Church and control

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Consequences and Influence, Yes; Control, No: I have not said that the Church cannot mete out consequences, or the threat of consequences, or that the Church does not influence its members.  My point is that I think these potential or actualized consequences (restricting/removing a person's membership in the Church) cannot be reasonably described as "control," nor can the Church's influence on its members.

Well this is what control is. Consequences and influence.

Okay.

I think the Church objectively has very little ability to mete out "consequences."  It can only limit or, in rare and fairly extreme circumstances, remove an individual's membership in the Church.  

I think the Church can have substantial influence, but not such as amounts to "control."

In my view, "control" has connotations of compulsion, of having the ability to override free will.  The Church has no such power, and instead disclaims it.

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The consequences for not complying are severe, in this life some, in the nest very much so.

First, the Church does not mete out consequences in the next life.  God will do that.

Second, I respectfully disagree that the consequences the Church can mete out in this life are "severe."  Membership in the Church is entirely and bilaterally voluntary.  The Church can only restrict or sever the individual's members, and the same can be said of the individual.  I submit that if this state of affairs amounts to the Church having "control" over the individual, then the same ought to be said of individual having "control" over the Church (since the individual can likewise restrict or sever his association with the Church).

Third, the proposition of an individual "controlling" the Church as noted above will, I think, be rejected by you and yours.  And I don't really blame you, as I think the reasoning for the underlying proposition is fairly unsound.  The Church's self-imposed constraints on its temporal power/authority/control, together with the application of secular law (with which laws the Church complies) essentially undermine and rebut the notion that the Church "controls" its members (or that its members "control" the Church).

Fourth, I think your last bastion of reasoning, which I haven't seen much addressed in this thread, would be some concept akin to "undue influence."  Alas, this is a difficult concept to coherently define, but it may merit some attention nonetheless.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Understanding undue influence, dissecting it, defining it, and understanding the term, has proven elusive in social service and legal settings. Some people have said, “I know it when I see it,” making the term a matter of personal interpretation. Some state probate laws reference the term, and a few states have definitions that can be summarized as: Undue influence occurs when a fiduciary or confidential relationship exists in which one person substitutes his own will for that of the influenced person’s will. Other states have definitions in criminal or other codes. Of course, judicial decisions on individual cases exist but they are usually known only in legal circles.  

And here:

Quote

In contract law, undue influence is a defense used to argue against the formation of a binding contract. It occurs when one party exerts excessive persuasion on another, undermining their free will and leading to a contract that benefits only the influencer. To prove undue influence, it must be shown that the influenced party had vulnerabilities making them susceptible to persuasion and that the influencer was in a special relationship of trust, dependency, or authority with the victim. If undue influence is established, the contract, will, or legal instrument in question can be rendered unenforceable and voidable by the influenced party.

It seems to me that you and yours, whether you realize it or not, are arguing that the Church can and does exercise "undue influence" in the lives of its members.  "Undue" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.  A lot.

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So strong influence with mechanisms in place to reinforce that influence.

The only "mechanisms in place to reinforce {the Church's} influence" are the Church's ability to (A) impose restrictions on the individual's association with the Church, or, in much more rare and extreme circumstances, (B) remove the individual's association/membership.  In both instances, the Church extends a pretty big olive branch to welcome the individual back.

Of course, the individual also has the same sorts of "mechanisms in place" to "influence" the Church (in that he can limit or remove his association with the Church).

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just now, smac97 said:

I think the Church objectively has very little ability to mete out "consequences."

What a wonderful description of priesthood authority and power. Are you sure you’re not the anti-Mormon?

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I think the Church objectively has very little ability to mete out "consequences."

What a wonderful description of priesthood authority and power.

The Church can only impose restrictions on an individual's membership or, in rare and extreme circumstances, remove that membership.

In saying this (many times now), I am not describing the full ambit of "priesthood authority and power," as there is far more to that authority and power than what I am saying above.  The administration of ordinances, regular Sabbath services and instruction, General Conference, curriculum and materials, the missionary and family history and temple and educational and humanitarian and other programs, the administration of the Church's policies and procedures, the management of the Church's temporal assets, and so on.  "{P}riesthood authority and power" are involved in all of these things.

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you sure you’re not the anti-Mormon?

Pretty sure!

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I got off my mission in 1995, and have been talking to disaffected Latter-day Saints and Anti-Mormons ever since.  In all these nearly three decades, I have read many, many things which you and yours have said which are calculated to offend, provoke, profane, malign, etc. doctrines and principles and beliefs I hold most sacred, and you denigrate and insult people in whom I hold in high regard. 

Goodness. More of your cry baby over the top persecution complex hyperbole. Too bad if the truth hurts your feelings.

Incivility and taunts in lieu of substance.

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I simply present things as I see them etc. Profanes, malign, denigrate?  Wow what a meany I am. Golly so many read this board and my nastiness about the church that I must be causing great damage. 

Your various and extensive denigrations and disparagements, spread out in hundreds of posts over many years, are a matter anyone can find for themselves by just reviewing your posting history.

As for the extent of the "damage" you have inflicted, I don't know.  

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But perhaps you should look in the mirror as to how you treat disaffected members like me.

You'll need to elaborate.  I a virtually always in a defensive posture as to people like you.  You denigrate and insult the Church and its doctrines, leaders, policies, etc., most of which calumnies I feel are substantially unwarranted, unfair, inaccurate, prejudiced, and so on.

There have been times where I have responded in kind to the sorts of nastinesses as you so regularly dole out.  I regret that, and I need to work to improve myself on that score.

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

There is much that about the church that deserves criticism and some deserves to be disparaged. If that hurts your tender feeling oh well.

Alas, one of the most unfortunate features of faultfinding is that you will always succeed at it.

I think the Church is, in overwhelming measure, good and decent, both in its doctrines and its actions in relation thereto and in relation to our neighbors.  I acknowledge that it can and does make mistakes, including serious ones.  However, I think there are also many things that the Church does which, by necessity, contravene prevailing sociopolitical trends and preferences.  Reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

These years of interacting with people who are actively speaking and acting against my faith has not been "a simple thing," and has "often {been} difficult."  But it would be unreasonable for me to characterize you and yours as "controlling" me.  You don't.  You influence me, sure, but you and yours cannot override my free will, nor can you and yours compel me to do or not do anything.  My free will, my agency, remains intact.  If I ever leave the Church, it will not because you and yours "controlled" me and made me do it.

I don't claim that II have the one true religion, that God speaks to me and gives me his authority to bind on earth and heaven.

And yet you seek to influence other people to your way of thinking.  I don't think that amounts to "control."

41 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I don't have the threat of negative eternal consequences if you don't follow what I say. I don't indoctrinate anyone at a young age to "Follow the Prophet, Follow the Prophet, follow the Prophet, HE KNOWS THE WAY!"  The list can go on but comparing me and my comments to the heavy handed influence the church imposes on its member is absurd.

See my comments above about "undue influence."  It seems this is the crux of what you are saying the Church exerts in the lives of its members.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

On 11/20/2024 at 7:02 AM, smac97 said:

You influence me, sure, but you and yours cannot override my free will, nor can you and yours compel me to do or not do anything.

Thanks,

-Smac

You pretty regularly put in the phrase "you and yours" in your posts when attacking other posters.  Just who is the "yours" you are referring to?  Anyone who disagrees with you?  Anyone who disagrees with some of the policies the Church imposes?  Do the "yours" all belong to one monolith that all agree and believe the exact same thing.  

It seems like your regular use of the term "you and yours" is meant as a derogative term.  Do you intend it to be derogative?  

Since you pretty regularly use this phrase, and have been personally had that phrase hurled seemingly against me as well, I would be interested to understand your usage of that term.  Just how are we suppose to take it when you use the term "you and yours"

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

You influence me, sure, but you and yours cannot override my free will, nor can you and yours compel me to do or not do anything.

You pretty regularly put in the phrase "you and yours" in your posts when attacking other posters.  

"{Y}ou and yours cannot override my free will, nor can you and yours compel me to do or not do anything" is an "attack"?  I think not.

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just who is the "yours" you are referring to?  

In this context, I was referring to those who are arrayed in active opposition to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  IOW, Anti-Mormons.

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Anyone who disagrees with you?  

No.  Plenty of people disagree with me who are not anti-Mormon.

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

Anyone who disagrees with some of the policies the Church imposes?  Do the "yours" all belong to one monolith that all agree and believe the exact same thing.  

No.  The commonality is the active opposition to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Some are secular, some sectarian.  Some are sociopolitically conservative, some are sociopolitically liberal/progressive (though I think the latter tends to be the more aggressive and obnoxious these days, at least on this board).

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

It seems like your regular use of the term "you and yours" is meant as a derogative term.  Do you intend it to be derogative?  

No.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"{Y}ou and yours cannot override my free will, nor can you and yours compel me to do or not do anything" is an "attack"?  I think not.

In this context, I was referring to those who are arrayed in active opposition to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  IOW, Anti-Mormons.

No.  Plenty of people disagree with me who are not anti-Mormon.

No.  The commonality is the active opposition to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Some are secular, some sectarian.  Some are sociopolitically conservative, some are sociopolitically liberal/progressive (though I think the latter tends to be the more aggressive and obnoxious these days, at least on this board).

No.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for your answers.  Do you consider me to be a "yours"?  Am I anti-Mormon?

[Peacefully]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

I agree with this to a large extent.  The exception being that for those who have left it doesn't mean the control has just fallen away and little is left.  For some that is the truth, but for many the emotional and social effects are still there. 

For example, church is getting harder for me to attend, but I love my husband so I still go with him.  I can obviously choose not to go with him, but that would affect him which would affect me. 

Another example - I currently have tea in my home.  I've been using it for art projects in a class I'm taking.  It's interesting because as it sits there I think I could try it now, but I haven't.   First of all I really don't like hot drinks and more and more I regret when I drink anything, but plain water.  But mentally/emotionally I just can't drink the tea either. I go through thinking about if drinking it is wrong and why it would be wrong and conclude it wouldn't be wrong, yet I emotionally (not spiritually) feel it is still wrong. 

I am right there with you. Currently, I am going 90% for my husband and 10% for me. 

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

"{Y}ou and yours cannot override my free will, nor can you and yours compel me to do or not do anything" is an "attack"?  I think not.

In this context, I was referring to those who are arrayed in active opposition to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  IOW, Anti-Mormons.

No.  Plenty of people disagree with me who are not anti-Mormon.

No.  The commonality is the active opposition to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Some are secular, some sectarian.  Some are sociopolitically conservative, some are sociopolitically liberal/progressive (though I think the latter tends to be the more aggressive and obnoxious these days, at least on this board).

No.  

Thanks,

-Smac

In your opinion, who are the “aggressive, obnoxious” liberals/progressives on this board? 

[Teancum]

On 11/20/2024 at 4:47 PM, smac97 said:

I think "control" in the sense that you are using it (compulsory, coercive, etc.) does not work relative to the Church's influence in the lives of its members.

It does not work for you because it does not suit your agenda.  You define control in a narrow very restrictive sense that nobody else argues. Thus your straw man. Accordingly, any discussion with you on this is a total waste of time and energy. Feel free to pat yourself on the back at winning you silly specious argument.

[Teancum]

On 11/20/2024 at 4:05 PM, MustardSeed said:

Smac I think I’ll leave the conversation be.  It’s a bit frustrating for me. Thanks. 

Of course it is frustrating. And this because @smac97redefines the word control to meet his absurd agenda then claims we are all wrong in challenging that definition. And as always, he doubles down and does not give an inch. So typical. So yea I get why you want to bail on the thread you started.  

 

 

[Teancum]

On 11/20/2024 at 7:51 PM, bluebell said:

I had a response typed out but I erased it. Your definition of control is restricted so much that the only time it ever applies is if someone physically makes another person do something against their will.  You've essentially argued that control does not exist unless force also exists. 

So, besides your personal definition of the word being very frustrating to discuss (which you are seeing in the responses of both members and nonmembers at this point) it's also made any discussion a waste of time for you and anyone replying to you.

So from my end it's better to just acknowledge that you have a personal definition of the word control that is unique to your perspective and to leave it at that.  

Thank you. Well said.

[Teancum]

On 11/21/2024 at 12:00 PM, smac97 said:

Incivility and taunts in lieu of substance.

Oh cry me a river. You are the king of passive aggressive posts here so don't pretend to be innocent.  I and others, even your fellow believers, have responded to your specious straw man argument about control.  Why bother with more substance when you continue to double down? it is a waste of time.

[Peacefully]

5 hours ago, Teancum said:

Oh cry me a river. You are the king of passive aggressive posts here so don't pretend to be innocent.  I and others, even your fellow believers, have responded to your specious straw man argument about control.  Why bother with more substance when you continue to double down? it is a waste of time.

Still waiting for @smac97 to let me know who he deems the “aggressive, obnoxious” liberals/progressives on this board. 

Edited November 23, 2024 by Peacefully

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Peacefully said:

Still waiting for @smac97 to let me know who he deems the “aggressive, obnoxious” liberals/progressives on this board? 

Still waiting for @smac97 to let me know if he thinks i am anti-Mormon.  I am honestly curios.  While I strongly do not agree with some of the policies the Church has instituted, I certainly don't consider myself anti-Mormon.  But he is known for coming up with his own definitions. 

[Dario_M]

On 11/20/2024 at 10:05 PM, MustardSeed said:

Thanks. 

Good night. 🌌🌠

Edited November 23, 2024 by Dario_M

[smac97]

13 hours ago, california boy said:

Still waiting for @smac97 to let me know if he thinks i am anti-Mormon.  

Based on your behavior here, i do not.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 11/21/2024 at 3:36 PM, Peacefully said:

Quote

No.  The commonality is the active opposition to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Some are secular, some sectarian.  Some are sociopolitically conservative, some are sociopolitically liberal/progressive (though I think the latter tends to be the more aggressive and obnoxious these days, at least on this board).

In your opinion, who are the “aggressive, obnoxious” liberals/progressives on this board? 

I was speaking generally of "sociopolitically liberal/progressive" who, in the aggregate, are "more aggressive and obnoxious these days" than the aggregated religious/sociopolitically conservative style of anti-Mormon.

If you want examples of the former (who, again, are, here are few that come to mind: Mike Norton, John Dehlin, Bill Reel, Alyssa Grenfell.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 23, 2024 by smac97

[Dario_M]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was speaking generally of "sociopolitically liberal/progressive" who, in the aggregate, are "more aggressive and obnoxious these days" than the aggregated religious/sociopolitically conservative style of anti-Mormon.

If you want examples of the former (who, again, are, here are few that come to mind: Mike Norton, John Dehlin, Bill Reel, Alyssa Grenfell.

Thanks,

-Smac

Oh my, there you have a good point. John Dehlin.👎 John Dehlin is a good example of an Ex mormon who loves to bring our LDS community down. And he is very enthusaistic about it. With his podcast. Interviewing people who have recently left the LDS community. I just don't get the hate of those people. It's appalling to me.

Edited November 23, 2024 by Dario_M

[Peacefully]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was speaking generally of "sociopolitically liberal/progressive" who, in the aggregate, are "more aggressive and obnoxious these days" than the aggregated religious/sociopolitically conservative style of anti-Mormon.

If you want examples of the former (who, again, are, here are few that come to mind: Mike Norton, John Dehlin, Bill Reel, Alyssa Grenfell.

Thanks,

-Smac

You said “ on this board”. Are the people you named on this board? If not, who on this board do you put in that category. 

[Dario_M]

17 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

You said “ on this board”. Are the people you named on this board? If not, who on this board do you put in that category. 

I think it's not a secret that there are some people on the board who've left the LDS community. I won't call names offcourse. 

Edited November 23, 2024 by Dario_M

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, Dario_M said:

I think it's not a secret that there are some people on the board who've left the LDS community. I won't call names offcourse. 

I like @smac97 but my point is he often protests that board members are directing personal insults at him and then he does the same thing by calling board members “aggressive and obnoxious” just because some have a more progressive viewpoint about the church. Although he switched it up and said he was talking about John Dehlin and others who I don’t think are on this board so I’m confused.

Edited November 23, 2024 by Peacefully

[Dario_M]

3 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I like @smac97 but my point is he often protests that board members are directing personal insults at him and then he does the same thing by calling board members “aggressive and obnoxious” just because some have a more progressive viewpoint about the church. Although he switched it up and said he was talking about John Dehlin and others that I don’t think are on the board so I’m confused.

No i don't think that John Dehlin is on the board. He is to busy with his podcast and briging the image of the LDS community down. God forbid. 🎭

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I was speaking generally of "sociopolitically liberal/progressive" who, in the aggregate, are "more aggressive and obnoxious these days" than the aggregated religious/sociopolitically conservative style of anti-Mormon.

If you want examples of the former (who, again, are, here are few that come to mind: Mike Norton, John Dehlin, Bill Reel, Alyssa Grenfell.

Thanks,

-Smac

Mike Norton hasn't been actively doing much has he? He bothered me. And who is Alyssa Grenfell, new one on me. Maybe it's a sign that I don't participate much with ex LDS anymore as far as reading stuff online. Which could be a good thing I guess. This board is my mainstay.

[Tacenda]

53 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

No i don't think that John Dehlin is on the board. He is to busy with his podcast and briging the image of the LDS community down. God forbid. 🎭

Well he was a member of the board at one time, maybe still is. But doesn't participate here as much or at all anymore.

Edited November 23, 2024 by Tacenda