Church and control

[MustardSeed]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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??

“ what do we need to do to get more people to show up?” Has been said so many times in my relief society meetings, referring to midweek activities.  
I think the better question would be, “ For those of you who want to attend activities, what do you need so we can better serve you?”

What I need on a Wednesday night Is quiet time alone with my husband in our living room curled up with him watching television and talking about our day. 

[Senator]

11 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

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? 
 

This place has gotten soft.  I remember the good ol days when members of the church would come here attempting to do as you suggest, and where met with the tried and true castigation of being "an ark steadier".  Ah, good times...

[Rain]

2 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

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.?

 

Three questions to ask yourself:

1. Why does the church have events and activities?

To help the members in some way.

2. Is this something I, personally, need or want to attend? 

A no-brainer.  Of course, you attend (assuming your wants don't contradict needs).

3. Is something someone else needs me to attend?

This one is harder because so many get in the mindset that everything and everyone needs us, but that's not true and it's not listening to yourself, the Spirit, the people around you etc.   I think most of the time the answer is going to be "no" here, but it's really going to depend on hat is going on.  Perhaps someone in the ward just lost a family member and the ward is pulling together to help that person.  Perhaps your best friend is in charge of an activity for the first time and needs your support.  Perhaps your child needs some more fun time.  The key here is to listen and not go on autopilot.

Edited November 14, 2024 by Rain

[Rain]

35 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

“ what do we need to do to get more people to show up?” Has been said so many times in my relief society meetings, referring to midweek activities.  
I think the better question would be, “ For those of you who want to attend activities, what do you need so we can better serve you?”

What I need on a Wednesday night Is quiet time alone with my husband in our living room curled up with him watching television and talking about our day. 

I hate that question.  It's the question I asked as a leader myself.  Then one month I felt so strongly about planning a certain event.  I was discouraged when not many showed up.  I said something to the RSP and she said "Look around.  The people who needed to be here are". 

That changed everything for me.  No longer did I ask the question "What will get people to show up?"  I asked instead, "what do the people need?" 

[MustardSeed]

9 minutes ago, Rain said:

what do the people need?"

And sometimes, what the people need is less. Less busy, more connection with spouse, Less obligation, more quiet.

[Dario_M]

22 minutes ago, Rain said:

This one is harder because so many get in the mindset that everything and everyone needs us, but that's not true and it's not listening to yourself, the Spirit, the people around you etc.   I think most of the time the answer is going to be no here, but it's really going to depend on hat is going on.  Perhaps someone in the ward just lost a family member and the ward is pulling together to help that person.  Perhaps your best friend is in charge of an activity for the first time and needs your support.  Perhaps your child needs some more fun time.  The key here is to listen and not go on autopilot.

But yet....most people go on autopilot. I think that we humans are really good at doing that. It's really easy to say "that we all need to listen to one another" but strange enough i always have the feeling that people listen to what they wanna hear and to not be bothered all to much by serten problems from others, they don't know how to handle or feel uncomfortable about it. Or how to help (in case they wanna help offcourse wich is not always self-evident). Unfortunatly the reality is not so rosecolorful. 

[JVW]

An aspect of control that hasn't been talked about much in this thread is the person being controlled. Are some people easier to control than others and if so, why?

I think that an individuals amount of power plays into any scenario in which an organization exerts pressure, force, persuasion, or control. While many things are voluntary, it is easy for someone to view things as not voluntary. As an example, did Satan really have a choice on whether or not to get kicked out of heaven? God literally has all power, there was zero chance of the devil getting to make any other decision than to accept Jesus' plan in order to remain in God's presence. One could say he had a choice, it was "follow Jesus and stay, or don't and be forced out." But that's a similar choice to "you have a gun to your head, tied up, blindfolded, and gagged. Give me all your money and you can live and be released, don't and I'll pull the trigger." And because Satan had no power relative to the King of all creation, how much choice did he actually get?

I've spent many years pondering about what power means. I recently stumbled on the most random quote about power in a book I bought seven years ago called "GameTek: The Math and Science of Gaming" by Geoff Engelstein. It's on page 137-139 in a section titled "Power".

Quote

So what is power, and how does it manifest itself?

In 2011, a team led by Van Kleef of the University of Amsterdam did a study that attempted to shed light on some of these questions. They started with the hypothesis that people who have power act the way they want - not necessarily following the rules. In other words, power corrupts.

They did several experiments to explore this relationship. In the first, they had subjects read stories about people and rate them for, among other things, how powerful they thought they were. In stories where a character broke rules - by taking someone else's cup of coffee without asking, or putting their feet up on a table in a cafe, or dropping cigarette ashes on the floor - readers thought that those characters were more powerful.

The same thing carried over in face-to-face interactions. Experimenters had the subject sit in a room. Then an actor came in and was polite and followed rules with half of the subjects, and was obnoxious and broke rules the other half. For example, they would come in late, throw a bag heavily down onto the table and then put their feet up on the table. After the interaction people thought that the rule breaker "had more power and was more likely to get others to do what he wants."

So when people break rules, others think they are more powerful than those who follow the rules.

So let's flip this around and apply it to game design.

For players to have more fun, we want to make them feel powerful.

People think that people who are powerful break rules. So we need to give players the ability to break rules.

Here are several things that are coming to mind as I reflect on this quote and the terms "power" and "control".

The more powerful a church member is, the less they will feel like the church is a controlling institution. I believe that the more controlling an institution the less empowering they will be towards their members. On a scale of 1-10 how much do I see the church as empowering its members? 10/10. Does that mean that all of its members are powerful? No. Most of them do not have very much power. The phrase I commonly use is, "the church isn't a cult, but many members of the church act as if they are in a cult." Yet this is the case across all groups that exist. Most people just are not powerful people.

Imagine the most domineering, manipulative, controlling, powerful, narcissistic, psychopathic woman you can. That woman was my mother, and I was the firstborn child. So I've been keenly sensitive to the power/control dynamic since my earliest childhood memories. People on the outside would never think that she was controlling her family, and technically, I -could- have done anything I wanted to. But in reality, I couldn't do anything I wanted to. I was in a fully controlled mindset by the time I was 15 and moved in with my non-controlling dad. He took me to McDonald's and asked me what I wanted to have to eat and I responded with, "whatever you want me to have". From my childhood into my adolescence the way I responded to my lack of power in a tightly controlled environment was to break rules in secret. So I got into smoking, drinking, and drugs and ended up becoming a slave in even more ways in exchange for my perceived, temporary freedom and happiness.

Fast forward to now, where I'm in my middle age. I've been trying to become a good disciple of Jesus Christ, working on overcoming all of my character weaknesses, and reflecting on my life from the time shortly before God revealed himself to me 15 years ago until now. What I see as a common thread from this reflection is how God has been working to empower me. I can point to many, many events in my life in which God literally gave me power, and in many cases I used that power to "break the rules" and not follow Jesus Christ. From my experience it seems like a trait of a true disciple of Christ is to be powerful. And I expect that in the future I will have even more power than I do now.

My experience has been that most people conflate the words "humble" and "meek", they are not the same thing. From what I understand to be meek means roughly "to have power and keep it under rigorous control". In that sense, Christ certainly was the perfect example of meekness.

Wrapping it all up. Satan did have power in heaven. He was given power by God because he had the ability to break the rules if he wanted to. And because he broke the rules, he appeared to be more powerful than Christ. On Earth Satan has power, and those who believe that he is real, regardless of them saying "I believe that the devil can't have power over me unless I give it to him" I don't think many people truly believe that. Because he demonstrably is the ultimate rule breaker and thusly appears to be the most powerful of any being. Yet Isaiah (14:16-17) says

Quote

16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?

So paradoxically Satan appears to be the most powerful but is actually incredibly weak and while Christ, who keeps all of the rules in heaven and Earth appears to be the least powerful, yet in reality He is the Most Powerful.

In conclusion, while religions are commonly viewed as institutions that exert control on their members in order to fulfill their own selfish desires I don't see the LDS church as fitting into that mold very easily. but I do see many members of the LDS church fitting that mold.

[Dario_M]

So agree with JVW with that one. 👍

[Calm]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

low numbers of attendance would be important data for the planning committee. 

What a good reference point…

I too was driven to attend out of feeling bad for the organizers if few showed up as I am not a group activity kind of person unless it’s something I am very interested in like the discussions we have on the board, I do better one on one…which is what the board sort of feels like to me because I can focus on one poster’s comments at a time.

[Rain]

8 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

But yet....most people go on autopilot. I think that we humans are really good at doing that. It's really easy to say "that we all need to listen to one another" but strange enough i always have the feeling that people listen to what they wanna hear and to not be bothered all to much by serten problems from others, they don't know how to handle or feel uncomfortable about it. Or how to help (in case they wanna help offcourse wich is not always self-evident). Unfortunatly the reality is not so rosecolorful. 

People are pretty complicated. 

Autopilot is needed sometimes because it can reduce stress, but for this question I was answering above I specifically addressing our own needs because of the stress that autopilot can also create.

Funny thing is that when we don't listen to our own needs we can't really hear the needs of others.  If you have no water you can't give any to someone else.  It's easy to say you can give them your own water, but if you have none you are too weak to lift your hand to give it to them. 

When we listen to our own needs we have the energy to listen in the places we are needed.

[MustardSeed]

15 minutes ago, JVW said:

Are some people easier to control than others and if so, why?

Yes.  Low ego strength, or an identity wrapped up in caretaking, or need to please, or other such things- all originally developed in childhood. 

 

18 minutes ago, JVW said:

On a scale of 1-10 how much do I see the church as empowering its members? 10/10.

For men, I’d basically agree.  Not for women imo.

 

20 minutes ago, JVW said:

conclusion, while religions are commonly viewed as institutions that exert control on their members in order to fulfill their own selfish desires I don't see the LDS church as fitting into that mold very easily. but I do see many members of the LDS church fitting that mold.

I don’t believe the church as an institution has a desire to control its members. But I do believe the individuals within it at times do, and I think the institution unintentionally provides a perfect playground for such things.

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t believe the church as an institution has a desire to control its members. But I do believe the individuals within it at times do, and I think the institution unintentionally provides a perfect playground for such things.

I do think we talk a lot about not controlling each other, at least indirectly if not directly.  Everyone knows the scripture on unrighteous dominion.  There are all the talks encouraging us to take a hold of our agency and do something with it.  Te emphasis on personal revelation.

I am not sure how good we are at actually teaching the skill of having an internal locus of control (as it used to be referred to in my psych classes iirc) outside of seeking the Spirit.  Or how good we are at providing opportunities to correct over control when it happens, especially given how we are encouraged to view those having stewardship over us, whether teachers, auxiliary presidencies, bishoprics, on up to the First Presidency as operating through inspiration, implying if not outright saying it that they are being directed by God.

If we are serious about it, we need to provide opportunities to practice resisting others trying to control us.  My dad was a great believer in being financially responsible and overall independent.  Talked to us kids about how important it was over and over.  But never gave us a chance to practice it through allowances or allowing us to decide what the money from our summer jobs would go for…obviously college and missions.  Mom bought all our clothes up through college because she had a nose for quality and sales, so it was just more efficient for her to do it.  She also insisted on doing our laundry so they would last longer.  Dad wasn’t a fan of anyone else’s cooking but Mom’s, so we learned to make treats and snacks for ourselves and not much more.  I learned how to cook mostly from Betty Crocker though I learned experimenting with food could be fun from watching my mom.  My sister called me up the other day for advice on how to handle raw meat.  She just retired and decided she needed to make her own meals at least some of the time now rather than just assemble them from prepared ingredients.  Laundry I knew needed attention, but mostly learned trial and error.  I have never dared to buy quality, expensive clothing though because I don’t trust I can tell if something is really worth it.

I am an excellent cleaner though because Dad made sure we learned those skills and we had weekly practice with our Saturday chores plus nightly turns with kitchen cleaning, also taking care of kids as I cared for my younger brother and sister except for feeding when Mom’s health tanked.

Every kid but my youngest brother had to run back to Dad for money to get through the school year and two out of the five were financially dependent on him to some extent till he died.  His last rescue of me was paying off my husband’s school loans when we got hit because the Canadian dollar dropped so I had been married for almost ten years by the , though that was more gift than necessity, but boy did it help us.  My husband is great at earning money, not so good at living in a budget.  I am the reverse mainly because I used to be too scared to spend any money and still get sick with anything over 200$.  My youngest brother is the oddball, a real self made man…or rather he is great at making connections and following through on his own.  I figure that is because he was the only one who had been allowed off leash because Mom and Dad were too preoccupied with other things.

All that to say if you want people to have skills, you have to provide opportunities to not only learn them, but practice them.

I believe the very strong church culture encouraging us to trust our leaders without questioning of their capabilities, to avoid criticism of them prevents us from fully practicing how to be our own spiritual boss.  The lay ministry gives us plenty of practice in guiding others and in guiding ourselves in the sense of fulfilling our callings, but while it encourages us to stand up for what’s right and resist the social pressure, that is for outside the Church, not within it.  Problem is we need safe environments to learn to be confident in standing up for what’s right and the only way for the Church to do that is to allow it to happen under its eaves similar to how our members are generally better at public speaking and social interactions than the general public because of kids giving talks from a very young age and older youth going on missions.  I am not sure how the Church would do it besides putting in some feedback mechanism, maybe meetings where we get together and talk about how we are doing as a ward and work on it as a group rather than leaving the ward’s yearly mission etc in the hands of the bishopric to decide.

 

Edited November 14, 2024 by Calm

[JVW]

21 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

For men, I’d basically agree.  Not for women imo.

Why do you say this? I understand that historically, and even up to the present, there has been the "I'm the priesthood holder in this home so do as I say" dynamic in some families and probably in some church leadership. Is that what you're referring to? If so, how does that differ from the "I'm the man of the house and you'll do what I say" mentality that coexists without the religious gloss? Is it just patriarchal culture and society that is more controlling of women? Or is it the religious institutions?

21 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t believe the church as an institution has a desire to control its members. But I do believe the individuals within it at times do, and I think the institution unintentionally provides a perfect playground for such things.

I agree.

[Dario_M]

25 minutes ago, Rain said:

People are pretty complicated. 

Autopilot is needed sometimes because it can reduce stress, but for this question I was answering above I specifically addressing our own needs because of the stress that autopilot can also create.

In my opinion people use autopilot way to much. We are not robots. 

25 minutes ago, Rain said:

Funny thing is that when we don't listen to our own needs we can't really hear the needs of others.

Hmmm not sure about that. Why do you think that if i may be so free to ask? 

25 minutes ago, Rain said:

  If you have no water you can't give any to someone else.  It's easy to say you can give them your own water, but if you have none you are too weak to lift your hand to give it to them. 

When we listen to our own needs we have the energy to listen in the places we are needed.

I feel like a lot of people only listen to their own need. This world is a pritty selfish place. 

That's why i love the LDS community so much. 😌 within the church people learn how to disconnect from their egoism and learn how to serve others in need. Good Lord. 

[MustardSeed]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

I am not sure how good we are at actually teaching that outside of seeking the Spirit.  Or providing opportunities to correct over control when it happens, especially given how we are encouraged to view those having stewardship over us, whether teachers, auxiliary presidencies, bishoprics, on up to the First Presidency as operating through inspiration, implying if not outright saying it that they are being directed by God.

We certainly are not taught to watch out for and to prevent ourselves from inflicting spiritual manipulation. 
 

“ I’ve prayed about it and the Lord wants us to do XYZ for the youth conference this year.” 

No, Francine, He doesn’t. He doesn’t want us to walk the children up the shoulder of the highway to the temple  as a demonstration of dedication and devotion to our faith. Don’t pull that card on us. 

or,

“I’ve prayed and God says we are supposed to get married.” 

stop already. 
 

 

[MustardSeed]

13 minutes ago, JVW said:

Why do you say this?

You said the church empowers its members 10 out of 10. 
I would say the church and powers its female members 5 out of 10, IMO.   You are fairly new here, but this is going to open a massive can of worms and it might be better to create a new thread if you are interested.
 

 

13 minutes ago, JVW said:

Is it just patriarchal culture and society that is more

It’s both. But the church is even further into patriarchy and the imbalances that come as a result, than society. The church is way behind.  Any visitor will observe that in the first five minutes and certainly through the end of sacrament meeting.  Even more apparent in general conference.  The church attracts people in society who are drawn to the structure of patriarchy.  I certainly would never say that the church empowers women 10 out of 10. Sorry, that is all I’m going to say on this topic.  Feel free to start a new thread.

Edited November 14, 2024 by MustardSeed

[manol]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I would say the church and powers its female members 5 out of 10, IMO...

But the church is even further into patriarchy and the imbalances that come as a result, than society.

Agreed.

I know it's a vastly more complicated topic that this, so at the risk of oversimplifying:  When I was an active member of the church, the most real part of my religion was giving blessings.  When I learned that women in the church used to give blessings too, the idea thrilled me because it made so much sense to me.  Of course I was (and am) not at all thrilled that the practice had been discontinued, imo without good reason.  That contrast between what felt right to me and what the church is doing was a turning point for me. 

Edited November 14, 2024 by manol

[Rain]

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

In my opinion people use autopilot way to much. We are not robots. 

 

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

Hmmm not sure about that. Why do you think that if i may be so free to ask? 

Because if we don't listen to our own needs we are not able to distinguish them from the chaotic clutter that is the world.  When we listen and push the clutter out then it allows room without the clutter to listen to others.

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

I feel like a lot of people only listen to their own need. This world is a pritty selfish place. 

I would disagree. 

First, a lot of people don't hear and listen to their actual needs.  Their needs are there so they try to fill them, but because they didn't listen to what is really their needs they fill them with something that won't help them.  That's not selfish. That is not understanding  what their needs are.

Second, needs are never selfish.  You can't live and live well without needs being filled.  It is necessary to fill them. 

Wants, however, can be selfish.  The thing is that you have to go back to the first and see if you are misguidedly trying to fill a need with a want, or if the want is good or if the want is in excess.

1 hour ago, Dario_M said:

That's why i love the LDS community so much. 😌 within the church people learn how to disconnect from their egoism and learn how to serve others in need. Good Lord. 

 

[Rain]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

We certainly are not taught to watch out for and to prevent ourselves from inflicting spiritual manipulation. 
 

“ I’ve prayed about it and the Lord wants us to do XYZ for the youth conference this year.” 

No, Francine, He doesn’t. He doesn’t want us to walk the children up the shoulder of the highway to the temple  as a demonstration of dedication and devotion to our faith. Don’t pull that card on us. 

or,

“I’ve prayed and God says we are supposed to get married.” 

stop already. 
 

 

Or "I've prayed and your goal (because I'm your stake president) is to give out a Book of Mormon this week."

Nope, that's your wish you are trying to get me to do, not my own spiritually found goal.

Edited November 14, 2024 by Rain

[MustardSeed]

10 minutes ago, Rain said:

Or "I've prayed and your goal (because I'm your stake president) is to give out a Book of Mormon this week."

Nope, that's your wish you are trying to get me to do, not my own spiritually found goal.

Yep.  That’s HIS goal.  Not mine. I can adopt it if I choose to. Would it be good for me? Probably. But he also doesn’t know all the circumstances of my life, and it is my obligation to take that invitation and pray about it for myself. I do have a right to make those decisions in the context of all the things that are going on in my life and what is best for me according to God.

it would be better if it was stated as the following: “ it is my goal to have 100% of the ward give out one book of Mormon this week. I invite you to support me and my goal. Please pray about it and decide if that is what’s best for you.”  

[cujo22]

22 hours 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 would be interested in knowing how common this perspective is. I understand it can be hard to look at ourselves objectively, but I really don't think this is true of me at least. I'm not sure what types of control you're thinking the church has over me, but I'm pretty sure it's very little. There's some type of control within the church realm I guess. I mean, I want to be in good standing, so I guess there's control that I pay tithing for example, I accept callings and try to do a decent job, but then...I believe in tithing, I believe in the leadership/service approach that the church uses. I'm choosing that - choosing tithing and to serve in a calling. I'm not sure those things are evidence of me being in the church's control. I mean, people in any club of their choosing pay their dues. That doesn't seem like "control" to me. The one thing you mentioned specifically is "act and vote accordingly", so maybe you're thinking of political control. I can't think of any time where I was voting and thinking about how the church wanted me to vote or feeling compelled to vote in one way or another, or nervous that I needed to vote a certain way cuz what if someone in the ward found out, etc. I wonder, is anyone actually thinking this while voting? As an example, how did the church want me to vote a couple of weeks ago? I really have no idea, so I wouldn't be able to answer that question, let alone vote that way.  ??

[Kevin Christensen]

17 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

Is it a bad thing that Alma was able to reflect on the real life consequences that his actions and words had on other people?  An evil thing?  Should people be able to do whatever they want with no thought whatsoever for the possible effects on other people?  Your quotation from Alma did not include mention or commentary on just what it was that made Alma feel the pains of hell:

Quote

I saw that I had rebelled against my God, and that I had not kept his holy commandments.

14 Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror. (Alma 36:12-13)

Would Alma, would all of us who spend time on this planet, be so much better off if none of had to waste a moment of thought on consequences to ourselves, to other people, to the web of life on this planet?  Should we all be narcissistic sociopaths, reveling on the power to do whatever we want when driving our cars, when disposing of toxic byproducts, when selling addictive products, when using power and wealth to exploit the exploitable?  Does such an attitude lead to Utopian/Zion societies?  When Othello realizes that Desdemona was innocent, should he just be able to shrug and say, "Well, ... what would you have done?  She seemed like she deserved it at the time," and not be bothered with so much as a twinge of painful guilt or unwelcome regret.   Should Iago be let off because, after all, he had cause for resentment and jealousy?  He was only doing what he wanted to do, being true to himself.

Another aspect of Alma's report appears in comparison to accounts of the Life Review in Near Death accounts.  The point of God showing people what impact our words and actions have on other people is educational.  We are told in the letter from Liberty Jail that "pure knowledge greatly enlarges the soul, without hypocrisy and without guile."  Part of the pure knowledge that Alma gains, not reported in your summary is this:

Quote

I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death.

19 And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more.

20 And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain!

Is that worth mentioning or not?  Does mentioning it have the effect of making your argument more, or less persuasive, and give you more or less weight to you attempt to control the flow of reasoning?

And how about this, also from Alma who clearly reports that his "eternal torment" lasted for three days and nights.

Quote

But behold, my limbs did receive their strength again, and I stood upon my feet, and did manifest unto the people that I had been born of God.

24 Yea, and from that time even until now, I have labored without ceasing, that I might bring souls unto repentance; that I might bring them to taste of the exceeding joy of which I did taste; that they might also be born of God, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.

Researchers into various kinds of human experience with death and torment and rebirth have reported

Quote

The feeling that suffering is eternal is an essential . experimental attribute of hell. The endlessness of this state does not consist in an extreme extension of linear time, but in its transcendence. The individual undergoes tortures beyond any imagining which at that point are the only available reality; since the sense of the linear flow of time is lost, there appears to be no way out. It is only when this situation is fully accepted that one has experienced hell, and the journey can continue. (Goff and Goff, Beyond Death, 26) 

It is one thing to portray an account of "eternal torment" as a form of social control.  It is quite another to seek to understand the report from a broad perspective and see Alma's report fits into a broader knowledge of human experience of growth.  Alma's report of "eternal torment" of limited duration (three days)  is a step along a path along which his mind was expanded and his soul enlarged.  Alma sees himself as released from the prison of his own ignorance regarding the significance of his faulty beliefs and consequent socially destructive actions.  Your selective report shows editing as a bid for rhetorical leverage.  Is the goal here self-justification, or enlightenment?

Anthropologist Rene Girard has this to say about the movements that define religion in terms of how it affects personal freedom, as though person freedom in all actions and statements, including not only the freedom to do whatever one wants to, but one should be free from exposure to any criticism of those actions, unless of course, you are the one criticizing the attitudes and beliefs of the religious.  

Quote

The most powerful anti-Christian movement is the one that takes over and ‘radicalizes’ the concern for victims in order to paganize it…they reproach Christianity for not defending victims with enough ardor. In Christian history, they see nothing but acts of oppression, inquisitions…

Neo-paganism would like to turn the Ten Commandments and all of Judeo-Christian morality into some alleged intolerable violence, and indeed, its primary objective is their complete abolition. Faithful observance of the moral law is perceived as complicity with forces of persecution that are essentially religions…Neo-paganism locates happiness in the unlimited satisfaction of desires, which means the suppression of all prohibitions. (Rene Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lighting (Marynoll, New York, Orbis Books, 2001) 180-181.)

I also want to mention how in Deconstructing Mormonism, Riskas attempted to argue against the existence of God using the premise that God does not exercise enough total control over our actions and thoughts to compel believe in His existence, which, any power that great ought to do.  (Unless of course, constrained by a belief that Love and not Freedom, was the First and Great Value.)  Before his LDS conversion, Riskas reports a period of late-sixties rebellion in response to “the suppressive authoritarian control imposed by my parents, particularly, my father.”  

Quote

Despite his chronic complaints about the toxic effects that such authoritarian parenting and religious instruction can cause, Riskas asks why God does not “use his putative power to more directly, efficiently, and tellingly to accomplish his alleged purposes and promote the required and necessary knowledge of his existence as theologically conceived?”38 And why, he asks “the absence of divine intervention by notably and consistently stopping or even significantly reducing or eliminating and/or at least explaining, through personal revelation, this god’s specific reasons for allowing such human and natural evil.”39 Later he asks rhetorically, “Wouldn’t he unquestionably and irrefutably, beyond all doubt, establish up front – through demonstration, coherent explanation, and facilitated understanding, – god’s [Page 129]and his [Christ’s] existence and divinity, god’s gospel, and god’s mind and will and word once and for all to all mankind?”40

Why, Riskas seems to be asking – without realizing either the fact or the implications – why does God not behave like a suppressive, authoritarian, controlling parent of the sort that he himself rebelled against during the 1960s? A parent, a society, or a religion that behaves that way, Riskas says, is toxic, and a God who does not behave that way somehow demonstrates non-existence. Imagine living in a universe, or for that matter with a parent, for whom efficiency and not love was the first and great value upon which all else stands, before which every other concern must be compromised. In a conflict of values, freedom and love bow to efficiency. Does that sound like paradise? From my perspective, his system deconstructs. https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/sophic-box-and-mantic-vista-a-review-of-deconstructing-mormonism/

We are sent here to learn from our experience both Good and Evil.  If Capitalists manage to increase profits at the expense of the environment, and various human populations, directly affected by global warming, the loss of glaciers, the potential change to the Gulf Stream, increasingly frequent and intense hurricanes, human caused drought and consequent more intense wild fires, the death of coral reefs, disruption of the fragile web of animal life and its subsequent affect on human societies depend on them, should those with power be free to act without criticism or legislation because "every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime"?   Or, are there grounds for challenging that freedom on grounds that we are inescapably participants in an interconnected human society in which actions have consequences, whether an inattentive child chasing a ball into a street, sexual acting out leading to unwanted pregnancy and/or life threatening disease, or damage to family relationships?  Is ignorance of actual consequences a desirable and beneficial freedom sufficient to quell all criticism as an unmixed evil on grounds that it might act as a constraint on individual choices, even if those enlightened choices, if made, actually benefit society at large?

And I notice that in Korihor's world view, his complaint against controlling religion also deconstructs under his own premises because after all, if "every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime," does not that absolve the supposedly oppressive teachers of personally profitable and controlling religion, because they are prospering from their religious genius?  
 

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Edited November 14, 2024 by Kevin Christensen
typo

[MustardSeed]

38 minutes ago, cujo22 said:

I would be interested in knowing how common this perspective is. I understand it can be hard to look at ourselves objectively, but I really don't think this is true of me at least. I'm not sure what types of control you're thinking the church has over me, but I'm pretty sure it's very little. There's some type of control within the church realm I guess. I mean, I want to be in good standing, so I guess there's control that I pay tithing for example, I accept callings and try to do a decent job, but then...I believe in tithing, I believe in the leadership/service approach that the church uses. I'm choosing that - choosing tithing and to serve in a calling. I'm not sure those things are evidence of me being in the church's control. I mean, people in any club of their choosing pay their dues. That doesn't seem like "control" to me. The one thing you mentioned specifically is "act and vote accordingly", so maybe you're thinking of political control. I can't think of any time where I was voting and thinking about how the church wanted me to vote or feeling compelled to vote in one way or another, or nervous that I needed to vote a certain way cuz what if someone in the ward found out, etc. I wonder, is anyone actually thinking this while voting? As an example, how did the church want me to vote a couple of weeks ago? I really have no idea, so I wouldn't be able to answer that question, let alone vote that way.  ??

Tithing. I think of it the same way-  club dues.  I’ve got no problem paying, nor do I have a problem with the money the church has.

But- 

I’m financially stable.  If for example I experienced a hardship and it was either I feed my children or pay tithing, or I buy my medicine or pay tithing(assuming of course I’m a good steward of money ) I would feel tremendous pressure to pay tithing.  All those lessons, pulpit stories, all the class discussions- what would I do? 
 

From the outside, that would look like an insane struggle. In fact, outsiders define paying tithing as being controlled even if kids aren’t starving.  Especially since important church participation is withheld if we don’t.   From the inside, though, even people reading this would be thinking, yeah.  You pay your tithing. Trust God.  

Is paying your tithing even if your kids can’t eat (or one can no longer afford their medication) considered a doctrinal principle that must be adhered to? Do people believe that it is? Is this an issue of control? I recognize I used extreme examples but only to illustrate a point. I do believe some people would put themselves in their families in dire straits to pay their tithing.  
 

I also do my calling cause I want to remain in good standing however I no longer feel obligated to keep calling that is a genuine problem for me to hold. 

 

 

 

 

[california boy]

20 minutes ago, cujo22 said:

The one thing you mentioned specifically is "act and vote accordingly", so maybe you're thinking of political control. I can't think of any time where I was voting and thinking about how the church wanted me to vote or feeling compelled to vote in one way or another, or nervous that I needed to vote a certain way cuz what if someone in the ward found out, etc. I wonder, is anyone actually thinking this while voting? As an example, how did the church want me to vote a couple of weeks ago? I really have no idea, so I wouldn't be able to answer that question, let alone vote that way.  ??

Let me see if I can give you something to think about.  When the Church waged its war supporting Prop 8, the vast majority of members were all in.  When the Church asked members to give what they can both in time and money to pass Prop 8, members lined up in droves to every weekend to hold signs up in support of Prop 8. I read stories of some families giving up their vacation money to donate to the proposition.  Some even gave up their children's education fund believing that God would bless them to make up for it.  Members like Steve Young who openly opposed Prop 8 were looked upon as a big disappointment at best and an apostate by the extreme.  Prop 8 won.  Members high-fived it with each other. They were able to overturn the state constitution that required equal rights and defeated gay marriage being legal in California.

Then the court ruling started coming in, ruling over and over that the federal Constitution required equal rights to marry for LGBT citizens.  While equal protection was a big part of the campaign against Prop 8, members along with many others started to question their role in taking away someone's civil rights. The Church started to back down on its campaign against civil marriage for gay couples. Support for civil gay marriage even within the Church, started to increase.  Support among Mormons for gay marriage has doubled since passing of Prop 8. The bright red line in the sand has turned out to not be as sharply as it once was.

Even more surprising

Quote

Among Americans in general, 79% say they are in favor of “laws that would protect lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination in jobs, public accommodations and housing.” With Mormons the figure is 5 points higher, at 84%.

Could that exceptionally high number even higher than the national average be because of the Church's brokering a non discrimination policy for LGBT people, giving members permission for being ok with not discriminating.  

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

We certainly are not taught to watch out for and to prevent ourselves from inflicting spiritual manipulation. 
 

“ I’ve prayed about it and the Lord wants us to do XYZ for the youth conference this year.” 

No, Francine, He doesn’t. He doesn’t want us to walk the children up the shoulder of the highway to the temple  as a demonstration of dedication and devotion to our faith. Don’t pull that card on us. 

or,

“I’ve prayed and God says we are supposed to get married.” 

stop already. 
 

 

I'm really glad the church has started to push back against this stuff, helping members to know it's not ok.