Is a hammer a tool or a weapon? To a roofer, it’s a tool. To Thor, it’s a weapon. To a roofer being attacked by a dog, it might start as a tool then become a weapon. Paul Pelosi’s attacker might have seen it as a tool to fight against an ideology he opposed, but to Paul Pelosi, it was a weapon. Whether something is a tool or a weapon depends on the intent of the user, the context, the impact, and the consent of the one it is used against. Individuals or systems can use things like language, caretaking, religion, or government to support others and help them flourish or to dominate and control them.
Here are some key differences in assessing whether something is being used as a tool or a weapon:
- Intent. If it’s a tool, it’s being used to help, to build, to heal, to clarify or to protect. If it’s being used as a weapon, it’s used to control, to hurt, to dominate, to silence or to shame.
- Consent. A tool is used with the participation or understanding of others, not just the goals of those who are in power. A weapon is something that is imposed on others or used to coerce them or manipulate them.
- Transparency. A tool’s use is done in the open, with a shared purpose among all those affected. A weapon may be used by someone and called a tool while having a hidden motive or purpose that is not shared by all involved. This can result in gaslighting or manipulation to hide the real intent.
- Power dynamic. A tool is used collaboratively or supportively by the whole group of people. A weapon involves a hierarchical or coercive power dynamic in which one individual, group or party does something to another individual, party or group.
- Autonomy. Tools enhance individual agency and ability, just like a hammer or lever increases one’s strength in performing a physical task. A weapon reduces or punishes the agency of another person–so an axe may increase the ability of a medieval soldier to kill (like a tool), but it’s a weapon because of the killing or maiming act. If you use it chop wood or demolish a bathroom, it’s a tool. If you use it to crush a skull, it’s a weapon.
- Outcomes. Tools are used for constructive outcomes (growth, support, education). Weapons are used for destructive ends (to create fear, dependency or punish disobedience).
In politics, both parties accuse each other of using what could be a tool as a weapon. This is because of the polarized nature of our two party system. When the other party is seen as an enemy, tools become weapons. This is one reason that the rule of law is so important to society, and yet, as we’ve seen the rule of law and the judiciary is also subject to be weaponized. Criminals don’t like going to jail, and not everyone accused is guilty. If the law comes after you, you go after the law. Litigation and accusations can bankrupt someone, even if they are totally innocent.
This occurs in religion as well. For example, some may see the Word of Wisdom as a tool, a health code that helps them avoid addiction. Others may perceive it as a weapon if it’s the thing that stands between them attending their child’s temple wedding and being forced to wait outside. You could substitute anything instead of the Word of Wisdom if it has real world consequences that feel coercive. Really, the entire “worthiness” interview could be viewed as a spiritual positive, an uplifting and necessary time to reflect by some and a coercive, manipulative weapon to judge and bar people from participation based on the subjective whims of a flawed human leader.
Here are a few examples of how something can be either a tool or a weapon.
- Law. The Civil Rights Act protects marginalized groups and ensures everyone is treated equally. Jim Crow laws codified and institutionalized racial oppression and inequality.
- Patriotism. FDR’s fireside chats were a way to unify and comfort the nation in wartime. McCarthyism unified the country against those it labelled traitors to instill fear in citizens.
- Religion. Jimmy Carter invoked his faith and encouraged human rights based on his Christian beliefs. George W. Bush promoted conservative compassion. The Taliban uses religion to justify gender apartheid.
- Public health. Vaccination campaigns are used to protect the populace from outbreaks of disease and pandemics. Forced sterilization and eugenics were used to prevent “undesirables” from procreating.
- Psychological diagnosis. Therapy sessions encourage growth, exploration of childhood and relations to improve one’s life outcomes. As a weapon, some diagnose others in order to dismiss them or self-diagnose to avoid accountability rather than to increase human flourishing.
Just about anything you can think of can be either a tool or a weapon. It’s not the object; it’s how it’s used. The one using it makes all the difference. To use something as a tool, you have to have positive intentions, respect the others who are impacted, and seek to encourage human benefit for all, not just your in-group. Essentially, without considering others as enemies or outsiders, you don’t really use tools as weapons. This is probably the gist of why anti-war protesters like Jane Fonda stuff flowers into the barrels of guns. It can be a killing machine (weapon) or a vase (tool), depending on your intention toward other people.
That’s not to say weapons are totally unnecessary. If your country or home is invaded, you may need a weapon to fight your attacker, for example. Appropriate use of weapons requires an accurate assessment of threats, though, not just fear-based anxiety making all the decisions. This is one aspect of today’s immigration debates that reveals a different perspective between the two parties. Many conservatives view asylum claims as a bogus end-run around what they assume are easily navigated immigration laws, and they might consider the act of illegal immigration to be a crime in and of itself; to fail to detain and remove illegal immigrants is seen as an abdication of a legislator’s willingness to uphold the laws of the nation. Illegal immigrants may be seen as a threat to job security (driving down wages) or to physical safety (the inaccurate claim that they commit more crimes). Clearly I’ve been reading comments on NextDoor.
Liberals may disagree that undocumented immigrants are a threat to safety, job security or national interest. They may point to the fact that asylum seekers are here legally, that detaining someone who is at a citizenship hearing is bad faith, or that undocumented workers pay taxes and are funding benefits for the rest of us when they are ineligible to reap those same financial benefits without citizenship.
So it all goes back to what one perceives to be a threat, and who is in power. If you are in power, you get to use that power to fight whatever you deem to be a threat. Or we could all try to listen to others and not see people as threats. Back to the church example, the internet is full of personal stories of individuals who were contentedly attending church, holding callings, and being accepted by the community despite being somehow different, supporting a queer child, holding a nuanced view about doctrine, or being a woman who wears pants to church, when suddenly the bishop was changed and they were targeted as a threat to the ward, released from callings, threatened with church action, etc. This is how the church (and government) appear to be designed. Might makes right. If you’re in charge, you can do whatever you like to the people you don’t like.
The term “lawfare” has been in the news a lot recently to describe the use of legal means rather that to uphold the law neutrally and to ensure a safe society where people are not harmed or exploited, but using the legal system toward amassing power by harassing, delaying or delegitimizing opponents. Because lawsuits are expensive and involve reputational harm as well as the potential for fines and incarceration, wealthy people or powerful entities can use them in manipulative ways against their perceived enemies. And obviously that means that those accused of wrongdoing can levy the charge of “lawfare” (just like “witch hunt”) defensively to hide their wrongdoing.
These potential abuses are why there is a long history of checks and balances in our legal system: separation of powers, judicial review, due process, a robust appellate system, public trials, judicial transparency, trial by jury, judicial ethics, recusal rules, a free press, legal precedent, common law tradition, and civil society norms. But it’s a system that is far from foolproof, as we’ve been finding out. The weakest points include the potential for stacking courts with ideologically aligned judges, selective enforcement of the law, manipulation of public opinion, a captured SCOTUS (and we all know how we got to this place through congressional shenanigans) and nuisance suits designed to harass or impoverish enemies.
Back to church examples, yesterday I read a story someone shared about their trans teen who has decided to socially transition. The family attends church and notified the bishop. Immediately, the bishop expressed stern disapproval and banned the teen from attending any second hour classes, requiring them to read scriptures in the foyer. They have also been banned from using the restroom of choice, and were told they cannot participate in the youth activities during the week so long as they persist in their decision to socially transition. It was extremely harsh (harsher than the handbook which is saying something), and the parents were reeling from the sudden changes as they had only recently discovered their child’s decision to socially transition. Do they have any recourse? They could go to the stake president, but that’s only going to get them so far. The Mormon leadership system is designed in such a way to support the leaders more than the members. That appears to be intentional, similar to the US system. Might makes right.
- What have you seen used as a tool or a weapon depending on who was in power?
- Have you had someone turn something you thought was a tool into a weapon?
- How should the church make things that are tools less prone to be used as weapons?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
Law of Chastity. A useful tool for keeping teens and young adults out of trouble. But often used as a weapon of control to slut-shame girls and keep young men feeling guilty over behaviors that are normal and harmless. It makes members feel threatened by the “world” and creates a strong sense of dependency on the church. “You need to be cleaned from all of the dirt that is out there.” That’s the sense I’ve long gotten from the church.
“Preside”. From an organizational and decision-making standpoint, it can be a useful tool to focus attention and make things happen. But it gets weaponized when it gets tied to gender because it sets uncomfortable expectations on less-organized men and sets women up to be dismissed and have unrealistic expectations of what is actually going on.
Politics in general can be used both as a tool and a weapon. It builds unity and power by helping people agree on ideas and actions, but it also divides people into us and them. We all know the pressure to be Republican. It’s hard to be a Democrat, particularly south of Point of the Mountain. It interferes with our discussions in our classes when people bring up examples or point out something in our society. It confuses members about what is good or bad about our country, constitution, and government, opening up contentious discussions even when using the scriptures as a guide. Yet, it could be used to explain the gospel in action so well from both points of view, not just one.
I’ve got a horrible one I’m still reeling about. The church has a tool to protect children: putting in someone’s records that they cannot have a calling working with children. I naively assumed you had to have a criminal record or something similarly severe to have this happen.
Yeah.
My sister was a YW leader and had a talent for reaching the troubled girls. Except one of those girls was discovered doing something by her parents, the girl said my sister said it was okay, her parents went to the Bishop, and instead of talking to my sister, the Bishop went to the Stake President…
I’m being vague because we genuinely don’t know what the girl accused her of doing. At no point did anyone talk to my sister to get her side of the story, despite the fact this young woman had already been caught doing drugs at church dances. We think it could be my sister encouraged her to use protection if she was going to be sexually active and the girl used that as a starting point for her lies.
She had no idea about any of this until she was called in to see the Bishop, thinking she was getting a calling in the new Primary Presidency.
As my sister said when she called me, absolutely devastated, “the Bishop himself was joking about sex at YM’s camp more explicitly than anything I’ve ever said to any young woman.”
She had no idea any of this was happening until she was called in to see the Bishop after the fact. She thought she might get called into the new Primary Presidency and instead was told she had this on her record.
The Bishop was surprised the Stake pursued this option and was apologetic to my sister while downplaying it was his fault for not ever talking to her first. We’ve been told there’s no recourse to challenge this and still don’t understand WHY. Why is my sister now considered so dangerous she can no longer work with kids? Is it because she’s a more nuanced member?
She’s so devastated by the whole thing she’s stepped back from the church for a while.
Sorry about the repeat, sometimes I wish there was an edit function here.
And just to provide context, my sister was not on the fringes of her ward. She’s a returned missionary, mom of four, served in all three presidencies, taught seminary, and her husband has served as EQ president and been in bishoprics.
The temple and eternal families is possibly the biggest weapon and tool. The LDS church is the gatekeeper to the temple and they therefore decide the rules for entry and for being an eternal family. Not only that but they reserve the right to revoke the eternal family. Changing that would require massive organizational and cultural changes that would make the current LDS church almost unrecognizable.
Women’s garments being used to enforce modesty standards. There is no reason that women’s bottoms should be several inches longer than men’s except as a weapon to force women to never wear any above or knee length shorts or skirts. I once compared my garments to my husband’s. His were men’s tall and mine were women’s petite, which is what is appropriate for our height. Well, mine were a good 4 to 6 inches longer than his, depending on style. He is 10 inches taller, purposely wears the longest men’s g he can get and I wear the shortest women’s I could get. He can wear just above the knee length shorts, while I am stuck in hot weather in full length pants because the garment bottoms hang below Capri (below the knee) length shorts, while the “waste” comes up to just below my boobs, in fact I tuck it in underneath my bar to keep it up. Is it any wonder why so many women are rebelling by just stopping wearing garments, or advising other women that they can purchase and wear men’s garments and still say they wear garments during Bishop interviews. With how totally ridiculous women’s garments are, of course I stopped wearing them years ago. I am not masochistic.
Forgiveness is a weapon when victims of SA, especially CSA, are required to forgive their abuser before they can be right with god. Forgiveness should never be used as a weapon of control or manipulation against anyone, but especially not against children. And promising that the atonement heals everything, doesn’t guarantee recovery either.
Reference: gen conf/1992/04/healing the tragic scars of abuse/richard scott
Anna, “still say they wear garments during Bishop interview”
Women should not be discussing their underwear with any man not their husband.
Correction: women don’t need to discuss their underwear with ANYONE, including their husband. Do husbands discuss their underwear with their wives? Who is out there having these underwear discussions? It’s underwear, not an ice-breaker.
Satan: Always a Weapon!
Used for control in religion, politics, & even homes.
“To find relief from the consequences of abuse, it is helpful to understand their source. Satan is the author of all of the destructive outcomes of abuse. He has extraordinary capacity to lead an individual into blind alleys where the solution to extremely challenging problems cannot be found.
etc. (Richard Scott 2008/04)
Many children and adults have been frightened by the idea of billions of evil spirits inhabiting the earth, sometimes able to inhabit your body! What a Weapon of Mass Destruction!
I second Trevor Holladay. The way that the eternal family is dangled in front of members in order to keep them paying tithes and coming to church is sickening. I’ve read so many stories over the years (as have most of us, I’ll bet) about one spouse having doubts, but being afraid to voice it to the other spouse for fear of being ostracized, divorced, etc. Or about one child of a temple-married couple becoming “wayward” in some way, whether that’s not attending church, having sex outside marriage, expressing anything but the most narrowly prescribed, Mormon-mandated gender identity, etc., and the parents freaking out. I don’t want to re-hash the whole “is Mormonism a cult?” question, but whatever one may think about that issue, it’s pretty clear that the concept of the eternal family is used as a weapon with great frequency by the church, which does kind of remind one of Scientology’s (and other religions’) approach (though with obvious differences as well). The eternal family concept is used mainly to engender fear and compliance rather than hope and love.
Related to this, I think, is BradD’s comment about the law of chastity. Another monitoring/regulating weapon that may, as BradD points out, have a few beneficial aspects, but that is most often used as a weapon, particularly against women. See Joseph Smith’s responses/counter-accusations to claims that he attempted to coerce many (often married) women to become his “spiritual” wives. There is a long, tragic, and brutal history of the patriarchy using sexual mores and outmoded, harmful notions of “modesty” to coerce women into doing things against their will. Mormonism is certainly a part of that history.
Any virtue, pushed too far, becomes a vice.
Any good, pushed too far, becomes a bad.
Any truth, pushed too far, becomes a lie.
Certainly, there are real virtues, goods, and truths that one should honor once he or she recognizes them. But one shouldn’t push any of them too far.
ji: Almost poetic and worth pondering.
Re tools vs. weapons, if you are at war or see another person as a threat to you somehow, you will use whatever you have on hand to “defend” yourself against the perceived enemy. Who among us hasn’t heard a noise outside at night and grabbed a kitchen knife or a fire poker or a golf club and tip-toed back there to see what we see? The problems really arise when we perceive threats that aren’t really a danger to us, which is why I have always refused to have a gun in the house, fearing that it’s far more likely a member of the household gets shot accidentally or by self-harm than that it is actually something that protects us from a real threat.
The current political climate, including culture wars (the version that unfortunately rears its ugly head all too readily at church) has people seeing their rhetorical opponents as real threats who must be rooted out and punished or excommunicated. I have a relative who literally posted on FB that anyone who voted Democrat should be barred from taking the sacrament. This was before Trump was elected, and it’s certainly gotten much more heated since then. Likewise, if anyone wants to visit the DezNat fueled nonsense on X coming in “defense” of the Church, it’s really pretty horrible in terms of what people are willing to do to their perceived enemies. If they keep it up, the church will continue to shrink to its most bitter, extremist core–an unpleasant thought whether you are conservative or progressive. Would you want the average church member to be like these self-described modern-day Danites, not only willing to take a bullet for the prophet but willing to dispense bullets as well?
Margot, your story is distressing. I hope your sister re-engages to get the annotation removed (or at least explained) now, before the current bishop or stake president leaves. It can be corrected by the persons who imposed it — but once the stake president leaves, it may be impossible to get his successor to act. A letter from your sister to the First Presidency may be an appropriate action. Best wishes.
OP wrote, “The Mormon leadership system is designed in such a way to support the leaders more than the members.” Sadly, there may be some truth in this.
Margot, Handbook section 32.14.5 provides three reasons for membership record annotations, numbered 1, 2, and 3 — if none of these fit your sister’s circumstances, perhaps one might say the annotation was improvidently applied and can be quickly corrected or appealed? If not, it will be there forever, as long as she lives, and will be almost common knowledge in every ward she lives in.
Worthiness interviews. Tithing settlement. Do I even need to explain how another person judging my worthiness, or even if I have given enough money to the church are weapons to keep members toeing the line.
It was the responses to my previous post that made me realize just how weaponized these meeting with church leaders really are. Of course women should not be forced into any conversation about what underwear she wears. It is invasive. And my reasons for not wearing the church prescribed underwear are none of my bishopric’s business. We are told it is between us and God, but just try to say “it is between me and God and none of your business” in your next TR interview. No, they won’t give you permission to see your child married or some other denial of the socially mandatory TR that keep you in good standing in your ward and family. But when you look at the whole TR process, the question about garments is only one way the process is weaponized. All the questions are meant to shame you into obeying authority. They are all weapons.
Let’s not forget, “reproving betimes with sharpness when moved upon by the holy ghost.” It’s not a fun thing to do–but it is part of the calculus involved with proper leadership.
Even though the vast majority of my experience with church leadership has been super positive I can say that the few times I’ve been chastened by them — and those relatively few times during my many decades in the church probably amount to more than I can count on both hands — have always been what I needed at the time.
I fear that we moderns tend to err on the side of compassion — which is the proper default position, IMO — to such a degree that we sometimes feel justified in refusing to take our lumps on principle–when in fact it’s the very thing we need in the moment.
That said, “taking our lumps” can be easier said than done in many instances. Even so, my hope is that as we muddle our way through we can remember the example of Moses–who was known as one of the meekest men to ever walk the earth. Whether from the Lord on high or from lowly Jethro, he graciously received their poignant counsel.
Jack, It seems you are saying, based on your experience, that all chastening that occurs within the church is always needed and appropriate, and that mis-using tools as weapons never occurs within our church culture – am I getting your message right?
ji,
While that’s been my own experience thus far what I’m really saying is that we should be careful not to assume that all chastening from our leaders must be the misuse of tools as weapons.
Jack, my experience is kind of opposite yours. All the “chastising” I have gotten was some male leader who hasn’t got a clue as to my experience trying to tell me how it “has” to be. They try to say it kindly. Saying the very wrong thing kindly still makes it wrong. Being judgy, being rigid, sticking to rules that just do not work, insisting “priesthood” is always right and insisting on obedience to priesthood even when my experience is that priesthood is not correct in this case. Those are weapons, maybe because they are said kindly, but firmly, they are sugarcoated poison, or a padded hammer beating me to death.
It is like the church is with gays. They just cannot put themselves in the place of a LGBT person and imagine life as the church demands they live it. Imagine being in love with your wife, yet the church telling you it is a sin and they will excommunicate you if you marry her. I mean, it might be find when you are in high school, but once you meet and fall in love, the church saying you cannot be together is hell. Yet that is how the church demands you live. No, it isn’t “different” for you than the gay guy down the street.
It is often that way for women. The church just doesn’t comprehend things like how the church turns women into *things* instead of humans by so many ways the church treats women. Meanwhile the leaders “warn” about how “the world” objectifies women, yet they can’t see they do the exact same thing, just with different tool/weapons. The church objectifies women by turning them into rewards for good missionaries, by harping SO much on modesty yet demanding attractiveness. Women are damned if they do and damned if they don’t as far as being sexually attractive. Women are compared to licked cupcakes—that is objectifying. Women are compared to porn. Then they turn around and say a barn is more attractive with paint and tell us we have to wear makeup. That is all turning women into things. But the stupid men can’t even see it because in their heads women ARE things and not humans who are the same as men except for one thing. But the church turns that one thing into EVERYTHING.
So, when “priesthood” chastise women, they don’t know what they are even yakking about most of the time. And turning us into things is using their position as “judge in Israel” as a weapon to keep us women folk in our place firmly below men.
FWIW, and I’m sure I’m just nitpicking, but the definition of tool with the “intent” prong seems too limited. “Intent. If it’s a tool, it’s being used to help, to build, to heal, to clarify or to protect. If it’s being used as a weapon, it’s used to control, to hurt, to dominate, to silence or to shame.”
-I have some tools I’ve purchased that are expressly to destroy/take apart. A jackhammer is a tool – but it is used to destroy concrete. I guess you could say that it is being used to help, but I don’t think that is what the original intent of that “help” statement was. Really, a tool is something that is used to amplify the efforts of the wielder to accomplish some task. If a tool becomes a weapon, it’s because it is being used for some purpose outside of the amplification goal. E.g., a pen helps me amplify my communicating of any concept, but I could go Jason-Bourne with it and stab someone: clearly not the original purpose of the tool. Of course, other tools get used for other-than-intended purposes and still remain a tool, like using the handle of a screwdriver to hammer something when I don’t have an actual hammer nearby. Good for the tool? Usually not!
I’m not sure what my purpose here is for this…just thought it could be useful to help add some additional shades of grey to what appears to be a black/white characterization of tool vs. weapon.
Adam F’s comments make sense to me. I would add a consideration being “how many resources were used to make that tool” as something to think about. The classic line, “They paved paradise to put up a parking lot” probably sums it up. In this case, I am thinking that “the parking lot” = the tool, and “paving paradise” is the resource/environmental cost it took to produce that tool.
@Jack, I will stipulate that there are cases where correction is warranted. But, the number of stories of behavior by local church leaders that is abusive by any reasonable standard is extensive. There’s certainly a place for individuals to show some humility and ask themselves if they are in fact in the wrong, but at this particular point in the history of the church I think there’s a greater need for institutional humility: acknowledgment that leaders get things wrong, and that even on occasion a calling has been filled by the wrong person entirely.
I find it funny how getting released from a calling is seen as a weapon. It’s a very foreign concept to me.
Get rid of ward boundaries in the Mormon corridor !!