Church and control

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

The Church actually threatens all of these same kinds of punishments.  

It does nothing of the sort.  It neither threatens to punish, nor claims the authority to mete out such threats, nor to carry out such threats.

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

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.

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

[smac97]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

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.

No, I do not "believe the state has more power in the eternal scheme of things than God."

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I don’t care what word you use.  Control or influence or whatever.

I think this is part of the problem.  Words and meanings and connotations matter.

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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. 

The latter, the power of God, is a matter of belief, and is entirely prospective, and is entirely a matter of choice.  And the institutional Church has no power to put anyone anywhere in the hereafter.  God will do that.

The former, the power of the State, is not a matter of belief, and is objectively apparent in the here and now, and is not a matter of choice.  We have no choice but to have a relationship with the State.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

29 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

I know we are.  You’re a lawyer, I’m a therapist.

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

IMO when a system has levels of power there is implicit control.

I am about to go shopping at Winco.  I am going to buy the fixings for a pot roast for dinner tomorrow night with my family.  

Winco will sell me the meat, veggies, etc. at the published prices.  I cannot haggle with the cashier, so the transaction will be a take-it-or-leave-it sort of thing.  In this sense, Winco is, I suppose, "a system {which} has levels of power."  But does it control me?  Nope. 

I can choose to not patronize Winco.  I can either not buy the food at all, or I can buy some other type of food, or I can go elsewhere.

Winco can't do anything about this.  it has no ability to override the foregoing options available to me.  So for me, I would not say that Winco - even though it has "levels of power" (to sell food and set its own prices) - does not "control" me in any meaningful sense.  Just influence.

The Church has substantially more influence over me than Winco, but still not "control."  The Church does not, cannot, override my free will, ergo I reject the notion that it "controls" me.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am about to go shopping at Winco.  I am going to buy the fixings for a pot roast for dinner tomorrow night with my family.  

Winco will sell me the meat, veggies, etc. at the published prices.  I cannot haggle with the cashier, so the transaction will be a take-it-or-leave-it sort of thing.  In this sense, Winco is, I suppose, "a system {which} has levels of power."  But does it control me?  Nope. 

I can choose to not patronize Winco.  I can either not buy the food at all, or I can buy some other type of food, or I can go elsewhere.

Winco can't do anything about this.  it has no ability to override the foregoing options available to me.  So for me, I would not say that Winco - even though it has "levels of power" (to sell food and set its own prices) - does not "control" me in any meaningful sense.  Just influence.

The Church has substantially more influence over me than Winco, but still not "control."  The Church does not, cannot, override my free will, ergo I reject the notion that it "controls" me.

Thanks,

-Smac

I do believe this is a false equivalency. There is nobody in Winco that has any personal, spiritual, legal authority over its shoppers.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

d the institutional Church has no power to put anyone anywhere in the hereafter.  God will do that.

So God is controlling. His church isn’t. Got it. 🙄

[Frank11]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

... just like a tennis club membership.

Come to think of it, maybe it's not such a bad attitude. Why worry so much about all this religious stuff? Everything is entirely voluntary.

Edited November 16, 2024 by Frank11

[let’s roll]

3 hours 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 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.

 

Is there life after death?  If so what or who makes it possible?
 

Is everyone who lived on earth there?  If so, that might be 100+ billion, how will anyone be able to find someone they knew on earth…or do we even remember this life, and do we have bodies (if so, how does that happen)?
 

Where is it?  What happens there?  What if someone is unhappy and wants to end their next life, can they do that?  
 

Lots more questions of course.  My point is, I’m not sure why anyone would spend much time thinking about something or somewhere they don’t believe exists (not sure many are interested is debating the ins and out of the land of Oz).  And if they do believe, what is the source of that belief?   A church?  What evidence can a church provide of the existence of life after mortal death, and if there is such a life, what happens in that life?
 

A book?  Of “scripture”?  Who gets to decide what is scripture?  
 

If the answer to any of the above is God, then I suggest God is the source of the answer to not just the question above, but to all other questions about any afterlife.  If the answer is man, then we’re having a Oz discussion so who really cares.

Scripture can provide a framework but scripture without Divine insight can be misunderstood…things of the Spirit are understood only with the Spirit.

If my only source of information was a church, I can’t imagine that church influencing me at all, much less controlling me.

All will recognize the reality of Divinity and all will acknowledge that Divine judgment is just.

 

[california boy]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I feel badly about that.

Sure looks like it.

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:

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

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

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."

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

Well you managed to fisk my post into something I didn't intend.  If you are unwilling to acknowledge that it is possible for families to be in separate kingdoms based on what happens on earth, then I guess you are more interested in slicing and dicing a response than actually explaining what you mean.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well you managed to fisk my post into something I didn't intend.

I did not understand your position.

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

 If you are unwilling to acknowledge that it is possible for families to be in separate kingdoms based on what happens on earth, then I guess you are more interested in slicing and dicing a response than actually explaining what you mean.

The "if" is not warranted.  I acknowledge the doctrines if the Church.  I thought that would be assumed.

Thanks,

Smac

[california boy]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

It does nothing of the sort.  It neither threatens to punish, nor claims the authority to mete out such threats, nor to carry out such threats.

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

Another sliced and diced response that ignores what I actually wrote. 

Quote

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.

You manage to not acknowledge that the Church has no connection with what happens after we die by writing about irrelevant things to the question I asked.

Evidently the Church no longer teaches that there are any consequences for anything that we do on earth.  My bad.  I didn't realize that.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

Is there life after death?  If so what or who makes it possible?
 

Is everyone who lived on earth there?  If so, that might be 100+ billion, how will anyone be able to find someone they knew on earth…or do we even remember this life, and do we have bodies (if so, how does that happen)?
 

Where is it?  What happens there?  What if someone is unhappy and wants to end their next life, can they do that?  
 

Lots more questions of course.  My point is, I’m not sure why anyone would spend much time thinking about something or somewhere they don’t believe exists (not sure many are interested is debating the ins and out of the land of Oz).  And if they do believe, what is the source of that belief?   A church?  What evidence can a church provide of the existence of life after mortal death, and if there is such a life, what happens in that life?
 

A book?  Of “scripture”?  Who gets to decide what is scripture?  
 

If the answer to any of the above is God, then I suggest God is the source of the answer to not just the question above, but to all other questions about any afterlife.  If the answer is man, then we’re having a Oz discussion so who really cares.

Scripture can provide a framework but scripture without Divine insight can be misunderstood…things of the Spirit are understood only with the Spirit.

If my only source of information was a church, I can’t imagine that church influencing me at all, much less controlling me.

All will recognize the reality of Divinity and all will acknowledge that Divine judgment is just.

 

I completely agree that if someone doesn't believe the Church to be true, then the Church has no power over them.  But I thought members of the Church did believe that the Church is true.  As soon as they believe that, then what the Church tells them to do does have power over their lives.  

[let’s roll]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I completely agree that if someone doesn't believe the Church to be true, then the Church has no power over them.  But I thought members of the Church did believe that the Church is true.  As soon as they believe that, then what the Church tells them to do does have power over their lives.  

 

5 hours ago, california boy said:

I completely agree that if someone doesn't believe the Church to be true, then the Church has no power over them.  But I thought members of the Church did believe that the Church is true.  As soon as they believe that, then what the Church tells them to do does have power over their lives.  

Understood.  And my point is if all that underlies what you believe is what you learned in Church, you missed the most important message from the Church.  The sin qua non message of the Church is ask God, listen to God and follow God.  I’m exaggerating only slightly when I say that the only thing I do because the Church asks me to is clean the Church, the rest I do because I want to, to follow Him.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 hours ago, let’s roll said:

 

Understood.  And my point is if all that underlies what you believe is what you learned in Church, you missed the most important message from the Church.  The sin qua non message of the Church is ask God, listen to God and follow God.  I’m exaggerating only slightly when I say that the only thing I do because the Church asks me to is clean the Church, the rest I do because I want to, to follow Him.

Sure. The church also teaches that if you ask God and get an answer that contradicts the church you are doing it wrong:

Quote

 

Unfortunately, it is common for persons who are violating God’s commandments or disobedient to the counsel of their priesthood leaders to declare that God has revealed to them that they are excused from obeying some commandment or from following some counsel. Such persons may be receiving revelation or inspiration, but it is not from the source they suppose. The devil is the father of lies, and he is ever anxious to frustrate the work of God by his clever imitations.

So if personal revelation matches the church it’s from God. If it doesn’t it’s from Satan. 

[bluebell]

19 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

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

I agree. And sometimes something can be control or influence for one person and neither of those things for another.  A lot depends on someone’s motivation for their action rather than the action itself. 

[let’s roll]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sure. The church also teaches that if you ask God and get an answer that contradicts the church you are doing it wrong:

So if personal revelation matches the church it’s from God. If it doesn’t it’s from Satan. 

True in some cases, not in others.  As in all cases, we’re responsible for our actions in the context of the light we’ve received.  
 

A few different things might be going on.  Some, in an effort to excuse their poor choices consciously choose to falsely claim Divine direction.  Some innocently mistake their own desires for Divine direction. Some, by Divine direction, are led in a different path.  There were two prophets in Jerusalem, one left and one stayed, both had received Divine direction, both followed the direction they had received.

Edited November 17, 2024 by let’s roll

[Calm]

5 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sure. The church also teaches that if you ask God and get an answer that contradicts the church you are doing it wrong:

So if personal revelation matches the church it’s from God. If it doesn’t it’s from Satan. 

I don’t have time or the inclination to look it up now, but church leaders have taught personal revelation trumps church instruction in the past in some ways.  

Basic idea is you can’t do it all, so you have to pick and choose. I remember when I was first married or a young mother, someone used the example of young mothers were not to feel bad about not being able to work on genealogy…which was when I was working on genealogy, lol (new computer and I was inputting all the info I had collected in my free time, which I had a lot of because my son slept a lot).  Often leaders use “there is a time and season to every purpose under heaven” for this teaching.  I remember the example of students not being able to do food storage being used as well.

So not exactly ‘it is okay’ if your personal revelation directly contradicts church teachings, but allows for some variation in what one chooses to pay attention to.

[manol]

6 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sure. The church also teaches that if you ask God and get an answer that contradicts the church you are doing it wrong:

So if personal revelation matches the church it’s from God. If it doesn’t it’s from Satan. 

Having been conditioned by the Church that there is a hierarchy, I always figured God the Holy Spirit outranks 'em. 

 

4 hours ago, let’s roll said:

 There were two prophets in Jerusalem, one left and one stayed, both had received Divine direction, both followed the direction they had received.

BRILLIANT observation!

Edited November 17, 2024 by manol

[BlueDreams]

I haven't looked at the board for a bit so definitely missed much of this discussion. I did try to read most the first half and the last page or so, so I don't sound too redundant. I always find this theme really fascinating because it can very much differ from person to person as to what they see/experience with church and control in some way.

To me, it depends on a few questions:

What is "the church?"

What is control?

Is control a bad thing?

 

Personally I've seen the practical use definition of church differ from person to person. Sometimes church is gospel or doctrine. Sometimes it is the institutional structures. Sometimes it's general leadership. Sometimes is ward/stake communities. Sometimes it's one's family. Often it's a mash up of this in varying ways. So I may have a similar language to someone but use that language to define church very very differently from another. The "church" that's ward/family often helps define how people interact with the other versions of "church." And that church can lay out frameworks for what people do and/or interact with it. My church is not necessarily that of MS's church or Calm's or Smac's. It's under the larger umbrella called the Church of JC of LDS. But it's not the same.  I don't have your families, your generations, your life experiences in it, etc. 

Control is inherently subjective. I've seen people describe control in a litany of ways, and based on some of the definitions, I've been controlling, depending how one sees it. I'm a fairly blunt therapist. I've told clients that abc behavior will likely come to blow up in their face/marriage/relationships. I'll tell them that their way of doing whatever will lead to pretty crappy consequences and it'll have to change in order for them to have what they truly want. I'll lay out basic frameworks of what changes are immediately needed, adding more as they go. I told a client they were being an A**hole and had them repeat what I said in order for them to face what they were doing and stop (FTR, they trust me a ton and still see me on the reg and they struggle with NPD...so not your usual client nor what I'd normally tell a client to say). I often frame therapy carefully, due to the nature of much of my recent clientele. All of this could be seen as some version of control. Of course, control can also be defined more limitedly to be absolute force of some sort (something I adamantly don't do). Or something else all together. I note to a lot of my clients that anxiety's root is most often found in the illusion of being able to control things. In the OP, I personally had a hard time distinguishing the definitions of control with culture or conformity. I also found Smac's assertion that there's an objective definition to a social construct unconvincing.

Lastly depending on the definition, I don't think control is either good or bad. It depends the reasons for it, how its implemented, and what definition is being used. Some people do feel boundaries are a form of control, because it's not allowing another to have their way with you around them. Whether they like it or not, I'll always believe basic boundaries are a good thing. I also think there's an element of control in any form of discipline (not just punishment, but any form of refining limitations or activities meant to better an individual).   I think there's experiences I've had in "the church" that are forms of control I find wrong because they're a form of "unrighteous dominion" or a means to reinforce conformity. (I also think there's a culture in the church that values conformity without necessarily calling it that...looking at you white shirts/ties, beardlessness, and knee length pants/skirts). I think there's "control" that's neutral and more of a cultural quirk than anything else. Usually with our individualistic broader culture, control is almost always defined as bad. Which is why we get in odd debates about what control even is, trying to define out the types of unhealthy control to be able to say it's not really in the church or to post said control problems on the church's proverbial door.     

 

  I do think Church and institutions in general have degrees of control in them. I think there's some unhealthy versions of that within church frameworks. I also think there's healthy and needed versions in said frameworks. I've seen "the church" gently clip at several of those over the years. And I've seen elements in the church struggle to implement them and/or point at more issues they see, depending. 

 

Thems me thoughts

With luv,

BD

[smac97]

On 11/16/2024 at 6:36 PM, california boy said:

Another sliced and diced response that ignores what I actually wrote. 

I directly responded to you what wrote.

On 11/16/2024 at 6:36 PM, california boy said:

You manage to not acknowledge that the Church has no connection with what happens after we die by writing about irrelevant things to the question I asked.

The Church has a substantial connection with what happens after we die.  My point is that the Church -  by design and intent - does not have or exercise "control" over us.

People like you, who have left the Church, are some of the best evidences of my point.  The only thing the Church can do is to restrict or - in rare circumstances - sever the individual's relationship with the Church.  That's it.  And even then, the individual is at all times encouraged to return. 

On 11/16/2024 at 6:36 PM, california boy said:

Evidently the Church no longer teaches that there are any consequences for anything that we do on earth.  My bad.  I didn't realize that.

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."  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 11/16/2024 at 4:13 PM, Frank11 said:

Quote

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

... just like a tennis club membership.

In the sense that neither entity can "control" the individual, yes.

Otherwise, no.

On 11/16/2024 at 4:13 PM, Frank11 said:

Come to think of it, maybe it's not such a bad attitude. Why worry so much about all this religious stuff? Everything is entirely voluntary.

I am surprised at the snark.  What I have said here is not remotely innovative.  The concept has been in print since 1830:

Quote

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.
26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;
29 And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.

I find the resentments being expressed in this thread to be a bit unusual.  Shouldn't a religious group's self-imposed constraints on influence/control be a good thing?  Why sneer at these constraints?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 11/16/2024 at 3:29 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

the institutional Church has no power to put anyone anywhere in the hereafter.  God will do that.

So God is controlling. His church isn’t. Got it. 🙄

I am not sure what you mean here.  The institutional Church has an important role to play in this dispensation.  It will not, however, adjudicate the ultimate salvific disposition of the children of God.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am not sure what you mean here.  The institutional Church has an important role to play in this dispensation.  It will not, however, adjudicate the ultimate salvific disposition of the children of God.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;

God, and by extension the church you believe he runs, is displaying the same kind of control that the state does. Obey God's (as communicated by his church) commandments or else you are "choosing" captivity and death under the power of the devil. The state says obey my laws, or you are "choosing" jail time. There is no daylight between the two. Use whatever word you want, "control" or otherwise. There is no meaningful difference.

Edited November 18, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Analytics]

 

On 11/16/2024 at 1:59 PM, smac97 said:

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.  

Send me a PM with your physical address and I’ll send you a book that will tell you all about it.

[Nofear]

"The devil Church has no power control over us only as we permit him it" -- Joseph Smith 😈