discussing polyandry with the missionaries

[Rosebud]

Actually, I've decided to adopt a black-and-white thought process. As in, if it's not in black-and-white print in a current official publication, I don't feel obligated to believe it.

I've taken your reasoning a bit further: I don't feel "obligated" to believe anything. I prefer to choose my own beliefs so that I'm not a victim of spiritual or psychological coercion .

LA... yes, I include God and prayer in my decision-making process. Seattle... yes, I include your wisdom (jk) and the wisdom of good books in my decision-making process. LA... yes, sometimes those books are holy books. Seattle... yes, sometimes those books are secular.

[Pheidippides]

Agreed, such preparation is a good idea. It probably should be done in the missions, not the MTC. In Guatemala and El Salvador, where I served, such questions might come up once in a blue moon and almost always from a hostile source. (I never got such questions, not even once.) An investigator who was sincere and had simply seen some "anti" literature could be helped individually. (I doubt Compton's book has been translated into Spanish. Maybe I am wrong.)

In the USA and other English-speaking countries, the approach would be different and more preparation would be necessary, seems to me.

I never got any remotely interesting questions like that in Japan. Maybe things would be different, what with Google and all. I would think it should be (and could be) done on a mission-by-mission basis based on local needs and issues. Most stateside missions, for example, could probably use a primer. I don't think you need to go nuts with multiple books and sources (heck, I'm not even sure some of the Elders can read well enough) but I think a broad overview of the topics and responses would be a good idea. And the focus should be on responding to the sincere question - no reason to thump heads with numskulls looking for a fight. Many people have sincere questions and I think it's a mistake not to answer them as best you can, even if the answer is sometimes "I am not sure."

[marsupial]

On this I agree with you. Missionaries shouldn't be surprised at questions about Joseph Smith. Maybe some MTC time should be devoted to preparing them for such curveballs. (Maybe they already do that in the MTC. Anyone know?)

No, better would be dealing with this issue in Sunday School, seminary and even in The New Era and Ensign magazines. You shouldn't be thrown this curveball in the MTC when you have already committed 2 years of your life to a mission.

[ERCougar]

No, better would be dealing with this issue in Sunday School, seminary and even in The New Era and Ensign magazines. You shouldn't be thrown this curveball in the MTC when you have already committed 2 years of your life to a mission.

I tried typing this sentiment a couple of times to answer niku's thought above, but didn't post it. You nailed it.

[Art Vandelay]

I never got any remotely interesting questions like that in Japan. Maybe things would be different, what with Google and all. I would think it should be (and could be) done on a mission-by-mission basis based on local needs and issues. Most stateside missions, for example, could probably use a primer. I don't think you need to go nuts with multiple books and sources (heck, I'm not even sure some of the Elders can read well enough) but I think a broad overview of the topics and responses would be a good idea. And the focus should be on responding to the sincere question - no reason to thump heads with numskulls looking for a fight. Many people have sincere questions and I think it's a mistake not to answer them as best you can, even if the answer is sometimes "I am not sure."

Most of these responses, suggestions about the value of greater indoctrination (I use the word loosely so please no narratives on what its true meaning is) are coming from highly educated men and women, many of whom currently work in professions that require debate, critical questioning, wasting time on message boards, etc. Perhaps my missionary experience was unique since I grew up in a part member home, had no pressure to serve a mission and served my 2 years stateside. However, at no point do I think me having more secular and/or historical church knowledge would have made me a better missionary. In my case it likely would have made me a worse one. I knew that many of the people I taught were more educated, more experienced and probably better debaters on me, thus I felt like the only way I would ever make a difference is if I could somehow bring the Spirit into the discussion to teach them what I couldn't.

[Solon]

Different people are coerced on different levels. Be careful not to generalize your own experience so much that you disqualify other people's experiences. Not everyone enjoys the freedoms that you enjoy. (This thought applies to both religious and secular freedoms.) It IS possible that the church can be coercive to some while it is non-coercive to others.

I don't love Indy's definition of coercion, although it's workable. The threat of punishment is often enough to manipulate behavior. Whether or not that's "using" power or authority is up for debate, I guess.

I think there's more to this issue of coercion that deserves investigation, and Rosebud's thoughts (quoted above) are a good starting place. Different people will feel compelled or "coerced" for different reasons.

My mother grew up in a military family. She's been trained from birth to always obey authority, especially male authority. This has made it very hard for her to stand up to church leaders who have pressured her into callings. She's now serving her second mission, against her will.

Was she coerced? I don't know (still trying to figure out how we're going to define that word). Certainly she was manipulated. Ultimately she agreed and she's responsible for her decisions, but a lifetime of programming is hard to undo. Especially when we introduce things like "eternal salvation" and "the will of God" into the mix.

It seems like a complicated and nuanced issue.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I suppose I wasn't in on your inside joke, and it may not have been exactly what you wrote, but it most certainly looked like what you were saying.....

Thanks for clearing it up, you looked a bit hypocritical with your last posting....

This is the original quote by UD:

In some cases, people who are brutally honest enjoy the brutality more than the honesty.

This is what I said:

Which did you enjoy more, danimal: the brutality or the honesty?

Now maybe you can help me understand how that makes me a hypocrite. How does the word "honesty" equate to "the fact they had no response"?

[SeattleUte]

I never got any remotely interesting questions like that in Japan. Maybe things would be different, what with Google and all. I would think it should be (and could be) done on a mission-by-mission basis based on local needs and issues. Most stateside missions, for example, could probably use a primer. I don't think you need to go nuts with multiple books and sources (heck, I'm not even sure some of the Elders can read well enough) but I think a broad overview of the topics and responses would be a good idea. And the focus should be on responding to the sincere question - no reason to thump heads with numskulls looking for a fight. Many people have sincere questions and I think it's a mistake not to answer them as best you can, even if the answer is sometimes "I am not sure."

I have one clear recollection of an AA investigator asking me, after the "revelation," if it was true that Mormons disallowed priesthood and the temple to blacks. (Until the "revelation," which came halfway through my mission, we didn't really pursue AA's.) Remembering the ensuing discussion still makes me feel terrible; it was a shameful experience; I don't recall all of what I said but of course I invoked God's whimsy and authority and modern revelation. When the "revelation" was announced I was teaching an AA family that wound up getting baptized. I never got around to telling them about the ban.

[Indy Coug]

I'm a citizen of the US.

I'm a employee of my company.

I have been a member of a neighborhood association

I have attended private schools

I am married

I have children

I am a member of the LDS church

I went on a mission


I voluntarily associated myself with all of these items. However, with that voluntary association comes an explicit/implicit agreement to abide by certain guidelines and bear certain obligations. Some of these are more demanding, more intrusive, more important than others. The choices I make in life are made with an innate sense of right and wrong balanced or sometimes counterbalanced by giving consideration to the various guidelines/obligations I voluntarily submitted myself to. No person and no organization coerces me. I am free to modify any and all of these assocations, but not free of consequences. I don't live in a consequence-free world.

[falafel]

I voluntarily associated myself with all of these items. However, with that voluntary association comes an explicit/implicit agreement to abide by certain guidelines and bear certain obligations. Some of these are more demanding, more intrusive, more important than others. The choices I make in life are made with an innate sense of right and wrong balanced or sometimes counterbalanced by giving consideration to the various guidelines/obligations I voluntarily submitted myself to. No person and no organization coerces me. I am free to modify any and all of these assocations, but not free of consequences. I don't live in a consequence-free world.

Oh good, so coercion doesn't happen then. Everything's just a choice, and some choices have some really really bad consequences. So bad, in fact, that they cause you to alter your choice based on wanting to avoid that consequence, even though the choice doesn't represent what you really want.

[Indy Coug]

Oh good, so coercion doesn't happen then. Everything's just a choice, and some choices have some really really bad consequences. So bad, in fact, that they cause you to alter your choice based on wanting to avoid that consequence, even though the choice doesn't represent what you really want.

Welcome to Life. Get over it. You voted for this in the pre-existence. It's a little late to be having buyer's remorse.

[falafel]

Welcome to Life. Get over it. You voted for this in the pre-existence. It's a little late to be having buyer's remorse.

I'm not complaining that "its not fair!" or that it should be altered (i'm not saying that it shouldn't, either). I'm only saying that many people make decisions in their lives based on what they've been told are spiritually-life altering consequences, and sometimes that representation is not completely accurate.

[Rosebud]

I don't love Indy's definition of coercion, although it's workable. The threat of punishment is often enough to manipulate behavior. Whether or not that's "using" power or authority is up for debate, I guess.

Maybe the word "coercion" isn't palatable to some. It's important to keep in mind that we're talking about a concept and the word we put to it isn't nearly as important as the concept itself.

IMO, both threats of punishment and promises of reward manipulate behavior but do little to change hearts. I am imperfect, but I try to avoid both in my parenting so that my children can learn to make their own decisions. It is my hope that I'll "coerce" them as little as possible in regards to church, their educations, their social lives, etc. Christ, IMO, was the opposite of coercive and I believe that he set a good example for me.

[Jarid in Cedar]

The Answer is:

I think the Church is potentially the move coercive force in a "faithful" LDS person's life. The thought that one single decision can have eternal consequences has a very significant coercive element to it. I can't think of a more coercive force than one's eternal salvation.

Good comment falafel.

[The Wankster]

This is the original quote by UD:



This is what I said:



Now maybe you can help me understand how that makes me a hypocrite. How does the word "honesty" equate to "the fact they had no response"?

Sorry if you are turning red and getting a little hot about a non issue, I said thanks for clearing up the misconception I had earlier, or did you miss me saying thanks for clearing it up???

Carry on........