WoW: taking the freedom out of free agency?

[Anonymous]

I’m not going to argue with you folks, GB, SD and Ray. I get that we do have a choice to be LDS or not. I guess my beef, which Spock and the DA referred to, is I DO have issues with a governing religious body that claims that I have agency, and yet they hold my salvation in their hands, and then they make rules that I MUST follow to receive that salvation – even though those rules seem quite arbitrary to ones eternal exaltation. And if I want to be a member in good standing I have to follow them. How is that agency? Sure, I can choose to not be a member, but wouldn’t it be best to let me be a member in good standing, and still have my agency in regards to my own health? Does being a tea drinker really make me unworthy to enter the “CK?” I mean really.

The WoW is just the easiest and most obvious example. A policy, that was made a “commandment from God” to receive exaltation in CK. A really good example of taking away mormon’s free agency to make their own choices regarding health and what they take into their body.

The answer is obvious, that many people in this world are dense and need that crutch called the WoW commandment to keep them safe, because they are too idiotic to use their agency wisely. Once again – we really come back to the church must cater to the 85% that need/want/wish to be stage 3 TBM and not have to think or work at their own spiritual path.

AND the question is – where do I fit in? Is there a place for me in this church, a guy who just will not – can not, any longer accept these kind of commandments, policies and cultural norms as focal part of their life. These traditions just will not work for me. 😥

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

I guess my beef, which Spock and the DA referred to, is I DO have issues with a governing religious body that claims that I have agency, and yet they hold my salvation in their hands, and then they make rules that I MUST follow to receive that salvation – even though those rules seem quite arbitrary to ones eternal exaltation. And if I want to be a member in good standing I have to follow them. How is that agency? Sure, I can choose to not be a member, but wouldn’t it be best to let me be a member in good standing, and still have my agency in regards to my own health? Does being a tea drinker really make me unworthy to enter the “CK?”

The WoW was just another of a long line of health experiments that were part of restoration movements. Adventists leave it to members if they should be vegetarians or not but I expect to be in any sort of position one would have to adhere to that their health codes. I personally don’t think the WoW has that much to do with health other than the common sense in not using tobacco. When Brigham Young proposed it as a commandment and Heber J. Grant made it binding the general church accepted it and that’s been the rule since so we’re stuck with it. As to whether my salvation is held hostage to keeping it, well that depends if you believe all that’s said about the CK, exaltation, authority, priesthood, etc.. I personally don’t but in order for me to stay lds in a way that works for me I keep the WoW and don’t worry about the rest. What happens come judgement, happens.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

I’m not going to argue with you folks, GB, SD and Ray. I get that we do have a choice to be LDS or not. I guess my beef, which Spock and the DA referred to, is I DO have issues with a governing religious body that claims that I have agency, and yet they hold my salvation in their hands, and then they make rules that I MUST follow to receive that salvation – even though those rules seem quite arbitrary to ones eternal exaltation. And if I want to be a member in good standing I have to follow them. How is that agency? Sure, I can choose to not be a member, but wouldn’t it be best to let me be a member in good standing, and still have my agency in regards to my own health? Does being a tea drinker really make me unworthy to enter the “CK?” I mean really.

The WoW is just the easiest and most obvious example. A policy, that was made a “commandment from God” to receive exaltation in CK. A really good example of taking away mormon’s free agency to make their own choices regarding health and what they take into their body.

CWald, even though I don’t have issues with the WoW, and generally think it’s a good commandment that teaches us to simply avoid all kinds of substances that have destroyed lives, etcetera, I hear you on the tendency to attach salvation to minute issues. I think we all have our druthers in this regard.

I think that garments to me are similar to WoW for you. For me, garments are a pain the hide. I think their primary purpose is to remind us about our chastity commitments if we ever get into a situation where we might be tempted to violate them. However, I’m older now, not nearly as attractive as I was when I was younger, and certainly not prone to situations where I’m going to be tempted sexually. I question whether they are important anymore.

So, while I don’t have issues with WoW, I do have issues with other things, and if I look at WoW from that same perspective as these other things that bother me, you and I are on the same page.

Funny, at one time I was adamant that Bishop’s should pull temple recommends if people didn’t do their home teaching. This was a result of the constant pressure I was getting from the Stake about it as a priesthood leader. They rode me so hard about it, it was as if it was the be-all, end-all. I think if I had prophetic responsibilities during that period, I seriously would’ve made home teaching a temple recommend question. So, the temptation is to use the temple as a way to control behavior, even when such behavior isn’t necessarily considered “essential compliance” is part and parcel of weilding such power in leadership, either through establishing interview questions or conducting such interviews.

I now have gone entirely in the other direction now that I’m not a priesthood leader because my perspective has changed. No longer am I pressured about HT from leaders above me, so it no longer seems to have that important place in my life/Church service. It would seem like a completely unjust rule if they went that far with the whole temple recommend questions — attaching home teaching to holding a valid recommend!!!

Also, your comment toward the end of your post — about whether you’ll ever fit in — I think GBSmith said it best — that whether you believe in all these commandments really rests on whether you believe in authority and in my view, the divine appointment and inspiration of the priesthood leaders, especially the big policy-makers like the prophet and apostles.

My Achilles heel is that very principle. Looking at my attitudes toward the Church honestly, I really have trouble believing these men are inspired and that the Church organization is truly an extension of God. ‘Whether by my own voice, or the voice of my servants, it is the same”. We discussed this earlier — but for me, if I’m to patch up my testimony and move forward, I personally need to start believing that again — or at least, finding compelling reasons for accepting that principle. As it stands, the behavior of these men at different points in my life has shaken my testimony in this regard — and it leads to all these doubts and unwillingnless to live some of the more irksome commandments. I understand how you might think the WoW is stupid if you don’t see it as something that is truly from God.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

I not sure how you say that is anything other than exerting control to get a desired result.

I never said it wasn’t, Cadence. I said I don’t think they are dishonest control freaks. There’s a big difference, and it’s why I try hard to be very precise in what I type and say.

There is a difference between establishing rules one believes will be beneficial within an organization (which every decent leader who has lived throughout history has done – as well as every bad leader) and being a control freak – and an even bigger difference between that kind of leadership and being dishonest. I think there is too much controlling activity in the Church, but I also think there are WAY too many members who want more rules / control in their lives than I do.

Of course, organized religion is partially about control – and it’s not a small portion. I just don’t think the LDS leadership, as a whole, is made up of dishonest control freaks. The current “control freakiness” ranges from Elder Packer to Elder Anderson and Elder Cook (previously I would have said Elder Wirthlin), which is quite a wide range, imo – and I don’t think there is a dishonest member of the FP and Q12. I think Pres. Hinckley is a great example of someone who generally was not control freaky – and yet had certain areas where he acted in a more controlling fashion than I would have liked (earrings and tattoos, for example).

I guess you are correct they are not dishonest. At least not knowingly. They probably really believe the control they exert is really for the best and from god. It just seems so sad that we as mormons have attached so much to agency and yet spend so much time trying to control it. It seems to be the nature of man to need to control others.

[Anonymous]

Thanks SD

I just read an article in the MoromonTimes by Orson Scott Card about Agency. Interesting, i guess Bednar address a group of BYU/Idaho students who were complaining about the dress code, and told them they are no longer Free Agents (refering to the sports term). Once they freely and willingly join the the church (attend BYU) they sign a contract he no longer has the option of showing up in another teams uniform. He also made the point that the church has a list of rules , and once a person willingly joins up, they are obligated to follow those rules.

In regards to BYU, “You were a free agent, but now you’ve chosen to sign with BYU-Idaho. As long as you’re here, you live by the team rules.”

“Elder Bednar analogy with professional sports is designed to help us understand that we cannot remain a member of the Lord’s team unless we keep the covenants we freely entered into.”

OSC made this great point. “It’s all so simple and clear. Except that there’s one thing you can count on in the church: If an idea can be misunderstood, somebody will misunderstand it.”

[Anonymous]

It seems to me that this issue of free agency/coercion seems to arise when people have problems with certain pet topics such as WoW, temple, garments, tithing etc. So my question to DevilsAdvocate (and others) is this: Does a church have a right to ask members to adhere to certain codes of conduct? For example, is one’s free agency impacted when Moses said “Thou shalt not bear false witness”? I mean, there are cases where lying is good. For example, when people were hiding Jews from Nazis, they lied to save the lives of Jews.

Is Keeping the Sabbath Day holy a form of control? Taking the Lord’s name in vain? Thou shalt not steal? murder? Taking care of the poor? Paying Tithing?

Are we only free agents when we agree that certain commandments are good? Is an institution a “control freak” on commandments or practices we disagree with? Where do we objectively draw the line between good commandments, and control freak commandments?

[Anonymous]

MH – The issues I have with it is not “Does the church have the right?” But, “why WOULD they?” It seems that many of these rules and policies that we have made slap the face of some of our fundamental beliefs. We are told that each one of us can have a personal relationship and receive revelation and find our god on a personal level – and then in the next breath we are told exactly what to believe and how to behave. JS was told to join none of the churches because they were all wrong – and it appears to me that over the last 190 years we have “recreated” what JS was rebelling against.

In church today I heard a speaker mocking the Jews because they have missed the message of the messiah and they have 640 laws they have to follow, all written down in the book of Duet.

640! Hell, that’s nothing compared to what faithful LDS members have to learn and follow. We mock the Jews, but in a sense, have we not become the Jews of our time? Have we not miss the mark on many many important concepts of the gospel – all in an attempt to show how righteous we are by “making up” rules and over defining commandments so we can be more obedient than our neighbors?

I don’t think it is a matter of “do the the men who run the church have the right to make arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with ones salvation – ‘required’ for salvation.” I think it is a matter of, “is it right for them to do so?” Especially if one believes that the LDS church is the one and only true church on the face of the earth, “the church is perfect, people are not” and when “it” speaks, it speaks for GOD himself.

If Monson came out today and told members that they must wear a pink suit to church in order to receive a TR —- would you do it? Does Monson have the right, as the President of the church to make rules that are obviously NOT part of the gospel, required for you to obey to receive “salvation?” I think that is the issue. Yes, garments, WoW, tithing etc. are pet issuses, but they seem just as unnecessary for some people, as it might appear to another to wear a pink suit.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

MH –

I don’t think it is a matter of “do the the men who run the church have the right to make arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with ones salvation – ‘required’ for salvation.” I think it is a matter of, “is it right for them to do so?”

Most accurate observation of the week.

[Anonymous]

mormonheretic wrote:

It seems to me that this issue of free agency/coercion seems to arise when people have problems with certain pet topics such as WoW, temple, garments, tithing etc. So my question to DevilsAdvocate (and others) is this: Does a church have a right to ask members to adhere to certain codes of conduct? For example, is one’s free agency impacted when Moses said “Thou shalt not bear false witness”? …Is Keeping the Sabbath Day holy a form of control? Taking the Lord’s name in vain? Thou shalt not steal? murder? Taking care of the poor? Paying Tithing?…Is an institution a “control freak” on commandments or practices we disagree with? Where do we objectively draw the line between good commandments, and control freak commandments?

You’re right this is one of my biggest pet issues along with tithing so now I’m going to unleash an epic long-winded rant on the subject to really hash it out in my own mind at least. Sure organizations have the right to make their own rules as long as they’re not breaking the law but if they want to make up “commandments” that are completely absurd that’s their problem as far as I’m concerned and I feel no personal obligation whatsoever to obey these rules just because I am still technically a member of the group. If they want to kick me out for not doing what they say that’s their choice but personally I think they have a responsibility to think a little bit more carefully about what exactly they are asking people to do and why.

As far as what I think should be considered a sin or not, I personally would draw the line at things that actually do unnecessary harm to others or show disrespect for God. Of course, some people think it should be the other way around with God first and your neighbor second. In theory I agree, but the problem is that this assumes first of all that God exists and second that we know for sure exactly what he wants us to do. So because of some of the uncertainty about where exactly these commandments are really coming from I would always favor not doing harm to others over supposedly trying to avoid offending God in one way or another.

The Ten Commandments actually make perfect sense to me based on these criteria because breaking these commandments typically involves harming others and/or offending God for no good reason. Sure there are possible exceptions or conflicts in rare situations but to me these 10 commandments still seem like very practical and worthwhile rules to live by in most cases. The only one that stands out to me as somewhat petty is the Sabbath Day but it is actually one of my favorite commandments of all because this religious tradition is part of the reason I don’t have to work on Sunday and get to sit around watching football. Everyone deserves to take a break once in a while, even God according this.

Now if you look at coffee or beer the same way the problem is that if consumed in moderation they result in little or no harm to anyone and I have an even harder time believing that any kind of God that is worth paying attention to would really care about the strict observance of these kinds of petty rules. Personally, I think Heber J. Grant was completely wrong to elevate these things from suggestions to temple requirements this way. I’m guessing that he thought it was a great idea at the time and probably assumed that some of the popular sentiments against alcohol had vindicated the revelation as being inspired and ahead of its time so then he thought it was a good time to try to enforce it more; but even if he meant well that doesn’t really make it an honest, inspired, or well thought-out policy and it looks like a half-baked idea to me.

For all the good intentions, the prohibition experiment failed miserably and did more harm than good but we are still stuck with this same old coercive zero-tolerance approach left over from that era. This policy currently results in a significant number of members feeling like they just don’t fit in to the point that they no longer identify themselves as LDS and basically don’t want anything to do with the Church anymore in large part over this purely human Pharisee-style opinion that has really taken hold as a time-honored TBM tradition. The ends don’t justify the means at all in this case, it is simply not right the way this went down in such a haphazard way and it should definitely be changed back to a suggestion for that reason alone.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

This policy currently results in a significant number of members feeling like they just don’t fit in to the point that they no longer identify themselves as LDS and basically don’t want anything to do with the Church anymore in large part over this purely human Pharisee-style opinion that has really taken hold as a time-honored TBM tradition. The ends don’t justify the means at all in this case, it is simply not right the way this went down in such a haphazard way and it should definitely be changed back to a suggestion for that reason alone.

It was actually Brigham Young that presented the WoW to the church in about 1872 to be sustained in conference as a commandment. Pres. Grant just decided to enforce it. The only thing haphazard about it was that it took so long for it to be taken seriously and enforced. I have a hard time seeing the WoW as the only reason that someone would leave the LDS church or feel that they don’t fit it anymore and I’m not talking about someone being offended. Nobody that I know has ever been excommunicated for drinking coffee, smoking or drinking but it shouldn’t surprise you if you don’t get called to be bishop or EQ president and if you don’t get to attend your daughters temple wedding or baptize your son. It’s just part of the deal, no hard feelings, it’s our choice.

[Anonymous]

I’d like to second GBSmith’s comments.

From Cadence, CWald, and DevilsAdvocate, I sense there is a nostalgia for “fundamental” beliefs when the WoW wasn’t enforced, or tithing, etc. While I understand and sympathize, let’s talk about tithing for a minute. Prior to the Law of Tithing, it was the Law of Consecration where they gave EVERYTHING to the church. Is that really what you’d prefer? Sure the early saints drank, smoked, etc, but they also donated all their possessions. If they didn’t, they were excommunicated (just ask Oliver Cowdery, the Whitmer brothers, or William Godbe if you doubt me on this.) Are you sure these early church days are “the good ole days”?

In the early days, Joseph wanted all in the congregation to receive revelation. He allowed others to attempt to translate (such as Oliver) but they couldn’t. Hiram Page and William McLellin tried their hand at revelation. Joseph soon realized that a congregation of prophets was a recipe for chaos. He received a revelation that basically said he was the only one that could receive revelation for the church, but we can all received revelation for our sphere (stake, ward, family, etc.) I think Richard Bushman in RSR discusses these changes in Joseph’s lifetime well.

So, I understand, and sympathize with you. Puritanism has entered the church, and yes we are just like the Pharisees in many ways. I too would like to see a relaxing of things like the WoW restrictions, but for any organization to avoid chaos, there must be rules in place. In business, small businesses are agile and able to grow into niches. But once they become big, they find they need human resources to create rules (which hurt innovation and help growth). When any organization gets large, people grouse about stupid policies that “control” behavior in the workplace. Even institutions of god are run by men, so it shouldn’t surprise us that men implement policies that we may disagree with. Hopefully, we can work productively to change bad policies, but it is always hard with large organizations. They just aren’t as nimble as smaller organizations.

Yes, I grumble about stupid things at church. Over the past couple of months, I’ve visited several wards and enjoyed them much more than my ward. Today, I sat in the hall during PH/SS and read a book “The Lost Books of the Bible.” It was much more pleasant than sitting through an ill-prepared lesson. I totally get where you’re coming from, but I’d rather work on my own spiritual side than complain about some of these “control freak” commandments. If we follow Jesus example, we “give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s” but focus on making ourselves more godly. The talk about tithing/WoW seems to be similar to the Jews questioning Jesus if it was lawful to pay taxes. From Jesus, I get the impression that there are some things we just have to put up with, while at the same time trying to become more godly. All this control freak talk just seems too negative to me.

[Anonymous]

DA – I hear what you are saying and I agree with your sentiment.

GBSmith wrote:

I have a hard time seeing the WoW as the only reason that someone would leave the LDS church or feel that they don’t fit it anymore and I’m not talking about someone being offended. Nobody that I know has ever been excommunicated for drinking coffee, smoking or drinking but it shouldn’t surprise you if you don’t get called to be bishop or EQ president and if you don’t get to attend your daughters temple wedding or baptize your son. It’s just part of the deal, no hard feelings, it’s our choice.

No. You don’t get it apparently, and you don’t see. You can trust me on this GB – there are MANY MANY people who leave the church, or never join, or feel like they don’t “fit in” because of the WoW commandment, and only that commandment. It is a HUGE issue with MANY MANY member and investigators of this church. I am going to guess that it’s not an issue with you, and many others, because it is just part of the life style that you either grew up with or adapted to.

MH – we will just have to respectfully disagree on this one – again.

[Anonymous]

PS — neither GB or MH answered my question. Would you wear the pink suit? I think if you are going to criticize my concerns about the WoW, you at least should have the guts to answer the question. If Monson asked you to wear the pink suit, would you do it?

This is exactly what many member feel, me included, about the commandment to not drinking tea.

Put yourself in our place, and then respond using the pink suit analogy.

I don’t mean this to be harsh, but your response, if logical and spiritual, may help me better understand the issue – Im being sincere. Why do the men who run the church, the one and only true church on the face of the earth, make arbitrary rules that have nothing to do with one’s salvation, necessary for salvation. Why would wearing a pink suit to church make me any more worthy to enter the temple or the celestial kingdom? I think it is a fair question.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

[quote=”GBSmithNobody that I know has ever been excommunicated for drinking coffee, smoking or drinking but it shouldn’t surprise you if you don’t get called to be bishop or EQ president…

[/quote]

Oh really? Things don’t always work out that way in Oregon

[Anonymous]

Cwald, it wasn’t for lack of guts that I didn’t answer the pink suit question. It wasn’t a serious question and isn’t something that would happen. Whether or not you believe the LDS church is “true” with a capital “T”, I don’t think you can make an argument that the leadership are not good decent people trying to lead the church in a way that they see is best. You may compare being asked to keep the WoW to wearing a pink suit and if that’s how you see it, fine. But answer me this. If you were told that for you, today, the WoW was a matter of personal choice and would not affect your fellowship, would it make you a believer?

I do understand and I do get it and I’d like to just leave it at that.

[Author]

Posts