Church and control

[smac97]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

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.

Again.  She has no authority over you.  

She has as much authority as I choose to let her have, which is pretty substantial.  When my wife speaks, I listen.  When she asks me to do something, I do it unless I think there is a pretty good reason not to.

This last Sunday morning I and my wife went over to the house of a neighbor lady, a young divorced mother, to help her liberate a woodpecker from the interior of a hollow column on her front porch.  My wife and the neighbor stood and chatted while I used my tools to cut a hole in the base on the column.  The bird, though, was turned the other way, and for a few minutes did not seem to even be aware of the hole.  I then put on a leather glove and reached in to see if I could touch the bird.  I could, and did, but it started to squawk.  After a few seconds, my wife asked me what I was doing, and I explained that I felt the bird was sufficiently small for me to catch it in my gloved hand, pin its wings to its body, and then pull it out of the hole.  My wife expressed concern about the bird, and suggested that I just leave it alone.  I was still trying to grab the bird, so I said I would keep trying a bit longer.  After another 20 seconds or so, my wife said "Spencer, leave it alone.  Take your hand out.  The bird will come out on its own."  

I complied with her instruction.  I complied with it even though I thought she was wrong (or that my approach for liberating the bird was better).  I complied even though I thought the bird might never come out on its own (it did a few hours later).  I complied even though I thought I was seconds away from freeing the bird.  I complied because despite these thoughts going through my head in the moment, I have had enough experience with my wife to know that following her advice and input is pretty much always better than not doing so.  She is smart, she is well-informed, and she has my best interests at heart.  So I grant her "authority" over me.  It's not insuperable, but it's there.  It's negotiated and rebuttable.  And because that authority has these attributes, I cannot say that my wife "controls" or "coerces" me, even though she has authority over me.

So it is, I think, with the Church.  The Church has "authority" over me, but only so much as I choose to give to it.  I remain a Latter-day Saint by choice.  By the exercise of free will.  I can end that association at any time for any reason or no reason whatsoever.  And the Church has no physical or any other type of power to override my free will choice.  Because of these things, I reject the notion that it "controls" or "coerces" me in any appreciable sense. 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[MustardSeed]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

The Church has "authority" over me, but only so much as I choose to give to it.  I remain a Latter-day Saint by choice.  By the exercise of free will. 

What about an employee in an office where a superior wants sexual favors? In your view do you expect the employee to use free Will to resist those requests? Or do you support laws that are in place to protect?

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

She has as much authority as I choose to let her have

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Quote

The Church has "authority" over me, but only so much as I choose to give to it.  I remain a Latter-day Saint by choice.  By the exercise of free will. 

What about an employee in an office where a superior wants sexual favors?

That is terrible, wrong, illegal, etc.  And an abuse of the employer-employee relationship.  And it is implicitly coercive, as denying "superior {who} wants sexual favors" would reasonably be construed as imperiling the employee's ability to keep her job.

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

In your view do you expect the employee to use free Will to resist those requests? Or do you support laws that are in place to protect?

I support both, as i do not see them as mutually exclusive.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But even then, I never felt compelled or coerced.

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

 

That’s fine. I don’t need you to. My experience stands.

[MustardSeed]

Smac I think I’ll leave the conversation be.  It’s a bit frustrating for me. Thanks. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

She has as much authority as I choose to let her have, which is pretty substantial.  When my wife speaks, I listen.  When she asks me to do something, I do it unless I think there is a pretty good reason not to.

This last Sunday morning I and my wife went over to the house of a neighbor lady, a young divorced mother, to help her liberate a woodpecker from the interior of a hollow column on her front porch.  My wife and the neighbor stood and chatted while I used my tools to cut a hole in the base on the column.  The bird, though, was turned the other way, and for a few minutes did not seem to even be aware of the hole.  I then put on a leather glove and reached in to see if I could touch the bird.  I could, and did, but it started to squawk.  After a few seconds, my wife asked me what I was doing, and I explained that I felt the bird was sufficiently small for me to catch it in my gloved hand, pin its wings to its body, and then pull it out of the hole.  My wife expressed concern about the bird, and suggested that I just leave it alone.  I was still trying to grab the bird, so I said I would keep trying a bit longer.  After another 20 seconds or so, my wife said "Spencer, leave it alone.  Take your hand out.  The bird will come out on its own."  

I complied with her instruction.  I complied with it even though I thought she was wrong (or that my approach for liberating the bird was better).  I complied even though I thought the bird might never come out on its own (it did a few hours later).  I complied even though I thought I was seconds away from freeing the bird.  I complied because despite these thoughts going through my head in the moment, I have had enough experience with my wife to know that following her advice and input is pretty much always better than not doing so.  She is smart, she is well-informed, and she has my best interests at heart.  So I grant her "authority" over me.  It's not insuperable, but it's there.  It's negotiated and rebuttable.  And because that authority has these attributes, I cannot say that my wife "controls" or "coerces" me, even though she has authority over me.

So it is, I think, with the Church.  The Church has "authority" over me, but only so much as I choose to give to it.  I remain a Latter-day Saint by choice.  By the exercise of free will.  I can end that association at any time for any reason or no reason whatsoever.  And the Church has no physical or any other type of power to override my free will choice.  Because of these things, I reject the notion that it "controls" or "coerces" me in any appreciable sense. 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I think the difference between the authority of your wife and that of the church is that the church actually does have power to control your actions and your wife doesn't.  The church can keep you out of the temple, for example.  It can keep you out of a meetinghouse even if necessary.  It can stop you from praying in meetings or holding callings and even restrict which hallways you are allowed to go down.

The authority of the church is not only symbolic while the authority of your wife is solely symbolic.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the difference between the authority of your wife and that of the church is that the church actually does have power to control your actions and your wife doesn't. 

Respectfully, it does not.  The Church does not "control" my actions, it only influences them.  The same goes with my wife.

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The church can keep you out of the temple, for example. 

And my wife could divorce me, or emotionally distance herself from me.

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It can keep you out of a meetinghouse even if necessary.

That's a matter of property ownership.  If my wife owned real property in her own name, she could exclude me from it.

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It can stop you from praying in meetings or holding callings and even restrict which hallways you are allowed to go down.

Again, all this is a matter of property ownership.

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The authority of the church is not only symbolic while the authority of your wife is solely symbolic.

Respectfully, I disagree.  I think the authority the Church has over me is actual, not merely "symbolic."  Same goes with my wife.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

8 hours ago, Teancum said:

Perhaps strong influence or undue persuasion is better? 

I believe those are more precise terms for what you are describing and will focus the discussion better on the issues you see because we won’t be making assumptions that you are inflating what the Church can and cannot do.

Edited November 20, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 11/18/2024 at 2:13 PM, smac97 said:

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

Of course you are not. It challenges your bias. It challenges your testimony. It challenges your position on control. Unless something confirms your bias it seems to me you are never impressed with it.

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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

Of course you are not. It challenges your bias.

It's not that.  I am not impressed with it on its merits.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

It challenges your testimony.

No, it does not.

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

It challenges your position on control.

I have considered Hassan's model when developing my "position on control."

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Unless something confirms your bias it seems to me you are never impressed with it.

Well, no.  There have been plenty of instances where I have acknowledged errors, mistakes, etc., by the Church, including from critical sources.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

I was touring the COB and came across this office. 

 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Teancum said:

I would like to see this. I am skeptical.

Let’s make sure you understand my position as I am still not inclined to search on the Church’s website.  I am not saying that this occurs in cases where something directly contradicts church teachings such as it’s okay to move in with one’s fiancé if one feels inspired to.  It’s more along the lines of adapting commandments to one’s needs…such as a young mother putting off genealogy until her kids allow her more free time even though there was a general conference talk emphasizing the command to do the work.  Or a Saint with health issues chooses not to attend the temple even though they could because the physical cost is seen as too high even though leaders in their ward are sharing they are inspired to get the ward more temple active.  Or in the past a couple putting off having children by choice because they prayed about it even though hearing teachings of not putting it off (the counsel is now in line with this, but wasn’t when I was a kid…which is one reason my mom had 5 kids instead of 3 and tanked her health).

Are you asking for examples of leaders saying this type of personal revelation is okay?  The change in policy for childbearing is one example.

Edited November 20, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

On 11/18/2024 at 5:43 PM, 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?

No. Because it is a specious argument with @smac97using a straw man definition of control in order to twist things to his point. It is nonsensical. But you should expect this from him. 

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

No. Because it is a specious argument with @smac97using a straw man definition of control in order to twist things to his point.

I think "control" in the sense that you are using it (compulsory, coercive, etc.) does not work relative to the Church's influence in the lives of its members.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

It is nonsensical.

Oh.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

But you should expect this from him. 

Thanks for filling your daily quota of ad hominem.   

Otherwise, no substantive response or rebuttal to what I have said.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 20, 2024 by smac97

[Mfbnew]

7 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

 I suspect Smac simply enjoys a lively discussion. 

Look at his avatar/ - "moniker" or whatever...

A guy suddenly upset or surprised at some new information.   What does that tell you about the person who would pick that to represent himself? 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Mfbnew said:

Quote

I suspect Smac simply enjoys a lively discussion. 

Look at his avatar/ - "moniker" or whatever...

I haven't even thought of that avatar in years.  I think I picked it around the time I signed up on this board, which happened to be around when I graduated from law school.  IIRC, this guy is a lawyer on The Simpsons.  

1 minute ago, Mfbnew said:

A guy suddenly upset or surprised at some new information.   

A guy who is a lawyer.

I've been on this board for 20 years.  Kinda hard to render me "upset or surprised" with "new information."

1 minute ago, Mfbnew said:

What does that tell you about the person who would pick that to represent himself? 

That 20 years ago he did a Google search for "lawyer logo" and thought the lawyer from The Simpsons would be slightly amusing as an avatar?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Mfbnew]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I haven't even thought of that avatar in years.  I think I picked it around the time I signed up on this board, which happened to be around when I graduated from law school.  IIRC, this guy is a lawyer on The Simpsons.  

A guy who is a lawyer.

I've been on this board for 20 years.  Kinda hard to render me "upset or surprised" with "new information."

That 20 years ago he did a Google search for "lawyer logo" and thought the lawyer from The Simpsons would be slightly amusing as an avatar?

Thanks,

-Smac

Uh....  Nevermind.  

 

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Respectfully, it does not.  The Church does not "control" my actions, it only influences them.  The same goes with my wife.

 

I had a response typed out but I erased it. Your definition of control is restricted so much that the only time it ever applies is if someone physically makes another person do something against their will.  You've essentially argued that control does not exist unless force also exists. 

So, besides your personal definition of the word being very frustrating to discuss (which you are seeing in the responses of both members and nonmembers at this point) it's also made any discussion a waste of time for you and anyone replying to you.

So from my end it's better to just acknowledge that you have a personal definition of the word control that is unique to your perspective and to leave it at that.  

Edited November 21, 2024 by bluebell

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I had a response typed out but I erased it. Your definition of control is restricted so much that the only time it ever applies is if someone physically makes another person do something against their will. 

No.  There are other forms of control as well.  Blackmail.  Extortion.  Undue influence.  These do not involve physical force.

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You've essentially argued that control does not exist unless force also exists. 

Don't think so.  

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So, besides your personal definition of the word being very frustrating to discuss (which you are seeing in the responses of both members and nonmembers at this point) it's also made any discussion a waste of time for you and anyone replying to you.

Okay.

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So from my end it's better to just acknowledge that you have a personal definition of the word control that is unique to your perspective and to leave it at that.  

Okay.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think "control" in the sense that you are using it (compulsory, coercive, etc.) does not work relative to the Church's influence in the lives of its members.

Oh.

Thanks for filling your daily quota of ad hominem.   

Otherwise, no substantive response or rebuttal to what I have said.

Thanks,

-Smac

I and others have addressed your straw man argument and distorted definition of control on this thread over and over. You just continue to use the word in a way nobody is using here. So don't pretend your position has not been addressed with substantive responses.

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

I would argue that "control" exists to the same degree that consequences can be imposed.  The more dire or permanent or severe the consequences that can be imposed by one entity upon an individual, the greater "control" that entity has over the individual.

In one sense, the Church can be said to exercise a great deal of control because it claims to be the conduit through which a host of eternal and everlasting consequences are enacted.  However, those consequences don't come to bear in this mortal life.  In fact, if we limit ourselves only to consequences in this mortal realm, the consequences the Church can impose are light and therefore the control it can exert is minimal.    

In the end, the amount of "control" that the Church can exert upon an individual is directly related to the weight an individual puts upon those eternal consequences.  For someone who places very little weight on those consequences (perhaps because he or she doesn't believe in them), then the Church has very little control over them.  But for someone who places a lot of weight on those eternal consequences, the amount of control that the Church can exert is much greater.    

Edited November 21, 2024 by Stormin' Mormon

[Rain]

5 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I would argue that "control" exists to the same degree that consequences can be imposed.  The more dire or permanent or severe the consequences that can be imposed by one entity upon an individual, the greater "control" that entity has over the individual.

In one sense, the Church can be said to exercise a great deal of control because it claims to be the conduit through which a host of eternal and everlasting consequences are enacted.  However, those consequences don't come to bear in this mortal life.  In fact, if we limit ourselves only to consequences in this mortal realm, the consequences the Church can impose are light and therefore the control it can exert is minimal.    

In the end, the amount of "control" that the Church can exert upon an individual is directly related to the weight an individual puts upon those eternal consequences.  For someone who places very little weight on those consequences (perhaps because he or she doesn't believe in them), then the Church has very little control over them.  But for someone who places a lot of weight on those eternal consequences, the amount of control that the Church can exert is much greater.    

I agree with this to a large extent.  The exception being that for those who have left it doesn't mean the control has just fallen away and little is left.  For some that is the truth, but for many the emotional and social effects are still there. 

For example, church is getting harder for me to attend, but I love my husband so I still go with him.  I can obviously choose not to go with him, but that would affect him which would affect me. 

Another example - I currently have tea in my home.  I've been using it for art projects in a class I'm taking.  It's interesting because as it sits there I think I could try it now, but I haven't.   First of all I really don't like hot drinks and more and more I regret when I drink anything, but plain water.  But mentally/emotionally I just can't drink the tea either. I go through thinking about if drinking it is wrong and why it would be wrong and conclude it wouldn't be wrong, yet I emotionally (not spiritually) feel it is still wrong. 

Edited November 21, 2024 by Rain

[Teancum]

On 11/18/2024 at 7:12 PM, smac97 said:

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.

Well this is what control is. Consequences and influence. The consequences for not complying are severe, in this life some, in the nest very much so. So strong influence with mechanisms in place to reinforce that influence. You are the one redefining the word in order to make your specious point.

[Teancum]

On 11/20/2024 at 10:02 AM, smac97 said:

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. 

Goodness. More of your cry baby over the top persecution complex hyperbole. Too bad if the truth hurts your feelings. I simply present things as I see them etc. Profanes, malign, denigrate?  Wow what a meany I am. Golly so many read this board and my nastiness about the church that I must be causing great damage.

But perhaps you should look in the mirror as to how you treat disaffected members like me. There is much that about the church that deserves criticism and some deserves to be disparaged. If that hurts your tender feeling oh well.

On 11/20/2024 at 10:02 AM, smac97 said:

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.

I don't claim that II have the one true religion, that God speaks to me and gives me his authority to bind on earth and heaven. I don't have the threat of negative eternal consequences if you don't follow what I say. I don't indoctrinate anyone at a young age to "Follow the Prophet, Follow the Prophet, follow the Prophet, HE KNOWS THE WAY!"  The list can go on but comparing me and my comments to the heavy handed influence the church imposes on its member is absurd.