Some choices individuals make have an ethical or moral component. Making laws based on idiosyncratic views of “morality” that are held by individuals creates problems. Individuals are compelled to make the choice deemed “moral” by the “law” despite their own personal views of what is moral; therefore, they are not persuaded of the morality of the choice, and it is not a part of their moral compass. They may be complying, but not persuaded. When we talk about “legislating morality,” we are usually referring to making rules for society as a whole that are not based on shared values, but give preference to a specific moral code that is not universal, such as the ten commandment, Sharia law, or the temperance movement (to name a few).
If a law, such as a modesty code in Iran, is considered to be legislating morality, that also brands those who break that law as “immoral,” which is often coded as anti-social or harming society through this rule violation. On some level, you can tell if someone is actually persuading others to a moral position or merely controlling them if you look at what people do when there is either no law or no enforcement of the law (or you can sometimes just see what those in power do versus what laws they enforce on others). The Christian mandate is not to control or limit the choices of others but to persuade them to live a moral life.
You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all people, 3revealing yourselves, that you are a letter of Christ, delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. 2 Corinthians 3: 2-3
Control and persuasion play significant roles in shaping moral choices, but they impact individuals differently depending on how they are applied. As parents, we start with some level of control, and as our children grow up, we loosen that control and instead try to persuade them to make good choices on their own when we are not there to enforce our view of moral behavior.
Control: Control refers to external forces or authority imposing rules, restrictions, or pressure on individuals to influence their behavior or choices. It often involves coercion, force, or rigid guidance. A child following moral guidelines because they fear punishment from their parents or an authoritarian government enforcing laws strictly without encouraging ethical reflection.
When someone is under control, their moral choices may be driven by fear of punishment, desire for reward, or compliance with authority, rather than personal values or ethical reasoning. Instead of developing one’s own internal moral compass, people align with the imposed rules and adhere to norms without understanding why those norms exist or whether they are moral. They comply without conviction. Excessive control often leads to rebellion which means people deliberately make contrary moral choices rather than comply, but they do this without making sound moral judgments, just in opposition. They may also choose to disengage from moral reasoning altogether, instead relying on following orders.
Satan’s plan (n.) a devious strategy proposed by the evil one to force obedience and guarantee that all will be saved, in complete contrast to today’s church culture which does the same without such guarantees (From my Mormon Jargon lexicon)
Persuasion: Persuasion involves influencing someone’s beliefs, attitudes, or behavior through reasoning, argument, or emotional appeal. It encourages individuals to adopt certain viewpoints voluntarily. A person is persuaded by ethical reasoning about the importance of honesty or fairness and chooses to act accordingly, even when no external force compels them. Persuasive arguments from leaders of social justice movements can lead individuals to reconsider previously held moral beliefs and change their behavior based on ethical reasoning.
Persuasion appeals to personal values, logic, and emotions, encouraging individuals to reflect on their beliefs and make informed moral decisions based on internal conviction. Persuasion prompts individuals to reflect more deeply on ethical questions, to consider the consequences, the principles, and the values involved. Individuals learn to make their own moral choices aligned with their beliefs and values. They feel ownership of the choices they make and act consistently with their own principles. Deceptive persuasion, by contrast, withholds information or uses emotion to convince people to act contrary to their principles.
Free agency (n.) the right to choose to do whatever you want so long as the majority of church members agree with it
Sometimes, a combination of control and persuasion is necessary, such as laws that enforce moral behavior (control) paired with public education campaigns that explain why the behavior is ethical (persuasion). When control is too dominant, it undermines genuine persuasion, as people lack the freedom to make moral choices, leading to superficial compliance rather than genuine ethical behavior. In summary, control impacts moral choices by imposing external forces that can limit personal reflection, while persuasion influences moral choices by engaging individuals’ internal beliefs, encouraging deeper moral reasoning and ownership of decisions.
No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion (D&C 121: 41)
Of course, we all know that’s aspirational, and basically the millisecond anyone gets any power, they immediately start trying to force other people to do what they want. Churches in particular–above all other institutions–should be in the persuasion business, not the control business, and yet they do use various methods to control behavior, particularly in “high demand” religions. Here are several of the most common methods used to control others:
- Coercion. Threats of intimidation, playing on fear of punishment (e.g. Hell or losing one’s eternal family) rather than on personal conviction. Examples: sad heaven or blaming mothers when their kids leave the church.
- Authority. When the emphasis is on following orders (even when they don’t make sense or seem immoral) rather than on making decisions that feel moral and just, then authority is being used to pressure compliance. Examples: when we are told “when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done” or that we can’t get personal revelation that contradicts what we are told by church leaders.
- Social Pressure. When group norms are used to enforce behaviors that individuals would not do without these pressures. Examples: Dress and grooming norms in the church (particularly garments for women), going on a mission (or staying on it) to please family members.
- Manipulation. Using deceit by sharing misleading information to convince people to accept something. Examples: Only sharing a very white-washed version of church history.
- Legal Constraints. Preventing individuals from whistle-blowing through NDAs or confidentiality requirements. Examples. Kirton-McConkie every day of the week, using member resources to legislate against gay marriage, the church pressuring the Utah legislature to enact laws that align with the church’s interests or codes regardless the interests of the voters, including those who don’t belong to the church.
- Cultural Norms. Cultures with strong norms regarding roles, practices or beliefs. Examples: the Utah gender wage gap being so much higher than elsewhere in the country. High social costs to coming out as gay.
- Psychological Conditioning. Thought stopping techniques or repeated phrases like “Choose the right” that are designed to elicit a specific response in certain circumstances. Examples: sexual repression or shame, “singing a hymn,” associating specific outgroup people or situations with risk or harm.
- Compulsion. Creating or fostering a psychological dependency that limits choices. Examples: instilling superstitious beliefs, fostering scrupulosity.
- Lack of information or misinformation. Limiting access to information that may be unflattering, thereby reducing the ability to make informed decisions. Examples: PR spin, discouragement from viewing unapproved sources.
How can you tell if you’re making your choices based on persuasion or control? Here are some questions you can ask yourself to avoid falling into the control trap:
- What do I actually want? Who is benefited by my choice? Who bears any negative consequences from my choice? What are the pros and cons of my choice? What are the downstream impacts to me or others?
- Is there someone else influencing my choice? What would I do if that person said to do the opposite? What would I do if nobody else had any opinion about this choice? Am I dependent on another person financially or for support who wants me to decide in a specific way? How can I develop my independence and self-reliance to have the freedom to make my own choices?
- Would I make this same choice if I were raised in a different culture? Does my culture grant me rights to make my own choices or are there penalties that must be avoided? Are these laws moral and just or do they deliberate limit choices that should be available? What can I do about it?
- Do I know enough to make an informed decision? If not, where can I find neutral information to educate myself? Is the information I am using to make my decision biased in some way? What is the bias? Have I considered information that is biased in the opposite way or that is from a disagreeing source?
- What will happen if I choose differently than I feel pressured to choose?
So, gentle reader [1], what do you think about the church’s balance of control vs. persuasion?
- Does the church exert too much control? If so, in what ways?
- Have you felt controlled in your life as you look at your church experience or did you feel more persuaded? Provide examples.
- Over time, do you see the church getting more controlling or more persuasion-focused?
- What would happen if the church became more persuasion-focused and less control focused? What actual changes would that entail? What would be the consequence of such a shift?
Discuss.
[1] Channeling Bridgerton
Wheat & Tares 
I love your post, especially the definition of Satan’s Plan. I have big feelings about the level of control the church exerts on its members. I was taught that once I made the choice to be baptized, I didn’t have to make all the other choices. And I can’t believe it, but I was totally cool with that idea for a long time. But I now see that the church had an unhealthy level of control in my life.
I first realized I didn’t have a healthy relationship with the church when my oldest became a teenager and we started having more serious discussions. My wife said, “I hope she chooses x, y, and z.” I replied, “What are you talking about? It’s not a choice. X, Y, and Z are just off limits!” (That’s the way I was raised). My patient wife was like, “Ummm… I think this is something we need to get to the bottom of.”
Through a lot of conversations with my wife, friends, therapists, myself, and God…. I made the life changing discovery that IT IS ACTUALLY A CHOICE! I ACTUALLY DO GET TO CHOOSE! It blew my mind and completely changed the reality that I live in. Now I’m going through the laborious process of answering the questions that help one stay out of the control trap, like “What do I want?” I cannot emphasize how big a change this has made in my life and my reality.
So yeah, I think the church exerts too much control in members lives. I know that it did in mine.
Abraham Lincoln famously stated “Whenever the vicious portion of the population shall be permitted to gather in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and rob provision stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, and hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure, and with impunity; depend on it, this government cannot last.”
One can perceive coercion from another even when the other does not intend such. It happens in every social group. It happened in my grandmother’s garden club, and I wondered why she continued there. But she found purpose there, and I want to respect that.
Yes, I hope for more persuasion and less dominion or control in certain aspects of our church culture. But not all of the coercion one might feel in our church culture is purposefully imposed by church leaders — some of it is self-imposed such as by ourselves or by other members, and often for social instead of bona fide religious reasons. It is human nature.
One example of coercion, unintended coercion, is youth interviews that go beyond official instructions and instead attempt to compel confessions of youthful “sin” — a confession should always be voluntary, and in my mind a confession in a youth interview that results from the leader’s questioning is never voluntary but must always be seen as compelled because of the severe imbalance of power that exists between the interview participants (leader and youth). Youth interviews can be and are officially intended to be helpful to youth, but in our church culture they can perhaps become coercive. Care is needed here.
During his mortal ministry, Jesus taught us to withhold judgment from others, and to be charitable to our neighbors. He also exposed the flaws of a pharisaical mindset. It is always good to re-visit those teachings.
I love this post. I recently heard a story from a now 50 year old man, telling the effects of an incident at age 10 which shaped the next 40 years of his life. This story resonated deeply with me as I have spent the past 3 years, in particular, attempting to flesh out the tension that exists between personal agency and community.
This man grew up in West Valley, Utah, back when it was WAY out there. One unsuspecting day, he and his Dad went to the local supermarket (unnamed, but definitely not Walmart). Like many curious, broke, hungry and maybe a little rebellious of young men, he spotted a candy bar and decided to five finger discount it. Apparently, his shop lifting skills had not been honed very well, and he was immediately caught. His Dad walked him back to the store owner’s office, where they sat, and his Father instructed him to apologize to the owner and discuss any consequences necessary to make things right. In the course of the conversations, his father first, and then his mother said a very common phrase, “I’m so disappointed in you”. These words, at 50 years old, he realized had shaped an idea about his personal choices which had haunted and robbed him of his own personal power. He said, what I learned that day was that my choices didn’t matter. What mattered was how my choices made other people feel about me. He said, nobody ever asked me why I stole the candy bar or anything about what choices “I” wanted to make around honesty, they just expressed a lowered view of him based on his choices. I felt his pain as he told this story and how much my sense of self has been found in everyone else.
To often, the Modis operandi of the Church is motivated by a need for validation, as in, I need you to do as I tell you so my image, personal and institutional will be preserved. It’s very much that a poor personal choice has brought dishonor to the group, and therefore shame and coercion is used to restore honor to the group or parent. I recognize the value in rules which govern groups of people, but if belonging comes at the expense of personal integrity, then I believe religion has surely failed. Compliance for its own sake risks conflating unity with unanimity. We favor sameness because we are so bad at relating to difference, so we very limited human beings coerce, manipulate, force, scare, etc. each other to abandon uniqueness so we can feel okay about ourselves. In other words, LDS leadership needs people to agree in lock step to prop up their own beliefs. We go on believing we have created the best of communities because there is very low conflict. All the while completely blind that our creation is what Scott Peck calls “Pseudo community”, it’s absent contention and conflict, not because people are mature, but because they have been silenced by the fear of excommunication (being shunned by the group).
These are parenting concepts. In the Human Development literature there are three types of parents: Authoritarian, Authoritative and Permissive.
Authoritarian parents control their children’s lives to a great extent without allowing children to learn how to choose for themselves. They don’t have a strong emotional connection with their children in which they listen to their children and understand how they feel and how they are maturing and choosing. They control through punishment and fear of punishment. The moment such a child gets out from under that control, they stop doing everything the parents forced them to do, and they break off contact as soon as they can.
Authoritative parents have strong boundaries and clear rules for children to follow. However, they also listen to their children and teach them how to make their own decisions, bit by bit as it becomes appropriate. They offer natural and logical consequences rather than punishment. They have strong relationships of respect with their children. They are more than their child’s friend. They are a resource they can rely on deep into adulthood. Typically their children become independent as they can but still stay in touch, and ask for help when needed.
Permissive parents ignore their kids and their needs almost to the point of neglect. They let them do whatever they want. They relate to them like they are friends. Depending on the personal temperament of the child, this can work out well or very poorly. Kids thrive with structure and in this situation, sometimes a child becomes the parent to the parent at a young age. This is unhealthy.
The church offers a sort of parental authority. It is good at providing basic structure for small children but bad at developing a reciprocal relationship in which the parent responds to the child’s growth and maturity by relinquishing choices and becoming a resource. Some leaders develop a healthy Authoritative relationship with some members. Others are distinctly Authoritarian and engage in lots of contro,l punishment and fear. Many of our local leaders are Permissive in that they don’t have any energy to offer much of anything to most people, so they just ignore lots of needs.
As a person I have grown out of being told what to do. I am wanting a more reciprocal relationship with the church in which my concerns are listened to and I am given a full opportunity to contribute to the relationship in full consensus as an adult. This would be a healthy Authoritative relationship with another adult, fully respecting autonomy.
However the church itself is has failed to offer that reciprocal, listening, two way relationship. All it can offer is ignoring or punishing. As members become more aware of their own spiritual autonomy, they choose for themselves their activity levels in the church. Rants and demands for tithing, temple attendance, and scheduling meetings with the bishop roll like water off a ducks back.
The church doesn’t build that adult autonomy; it undermines it. Still, it comes to many of us anyway.
“I am wanting a more reciprocal relationship with the church in which my concerns are listened to and I am given a full opportunity to contribute to the relationship in full consensus as an adult.”
This sounds entirely reasonable. I think that is what D&C 121 envisions, where nothing is done by dominion but only by persuasion, brotherly love, and so forth.
Amen, lws329, amen!
In a real sense, the more the Church stresses raw obedience, the more it risks failing in its stated purpose to assist in bringing to pass the eternal life of its members. As I understand it, eternal life is a state one grows into rather than a gift one receives. Or rather, the gift of eternal life consists of Christ providing the opportunity and authoritative guidance to pursue a life that promotes growth into the image and life of our heavenly parents.
If this be remotely true, the conceit of Satan’s so-called plan lies not in forcing one to obey (an obscure idea that took root to become today’s folk doctrine) but rather in the notion that one could receive eternal life without pursuing a life that promotes personal growth and eternal progression.
When I think of withholding information as a form of control, I always think of sex education in Utah. The powers that be think that by not knowing anything about sex, teens won’t just stumble into it. Or maybe that is what they want the parents to think and they actually hope that not knowing about sex, teens cannot protect themselves from consequences and thus the punishment is built in and the powers that be really like the idea that the teens will ruin their young lives. An example of why I am so cynical and think those in power just want young lives ruined, is that sex education is the best way to prevent abortion. Yet those who are most against abortion are the same people who are most against sex education. They hope that if young people have sex, pregnancy will happen and then want the young woman to suffer by forcing her to have the child.
The same lack of information they hope will prevent gays from realizing they are gay, or trans individuals from realizing they are trans.
With the church, it is pretty obvious they use coercion, but why? One big reason is they fear that if given a choice, too many members will choose to do other than what the church tells them. But I don’t really believe top leaders are afraid disobedient member will suffer eternal punishment. I believe they are afraid *they* will lose power. If it was about members eternal reward or punishment, there should be enough things to persuade members. I mean take garments. (Yes, please take them and burn them, but I am getting off subject. So, take garments as an example. How many times to leaders talk about the good wearing garments does? How many times do they talk about glorious reward? Nope. They remind us that we covenanted to wear them…but we didn’t. We were instructed to wear them and nowhere were we instructed 24/7 or anything else. We were instructed to wear them throughout our lives. So, if I put on garments once a month for three hours to attend the temple for the rest of my life, I am wearing them “throughout my life.” But THAT isn’t good enough for the church. They have this insane need to control just how often and exactly how and when we wear them. It is all about obedience, not eternal reward, let alone loving our neighbor and God. And obedience to what we were instructed in the temple isn’t good enough, no they tell us we *promised* to wear then 24/7 f-o-r-e-v-e-r. Years ago, the church encouraged misinformation in that they encouraged belief that the “protection” promised was physical protection. Magical underwear. But that was the reason we *had* to wear them 24/7. Then they sort of reluctantly changed to saying the protection is spiritual. But this is obviously bunk because they are only spiritual protection if we use them as such, and anything can substitute for that physical reminder of our promises. CTR rings do it for the kids. Why not the adults? Or why not just have enough will power to know that there are things that I just won’t do.
There is a good argument for persuading people to not have sex outside of marriage, and when there are those good reasons, then people can be persuaded. When there is no good reason for me to wear funny underwear is when the church drop persuasion and says, “you promised,” when you really never did.
The church and its members preach of agency and freedom of choice, but when put to the ultimate test, they often don’t practice it. The stories shared by ex-Mormons in message boards, blogs, videos, and other forms of social media reveal patterns of ostracism, shaming, shunning, divorce, distancing, deprivation of shelter and money, and emotional abuse employed by family members and friends who disapprove of their loved ones leaving the church. Some members accept their loved ones leaving and use only persuasion and invitation to get them to return, but there are simply too many stories of coercion, manipulation, and high pressure tactics employed to punish those who leave.
Often I hear believers say that you are free to make choices but you’re not free to choose the consequences. I’ve long disliked this reasoning. True freedom allows flexibility of action and words without fear of stringent consequences. It goes without saying that saying that someone is free to do something or say something but I’ll kill you if you say or do that is not freedom. You’re free to leave the church but I’ll divorce you if you do, I’ll stop talking to you if you do, I’ll cut you off financially if you do, I’ll publicly shame you if you do, I’ll blame you for everything that goes wrong in your life if you do, etc. is not freedom to leave church.
Right now I feel like I’m observing a divergence among the general authorities of the church regarding control. We have some well-known cases of sermons about how a mission is not a choice, that once you chose the path of church membership at age 8, you obligated yourself to everything that is expected to follow. On the other hand, we have the recently rewritten For the Strength of Youth, which has moved away from prescriptive lists in favor of discussing general principles for decision making. I strongly suspect that effort was overseen by the man who presented it in general conference, Dieter Uchtdorf. Everyone here will understand why I wish him a very long and healthy life. I think these two messages are irreconcilably in conflict with each other, and I believe we’ll continue to hear this schizophrenic messaging for the forseeable future.
Most of the control in the church is of the social pressure variety, but I think that Mormonism has one unique feature among all Christian traditions worth discussing: the temple recommend. I think the soft control that this system creates can’t be underestimated. (I’m still quite curious whether it generates higher compliance than other systems of control in conservative religious denominations and I’d love to see an enterprising academic in the social sciences study this.)
For most of my life in the church I’ve not felt particularly controlled because I was a natural rule follower and believed in doing all of the things. However, the recent preaching about garments smacks of control in a way that has really got under my skin and makes me want to wear them less.
Brad D – “Often I hear believers say that you are free to make choices but you’re not free to choose the consequences. I’ve long disliked this reasoning. “
I 100% agree with this statement, but it’s difficult to parse out with people how or why their methods are not helpful. I actually do generally agree that choices have consequences, but the source of those consequences is the question. When we hear the words “wickedness never was happiness”, we don’t take seriously that its possible and highly probably that certain actions will never result in happiness, and then we conflate the “natural order” of things with the “moral order” of things.
The natural order is consistent with the premise of the novel “Crime and punishment”, essentially saying, you might not get caught but you can’t outrun your conscience.
The moral order of things is what response ought to be given from people themselves. So, for LDS people, wickedness never being happiness is often because if you violate a certain religious law or boundary, they employ a moral imperative to ensure that you are miserable. I don’t believe we are punished “for” our sins; I believe we are punished “by” them, which greatly complicates what we hold out as a legitimate commandment of God.
One such example is the BYU Honor Code. It is presented as a set of reasonable standards and guardrails to help empower (in other words, persuade) young adults to make moral choices in their personal conduct and “helps to accomplish the CES mission to build disciples of Jesus Christ” (as stated on their website). However, we know very well that the reality is that the Honor Code is a frequently weaponized, heavy-handed enforcement tool that encourages artificial self-righteousness, pharisaical tattling, arbitrary/uneven application, unnecessary expulsions, and has often resulted in victims being punished worse than offenders; very far from the Christian discipleship they claim to be building. Ernest Wilkinson intended it to be such when he first instituted it, going as far as using it to purge suspected communists and homosexuals from both the student body and the faculty. And it remains a strict control mechanism, no matter what they publicly say, though severity of enforcement tends to vary over time depending on the whims of the current CES leadership.
So yes, the LDS Church is still very much in the control business, regardless of what it publicly teaches to the contrary. And that hypocrisy makes me more angry than just about any other single negative aspect about the Church (of which there are a great many).
Jack Hughes: After being at BYU for 3 years, which was a mixed bag (getting sent to the standards office by some rando, then told that my skirt was FINE, then when I asked what would happen to this tattling busybody, I was told nothing–my inconvenience and stress was completely acceptable and baked in, but the tattlers who were making crap up were protected), the weirdest thing ever was going into the MTC where it was like a prison in comparison. Tons of control. Everything we did was under a microscope, everything we said, where we could and couldn’t walk, what time we did everything. It was about the hardest thing I ever had to go through in my life, just being stuck in such a dehumanizing situation when I thought it was supposed to be something great. Getting to the actual mission mostly felt like a breath of fresh air after that.
This tattling culture is a serious moral problem, though. People are trafficking in gossip to gain status and accolades for themselves at the expense of others in what amounts to victimless crimes that are being called sins. To quote JCS, I condemn it in the strongest possible terms.
Jack Hughes, you write correctly that the BYU Honor Code “remains a strict control mechanism, no matter what they publicly say, though severity of enforcement tends to vary over time depending on the whims of the current CES leadership.” My issue with the code is its apparent unequal application for similar offenses, depending, for example, whether the student in crosshairs is a star athlete or not.
Jesus sought to control no one during His ministry. When many among his followers ceased following him after the discourse on the bread, He didn’t take names and make lists and excommunicate. He let them go peaceably and asked the apostles whether they, too, would desert Him–and I think that he asked with love, and not with anger. While I agree that discipline is sometimes necessary, I think the emphasis on obedience as a first principle is misplaced. A desire to be obedient is a naturally occurring fruit of love and faith. Didn’t Paul teach that obedience without love wouldn’t be worth much at the last day? We should be inviting more and commanding less, teaching and showing love more and making checklists less. Any church leader you ask would likely say that everything in the church is done by invitation, and there is nothing done except it is done by love and kindness, and they probably actually believe it. That may be a goal, but it doesn’t really work that way at the local level.
I appreciate Todd Smithson’s formulation: “I don’t believe we are punished ‘for’ our sins; I believe we are punished ‘by’ them, which greatly complicates what we hold out as a legitimate commandment of God.” Jesus doesn’t condemn, according to John; men condemn themselves by rejecting the light and staying in darkness. Let’s shed light to help people see in the darkness, and invite them out from the cold fields and dark woods and into our warm abodes with fireplaces and candles, instead of throwing stones at people for their errors. Yes, there are mockers in the great and spacious building, but those on the path should be very slow to point the finger or to put out the lip about another sojourner.
I also agree with Quentin that there are divergent views on what obedience is. He named someone who might be president of the church one day, but the next senior apostle is 11 years his junior, so all things being equal, the former may be old and weak when he assumes the lead for what will likely be a short time, and he will know who his successor will be. Kind of like when President McKay was old, and he knew that JFS and BHL were his heirs, with the latter being 26 years his junior. All things were not equal there, and HBL died young at age 74, but apparently President McKay was still blocked on a couple of important things in his last couple of years.
My obedience should be measured only by me. If my faith is weak, then one can help me build my faith, but telling me where I am failing generally does not help. I already know where I am failing, and I don’t need condemnation and criticism from others who also have failings. What might be the least-taught and least-understood teaching of Jesus? Maybe the mote and the beam. No one recognized the beams in their own eyes, but we all have them to one degree or another. We need less control, and more love.
Less ‘Follow the Prophet’ and more ‘Jesus Loves Me’
I’m not convinced that persuasion is always better than control. It’s nice to imagine a world where everyone makes good, informed decisions based on the best available information. That was the model that economists for centuries to explain the world, but that’s a fantasy Scholars like Kahneman, Tversky, and Thaler have pretty effectively proved that humans are irrational, emotional, short-sighted, and will regularly act contrary to their own self interest even when presented mountains of persuasive facts.
Just look at the antics about masks and vaccines during COVID, or how few people actually set money aside for retirement. Even just suffering through a bad movie rather than doing something better with your time, because you already spent the money.
So in a better world led by Plato’s philosopher kings and queens, we could rely on persuasion and logic. But the world is an imperfect, difficult place filled with fallible mortals. We have to live in the world as it actually exists, and while persuasion is absolutely preferable whenever possible, there are also times when control is the right tool to reach for.
No, that doesn’t mean it’s ok to do things like claim that temple ordinances are required to be saved and then use tithing as a paywall to bar access to heaven. “Pay me or you’ll never see your family again,” is the wrong approach.
Yes, there is a place for coercion in our world and in our societies — but in the context of the pastoral church, D&C 121 tells us that nothing related to the priesthood is supposed to be based on dominion or control, but rather everything related to the priesthood is supposed to be based on persuasion, long-suffering, brotherly kindness, and so forth.
Pendulums swing, or course, and maybe our church culture has been swinging more towards coercion — I’d like to see more of a swing in the direction of persuasion in our pastoral church.
I differentiate between the pastoral church and the church bureaucracy or infrastructure — church employees should certainly follow the directions of their supervisors as a condition of continued employment. But church members in wards and branches in pastoral settings are not employees. A bishop, stake president, or so forth is not a supervisor.
Jesus said that leaders serve those whom they lead. But I don’t think church members are feeling much service from their leaders lately, and I wish more did. We might benefit from more ministering from leaders, and less administering.
The Pirate Priest:
“No, that doesn’t mean it’s ok to do things like claim that temple ordinances are required to be saved and then use tithing as a paywall to bar access to heaven.”
I’ve never felt coerced to pay tithing. As well we might say: keep the law of chastity or you’ll be barred from the temple. Or keep the word of wisdom; or don’t speak evil of the Lord’s anointed, etc. Breaking other commandments can also prevent us from going to the temple–even when we’re faithful in paying our tithing. So it’s not about forcing people to give money. It’s about striving to live in a way that befits a disciple–and giving of our substance for the building of the Kingdom is one of the things that has always been required of the Lord’s people.
Jack- I’m glad you have never felt coerced to pay tithing. What a wonderful blessing to have the faith and the opportunity to follow the commandments in the way you feel is appropriate!
“It’s about striving to live in a way that befits a disciple–and giving of our substance for the building of the Kingdom is one of the things that has always been required of the Lord’s people.”
True discipleship is not coerced or mandated. It cannot be, and still be considered discipleship. Being a disciple is choosing to align yourself and your actions with Christ’s example and teachings. It is a choice that is internal and motivated by love for God and love for your fellow man. It really has nothing to do with the worthiness interviews conducted for temple recommends, or full tithe payer status, or pre-calling interviews. Those are needed by the Church for efficient operation and organizational cohesion, but when our access to salvific ordinances is subject to gatekeeping based on current cultural or social norms (which are never, ever the same as what they were before or will be in the future), the element of coercion is met, and the true benefits of discipleship are obscured or even lost.
Obedience is a fruit of discipleship, not the first, primary and only way to become a disciple. If Christ had been merely obedient to the church and its leaders during his mortal ministry, we never would have had the Atonement. While you could argue that Christ was perfectly obedient to the commandments of God rather than the standards of the men of the church at the time, that argument does not negate the fact that obedience for the sake of obedience is pointless. The Pharisees “neglected the weightier matters of the law” in favor of obedience to the rules and policies of the day. Many, if not most of the comments on this post, address the idea to one degree or another that true discipleship is personal, and exists alongside, but outside, the traditional church structure.
Likewise, had Eve been merely obedient to all the commands of the Lord, we would not have the beautiful origin story of humanity. Adam and Eve found their discipleship in the wilderness, where their obedience was an outgrowth of a desire to be closer to God. Their life in the Garden, while perfectly obedient to every commandment and instruction, was hollow. They were children of God and children of the covenant, but not disciples of Christ, because they couldn’t be. Mere obedience does not create disciples. Discipleship comes only when there is choice, consequence, and the opportunity to develop a personal relationship with God. The current focus of the Church, which appears to be focused on using obedience to obtain salvation, does not appear to contain the elements necessary to inspire true discipleship. Those who are true disciples within the Church are such in spite of the Church’s gatekeeping, not because of it.
Thanks for the thoughtful response Concrete Cowboy.
In Section 93 we learn that we become innocent again upon entering this world. And as little children we–like Adam–will find ourselves knowing that we should obey the commandments without understanding all of the whys and wherefores. And so while I agree that it is preferable for disciples to obey out of a sense of love rather than duty, that’s not to say that discipleship begins only when we are mature in the faith. God sweetly condescends to work with us where we’re at–and most of us begin our trek in the faith as babes. And we remain as little children in some respect through the whole of our trek, learning and growing one step at a time.
And so in some sense what we have is a situation where the Kingdom is like a large room occupied by people of all degrees of spiritual maturity–from little children to the elderly. And in that room there are safe guards for the little ones–gates at the stairs, covers on the electrical sockets, and so forth. But those who are more mature do not remove the safeguards because they understand their purpose–and they may even find that they themselves are protected by them on occasion.
I’ll also add that I never felt coerced to pay tithing either. That doesn’t mean I wasn’t being coerced, it just means I didn’t feel it when I was in the system. But when I chose to give tithing to charities instead of the church, I was told no, that doesn’t count, Jana Reiss notwithstanding. Normally I don’t feel the need to justify my decisions in TR interviews but since a bishop can easily fact check this one, I decided to be up front about it. It didn’t go well, but went as expected.
As ji points out, there is a time for both in a large society. With regards to faith and spirituality however, I do feel that persuasion will most likely yield better results.
I had no issue with the honor code at BYU in the early 2000’s, notwithstanding a few annoying busybodies in one apartment complex that would look through windows policing curfew. Then in the late-2010’s I was introduced to the hashtag #thatsnothonor movement at BYU to reform the honor code. I was so appalled at what I read. Congrats to the students for bringing light to these toxic practices by the honor code office. They proved that coercion in a faith community is not the way.
Chadwick, you put the nail on the head. If you’re already predisposed to going along with the order of things, then the order of things does not feel oppressive. It is only when you think outside the box a little, and think that it would be better to do things a little differently, even if it is just a small thing sometimes, then you start to feel the coercion. I never used to think that tithing settlement was coercive. That was when I paid tithing in full and just accepted that that was the norm. Then at some point, I began to view tithing differently. I read Rock Waterman’s “Are we paying too much tithing” article. I began to think of the church not as the good ol’ church that I always loved and knew but as a non-profit. Then I compared it with other non-profits. I compared it with what people used to tithe in the past. Then I realized that the actual meeting of tithing settlement itself was coercive and high pressure. I now always decline invitations to attend tithing settlement. It is a meeting that should no longer be.
19 March 1970 letter: First Presidency (Joseph Fielding Smith, Harold B. Lee, N. Eldon Tanner), letter of 19 March 1970. To Presidents of Stakes, Bishops of Wards, and Presidents of Missions.
Dear Brethren:
Inquiries are received at the office of the First Presidency from time to time from officers and members of the Church asking for information as to what is considered a proper tithe.
For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that we have uniformly replied that the simplest statement we know of is the statement of the Lord himself, namely, that the members of the Church should pay “one-tenth of all their interest annually,” which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this.
We feel that every member of the Church is entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord and to make payment accordingly.
End of letter
Any statement other than what the First Presidency put to paper in 1970 is probably coercive, because it attempts to force the reader or listener to accept the writer’s or speaker’s opinion about what tithing is. The most important part of this letter, to me, is that I get to decide both what my 10% is and the basis upon which to figure that 10%: “We feel that every member of the Church is entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord and to make payment accordingly.” Anything more than this, including a lot of general conference talks on tithing, are coercive because they tell me when and what amount to pay.
This letter was published in the Ensign, for all the Church to see, in April 1974, when Spencer W Kimball was president of the Church. This “policy” survived Joseph F Smith and Harold B Lee and was published far and wide under Spencer W Kimball. It was also quoted for decades afterwards in our handbooks.
This is the most important part of that letter:
“No one is justified in making any other statement than this.”
Yet, how many times have we heard church members, including church officers in high standing, violate this instruction from the First Presidency? I thought we were supposed to follow the prophet?
Pirate Priest, I’ll agree that some level of control is necessary for a stable society. If I drive recklessly, police officers should be able to pull me over, perhaps take possession of my license, or even arrest me to keep others safe. The consequences of traffic collisions are very real so the punishments are just.
But that’s the government. The problem with church consequences is that they’re largely based on imaginary things. Hell, sad heaven, spiritual death, loss of the companionship of the Holy Ghost—these shared fictions are all metaphors at best, delusions at worst.
And this is why approaching the truth claims with nuance and skepticism is so important. There’s no good reason to believe that if you say a curse word an actual Holy Spirit chooses to abandon you, or that if you have a sip of coffee your connection to God is dead, or that if you have sex before marriage you are inflicting extra pain on Jesus, or that if your child leaves the church there will be an empty chair at the family table in heaven.
I suppose these ideas could be useful as metaphors to help you live your best life is that’s what spiritually motivates you. But using them to threaten and intimidate others is just needlessly making people suffer based on religious dogmas, many of which are rooted in easily debunked truth claims about Joseph Smith’s authority.
@Jack There are lots of people in the church who, like you, willingly and even happily donate tithing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this.
There’s nothing wrong with restricting temple ceremonies to “dedicated” members as rite of passage to higher tiers of membership.
There’s not even really an issue with the church’s claims that temple ordinances are mandatory for entrance into the celestial kingdom.
The issue is that when each of these things are made to intersect – it morphs into a situation where the church requires members to pay money for access to the temple and, by extension, pay for access to the celestial kingdom. There is no exemption for the poor and the church publicly admits that it doesn’t need the money.
This is exactly the kind of controlling, money-grubbing behavior by religious leaders that provoked Jesus literally rage flip tables and chase offenders out of the temple with a whip. I can’t imagine Jesus would somehow hold Mormons to a different standard.
Jack “And as little children we–like Adam–will find ourselves knowing that we should obey the commandments without understanding all of the whys and wherefores.”
There are few things within our LDS rhetoric that fire me up more than the idea of “blind obedience”. Jack, I have read the things you write and have a sense that you are quite an intelligent, devoted and even poised person. This typical use of the scripture passage you mentioned is lazy and out of context. This is classic proof texting. Of course, if you stop at verse 5 you can ramrod that verse into this toxic idea that obedience is a stand-alone virtue. If you continue reading beyond verse 5, the angel does not pause to congratulate Adam for him doing as he was told. He proceeds, with some understandable concern, to give him the “Why”. The “Why” does matter, at least eventually. We are not meant to remain in the innocence of childhood, and our LDS tradition has ZERO concept of spiritual development beyond about age 20.
I can remember my mother, much to my chagrin, uttering the condescending question “If your friend told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it”? This question along with other phrases like, don’t follow the crowd, or stand up for what is right, are examples of appealing to personal integrity. We seem to inherently value that until we reach “church authority”, then we 180-degree pivot to abandon agency in favor of “follow the prophet”. Of course, this kind of blind obedience is appropriate for a 4 year old, they lack any kind of wisdom or experience about the smallest of things. Telling my child “Thou shalt not go in the street” is not because the street is inherently evil, and it’s certainly not an arbitrary command for my child to honor my authority. The command is for HIS / HER good, because they don’t yet know what a street is and how to navigate it safely. Eventually they will grow and learn and that command will become more nuanced, they will understand when and how to enter the street to avoid the potential dangers.
Blind obedience is NOT a thing.
Jack,
I agree with toddsmithson. I have learned by my own experiences that church leaders are fallible people. Sometimes they get it wrong. We have been given our own conscience or the Holy Spirit to lead us individually away from these wrong choices.
Depending only on authority to make your decisions can backfire in a serious way, even with church leaders. Joseph Smith set the example of disregarding his Methodist ministers counsel.
Sometimes the best and brightest decisions are disobedient to authority, if authority requires you to do things that you feel in your heart are wrong. People that disobeyed Hitler saved innocent people. Today in the church it can become necessary for transgender people to disobey the counsel of leaders to maintain mental health.
Leaders in the church, right down to priesthood holders at home, do all kinds of hurtful things that are wrong. It isn’t our obligation to mindlessly do those things. It is our job to study, ponder, pray, and make our own decisions, and then, if leaders will listen, patiently explain why their directions are harmful and to continue to refuse to do those things that we know for ourselves are wrong.
There is a commandment to honor the Sabbath Day. Does it violate the Sabbath to buy bread before sacrament meeting because no one brought bread to church? or to buy a single serving size orange juice when your mother is at church and her blood sugar is falling precipitously? Or to pick and eat grain while crossing a field? or to heal the sick?
There is a commandment not to bear false witness against a neighbor, generally interpreted (probably wrongly) as not to lie. Does it violate this commandment when one tells a dying person to hand in there, you’re doing great, and you can tell her you love her when you see her next? or when you’re Abraham and someone covets your Sarah?
Jesus said that He had a command from His Father to share the gospel with and to bless only with the children of Israel, but He did bless the Syro-Phoenician woman. Did Jesus violate His Father’s commandment?
We have a commandment against committing adultery, but does the historical record not show that Brigham Young, while president of the church, advised a sister with an impotent husband, to find a suitable man to help her bear descendants in the name of her impotent husband?
We have a commandment not to bow down to any other gods, but when Naaman asked the prohet Elisha about him (Naaman) going with his master, the king of Syria, into the temple of the god Rimmon and to bow with his king to this god, Elisha told Naaman “Go in peace.”
We have a commandment not to kill, and Nephi killed Laban so that he could steal the brass plates, which violated another commandment.
I think that toddsmithson, lws329, and others speak wisdom. Each of us has to decide how to live the commandments. I probably live them differently than I did twenty years ago, but that doesn’t mean that I was wrong then. I probably also live them differently from the people who sit in front and behind me at church, and none of us need to be calling the others wrong. Naaman did not sin when he accompanied his king to the temple of Rimmon, nor did Nephi sin when he killed and stole, nor did Abraham sin when he lied about his relationship with Sarah, nor did Jesus sin when He blessed the Syro-Phoenician woman.
There is one thing, Jack, that I don’t understand. Your wrote: “And in that room there are safeguards for the little ones–gates at the stairs, covers on the electrical sockets, and so forth. But those who are more mature do not remove the safeguards because they understand their purpose–and they may even find that they themselves are protected by them on occasion.” Well, we did at one point have gates on our stairs and covers on our electrical sockets. We do not have them now. Nor do I consider myself a bad person for not having them. I might have them again when my sons bring me grandchildren, but that hasn’t happened yet. There is no commandment to have child safety devices. It makes excellent sense if there are children in the house, but there is no commandment here. As I get older, I am more convinced that the number of commandments is actually relatively small; most of what people call commandments are not. We each have to decide for ourselves how to implement the commandments, but that gives us no space to tell our neighbors how to implement them, nor to condemn our neighbors when they implement differently than we have done. I think that is the message of the mote and beam. For example, there is no commandment on particularly what is or is not allowed by the commandment to keep the Sabbath day holy. How I do it may be intensely personal, and I should not impose my decisions on others. It may also be different from what of my bishop or stake president, but that does not make it wrong.
The discussion reminds me–
…of the law and then all the hedges around the law that people like to build and enforce (in days of old, and maybe also today?).
…of the truth that the letter of the law kills (but that life is in the spirit).
…that nothing regard the priesthood is done by commandment, constraint, dominion, and so forth, but instead only by persuasion, kindness, love, and so forth.
…of the caution (or commandment?) not to judge our brother, especially within the faith.
…of the error of the Pharisees is trying so hard to be righteous that they were instead counted as unrighteous (yes, maybe we can try to hard?).
…the importance of receiving personal revelation from a gracious Father to guide me through life and to understand and live the spirit of the law.
I’ll ad one final tidbit. The “Torah”, or the first 5 books of the Old Testament are what has become known as “The Law”. Torah however was never intended as an authoritative mandate, but more literally translated as “Instruction” or the Halakha (Jewish law), which means “the way of walking”. Based on the reading of the Torah, coupled with Jesus’ ministry, it seems clear to me that Christianity has an intrinsic “order of operations” problem with how it tells the covenantal story. We keep solving the addition and subtraction parts of the equation first, and then wonder why we keep getting the wrong answer. One of the primary and critical questions to get straight is, what is the purpose of the law? If you change the plot of the story, you change the entire story, and if we misunderstand the purpose of the law, then we wind up exchanging means for ends. The purpose of the law and obedience to it is fundamentally relational, not legal. The law functions as the scaffolding to preserve community, the trust that serves as social adhesive, and to promote the presence of God’s in the world.
Lest we forget, Jesus said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments”. The purpose of the law is not to secure God’s favor, that’s backwards, out of order and pointing the law in the wrong direction. Jesus made it crystal clear that the fulfillment of the law is using it as an expression of love, not as a tool to make one lovable. Western Christianity, maybe especially the LDS version, promotes the idea that God’s favor rests on our obedience. Can we not think critically about that premise for a fraction of a second and see the massive problem with it. If we believe that God’s grace is conditioned on our good behavior, first of all, grace is no longer grace–Shakespear famously said, “Love is not loves which alters when it alteration finds”; secondly, our sense of gratitude will forever be trapped inside entitlement. Consequently, the gospel winds up being a system of control, where faith is some magical power we use to bend reality to our will. I hope people can see the problem with placing obedience before Grace, it’s out of order. God does not bless me because I’m good, he blesses me because he’s good, and then he trusts us to keep his spirit alive in the world by bearing his image.
While there are 15 questions to get a recommend, there is only one question that requires an annual meeting with your bishop, recommend or no. And, paying tithing is strongly encouraged even to those who have been kicked out. There are no required annual meetings with bishops to ask about any of the 10 commandments, or all of the other extraneous rules made up by the church–ONLY tithing. THAT’S what is most important to the church. Fastest way to get excommunicated? Not pedophilia–that’s PROTECTED (except the victims–they’re thrown under the bus)! But steal tithing funds? You’ll be out before the end of the week.
I want to push back against a couple of ideas.
First, this idea from the OP – Satan’s plan (n.) a devious strategy proposed by the evil one to force obedience and guarantee that all will be saved – to be a widespread teaching in the church, but it has no basis in scripture. There we only learn that Satan wanted to save everyone (no information given as to how) and that he wanted all the glory. That part was the problem.
I suspect the idea idea that Satan wanted to force everyone to be good, i.e. take away agency/freedom, was developed by politically conservative, right-leaning general authorities in the 1950’s or 60’s as a way to label communism as being satanic. Would be interesting to discover the origin of this teaching.
Second, I believe the comment that “had Eve been merely obedient to all the commands of the Lord, we would not have the beautiful origin story of humanity” is wrong. Adam and Even were commanded to multiply and enjoy their posterity in the Garden of Eden. They didn’t have to leave to have children. Eve was tricked into eating the fruit and Adam decided to eat the fruit so he could stay – and have children – with her, since she was going to be kicked out of the Garden. They didn’t have to leave the Garden to learn good from evil. The war in heaven showed that good/evil/agency already existed – in God’s presence.
Don’t agree Eve was tricked and made a mistake? Don’t believe there was no other way? If that’s true, then Satan – the father of all lies – was telling the truth and implementing God’s plan. Why would he do that? He knew what he was doing. It doesn’t make sense. An alternative life for humanity in the Garden of Eden must have been possible, and it must have been good, because God wants what is good. The Savior was the back-up plan.
Our Article of Faith refers to Adam’s transgression, not Eve’s or their’s. That may just be sexist, but it may mean that Adam was actually the one who screwed up. Theoretically he could have not partaken and asked God for a new woman instead. How different the history of humankind would have been.
Eugene
I find the history of humankind divided into Nature is red in tooth and claw, and those who think when it comes to evolution cooperation is the name of the game.
One story used to justify war and imperialism, and the other the joy of village life (presumably not the M. Night Shyamalan version or even Stepford. Who writes this stuff?)
As for myself, while “2001” is a classic movie, I prefer “2010”. And “Arrival”, that is an awesome movie. As to what the heptapods want, it’s clearly not to rape and pillage and have humans for dinner. And is weapons a good translation.
And my question is this, what’s the meaning of a story where Adam’s screw up, is that he didn’t trade in for a newer model? What’s the legacy of such a story.
“And my question is this, what’s the meaning of a story where Adam’s screw up, is that he didn’t trade in for a newer model? What’s the legacy of such a story.”
First off, the story of Adam and Even is about the entire human family–not just two individuals. With that understanding in place then it becomes evident (to me at least) that there is no continuation of life if the man and the woman are separated. And so the idea that Adam theoretically might’ve cashed in for a new woman becomes logically incoherent–as Eve, the individual, is the embodiment of all women in the garden story. Like it or not men and women are stuck together–that is, if there is to be any progression at all.
***
I left a comment a day or two ago that still hasn’t posted–must be stuck in moderation.
But.. Adam DID trade in for a newer model. Eve was the second woman. Lilith was the first.
Personally I think that those who think Adam was the hero of that story get the kind of church they deserve, one in which unthinking obedience is the pinnacle of human achievement. It’s not clear that Satan in that story is lying. He says they will be like gods knowing good from evil, and that’s what happens. The lie is that they won’t die.
I do think the anti-communism hysteria of the 1950s really did a number on church doctrine and on American thinking in general. Americans apply the term communism far too broadly and don’t identify the threats of authoritarianism nearly enough.
@Eugene, this idea can be pulled from Moses 4:3 which states that “Satan rebelled against [God] and sought to destroy the agency of man[kind], which I, the Lord God had given [them]”. No elaboration in the scriptures on what that might look like in practice, but it is right there that Satan wanted to destroy agency.