discussing polyandry with the missionaries

[Indy Coug]

Sometimes I wonder why I bother.

So my position is comprised of a bunch of questions that no one actually tried answering? Gotcha.

[pellegrino]

So my position is comprised of a bunch of questions that no one actually tried answering? Gotcha.

maybe another night Indy. It's been a long day and I'm tired.

[Indy Coug]

maybe another night Indy. It's been a long day and I'm tired.

I thought this picture was kind of funny.



When I ask a set of questions, it doesn't mean I have established a position. Sure, you can conveniently cobble together something to suit your own rhetorical purposes, but it's more likely than not you've arrived at the wrong place.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I'm a employee of my company..

If you were to choose to change jobs, would your current employer attempt to change your mind by telling you that your entire career will turn out to be a failure if you leave this company? In fact, you would likely be endangering the careers of all of your children as well.

I have been a member of a neighborhood association.

I am sorry about this one

I have attended private schools.

If you changed to a public school would the principal tell you that the superintendant would be ok if your wife divorced you simply because you went to a different school?

I am married.

Have you ever doubted that staying married was the right thing to do?

I am a member of the LDS church.

I went on a mission.

Was this ever in question for you?

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. .

Do you think that if you were to break any of these associations, that the organizations would not make any effort to use their influence and appeal to get you to change your mind?

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.

I don't think anyone is making the claim that the world is consequence-free.

The point that several posters have been trying to make is not that anyone is forced to do something or stay associated with an organization. The point is that for many when they try to break their association, there is substantial effort, attempted coersion, and threats directed at that person, many times by people of power and authority, with the simple goal of trying to stop that person from breaking away. To deny that is to be disingenuous.

[Rosebud]

Last night I received a PM asking me what my definition of "coercive" is. In some ways it's unfortunate that I've been using a word that can be interpreted in so many different ways. OTOH, I like the word coercive because it's strength just might make people stop and think. My goal, however, isn't to debate the definition of a word as much as it is to communicate a concept. "Coercion," authority, power, control, natural consequences, accountability, etc. is a complex topic that I have a lot to say about (obviously), but I don't have the time today to do it any justice.


Indy offered this definition of coercive -- Using force or authority to make a person do something against his or her will

I'm fine with this simple definition... but my thinking in this thread about coercion wouldn't always fit within its scope only because IMO sometimes authority is used to convince people towards actions and decisions that they wouldn't have made if the authority weren't exerted upon them. People may on one level of consciousness believe that they aren't making the decision against their own will, but in reality the authority exerted over them has pushed them in a direction that (at least on some levels) takes their freedom away because they wouldn't have made the decision otherwise. Of course, authority is not the only power that can have this influence over people. There are many natural aspects of life that control us and affect decisions like the necessity of providing food, clothing and shelter (white Mormon men understand this one well as they are very controlled by the necessity of providing these things for their families.)

I am intrigued by Christ because IMO while he was on his earthly ministry he avoided using any form of coercion. He offered love, trust and service to change behaviors and spoke against powerful leaders who used authority to control the populace. The priest in Les Miserables, for example, used love instead of coercion to change a heart. Unfortunately, we get so preoccupied with placing consequences (both rewards and punishments) to others' actions that we forget the power of Christlike love to affect behaviors. To me, any force besides love used to manipulate the behavior of another person is coercion. This isn't to say that there aren't times when coercion is necessary or that anyone who uses coercion is wrong to do so. It only means that the use of coercion to change behavior is less ideal and ultimately less effective than the use of love.

My concerns about coercion in our church have to do with the way the organization pressures people into making certain decisions like going on a mission. I'm even bothered that we customarily pressure kids into being quiet in the hall by telling them that they need to be reverent in order to make God happy. (I don't have any problem with kids being reverent... I just think it's sad that we give them the idea that God doesn't like noisy kids just because it's easier on us when they're quiet.) IMO, we need to be very careful about what methods we use to exert control over others' behaviors.

Below I've quoted a conversation in this thread between falafel and JohnnyLingo because I think it gives significant insight into the complexity of the topic:

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.

I've had this discussion, but is it the Church or God that is being so coercive? If you believe the Church to be His, then you really believe He is coercing you, not the brethren.

Unless, of course, you separate out the coercive elements of the faith as being the acts of men and not divinely inspired.

I don't believe it is God that is coercive. It's probably the Church in practice combined with the individual thoughts of the members.

For example, I'm not planning on being unfaithful to my wife, partly because it would ruin my relationship with her right now, but also because it would have grave consequences on my eternal future (according to Church teachings).

So there's a major disconnect between what God expects of us and what the Church teaches?

This is the question of the hour, IMO. If there is no disconnect then it is in everyone's best eternal interest to rigidly follow the teachings of the church. If there is disconnect, however, our decision making processes may need to be more sophisticated. Black-and-white thinking about the church's positions is sometimes insufficient when considering complex life problems.

I'm out of time for the day.

[ERCougar]

The type of coercion that is problematic to me is when one uses power, in whatever form, to influence another's actions for one's own gain. Thus, God's Church can be (and often is) "coercive", while God is not.

[Solon]

The type of coercion that is problematic to me is when one uses power, in whatever form, to influence another's actions for one's own gain. Thus, God's Church can be (and often is) "coercive", while God is not.

I think the word "manipulate" is often just as applicable (there's a lot of overlap). Guilt is a powerful manipulator.

[ERCougar]

I think the word "manipulate" is often just as applicable (there's a lot of overlap). Guilt is a powerful manipulator.

True..."manipulate" probably captures my meaning better.

[MindfulCoug]

So, was David polyandrous because he had Uriah killed? I mean, she was a widow after all. Timing is everything.

Lets forget for a second that we are actually viewing a historical controversial issue which requires its own historical context and texture...but.. what,you,with this analogy,are suggesting is that prophet Mohammad had extra marital affair with some women who later ordered their men to be killed,or preyed their men to entertain the idea of earning them? Is that what you say?

Would you mind naming a few?

[Indy Coug]

I think the word "manipulate" is often just as applicable (there's a lot of overlap). Guilt is a powerful manipulator.

Coercion is a much more loaded word than manipulate and besides, manipulate is probably closer to the correct term.

[LA Ute]

Hasn't this discussion become awfully semantic?

[Jarid in Cedar]

Hasn't this discussion become awfully semantic?

[UtahDan]

Hasn't this discussion become awfully semantic?

I agree. What difference does it make whether people can agree on the meaning of the word "coercion?"

Ultimately the debate is about (1) what steps do members and the church take to persuade people not to leave and (2) are those steps inappropriate. Call those steps whatever you want, it doesn't much advance the discussion.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I agree. What difference does it make whether people can agree on the meaning of the word "coercion?"

Ultimately the debate is about (1) what steps do members and the church take to persuade people not to leave and (2) are those steps inappropriate. Call those steps whatever you want, it doesn't much advance the discussion.

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.

[Indy Coug]

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.

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.