Church and control

[bluebell]

42 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

I don't personally believe the distinction makes sense, but smac's explanation of him being persnickety about the word control made sense to me.

Personally, I don't see the difference which is why I disagreed with Smac's definition of control.

[california boy]

I am not sure I want to dive into this conversation or not.  I have a pretty good idea how people will define control and because of their belief, they don't think that the Church exerts any control over them.  The belief that the Church is speaking for God and the demands the Church makes on people is not coming from leaders, but from God and what He wants you to do is very powerful.  It is why members wear temple garments even if they are less comfortable, why they give 10% of their income willingly even when they can't pay their gas bills, why they put in countless hours away from their families attending meetings and running the Church even when their children need their attention more than the Church does, why members give up one day a week devoted to how the Church tells them to worship even when they need more family time, why they volunteer to clean church buildings for free even when they pay for a housekeeper to clean their own houses.  

Some would say, if a Church can control a part of your income, control a large chunk of your time, make you feel guilty if you have a tattoo, or even more than one earring, and what underwear you wear, controlled what you drink, that is real power and real control.  That is what belief will demand you do.  People believe in things that are simply not true.  Whether something is true or not, is not really important.  You only have to convince them to believe in it.

This is how all religions work. This is why people are willing to strap a bomb on themselves and blow up a market place. That is the point of the discussion Hugh Grant makes to the missionary sisters.  He isn't saying that Church's force people to do anything, or that they can't walk away from it.

Since leaving the Church, there is still a lot of "Mormon" in me.  But what remains there is because I want it to be there and not because I am trying to make Church leaders happy or believe that God wants or needs me to do certain things or promises of some future kingdom.  It is there because it makes my life better.

 

 

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

In the case of the government, the relationship is primarily based on legal authority and enforcement mechanisms. You are required to pay taxes, and while there is a degree of choice in that you can decide whether to comply or not, the consequences for noncompliance are significant—legal penalties, fines, or even imprisonment. The threat of these consequences (backed by the state’s monopoly on the legitimate use of force) means that while you can technically choose to not pay taxes, the real freedom of that choice is limited by the severity of the consequences you face.

This is often referred to as coercion because the choice to not comply is significantly burdened by the forceful imposition of consequences. The government's ability to use force to ensure compliance gives it a power over citizens that is not just persuasive, but inherently coercive. That said, the control exerted by government in this case is not absolute, you refuse. 

In contrast, religious institutions, like the LDS Church, also impose consequences for behavior that aligns or misaligns with their teachings, ie tithing. While members technically have the choice not to pay, the spiritual consequences of not paying can be significant within the religious framework.

However, the distinctions are:

Voluntariness of Participation: In a religious context, participation in church life, including paying tithing, is typically voluntary in the sense that individuals are free to leave the faith or to avoid church practices if they do not wish to comply. This voluntary aspect gives the religious system a very different flavor of influence. A person can stop being a member of the church, whereas, when owing taxes, leaving is not an option.

Nature of the Consequences: The consequences of not paying tithing or follow other church teachings are often framed as spiritual, are not enforceable through physical means. Government penalties, on the other hand, are physical, and are backed by the state's physical power. The severity of the consequences in the religious case is psychological which means they are not backed by the threat of physical force.

Public vs. Private Sphere: Government operates in the public sphere, impacting all citizens, whether or not they subscribe to its laws or agree with its policies. Churches operate in the private or voluntary sphere, where members choose to belong to a community with specific beliefs and practices. The state can compel you to act in ways that the church, generally speaking, cannot—at least not in a legally enforceable manner.

When it comes to persuasion versus control in religious contexts, of say "fire and brimstone" preaching is a form of persuasion that uses fear to encourage compliance. However, persuasion (no matter how intense) differs from coercion because, ultimately, the believer has the freedom to leave the belief system.

The key here is that, while spiritual consequences like eternal punishment or exclusion from sacred rites like temple weddings may be powerful motivators within the community, they are still only subjective motivations. People who in the faith might feel that the eternal consequences are more serious than any earthly penalty. However, those who stop believing might view these threats as irrelevant. In contrast, government-enforced consequences (such as the force of law) are objective and tangible, with a clear, material consequence to non-compliance.

It can be a mistake to frame religion purely in terms of control because it overlooks all the voluntary aspects. However, it's also fair to recognize that religion, especially in certain contexts, can become coercive if individuals are manipulated through fear, shame, or pressure. In the worst cases, religious institutions can exploit them to maintain control over their followers. So, government control and religious influence differs in their mechanisms and the nature of their consequences.

Brainwashing is considered a myth, is there is no clear, empirical, or scientific evidence to support the idea that individuals can be compelled to adopt beliefs or behaviors against their will without some form of physical coercion. While people can be influenced by external factors - like persuasive communication, emotional appeal, or social pressure - there is no mechanism by which someone can be made to believe or act in ways they fundamentally reject or oppose without the threat of significant physical harm or punishment.

Even within highly controlled "cults", people do generally choose to follow the teachings or practices of the group. The choice may be heavily influenced by emotional or psychological factors, like fear, love-bombing, social pressure, or the promise of salvation, but ultimately, followers made their decision to stay within the group. People have agency and can make choices, even if they are heavily swayed by external forces. The concept of volition suggests that a person is not simply "brainwashed" but is rather making a decision, even if that decision is heavily influenced or constrained by psychological use of coercive tactics like manipulation, deceit, or psychological pressure, and is distinct from literally forcing people to act against their will.

Edited November 14, 2024 by Pyreaux

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

However, the distinctions are:

Voluntariness of Participation:

Are you saying you don’t believe your church tenet that yours is the only true and living church? And I can just opt out of being judged by your God? And that your church doesn’t actually represent God for everyone on earth? Only those that voluntarily participate? Do your church authorities represent God on earth with the ability to seal eternally or not? 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

12 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

framed as spiritual, are not enforceable through physical means.

Are spiritual punishments like hell less real than jail and garnished wages?

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

there ain't diddly the Church can do about any of this

No, the Church can only restrict or remove membership.  Oh wait, they can also hire and fire teachers in the CES community.

However, church members acting as part of the Church community can do a heck of a lot more, especially if they are church leaders, local or higher.  Joseph seemed concerned about it based on some of the things he said.  It’s even in the scriptures, the wrong kind of control as unrighteous dominion.

Hopefully, most members don’t do that much unrighteous dominioning (shunning, gossiping, threatening their kids or parents or siblings with withdrawing of financial support or even love, making neighbors feel unwelcome, fire employees they see as less faithful or only hire those who agree with them, etc).  But if reports are even 1/10th accurate, members who have left the Church have been divorced and thus lost the ability to be with their children as much as they desire, lost their jobs, been shunned in communities, etc…

Now I personally believe this is less coming from the Church as a whole and is more about family dynamics, but I believe there have been church leaders that have exerted influences that pushed church culture at times into more controlling family and social dynamics, sometimes on a small scale, sometimes on a large one.  And I do believe the basic structure of Church hierarchy and the general membership lacking significant open direct access to top leaders for feedback on how local leaders are doing now we are so large can result in high control individuals being placed for long periods of time in influential positions, resulting in more control attempts and justifications impacting those under that individual’s stewardship and possibly even a change of culture.  For example, I have heard of bishops who micromanage the various auxiliaries, requiring them to run all their decisions by them with some of those bishops altering pretty much all the decisions and having leaders do it their way or otherwise interfering with someone fulfilling a calling.  And the ward members get to put up for it for the years as their only viable option once appeals to the Stake President go unheard…not surprising when it happens as that would be the man who most likely had the greatest influence on the bishop getting his calling if SP at that time….would be to stop attending a ward and existing at best as a perpetual visitor in another ward.

An example of change of global church culture into a more controlling one….I believe one example is Joseph Fielding Smith, good man that he was, with his attitude towards scripture interpretation being so simplistic.*** This attitude included the belief that anyone reading scripture should come to the same conclusions as he did since scripture needs no special knowledge to be interpreted as well as scripture was the authorized, preeminent—if I understand his view correctly—text for any area of knowledge as well as his willingness to see others as spiritually and morally erring when they disagreed with him.  This paradigm in my view eventually created an environment in the Church with an underlying distrust of scientists and scholarship, even though as a practical people for the most part we are all for scientific improvements. It is when science ventures into what many members saw as the domain of scripture that problems arise and attempts to control may pop up.  In my opinion and experience, church culture became controlling enough in this area that at least some professors of science at BYU struggled with being able to teach an old earth and evolution and other scientific theories while bringing up evolution in seminary and church and elsewhere could get one treated as an apostate looking to subvert the faithful.  BYU professors had to be careful about how they taught basic science (I can’t provide sources as this view of mine developed from personal experiences including lectures and conversations I had with students and professors and wanna be professors in the 70s to early 2000s or family members and friends who lived in wards with BYU professors back in the 80s and 90s, which individuals I trusted not to over inflate concerns of others in this area) where earlier scholarship and science were seen in positive ways, bringing new insights by top leaders (Ben Spackman’s work in this area is very useful). 

 I have no doubt the reverse could happen and probably has where a church leader sees only those with  Ph.Ds as truly capable of being good leaders and teachers.  In fact in one case I know, BYU administrators favored a particular professor’s more liberal view and quashed a decent one that challenged it, so I am not equating a belief in fundamentalist ideas with control….I am using the example of how evolution and an old earth became persona non grata in the Church for a time as an example of how the Church structure aided in creating a culture that imo was inappropriately controlling of behaviour by putting limits on righteous beliefs and behaviour in stricter ways than our doctrine calls for.  

This does not mean church structure is inherently flawed….well, except for the fact it includes fallen mortal humans.  If we could get rid of those, the Church would be much better off.  Many good things can be misused.  One shouldn’t toss a good thing in that case, but work on the misuse.

What the Church chooses to teach is one way it controls outside of membership qualifications.  Exposure to ideas with labels as revelation or temptation, righteous or unrighteous, salvation or damnation affects people’s behaviours.  This can be excellent when it is the gospel that is promoted, not so good when pet theories that lock out other ideas as morally or spiritually wrong start getting included.  We still have people calling BYU professors apostates because evolution is taught there.

Anyone who sees others who disagree with their non doctrinal scriptural interpretations as apostates as opposed to simply mistaken , even other respected church leaders,  most likely has control issues, imo (as in wanting to be judgers of men when they aren’t called to that position….hopefully; when they are, unfortunately it can lead others to act in the same way).

***https://benspackman.com/2023/08/the-power-of-good-historiography-or-how-joseph-fielding-smith-unwittingly-undermined-joseph-fielding-smith/

Quote

I spoke with a friend who was a BYU student in 2004. All he’d been taught was that the Church had always been completely opposed: the earth was young, and there was no death before the fall, ergo no room or time for evolution’s mechanisms to function. He was taught this at BYU, by his Religion professor who moreover taught him the evolutionary biologists were apostates.  But then he happened into a lecture by a professor who knew the history better and had his mind blown. He came away saying, “if the history isn’t as one-sided as has been claimed, then I can make up my own mind.” Indeed. The history is not nearly so one-sided, and the Gospel is compatible.

Added:  I should mention one of my BYU psychology professors (late 70s) was an evolutionary psychologist.  I didn’t take that class from him; my husband did and wasn’t impressed.  I probably would have been more likely interested as my husband is more traditional in his thought…at least he wants to see solid evidence before changing paradigms, sometimes we disagree on what counts as solid.  And evolutionary psychology at the time was on the newer side of psychology.  Interestingly enough to me at least, his own research in business psychology went against the mainstream at that time, but the evidence was there.  
 

I mention my professor not only to show BYU overall was not locked into the anti evolution paradigm even if big parts of the campus were, but also to mention my professor got called as a stake president in the early 80s iirc, again demonstrating that while such prejudices were present in the Church and pushed certain decisions here and there (Old Testament manual ugh), the anti evolution paradigm wasn’t in rigid control in the Church.

Edited November 14, 2024 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are spiritual punishments like hell less real than jail and garnished wages?

One might say LDS-hell is less real than jail. What jail have you seen where you could decide to leave and let someone else pay?

19 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you saying you don’t believe your church tenet that yours is the only true and living church? And I can just opt out of being judged by your God? And that your church doesn’t actually represent God for everyone on earth? Only those that voluntarily participate? Do your church authorities represent God on earth with the ability to seal eternally or not? 

You seek to corner me with absolutes where it's all relative. Rejecting truth, compliance, judgment, or punishment is not equally measured. It's all relative to the light and understanding each of us uniquely possesses. A person who doesn't tithe is indeed not as culpable if they felt justified not to, or if they've left the church, than some other person. In spite of any other more relative issues they might still have.

The Harrowing of Hell

Edited November 14, 2024 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

While people can be influenced by external factors - like persuasive communication, emotional appeal, or social pressure - there is no mechanism by which someone can be made to believe or act in ways they fundamentally reject or oppose without the threat of significant physical harm or punishment.

 

What about if they are children and the belief system is the only one they are taught?

I otherwise agree with your comments. 

Edited November 14, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are you saying you don’t believe your church tenet that yours is the only true and living church? And I can just opt out of being judged by your God? And that your church doesn’t actually represent God for everyone on earth? Only those that voluntarily participate? Do your church authorities represent God on earth with the ability to seal eternally or not? 

My interpretation of what he is saying is the power to control in these areas are dependent on belief. There is no power to control behavior where there is no belief in God or hell or the only true and living church on the earth in which God was well pleased and hopefully still is …well pleased in, not the only true and living as I hope there are others of those and God is also well pleased in this, but that is for God to say and not me (I think it is important to include all the conditions mentioned, not just one or two of them).

Edited November 14, 2024 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

My interpretation of what he is saying is the power to control in these areas are dependent on belief. There is no power to control behavior where there is no belief in God or hell or the only true and living church on the earth in which God was well pleased and hopefully still is …well pleased in, not the only true and living as I hope there are others of those and God is also well pleased in this, but that is for God to say and not me (I think it is important to include all the conditions mentioned, not just one or two of them).

I think that it’s fair to say that church’s have no direct way to control non-believers. It’s possible we were talking past each other, because I was mainly taking about people who actually believe in heaven hell etc. I will add that believers indirectly they control non-believers through things faith based laws and regulations like say in abortion law which is strongly correlated with religious belief. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

One might say LDS-hell is less real than jail. What jail have you seen where you could decide to leave and let someone else pay?

I think Teddy presents the more doctrinally correct view here:

That’s what I was taught and the scripure seems clear. 
 

This from Alma seems worse than any prison that I’m aware of:

“But I was racked with eternal-torment, for my soul was harrowed upto the greatest degree and racked with all my sins.

13 Yea, I did remember all my sins and iniquities, for which I was tormentedwith the pains of hell; yea, I saw that I had rebelled against my God, and that I had not kept his holy commandments.”

I mean Alma calls his three days as “eternal torment” and harried to “the greatest degree.” How can a few years of prison (max life sentence is what 80years) compare to “eternal” and “the greatest degree”??

I’m just always surprised when I hear saints say that earthly jail time can “control” someone, but heavenly “eternal-torment” can’t. It’s almost like they don’t believe the stuff that the scriptures teach. 

Edited November 14, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

(I think it is important to include all the conditions mentioned, not just one or two of them

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2008/04/the-true-and-living-church?lang=eng
 

Eyring quotes the whole scripture. But look at the title of his talk. Look at the quotes:

“This is the true Church, the only true Church, because in it are the keys of the priesthood.”
“I bear you my solemn witness that this is the true and living Church of Jesus Christ.”

Just search the talk for “true”.

I get what you are trying to say, and support you in your effort, but I don’t think my usage is wrong or outside the norm of what is taught as doctrine by prophets. 

[MustardSeed]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Note the use of the word “sometimes”. It depends on the motivation for the statement. if I’m trying to alter your behavior, it’s an issue of control. If I’m trying to maintain something for myself, it’s a boundary. Generally speaking, a boundary is about the circle of my tolerance and allowance for what will impact me personally and what I am going to do to protect my “self”.  Control is about attempting get somebody else to do or be something different than they are. 
 

For example, let’s take a basic scenario. I might tell my mom, “ I don’t want participate in a gossipy conversation about my siblings with you.”  Or, I might say, “ if you bring up gossipy topics with me I am going to do my best to change the subject so as not to participate.”  Both of these would be an example of a healthy boundary expression. 
 

if I say to my mom, “ you really should stop gossiping”, or, if I punish her for gossiping by passive aggressively, giving her cold shoulder, or if I say         “ Jesus is sad when you gossip” (spiritual manipulation) , or even more extreme, if the consequence is that we can no longer have a relationship *because I want her to change rather than me setting a boundary for myself, these behaviors are all controlling. I might not have the power to be effective, and she might ignore me, but it doesn’t change the fact that my behavior is controlling behavior.  My objective is to get her to stop gossiping.

Have you ever heard, we cannot change somebody else we can only change ourselves? Well, we sure as heck try to change other people all the time. Control is not always bad, the badness is on a spectrum.  We all need to have some sense of control in our lives however, there is a tipping point where it becomes over functioning.  

Life is about nuance. I wish things were more black-and-white, but they are not. Likely we could have a discussion about this that could go on and on with what ifs.  I’m not sure I have the constitution for it, but I’ll do my best to hang.  
 

 

Edited November 14, 2024 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

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.  

In my experience there is usually more going on.  But yes, this is a sad reality.  I see it also with p***tics.  If dad voted for party X, I’m not going to thanksgiving dinner.  I have heard that in my office and I’m concerned.  But I also know that almost always  in these situations, there is much deeper concern going on. These folks need therapy - the whole family does. I’m glad when they find their way to me.

[MustardSeed]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Whyyyyy did I end up in the outlier 😭

I was in a fantastic ward for 25 years.  I moved out to the sticks and “it ain’t easy”

[MustardSeed]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Church only has as much authority over me as I choose to grant to it.

Yes, as long as our understanding is conscious. We don’t know what we don’t know.

[MustardSeed]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what you mean by "it."

Spiritual manipulation from church members and leaders- over functioning- Inappropriate attempts to control- (at times successful)

Edited November 14, 2024 by MustardSeed

[MustardSeed]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Thank you for the links.i will read them later. 
It might be an interesting thread to begin, how do we go about examining problems that exist and still follow directives to be non critical? Must we deny all flaws? Can we make necessary changes in an environment where no one discusses discontent, or when they do, everyone denies and invalidates in the name of eschewing criticism? 
 

I propose there are respectful ways of expressing concerns and then there are disrespectful ways.  I think this is true in church and in all other relationships. 
I find it absolutely necessary to be able to share my concerns in a respectful way in order to maintain any relationships that are to exist with any level of authenticity and trust.  
If I share concerns in a respectful way (kind calmly, and concise)and the people around me deny my experience and shut me down, or respond negatively, I see there is no potential for growth in that relationship and it is limited. 
 

For the record, I do recognize activism is uncomfortable, to the point that many will deem it as inappropriate . IMO Activism against God is futile. Activism against humans is inevitable as long as power differentials exist. And they do.  
 

That’s enough from me for a while.  I’ve already broken my own rule of brevity. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Eyring quotes the whole scripture. But look at the title of his talk.

And don’t I know it, lol.

I am definitely not mainstream here.

I wasn’t intending to correct you when I added that. I was explaining my own compulsion to say it that way. I am not comfortable saying it any other way…though I probably have…since my attention was drawn to it.

Edited November 14, 2024 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This from Alma seems worse than any prison that I’m aware of:

“But I was racked with eternal-torment, for my soul was harrowed upto the greatest degree and racked with all my sins.

13 Yea, I did remember all my sins and iniquities, for which I was tormentedwith the pains of hell; yea, I saw that I had rebelled against my God, and that I had not kept his holy commandments.”

I mean Alma calls his three days as “eternal torment” and harried to “the greatest degree.” How can a few years of prison (max life sentence is what 80years) compare to “eternal” and “the greatest degree”??

I’m just always surprised when I hear saints say that earthly jail time can “control” someone, but heavenly “eternal-torment” can’t. It’s almost like they don’t believe the stuff that the scriptures teach. 

Well, it surprises me that your comparison seems to hinge on the assumption that somehow religious punishment is as absolute and unyielding as state punishment, and that both forms of control are comparable in their coercive nature. You yourself admitted you understood "Eternal" Torment is not the final or ultimate fate for most individuals. It's part of a larger process of repentance and even salvation.

Not only is the so-called torment not permanent nor physical, but a torment of guilt and memories of sins, and passing through it was a transformative experience for Alma, not a never-ending punishment, and not an end, but a path to his repentance.

Government punishments through imprisonment is often about retribution or deterrence, and it is finite in a very different way. It is external, whereas religious torment in LDS doctrine is something that is connected to personal growth and spiritual development, meant to lead to redemption.

LDS doctrine emphasizes individual agency AND the proportionality of accountability. The idea of "punishment" in the afterlife is tied not merely to one's choices but light and understanding.

Each person is judged according to what they know, what they have been given. Punishment is not dictated in the same way by a government, which often operates on external rules with fixed consequences and flawed judges.

There is proportionality and relative culpability, we will not be judged the same, I could be held to a higher standard than you and have greater sins even if you have more sins. The LDS view is far more nuanced and relational than the fixed and often one-size-fits-all punishments handed down by governments. Thus your comparison does not account for the individualized nature of divine judgment in LDS belief. It's not about unyielding, permanent suffering but about personal accountability in light of one's understanding.

LDS doctrine does not frame God’s judgment as "control" in the same sense as government punishment, but as a means of restoring individuals to a state of happiness, peace, and ultimately, salvation. The term "control" you are using is somewhat misleading when applied to LDS doctrine. In the context of government punishment, control typically involves the use of force to coerce behavior or maintain order, often based on laws that are impersonal and can be unjust. In contrast, LDS doctrine holds that God respects agency and that punishment is a result of personal choices, not an arbitrary exertion of power. And may even be self-inflicted by Alma's account.

It is not LDS belief that God imposes suffering for its own sake but to help individuals like Alma come to a place where they are spiritually ready for peace. Thus the goal is not coercion; it is a redemptive process that operates in the context of personal growth.

This contrasts with governmental punishments, which often do not offer a means of healing or forgiveness but are strictly focused on punishment or deterrence, often leaving a permanent mark on a person for the rest of their life.

LDS theology teaches that God is merciful and that His judgment takes into account all circumstances - what individuals knew and the light they had. This stands in contrast to the often rigid, impersonal nature of human laws, which do not always account for the complexity of an individual's life experiences or level of understanding. LDS thought allows for the possibility of change, even after death. 

While you make a valid point about the severity of guilt and torment described in the scriptures, you miss the context and purpose of it. Religious torment is relative and connected to personal growth, whereas government punishment is often a fixed consequence that doesn’t take into account the transformative potential or mercy. Furthermore, LDS doctrine is not about coercion but about agency. The two concepts - government punishment and divine judgment -are fundamentally different in nature, purpose, and outcome.

Edited November 14, 2024 by Pyreaux

[Calm]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

’m just always surprised when I hear saints say that earthly jail time can “control” someone, but heavenly “eternal-torment” can’t. It’s almost like they don’t believe the stuff that the scriptures teach. 

I don’t understand when it’s made to look less despair inducing than man made prisons, though I am thinking they phrase it that way because we will know if we truly turn ourselves over to God he will save us.  But that means the only out is completely giving up, no resistance whatsoever imo.

We don’t serve time in hell, we serve a purpose and that is purification.  We get to walk out the doors when we give up sin and accept redemption or at least God’s dominion, as in we are saved from hell when we accept he is in control, whether because we desire him to be our God and rejoice when we open up in this way to God or just recognize that is reality but take no joy in it.  But that doesn’t mean we are in control while we are in hell in my view.

There is nothing life changing, mind changing, heart changing , purifying about being in full control of ourselves to me. Where is there reason for despair?  Where is there reason or need to cry out to God to save us?  To help us in our unbelief?

For me I imagine hell is an internal state, not something you can escape by leaving because you will take it with you elsewhere. The fact there is no escape but God is essential to it, imo.

 I also think of it as the worst guilt, shame, embarrassment, restlessness, boredom, fear, overwhelmingness, etc I have ever experienced and then some all at the same time…so horrible it is physical crippling pain and yet not because pain reduces one to a nonthinking animal in my experience or at least close to it, I don’t see it as capable of teaching (yes, I have had fun times in my life, not too many thank goodness).  I am not sure about panic.  That might be grouped with pain as a nonteachable moment in my view.  Besides which I think we will know exactly what is happening and why and how we can stop it.  I am not sure there will be a reason to panic.

And no distraction, no ability to look away.

I had a bad trip on ketamine one time. It was an experience of pure terror…just color and terror, pure sensation, no idea causing me to feel terror like hallucinations of evil clowns.  Just the awareness of terror.  I could not get my mind to lock on any coherent thought or direct it in any way. I could barely recognize what was happening. What got me through it was I would surface for a moment and was able to hold on to the thought that it was a drug reaction and it would end even if it didn’t feel like it and then I would drop into the abyss again. I vaguely remember the therapist repeating over and over my name, where I was, that I was having a reaction and it would be okay.  She just kept repeating that mantra as long as it lasted until I could respond iirc (which I admit is likely a BIG if, lol).

I went home and hid under the covers for three days.  Took that long to release the sensation.  Wasn’t anything that I focused on to say ‘this is terrifying me’, it was just the sensation and the place to be when terrified is in bed with the covers over your head, so that is why I was there.  

For me that showed how easy we can create hell for ourselves. God doesn’t need any special tools, just throw the switch in our brains on the emotion he sees as appropriate to punish us with (for me punishment is about learning, so my guess is we will feel the hell we put others through, what ever that was).

It also showed me what rescue from hell might look like…someone trustworthy standing by us and telling us it can end, we can be okay, just trust and hold on until we come to our senses. 

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Pyreaux said:

is not LDS belief that God imposes suffering for its own sake but to help individuals like Alma come to a place where they are spiritually ready for peace. Thus the goal is not coercion; it is a redemptive process that operates in the context of personal growth.

It is the ultimate rehabilitation. But God is in control in the sense all must go through it one way or the other, by willingly surrendering to God and allowing him to pay our debt or resisting and while accepting him as our Lord, reject him as our Redeemer…except the few who understand the whole process, once accepted it fully and then turned away from the Lord and tried to destroy him.

However, what paying our debt actually means is beyond me because surely the only way to pay such a debt is through healing such that any harm is as if it’s never been and surely only God can heal in the needed fashion, so how could we ever pay our debt ourselves?

[nuclearfuels]

22 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

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 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. 
 

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.

100% agree.

Beautiful thing to become self aware. Difficult journey in arriving there though.

How do you process when every optional Church event is seen as if attendance was doctrine, showed valiancy, demonstrated testimony, etc.?

 

[MustardSeed]

41 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

How do you process when every optional Church event is seen as if attendance was doctrine, showed valiancy, demonstrated testimony, etc.?

I’d ask, “is seen by whom” as such?  And then I’d ask, can you be valiant and not attend, and why not? And can you demonstrate your testimony in other ways?  
Then I’d ask, where did you learn that you had to attend “every optional” event? 
 

as an example for you, I used to attend as many activities as possible. When I got older, I recognized that my mom would prioritize her church events over family events.  It didn’t make sense to me, because I knew she loved her family.  But I came to understand in my adulthood that my mom was driven by obligation. I prefer to be driven by love and connection. Also, I came to understand that my mom was driven to attend because she felt sorry for people who had organized events who had put so much work into the event and she wanted to show support.  I developed my own philosophy around that, deciding that my family came first over somebody else’s church event, and if it was a event I wanted to attend I would attend, and if it was one I didn’t want to attend, low numbers of attendance would be important data for the planning committee. 
I also challenged my belief that attendance at every activity was a reflection of my testimony strength, about 20 years ago.   I attend my Sunday meetings so that I can feel closer to God. The rest of it? Strictly optional.  (I also used to depend on church for my social network, though I was unaware that that was what I was doing. Once I developed a heavy social, network outside of church, I depended less on church events to feel connected) 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

if it was a event I wanted to attend I would attend, and if it was one I didn’t want to attend, low numbers of attendance would be important data for the planning committee. 

I wish church planning committees paid any attention to this kind of thing.  It's like with RS enrichment meetings and everyone is spending money and time every month and hoping that more than just the people on the committee and RS presidency show up.  

When do we take the number of people showing up as a sign for what the people need and don't need in their lives instead of trying to guilt/cajole people into coming??

Edited November 14, 2024 by bluebell