Church and control

[smac97]

38 minutes ago, Analytics said:

 

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

Got this: "Analytics cannot receive messages."

I have previously considered assessments of Hassan's approach, and am not impressed with it.  See, e.g.,

here:

here:

here:

And lest we forget, according to you, the Church "exercis{es} 'cult mind control'" over its members to such a vast extent that if it stopped doing so, the Church "would cease to exist."

How very unserious this stuff is.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 18, 2024 by smac97

[Teancum]

On 11/15/2024 at 5:40 PM, smac97 said:

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

Nor do the consequences the state may impose on you say if you choose not to pay your income taxes.  For a believer, the consequences the church tells them they may have for not complying equate to control.

On 11/15/2024 at 5:40 PM, smac97 said:

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.

Same as above.

On 11/15/2024 at 5:40 PM, smac97 said:

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.

And the church can keep you out of the temple.  The church can remove you membership which impacts your eternal well being. For example it can cancel your eternal marriage and deprive you of exaltation.

On 11/15/2024 at 5:40 PM, smac97 said:

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

I am not sure I follow your point. I never said the church's example of control impact any one's ability to choose or not.  But there are methods to tilt a believer towards choosing the way the church teaches they should.

 

On 11/15/2024 at 5:40 PM, smac97 said:

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

Of course you think this.

On 11/15/2024 at 5:40 PM, smac97 said:

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.

Or the believer ignores the truth of my comment and downplays it to keep their faith and testimony intact.

On 11/15/2024 at 5:40 PM, smac97 said:

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.  

No that is not it. The church teaches one's well being and ability to be with their family is contingent on complying with their rules, etc.  So that is not it.

On 11/15/2024 at 5:40 PM, smac97 said:

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

Hyperbole. Mind control techniques can be subtle.

On 11/15/2024 at 5:40 PM, smac97 said:

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

It was not easy for me to arrive at the point that it became clear to me the church is not what it claims. It was not easy and took a lot of heart wrenching soul searching and putting aside the biases that were indoctrinated and hard wired into my mind.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

God, and by extension the church you believe he runs, is displaying the same kind of control that the state does.

You are, I suppose, free to believe this.  I do not.  Nor does the Church teach this.  In fact, I think the foregoing is antithetical to the doctrines of the Church.  

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Obey God's (as communicated by his church) commandments or else you are "choosing" captivity and death under the power of the devil.

Yes.  As a statement of faith, I believe this to be true.

Broadly speaking, neither God nor His Church will override your free will.  My personal sense is that God is Himself bound by eternal laws, and that amongst those are an individual's right to agency, to choose.  I further believe that eternal laws mandate blessings for obedience, punishment for disobedience, as an atoning sacrifice to overcome the latter.

All this is a matter of faith.  You can choose to believe these things, or not.  You can choose to act in accordance with them, or not.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The state says obey my laws, or you are "choosing" jail time.

I think few people would say they "chose" to go to jail.  The State imprisons people against their will, not in accordance with it.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

There is no daylight between the two.

There is a broad, midday sun's worth of blazing daylight between the two.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Use whatever word you want, "control" or otherwise. There is no meaningful difference.

There are vast and profound differences.  

The State can override your free well.  The Church cannot, and does not.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 11/15/2024 at 6:08 PM, Calm said:

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

Well ok but since behavior comes from our mind then......?  🤷‍♂️

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think few people would say they "chose" to go to jail. 

 But with a straight face in the same post, you think people would say they “choose” hell!? Seriously!?!? Or that they choose being separated from family after death!? Seriously!? I have a hard time at this point in the conversation believing  that you are arguing in good faith. 

Edited November 18, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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

Nor do the consequences the state may impose on you say if you choose not to pay your income taxes. 

The State can and does compel compliance with secular law.  It can and does override the free will of citizens.

In contrast, the Church cannot and does not compel compliance with the doctrines and commandments of the Church.  It cannot and does not override individual free will.

I am saying these things to a person who is a walking, talking rebuttal to his own argument.  You left the Church, and the Church cannot override that choice or coerce you into returning, nor does it even make any attempt as such things.

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

For a believer, the consequences the church tells them they may have for not complying equate to control.

They do not.

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And the church can keep you out of the temple. 

The Church cannot override my capacity to choose or compel me to comply with the requirements to attend the temple.

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The church can remove you membership which impacts your eternal well being.

I believe this, yes.  I am not compelled to believe it, nor can the Church compel or coerce me into believing it.

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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

I am not sure I follow your point. I never said the church's example of control impact any one's ability to choose or not.  But there are methods to tilt a believer towards choosing the way the church teaches they should.

Which speaks more to influence, not control.

Your comments on this board are, i think, intended to "tilt" readers toward a particular set of presuppositions, critiques, conclusions, etc. about the Church.  Would you agree with that?  Do you, by having attempted to exert such a "tilting" influence, therefore control the readers of your comments?  Do you "control" me in any meaningful sense?  I think you must answer in the negative.  Once you do, I hope you will see my point.

In contrast, the State has real and actual "control" in our lives.  It can compel behavior.  It can override free will.

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

Or the believer ignores the truth of my comment and downplays it to keep their faith and testimony intact.

Downplays what?  The Church explicitly disclaims any power the State has, and instead only has the capacity to restrict or sever its relationship with the individual.  

I think calling this "control" is a substantial exaggeration/mischaracterization.  Just as the Church can restrict or sever its relationship with the individual, the individual can restrict or sever its relationship with the Church.  Does that mean that you, having done so, "control" the Church?  Nope.

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.  

No that is not it. The church teaches one's well being and ability to be with their family is contingent on complying with their rules, etc.  So that is not it.

"The church teaches" being the operative wording here.  The Church cannot do anything to override your free will, or to compel obedience to the commandments of God.  

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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

Hyperbole. Mind control techniques can be subtle.

I'd have to go back and check, but my recollection is that you have repeatedly disparaged the Church is some of the worst ways possible.

As for this "mind control" silliness, I take this is a half-hearted jab, not a serious claim.  

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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."

It was not easy for me to arrive at the point that it became clear to me the church is not what it claims.

You are sort of proving my point ("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").

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It was not easy and took a lot of heart wrenching soul searching and putting aside the biases that were indoctrinated and hard wired into my mind.

And yet, you still left. 

And the Church has not taken your property or money, or your liberty or your life, nor has it threatened to do any of these things.  Nor can the Church do anything to compel you to return, nor would it attempt any such thing.

You left the Church and are proceeding in your life, and the Church can't do diddly about that.  The Church cannot override free will, nor can it compel/coerce compliance with its teachings.  The only thing it can do is restrict or, at the extreme, sever its relationship with the individual.  That's it.  And that's not reasonably characterized as "control."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Well ok but since behavior comes from our mind then......?  🤷‍♂️

Mind control has a connotation (and definition too, in many places they are used interchangeably) of brainwashing (manipulation against someone’s will), which does not have much scientific support for it, especially not in the open environment where the Church has limited control on what influences a person is exposed to (even if a person is rigid about creating a ‘church approved’ environment at home, they are significantly exposed to other influences once they leave home that they don’t control….people they encounter on the street, billboards, contacts through work or school, etc).

https://www.salon.com/2018/07/22/the-brainwashing-myth_partner/

https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/probing-question-does-brainwashing-exist

Quote

The court ruled that the use of brainwashing theories is inadmissible in expert witnesses, citing the Frye standard, which states that scientific theories utilized by expert witnesses must be generally accepted in their respective fields.[30] Since then, United States courts have consistently rejected testimony about mind control or brainwashing on the grounds that these theories are not part of accepted science under the Frye standard.[31]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing

Edited November 18, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

I think few people would say they "chose" to go to jail. 

But with a straight face in the same post, you think people would say they “choose” hell!? Seriously!?!?

No, I don't think that.

You do not believe in the doctrines of the Church, so you do not believe that your current course in life will lead you to the Telestial Kingdom.  

You are free to believe, or not believe, these things.  The Church cannot compel you or "control" you as regarding these things.

44 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Or that they choose being separated from family after death!? Seriously!?

I think you are neglecting important presuppositions which, when considered, negate and rebut your questions.

44 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I have a hard time at this point in the conversation believing  that you are arguing in good faith. 

I think you view most of what I say through an implacably hostile lens.  And you often view and speak of the Church is the worst possible way.  And I, being an admirer and devotee of the Church, speak in its defense, and in doing so I probably end up raising your hackles and further entrenching you in your hostile-lens perspective.  I'm not sure what to do about that.  As long as people like you publish terrible things about my faith and faith community, I will speak in its defense.  I generally try not to speak in ways that provoke or ridicule, but there are times when I let my emotions get the better of me.  I will work on that.

Having said all that, when I speak in defense of my faith, I strive to do so in good faith.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Got this: "Analytics cannot receive messages."

It turns out my mailbox was at 101% capacity. I just emptied it. In case you’d like to try again, the offer is still open.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have previously considered assessments of Hassan's approach, and am not impressed with it....

My point is to help you understand what others mean by “control.” They aren’t using that word the same way you are.

When they say “control”, they aren’t claiming that the Church is literally holding a gun to their heads. Rather, they are referring to psychological manipulation.

This thread reminds me of that scene from The Truman Show where an activist calls in to a talk show and claims Truman is being held against his will:

SYLVIA: He’s not a performer, he’s a prisoner! Look at him! Look at what you’ve done to him!

CHRISTOF: He can leave at any time. If it was more than just a vague ambition, if he was absolutely determined to discover the truth, there’s no way we could prevent him from leaving.

Ultimately (spoiler alert!) Truman did escape, but the fact that he made it out doesn’t prove that he wasn’t being “controlled” (i.e. subjected to undue influence) in the first place.

Edited November 18, 2024 by Analytics

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

I have previously considered assessments of Hassan's approach, and am not impressed with it....

My point is to help you understand what others mean by “control.” They aren’t using that word the same way you are.

Hence the discussion.  

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

When they say “control”, they aren’t claiming that the Church is literally holding a gun to their heads. Rather, they are referring to psychological manipulation.

Which, as applied to the Church, dilutes the concept of "control" to meaninglessness.

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

This thread reminds me of that scene from The Truman Show where an activist calls in to a talk show and claims Truman is being held against his will:

SYLVIA: He’s not a performer, he’s a prisoner! Look at him! Look at what you’ve done to him!

CHRISTOF: He can leave at any time. If it was more than just a vague ambition, if he was absolutely determined to discover the truth, there’s no way we could prevent him from leaving.

One of my favorite shows, but an unserious comparison.

51 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Ultimately (spoiler alert!) Truman did escape, but the fact that he made it out doesn’t prove that he wasn’t being “controlled” (i.e. subjected to undue influence) in the first place.

Ah.  And having made this comparison, and having now invoked a term with actual legal parameters and connotations, should be able to present all sorts of lawsuits filed against the Church by former Latter-day Saints who have been able to successfully demonstrate such "undue influence."  Replete with "expert testimony" (maybe from Steve Hassan?).

Go ahead and share these cases.  I'll wait.

You are supposedly the "all about science" guy, and yet you talk about "cult mind control," "brainwashing" and approvingly and repeatedly cite Steve Hassan as an authoritative "expert" on such things. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 18, 2024 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

when I speak in defense of my faith, I strive to do so in good faith.

Can someone else explain SMAC’s position for me? Specifically how sending someone to hell doesn’t violate “free will” but sending someone to jail does?

[Analytics]

 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

One of my favorite shows, but an unserious comparison.

It's the perfect comparison, because it illustrates the unserious nature of your arguments about control. Truman escaping isn’t proof that he wasn’t being controlled; likewise a few Mormons escaping isn’t proof that Mormons aren’t controlled.

Again, you 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 (it should go through now) with your address, and I’ll send you a book that explains these mechanisms.  

Edited November 18, 2024 by Analytics

[Analytics]

54 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can someone else explain SMAC’s position for me? Specifically how sending someone to hell doesn’t violate “free will” but sending someone to jail does?

As I understand him, there are two elements of his position here.

First, to him the state doesn’t control you until it uses its guns, shackles, and steel bars to physically prevent you from doing what you want to do. For example, he’d say the state can threaten you with jail if you break the law, but those threats aren’t actually controlling you; any time anybody commits a crime proves the state isn’t literally controlling the general citizenry. The control doesn’t happen until they get caught and the state uses its power to crack down.

Second, he’d say that the Church isn’t the one who sends the disobedient to hell--that is something God does. Thus the actual control is not something that happens in this life by the Church, but rather happens in the next life by God.

Edited November 18, 2024 by Analytics

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Analytics said:

likewise a few Mormons escaping isn’t proof that Mormons aren’t controlled.

A few?  What percentage of Saints leaving would you consider significant?

Love the choice of the word “escaping” btw.   

Edited November 18, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It's the perfect comparison,

Nothing like.  The Church has somehow created, for each of its 17 million members, a gigantic soundstage, hired thousands of actors and extras and staff to all be in on the sham, etc.?

Piffle.

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

because it illustrates the unserious nature of your arguments about control.

It does nothing of the sort.

The Church's leaders and members, both past and present, sincerely believe what we teach, beliefs are not subject to empirical verification or falsification.  In contrast, The Truman Show was about a giant, intentional and objectively demonstrated lie.

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Truman escaping isn’t proof that he wasn’t being controlled; likewise a few Mormons escaping isn’t proof that Mormons aren’t controlled.

The Church does nothing like what Christof did in The Truman Show.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

Second, he’d say that the Church isn’t the one who sends the disobedient to hell--that is something God. Thus the actual control is not something that happens in this life by the Church, but rather happens in the next life by God.

My guess is this isn’t how he sees it. God isn’t the one sending them to jail, it’s them walking into it because they won’t accept the alternative of repentance. 

Once you are judged and convicted in mortality, typically you aren’t told if you feel bad about breaking the law and truly repent of it you want have to pay the fine or go to jail.  Jail is the one and only option.  If you don’t go willingly, they will pick you up and carry you (maybe, cattle prod would work too probably  ).

However, God’s mercy allows you to still make that choice for freedom in the next life.  Choosing God and freedom through repentance.  At least two options here.

I may be wrong about his perception, but that is how I have seen it described by others.

Edited November 19, 2024 by Calm

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church's leaders and members, both past and present, sincerely believe what we teach, beliefs are not subject to empirical verification or falsification.

You thinking this proves how manipulated you really are.

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church does nothing like what Christof did in The Truman Show.

Like Christof, the Church uses Manipulation, Indoctrination, Negation, and Deception to control its members. You claim members are free to leave at any time. Christof said Truman “can leave at any time.” There are many important similarities.  If you’d like to understand how this type of psychological manipulation works, I’d be glad to send you a book.

[Analytics]

 

20 minutes ago, Calm said:

A few?  What percentage of Saints leaving would you consider significant?

Love the choice of the word “escaping” btw.   

Well, 100% of the stars of the Truman show successfully escaped.

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

As I understand him, there are two elements of his position here.

Hoo, boy.  Whenever Roger steps in and tries to explain to other people what a Latter-day Saint's position is, I tend to get wary.

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

First, to him the state doesn’t control you until it uses its guns, shackles, and steel bars to physically prevent you from doing what you want to do.

Nope.  The State controls us through both the use of coercive mechanisms and the threat to use them, and the demonstrated and present and apparent capacity to utilize "guns, shackles, and steel bars."

The Church, meanwhile, cannot do, and does not do, any of these things.  It can only limit or, in extreme circumstances, sever the individual's relationship with and membership in the Church.  That's it.

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

For example, he’d say the state can threaten you with jail if you drive without a license, but those threats aren’t actually controlling you;

No, I would not say that.

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

lots of sovereign-citizen types driving without licenses proves the state isn’t controlling them.

Until they are caught, at which point the State exerts its power to control.

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

The control doesn’t happen until they get caught and the state uses its power to crack down.

Nope.

The State does not "crack down" on violations of the law until it becomes aware of the violation of the law.

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Second, he’d say that the Church isn’t the one who sends the disobedient to hell--that is something God.

Nope.

The Church doesn't teach the heaven/hell dichotomy.  I have previously cited scripture about the Telestial Kingdom.  

5 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Thus the actual control is not something that happens in this life by the Church, but rather happens in the next life by God.

Finally.  An accurate statement.

God, the creator and ruler of the universe, is omnipotent.  He will judge us (or delegate such duties to others), and their perfect judgment will determine the salvific disposition of each individual.

The current institutional Church, meanwhile, houses God's priesthood, administers His ordinances, preaches His Gospel, and seeks to fulfill its mandates.  None of these mandates involve sending anyone to hell or any other eternal destination.

So one correct component of my position.  Well . . . done?

Meanwhile, my position is more simply stated as follows:

1. No Doctrinal Basis for "Control": The Church does not "control" the lives of its members because it disclaims any capacity or authority or justification to do so (see, e.g., D&C 134:10, 2 Nephi 2:27).

2. The Church Has No Ability to Override Free Will: The Church does not "control" the lives of its members because it cannot override the free will of its members.  By "cannot" I mean that it is doctrinally proscribed from doing so, that it lacks the intent or desire to do so, and because it lacks any actual means to do so.

3. The State Has the Ability to Override Free Will: The State can and does have the power to override the free will of its citizens, and therefore can legitimately be said to have "control" over them.  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;
• take my money/property, or threaten to, so as to compel compliance with secular law, or to punish me for not complying with it;
• take away my liberty, or threaten to, so as to compel compliance with secular law, or to punish me for not complying with it;
• take away my life as punishment for noncompliance with the secular law.

The Church does not have the power to do any of these things. 

4. Voluntary Nature of Association: My relationship with the Church is entirely voluntary.  I can leave it at any time for any reason, or for no reason whatsoever. 

In contrast, my relationship with the State is compulsory.  I am subject to its laws by being present within its geographical boundaries.  If I go to some other country, then that country becomes the "State" with which my relationship is compulsory.  I am subject to the laws of the State no matter where I go. 

I am only subject to the laws of the Church because I choose to subject myself to them.  And if I withdraw that consent, the laws of the Church have no application to me, and the Church can't do anything about that.

5. Consequences and Influence, Yes; Control, No: I have not said that the Church cannot mete out consequences, or the threat of consequences, or that the Church does not influence its members.  My point is that I think these potential or actualized consequences (restricting/removing a person's membership in the Church) cannot be reasonably described as "control," nor can the Church's influence on its members.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can someone else explain SMAC’s position for me? Specifically how sending someone to hell doesn’t violate “free will” but sending someone to jail does?

I believe Smac's argument is rooted in the belief that agency is a sacred tenet of the faith. According to LDS theology, everyone has the ability to choose their path in life. God, as described in LDS doctrine, allows people to make choices, even if those choices lead to negative consequences (e.g., spiritual punishment). In this sense, even the "threat" of spiritual punishment (such as hell or being sent to a lower kingdom) is not a threat, nor does it infringe on free will because it is a consequence of your personal choice. If you choose to believe, only then you accept certain spiritual realities. Punishment for disobedience is not arbitrary but is tied to natural consequences, like separation, for example. Smac is essentially saying that while the consequences may be real and potentially serious, they are not coercive in the same way state laws are. These consequences are not imposed by an external authority - they are a natural outcome of rejecting or following certain beliefs. In this way, free will is not violated because the individual has the full ability to choose how they want to live and what they want to believe.

Just as in any belief system, the consequences of one’s actions (whether they be spiritual or secular) may affect the individual’s life, but the church does not have the power to force hypothetical consequences upon someone. In contrast, the state can directly impose consequences (arrest, imprisonment, etc.) regardless of belief or choice. The church does not use coercive means to enforce these consequences since they are the result of personal agency, not coercion. While the threat of hell may seem controlling, one might argue it is just reality, no different from the natural consequences we all face in life based on our decisions (e.g., facing the fallout of personal mistakes or wrongdoings in our relationships).

You might argue that the threat of eternal punishment is controlling because it manipulates people's choices through fear. Just as a person might choose to obey a secular law (like not speeding) because they want to avoid legal penalties, a person chooses to live in accordance with the church’s teachings because they believe in the eventual outcomes of those choices. While the church may have social pressures, these are still not forms of control - they are rather consequences of one’s choices in the context of their own belief system they chose. It is only the individual’s belief in the church's doctrines that makes them fear the consequences of disobedience, not the church itself imposing that fear.

Edited November 19, 2024 by Pyreaux

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can someone else explain SMAC’s position for me? Specifically how sending someone to hell doesn’t violate “free will” but sending someone to jail does?

I think what he's saying is that people who end up in jail, choose the behaviors they do despite knowing that jail is a possibility.  But that people who theoretically may be destined for hell don't often believe that hell even exists so they choose the behaviors they do because they believing that hell isn't a possibility.

So it's hard to compare someone who knows the justice system exists with someone who doesn't believe hell exists.  I think he's saying that you can't be controlled by beliefs that you don't have.

(but I have not been following all the posts so I might be reading his point wrong).

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

The Church's leaders and members, both past and present, sincerely believe what we teach, beliefs are not subject to empirical verification or falsification.

You thinking this proves how manipulated you really are.

I don't think you have any competent evidence to contradict what I have said.  Nor can you speak competently about my conclusions about the Church and how I have reached those conclusions.  You're just saying this out of spite.

I just hit my 20th anniversary as a licensed attorney last month.  When I was first admitted to the bar in 2004, I remember wondering how I would feel about my religious beliefs in the future, as I would be dealing with evidence, arguments and counter-arguments, etc. as a daily occurrence.  I wondered if such experiences would affect my survey of the doctrines and history of the Church.  To an extent, they have influenced me.  I think my eyes are open a lot wider than they were in 1991 (when I graduated from high school and seminary), in 1995 (when I returned from my mission) and 2004 (when I began practicing law). 

The interesting thing, to me, is that such exercises in evaluating evidence, particularly in the context of humanity and its constituent members, have greatly strengthened my perspective on the Church.  I am more convinced now that Joseph Smith really experienced the things described in the formative events of the Restoration.  

If you had a track record of being a fair-minded and clinical and detached observer/commenter of the Church and its leaders and members, I would give your statement above more credence.  As it is, you carry no semblance of proportion or circumspection or civility in your commentary and critiques regarding us.  You overwhelmingly paint us the worst possible hues, cast us in the worst possible light, and so on.  Broadly speaking, your deprecatory pronouncements to and about us carry no probative or evidentiary weight with me, particularly as to broad assessments such as this.

I am reminded of this 2017 article by Daniel Peterson: Was Joseph Smith Sincere?

Some excerpts:

Quote

Such displays of emotion seem difficult to counterfeit.  If they were fake, Joseph Smith must have been guilty of an almost unfathomable cynicism.  But of such cynicism and falsity his friends and associates saw no trace whatever.  “The people fairly adored him,” recounted one woman.[1]  He showed “not the least affectation,” remembered Wandle Mace.[2] “There was not the slightest appearance of ostentation or conscious power on his part,” recollected Mercy R. Thompson. “He was as free and sociable as though we had all been his own brothers and sisters, or members of one family. He was as unassuming as a child.”[3]   A member of the United States Congress wrote to his wife, following a meeting with Joseph Smith in Washington, that “Everything he says is said in a manner to leave an impression that he is sincere. . . .  In his garb there are no peculiarities, his dress being that of a plain, unpretending citizen.”[4]  A reporter in Washington D.C. by the name of Matthew L. Davis commented on Joseph’s appearance during a sermon there.  “He is sincere,” Davis wrote.  “There is no levity, no fanaticism, no want of dignity in his deportment. . . .  He is but a man, he said; a plain, untutored man; seeking what he should do to be saved.”[5]  A Methodist minister by the name of Prior visited Nauvoo in 1842 or 1843 and attended a Sunday service at which Joseph spoke.  Later, he wrote that he had been expecting to see a guilt-ridden, hyperemotional fanatic.  “But how was I disappointed when instead of the heads and horns of the beast and false prophet, I beheld only the appearance of a common man. . . .  I was sadly disappointed.”  Still, he was sure that Joseph’s sermon would meet his expectations.  But it didn’t.  “He commenced calmly, and continued dispassionately to pursue his subject. . . .  He glided along through a very interesting and elaborate discourse with all the care and happy facility of one who was well aware of his important station, and his duty to God and man.”[6]

As between Joseph's contemporary and even-keeled observers (many of whom had no particular reason to speak well of him) and you, I'll go with the former.

Another: The Logic Tree of Life, or, Why I Can’t Manage to Disbelieve

Quote

OK, so let’s look a little more in detail: Joseph had no plates. This is what most critics say; there were none.

All right, the first option is that he knew that he had no plates. OK. Now, this runs into a number of issues. You have to ask first of all, Was this deliberate, was it cynical or was it pious? Was he a cynical fraud, just a con-artist, 19th century con man?

I think you run into issues right there. One of the places you run into issues is with Joseph Smith’s writings, which are now being published, the personal writings of Joseph Smith, the Joseph Smith Papers. If Joseph Smith is not sincere, then I can’t judge sincerity in another human being.

This is a man who in his most personal private writings, letters to his wife, personal journal entries, they’re full of prayers. He’s praying all the time. Oh, Lord, help your servant, help me. Writing to his wife, Emma, praying, expressing prayers for her. Telling his children to be sure they say their prayers at night, this sort of thing. All the time coming across as a believer. There’s nothing, certainly there’s nothing at all in the early Joseph Smith that you could say points to someone who’s a cynical, manipulative deceiver. It’s just not there. He doesn’t let the mask fall at all. If he is one, there’s no evidence for it that I can see.

As between assessing Joseph's sincerity based on his personal writings versus assessing based of the spiteful gainsaying of an implacably hostile Anti-Mormon spouting off online from behind a pseudonym, I'll go with the former.

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Like Christof, the Church uses Manipulation, Indoctrination, Negation, and Deception to control its members.

No, it does not.

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

You claim members are free to leave at any time.

Yes.  And they do leave.  All the time.  Some come back, some don't.

Truman, meanwhile, was being actively tricked and lied to and essentially coerced to physically remain in what he thought was his hometown, but what was instead a giant soundstage.

Over the weekend my wife met a young mother ("Jane") who moved into our Provo neighborhood a few months ago.  They chatted for a while, and Jane divulged that she had left the Church about a year ago.  She just stopped attending, and that was that.  Since then, she has not had much interaction with the Church or with members qua members.

On Sunday, Jane called us and asked for help.  A woodpecker had fallen into a hollow pillar on her front porch, and she could not get it out.  I and my wife went over and I spent about an hour cutting an opening at the base of the pillar to allow the woodpecker to escape (which, happily, it did a few hours later).  While I worked, my wife chatted with Jane while I chatted with her 4-year old son.  He asked me questions about the tools, about the bird's welfare, etc.  It was a pleasant experience.  We exchanged a few more pleasantries and then went our separate ways.

I have no idea as to the particulars of Jane's decision to leave the Church.  However, she says she did, and I believe her.  And she does not seem to have been punished for it, and it is an objective reality that the Church cannot do anything - either by religious or secular right - to compel her to return.

I think people like you diminish and demean and infantilize people like Jane.  She is an adult, and she made a choice.  She was not "controlled," either when she was in the Church or out of it.  Influenced?  Sure.  But not controlled.  She had, and has, free will, and the Church has neither the power nor the inclination to override it.

Will Jane return to fellowship?  I don't know.  I hope so.  We will treat her and her son as a neighbor and friend regardless.

58 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Christof said Truman “can leave at any time.” There are many important similarities.  

No, there aren't.  This is an unserious comparison, intended to provoke and taunt, not illuminate or clarify.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 19, 2024 by smac97

[Analytics]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Nope.  The State controls us through both the use of coercive mechanisms and the threat to use them, and the demonstrated and present and apparent capacity to utilize "guns, shackles, and steel bars."

The Church, meanwhile, cannot do, and does not do, any of these things.  It can only limit or, in extreme circumstances, sever the individual's relationship with and membership in the Church.  That's it.

I guess I don’t understand where you’re coming from. Here are some follow-up questions--no right or wrong answers--just trying to understand what you believe.

Do the leaders of the Church claim to be God’s official representatives?

Do His official representatives claim that God tells us, through them, what His commandments are?

Do they claim there will be eternal consequences of whether or not we obey those commandments?

Are threats of eternal consequences imposed by God at least as serious as threats imposed by the state during this fleeting mortal existence?

It sounds like you don’t believe the Church’s leaders are God’s official representatives and that they don’t speak for God. It sounds like you don’t really believe there will be eternal consequences for disobeying the commandments. It sounds like you think that while we should be afraid of being held accountable before the courts, we have no reason to be afraid of being held accountable before God. 

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The Church doesn't teach the heaven/hell dichotomy.  I have previously cited scripture about the Telestial Kingdom.  

I said nothing about a heaven/hell dichotomy. I merely used the word “hell”. (Read about it here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/hell?lang=eng)

In any case, I would expect that everyone who is making a good-faith effort to participate in this conversation would know that in the context of what we’re talking about here, “hell” is a euphemism for all of the negative eternal consequences associated with disobedience, breaking covenants, and otherwise failing to maximize the rewards associated with following the plan of salvation.

 

 

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I guess I don’t understand where you’re coming from. Here are some follow-up questions--no right or wrong answers--just trying to understand what you believe.

Do the leaders of the Church claim to be God’s official representatives?

As a matter of faith, yes.  I can choose to believe and act in accordance with this, or not.  I can also choose whether to have a relationship with the Church or not.

Conversely, I have no alternative but to submit to the authority of the State and my relationship with it.

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Do His official representatives claim that God tells us, through them, what His commandments are?

As a matter of faith, yes.  Again, I can choose to accept these pronouncements, or not.

Conversely, I have no choice but to accept and comply with the provisions of the Utah Code, the United States Code, and other sources of secular law imposed on my by the State.  

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Do they claim there will be eternal consequences of whether or not we obey those commandments?

As a matter of faith, yes.  I can choose to believe that these eternal consequences will occur, or not.  I can choose to act in accordance with these commandments, or not.  I have free will to do, or not do, these things, and the Church cannot override my free will.

Conversely, the State can and does override my free will.  Through the threat or actualization of State actions which will deprive me of my money, property, liberty and/or life, the State can compel me to obey secular laws and/or punish me for failing to.  The Church, meanwhile, cannot compel me to keep the commandments in any sense, and can only "punish" me for disobeying them by imposing restrictions on, or removing, my membership.  And because my membership is an entirely voluntary association on both sides, there is no "control" one way or the other.

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Are threats of eternal consequences imposed by God at least as serious as threats imposed by the state during this fleeting mortal existence?

As a matter of faith, yes.  I can choose to believe in these eternal consequences, or not.  I can choose to act in accordance with these beliefs, or not.

In contrast, the State can and does compel compliance with the law, regardless of whether I agree with and/or "accept" such laws.  These laws are imposed on me regardless of whether I agree with them or not.

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It sounds like you don’t believe the Church’s leaders are God’s official representatives and that they don’t speak for God.

This is not remotely accurate.

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It sounds like you don’t really believe there will be eternal consequences for disobeying the commandments.

I believe this a lot.

Boy, you have been here for years and years and years, and have spent thousands of hours writing about us, and yet you are dependably inaccurate, unfair and distorted in your pronouncements about us.

6 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It sounds like you think that while we should be afraid of being held accountable before the courts, we have no reason to be afraid of being held accountable before God. 

Nope.  Broadly speaking, I think a Latter-day Saint can have three co-existing gradient motivations for obeying God, all of which are prescribed in scripture and prophetic counsel:

The most basic one is to obey Him out of fear.  Mostly fear of adverse consequence, but also fear of offending a perfectly just God and incurring His condemnation.  Broadly speaking, though, this sentiment is overshadowed by the Plan of Salvation, which speaks of three tiers of glory, the lowest of which I believe surpasses our ability to comprehend in terms of its wonder.  Those who utterly reject Christ will suffer for their own sins, and will then be relegated to this lowest state of glory.  Only a very few, in my view, will ever attain the level of knowledge requisite for becoming a Son of Perdition.  I obey God based on some "fear," but mostly based on something more, namely...

The second type of motivation is obedience based on hope of reward.  I admit it, I really want to be with my wife and children and the rest of my family in the hereafter.  I want to experience what is only hinted at in 1 Corinthians 2:9: "Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."  I believe that our Heavenly Father is the type of being described here:

Quote

The prophets have taught us that God is the Almighty Ruler of the universe. God dwells in heaven (see D&C 20:17). Through His Son, Jesus Christ, He created the heavens and the earth and all things that are in them (see 3 Nephi 9:15; Moses 2:1). He made the moon, the stars, and the sun. He organized this world and gave it form, motion, and life. He filled the air and the water with living things. He covered the hills and plains with all kinds of animal life. He gave us day and night, summer and winter, seedtime and harvest. He made man in His own image to be a ruler over His other creations (see Genesis 1:26–27).

God is the Supreme and Absolute Being in whom we believe and whom we worship. He is “the Great Parent of the universe,” and He “looks upon the whole of the human family with a fatherly care and paternal regard” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 39).
...

Because we are made in His image (see Moses 2:26; 6:9), we know that our bodies are like His body. His eternal spirit is housed in a tangible body of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22). God’s body, however, is perfected and glorified, with a glory beyond all description.

God is perfect. He is a God of righteousness, with attributes such as love, mercy, charity, truth, power, faith, knowledge, and judgment. He has all power. He knows all things. He is full of goodness.

All good things come from God. Everything that He does is to help His children become like Him. He has said, “Behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

Which brings me to the third type of motivation, which is to obey God because we love Him.

Having been a father for the last 26+ years, I have begun to perceive, in a very limited sense, the feelings God has for us.  When I think of my children, I hope they are happy, and that they do things which will bring them happiness, and that they will avoid things that bring sorrow and pain to themselves or others.  I don't feel this way about them because I fear some punishment or hope for some reward, but because I love them.  I am a deeply flawed person, but the closest I have come to charity, the "pure love of Christ," is the regard I have for my wife and children.

Heavenly Father is perfect.  I am far from it, but I choose to believe that He intended me to become a husband and father so that I could start to pursue higher and holier motivations and actions.

I believe all three motivations (Fear of Punishment, Hope of Reward, Love of God) are appropriate in their sphere and element, but surely they are intended to complement and corroborate each other.  In all of these, however, we retain our free will, our ability to choose.  God will not override it, so neither He nor His Church are interested in "controlling" us.  If I am to obey God, it will be a matter of belief and choice, not coercion/control.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

 

Well, 100% of the stars of the Truman show successfully escaped.

Great non answer.