The Church has a lot of control in our lives. It tells us what to eat (mostly what not to eat), what to wear (White shirts for men, “modest” dress for women), what ward to attend, even if you live closer to another ward/building, what time to go to church, who to associate with, what assignment (referred to as a calling in Mormon speak) one is going to do in the ward. There are lots more, but you get the drift.
The COVID pandemic has taken away some of this control. For most members, they can have their church service anytime they want, can dress how they want. Probably over 50% of the callings have nothing to do (think teachers which make up a lot of the callings in any ward).
This loss of control by the church and it leaders was brought to my mind during a phone call yesterday morning with my daughter. She is a Relief Society President in the greater Phoenix area, and as I was talking to her she was getting dressed for a Regional Council Meeting. My wife asked if that was an in-person meeting, and she said no, it was a Zoom meeting, but they want everybody to dress in their “Sunday Best”. She explained Elder Ballard would be presiding, and there would be about 400 people on the Zoom meeting. So I then I told her she could just turn off her camera and not get dressed up! She then said that they are required to have their camera on for the meeting, that there was very strict rules for joining the meeting. They (leaders) are trying to get some of this control back!
But it gets worse. A friend of mine on Facebook told about a Bishop in Cheyenne Wyoming who was really feeling the loss of control. About four weeks ago he told his ward that sacrament at home would no longer be allowed and if members wanted the sacrament, they would have to come to church. He also re-started the two hours block including primary. A week later, 64 ward members tested positive and the numbers keep going up.
Do you think the Church at the local or general level in concerned about this loss of control, and possibly never getting it back after this pandemic is over? What examples in your area have you seen with leaders trying reinstitute control over the members that was lost due to the pandemic?
Wheat & Tares 
A zoom meeting with 400 people and they want video and have everyone dressed up… 400 video cameras clogging up the bandwidth … you’d have thought they would want to preserve that for the quality of the broadcast… it’s also assuming everyone has a good enough internet connection… you’d have thought they’d be happy enough that people were participating at all. Rolling my eyes…
I do think this is the case in some (many?) situations. I have seen some of this at work, but the upper management has been good about squashing this and saying, “This is the new normal”.
It will be interesting as one day the pandemic is more in the background what happens as far as people attending and overall feelings towards the church. Some will be very eager to get back to the socialization and “normal” aspects of being an active member. Others will probably feel differently about the church after it is over. What if one feels like the death of a family member was related to actions like the bishop mentioned? I do think in general terms the top church leaders reacted well in the early days of the pandemic and finally are clearly stating “you should be wearing a mask”.
It is interesting that even with some of those statements, there is outright disregard for this council coming from one of the Q12. I am used to the progressive Mormons resisting, but from what I have seen some of the most “staunch” believers are turning their nose at this as they feel the mask mandate is a evil stomping of their liberties. It certainly must be hard being in the Q15 and balancing yet another dimension among church members.
Absolutely the church is feeling this loss of control and trying to figure out how to regain it in practice while preaching caution, don’t take risks, etc verbally. I’m also in the Phoenix area and our stake sent and email to bishops recapping a meeting with our area authority. He was adamant that the youth need to be re-engaged and there need to be weekly activities, whether virtual or in person. That there must be congregational singing in meetings, even with masks. Even one of the most staunch members that I know recently told me that he likes doing church at home and isn’t looking forward to going back in some ways.
I think church culture is going to have a massive change as members eventually return but a meaningful amount of them do so on their terms and no longer make an effort to fall fully in line. I full expect the GAs to start doubling down on obedience, on separating the wheat from the tares, and possibly revitalizing the focus on sabbath day observance from 4-5 years ago.
I dunno, it is President Nelson himself that has pushed “home centered, church supported” since before the pandemic. I think that works great for adults but maybe not as great for teens. Probably different general authorities have different feelings about it.
This isn’t going to help at all with the TBM stereotyping I sometimes rail against here, but I do take some issue with use of the word “control” in describing the Church’s attitude toward its members. I honestly feel the Gospel, and by extension the Church as well, is largely calculated toward improving an individual’s agency. Lots of what the Church asks of us is designed this way, even if clouds of misunderstanding or other emotions sometimes get in the way of that. It’s rung true for me multiple times. Having said that, there are often local leaders who still don’t get this (all about just doing it by the book regardless of how people are affected). Additionally, I learned long ago that the Church is a smorgasbord of aids for individual agency and helps for family unity and progression. The buffet simply often has too much for everyone in the family to consume all at once. Although encouraged to sample as much as possible or sample at another meal, the host ultimately just wants to make sure we’re getting the proper nourishment. Sometimes that means passing up one selection for another. I think the host ultimately realizes that, despite any impression some might get that they’re somehow being force fed.
Also, despite the top-down approach many equate with the Church, I still think this largely has to do with local leaders, which the Church has given a ton of autonomy to at this time. My stake president is very conservative. My bishop is very liberal. Neither really seemed to want to resume Church, for a variety of reasons, but they’re trying to meet the basic needs and desires of members. That’s all. They’re not trying to control anyone. They’re just trying to provided a vehicle for needed blessings.
Overall, I’ve personally been more surprised by the willingness and desire to go back to Church from most individual members than I have from local and general leaders to seem to drift towards a more hands-off approach. And yet, with my conviction that the Church values agency, it certainly make more sense.
I don’t know if it’s loss of control that leadership is concerned about as much as simply losing contact and engagement with the membership. You can spin that in a positive way: Bishops and SPs certainly feel concern for the members and want to have some contact and feedback. Same for auxiliary leaders who feel some sense of responsibility for those in their groups. Or you can spin in negatively: Hey, if we don’t get some face time with the members, they’ll stop reading scriptures, stop praying, and before you know it they won’t be Mormon anymore and won’t write us checks.
I think the early reactions to close down meetings around the world were properly calibrated, balancing risk to members versus the benefits of meeting together, and coming down in favor of caution. Lately, temples are starting to open and some wards/stakes are starting to resume in-person meetings, even though infection rates, hospitalizations, and deaths are MUCH HIGHER than when things were originally shut down. This shows, I think, that the balance has shifted in leadership thinking from caution and concern for the safety of the members to more concern with the ongoing relevance and health of the institution. I think this is unfortunate. If they would just wait a few more months. they could restart things with much lower risk as more and more people get vaccinated.
I think the converse is the interesting question. When the virus is no longer rampant, will members be willing to permit all the same intrusions into their personal lives? Will they resubmit to the control of the hierarchy in their ecclesiastical lives? How will all the factions that have developed — DezNat Mormons, RO Mormons, Progressive Mormons, and (in case there’s still such a thing) Conventional Mormons — be able to relate to one another. And, for that matter, to the Fifteen? We’ve already seen that as benign a statement as wear masks out of Christ-like love has riled fur.
Personally, I rather doubt we’ll recognize what the church has morphed into and how leadership will deal with it will be a very interesting sociological, as opposed to theological, laboratory.
Your above examples – daughter dutifully complying w/ dress code for a meeting, ward members in Wyo obeying ill advised demands from a bishop and contracting a virus because obedience is more important than agency or science. I think many members will always chose towing the line regardless of personal feelings. My father is 75 and unfortunately his very young bishop makes requests of him that frankly are unsafe and inappropriate considering his age and health. But my dad will dutifully comply even when several of his own children who are health care providers beg him not to.
I’m in several FB groups for auxiliaries (YW & Primary) it seems the biggest frustration is auxiliary presidents complaining that primary & youth teachers have basically gone off the grid and are on a “break” from their callings. It could be that obviously we are all struggling just to keep our heads above water with life turned upside down. But I think there is also the realization that most people actually do NOT like their callings and it’s just something done out of duty. The amount of extremely faithful people I’ve heard comment how much more they enjoy Sundays now that it doesn’t feel like a full day of work. Whether it’s a control issue or not I think when things get back to “normal” many members may start to resent the demands on their time after realizing how many unnecessary meetings and activities there actually are within the church.
I think as demonstrated in some of the comments here, your view is probably a matter of perspective/pre-conceived beliefs about church activity and authority.
I do see leaders, for lack of a better term, “freaking out” about having less contact with people. Admonitions to have weekly activities, pressure to come to in-person church, pressure to renew temple recommendations with no temples open, etc. That zoom story is hilarious (but disturbing) and if an employer were to do that we’d think the employer was crazy yet so many people don’t question such requirements when they come from church.
I think that for most of these leaders, it comes from a good place of genuine concern for people and a belief that church activity is good for people.
But as I’ve had some distance I see how awful the church is at boundaries, how intrusive and demanding it can be, and how paternalistic (“let’s help you in the way we know you need help even if it’s not how you think or express that you need help because we know better than you do what you need”).
@Eli I think that’s a helpful perspective and appreciate you sharing it. I think you make some good points about the church trying to offer a lot of things and that it is up to us to manage what we accept. But I have a hard time squaring temple recommend requirements with true respect for agency (you have to believe certain things, and do certain things, and pay money, and wear certain underwear, to have access to what we claim is necessary for exaltation with your family). Yes, you can certainly choose not to do those things, but then you will end up in Sad Heaven. That doesn’t seem super respectful of agency and seems fairly controlling.
The question of proper zoom etiquette is not limited to the church. As a society where are still discovering the etiquette of remote interaction.
When my kids do remote learning for school they are now required to have their video on, which was not initially the case. This gives one of them great anxiety and he now finds more difficult to participate, but I can think of some reasons, including some potential safety issues, that teachers would want video enabled.
Even professional organizations are struggling with this. I know (throughout friend, so this borders on sketchy rumor territory) of one organization that requires its teleworking employees to be on a team meeting with camera on throughout their working shift. This definitely seems like a bit much.
I think it is a mistake for the church to have the rules requiring video for large meetings. At most video should be “encouraged”. But I feel like for the next several years we will be learning and changing the various norms with respect to remote interaction. The church always struggles with changing social norms, and that is certainly going to continue.
I expect the church to remain in the controlling end of the spectrum, asking people to have their video on. In our weekly Sunday school and priesthood classes, most people are currently disabling their video. While I think they should be allowed to do that, I do think the participation and emotional connection is better with those that have their video on. There is something to be gained from being able to see someone’s face. The best outcome will be if many people enable their video, while everyone is made to feel welcome to join and participate even with their video disabled. The trick would be avoiding having two tiers of participants, the faithful video-enabled-ites and the lukewarm video-disabled-ites.
Like I said, our society is still discovering the appropriate etiquette.
The Brethren have to be looking at membership behavior and asking themselves two questions: First, when will Covid conditions (cases and illness and deaths vs. vaccines and recovery) allow membership to return to “normal” pre-Covid behavior? Second, after months and months of Zoom church, what percentage of “active” members return to the old way (2-hour bloc + meetings)? That’s a lot to worry about. I’m not surprised at all that some Church leaders are imposing arbitrary controls. Desperation.
On a related topic, LDS Church leaders are very concerned about losing the younger generation. (Other churches face similar challenges). Unless you live in Queen Creek, Arizona, your ward probably has more age 60+ active members than children and young adults combined.
The reasons for young adults leaving are varied. Some may not accept the very conservative political views of the leadership and older members. Others may be LGBTQ or have close friends who are. Some are searching the Internet and finding out about polygamy and messy church history.
BTW, has anyone been following the saga of FAIRMormon’s “This is the Show” YouTube videos? I could only watch about two minutes of one before I had to turn if off. FAIRMormon is using very crude and mean-spirited humor to defend polygamy, as well as to attack Jeremy Runnell’s CES Letter and John Dehlin. Apparently the FAIRMormon people think that crass humor is the key to bringing young adults back into the fold.
This may be creating a Streisand effect where many will become aware of the CES Letter for the first time.
See also: https://youtu.be/8q17doc9PPI
I hope and pray that the LDS Church is not funneling money through intermediate organizations into FAIRMormon.
Elisa, I suppose there is ultimately a gray area between members in which they differ on what eternal truths are and what the appropriate ways and thresholds to live by them are. Although my sympathy runs deep in those regards, there is much about living by the recommend that feels both right and liberating to me. However, I think it’s fairly obvious that the Lord will be judging by a greater and more fair standard than a recommend. Thanks for your perspective.
My sisters bishop in Lehi also told members they can only take the sacrament in person. I quietly told her what did she think would happen if she ignored his counsel due to health concerns and kept taking the sacrament at home? Would she be struck by lightning? Would Jesus cancel their effort to renew their covenants?
I can understand having the camera on for zoom school. The teacher needs to be actively determining in real time if the kids are engaged so she can pivot the learning based on what she sees. For SOME business meetings, it’s also important to read the room and tailor the message accordingly to foster conversation.
But any church meeting where my job is merely to listen to someone else talk does not require a camera. I am apt at multitasking and I listen better when doing so (ie listening to general conference while baking or mopping works for me). Having my camera on would be a distraction to others.
The new generation, my generation, likes to ask why. And answers like because, or tradition, turns us off. Leaders need to be prepared to answer our why questions with legit answers and not scold us for questioning the lords anointed. If they refuse us this simple request, they will lose us.
Interesting to read the variety of responses. It is more conservative in Texas where I live. The local rate per 100k is higher here than most places in the US. I remember reading months ago a post from a bishop saying how much thinks a lot of what he and his ward and stake was doing was busy work in light of the Church’s early response to cease attendance. I have mixed feelings. I see the benefits and disadvantages of the many sides of the issue. Leadership may find a much more candid membership that expresses their opinion on local and general policies. Maybe this will be the catalyst for local and general leadership to ask hard questions, not assume too much and seek out local opinions.
I disabled video for EQ after the EQP made a snide remark about my sweatshirt.
I attended a similar Regional Training meeting a few weeks ago with Elder Uchtdorf presiding. We were not required to have the camera on. We were asked to sign in with a particular signature to indicate our position in the ward/stake, but that’s it. There were plenty of people out of the 600+ present that did not follow even the signature part perfectly, and they were still let in. I didn’t sense any “control” issues that have been mentioned here, but maybe my “control monitor” is tuned down pretty low.
Here is one indicator from my corner of the Church: tithing settlement participation. When my ward leadership first opened up sign-ups for tithing settlement slots back in October, the bishop gave the option of doing it in person (masked), by video or over the phone, whichever the member preferred. So far, only about 5 families are marked as having declared tithing status at all; at this time last year, it was at least 10 times that.
I don’t like to think of this as the Church “losing control of the members” so much as it is the members reclaiming control of their own lives and how they spend their time/money/resources. But I agree that the current state of things is not sustainable for the Church, and that there will have to be permanent adaptations made for the Church to survive another generation. If the Brethren decide to double down on strictness (more obedience, loyalty, fealty, etc.) it will backfire and push more good people away, leaving behind zealots and extremists. In some ways, it seems like we are already headed down that path.
Bishop Bill,
While I do think there are many local, regional, and general LDS church authorities who are control freaks, I think that many institutions suffer from the same problem. I am part of our academic department’s leadership team. We have one person on the team that insists that students have their videos on during departmental seminars, I think because they don’t think the students will actually listen, but just log-in and leave since they are required to attend. I think it is kind of creepy to be able to watch students in their apartments while we are trying to listen to the presentation. Since my camera on my laptop gives a weird angle due to its positioning, I rarely turn it on for these seminars. (I use my wife’s laptop when I really need to be seen.) So it kind of seems that JS was right that if you give someone a little authority, they tend to exercise unrighteous dominion and some fraction of LDS leaders seem to really suffer this problem.
What the pandemic has given us is the reminder that the church can only have as much authority in our lives as we grant it. A bishop decides that people must come to church in person to take the sacrament? We can simply say no. We can do our own sacrament regardless of what he thinks. He has authority to represent the church, but you have to decide if you grant him or the church the authority to control your relationship with God. I guess this only works if you get passed the tipping point where you think the church does actually have the authority to grant salvation through its ordinances. If you instead see the church as one if many tools that can help you get closer to God, that its its ordinances are voluntary rituals that help you manifest to other in your community your commitment, then what a local leader decides has less relevance. Obviously, if you take that path, you have to be willing to not have a temple recommend if leadership roulette leaves your ward with someone who abuses their authority. But I wonder if we wouldn’t have a better religious community if we more frequently were willing to politely say no to leaders? I get that if you live in Utah or if your family unity or your livelihood depend on the church participation, this may not be possible, but for those of us who don’t have this situation, I wonder if the pandemic isn’t a chance to reset this expectation for church leadership of what authority they will be granted?
In the meantime, for you daughter, she can always do a short video clip of herself listening and then use it as her virtual background while she hangs out in sweat clothes away from the computer. With 400 people, even the structural authoritarian is unlikely to notice.
At present, missionaries are making a lot of creative videos. Will that change after the pandemic is over?
“If the Brethren decide to double down on strictness (more obedience, loyalty, fealty, etc.) it will backfire and push more good people away, leaving behind zealots and extremists. In some ways, it seems like we are already headed down that path.”
Jack Hughes ^^^ I completely agree
I’ve seen some of the things described in this post happening in my ward, but I wouldn’t attribute it to a need for control. A lot of people in my ward have expressed that they feel disconnected from the ward family, especially with how many people have moved in/out since March, and I can tell that some are making an effort to repair our connections. We aren’t required to have our cameras on, but we are encouraged to if we can so we can get to know each other.
Currently my ward has no in-person meetings and no authorized sacrament at home. They didn’t offer an explanation for the sacrament, but I’m glad they chose that route. In the spring I talked to my bishop quite a bit about how allowing all able men in the ward to administer the sacrament in their homes magnified by feelings of being a second-class citizen in the church as a single woman. I miss taking the sacrament, but at least this time it doesn’t hurt knowing Brother So-and-So just down the block is allowed to take it because he’s a man and I’m not.
Before the pandemic you had to have the bishop’s permission to administer the sacrament outside sacrament meeting. I believe the Bishops have been told to reinstate that. Our Bishop and others I have heard of have said lately you need their permission to have sacrament at home. Yes the control is still there.
Chet, I sure hope so.
Could Elder Renlund have been sent ot to test the water. If so the leadership will be keeping a low profile for a while. On Jana Riess blog most of the responders were of the half of the church who are trumpers first, and mormons second. They were repeating trump lies on masks, the virus, and anything else, in response to elder Renlunds apostolic request.
As the church leadership seem concerned about retension, more than doing whats right, let the consequences follow, I think it will be a while before they give any more advice on the virus, supporting the constitution, or congratulating Biden. I would be pleased to be proven wrong.
If I am right, the leadership are now unwilling to contradict trump lies. Not a hopeful future. As far as I can tell those members who believe trump won the election, will not accept reality just because Biden is inaugerated. If those of you closer can inform me of a more positive outlook, good.
The church has a lot of influence in our lives but control? No, the church does not control us. If you feel you are being controlled by the church, I feel very sorry for you. The church has never told me what to eat or not eat but does tell me what not to drink; however, it’s my choice to follow that or not. The church doesn’t tell me what to wear and I can’t even remember the last time I wore a white shirt to church. My callings in the church are limited to what is offered to me but it’s my choice to accept them or not. I do not feel controlled by the church in the least. Everything I do that is in compliance with the church is by my own choosing. The same is true for everyone in the church.
The church completely tries to control its’ members lives in most locales. I have lived across the USA.
If you do not think so, then you did not serve an LDS mission or lived in an orthodox ward. It is MUCH more than influence, DB.
Especially if you are in a ward where you are not part of the “in crowd”
Control: forcing kids to attend 5:30 AM seminary in place of available home study.
requiring an EQ secretary to return a leadership handbook
do not marry outside of your race
you can not attend your child wedding without giving us your 10%
you can not talk to your Missionary child for more than 30 minutes on the phone
you can not say any thing negative about a rouge local leader
you can not wear 2 ear rings
not allowing outside group gospel study…but then allowing it
forcing all 17 year old at stake conference to sit on the front row and commit them right there to serve a mission
forcing missionaries to work P-Day because they have not baptized that month.
forcing kids to wear white shirt and tie to every local church dance
I could literally on and on with hundreds of items….as could all other members.
If you are not aligned with the bishop, stake president, Q15…then you are not aligned with God.
That is manipulation and control.
DB I am glad that you live in a ward/stake with non-control leadership.
The Q15 themselves are not in control of their decisions……read their stories….even Bednar wants to attend a funeral but can not…….the junior Q15 have to have permission for every decision they make…..only the man on the top is control of his own decisions in TSCC.
Agree, Jack Hughes, but I also think that, in other important ways, the Church is trying to change paths. The switch to home-centered church, 2-hour block, removal of Scouting, and JSP Project come together into a kind of “de-correlation,” albeit small thus far. It will be interesting to see if the new Church normal that comes out of the coronavirus is more like the old path (do as we say, exactly, all the time, everywhere) or the new one (do as we way, but consider circumstances and science, and do what works best).
From the way the Q15 are starting to talk about the virus and masks, I’m betting on the latter.
Faith, I’m sorry you feel that you’re being controlled but any control that the church has over you is only what you allow the church to have. It’s your decision, it’s your choice, it always is. The church doesn’t have a police force to control members. Kids are not dragged from their homes at 5:30 in the morning and forced to seminary. If you don’t want to send your kids to early morning seminary, then don’t send them. Give it a try, I guarantee it will work and they will no longer be going to early morning seminary. If you want to marry someone of a different race, then do it. Nobody in the church can do anything about that. If you want to wear more than one earring, go ahead, who’s going to stop you? No one is going to hold you down and rip out your extra earrings. Not allowing outside group gospel study? Is the church watching your home and tapping your phone to make sure you’re not and raiding your home if you do? Have you ever even tried to have an outside group gospel study? Enforcing dress codes you don’t like at dances? Don’t go to the dance. I’m pretty sure no one is forcing you to go to the dance. Forcing you to sit on the front row and publicly commit to a mission? Walk away if you don’t want to do that. Can’t say anything negative about local leaders? Will you be dragged off to mormon jail if you do? You may not be able to attend your child’s temple wedding if you don’t pay tithing but getting married in the temple is your child’s choice just like not paying tithing is your choice. Having a choice doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences for our choices, just the opposite in fact, it means there will always be consequences. If we were truly being controlled and had no choice, then there would be no consequences.
Sure, you can be manipulated and influenced at church but not controlled. Or maybe you and I have very different interpretations of “control”. And for the record, yes I have served a mission, in a foreign country, and have lived in different areas across the U.S. I’m not being controlled and neither are you. If you feel like you are being controlled, my recommendation is to take back your agency and start making decisions for yourself. Don’t believe you can? Just give it a try.
@DB you definitely have a different definition of control. Control is a lot more complicated than someone physically forcing you to do something or “letting” you do something but attaching serious negative social, spiritual, familial, and reputational (including professional depending on where you live) consequences.
If a religious institution telling you that you have to do what it tells you or you can’t attend your kids own wedding, or have that kid with you in heaven, isn’t control I truly don’t know what is.
You can only escape the control of the church if you don’t believe what it’s actually teaching you and don’t care one bit about being ostracized. Maybe you fall into that camp. For everyone else (a lot of people in the church), the control is very strong.
I don’t know if a single more controlling institution in my life than the Church. Frankly I find it gaslighting and disengenuous for you or for the church to suggest otherwise.
I totally get encouraging people to just say no to Church and see what happens, but to do that with any sincerity you have to acknowledge how much control there is currently. Otherwise you’re not being helpful, you’re undermining people’s lives experiences and in many cases trauma in the Church.
My ongoing faith crisis is my secret but I keep getting invited to participate in Zoom EQ (prayers, lesson assignments etc) in our large ward – who put me on the naughty list?
The video requirement seems to reinforce the tradition of wealthy people in leadership positions. To not acknowledge that there remain several people without Webcam options is unrealistic. Refusal to allow these people access to apostolic teachings based on financial constraints seems unchristian.
Elisa, I’m not being disingenuous at all; I’m being sincerely ingenuous. If you feel the church controls you, it’s because you’ve given that control to the church. It’s really all a matter of perspective. Consider this, two people go to the same church (could be you and me or maybe two different people) and one feels controlled and the other doesn’t even though they get the same messages from the church. What’s the difference? It’s not the church because that’s a constant for both of them. The difference is the individuals. If I feel that the church is not controlling, then it’s not disingenuous for me to say so. If you feel that the church is controlling, then it’s not disingenuous for you to say so. You and I simply have different perspectives. I recognize that and accept that if you say you feel the church is controlling that you are being genuine. I ask that you and everyone else also recognize and accept that when I say the church isn’t controlling that I’m being genuine as well. I know it’s difficult for many people to accept a different perspective as being genuine because that would require one to acknowledge the possibility that their are flaws in their own perspective.
Now, if you’ll allow me, I’d like to make an observation. Regarding this sentence, “You can only escape the control of the church if you don’t believe what it’s actually teaching you and don’t care one bit about being ostracized.”, it seems to me that it is not really the church that is controlling you, but your fear that is controlling you. I do believe what the church teaches, while also acknowledging that our (the church collectively) knowledge of the gospel is incomplete and imperfect, but still don’t feel controlled by the church. Perhaps I have less fear of ostracization than you.
Let’s consider this as well, “a religious institution telling you that you have to do what it tells you or you can’t attend your kids own wedding”. Yes, it’s true that you have to pay tithing and have a current temple recommend to attend your child’s wedding if your child chooses to be married in the temple. If your child chooses to be married outside the temple, then the tithing and temple recommend issue is moot. The church, or any institution, can certainly impose restrictions on who can enter its buildings and participate in its activities, but in this situation it’s still your child’s choice and your choice that determine how the wedding plays out. The church does not control where your child (along with your child’s spouse to be) chooses to get married and does not control whether or not you pay tithing.
If you feel that what I’m writing is unhelpful, then please ignore everything I write. However, I am being sincere and I do encourage everyone to claim control of their own lives.
DB…..you are right…but then compmetly wrong.
I do not want to attend your version of the LDS church…i want to attend the LDS church that will exist in 75 years..when we are no longer here.
DB
i stopped early morning seminary…i stopped their control over my life and then payed tbe consequences
I was released from stake callings. I have been ignored for 3 years and jave not returned to church. They do not reach out or miss my family
We are better off without them.
DB you need to learn empathy.
@DB there’s a term for what you’re doing, and it’s called “blaming the victim.”
I agree that we should try to undo our own victimization, claim our own authority, and let go of the fear and social pressure that we *were conditioned by the Church* to feel. But that doesn’t excuse identifying the ways that the Church has created that environment. In fact, in many ways identifying the ways the Church exercises control is the best way to work our way out from under it. Denying that it’s there, or that an inability to wrest your authority away from Church is due to your own personal failings, is not helpful.
I think the discussion between DB and Faith is the core question I have about this post. Is the Church “controlling”? Sometimes. Is it also a Church of “volunteers” who agree to do the things we are asked? A qualified yes, partly in proportion to the social pressure exerted to comply. Where the Church in general and some Church leaders go too far is in the expectation that we will always say yes to authority, that we will do so cheerfully without any pushback or input. That’s not leadership; that’s compliance rather than participation. Psychologically, if you get compliance without engaging people in the decision making process, and particularly without respect for the sacrifices you are asking people to make, once authority is out of the picture, the compliance evaporates. And frankly, in a lot of cases, that’s what happened with the pandemic. Meaningless sacrifice is resented and ultimately rejected when the social pressure we get from being around other Mormons is gone. The only sacrifices we continue to be willing to make are the ones that make sense to us.
Years ago, I had a bishop when we were new to a ward, and he said he expected everyone to participate, to take callings, to attend church, etc. He said these things very forcefully, with a lot of passion. A wise friend commented that this bishop was in the wrong as a leader to be so pushy with what benefited him (the one trying to fill all the roles) in a church of volunteers. A true leader respects the sacrifices he or she requests and doesn’t request them lightly. I had another bishop on a first meeting ask if we were willing to accept callings, and while I said yes, what I meant was “Depends on the calling. Depends on who I’m asked to work with. Depends on what time of day you expect me to be attending meetings or doing things. Depends on whether I can make it work with my schedule and my views.” I am pretty sure what he meant was “Are you willing to do anything at all that I happen to ask you to do?”
Unfortunately, we ask people to do a lot of things at Church that are really just not worth it or are just the personal preference of an individual leader. I imagine all Churches do this to some extent, and all organizations. The key is: respect the people you are asking to make a sacrifice, and only ask when it really is something of real value, not just your own preferences or tradition.
There are also studies that show that requiring students to use their camera on Zoom calls is problematic for those with economic disadvantages, not just that they don’t have the camera, but that the camera reveals that their surroundings aren’t as nice or as private as others. There are reasons we don’t require students to enter each others’ homes or to reveal their own homes to others. Some privacy is simply respectful and allows us each to have the illusion that we still have some privacy and control in our homes.
Back more than 25 years ago when I was newly married there was a counsellor on the stake RS presidency who organising a stake RS event on a Saturday evening. She specifically requested we all wore our Sunday best to invite the spirit or some such nonsense. Anyway I was sufficiently ticked off by her attitude that I turned up in my jeans. The woman entering the building just in front of me was apologising for wearing trousers (actually a very nice punjabi suit matching top and bottom with scarf), which annoyed me, because she obviously chose to wear it so don’t apologise, own it, and the other woman said at least you’re not wearing jeans. I bared my teeth in a smile. And went to sit near the front. And was then asked if I would play piano as they were missing a pianist. Which I did, jeans on full display every time I got up to play. I enjoyed that.
There are not many things about the year 2020 for which I feel much gratification; aside from the love of my family, home, country and freedoms. However, there is one thing which has delivered INTENSE SATISFACTION – throughout the course of this year – and that is to have experienced, witnessed and watched the influence of the LDS Church and it’s (so-called) leaders (both senior and local) slowly, but inexorably lose their power and influence over people. It has been, and continues to be a glorious thing to watch people realize that (when it comes right down to it) we REALLY don’t need the church all that much; in order to sustain a healthy way of living. Personally, I don’t think things will ever return (entirely) to the way they once were….Once freedom is tasted and consumed….people are not going to want to give that up.
The OP raises a really interesting point and a challenge for the church. We’ve done things very differently and the sky hasn’t fallen, so it may well be difficult to put the old ways genie back in the bottle. I’ve been active all my life, but there are some aspects of activity I probably won’t revert to easily. In particular, I will be much choosier about what callings I accept. I might even declare I’m simply not doing callings anymore.
Elisa and Faith,
I get where you’re coming from. I really do. At the same time, how much empathy do you expect from others before it becomes apathy on your part for their beliefs? How far do you expect people to go while still holding themselves to the standards of their own beliefs? They’re not easy questions, and I don’t have all the answers. They can always be flipped back to me as well.
I have certain Gospel beliefs that I believe to be true as much as 2+2=4. Occasionally I may encounter other members whose beliefs, for me, amount to the Gospel equivalent of 2+2=3. They may be totally sincere in that belief. I may be very empathetic towards them in that belief. However, if they try to function in the real world–getting a job, teaching others, applying higher math–based on the assumption that 2+2=3, I have to believe that’s ultimately going to bring a higher set of problems. Is it true empathy for me to help or allow them to hobble along with a 2+2=3 mentality the best they can, or is it higher charity to try to show them the way of 2+2=4 and stick by it? If my 2+2=4 mentality seems controlling but is totally sincere in its nature, at what point does their pushback show a lack of empathy and understanding on their part? And yes, when it comes to the Gospel, I’m always reevaluating my 2+2=4 conjecture.
I realize the Church is much, much more complex than simple addition, and I hope I don’t come across condescendingly. I explain in simple terms because I think that way. Some of us, however, have applied the Gospel Math as we felt we were instructed and have found it does in fact work in much of the Church setting it was intended. We see the different variables and outcomes that come with living by a principle, as well as the consequences of not doing so, and accept it for what it is. We’ve done it with our eyes open, and found that control is not being applied to us, but empowerment enabled in us. We will always do our best to show empathy and accommodation for others, but there comes a point where accommodation no longer feels truly empathetic.
Lefthandloafer,
I feel like there are a lot of assumptions, and perhaps some misunderstandings in your observations (or maybe we’re just very much aware of entirely different groups of Saints).
Not all of us experience a lack of Church as freedom, despite some callings having been eased up on. Freedom was always there. It’s just that Church was there, and now it’s not.
Not to be confused with a Savior complex, for some of us, despite enjoying Church overall, attendance was not necessarily mainly for our own benefit, but as much or more for the benefit of others. This falls in line with my observation that although I’m doing pretty well without conventional Church, quite a few others are not, and want it back.
With many things in the last days likely getting worse, rather than better, functioning without the Church feels like part of the point, but I suppose my perception may be different. As already touched on in previous comments, President Nelson was pushing for more home and individual centered progression well before this pandemic hit.
I’m curious as to what area you’re in that so many people are grateful to leave it behind–or maybe that’s just an online observation. My own observation is that most are ready and willing to come back, but will make whatever sacrifices one way or another to help others in the meantime.
@Eli I think the issue I really had with DB’s comments was that DB tried to argue that the Church simply wasn’t controlling *as a matter of fact* and that anyone who felt controlled was just personally weak or fearful. I think that’s really different from saying “I haven’t felt that the Church had been controlling in my life for x, y, and z reason” but holding space for the possibility that other people reasonably felt controlled.
Maybe the church doesn’t feel controlling to everyone but (1) it certainly feels controlling to a lot of people and (2) there are plenty of features in the way the Church is designed that objectively indicate a level of or attempt to control beliefs and behaviors. I think most outsiders would look at our system and agree the Church exercises a lot of control over its members (or at least takes overt actions to try to do so) and certainly it has been my personal experience that I have believed and defended things that went against my own moral authority because the Church told me to and I let the Church supplant my conscience with the words of the Brethren. Which the Church asked me to do. I suppose DB would say I only have myself to blame for that, and I recognize that spending the rest of my life railing against Church leaders because I’m angry that they’ve controlled me wouldn’t be productive, but that doesn’t mean I can’t call it out. Like I mentioned, I think identifying mechanisms of control and where the Church uses fear and social pressure is actually helpful to the process of identifying the pieces of the Church I want to keep of my own free will and choice versus those I’ll let go of.
Elisa, seeing as you and I (and others on here as well) have very different perspectives about the church, I would love for you to help me understand yours and maybe in the process you can better understand mine as well. My perspective is simply this, that everything we do is our choice. Everything we do in or out of the church, for or against the church, is our choice and the church has no power to take that choice away from us. The church is not capable of making choices for us and therefore does not control us. The fact that there are consequences for our choices does not negate that they are still our choices and even when we choice something that we don’t want or don’t like in order to avoid certain consequences, it was still our choice.
One question I have for you is that since you have acknowledged that some members do not feel that the church is controlling and others do, why do you think that is? Why do some feel controlled and others don’t? I think this is the most important question for both of us, not just for us to answer for ourselves but to try to understand and accept the others answer.
@DB based on your definition of control, I don’t understand how any person whatsoever could be in the control of another person or institution. So maybe you should give an example of what you would be to consider “control.”
As I have already explained, the church tells us what to believe about God, tells us we have spiritual leaders (prophets and other priesthood leaders) who speak for God, tells us there are certain things we have to do (including intimate details, like what underwear we wear and what we can and cannot believe about the nature of God and prophets) in order to obtain what the church claims are the highest eternal blessings, tells us (and especially LGBTQ folks) that the are better off living a lonely and celibate life so that they can have an eternal reward, tells women that it is their divinely-appointed role to be mothers at the expense of other pursuits and that they are not to be leaders / decision makers in the church and that their husbands are to preside over them (and previously that they are to obey or hearken to their husbands), tells us not to wear more than one earring per ear or get a tattoo and that we must cover our shoulders, prohibits us from participating in certain important family events (like sealings) of we do not do the things they ask (including laying 10% of our incomes), tells us which political positions to support and signs us up to campaign for them (true story about me and Prop 8), and finally, purportedly softens all that by telling us that we are entitled to personal revelation *but* that if our revelation tells us to disobey the prophets that revelation is coming from Satan. Oh and you’re right, the church teaches “agency” but actually no longer calls it free agency – it calls is “moral” agency. Free was too crazy I guess.
Apart from that those (inexhaustive) examples of spiritual control, the church inserts itself as such a key component of family and social life in certain families and communities and has such a low tolerance for differentiation that if one acts outside the norm one may face ostracization from family members, friends, and even employers.
I have also explained the ways I personally have made decisions based on what I believed I should do based on church teachings, some of which I believe were wrong for me. Campaigning for prop 8 is one such example that I deeply regret, and yes, I absolutely resent that the church hijacked my heart. I could have said no, but only at my (perceived) spiritual and social peril. That isn’t freedom.
If you don’t think all that (and more) means that the church has *more* control over its members, or at least attempts to exert more control over its members, than most other institutions and in some cases even families, then we will never see eye to eye on this because we are not using the same yardstick for control. The definition I am using (from the dictionary) is “the power to influence or direct behavior” and I believe that definition to be satisfied and that most people from the outside looking in would agree.
I do not know anyone (who I have talked to about this) who doesn’t feel that the church exercises some level of control in their life. I was only referencing those on this thread who claim that kind of autonomy superpower to somehow ignore or disregard the spiritual, social, and emotional control mechanisms I’ve listed above.
*with apologies for one million iPhone typos above
Sorry one more thing: I get that you think if people feel that being cut off from a community or ostracized is controlling them then they care too much about what other people think. But evolutionary psychology tells us that being excluded from a group is processed by us as a threat to our very existence and personal safety (because historically it was since we depended on group relationships for survival). Even if that’s not factually true it is how we experience that event, so I can’t really think of a better way to control people than making them feel like their very existence (physical and spiritual) depends on group acceptance.
Again, would love your examples of a situation in which control exists according to your definition. It would be illuminating.
Elisa, I would still like to know your view on why you think some members feel the church is controlling and others don’t. Like I’ve already written many times, I see control as choice, not consequence. You gave a lot of examples of how you feel the church controls members but in all of those examples we all still choose what we do. The church doesn’t choose for us. If I don’t do what the church wants me to do, there may be consequences but I still control myself, the church doesn’t. If I don’t do what my employer wants, there will be consequences, but I still control myself, my employer doesn’t. It seems that you consider the threat of negative consequences to be controlling rather than just the presence or absence of choice and to me control is about the presence or absence of choice, not consequences. Perhaps that could answer the question about why some members feel the church is controlling and others don’t but not entirely I think. Another statement you made brings up a similar question. You wrote, “I can’t really think of a better way to control people than making them feel like their very existence (physical and spiritual) depends on group acceptance.” This brings up the question of why do some members feel this way while others don’t? To me, that comes from differences in individuals.
Examples of situations in which control exists according to my definition would be any situation in which an individual does not have the freedom to make a choice such as: 1) when an individual has legal authority to make decisions for another such as parent over a minor child, 2) when there is physical restraint placed on an individual such as when someone is arrested or placed in prison, 3) when an organization uses physical force and violence to control what others can and cannot do such as Nazi Germany or ISIS, 4) when an individual hands control over to another individual,
Elisa wrote ” I think most outsiders would look at our system and agree the Church exercises a lot of control over its members . . .”
Although I’ve been guilty of using outsiders as a standard as well, I think the fact that few outsiders have ever had a witness of the Holy Ghost as to the truthfulness of the Gospel and Church means most are going to get a very, very warped view of the Church in more ways than one. But by that same standard, I’ve seen many outsiders remark that Latter-Day Saints genuinely appear to be the happiest group of people on the Earth. My own observation has shown this on numerous occasions, and feels true for me more often than not. However, I’d imagine our respective views on how outsiders see us says more our own attitudes than it does about outside observation or the Church itself.
I always appreciate your perspective and willingness to engage in conversation, especially with multiple people.
@DB, we have a different definition of “control”. Yours is significantly narrower than mine, the dictionary definitions I’ve seen (and shared here), the definition that the OP seems to be using, and what I think a lot of people mean when they use the word in various contexts such as, “she has a very controlling spouse.” So I don’t see how this is a very productive discussion; I can agree that the Church doesn’t “control” people if I’m defining “control” the way you are, but I think limiting control to physical violence / sheer coercion and legal authority is neither correct nor the understanding of control being used in the OP. You haven’t responded to whether you think the Church can fairly be characterized by the word “control” using the dictionary definition / common vernacular that I have presented.
So, when you ask, “Why do you think some people feel controlled and not others,” since you are the only person here who has clearly expressed that the Church doesn’t control people, the only answer I can give is “because some people are using a highly-specialized, contorted, incorrect definition of control that does not encompass many forms of control recognized by the world at large.” ;-). And while I have expressed my own “feelings” on control I’ve also tried to point out actions / policies / procedures that, regardless of how they make people “feel”, are indicia of control.
I suppose some people, like Eli (not to put words in Eli’s mouth and sorry if I’m mischaracterizing), think that if the Church tells us to do things, and we independently feel that those are good things to do, and so we choose to do them, the Church isn’t “controlling” them. But again — using the dictionary definition — even that is still some level of control in the sense of influence. Eli just thinks that influence is positive and that control is somewhat pejorative. And maybe that (the pejorative connotation of “control”) is where some of the disconnect is.
This would be a great conversation to have live someday once we agreed on the operative definition of “control”. I think I am 100% tapped out of the comment version.
@Eli, an outsider would say that our view of confirmations from the Holy Ghost are also heavily influenced by what the Church tells us to feel. So yes, I agree, they would have a hard time seeing eye-to-eye with a TBM on this one. I do think that there are external indicia of control (definitions of “high-demand” religions) and that ours meets those definitions. Doesn’t mean it’s not valuable for believers, but in my view the mechanisms an organization uses to control members can be objectively defined. Scientologists and Warren Jeffs’ fundamentalist groups might also disagree with outsiders who criticize their practices as controlling. Doesn’t make them any less controlling.
Elisa, I agree with you that this comment conversion as probably gone as far as it can go and I also feel tapped out. But I’ll add this last one since you want to know whether I think the Church can be fairly characterized by the word “control” using the definition you presented. So here are my thoughts on that. You’ve provided the definition of control as “the power to influence or direct behavior”. I’m not sure which dictionary you used so here are a few others for reference:
Merriam-Webster: To exercise restraining or directing influence over; to have power over.
Dictionary.com: To exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.
Oxford English Dictionary: To exercise power or authority over; to determine the behaviour or action of, to direct or command; to regulate or govern.
The definitions given by these sources are certainly more in line with a more dominating, forceful definition of “control” than you’ve provided but I’ll still consider the definition you’ve provided. (You may disagree with me, but I think my use of the word “control” is pretty much in line with the definitions given by the three sources I’ve provided.) My thoughts are no, the Church does not do that and is not capable of doing that. Let’s divide your definition into two parts – the power to influence behavior and the power to direct behavior – and look at each separately. The “power to direct behavior” definition is much more in line with the definitions from the three sources I’ve provided and is clearly not applicable to the Church. The Church does not have the authority or power to direct, regulate, or command our behavior or our choices. We can behave and choose as we please and the Church has no power to stop us or change us. The Church may treat us differently depending on our choices, and individual members of the church may treat us differently depending on our choices, but neither the Church nor other members have the power to direct, regulate, or command our choices. We always get to choose our own behavior. Applying the weaker “power to influence behavior” could be a fair characterization but the problem with that is that definition can be applied to just about anything. Does God influence our behavior? Yes, but would we say that God controls us? No, that would antithetical to the most basic principles of agency. Do our parents influence our behavior? Yes, of course they do. What about other family members, friends, celebrities, politicians, online commenters, or even sometimes complete strangers? Yes to all of those but would we think of them as controlling us? No, probably not, so applying the word “control” on the basis of defining it as “the power to influence behavior” is extremely weak at best.
I can think of many reasons why someone could feel that they are being controlled by the church even if they actually aren’t (and not just because they’re using a different definition of “control”) but I really don’t feel like doing that and don’t think it would be very productive to do so in this forum anyway. I wish you well Elisa and hope you can find ways to feel less controlled by the Church.
@DB fair points. I was thinking this morning that one distinction I would make is that I wouldn’t say “the Church controls me” but I would say “the Church is controlling.” May be a distinction without a difference but I think it’s a meaningful distinction in degree and emphasis. And I still think the Church is controlling and I think temple recommends are the biggest mechanism of that (so I am opting out of those for the time being).
You’ll be relieved to know that I no longer feel controlled by the Church. It was getting to that point that caused me to realize how much the Church was controlling / exercising undue influence on me until now. I said no to stuff and, believe it or not, the sky did not fall and the earth did not split beneath my feet. But I had to do a *lot* of work to get to that point which again shows to me the level of VERY STRONG and POTENTIALLY CONTROLLING influence the Church had on me up for the past 40 years ;-). Indeed, the Church retained that until I realized I didn’t believe a lot of the truth claims that were propping up that control (didn’t believe the prophet knew any better on issues like gay marriage and patriarchy that I do after having been thinking about those topics for decades, so no longer felt any trepidation about totally and openly parting ways on those points and others – but again, that’s why I think the narrative of “follow the prophet” and “doubt your doubts” is, you know, controlling or an attempt at control, and I believed those until I got smarter on history – and the way the Church “controls” through its historical whitewashing is a topic for another day!).
I don’t think there’s usually a meaningful difference between feeling controlled and being controlled. If an org is able to make you feel like they have control over you, and you act accordingly, then the org is exercising control. I realize there are exceptions like someone with a total break from reality experiencing delusions, but the sense of control that I and other “feel” is a direct result of actions the Church takes and things it teaches to attempt to control members’ behavior, and those actions are recognized by experts in psychology and others fields as mechanisms of control so it is not completely subjective. I do understand your distinction, I just disagree with it.
Thanks for the discussion. Let freedom ring.
As for why some are more easily controlled than others, I think that those with fragile or threatened early attachments to early caregivers ie parents , will be very much more susceptible to that control. Sure we make a choice, but some are more vulnerable to manipulation than others. I accept that this can be a net positive or a net negative