discussing polyandry with the missionaries

[RobinFinderson]

Coerce, manipulate, whatever...

The church claims to present insight into the after-life consequences of temporal behavior. Indeed, this seems to be one of the unique justifications for any church's existence (most churches in the US claim to help prepare the congregant for the best possible outcome after death). For obvious reasons these outcomes can not be quantified.

However, if you believe that living a church life is going to improve your long-term outcome, then is it really manipulation? To an atheist like myself, it all looks like perverse mind control. But to the believer, responding to church teachings feels more like following a road map. Since the existence of the final destination is presently unverifiable, I'm not sure that discussions of this sort are going to be useful.

[TripletDaddy]

The basic tenets of Christian faith are to live a good life. To love your fellow man. To be kind and charitable. To strive to be a good parent and spouse.

These things are not unique to Mormonism or to organized religion.

It seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to generalize religious principles as a form of coercion.

Much of what we live we would live regardless of whether we are Mormon.

For those that have freed themselves of the shackles of organized religion, I would invite you to share with us a completely original thought, unshaped and not-coerced by any outside influence.

[creekster]

UD, voicing the obvious for the masses to comprehend. People want to fight over semantics when they are losing the battle. Its kind of like a diversionary tactic.

This is not true at all in my mind. He who names a thing controls a thing. It is not semantics, in my POV, to try to understadn how a word is being used. I skimmed this thread yesterday and this morning and found Rosebud's exposition of her view of coercion to be very enlightening as to the concept she was describing and why that was so different from the concept that INdy and some others were talking about. Indeed, I now see th edifference between th epositions more celarly rthan I did before. If the debate devolved into who has the correct definition, then you might have a point, but at this time, I think it is useful to know what RB and Indy mena when they use the term coercion so I can decide if I agree with the conclusion that the church, or me as a parent, or any authority figure is coercive when so described.

now this post, I will concede, is outside of, and adds nothing to, the discussion. Sorry. Carry on.

[LA Ute]

I think there is some importance in getting the terminology correct. "Coercion" implies being forced against your will where you have no freedom of choice. "Manipulation" is still a little pejorative but at least allows for a person to make up their own mind even if their decisions are unduly influenced by the actions and opinions of others. I think that's a significant difference and it's hardly a diversionary point.

I do not think anything diversionary is going on. I haven't even been following the "coercion debate." If the charge is being made that Church members coerce or manipulate others regarding their activity or obedience or anything along those lines, does anyone disagree that such acts are an intrusion on moral agency (for adults) and is a bad thing that should be avoided? Certainly it goes on, because people do dumb or bad things. BTW, I am sure Rosebud will disagree, but I think kids necessarily have less free agency than adults, and causing them to be quiet in church is not an unacceptable form of "coercion." (I've probably just spawned a new direction for this thread.)

I thought this thread was mainly about telling full-time missionaries about Joseph Smith's involvement in polyandry, whether or not that is a good idea, and how generally to deal with the issue. Now we are beating to death the question whether mean or misguided people in the church "coerce" anyone to do anything. Sounds more like a pet peeve discussion to me than anything else.

[RobinFinderson]

For those that have freed themselves of the shackles of organized religion, I would invite you to share with us a completely original thought, unshaped and not-coerced by any outside influence.

Such an original thought could not be conveyed through language, which is a social tool, and therefore unable to escape social influence. So....

... I just made a noise that has never previously been heard by any living creature. It was truly unique, and had anyone else been present to hear it, they would have felt waves of god-energy emanating from the party of my body used to make this noise. The noise contained idea information that can not be understood by the mortal brain, but might be felt and internalized through channels that may or may not exist for humans, I can't be sure. It was an awesome noise. You would have loved it.

[creekster]

Now we are beating to death the question whether mean or misguided people in the church "coerce" anyone to do anything. Sounds more like a pet peeve discussion to me than anything else.

This is my point. That is what I would have thought from the use of the word coercion, but it turns out that is not what RB is talking about, or at least not just that. There is a much broader swath of activities intended ot be included, perhaps even the very notion of anything but charity-based persuasion.

[Pheidippides]

I would like to point out that the occupational kings of semanticism (and making up words, for that matter), the lawyers, are the ones pointing out and rolling eyes at the semantic battle. I think this is noteworthy.

[creekster]

I would like to point out that the occupational kings of semanticism (and making up words, for that matter), the lawyers, are the ones pointing out and rolling eyes at the semantic battle. I think this is noteworthy.

I'm not. Does that make me knig of knigs? or just a dope?

[Clark Addison]

This started as a wonderful thread: talking to the missionaries about JS's polyandry. I received much joy just out of reading the thread title; I don't know of anyplace other than CUF where those words would go together, other than exmormon.org perhaps. I am considering bringing up this topic the next time the sisters pay us a visit, to ensure future peace.

Then it turned into a semantics discussion, which was bad enough.

THEN it turned into a meta-sematics discussion (is the discussion of semantics a good or bad thing?).

This thread has really gone downhill.

[Indy Coug]

I don't know of anyplace other than CUF where those words would go together, other than exmormon.org perhaps.

LOL

[Jarid in Cedar]

This is not true at all in my mind. He who names a thing controls a thing. It is not semantics, in my POV, to try to understadn how a word is being used. I skimmed this thread yesterday and this morning and found Rosebud's exposition of her view of coercion to be very enlightening as to the concept she was describing and why that was so different from the concept that INdy and some others were talking about. Indeed, I now see th edifference between th epositions more celarly rthan I did before. If the debate devolved into who has the correct definition, then you might have a point, but at this time, I think it is useful to know what RB and Indy mena when they use the term coercion so I can decide if I agree with the conclusion that the church, or me as a parent, or any authority figure is coercive when so described.

now this post, I will concede, is outside of, and adds nothing to, the discussion. Sorry. Carry on.

Unfortunately, it did devolve into the definition of the word at one point, which would be what I railed against.

So to beat the definitions to death, Manipulation would be a more correct word for the situations that many people describe.

So if a person in authority uses manipulative techniques to alter the behavior or actions of a person, and are successful in that venture, would that meet the definition of coersion as laid out by Indy?

[Indy Coug]

Unfortunately, it did devolve into the definition of the word at one point, which would be what I railed against.

So to beat the definitions to death, Manipulation would be a more correct word for the situations that many people describe.

So if a person in authority uses manipulative techniques to alter the behavior or actions of a person, and are successful in that venture, would that meet the definition of coersion as laid out by Indy?

No.

[Jarid in Cedar]

No.

So you find the word manipulation more appropriate compared to coersion?

[Indy Coug]

So you find the word manipulation more appropriate compared to coersion?

It is the better choice of the two, yes.

[RobinFinderson]

The basic tenets of Christian faith are to live a good life. To love your fellow man. To be kind and charitable. To strive to be a good parent and spouse.

These things are not unique to Mormonism or to organized religion.

It seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to generalize religious principles as a form of coercion.

But what is the 'good life?'

It used to be good to have multiple wives. Now it isn't, unless you are dead, in which case it is still good.

Contraceptives in marriage were bad for a long time, then the church decided that they don't really matter. Same with oral and anal sex. Both were verboten in marriage until the church decided that it didn't really matter.

Women were not supposed to work outside the home, unless absolutely necessary. Now it doesn't matter so much, so long as the children's needs are being met.

Members used to speculate and write books about all kinds of far-out topics. Now you can't.

Mormon artists get warnings for creating works of fiction that feature Mormon characters acting badly, because everyone knows that Mormons never do bad things?

Gays are a sin against nature. No, wait! Gays are normal, but they can't have sex. No, wait!...

Coercive or manipulating, we can call it whatever anyone likes, but we are talking about a system of drastically changing standards, so much so that one is left wondering if any of this has real eternal consequences, or if it is a needless mindf*!k.