Church and control

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Aren’t you doing the same when you insist someone has the capacity to choose, such as here?

”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. “

Edited November 15, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

Aren’t you doing the same when you insist someone has the capacity to choose, such as here?

If they are claiming that the Church has deprived them of that capacity, I think that is simply false.

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

”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. “

If the Church has some sort of mechanism whereby it can override the free will of its members, then I want to know about it.  

Alternatively, if critics of the Church are just blowing smoke, if they are claiming that the Church can override free will, then that's a falsehood that ought to be rebutted.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

You denying them the insight of your ability to choose or not.

You insisting they have the ability to choose, thus you have the insight in your view to determine if they have the capacity to choose or not.

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

The below is not what you said above. 

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If they are claiming that the Church has deprived them of that capacity, I think that is simply false.

 

Edited November 15, 2024 by Calm

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

Right. So from your perspective, I choose to believe your God is Evil. I choose to apostatize from his church. And one of the real consequences from those actions is that in the next life, I will be unable to choose to have a marital relationship with my wife. This is standard church doctrine as far as I know. Where is my freedom of choice? 
 

Now let’s compare to this life. I run a business.  I exercise my agency, and choose to disregard applicable environmental regulations for years. Eventually the state finds out. They shut down my business and I go to jail. Where is my freedom of choice?
 

Why are earthly laws with consequences “control” but divine laws with eternal consequences not?

Edited November 16, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[let’s roll]

On 11/14/2024 at 3:24 PM, 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.  

I was living in California when Prop 8 was on the ballot.  I don’t remember any invitations at Church to get involved.  I do remember having a couple of conversations about it with other LDS attorneys.  The consensus was Prop 8 was about civil marriage.  None of us had any objections to civil marriage for gay couples.  None of us planned to vote for it and didn’t think it would pass, and if it did, it wouldn’t survive 9th Circuit review.  I admit to being mildly surprised when it passed and not at all surprised when it was struck down.

An unsolicited opinion:  My personal belief is that LDS couples should celebrate both a civil marriage and a sealing, at different times and in different places.    While there is some overlap in the purposes of the two rites, each has a distinctive purpose and those are best kept unique to the respective rite.  That was the practice in many places for years and may still be the case in some parts of the world.  The practice of merging the two, I believe, made it difficult for many members to distinguish between the right to enter into a civil marriage (which is protected by the Constitution) and the ability to be sealed in marriage (which is not).

We haven’t posted on the same thread for awhile, hope all is well with you.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I was living in California when Prop 8 was on the ballot.  I don’t remember any invitations at Church to get involved.  I do remember having a couple of conversations about it with other LDS attorneys.  The consensus was Prop 8 was about civil marriage.  None of us had any objections to civil marriage for gay couples.  None of us planned to vote for it and didn’t think it would pass, and if it did, it wouldn’t survive 9th Circuit review.  I admit to being mildly surprised when it passed and not at all surprised when it was struck down.

Far be it from me to deny your lived experience, but your ward was not the norm. The church organized call centers and door to door knocking. When I looked at donations for my area of California, it was like looking at a stake roster. 

[let’s roll]

31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Far be it from me to deny your lived experience, but your ward was not the norm. The church organized call centers and door to door knocking. When I looked at donations for my area of California, it was like looking at a stake roster. 

No doubt.  I understood there were Stakes that were quite animated in their support.  I was in SoCal (LA) and our SP was an attorney, so if we were an outlier that may be part of the reason why. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You denying them the insight of your ability to choose or not.

You insisting they have the ability to choose, thus you have the insight in your view to determine if they have the capacity to choose or not.

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

The below is not what you said above. 

Consider it a clarification?

[cujo22]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

I like reading the board, but typically don't have much to say.

As far as church vs government, there are some similarities, but there are some differences too.

My main quibble with what you wrote was just the politics part. Whatever "control" the church exercises over me is I think pretty much within it purview. Your example of something that I would say is outside of that purview was politics. I mean, I rarely would have any idea about how the church wants me to vote on any particular issue. There are some exceptions that someone already pointed out to me and I don't disagree about that. But I do think you're overstating the control the church has over its members. There are rules in the club for full participation, like many other clubs. That's controlling in some manner of thinking, but not in the way we typically think of a controlling person/entity I don't think. It seems to me like the word choice there is designed to give an inaccurate picture of the reality of church membership. I don't think it's reasonable or accurate to say the church is "very controlling", for example. I'm not quoting anyone there, just trying to explain my opinion. The images that come to mind from that phrase are not what the church is or does. Not really.

Actually the week before the election a co-worker who is in a different christian church came into my office. He said he's getting some kind of sense that there religious people who won't vote for Trump for one or another reason. He was kind of frustrated about it or whatever and curious what the vibe was like at my church. I thought about it and was kind of surprised to realize, "It's kind of strange to think that I really have no idea. It's amazing how little politics enters the building. I basically NEVER hear anyone talk about who they're voting for or anything like that. I think it's pretty safe to bet that a majority will vote for Trump, but I actually have no idea. The only way I know is if they're personal friends I interact with outside of church. I think I might vote for Kamala." and I explained my reasons. I mean, who is "the church" anyway, and how do I find out who they want me to vote for. Sometimes in these discussions I see people talking about "the church" as if it's this single-minded entity in the same way I sometimes hear people refer to "science", like when people say they "follow the science" or "trust the science". The phrase isn't as meaningful as it is sometimes implied to be.

I know it's just the world I'm living in so it could be hard to recognize, but I just don't really feel ANY sense of controlling stuff from the church, certainly not in politics. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, cujo22 said:

I like reading the board, but typically don't have much to say.

As far as church vs government, there are some similarities, but there are some differences too.

My main quibble with what you wrote was just the politics part.
 

Without derailing, there are somethings that correlate very highly with religious sect. Like whether a 6 week old Human fetus is a Human person with the same rights as a Human toddler. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/
 

Other issues that impact me would be say abstinence only education in school. I mention these in passing as examples of what I had in mind. 

1 hour ago, cujo22 said:

 

Whatever "control" the church exercises over me is I think pretty much within it purview.

<snip>
 

That's controlling in some manner of thinking, but not in the way we typically think of a controlling person/entity I don't think. It seems to me like the word choice there is designed to give an inaccurate picture of the reality of church membership. I don't think it's reasonable or accurate to say the church is "very controlling", for example. I'm not quoting anyone there, just trying to explain my opinion. The images that come to mind from that phrase are not what the church is or does. Not really.

<snip>

I know it's just the world I'm living in so it could be hard to recognize, but I just don't really feel ANY sense of controlling stuff from the church, certainly not in politics. 

I am not married to the word “control” at all. For example, I don’t feel “controlled” by the government at all as a citizen of the United States. But in many ways whether or not we feel “controlled” is going to say more about us and our life circumstances and opinions than anything else. I would imagine that say a gay 20 year old believer is going to feel more controlled by the church than his straight contemporary. And the Texas woman who wants to abort her 8 week fetus she just discovered after being raped is going to feel more controlled than the young mother to be that wants to carry to term. 

Edited November 16, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I am not married to the word “control” at all. For example, I don’t feel “controlled” by the government at all as a citizen of the United States.

You: 

Quote

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. 

Also you: 

Quote

I don’t feel “controlled” by the government at all as a citizen of the United States.

The State can, and does, do things to override personal choice and autonomy:

• 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.

Your position is that, on the one hand, the Church "objectively" "exert{s} control" through a fairly lengthy, and pretty flimsy, daisy chain, and on the other, you "don't feel 'controlled' by the government at all."  It sounds as if you think the Church's "control" (limiting or removing membership) is somehow more potent than the State's power to use violence, deprive us of money, property, liberty or life, and compel us to have a relationship with it.

I find that curious.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

edit: not worth it

Edited November 16, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[MustardSeed]

If anybody’s gonna talk to me about control in organized social groups, it’s going to include physical control, mental control, emotional control, elements of power from positions of authority, as well as power established through social imbalances of interest, and power established through money or opportunity. 
 

I think my final deduction here is that if somebody were to believe (hyperbolically) that God directs every single thing that is decreed from the pulpit or requested from a position of leadership, they would not see the church or its people as being “controlling” because the word is negative, and such people would feel safer being led in everything by God. Rather, they would see these actions as completely necessary and righteously established. They would not see themselves as blind followers, or as robots, or as being controlled in any sense of the word.  
 

On the flipside hyperbolically, if somebody examines the church as being false, being run entirely by men and not directed in anyway by God, they would define much of the churches actions as being controlling to the point of being immortal. In fact, controlling to the point of being cultlike.  
 

I personally BELIEVE  there is somewhere in the middle, some evidence that there are truth to both sides when it comes to all religion. I’m comfortable in the discomfort of that unknown.  I accept that there are many who are not comfortable and who gravitate towards one side or the other. 
 

Blame it on my therapist brain that cannot take sides and voted third-party 🫡

Edited November 16, 2024 by MustardSeed

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Your position is that, on the one hand, the Church "objectively" "exert{s} control" through a fairly lengthy, and pretty flimsy, daisy chain, and on the other, you "don't feel 'controlled' by the government at all."  It sounds as if you think the Church's "control" (limiting or removing membership) is somehow more potent than the State's power to use violence, deprive us of money, property, liberty or life, and compel us to have a relationship with it.

From a believing standpoint it just seems like you believe the state has more power in the eternal scheme of things than God and his representatives on earth who you believe have the power to seal and bind. I find that curious. I don’t care what word you use. Control or influence or whatever. My only position is as follows: if the state is controlling because they can put you in jail against your will, then God and religion is controlling because they can put you in hell against your will. 

Edited November 16, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

If anybody’s gonna talk to me about control in organized social groups, it’s going to include physical control, mental control, emotional control, elements of power from positions of authority, as well as power established through social imbalances of interest, and power established through money or opportunity. 
 

I think my final deduction here is that if somebody were to believe (hyperbolically) that God directs every single thing that is decreed from the pulpit or requested from a position of leadership, they would not see the church or its people as being “controlling” because the word is negative, and such people would feel safer being led in everything by God. Rather, they would see these actions as completely necessary and righteously established. They would not see themselves as blind followers, or as robots, or as being controlled in any sense of the word.  
 

On the flipside hyperbolically, if somebody examines the church as being false, being run entirely by men and not directed in anyway by God, they would define much of the churches actions as being controlling to the point of being immortal. In fact, controlling to the point of being cultlike.  
 

I personally BELIEVE  there is somewhere in the middle, some evidence that there are truth to both sides when it comes to all religion. I’m comfortable in the discomfort of that unknown.  I accept that there are many who are not comfortable and who gravitate towards one side or the other. 
 

Blame it on my therapist brain that cannot take sides and voted third-party 🫡

I think we also have to consider the belief that comes from experience, and how that relates to control.

For example, if someone has experience taking a specific medication and knows that doing so has always resulted in a positive consequence, then can we consider it an issue of control if a doctor tells them they should take that medicine and they do so?

If someone is doing something because they have experience with the results of the action, are they being controlled or influenced by someone who says they should do it?

I ran out of time to finish my thought, but we can apply that above example to something like tithing.

If someone has actually personally experienced miracles when paying tithing, can it reasonably be considered control or influence that is causing them to follow a leader’s directive to pay tithing even if that’s all the money they have?

Edited November 16, 2024 by bluebell

[Frank11]

On 11/14/2024 at 12:40 AM, smac97 said:

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

This is true, and that is why the Church, more than almost any other, has tried since its foundation to convince its members that it only has this authority to act in the name of God. While the other large Christian churches do not actually mention in their services that they are the only true authority and sometimes do not even see themselves as the only one, the members of the LDS culture testify again and again that they have the true prophet, the true priesthood and the true church. This shows how important this authority over the members is to the church leadership, and from their perspective, they see it as a positive thing to keep the members on the right path by following their guidance.

Whether the influence on a decision by the state authority is greater than by the church authority depends on the individual circumstances or on the question of what really worries you.
An example: A man wants to take revenge on his friend who cheated on him with his wife. He wants to kill him and sees this as just. As an atheist, he is not afraid of divine punishment, only that he might have to go to prison for life. The fear of state punishment probably prevents him from killing his friend. Suppose the man has terminal cancer, then he might kill his friend in his rage because he has nothing to be afraid of anymore. Let's assume the man is not an atheist but a believer in Christ, then he will probably spare his friend despite his cancer because he has to fear divine consequences. 

I'm not interested in whether you call it influence or control; in the end, what matters is how authority affects actions.

 

[california boy]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

You: 

Also you: 

The State can, and does, do things to override personal choice and autonomy:

• 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.

Your position is that, on the one hand, the Church "objectively" "exert{s} control" through a fairly lengthy, and pretty flimsy, daisy chain, and on the other, you "don't feel 'controlled' by the government at all."  It sounds as if you think the Church's "control" (limiting or removing membership) is somehow more potent than the State's power to use violence, deprive us of money, property, liberty or life, and compel us to have a relationship with it.

I find that curious.

Thanks,

-Smac

Do you only define control as physical restraint?  Or are there other ways of controlling someone.

 

[MustardSeed]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think we also have to consider the belief that comes from experience, and how that relates to control.

For example, if someone has experience taking a specific medication and knows that doing so has always resulted in a positive consequence, then can we consider it an issue of control if a doctor tells them they should take that medicine and they do so?

If someone is doing something because they have experience with the results of the action, are they being controlled or influenced by someone who says they should do it?

I ran out of time to finish my thought, but we can apply that above example to something like tithing.

If someone has actually personally experienced miracles when paying tithing, can it reasonably be considered control or influence that is causing them to follow a leader’s directive to pay tithing even if that’s all the money they have?

Not everything we agree to in any system is a function of control imo

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

The State can, and does, do things to override personal choice and autonomy:

• 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.

Do you only define control as physical restraint?  

No.

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Or are there other ways of controlling someone.

Yes.

If the Church has some sort of mechanism whereby it can override the free will of its members, then I want to know about it.  

Alternatively, if critics of the Church are just blowing smoke, if they are claiming that the Church can override free will, then that's a falsehood that ought to be rebutted.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.

Yes.

If the Church has some sort of mechanism whereby it can override the free will of its members, then I want to know about it.  

Alternatively, if critics of the Church are just blowing smoke, if they are claiming that the Church can override free will, then that's a falsehood that ought to be rebutted.

Thanks,

-Smac

IMO when a system has levels of power there is implicit control.  As a woman I feel there are times that my options are controlled by men in charge. 

[smac97]

52 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

Quote

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

This is true, and that is why the Church, more than almost any other, has tried since its foundation to convince its members that it only has this authority to act in the name of God.

I think lots of religious and ideological groups and exclusivistic truth claims.

52 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

While the other large Christian churches

Virtually all of whom claim that Christ is the sole source of salvation.  That's pretty exclusivistic.

52 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

do not actually mention in their services that they are the only true authority and sometimes do not even see themselves as the only one, the members of the LDS culture testify again and again that they have the true prophet, the true priesthood and the true church.  This shows how important this authority over the members is to the church leadership, and from their perspective, they see it as a positive thing to keep the members on the right path by following their guidance.

Yep.

52 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

Whether the influence on a decision by the state authority is greater than by the church authority depends on the individual circumstances or on the question of what really worries you.

I guess reasonable minds can disagree about that.  Again:

• 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.

52 minutes ago, Frank11 said:

I'm not interested in whether you call it influence or control; in the end, what matters is how authority affects actions.

The State claims to have, and uses, the power to override an individual's free will.  The Church neither claims to have nor attempts to exercise any such power.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

No.

Yes.

If the Church has some sort of mechanism whereby it can override the free will of its members, then I want to know about it.  

Alternatively, if critics of the Church are just blowing smoke, if they are claiming that the Church can override free will, then that's a falsehood that ought to be rebutted.

Thanks,

-Smac

Could you explain how you feel about a woman living in an abusive relationship when she could easily reach out to groups that would help her get out of that kind of destructive behavior?

I am not comparing the Church to an abusive relationship, but I am saying that the Church does have a mechanisms to control members such as threats of eternal damnation, separation from family, even their own children if they don't walk the covenant path.  I personally feel that changing the name from the Plan of Salvation to the Covenant Path is an attempt to remind people who may want to leave the Church that they have made covenants with God and if they walk away from those covenants, then their punishment in the next life should be expected.

 

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

If the Church has some sort of mechanism whereby it can override the free will of its members, then I want to know about it.  

Alternatively, if critics of the Church are just blowing smoke, if they are claiming that the Church can override free will, then that's a falsehood that ought to be rebutted.

IMO when a system has levels of power there is implicit control.  As a woman I feel there are times that my options are controlled by men in charge. 

I think we may be differing here as a matter of semantics.

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

• 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.

Thanks,

-Smac

The Church actually threatens all of these same kinds of punishments.  The only difference is one takes place while living on earth.  The other takes place after we die and are sent to Spiritual Prison, and an eternal judgement after that.

 

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Could you explain how you feel about a woman living in an abusive relationship when she could easily reach out to groups that would help her get out of that kind of destructive behavior?

I feel badly about that.

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am not comparing the Church to an abusive relationship,

Sure looks like it.

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

but I am saying that the Church does have a mechanisms to control members such as threats of eternal damnation,

Um, what?  I thought you were formerly a member of the Church, and so would be familiar with the doctrines of the Church regarding the Kingdoms of Glory.  D&C 88 describes the lowest of these in this way:

Quote

81 And again, we saw the glory of the telestial, which glory is that of the lesser, even as the glory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament.
82 These are they who received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus.
83 These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit.
84 These are they who are thrust down to hell.
85 These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work.
86 These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial;
87 And the terrestrial through the ministration of the celestial.
88 And also the telestial receive it of the administering of angels who are appointed to minister for them, or who are appointed to be ministering spirits for them; for they shall be heirs of salvation.
89 And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding;

"{T}he glory of the telestial ... surpasses all understanding."

The Church is not in the "threats of eternal damnation" business.

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

separation from family, even their own children if they don't walk the covenant path.  

Virtually all Christian sects believe that we will live singly in heaven.  The Church is unique in that it teaches that the Lord has created a way for families to be "be together forever."

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

I personally feel that changing the name from the Plan of Salvation to the Covenant Path is an attempt to remind people who may want to leave the Church that they have made covenants with God and if they walk away from those covenants, then their punishment in the next life should be expected.

If the Church has some sort of mechanism whereby it can override the free will of its members, then I want to know about it.  

Alternatively, if critics of the Church are just blowing smoke, if they are claiming that the Church can override free will, then that's a falsehood that ought to be rebutted.

The State claims to have, and uses, the power to override an individual's free will.  The Church neither claims to have nor attempts to exercise any such power.

Thanks,

-Smac