- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Not long before the Gay policy was in the news, Elder Oaks publicly said that the county clerk who was refusing to issue marriage licenses was not behaving ethically. That one piece of news is why I was so shocked by the news about the policy. It was confusing and seemed inconsistent. My question is how much does the church shape our opinions, how much so are we blind sheep when we follow prophets? In the video explaining the policy, Elder Christofferson said something that really took me back.
Quote:The Church, of course, doesn’t attempt to practice mind control, and people have varying opinions.
The statement seemed out of place to me and I wondered why he felt he had to say that.
I remember thinking about that clerk before he made the announcement and I wasn’t really sure one way or the other. Was it right or wrong, I honestly didn’t know. I suspected it was wrong, but when Oaks made that announcement, suddenly I knew. I knew she was wrong and I had permission to believe that now. That scared me. I had to step back a minute and ask, “How do I know?” Because someone in authority said so. “Why do I need permission to believe something?” If I hope to be aligned with God, I have to be in line with His prophets.
The same thing happened with the refugees. I suspected that it would be Christlike to receive them, care for them, and offer support them. But now I knew it was. Why?
This whole thing has really shaken me up. I do appreciate that the church teaches we should seek confirmation of what the leaders teach, but I hear that message as, go pray until you feel better about it. Really seeking confirmation takes a bit more work and thought than that. Really seeking confirmation means opening yourself up to the possibility that the Brethren are wrong. That’s a pretty risky endeavor for some, it may actually be safer to just say, “I don’t know” and forget about it, instead of really trying to come up with an opinion about it.
That’s where I’m at now. I am open to the idea that as I reconstruct my faith, much of what I doubted before will be confirmed as true, but I am also open to the idea that some of it may fall away.
The reason he had to say that, I think, is that we are often compared to a cult. And cults are notorious for brainwashing and mind control. I think he was addressing people who might make that assumption about us. Regarding mind control–
I think we all exert a certain amount of mind AND behavior “control” in any circle — in our families, and work, and organizations. We also try to control (aja “influence”) behavior by leveling consequences and blessings on certain behaviors as well — in your work, you get a bonus if you hit a sales target, in my classes, students get a higher grade if they perform well than if they don’t. It is all in varying degrees. In the church, they attempt to control, or at least “influence” our minds through teaching and training, and through the concept of “inspiration” given to church leaders about where and when people should serve.
It’s a matter of degree. In our church, I think they are more controlling than what I see in the average church. The interviews for TR’s, denial of temple priviledges for certain kinds of behavior, and trying to attach what leaders say to the mind and will of God tends be a bit coercive. Not in a brainwashing, Nazi, totalitarian way, but in a way that penalizes certain behaviors in ways that I think are unhealthy.
D&C mentions that we should not use compulsion to influence behavior, as leaders. We should use persuasion, longsuffering, etcetera — I do think the church crosses the line when it imposes certain penalties on people who are otherwise worthy for certain priviledges.
But that is the church’s choice –it’s not illegal, although more extreme than what I have seen in most mainstream churches.
I also think the brethren would, if they could, have greater control over their members, but the culture of 21st centurly society and the emphasis on freedom of speech, religion, association mitigates the kind of dictating I think some of them (like Packer, when he was alive) might have wanted to impose on us.
That is why you get statements and policies that are very controlling, but then statements from leaders that “people are allowed to have different opinions”, “people are free to vote according to their conscience” etcetera. They would like to be more controlling, and some of the policies seem to point to this desire. But they can’t due to our democratic culture which is supposed to have been inspired.
So, often the leaders simmer in frustration, and lecture the membership, and sometimes, coercive hatch deep reaching policies creep into the handbook that shouldn’t be there. Alongside the decent policies….
I would say that the church is much more guilty of “controlling practices and behaviors” than what I would consider “mind control”. I look at mind control as much more extreme – things like Quote:Consider recording the testimony of Joseph Smith in your own voice, listening to it regularly
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/joseph-smith ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/joseph-smith LookingHard wrote:I would say that the church is much more guilty of “controlling practices and behaviors” than what I would consider “mind control”. I look at mind control as much more extreme – things like
Quote:Consider recording the testimony of Joseph Smith in your own voice, listening to it regularly
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/joseph-smith ” class=”bbcode_url”> https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/joseph-smith Yes, Elder Andersen’s advice on how to strengthen your testimony of the prophet when facing the criticisms from detractors on the internet or when studying church history.
His approach is like rote education — which can be very unengaging and ineffective. I would much rather that he advocated creating your own meaning out of the first vision so you can own it… Terms like “mind control” and “brain washing” are easy to throw around for people who have not experienced the real thing. Absolutely, there are elements of control in our culture that are excessive and might even lean toward not honoring agency – but that is true of nearly every organization in existence. Very few actually practice mind control.
[ Admin Note]: This can be a healthy conversation, but it also could get shut down really quickly. Let’s just be aware of the difference and honor our mission.
Ray – Are you playing mind games with us? 
Thanks Ray for the reminder where to watch out a bit.
SilentDawning wrote:His approach is like rote education — which can be very unengaging and ineffective. I would much rather that he advocated creating your own meaning out of the first vision so you can own it…
I actually wrote a rap about it, so in some ways, I don’t just own it.. it runs in my blood
Unknown wrote:…In the video explaining the policy, Elder Christofferson said something that really took me back.
Quote:The Church, of course, doesn’t attempt to practice mind control, and
people have varying opinions.The statement seemed out of place to me and I wondered why he felt he had to say that…
SilentDawning wrote:The reason he had to say that, I think, is that
we are often compared to a cult. And cults are notorious for brainwashing and mind control. I think he was addressing people who might make that assumption about us…Regarding mind control…It’s a matter of degree. In our church, I think they are more controlling than what I see in the average church. The interviews for TR’s, denial of temple priviledges for certain kinds of behavior, and trying to attach what leaders say to the mind and will of God tends be a bit coercive. Not in a brainwashing, Nazi, totalitarian way, but in a way that penalizes certain behaviors in ways that I think are unhealthy…D&C mentions that we should not use compulsion to influence behavior, as leaders. We should use persuasion, longsuffering, etcetera — I do think the church crosses the line when it imposes certain penalties on people who are otherwise worthy for certain priviledges…But that is the church’s choice –it’s not illegal, although more extreme than what I have seen in most mainstream churches. To me this doesn’t sound that different from when Jeffrey R. Holland said, “I’m not a dodo”, when M. Russell Ballard said, “We are not out of touch with your lives”, or Richard Nixon saying, “I am not a crook.” Basically it comes across as an especially defensive reaction to what people are already thinking or saying and personally I don’t think their saying this really helped anything in any of these cases other than mostly confirming that they were aware of some of the criticisms but were desperately trying to deny that these criticisms were actually valid and fair. Another unusual thing about this statement is that it sounds like he is trying to say that “mind control” supposedly implies that the Church would have to be telling people exactly what to believe and have them automatically go along with this as if they aren’t ever allowed to have their own opinion.
However, in reality psychologists and others that study this kind of thing have observed and outlined a long list of “mind control” techniques that are typically much more subtle than that such as discouraging any questioning or criticism of the group’s leaders and/or ideology, encouraging mistrust of outside information (e.g. “Satan wants people to believe this or that popular idea”), strong use of fear, guilt, shame, peer pressure, and polarized us-versus-them thinking, etc. that the Church certainly continues to do more than the average church, business, etc. In fact, that is probably one reason why some of the most commonly used mind control tactics are actually as effective as they have been in the fist place because people don’t really know when it is happening whereas if they were fully aware that they were being manipulated then many of them would probably be more likely to resist this influence.
To be fair, I don’t think Church leaders are typically consciously and intentionally trying to employ “mind control” tricks (other than maybe the white-washed history) similar to the Chinese communists or anything like that as much as it simply being a case of the Church evolving this way over time where some of these doctrines and traditions are repeated mostly because they were inherited from previous generations. However, to me there’s no question that LDS Mormonism is currently very much about effectively controlling people’s behavior, thoughts, etc. in a way that is more strict and affecting of typical life decisions than most other Christian churches of similar size or larger because if Church members choose any other option than what the Church teaches and expects with regard to the WoW, temple marriage, garments/modesty, testimony, chastity, etc. then they will quite literally not be faithful Mormons and have supposedly already fallen away from the one true path until they repent of their un-conformity according to the Church’s own established doctrines and policies. In other words, the Church currently depends on having control over members’ thoughts, behavior, etc. to prevent losing them for practical purposes.
Quote:In other words, the Church currently depends on having control over members’ thoughts, behavior, etc. to prevent losing them for practical purposes.
Which, again, is true of every religion (even non-denominational churches), political party, and many businesses (including colleges and universities).
Yes, we have serious issues in this regard in the LDS Church – but, as DA points out, intent matters. We both agree about the intent of the leadership – and when the two of us agree about something . . .
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:In other words, the Church currently depends on having control over members’ thoughts, behavior, etc. to prevent losing them for practical purposes.
Which, again, is true of every religion (even non-denominational churches), political party, and many businesses (including colleges and universities)…Yes, we have serious issues in this regard in the LDS Church – but, as DA points out, intent matters. We both agree about the intent of the leadership – and when the two of us agree about something . . . I guess some control is actually beneficial or even necessary to avoid relative chaos that certainly wouldn’t be an improvement compared to some rules and regulations. The main difference I see between one group and another is the relative level of control different groups actually have over people and can manage get by with year after year. For example, political parties and candidates in a relatively free society don’t necessarily need people to repeatedly tell themselves that that they are the one and only true choice because it is typically already enough for people to simply think they are better than the alternatives even if far from perfect. Similarly some businesses having dress codes because they want to maintain a professional environment, image, etc. is one thing but telling people what specific style of underwear to wear day and night that also limits their everyday clothing choices even during their own free time is a whole other level of control.
A Lutheran can marry a Methodist or possibly even an atheist without it necessarily being that big of a deal but if an active LDS Church member marries an inactive Church member outside of the temple then it is typically going to be a big deal. That’s what I mean by the Church basically depending on having control over people’s thoughts and behavior; it currently maintains and relies on a relatively strict level of control over the everyday lives of its followers compared to almost any other group that I know of short of actual totalitarian regimes and smaller isolated groups like the Amish and the only fairly large international religious groups that compare very well that I see at this point are Islam and a few evangelical sects, the JWs, etc. but I don’t think this is something most Church leaders were consciously aiming for as much as it simply being unintended side-effects of some of the doctrines and policies inherited from previous generations as well as overprotective reactions to typically losing followers that don’t quite fit the mold.
DA, are you saying political parties don’t make constant claims about being the one, true political party – and say that voting for the other party’s candidates will lead to hellish results – and spend millions of dollars to say it every year? Also, try talking to most Chriatians about marrying outside the faith – meaning within Proteatantism marrying outside of Protestantism, for example, or passionately believing, daily mass attending Catholics marrying outside Catholicism. Comparing Mormonism as a denomination to Proteatantism and Catholicism as denominations is a much better analysis – and “the one, true” rhetoric is every bit as strong within Protestantism and Carholicism as it is within Mormonism, at least among passionate believers. When viewed theologically, the one, true idea is even stronger in Protestantism than within Mormonism, since we have the temple theology loophole.
Old-Timer wrote:DA,
are you saying political parties don’t make constant claims about being the one, true political party – and say that voting for the other party’s candidates will lead to hellish results – and spend millions of dollars to say it every year?…Also, try talking to most Chriatians about marrying outside the faith – meaning within Proteatantism marrying outside of Proteatantism, for example, or passionately believing, daily mass attending Catholics marrying outside Catholicism. Comparing Mormonism as a denomination to Proteatantism and Catholicism as denominations is a much better analysis – and “the one, true” rhetoric is every bit as strong within Protestantism and Carholicism as it is within Mormonism, at least among passionately believers. When viewed theologically, the one, true idea is even stronger in Protestantism than within Mormonism, since we have the temple theology loophole. No; I’m saying they don’t really need people to actually believe the hype in order to compete and win their share of elections because it is already sufficient for enough people to believe they are simply better than the alternatives, true or not. Also, people could believe one candidate or party is better for completely different reasons (taxes, abortion, environmentalism, etc.) but in the Church it is regarded as especially important that faithful Mormons should all agree that the Church is the one and only true path for the same very specific reasons namely the restoration, living prophets, and God-given authority that supposedly trump other considerations and render it the only acceptable choice.
The question of exclusively marrying within the same exact denomination is not merely something I came up with based on anecdotal observations, a recent Pew survey showed that American Mormons are more likely to be married within the same group than any other religious group (82%) except for Hindus (it was 79% for Muslims, 75% for Catholics and Evangelicals, 65% for Jews, and 59% for Mainline Protestants). I don’t know what is so hard to believe about these ideas when the Church basically teaches that strict obedience, temple marriage, and very specific beliefs are supposedly so important and specifically asks people about some of the main tenets in temple worthiness interviews so that when people don’t match this expected profile the Church itself stresses so much then there’s a good chance they will “fall away” altogether.
I think we are saying basically the same thing, in the end, but looking at it from different perspectives based on personal experience – and I think the stats you cited support the idea that there is little difference between “passionate believers” among the groups I mentioned. Each group (LDS, Catholic, Protestant), theologically, claims to be the one, true religion (equally strongly), and the intra-faith marriage rates of the passionate believers (NOT holiday-only-mass-attending Catholics, for example) illustrate that claim.
Seriously, with so many cultural, heritage Catholics in this country who still self-identify as Catholic, a 65% intra-faith marriage rate is as high, comparatively, as 82% among those who self-identify as LDS – when dealing only with those who are passionate believers.
I work at a serious Catholic university and used to work at a passionately evangelical Protestant university. Not one of our “one, true” claims is uniquely exclusive – and nothing we do or say is egregiously over-the-top when talking about “mind control”.
Yes, again, we have serious issues with respect to honoring agency and general indoctrination practices – but they aren’t unique to us, nor are they extreme within religion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.