Church and control

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

You thinking this proves how manipulated you really are.

Are you claiming leaders don’t believe what they teach?

Maybe you believing that shows how manipulated you are by antimormon propaganda.

See how useful and civil such accusations are?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

But they do teach paradise/spirit prison and hell trichotomy prior to judgment.  Someone who refuses to repent can’t avoid hell for a time at least. Just as someone who breaks the law will be in jail for a time (except in the case of life without parole or the death penalty).

So do you see God controlling behavior and not the Church?  And just because the Church uses the threat of God does not mean it controls behavior.

An analogy would be someone who threatens they will call the cops?  That person is not controlling someone’s behaviourby threatening them, but allowing them freedom to choose behaviours?

Edited November 19, 2024 by Calm

[teddyaware]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

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.  

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.

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.

This is not remotely accurate.

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.

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:

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

This has got to be one of the most brilliant posts I’ve ever had the pleasure of reading on this board! Further, the comments that prompted your brilliant insights and powerful responses serves to graphically illustrate how that after the human mind loses the inspiration Holy Spirit it becomes a distorted jumble of negativity and unproductive ideas that are devoid of joy and the uplifting power of eternal truth.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

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.

Yes.  When I told my four-year-old son not to touch the hot stove, I was not "threatening" him.  Him getting burned was, by natural law, the consequence of touching the stove.

So it is, I think, with our salvific destiny.  I believe God is subject to eternal laws, which include consequences.  

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

If you choose to believe, only then you accept certain spiritual realities.

And even then, those "spiritual realities" remain matters of faith, not demonstrated fact. 

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

Punishment for disobedience is not arbitrary but is tied to natural consequences, like separation, for example.

Yep.  D&C 132 states that familial relationships, left to their own, do not survive death, but that God has provided a means to preserve them into the eternities.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

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. 

Yes.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

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.

This is mostly a correct assessment of what I think.  The State has the clear and present power and capacity to compel obedience, to override free will.

The Church has no such power.  It can never compel obedience or override free will.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

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. 

Yes.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

The church does not use coercive means to enforce these consequences since they are the result of personal agency, not coercion.

Yes.  Yes.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

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).

And even then, the Latter-day Saint conceptualization of "hell" is quite different from broad Christian generalizations of the concept.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

You might argue that the threat of eternal punishment is controlling because it manipulates people's choices through fear.

And yet that fear is entirely contingent upon belief and acceptance of the "threat of eternal punishment," which believe the individual can choose to set aside at any time for any reason or no reason at all.

Meanwhile, the threat of punishment by the State is not contingent on the individual's belief and acceptance.  You and I are subject to secular laws regardless of what we think about them, and the State can and does compel compliance with them, and can override our free will regarding them.

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

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.

Yes.  And if the individual wants to abandon that context, he can.  Indeed, he can entirely sever his relationship with the Church and its influence/authority over him.  And the Church can't do anything about that.

Meanwhile, the individual cannot choose disregard the context of secular law, nor can he sever his relationship with the State (except by moving outside its boundaries, in which case he enters a compulsory relationship with some other State).

1 hour ago, Pyreaux said:

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.

Broadly, yes.  Accepting the Church's doctrines is a matter of choice, not compulsion.  Comporting one's actions to those doctrines is a matter of choice, not compulsion.  Obedience is volitional, not compulsory.  The Church does not override free will.

Thank you for your efforts here. 

-Smac

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

Sovereign citizens don’t believe in the power of the state, yet will be cast into prison if they break laws, even while denying the State has a right to do that.

But isn’t it the same when you view the big picture of all of life, both now and the hereafter?  Nonbelievers may not believe in hell, but if they do not eventually repent they will end up there?

Even if one does not accept the Church as acting as God’s agents in this as far as issuing warnings…such as code enforcement operating as agents of the state might issue warning citations, but not act to enforce cleanup themselves…if they are truly agents of God, aren’t their warnings part of God’s process?

[Calm]

49 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I can choose to believe that these eternal consequences will occur…

Perhaps an analogy would be poison warnings.  Just because the warning is there threatening death does not mean the company who placed the warning on the package is controlling behavior or even attempting to control behavior, though no doubt they would prefer no one eat the poison.

Prophets are sending out warnings of hell, but they did not create hell nor did they define what gets you there even if they are truly God’s agents. And if one believes the Restored Gospel, Hell is more a natural consequence of behavior imo like dying if consuming rat poison is than an arbitrary punishment like $130 for blowing through a stop sign.

Would this be a correct view of your view, @smac97?

However, if one believes there is no God, using the analogy above, the Church issuing warnings about sins could be viewed like a company going into a store and putting warning signs on competitors’ products to discourage people from buying them. One could say behavior is at least being manipulated in this case?  Attempted since there is no guarantee people will pay attention to the warnings. 

But if the company truly believes the products are dangerous, but are wrong, it seems their putting labels on the products is not an attempt to control, but an attempt to help save lives, misguided as it is.  Is it still control in that case?

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Quote

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

Sovereign citizens don’t believe in the power of the state, yet will be cast into prison if they break laws, even while denying the State has a right to do that.

Yes, that's my point.  SovCits cannot "opt out" of the secular laws of the State.  Latter-day Saints, on the other hand, can opt out of the doctrines and commandments in the Restored Gospel.

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

But isn’t it the same when you view the big picture of all of life, both now and the hereafter?  

Respectfully, I think they are not the same.  The Church cannot and does not compel obedience or override an individual's free will. 

Conversely, the State can and does compel obedience and override free will.

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Nonbelievers may not believe in hell, but if they do not eventually repent they will end up there?

If so, it will not be because the Church or God has overridden their free will or compelled their obedience.

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Even if one does not accept the Church as acting as God’s agents in this as far as issuing warnings…such as code enforcement operating as agents of the state might issue warning citations, but not act to enforce cleanup themselves…if they are truly agents of God, aren’t their warnings part of God’s process?

Yes.  But that process is not reasonably characterized as "control."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mfbnew]

On 11/13/2024 at 2:54 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

From a non-believing secular position. Sure. The church exerts zero control. I on the other hand interact with members everyday who wholeheartedly believe that church leaders speak for God. These members act and vote accordingly. This influences everything from family interactions to school policy, to state law. The church absolutely exerts control there. objectively. 
 

Further, if I was a believing member myself, it would exert so much more control. You say “that’s it”. For many members, church approval is THE most important thing because it represents Divine approval. 

Honestly I see very little of that in California.

Here if "church standards" conflict with what one feels, one walks.

I don't know if it is a difference in the two cultures or that hereabouts most members are converts.   They found the church, and often received some flak from the family for joining what they see is a "cult".   Even kids born into the church here who might become the kinds of adults you illustrate would be considered "weird"- or an old fashioned phrase that still captures the feeling- a "goody two- shoes".

They are the ones who never have smoked dope or been drunk.  And as a teen there must be something wrong with you if you are a virgin.   Pick any class and you are probably the only LDS kid in it.

A little "Utah" might be nice for a change.

[Teancum]

On 11/15/2024 at 6:34 PM, smac97 said:

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

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

It seems to me that this is the crux of the discussion here. You seem to want to construe the work control is something in totality. Something that does not allow choice. That certainly is not the way I construe the word in relation to the church. Perhaps strong influence or undue persuasion is better?  I know you reject the notion that the church exercises techniques designed  to strongly influence our behavior and our choices (I will avoid using the term mind control out of respect for @Calm's position) but IMO, and based on what I have read about such techniques, the church tilts to the right side of the bell curve on the amount of such techniques or methodology it uses.  

So yes, defining the word control, then I agree with you.  But I doubt anybody but you on this thread is construing the word in this way.

[Teancum]

On 11/16/2024 at 2:59 PM, 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

Now it seems to me that you have based your position on as straw man that nobody is arguing for. 

[Teancum]

On 11/16/2024 at 3:06 PM, smac97 said:

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.

But the church claims to speak for God and hold the keys of God's priesthood to bind and seal on earth.  The Church teaches things that for believers, has impact for good or ill on humans both in this life and the hereafter. There is a threat of loss of family connections, where one will spend eternity and what one will be doing.  All these impact in influence choices and believing Latter-day Saint makes.  It is nonsensical to argue otherwise. Control is defined in the dictionary as such:

the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.

"the whole operation is under the control of a production manager"

 

I don't think anybody defines or construed control in the narrow way you are and I suspect you know that.  You have redefined the word in order to score a win in an argument.  But based on the above definition the Church certainly imposes controls on its believing members.  Breaking away from that is not a simple thing and is often difficult. Many who may make a different choice if the mechanisms of controlling influence do not because of this. If the control/influence mechanisms were less or softer I suspect the church would lose even more members than it already does.

[MustardSeed]

On 11/18/2024 at 12:42 PM, smac97 said:

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.

They do not.

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

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

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.

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.

"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.  

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.  

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").

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

If a wife leaves a “controlling” husband, he was never controlling? 
Likewise, is a “controlling wife” merely a “strongly influencing wife” unless she has a gun to his head?
 

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

So yes, defining the word control, then I agree with you.  But I doubt anybody but you on this thread is construing the word in this way.

 I suspect Smac simply enjoys a lively discussion. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

But the church claims to speak for God and hold the keys of God's priesthood to bind and seal on earth.  The Church teaches things that for believers, has impact for good or ill on humans both in this life and the hereafter.

I have acknowledged this several times: 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.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

There is a threat of loss of family connections, where one will spend eternity and what one will be doing. 

I disagree with this characterization.  If a neighbor tells/warns me that jumping off my roof will cause me serious injury, there is no context in which it would make sense to say that my neighbor "threatened" me with serious injury.  If I thereafter jump off the roof, I am responsible for my injury, not my neighbor.

Moreover, the Church's overarching emphasis is on preserving family relationships, not severing them.  Hence the emphasis on the scriptural elements which speak of this (such as D&C 132), the encouragement to attend the temple, to be sealed, to live righteously, to repent, and so  on.

The lyrics to the Primary song are:

"Family's can be together forever, through Heavenly Father's plan..."

And not:

"You better hop to, or the institutional Church will step in and take you family away from you in the eternities..."

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

All these impact in influence choices and believing Latter-day Saint makes.  It is nonsensical to argue otherwise.

I have not "argue{d} otherwise."  I have, instead, repeatedly acknowledged that the Church "influence{s} {our} choices."  My point, again, is that this influence is not reasonably characterized as "control."

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Control is defined in the dictionary as such:

the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.

"the whole operation is under the control of a production manager"

 

I don't think anybody defines or construed control in the narrow way you are and I suspect you know that.  You have redefined the word in order to score a win in an argument.  But based on the above definition the Church certainly imposes controls on its believing members. 

I have previously acknowledged that my comments about the concept of "control" in the context of the Church and whether it "controls" us go beyond the basic dictionary definition.  I do that for your sake as much as mine, since your position makes no sense if your usage of "control" is limited to the strict dictionary definition.

Look at your presence on this board.  You have spent thousands of hours writing thousands of posts trying to "influence or direct people's behavior."  You are trying to persuade people toward your point of view regarding the Church, its doctrines, policies, history, etc.  You have every right to do this, but I do not believe you would characterize yourself as having "control" over me or anyone else on this board.  If you do believe this, please say as much so I can prepare a hearty guffaw.  Alternatively, if you do not believe this, then you probably need to concede the point and acknowledge that the Church's influence is not reasonably characterized as control.

It appears some dictionary definitions can accommodate this differentiation:

Oxford Learner's Dictionary:

Quote

the power to make decisions about how a country, an area, an organization, etc. is run

•  control of somebody/something The party expects to gain control of the council in the next election.
• Militants have taken control of the town.
• The Democrats have lost control of Congress.
• A military junta seized control of the country.
• The founders eventually regained control of the company.
•  control over somebody/something He defended the tradition of civilian control over the military.
•  in the control of somebody/something The city is in the control of enemy forces.
•  under… control The area remains under international control.

Is the Church's "influence" over its members akin to militants "tak{ing} control" of a town, a military junta "seiz{ing} control of the country," etc.?  No.

Is the "influence" of anti-Mormons reasonably characterized as "control" in ways akin to the above?  Also no.

American Heritage Dictionary:

Quote

1. To exercise authoritative or dominating influence over; direct: The majority party controls the legislative agenda.

Is the Church's influence in its members' lives "dominating" (as in "To control, govern, or rule by superior authority or power ... To exert a supreme, guiding influence on or over")?  I think not.

Collins Dictionary:

Quote

The people who control an organization or place have the power to take all the important decisions about the way that it is run.
...
To control a piece of equipment, process, or system means to make it work in the way that you want it to work.
...
 

Does the Church "have the power to take all the important decisions" in its members' lives?  Nope.

Does the Church "make" its members do and not do what it wants?  Nope.

Cambridge Dictionary:

Quote

the power to make a person or thing do what you want

Does the Church have the "power" to "make" its members "do what {the Church" want{s}"?  Nope.

Quote

Breaking away from that is not a simple thing and is often difficult.

I got off my mission in 1995, and have been talking to disaffected Latter-day Saints and Anti-Mormons ever since.  In all these nearly three decades, I have read many, many things which you and yours have said which are calculated to offend, provoke, profane, malign, etc. doctrines and principles and beliefs I hold most sacred, and you denigrate and insult people in whom I hold in high regard. 

These years of interacting with people who are actively speaking and acting against my faith has not been "a simple thing," and has "often {been} difficult."  But it would be unreasonable for me to characterize you and yours as "controlling" me.  You don't.  You influence me, sure, but you and yours cannot override my free will, nor can you and yours compel me to do or not do anything.  My free will, my agency, remains intact.  If I ever leave the Church, it will not because you and yours "controlled" me and made me do it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 20, 2024 by smac97

[MustardSeed]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If I ever leave the Church, it will not because you and yours "controlled" me and made me do it.

He has no authority over you.  Nor does your neighbor.  But your church authorities “Do” have authority over you. I know I have felt that authority especially being a woman. 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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

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.

It seems to me that this is the crux of the discussion here.

Okay.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

You seem to want to construe the work control is something in totality.  Something that does not allow choice.

I am construing the word control in the context of whether the Church "controls" its members, and I am characterizing that issue as whether or not the Church has the power or capacity to override our free will, to compel/coerce us to do or not do things regardless of our capacity to choose.

I submit that the Church lacks any such capacity, and instead has expressly disclaimed such in its doctrines (see, e.g., 2 Nephi 2:27, D&C 134:10).

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

That certainly is not the way I construe the word in relation to the church. Perhaps strong influence or undue persuasion is better? 

By that reckoning, anti-mormons "control" Latter-day Saints by "strong{ly} influenc{ing}" them.  Do you believe this?

As for "undue persuasion," I don't know what that means.  What is it about the Church's influential or persuasive capacity that is "undue" (as in, "unwarranted, excessive, inappropriate, unjustifiable, improper")?  Membership in the Church is an entirely voluntary thing.  The Church only has as much influence in a person's life as he chooses to concede.  And the individual can circumscribe or totally withdraw that concession at any time for any reason, or for no reason at all.  And the Church can't do anything to override that decision.  The only thing it can do is to restrict or, in extreme circumstances, remove the individual's membership.  This is the same level of "influence" that the individual has over the Church, but that's not "control" either.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

I know you reject the notion that the church exercises techniques designed  to strongly influence our behavior and our choices (I will avoid using the term mind control out of respect for @Calm's position)

Actually, I think you are better off not using "mind control" because it exposes the absurdity of your position.  The Church obviously does not have physical control over its members, or political control, or financial control, etc.  Nor does the Church have "control" over our minds, only influence and persuasion.

I don't blame you for shying away from explicitly asserting the Church exerts "mind control" over its members.  It's a silly and embarrassing claim (though one @Analytics is keen to advance).

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

but IMO, and based on what I have read about such techniques, the church tilts to the right side of the bell curve on the amount of such techniques or methodology it uses.  

When anti-Mormons use "mind control" as well?  When they seek to "influence" or "persuade" Latter-day Saints to leave the Church, or non-members to stay away from it?

Or is this another one of those "It's only bad when the Mormons do it" kind of things?

You and your compatriots actively speak and act against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  And you appear to be having some real success in influencing/persuading Latter-day Saints to leave their faith.  But you are not doing so by overriding their free will, by coercing them into leaving.  You are not exerting "mind control" over them.

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

So yes, defining the word control, then I agree with you.  But I doubt anybody but you on this thread is construing the word in this way.

I dunno.  Some might be.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

On 11/17/2024 at 2:35 PM, Calm said:

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.

I would like to see this. I am skeptical.

[MustardSeed]

26 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

He has no authority over you.  Nor does your neighbor.  But your church authorities “Do” have authority over you. I know I have felt that authority especially being a woman. 

Furthermore I believe this is why we have stringent harassment rules at work protecting employees from superiors.  I’m sure anyone can quit a job if their boss flirts or says something inappropriate but it gets confusing for the employee due to implied control issues. 
I think we all understand what’s happening but it has been a fun conversation that for me has honestly solidified for me what I believe. 

[Senator]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Does the Church have the "power" to "make" its members "do what {the Church" want{s}"?  Nope.

 

No, but the doctrines and teachings of the church get distilled by the collective, cultural mindset of its adherents.  This can have a very powerful, even coercive effect on some who might think to break from the expectations.  

I experienced this as a young 19 year old facing the "decision" whether to serve a mission back in the mid 80s.  I put decision in quotes to indicate that it wasn't much of a decision at all, as much as it was a for gone conclusion.  "Well, of course you'll serve a mission, right?  It's your priesthood duty, and a commandment."

Edited November 20, 2024 by Senator

[Maestrophil]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

Perhaps strong influence or undue persuasion is better? 

Strong influence isn't necessarily a negative thing.  And who defines what 'undue' is?  

I think we talk a lot when the answer simply boils down to what one believes is true.  Am I exerting undue influence on my kids when I make them brush their teeth or face a consequence?  Well, if you believe that teeth brushing is great and they will lose their teeth early and cause lots of cost and misery if they don't, then no, it's not undue at all.  Conversely, if you think brushing does no good and accordingly, is a waste of time and a lie - then the influence and consequence seem ridiculous.  

So I think we tend to go in circles around the topic when it all boils down to "is it true".  If it is true, then why wouldn't all the influence in the world be used to get people to experience the joy and hope of eternal increase and peace?  If it's all lie, then of course it's just manipulation for its own sake.

I choose faith - and the benefits it brings.  I empathize with and don't villainize those who can't.

Edited November 20, 2024 by Maestrophil

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

Quote

Does the Church have the "power" to "make" its members "do what {the Church" want{s}"?  Nope.

No, but the doctrines and teachings of the church get distilled by the collective, cultural mindset of its adherents.  This can have a very powerful, even coercive effect on some who might think to break from the expectations.

The same can be said for efforts by anti-Mormons to persuade members of the Church to leave it.  And yet I don't think these anti-Mormons will claim they "control" anyone, or that they are being "coercive" in their efforts."

Also, I respectfully disagree that the Church's teachings have a "coercive effect." 

The Church strongly emphasizes free will, agency, volition, etc.  Again, see 2 Nephi 2:27 ("free to choose...").  

The Church specifically disclaims any power to punish members or deprive them of money, property, liberty or life (see D&C 134:10).

The Church is constrained by secular law from "coercing" its members into doing or not doing things.

The Church cannot and does not override the free will of its members.

The Church has no mechanisms to coerce members into complying with the teachings and commandments in the Church.

I am not aware of any lawsuit brought against the Church alleging and proving that the Church "coerced" one of its members to do or not do something.  And if and when that happens, I would likely end up agreeing with the plaintiff's position.

1 hour ago, Senator said:

I experienced this as a young 19 year old facing the "decision" whether to serve a mission back in the mid 80s. 

So did I, in the early 90s, tho.

I was not coerced by the Church, nor by family members, friends, etc.  Influenced and encouraged, yes.  Coerced, no.  I made my own choice.

1 hour ago, Senator said:

I put decision in quotes to indicate that it wasn't much of a decision at all, as much as it was a for gone conclusion.  "Well, of course you'll serve a mission, right?  It's your priesthood duty, and a commandment."

Respectfully, I do not see this as overriding your free will, as coercing you to serve a mission.

I am currently married to a wonderful woman and I have six children (five of which are now adults).  My parents, my in-laws, my siblings, my friends, the Church, etc. all have pretty clear and potent expectations about my behavior toward my family.  They all expect me to provide for my family, to protect them, to nurture and strengthen my relationships with them, to treat my wife with respect and honor, and to work with her as an equal partner, and to love and care for my children, and to try to teach them good principles, and to encourage them to be good people.  I am also expected to abstain from harmful or abusive behaviors.

None of this is "coercive."  I could choose to treat my wife with unkindness and disrespect.  I could ignore my children.  I could withdraw any support or input for them once they become adults.  I could cut them out of my life entirely.  I could divorce my wife for any reason or no reason at all.  I could do any or all of these things and there isn't a thing my extended family members, or the Church, could do about it except limit or sever their relationship with me.  This is not coercion, not in my book.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

None of this is "coercive."  I could choose to treat my wife with unkindness and disrespect.  I could ignore my children.  I could withdraw any support or input for them once they become adults.  I could cut them out of my life entirely.  I could divorce my wife for any reason or no reason at all.  I could do any or all of these things and there isn't a thing my extended family members, or the Church, could do about it except limit or sever their relationship with me.  This is not coercion, not in my book.

Thanks,

-Smac

Again.  She has no authority over you.  

[Senator]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Respectfully, I do not see this as overriding your free will, as coercing you to serve a mission.

 

I did, and still do.  Did it override my free will? No.  But I felt a large dose pressure that rose, I felt to the level of coercion, where merely entertaining the thought of not serving was an unbearable one. 
That was my lived experience.  Can you accept that?   

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

If a wife leaves a “controlling” husband, he was never controlling? 
Likewise, is a “controlling wife” merely a “strongly influencing wife” unless she has a gun to his head?
 

 I suspect Smac simply enjoys a lively discussion. 

Good examples!

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, Senator said:

I did, and still do.  Did it override my free will? No.  But I felt a large dose pressure that rose, I felt to the level of coercion, where merely entertaining the thought of not serving was an unbearable one. 
That was my lived experience.  Can you accept that?   

Our reputations, our family connections, our friend connections, our neighborhood connections, even our employee/employer connections in a heavily LDS or other religious populated area, are on the line. It definitely can feel controlling to individuals in religions that believe they are the only true way to God and one must adhere to their ways in order to feel accepted. It controls our feelings of freedom to be who we are because of being afraid of not being accepted. Maybe control is the wrong word. But it does confine some and therefore controls some. 

When getting a temple recommend current, I remember bringing up some of my worries over what I'd not known concerning JS and polygamy. The gentlemen interviewing me, said it's okay to wonder, but not to question. That felt like the institution had control over me, since this person was acting for the church or called divinely to the position of authority. 

Edited November 20, 2024 by Tacenda

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, Senator said:

Quote

Quote

I put decision in quotes to indicate that it wasn't much of a decision at all, as much as it was a for gone conclusion.  "Well, of course you'll serve a mission, right?  It's your priesthood duty, and a commandment."

Respectfully, I do not see this as overriding your free will, as coercing you to serve a mission.

I did, and still do.  Did it override my free will? No. 

Could you elaborate?  On the one hand, you state that you think you were, by family/church expectations regarding a purportedly foregone conclusion, "coerced" into a serving a mission.  But on the other hand, you state that these family/church expectations did not override your free will.

I guess my view of "coercion" is that its hallmark, its distinguishing and sine qua non attribute, is its deprivation or overriding of free will.  Here is the federal statutory definition:

Quote

coercion

(2) The term “coercion” means— (A) threats of serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; (B) any scheme, plan, or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any person; or (C) the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process.

And here is the (or "a") regular dictionary definition:

Quote

the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats

And here is the Wikipedia entry:

Quote

Coercion involves compelling a party to act in an involuntary manner by the use of threats, including threats to use force against that party.^{[1][2][need quotation to verify][3]} It involves a set of forceful actions which violate the free will of an individual in order to induce a desired response. These actions may include extortion, blackmail, or even torture and sexual assault.

Common-law systems codify the act of violating a law while under coercion as a duress crime.
...
The concepts of coercion and persuasion are similar, but various factors distinguish the two. These include the intent, the willingness to cause harm, the result of the interaction, and the options available to the coerced party.^{[4]: 126 
...}
In psychological coercion, the threatened injury regards the victim's relationships with other people. The most obvious example is blackmail, where the threat consists of the dissemination of damaging information. However, many other types are possible e.g. "emotional blackmail", which typically involves threats of rejection from or disapproval by a peer-group, or creating feelings of guilt/obligation via a display of anger or hurt by someone whom the victim loves or respects.

I suspect that neither the Church nor family members issued any "threats" against you in order to compel you to serve as a missionary.

Do you believe that you were "coerced" through "extortion" or "blackmail"?

The last paragraph in the Wikipedia entry references "'emotional blackmail', which typically involves threats of rejection from or disapproval by a peer-group, or creating feelings of guilt/obligation via a display of anger or hurt by someone whom the victim loves or respects."  But per this note:

Quote

Daniel Miller objects that in popular psychology the idea of emotional blackmail has been misused as a defense against any form of fellow-feeling or consideration for others.^[24]

Labeling of this dynamic with inflammatory terms such as "blackmail" and "manipulation" may not be so helpful as it is both polarizing and it implies premeditation and malicious intent which is often not the case. Controlling behavior and being controlled is a transaction between two people with both playing a part.^[1]

I face strong social pressures and influences to be a good husband and father.  But am I being coerced into it?  Nope.  I think the people who are exerting this influence (my parents and other family members, friends, the Church, etc.) are doing so not to control or coerce me, but because they well and truly believe that me being a good husband and father will be to my and my family's benefit.

I suspect family members and friends, and the Church, who encouraged me to serve a mission did so with similar intentions.  But even then, I never felt compelled or coerced.

44 minutes ago, Senator said:

But I felt a large dose pressure that rose, I felt to the level of coercion, where merely entertaining the thought of not serving was an unbearable one. 
That was my lived experience.  Can you accept that?   

I am fine with your "lived experience," but I'm not quite willing to co along with the conclusion that the Church "coerced" you.

Thanks,

-Smac