came over to me, and sat down on my lap. She’s a grown woman and I am fairly tiny so she was doing it to be funny. Then she squished down next to me and leaned on me for the next 45 minutes. Her mood immediately shifted and she became her normal funny goofy self while I sat there with my arms around her. 
 

I remember thinking at the time, this feels wonderful. I also remember thinking, what is wrong with me? Why does this feel odd, if I like it so much? Why doesn’t this happen more?
 

That evening on the long drive home, I was thinking about the whole night and I wondered if maybe my daughter needed something from the minute I walked in that I had not given her that contributed to her initial sour mood. Or at the very least, had not helped her
 

I thought about my own parents. It dawned on me that in my entire  life from teen years on I have never cuddled with my parents.

My parents are worker bees. They are the ones who will make the dinner, clean up the dinner, paint the living room, wash your car, give you a kiss. Tell you they love you and send you on your way. All while you are sitting alone on the couch. And that’s always been fine with me. Until now. Now it’s not fine because I see how it has shaped me into something I do not want to be. I have not been in control of myself or outcomes because I have been working on automatic pilot, unawares.  Now that I am self-aware, I can become in control of myself and change outcomes.

I believe I picked up something along the way from childhood, the true love is demonstrated and service and that cuddling is not even on the map. Meaning, I never considered cuddling. I didn’t deem it as good or bad. I just didn’t consider it.

I am fully aware that my husband and I cuddle all the time and that this is different than what my parents do, but I had never thought about the desire an adult child might have to snuggle with their parent.  I wonder now, I wonder if she needed it as a teenager more than I was aware of? Honestly, as I’m writing this, I know the answer. She did need it. Now she wants it. I don’t initiate it. It never dawned on me to. 
 

I have controlled by my own family of origin dynamics. After this weekend, I will now be responsible 100% for my own behavior because now I am self aware. Especially after having written all of this out. I also recognize that this desire my daughter has, has an influence on her mood. I don’t know if she is aware of that. Perhaps her mood is being controlled by what she doesn’t realize- 

Next time I’m visiting, I will extend my typical hug to be a few seconds longer - I will leave the dishes. I will leave the mess. I will sit on my daughter’s lap and move into a snuggle. If the mess needs cleaning, it can wait. 
 

It will be uncomfortable for me only because it is not typical. My subconscious thoughts control my feelings. Work! Serve! This is not the time to sit! Touching and holding is awkward.! - all Messaging from my first family. 
 

Note that none of my family members are intentionally trying to control my thoughts nor are they bad people for operating the way that they do. I think the same is true for church leaders of all churches.  I believe in general that clergy and people with LDS callings have good intentions, and sometimes even  the very best of intentions. But we are very human. We are short sighted.  we don’t know what we don’t know. We do damage each other along the way because of our limitations.
 

Our limitations and limited understanding have an impact on family dynamics that have an impact on individuals. Some of these things we recognize, some of these things we don’t. It’s the things that we don’t recognize that are controlling us (I’ve missed out on some great snuggles) . 
 

Unfortunately, in some families, control is the motivator. Sometimes, adults even try to maintain their need for control over other adults in the family. It is the same at church. There certainly are leaders among us who, whether they realize it or not, find a sense of satisfaction through the power and control. They have through their church assignment.  This is not a design intended. However, it is an inevitable outcome for human beings organized in a way where people have power over other people. We have to be very careful about who we hand power to, who we hand OUR power to. And how we handle power.  

I really wish that I had the ability to share my thoughts more effectively and concisely. I hope I have conveyed my intentions.
 

Smac I can appreciate that you work through problems with the lawyers mind. I work through problems with a therapists mind.  we have two very different different languages. Most likely, if we were to break down the language barrier, we would see things similarly. I trust that is true. 
 

 

 

 

[Dario_M]

I don't think i wanna see that movie. And or the church is controlling or not. That depends on wich church direction that is, and in wich location the church is. Wich country. Etc.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Dario_M

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Short summary:  

Smac requested an example of how family (church) can be controlling. 

Long summary: 

The Hugh Grant movie thread spurred a slightly separate conversation, and I thought I would start a new thread on it. 
A position was taken in review of the movie, asserting that the church, (or churches in general) operates in a controlling manner. This position was extrapolated from the movie, as this was Hugh Grant’s character’s grievance. 
 

After some discussion of whether the church is controlling or not, I made a comparison to families using a family systems theory, the idea of being that, like a church member, adult family members are free to leave familles. They have free will to break rules. They have free will to sever relationships. Nobody forces them to stay or to “get along”.  (This was the argument asserting that church is not controlling).  My view is that like church, family can be very controlling when we cannot see the dynamics that rigidly keep us locked in to patterns of behaviors that have us operating in ways we otherwise would not demonstrate. 

Smac was asking questions about my ideas, requesting I define “control” and “influence”.  He also requested an example of my description of a family system being in control of a family member the way I describe in the end of the paragraph above.  

I hope I have summarized adequately.

——- 

Heres a real life example.  

Last weekend, I was visiting my adult daughter for dinner. She seemed fairly tired and reserved. Almost in a negative mood. I chalked it up to being a young mother and decided to be helpful to ease her burden by cleaning up and preparing dinner. After dinner, everyone went into the living room, and I finished up all the dishes. I imagined her being relieved not to have to do any of the cleanup.

When I was finished, I went in and sat on the sofa. After about 15 minutes of chatting, my daughter stood up from her sofa and came over to me, and sat down on my lap. She’s a grown woman and I am fairly tiny so she was doing it to be funny. Then she squished down next to me and leaned on me for the next 45 minutes. Her mood immediately shifted and she became her normal funny goofy self while I sat there with my arms around her. 
 

I remember thinking at the time, this feels wonderful. I also remember thinking, what is wrong with me? Why does this feel odd, if I like it so much? Why doesn’t this happen more?
 

That evening on the long drive home, I was thinking about the whole night and I wondered if maybe my daughter needed something from the minute I walked in that I had not given her that contributed to her initial sour mood. Or at the very least, had not helped her
 

I thought about my own parents. It dawned on me that in my entire  life from teen years on I have never cuddled with my parents.

My parents are worker bees. They are the ones who will make the dinner, clean up the dinner, paint the living room, wash your car, give you a kiss. Tell you they love you and send you on your way. All while you are sitting alone on the couch. And that’s always been fine with me. Until now. Now it’s not fine because I see how it has shaped me into something I do not want to be. I have not been in control of myself or outcomes because I have been working on automatic pilot, unawares.  Now that I am self-aware, I can become in control of myself and change outcomes.

I believe I picked up something along the way from childhood, the true love is demonstrated and service and that cuddling is not even on the map. Meaning, I never considered cuddling. I didn’t deem it as good or bad. I just didn’t consider it.

I am fully aware that my husband and I cuddle all the time and that this is different than what my parents do, but I had never thought about the desire an adult child might have to snuggle with their parent.  I wonder now, I wonder if she needed it as a teenager more than I was aware of? Honestly, as I’m writing this, I know the answer. She did need it. Now she wants it. I don’t initiate it. It never dawned on me to. 
 

I have controlled by my own family of origin dynamics. After this weekend, I will now be responsible 100% for my own behavior because now I am self aware. Especially after having written all of this out. I also recognize that this desire my daughter has, has an influence on her mood. I don’t know if she is aware of that. Perhaps her mood is being controlled by what she doesn’t realize- 

Next time I’m visiting, I will extend my typical hug to be a few seconds longer - I will leave the dishes. I will leave the mess. I will sit on my daughter’s lap and move into a snuggle. If the mess needs cleaning, it can wait. 
 

It will be uncomfortable for me only because it is not typical. My subconscious thoughts control my feelings. Work! Serve! This is not the time to sit! Touching and holding is awkward.! - all Messaging from my first family. 
 

Note that none of my family members are intentionally trying to control my thoughts nor are they bad people for operating the way that they do. I think the same is true for church leaders of all churches.  I believe in general that clergy and people with LDS callings have good intentions, and sometimes even  the very best of intentions. But we are very human. We are short sighted.  we don’t know what we don’t know. We do damage each other along the way because of our limitations.
 

Our limitations and limited understanding have an impact on family dynamics that have an impact on individuals. Some of these things we recognize, some of these things we don’t. It’s the things that we don’t recognize that are controlling us (I’ve missed out on some great snuggles) . 
 

Unfortunately, in some families, control is the motivator. Sometimes, adults even try to maintain their need for control over other adults in the family. It is the same at church. There certainly are leaders among us who, whether they realize it or not, find a sense of satisfaction through the power and control. They have through their church assignment.  This is not a design intended. However, it is an inevitable outcome for human beings organized in a way where people have power over other people. We have to be very careful about who we hand power to, who we hand OUR power to. And how we handle power.  

I really wish that I had the ability to share my thoughts more effectively and concisely. I hope I have conveyed my intentions.
 

Smac I can appreciate that you work through problems with the lawyers mind. I work through problems with a therapists mind.  we have two very different different languages. Most likely, if we were to break down the language barrier, we would see things similarly. I trust that is true. 
 

 

 

 

I struggle with stuff like this because it's really hard for me to step out of my perspective to accurately view the other person's needs.  Like, "this is what I would want/need in this situation so this is what everyone wants/needs in the same situation" kind of reasoning.

 

[MustardSeed]

Just now, bluebell said:

I struggle with stuff like this because it's really hard for me to step out of my perspective to accurately view the other person's needs.  Like, "this is what I would want/need in this situation so this is what everyone wants/needs in the same situation" kind of reasoning.

 

I think that happens at church as well, for leaders.  Not to mention that it’s nearly impossible for everybody’s needs to always be met.  
 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I think that happens at church as well, for leaders.  Not to mention that it’s nearly impossible for everybody’s needs to always be met.  
 

I'm sure you are right.  For things like motivation as well.  Like, this is what my motive would be in this situation so it must be their motive, kind of thing.  It's so trite these days but we really do see the world as we are.  In some ways it's like we are all speaking different languages.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

believe I picked up something along the way from childhood, the true love is demonstrated and service and that cuddling is not even on the map. Meaning, I never considered cuddling. I didn’t deem it as good or bad. I just didn’t consider it.

Same here.  It is not an Issue with little kids for me, though I don’t remember that happening much with my parents.  With my parents definitely not much physical contact as teens and older that I remember.  The one time it happened it was very uncomfortable in fact.

I have recognized this for about a year.  I like hugging, I just don’t like trying to decide whether I should hug or not.  It is not something that flows naturally like how I automatically think of what I can do to help or offer support the moment a need is expressed.  Even when saying hello and goodbye, I have to think about hugging and make a choice.

I am jealous of those who do it all the time.  Physical contact is restorative, but feeling awkward while it is happening makes it stressful too.

[Dario_M]

But at least you have a good relationship with your kids. That it can be akward is not a big deal right? I don't have contact with any of my family. No akwardness, no love, no stress anymore. Nothing. 

Edited November 13, 2024 by Dario_M

[smac97]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Smac I can appreciate that you work through problems with the lawyers mind. I work through problems with a therapists mind.  we have two very different different languages. Most likely, if we were to break down the language barrier, we would see things similarly. I trust that is true.  

Probably.  

I think you have a more subjective perspective of the concept of "control," whereas mine is more objective.  Both are valid to some extent, but in terms of discussing whether X organization "controls" its members, its mentally competent, informed, uncoerced, unthreatened, untricked, acting-on-their-own-free-will members, then I think objectivity has some usefulness.

Objectively, the Church has essentially no "control" over the lives of its members.  Again, consider D&C 134:10:

Quote

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

The Church cannot

• "try {its members} on their right of property,"
• "try {its members} on their . . . life,"
• "take from {its members} this world's goods," 
• "put {its members} in jeopardy of either life of limb," or
• "inflict any physical punishment upon {its members}."

Instead, the only things that the Church can do is

• restrict a person's membership in some way (limit access to the temple, participation, etc.), and/or
• remove a person's membership ("excommunicate them society ... withdraw from them their fellow from their fellowship").

That's it.  And even then, the Church encourages members to do all they can to return to full fellowship and blessings in the Church.

In contrast, the local, state and federal governments have all sorts of "control" over our lives.  The State can try its constituent citizens "on their right of property," can "take ... this world's goods" from them, can imprison them, execute them, and so on.  This is "control."

I think there can be times when differentiating "influence" from "control" can be difficult.  For example, I am friends with a married couple ("Steve" and "Ann") whose adult son ("Bob") has left the Church and cut Steve and Ann off from any contact with Bob's family, including Bob's children, because they are still members of the Church.  Is Bob exercising "influence" or "control" over Steve and Ann?

I have another friend ("Alan") whose young adult son ("Ben") has moved back home.  Alan has two minor children still living at home.  Alan has instructed Ben, who has experimented with drugs and alcohol, to not bring those substances into Alan's home, and to not talk with his siblings (the minors living at home) about these substances.  Ben initially resisted these instructions, at which point Alan said that he (Ben) needs to follow them or move out.  Is Alan exercising "influence" or "control" over Ben?

On balance, though, most of the time a mentally competent, informed, uncoerced, unthreatened, untricked, acting-on-their-own-free-will adult is going to be influenced by another's law-abiding behavior, not "controlled" by it.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I thought about my own parents. It dawned on me that in my entire  life from teen years on I have never cuddled with my parents.

...

I believe I picked up something along the way from childhood, the true love is demonstrated and service and that cuddling is not even on the map. Meaning, I never considered cuddling. I didn’t deem it as good or bad. I just didn’t consider it.

I am fully aware that my husband and I cuddle all the time and that this is different than what my parents do, but I had never thought about the desire an adult child might have to snuggle with their parent.  I wonder now, I wonder if she needed it as a teenager more than I was aware of? Honestly, as I’m writing this, I know the answer. She did need it. Now she wants it. I don’t initiate it. It never dawned on me to. 

I am plenty affectionate with my wife.  We often hold hands, sit close together, she leans her head on my shoulder when she's tired, random backscratches, hugs and kisses, the works.  Otherwise, though, I leave expressions of physical affection/regard to something of a minimum.  Quick side hugs and kisses on foreheads for my daughters, "man hugs" for my sons.  Handshakes, fist bumps and high fives for pretty much everyone else.

I find this unfortunate, but seemingly necessary.  Our society has done quite a bit of damage to the stature of adult males, against whom there is - in the minds of some (many?) - a broad categorical suspicion and presumption.  A few months back one of my daughters informed me that most of her friends view all men as "potential rapists and predators," and that she thinks this is not only perfectly fine, but also sensible and necessary.  Young women inculcated with such a perspective can become primed to view previously innocuous expressions of regard/affection/friendship as creepy, predatory, sexualized, etc.

Five of my six children are adults, and the last one is nearly 16.  They are all very cuddly and affectionate with my wife, and she with them.  I am happy they have her in their lives.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Young women inculcated with such a perspective can become primed to view previously innocuous expressions of regard/affection/friendship as creepy, predatory, sexualized, etc.

It is an unfortunate effect of becoming wiser about potential harm, you are less likely to participate in approaching behavior that is closer to the risky behavior. 
 

Lowering speed limits drops the rate of fatal accidents even though the probability is over 75 is probably safe in many conditions. 
 

Throwing out leftovers past a certain date probably results in a lot of good food going to waste, but also lowers food poisonings.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Calm

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Probably.  

I think you have a more subjective perspective of the concept of "control," whereas mine is more objective.  Both are valid to some extent, but in terms of discussing whether X organization "controls" its members, its mentally competent, informed, uncoerced, unthreatened, untricked, acting-on-their-own-free-will members, then I think objectivity has some usefulness.

Objectively, the Church has essentially no "control" over the lives of its members.  Again, consider D&C 134:10:

 

I'm a little confused by this line of argument.  How is your view of the church's level of control not influenced by personal feelings or opinions but Mustard Seed's view of the church's level of control is based on personal feelings and opinions?

(that's the difference between something being objective and subjective).

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Instead, the only things that the Church can do is

• restrict a person's membership in some way (limit access to the temple, participation, etc.), and/or
• remove a person's membership ("excommunicate them society ... withdraw from them their fellow from their fellowship").

That's it.  And even then, the Church encourages members to do all they can to return to full fellowship and blessings in the Church.

From a non-believing secular position. Sure. The church exerts zero control. I on the other hand interact with members everyday who wholeheartedly believe that church leaders speak for God. These members act and vote accordingly. This influences everything from family interactions to school policy, to state law. The church absolutely exerts control there. objectively. 
 

Further, if I was a believing member myself, it would exert so much more control. You say “that’s it”. For many members, church approval is THE most important thing because it represents Divine approval. 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Probably.  

I think you have a more subjective perspective of the concept of "control," whereas mine is more objective.  Both are valid to some extent, but in terms of discussing whether X organization "controls" its members, its mentally competent, informed, uncoerced, unthreatened, untricked, acting-on-their-own-free-will members, then I think objectivity has some usefulness.

Objectively, the Church has essentially no "control" over the lives of its members.  Again, consider D&C 134:10:

The Church cannot

• "try {its members} on their right of property,"
• "try {its members} on their . . . life,"
• "take from {its members} this world's goods," 
• "put {its members} in jeopardy of either life of limb," or
• "inflict any physical punishment upon {its members}."

Instead, the only things that the Church can do is

• restrict a person's membership in some way (limit access to the temple, participation, etc.), and/or
• remove a person's membership ("excommunicate them society ... withdraw from them their fellow from their fellowship").

That's it.  And even then, the Church encourages members to do all they can to return to full fellowship and blessings in the Church.

In contrast, the local, state and federal governments have all sorts of "control" over our lives.  The State can try its constituent citizens "on their right of property," can "take ... this world's goods" from them, can imprison them, execute them, and so on.  This is "control."

I think there can be times when differentiating "influence" from "control" can be difficult.  For example, I am friends with a married couple ("Steve" and "Ann") whose adult son ("Bob") has left the Church and cut Steve and Ann off from any contact with Bob's family, including Bob's children, because they are still members of the Church.  Is Bob exercising "influence" or "control" over Steve and Ann?

I have another friend ("Alan") whose young adult son ("Ben") has moved back home.  Alan has two minor children still living at home.  Alan has instructed Ben, who has experimented with drugs and alcohol, to not bring those substances into Alan's home, and to not talk with his siblings (the minors living at home) about these substances.  Ben initially resisted these instructions, at which point Alan said that he (Ben) needs to follow them or move out.  Is Alan exercising "influence" or "control" over Ben?

On balance, though, most of the time a mentally competent, informed, uncoerced, unthreatened, untricked, acting-on-their-own-free-will adult is going to be influenced by another's law-abiding behavior, not "controlled" by it.

Thanks,

-Smac

We are introducing a lot of different topics here, but I’ll go with it.

In my world, alans situation is not an example of control, it is an example of boundaries.

” I will not have drugs in my home” is a boundary. There are a lot of boundaries that the church also has. Fair enough.

“You cannot do drugs if you want a relationship with me” is sometimes an issue of control.  
 

Bobs story is pretty upsetting to hear- I’m sorry for your friends.  I’m working on a podcast with my son in hopes of influencing young people to find other ways rather than cutting out their parents as a way of coping with hard relationships.  I see the trend growing and it’s painful. I will say this though. There are two sides to every story. From the outside, looking in, it’s very easy to judge the situation as being an issue of control. “I don’t want you to be religious so I will punish you “ is an issue of control. However, what we don’t know is how Bob is experiencing his parents.

In my ward, I think the favorite word is “wayward.”. A lot of parents are dismayed that their children have followed the devil. They talk about their lost children a lot. I can tell the relationships are strained.  I can also tell that the same people are rather controlling, themselves. I want to shake them and say, enjoy your kids. Abandon your agenda to bring your kids back to the fold and be more interested in them as individuals. Love them where they are at. Leave your dogma at home.  Earn their trust.  
 

I don’t know your friends and maybe Bob is just a controlling jerk.  But as a family therapist, I have found that there is always more to the story. Since Bob uses control techniques, I wonder if he learned it from his own parents.  I wonder if there are some blind spots in this family. Like I said, I don’t know.
 

I have watched families. I have watched them heal things and come back together.  It takes a lot lot of listening on both sides and a lot of self reflection. Not everybody’s capable of that.
 

We’ve gotten a little bit off track here, but I am going to agree with you that we have a different experience of the word control. I think you are more of a literal thinker than I am, and you define things by the way, the law defines them.

 

The church does not have legal controls of members. But I do believe that the church has the freedom and right to control plenty of things and it is our choice to participate in an organization that requires adherence to be able to participate.  
 Anecdotally, I’ve observed, experienced, inflicted, andhad to correct plenty of examples of spiritual manipulation among church members and from church leaders that I would put into the category of control. Not legal control. But control all the same.  
 

If I have experienced it, I am sure that others have experienced it.  I do not think our church leaders wake up in the morning, wring their hands and plot ways to do harm.  But church organizations have a lot of power. Church appeals to some very basic emotional and mental needs that human beings have to belong, and to understand their purpose in the context of eternity. That puts a lot of power in peoples hands to convince other people to operate in certain ways. 
 

Perhaps I’m talking too generally and perhaps you’re going to need examples. Please know that I believe that there are way more good things that are going on in this church than there are bad. I think it does us a disservice to turn up blind eye to the problems that exist, even if they are proportionally outnumbered by the good things. I am not here to bash the church rather I am here to make it better.  

I could go on, but I have already outdone myself with excessive pontification. 

Edited November 13, 2024 by MustardSeed

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From a non-believing secular position. Sure. The church exerts zero control. I on the other hand interact with members everyday who wholeheartedly believe that church leaders speak for God. These members act and vote accordingly. This influences everything from family interactions to school policy, to state law. The church absolutely exerts control there. objectively. 
 

Further, if I was a believing member myself, it would exert so much more control. You say “that’s it”. For many members, church approval is THE most important thing because it represents Divine approval. 

I think @smac97 might be conflating control with force?  Because from my end it seems obvious that the church exerts control over members.  

The church says you can't drink coffee or tea and still have a temple recommend.  Any person who would choose to drink coffee and tea but doesn't because they want a temple recommend is allowing the church to control and influence an aspect of their life, for example.  

 

[Pyreaux]

When Hugh Grant's character in Heretic argues that religious institutions, like the LDS Church, are just tools for control, we might consider that what religion really is, its a moral framework that guides people toward higher ideals, not control for its own sake. In fact, religions like the LDS Church emphasize personal agency and moral responsibility rather than strict obedience or domination.

Personal agency is central to the LDS faith, which emphasizes that each individual is free to make their own choices. In the LDS worldview, obedience to commandments is a choice, not an enforced requirement. Members are invited to make decisions based on faith and personal conviction. For example, the Book of Mormon teaches that “joy” is often found through making responsible choices and cultivating good relationships, not by being controlled.

The fact people are free to leave the church at any time without facing legal or punitive consequences, which is far from the controlling environment that Hugh Grant's character seems to suggest. If the church were truly about control, it would impose harsh consequences for leaving or questioning its teachings, yet that is not the case in the LDS faith, where members are respected in their autonomy and their decisions.

One could argue that religion, far from being about control, is a framework that offers freedom from the consequences of vice and moral decay. For instance, religious teachings can help individuals avoid harmful behaviors (addiction, crime, dishonesty) that are known to lead to personal and societal misery. By encouraging a moral life, religious institutions help people avoid the real “control” of their own destructive impulses. What the Book of Mormon calls freedom from the "chains" of the devil.

The moral boundaries that religious structures put in place can be seen as a form of freedom from vice. People who choose to live by these moral guidelines often find that their lives are more stable, fulfilling, and free from negative consequences. Religious teachings offer freedom from things like addiction or regret, which would otherwise hold a person hostage.

Historically, religion has been an enormous driver of social progress, innovation, and the fight for human rights. The LDS Church itself has contributed to the development of communities, education, healthcare, welfare programs, building schools, and providing aid to those in need. And have shaped the world for the better.

_______________________________________

So, even if certain parents or religious leaders may have at times acted out of pride or a desire for power, this should not be conflated with the core message of the whole faith itself. In fact, many religious teachings advocate for humility, good stewardship and righteous dominion, all of which help to uplift people rather than control them.

Families, particularly those with strong morals or traditions, often influence their members by shaping their values and behaviors. However, this is not the same as controlling them. The influence of parents, for example, is typically driven by a desire to help their children succeed and be happy. Just like religious institutions, guidance and influence to, for example, helping individuals understand right from wrong, fostering a sense of purpose, and guiding their moral compass.

Influence does not equal coercion. Just as families cannot fully control the actions of adult children (who often do make their own decisions just as you have), religious institutions likewise do not have the power to control individuals once they reach a certain level of maturity and agency.

Your concern that your parents shaped you into someone you didn’t want to be is understandable, and many people feel similarly about the roles that parents or religion have in shaping their lives. However, the key point is the freedom to choose. Parents (and churches) can shape and influence us, but it’s ultimately up to the individual to take ownership of their own choices as they mature and become more self-aware.

In the case of the LDS Church, there is an ongoing emphasis on personal revelation and personal responsibility. Members are encouraged to seek their own answers to spiritual questions and to exercise their free will in deciding whether to follow the teachings of the church. The church does not impose strict rules on individual behavior beyond moral principles (honesty, kindness, integrity), and much of the church’s influence is focused on promoting well-being rather than imposing control.

I would argue that religious institutions like the LDS Church, far from being about control, offer a framework that helps individuals navigate life with greater freedom and fewer negative consequences. While it's true that humans - whether in families or religious leadership - sometimes act out of pride or a desire for power, this does not negate the core values of most religious traditions. Religion, at its best, offers the freedom to choose righteousness and avoid the destructive patterns that often arise in the absence of moral structure.

The LDS Church encourages individuals to choose their path freely, rather than mandating obedience and it’s up to each individual whether to accept or reject it. The church is not a tool of control but an invitation to find peace, purpose, and freedom in a complex world.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Pyreaux

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

We are introducing a lot of different topics here, but I’ll go with it.

In my world, alans situation is not an example of control, it is an example of boundaries.

” I will not have drugs in my home” is a boundary. There are a lot of boundaries that the church also has. Fair enough.

I concur.  Whether we call what the Church as "influence" or "boundaries," what it is not reasonably described as is "control."     

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

“You cannot do drugs if you want a relationship with me” is sometimes an issue of control.  

Could you elaborate on this?  When is this "control" and not setting up a "boundary"?

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Bobs story is pretty upsetting to hear- I’m sorry for your friends.  
I’m working on a podcast with my son in hopes of influencing young people to find other ways rather than cutting out their parents as a way of coping with hard relationships.  I see the trend growing and it’s painful. I will say this though. There are two sides to every story. From the outside, looking in, it’s very easy to judge the situation as being an issue of control. “I don’t want you to be religious so I will punish you “ is an issue of control. However, what we don’t know is how Bob is experiencing his parents.

I have a hard time formulating a justification for an apparent "You can have a relationship with your religion/faith, or with your grandchildren, but not both"-style ultimatum.  

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

In my ward, I think the favorite word is “wayward.”. A lot of parents are dismayed that their children have followed the devil.

I think fewer and fewer Latter-day Saints harbor such black-and-white notions.

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

They talk about their lost children a lot. I can tell the relationships are strained.  I can also tell that the same people are rather controlling, themselves. I want to shake them and say, enjoy your kids. Abandon your agenda to bring your kids back to the fold and be more interested in them as individuals. Love them where they are at. Leave your dogma at home.  Earn their trust.  

Broadly, I agree.  

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t know your friends and maybe Bob is just a controlling jerk.  But as a family therapist, I have found that there is always more to the story. Since Bob uses control techniques, I wonder if he learned it from his own parents.  I wonder if there are some blind spots in this family. Like I said, I don’t know.

Same here.  Steven and Ann appear in all material respects to be very decent and good people.  They are kind to each other.  When I spoke with Steve, he was clearly injured and pained by Bob's ultimatum. Not angry or indignant.  More troubled and confused.

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I have watched families. I have watched them heal things and come back together.  It takes a lot lot of listening on both sides and a lot of self reflection. Not everybody’s capable of that.

We’ve gotten a little bit off track here, but I am going to agree with you that we have a different experience of the word control. I think you are more of a literal thinker than I am, and you define things by the way, the law defines them.

I think my legal training and experience informed my perspective, but it's not the sold basis for my perspective.  Far from it, actually.  I think my religious beliefs are more central to my thought processes.

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

The church does not have legal controls of members. But I do believe that the church has the freedom and right to control plenty of things and it is our choice to participate in an organization that requires adherence to be able to participate.  

Yes.  Every organization must have some boundaries, and hence some boundary maintenance.  But since membership in the Church is an entirely voluntary matter, there is little opportunity for the Church to exert "control" (plenty of room for "influence" and "boundaries," though).

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Anecdotally, I’ve observed, experienced, inflicted, and had to correct plenty of examples of spiritual manipulation among church members and from church leaders that I would put into the category of control. Not legal control. But control all the same.  

I guess I'd need to consider the specifics, but offhand I will respectfully disagree.  Force, violence, coercion, deceit, etc. are forms of "control," and the Church just can't do these things.  The Church only has as much authority over me as I choose to grant to it.

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

If I have experienced it, I am sure that others have experienced it.  

I'm not sure what you mean by "it."  

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I do not think our church leaders wake up in the morning, wring their hands and plot ways to do harm.  But church organizations have a lot of power. Church appeals to some very basic emotional and mental needs that human beings have to belong, and to understand their purpose in the context of eternity. That puts a lot of power in peoples hands to convince other people to operate in certain ways. 

Perhaps so, but I'm not persuaded that this "power ... to convince" amounts to control.  Influence?  Yes.  Creating/maintaining boundaries?  Yes.  Control?  No.

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Perhaps I’m talking too generally and perhaps you’re going to need examples.

If you feel comfortable sharing, then yes.

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Please know that I believe that there are way more good things that are going on in this church than there are bad.

Me too.

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I think it does us a disservice to turn up blind eye to the problems that exist, even if they are proportionally outnumbered by the good things.

Sure.  But I think we need to be circumspect in how we address "the problems that exist."  I've previously commented on this here:

Quote

As individuals, we can choose whether or not to follow the doctrines of the Church, including policies and practices and interpretations of doctrine presented to us by those who preside.  I don't think activism and other pressure tactics are the way to go.  See, e.g., Brother Corbitt's talk, How activism against the Church can blind, mislead ‘valiant’ souls, and Elder Oaks' article, Criticism.

Both of these articles have heavily influenced my thinking on how to address problems in the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Pyreaux said:

 

One could argue that religion, far from being about control, is a framework that offers freedom from the consequences of vice and moral decay. For instance, religious teachings can help individuals avoid harmful behaviors (addiction, crime, dishonesty) that are known to lead to personal and societal misery. By encouraging a moral life, religious institutions help people avoid the real “control” of their own destructive impulses. What the Book of Mormon calls freedom from the "chains" of the devil.

The moral boundaries that religious structures put in place can be seen as a form of freedom from vice. People who choose to live by these moral guidelines often find that their lives are more stable, fulfilling, and free from negative consequences. Religious teachings offer freedom from things like addiction or regret, which would otherwise hold a person hostage.

 

It's an interesting way to look at it. 

A lot about religion is an exercise in voluntarily give up control to something higher (God, normally, either directly or through a church leader), and that voluntary act of submission is meant to lead to a greater ability to exercise agency.

Whereas living a less divinely controlled life is presented as a natural way to hinder agency (via things like addiction, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, prison or jail time, etc).

[blackstrap]

We are asked to ascertain the Lord's will for us and then do His will. Even Christ asked to follow a different path in His prayer but ultimately bent to the will of the Father. Is that not ' control '? Probably more of an ' influence ' . 

Parents of young children must control them especially in potentially dangerous conditions like high traffic areas. Hopefully the kids reach an age where they will control themselves and just need the occasional spoken influence to modify behavior. Unfortunately, most of us know people who, no matter the age, do not want any one but themselves to even suggest that there is a better process or behavior. 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I concur.  Whether we call what the Church as "influence" or "boundaries," what it is not reasonably described as is "control."     

 

The basic definition of 'control' is "the power to influence or direct people's behavior".  That seems like a very reasonable way to describe the church.  It would be weird if the church didn't have the ability to influence or direct its members.  

Are you ascribing a negative connotation to the idea of control here?  I'm trying to figure out why you are pushing back so hard against the idea of control while accepting the idea of influence, when one just means the other.  I'm thinking there must be more context in your posts than you are putting in writing.

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Instead, the only things that the Church can do is

• restrict a person's membership in some way (limit access to the temple, participation, etc.), and/or
• remove a person's membership ("excommunicate them society ... withdraw from them their fellow from their fellowship").

That's it.  And even then, the Church encourages members to do all they can to return to full fellowship and blessings in the Church.

From a non-believing secular position. Sure.

And also from a believing position.  

58 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The church exerts zero control. I on the other hand interact with members everyday who wholeheartedly believe that church leaders speak for God.

Count me as one of them.  And yet these leaders do not "control" me.  I can choose to listen to them, or not.  I can choose to follow their counsel, or not.

58 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

These members act and vote accordingly.

I am not disputing that the Church influences the Saints and creates boundaries relative to our association with it, but this is not, in my view, "control."

And the Church doesn't tell its members how to vote.

58 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This influences everything from family interactions to school policy, to state law.

Yes.  Influences.  That is my point.

58 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The church absolutely exerts control there. objectively. 

Nope.  Whatever aspects of our lives over which the State exerts "control," that power belongs to the State, not the Church.

Again, the Church does not tell its members how to vote.

58 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Further, if I was a believing member myself, it would exert so much more control.

No, it wouldn't.  Just influence and boundary maintenance.

58 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You say “that’s it”. For many members, church approval is THE most important thing because it represents Divine approval. 

There are all sorts of former Latter-day Saints on this board whose behavior here and elsewhere undermine your claim.  If the Church has the capacity to "control" people, how is it that so many people drift into inactivity, turn against the Church, stay as nominal members but actively work against the Church, disregard important commandments, and on and on and on.  And when the Church does do something in response to a member's misconduct, that something does not involve

• "try{ing} {its members} on their right of property,"
• "try{ing} {its members} on their . . . life,"
• "tak{ing} from {its members} this world's goods," 
• "put{ting} {its members} in jeopardy of either life of limb," or
• "inflict{ing} any physical punishment upon {its members}."

Instead, the only thing that the Church can do - and it does it quite rarely overall - is to mete out restrictions on the individual's membership in the Church or to remove the individual's membership in the Church.  That's it.  That is all the Church does.  That is all the Church can do, under both secular law and the Church's own doctrines (D&C 134:10).

I have many family members who are members of the Church and who are, in varying degrees, distanced from it and from observance of many of its important doctrines and commandments.  And in response the Church can do diddly squat.  I am sure the Church would quite prefer to have them return to activity, but it lacks any power or ability to "control" them into doing so.

Latter-day Saints stray from or disregard the Church's doctrines, policies, etc. all the time.  People leave the Church all the time.  And apart from the two bullet points above (removing or restricting a person's membership), there ain't diddly the Church can do about any of this.  The Church has no means of "controlling" its members.  To suggest otherwise is to be factually incorrect, or to materially distort the meaning of "control."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think @smac97 might be conflating control with force? 

Well, not quite.  From the other thread:

Quote

Quote

I was unclear. 
If I operate in a way that comes from lack of self awareness, a way that my family has always operated and I am influenced by those traditions, I am not in control

 

I'm still not quite grasping what you are saying.

"Influence" to me suggests having an effect on someone, typically through persuasion, suggestion, or example, without directly dictating outcomes. We all have a variety of influences in our lives, the potency of which varies all over the place.

Alternatively, "control" implies a stronger, direct power to manage or dictate behavior, events, or outcomes.  For example, I have "control" over whether my minor children go to school, whereas I only have "influence" over the educational choices of my adult children.

The Church has no "control" over me.  None.  Only influence.  In contrast, secular governments have all sorts of "control" over me, as well as plenty of "influence."

Upon further consideration, though, I think you are correct.  I am probably putting too much of a personal, idiosyncratic gloss onto the meaning of "control." 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Because from my end it seems obvious that the church exerts control over members.

To me, "control" seems to indicate the power to override a person's free will.  The Church can't do that, whereas the State can (and does).

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The church says you can't drink coffee or tea and still have a temple recommend.  Any person who would choose to drink coffee and tea but doesn't because they want a temple recommend is allowing the church to control and influence an aspect of their life, for example.  

I guess I don't see that as "control."  The person can still choose.  In contrast, however, secular law has the genuine ability to "control" behavior.

But again, I'm probably being too persnickety in this discussion.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, not quite.  From the other thread:

Upon further consideration, though, I think you are correct.  I am probably putting too much of a personal, idiosyncratic gloss onto the meaning of "control." 

To me, "control" seems to indicate the power to override a person's free will.  The Church can't do that, whereas the State can (and does).

I guess I don't see that as "control."  The person can still choose.  In contrast, however, secular law has the genuine ability to "control" behavior.

But again, I'm probably being too persnickety in this discussion.  

Thanks,

-Smac

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Count me as one of them.  And yet these leaders do not "control" me.  I can choose to listen to them, or not.  I can choose to follow their counsel, or not.

Help me understand your distinction please. The law says I have to pay taxes. Does this law control me? I can choose to pay or not. Yes there is a consequence attached if I don’t pay, but is that control? 
 

How is that different from paying tithing? A believing member can choose to pay or not. But there are consequences attached to that choice. A literal reading of scripture says that those who don’t pay will be burned at Christ’s coming. Those who sin are promised “Eternal”** Punishment. Additionally those who don’t pay have missed family weddings. Is that control?

Why is one control and not the other? Are spiritual consequences not as real as physical consequences? Are consequences after death not as real as consequences that occur in this life?

**Eternal is God’s choice of words and does not mean endless. I use it here to reflect how serious the punishment is said to be under Latter-day Saint theology. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

Does that distinction make sense for a believing saint though? Is jail worse than spirit prison? 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

The fact people are free to leave the church at any time without facing legal or punitive consequences, which is far from the controlling environment that Hugh Grant's character seems to suggest.

I don’t know what the character suggests, so can’t comment there….

But going to hell seems pretty punitive to me.