Church and control

[Rain]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

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.”  

This is still his wish.  His wish for other members of the ward.  He can't make a goal for someone else in the ward. He can only make a goal for himself.  

He could make a goal to provide 300 books to anyone in the ward who would like to offer them to someone. This works because his goal of saving the money and buying them and bringing them is only his goal.  When he brings them, there is no requirement from anyone else for him to succeed at his goal. It also works because he is not suggesting that ward members make a wish for someone else to take the book.  Giving out is still a wish since it requires someone else to accept it, but one can succeed at their own goal by offering it.

 

[Nofear]

For me the word control is just a term on a spectrum of infuluence ranging from none whatsoever to one is the utter slave of another. Where on tho spectrum the Church exists will partly be geographical, societal, familial, and personal.

I personally don't feel “controled” because I am intentional in my submission to the things the Church asks of me. Am I “controlled” because I comply with the Church? Sure… from an exteral perspective. But I don't care about that one whit. From an internal pespective am I “controllel”? Nope. Were my compliance with my covenants anything but internally voluntarily, internally accepted, internally intentional, they would have no saving power.

Of course the external nay saying observers would and do say I just think that because I am controled to think that. I'm not sure their is anything I can say to dissuade them. Instead I'll just continue along being happy, voluntarily happy, and enjoying the fruits of the Holy Spirit.

[cujo22]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

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

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.  

That is certainly something to think about. 
 

I think this whole thread is basically debating the meaning of the word “control”. 

[MustardSeed]

31 minutes ago, cujo22 said:

think this whole thread is basically debating the meaning of the word “control”. 

Welcome to normal here 😂

[Dario_M]

10 hours ago, Rain said:

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.

There are people who can't even listen eventhough they're busy with their own needs all day. 

10 hours ago, Rain said:

I would disagree. 

First, a lot of people don't hear and listen to their actual needs. 

Nobody tells them what their needs are because nobody know, how can anyone know that... you know?  🤷‍♀️ 

Only the person knows what his/her needs are is the person itself. And decides or he/she wanna go for his/her needs or not. 

10 hours ago, Rain said:

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.

But...you know....that is just something that everyone needs to figure out for themselfs. And that was also not really what i was talking about in my last post you see. 

 

10 hours ago, Rain said:

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

I feel like it depends. Offcourse everyone needs some time for themselfs to do what makes them happy. Ain't nothing selvish about that. But if somebody is chronicly (only) busy with their own needs and is not interested in the needs of somebody else. Not even their loved ones. Then that person is def selvish and needs the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to correct that bad behavoir. 

 

[smac97]

On 11/13/2024 at 5:51 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

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

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

I think so, because the State can override free will, whereas the Church cannot.

The State has the power to use violence/force or the threat of it to compel compliance with secular law, or to punish me for not complying with it.

The State has the power to take my money/property, or threaten to, so as to compel compliance with secular law, or to punish me for not complying with it.

The State has the power to take away my liberty, or threaten to, so as to compel compliance with secular law, or to punish me for not complying with it.

The State has the power to take away my life as punishment for noncompliance with the secular law.

I have no choice but to have a relationship with the State.

The Church, in contrast, does not have the power to do any of these things.  And my relationship with the Church is entirely voluntary.

I did not say that the Church cannot mete out consequences, or the threat of consequences.  My point is that I think these potential consequences (restricting/removing a person's membership in the Church) cannot be reasonably described as "control."  

On 11/13/2024 at 5:51 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

How is that different from paying tithing?

Very. 

The Church cannot and does not use violence/force or the threat of it to compel compliance with the Law of Tithing, or to punish me for not complying with it.

The Church cannot and does not have the power to take my money/property, or threaten to, to compel compliance with Law of Tithing, or to punish me for not complying with it.

The Church cannot and does not have the power to take away my liberty, or threaten to, to compel compliance with Law of Tithing, or to punish me for not complying with it.

The Church cannot and does not have the power to take away my life as punishment for noncompliance with the Law of Tithing.

I have the choice to have a relationship with the Church.

These are, to me, profound and substantial differences between what the State can do ("control") and what the Church can do (influence).

On 11/13/2024 at 5:51 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

A believing member can choose to pay or not. But there are consequences attached to that choice.

But these are not "consequences" that are coercive/compulsory, that effectively deprive the individual of his free will.  They are, instead, "consequences" borne purely of faith.

On 11/13/2024 at 5:51 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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.

You are only proving my point.  These are matters of faith. 

The State can control you via threats of violence, deprivation of property, deprivation of liberty, deprivation of life.  In contrast, the Church cannot and does not have the power over any of these things. 

The State has power over the individual whether the individual likes it or not.  In contrast, the Church only has as much power over the individual as he chooses to allow.

On 11/13/2024 at 5:51 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Additionally those who don’t pay have missed family weddings. Is that control?

This is becoming less of an issue now that the Church has endorsed civil ceremonies.  And no, I don't see this as an example of "control."  I do see this as contrived, though.  

On 11/13/2024 at 5:51 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Why is one control and not the other?

See above.

On 11/13/2024 at 5:51 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are spiritual consequences not as real as physical consequences?

As a practical matter, no.

A person can choose to disregard the "consequences" that the Church can mete out (restriction/removal of membership).  These are purely matters of faith.

A person cannot choose to disregard the "consequences" that the State can mete out (threat of violence, actual violence, deprivation of property, liberty, life).

A person can choose to have, or not have, a relationship with the Church.

A person cannot choose to have, or not have, a relationship with the State.

On 11/13/2024 at 5:51 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are consequences after death not as real as consequences that occur in this life?

As a question of faith?  Yes.  Otherwise, no.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 15, 2024 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

A person can choose to disregard the "consequences" that the Church can mete out (restriction/removal of membership).  These are purely matters of faith.

A person cannot choose to disregard the "consequences" that the State can mete out (threat of violence, actual violence, deprivation of property, liberty, life).

A person can choose to have, or not have, a relationship with the Church.

A person cannot choose to have, or not have, a relationship with the State.

Is this really what you believe? I can opt out of my relationship with God and his designated representatives? There are no real eternal consequences for my actions as long as I opt out? Really?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

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:

I think comparing leading people away from belief to murdering them just proves my point. My point is that for someone that believes in God, there is no real difference between the control the state metes out and the control that God metes out through his delegated representatives on earth.

20 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

 

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

I specifically mentioned that.

20 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

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?

Um, my goal is to say there are "real" consequences for sin for a believer. Just like there are "real" consequences for crime for citizens of a state. And it makes no sense to call one "control" and not the other. 

20 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

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?  
 

What are you talking about? Who said any of this? Korihor? I'm not saying "control" is good or bad. I'm saying that labeling state actions as "control" and divine actions as not "control" is nonsense.

 

Edited November 15, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[SeekingUnderstanding]

20 hours 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.  ??

Good to see new posters on the board! In a later post you mention it mostly being a definitional issue. My only position on this thread is that for a believer, it makes no sense to say the state "controls" behavior, but the church does not. As a good citizen, if congress passes a law modifying my taxes due, I will change how much I pay. As a business I will comply with environmental regulations. If I was a believing church member, and the prophet announced a revelation adding hot chocolate as a hot drink, I'd stop drinking hot chocolate. Similarly, if they announced a revelation announcing that tithing was 5% to the church and 5% to some other worthy organization based on how well the church's finances were looking, I would do that. 

Edited November 15, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

A person can choose to disregard the "consequences" that the Church can mete out (restriction/removal of membership).  These are purely matters of faith.

A person cannot choose to disregard the "consequences" that the State can mete out (threat of violence, actual violence, deprivation of property, liberty, life).

A person can choose to have, or not have, a relationship with the Church.

A person cannot choose to have, or not have, a relationship with the State.

Is this really what you believe?

I'm not in the habit of misrepresenting matters regarding my faith, which I hold dear.  So . . . yes, I really believe what I wrote.  If I disregard the Law of Tithing, the Church can restrict my entirely voluntary membership.  That's it.  I am in a voluntary relationship with the Church.

In contrast, if I disregard secular law, the State can use force/violence against me, can deprive me of my money, property, liberty, live, etc.  I am in a compulsory relationship with the State.

The Church has no power to override my free will, whereas the State does.  

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I can opt out of my relationship with God and his designated representatives?

Yes.  The Church cannot require you to remain a member of it.  You can cease participating, step away, have your membership cancelled, etc.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There are no real eternal consequences for my actions as long as I opt out?

Your relationship with the Church is entirely voluntary.  Do you dispute this?

Again, I did not say that the Church cannot mete out consequences, or the threat of consequences.  My point is that I think these potential consequences (restricting/removing a person's membership in the Church) cannot be reasonably described as "control." 

The Church cannot override your free will, whereas the State can.  You can opt out of your relationship with the Church, whereas you cannot opt out of your relationship with the State.  The latter can therefore can "control" you in ways the former cannot.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Really?

Really.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm not in the habit of misrepresenting matters regarding my faith, which I hold dear.  So . . . yes, I really believe what I wrote.  If I disregard the Law of Tithing, the Church can restrict my entirely voluntary membership.  That's it.  I am in a voluntary relationship with the Church.

In contrast, if I disregard secular law, the State can use force/violence against me, can deprive me of my money, property, liberty, live, etc.  I am in a compulsory relationship with the State.

The Church has no power to override my free will, whereas the State does.  

Yes.  The Church cannot require you to remain a member of it.  You can cease participating, step away, have your membership cancelled, etc.

Your relationship with the Church is entirely voluntary.  Do you dispute this?

Again, I did not say that the Church cannot mete out consequences, or the threat of consequences.  My point is that I think these potential consequences (restricting/removing a person's membership in the Church) cannot be reasonably described as "control." 

The Church cannot override your free will, whereas the State can.  You can opt out of your relationship with the Church, whereas you cannot opt out of your relationship with the State.  The latter can therefore can "control" you in ways the former cannot.

Really.

Thanks,

-Smac

Are there real eternal consequences for going against God's will as revealed by his appointed representatives on Earth? Edit: Are there real eternal consequences for following God's will as revealed by his appointed representatives on Earth?

Edited November 15, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Teancum]

On 11/13/2024 at 4:27 PM, smac97 said:

Probably.  

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

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

The Church cannot

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

Instead, the only things that the Church can do is

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

The church can control behavior by many means. It can withhold a temple recommend. It can stop someone from going on a mission due to certain transgressions even some "repented" of. As a youth the church leaders worked hard to control my behavior as well as that of my peers by hammering home how bad sexual sin is and how according to Kimball, some sins do leave marks that are not wholly healed. A BYU student can be removed for breaking certain rules. As a teen I was regularly quizzed as to my person behavior to determine my "worthiness."  The idea of sexual activity being the sin next to murder worked pretty well to keep me from sexual activity that perhaps should have been part of normal development.  The church can remove membership if certain behaviors are violated or not complied with and that has severe repercussions. For someone who really believes the claims of Mormonism the church has enormous power over that person to control and regulate their behavior. Eternal consequences are at stake even to the point of not being with family in the eternities.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The church can control behavior by many means.

I guess reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It can withhold a temple recommend.

Which, if so, does not override the individual's capacity to choose, and instead merely influences it.

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It can stop someone from going on a mission due to certain transgressions even some "repented" of.

Which, if so, does not override the individual's capacity to choose.  Membership and activity in the Church is entirely voluntary.  The Church can't force someone to serve a mission, and the someone can't force the Church to send him on a mission.  Neither "controls" the other.

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

As a youth the church leaders worked hard to control my behavior as well as that of my peers by hammering home how bad sexual sin is and how according to Kimball, some sins do leave marks that are not wholly healed. A BYU student can be removed for breaking certain rules. As a teen I was regularly quizzed as to my person behavior to determine my "worthiness."  The idea of sexual activity being the sin next to murder worked pretty well to keep me from sexual activity that perhaps should have been part of normal development.  The church can remove membership if certain behaviors are violated or not complied with and that has severe repercussions. For someone who really believes the claims of Mormonism the church has enormous power over that person to control and regulate their behavior. Eternal consequences are at stake even to the point of not being with family in the eternities.

I did not say that the Church cannot mete out consequences, or the threat of consequences.  My point is that I think these potential consequences (restricting/removing a person's membership in the Church) cannot be reasonably described as "control."  

The State, in contrast, can compel/coerce behavior, can punish, can use threats of violence or deprivation of property, liberty or life.  And we are in a compulsory relationship with the State.

The State can override an individual's capacity to choose, and on that basis I find it reasonable to characterize the State as having "control" over us.  

The Church cannot do any of these things to us, and we are in an entirely voluntary relationship with the Church.  On that basis I find it unreasonable to characterize the Church as having "control" over us.

YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Are there real eternal consequences for going against God's will as revealed by his appointed representatives on Earth?  Edit: Are there real eternal consequences for following God's will as revealed by his appointed representatives on Earth?

I believe so.  Others do not.  This is a matter of faith.  The Church cannot compel obedience or punish the individual (except, again, to restrict/sever his membership).  It has no capacity to override our ability to choose.

In contrast, there are "real" consequences for disobeying secular law, and those consequences are not a matter of faith.  I cannot disobey secular law and then tell the State to go hang because I don't believe in its authority.  The power of the State to use force, threats of force, to deprive us of property, liberty, life, etc., exists regardless of whether we acknowledge it or not.  The State can override our ability to choose.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Which, if so, does not override the individual's capacity to choose, and instead merely influences it.

Which, if so, does not override the individual's capacity to choose.  Membership and activity in the Church is entirely voluntary.  The Church can't force someone to serve a mission, and the someone can't force the Church to send him on a mission.  Neither "controls" the other.

I did not say that the Church cannot mete out consequences, or the threat of consequences.  My point is that I think these potential consequences (restricting/removing a person's membership in the Church) cannot be reasonably described as "control."  

The State, in contrast, can compel/coerce behavior, can punish, can use threats of violence or deprivation of property, liberty or life.  And we are in a compulsory relationship with the State.

The State can override an individual's capacity to choose, and on that basis I find it reasonable to characterize the State as having "control" over us.  

The Church cannot do any of these things to us, and we are in an entirely voluntary relationship with the Church.  On that basis I find it unreasonable to characterize the Church as having "control" over us.

YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

This really is a ludicrous discussion.  Does the breaking of commandments meted out by the Church have eternal consequences?  Does the threat of negative eternal consequences influence and control behavior?  It is no wonder attorneys who love to parse words like you do have bad reputations.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I believe so.  Others do not.  This is a matter of faith. 
 

Which is why I am only speaking from a position of faith. 

 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In contrast, there are "real" consequences for disobeying secular law, and those consequences are not a matter of faith.  I cannot disobey secular law and then tell the State to go hang because I don't believe in its authority. 

So in your belief system, when I stand before Christ at the last day, I can tell him to go hang himself and then I’m off the hook because those consequences aren’t “real?” They only impact me if I choose to have faith?

 

Edited November 15, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So in your belief system, when I stand before Christ at the last day, I can tell him to go hang himself and then I’m off the hook because those consequences aren’t “real?” They only impact me if I choose to have faith?

No.  

I am saying that the Church cannot override your free will.  You have the capacity to choose.  To believe, or not.  To obey, or not.  The Church cannot compel you to believe or obey.  It cannot use force or the threat of force against you.  It cannot deprive you of property, liberty or life.  The Church cannot compel you to remain in a relationship with it.  The Church's relationship with you is entirely voluntary.  Bilaterally.  You can choose discipleship, or not.  If not, the Church can't do diddly squat to compel or punish you.  

The only thing the Church can do is the same thing you can do to the Church, namely, restrict or sever the relationship.  Do you agree with that?  If so, what does that do to your argument?  Do you claim to "control" the Church because you can restrict/sever your relationship with it?  I doubt you think that, and I think you would be incorrect in that assessment.

This is, for me, one of the more beautiful aspects of my relationship with the Church.  I stay in it because I choose.  I stay because I believe in its precepts, its prophetic authority, the ordinances it houses, its temple and missionary and humanitarian and education work, and - most of all - its efforts to direct us to Jesus Christ.  It is a wonderful - albeit flawed - institution doing many wonderful things.  And my association with and participation in it is my choice.  I am a Latter-day Saint because I choose to be, not because I am compelled or controlled into it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 15, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

This really is a ludicrous discussion. 

I think it is somewhat illuminating.  I, an observant member of the Church, reject the notion that I am being "controlled" by the Church, whereas you, an ardent critic and opponent (and former member) of the Church, are arguing that the Church "controls" its members. 

And you say this despite having left the Church, despite the Church doing nothing to compel you to return or punishing you for leaving.  The only thing the Church can do to you - restrict or sever the relationship - is the same thing you can do to the Church.  So do you "control" the Church?

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Does the breaking of commandments meted out by the Church have eternal consequences? 

I believe so.  

You, apparently, do not.  And there is diddly squat the Church can do about it.  

29 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Does the threat of negative eternal consequences influence and control behavior?  It is no wonder attorneys who love to parse words like you do have bad reputations.

Ah.  Personal insults.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 11/13/2024 at 7:09 PM, smac97 said:

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

Not without consequences,  in this life and the next. And some severe. That is control.  I know it hurts to admit it but your church uses behavioral and mind control techniques. Denying it does not make it so. But I am sure it makes you feel better about it.

[Teancum]

On 11/13/2024 at 7:19 PM, smac97 said:

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

Well in that case I agree. I guess it is how we are defining control.

[Nofear]

35 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well in that case I agree. I guess it is how we are defining control.

Only took four pages to get to this conclusion. /phew 😋

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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

Not without consequences,

True.  But those consequences do not deprive me of my capacity to choose.

If the Church asks me to tithe, I can choose to tithe or not.  There are consequences if I do not, but those consequences do not deprive me of my capacity to choose.

In contrast, if the State - through a police officer - pulls me over and gives me a lawful order to provide license, title and proof of insurance, he - as an agent of the State - can deprive me of my capacity to choose.  The State can compel me to comply, or punish my noncompliance.

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

in this life and the next. And some severe. That is control. 

Apparently not, since you are a walking talking example of someone whose capacity to choose remains intact. 

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I know it hurts to admit it but your church uses behavioral and mind control techniques.

I think this exaggerates and distorts things.  A lot.  "Country mile" comes to mind.

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Denying it does not make it so. But I am sure it makes you feel better about it.

I wonder if some critics of the Church end up exaggerating and distorting things about it (the Church) because doing so bolsters and rationalizes their resentments against it.

If the Church had the capacity or proclivity towards coercive/compulsory machinations for keeping its members in line, then its opponents would likely brag about taking on The Institution.  As it is, though, the worst that the Church can do to a wayward member is withhold some privileges of membership, or end his membership.  And the Church handles these things with tact, decorum, respect, kindness, etc.  Most restrictions are imposed quietly and privately by a bishop in the bishop's office, with pretty much nobody else knowing anything about it.  In rarer circumstances, a Membership Council is held, which again is handled quietly and privately.  In very rare circumstances, such a Council can result in the individual's loss of membership.  And even then, the individual is invited to repent and return as fast as possible.

That's it.  

The foregoing does not really work as a basis for characterizing the Church as some sort of malevolent, overpowering, coercive cabal.  

If you want to remain in the Church, or return to it, we'd love to have you.  If not, we wish you the best.  I respectfully reject the notion that the Church "controls" its members.  It surely has influence, but not so much as to override free will.  And the large numbers of people who leave the Church - such as yourself - are pretty solid evidence against absurdities like "mind control techniques."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

mind control techniques

You were doing okay until you threw in this….please stick with “behavioural”…there is just too much garbage out there about “mind control”

[SeekingUnderstanding]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

True.  But those consequences do not deprive me of my capacity to choose.

Respectfully, just no. If I was in a gay relationship, can I choose to continue it in the next life? I have a marital relationship in this life. I apostatized. Can I choose to continue it in the next life? Am I not deprived of my capacity to choose???

[smac97]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

True.  But those consequences do not deprive me of my capacity to choose.

Respectfully, just no.

Um, you're not really in a position to tell me whether or not I have a capacity to choose.  

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

If I was in a gay relationship, can I choose to continue it in the next life?

You get to make your choices, not the results and consequences of those choices.

As for whether you can "chose to continue" a same-sex relationship in the next life, that is a matter of faith for you to decide.

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have a marital relationship in this life. I apostatized. Can I choose to continue it in the next life? Am I not deprived of my capacity to choose???

Again, you get to make your choices, not the results and consequences of those choices.

Whether a relationship can persist in the eternities is, in my belief, up to God.  I have no power to preserve it unto myself.  See D&C 132:7:

Quote

And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead.

If I want my marriage with my wife and family to endure, I can choose to take those steps which the Lord has said will allow that to happen.  So I have . . . a choice.  

If we were to receive revelation indicating that the Lord will ratify and seal a same-sex relationship into the eternities, I think I would accept it.  However, I don't see that happening.  Ever.  I just do not see same-sex marriages comporting with the Plan of Salvation, Eternal Progression, and the various other doctrines of the Restored Gospel.  

None of this, however, deprives you of your ability to believe as you see fit.  I suspect, though, that you are just making this up, or indulging in a bit of wishful thinking on behalf of same-sex couples you know and hold in regard.  If so, I could appreciate and respect that.  Alternatively, if you are just saying this as a purely rhetorical exercise, if you do not believe in the hereafter, or if you believe in it but have no actual or substantive belief that same-sex marriages will persist, then I will leave you to that.  Alternative to that, if you do believe that same-sex marriages will/can persist after death, where did you get this idea?  Did you just make it up for yourself?  Or has someone else proclaimed it and you have chosen to believe it?

Thanks,

-Smac