Free will and Mormonism

[_ajax18]

Ok, so against the advice of our LDS friends, my wife and I watched the Golden Compass. I laughed at some of the metaphors that were so obvious and my wife threw me out several times as we watched it. But I did make it to the end part where the central theme was basically that the Magestorium was out to take away free will.

Growing up LDS, free will was a central doctrine, at least through the 80s. We watched seminary videos called, "Free to choose." I wonder if they still watch that. I'd guess they don't, but I could be wrong. Now if you ask current Mormons about free will, the first thing they'll emphasize is that it's not free. I agree with this, but they'll go even further. They'll say that free will is not really a Godly principle but a term invented by renaissance philosophers.

Then of course there was my incident in Elders Quorum. When we talked about new converts to Mormonism being disowned by their families, one brother mentioned that most of us would be disowned by our families if we joined a faith other than Mormonism. I asked, "Is this really right? Is this more like Satan's plan of coercion?" Now everyone got uncomfortable and chided me for taking us off topic. Nor would any of them say that it was wrong to disown a family member for leaving the Mormon faith. Nor could they even answer as to whether it was Satan's plan to use these type of methods to keep people coming and working for the Church. Given this, I can only conclude that they now think that it's ok.

Am I the only one who thinks that Mormonism was once like Scientology? Not much membership, but it encouraged people to question and seek for truth. As Mormonism gets older, it seems to look more and more like Catholicism. Philosophy and science are looked upon as dangerous things and to be avoided. At one time it seemed that Mormonism tried to make elaborate answers to many common questions. Now, those who question are branded as "philosophers." And as Scratch will point out we seem to have a modern day version of the Inquisition in our SCMC. Th real leverage that Mormonism has is to put pressure on people through their family relationships. It almost seems as if the Church has recognized that they don't really have very satisfying answers to the golden questions. So they focus on interpersonal relationships as a means to convert, retain, and even drive people as in the case of the mission (the young man's urge to mate being harnessed by the brain washing of young women to only marry a returned missionary.)

Is it possible that Mormonism only discouraged coercion when it didn't have the power to coerce, but now that it does we're seeing a doctrinal shift. They've even changed the words from "free agency," to "moral agency." Why change it now I ask? Was God different until 10 years ago when we made this change? Did my fathers generation of Mormon's not understand that personal decisions may be up to the individual but they all had consequences? I think they did understand this, even before the change in terminology. I'm just not sure the current leadership even agrees with the old doctrine. At one time leaderhip stressed not only doing the right things, but it was equally important for people to do the right things for the right reasons. Now we don't even agree on what those reasons are, which is probably why we can't talk about it. Now the leadership seems to say, whatever reason you came for is of no import, just as long as you do the work.

Is this why everyone at Church was so scared of the movie, "The Golden Compass?" Does the Church really act like the magestorium, and not want the facts coming out without the chance to spin them first?

[_moksha]

Is this why everyone at Church was so scared of the movie, "The Golden Compass?" Does the Church really act like the magestorium, and not want the facts coming out without the chance to spin them first?

My daughter and I saw the movie and thoroughly enjoyed it. We are hoping the sequels will be made.
by the way, the Magisterium is a Catholic Church term.

[_rcrocket]

And as Scratch will point out we seem to have a modern day version of the Inquisition in our SCMC.

This is like equating the Nazi genocide to getting baptized.

How many people, and can you name them, were subject to an SCMC inquisition?

[_Mister Scratch]

And as Scratch will point out we seem to have a modern day version of the Inquisition in our SCMC.

This is like equating the Nazi genocide to getting baptized.

How many people, and can you name them, were subject to an SCMC inquisition?

It is frequently difficult to name them, since they are often unaware that the SCMC has been involved. The case I am most familiar with involves DCP. The Good Professor was called upon to act as an "agent" (his word) for the SCMC, and in doing so, he was advised by the Committee's secretary to keep things very hush-hush. So, probably a great many folks who are hauled into Church courts have been subject to "an SCMC inquisition," but most, if not all, of them will never know it. The relevant "intel" and surveillance information gets passed along to the appropriate ecclesiastical leader, who then takes an "oath" of silence. Quite an ingenious---not to mention diabolical---system, isn't it?

[_ajax18]

And as Scratch will point out we seem to have a modern day version of the Inquisition in our SCMC.

This is like equating the Nazi genocide to getting baptized.

How many people, and can you name them, were subject to an SCMC inquisition?

It is frequently difficult to name them, since they are often unaware that the SCMC has been involved. The case I am most familiar with involves DCP. The Good Professor was called upon to act as an "agent" (his word) for the SCMC, and in doing so, he was advised by the Committee's secretary to keep things very hush-hush. So, probably a great many folks who are hauled into Church courts have been subject to "an SCMC inquisition," but most, if not all, of them will never know it. The relevant "intel" and surveillance information gets passed along to the appropriate ecclesiastical leader, who then takes an "oath" of silence. Quite an ingenious---not to mention diabolical---system, isn't it?

I can see this happening with published authors. It wouldn't be hard to say, "I just ran across something you wrote at the Bookstore, or that a friend had purchased from an obscure website." But what about a hack like myself. If I were called into Church court, I'd have to know someone was spying on me. Nobody in real life even knows who Ajax is.

To me it says something when they group statements not based or truth or error, but rather on whether it is pro or anti Mormon.

[_Jason Bourne]

The term free agency actually never occurs in scripture. Not once. The concept of agency, moral agency, freedom to choose good or evil are all in the scriptures.

There is really nothing different about what the LDS believe now and what they used to say. We do believe in free will but aslo, just like when we said free agency, that one is not free from the negative or position consequences of choices. Free will is alive and well in Mormonism.

[_ajax18]

The term free agency actually never occurs in scripture. Not once. The concept of agency, moral agency, freedom to choose good or evil are all in the scriptures.

There is really nothing different about what the LDS believe now and what they used to say. We do believe in free will but aslo, just like when we said free agency, that one is not free from the negative or position consequences of choices. Free will is alive and well in Mormonism.

What made it necessary to change the terminology after all this time? The second question is what constitutes "force" when speaking of Satan's plan? What forms of coercion are supported by the LDS church in keeping people in meetings, fullfilling callings, and paying their tithing?

For example, most of the Elder's Quroum apparently thought that young adults who don't remain active in Church should be cutoff from other family help such as college etc. Most believe that children should be punished if they resist going to Church. I personally was watching myself and siblings for parents from age 7 on, so I don't think it's the immediate interest of the minor that worries them with leaving a child at home. It seems to have more to do with pressuring him to go to Church, accept a belief system, make the sacrifices, and perform the labor that comes along with those beliefs.

If Satan's plan were accepted, how exactly would that have been carried out?

I think in terms of levels of coercion. At one end of the spectrum is our current tax system with the IRS. At the other end of the spectrum would be an order to pay what the governement asked and only because it was the right thing to do. No jail time, no fines, no collections agency or credit problems. Even without the IRS there is a natural consequence to not paying taxes correct? Maybe in between would be mention that all nontaxpayers will go live in nontax kingdom where the roads are terrible, social programs don't exist, and you'd be cast out of Nancy Pelosi's presence. I know, I know, it sounds more like a reward than a punishment.

What forms/levels of coercion do you support Jason, and what forms of coercion would you say most LDS support, and can you think of any extreme cases of coercion in Church?

[_Gazelam]

Agency:

http://scriptures.LDS.org/en/search?search=agency

[_Jason Bourne]

What made it necessary to change the terminology after all this time?

The explanation was that the term "Free Agency" was not supported scripturally though I still here it used even by GAs though not as often.




The second question is what constitutes "force" when speaking of Satan's plan? What forms of coercion are supported by the LDS church in keeping people in meetings, fullfilling callings, and paying their tithing?

For example, most of the Elder's Quroum apparently thought that young adults who don't remain active in Church should be cutoff from other family help such as college etc. Most believe that children should be punished if they resist going to Church. I personally was watching myself and siblings for parents from age 7 on, so I don't think it's the immediate interest of the minor that worries them with leaving a child at home. It seems to have more to do with pressuring him to go to Church, accept a belief system, make the sacrifices, and perform the labor that comes along with those beliefs.

If Satan's plan were accepted, how exactly would that have been carried out?

I think in terms of levels of coercion. At one end of the spectrum is our current tax system with the IRS. At the other end of the spectrum would be an order to pay what the governement asked and only because it was the right thing to do. No jail time, no fines, no collections agency or credit problems. Even without the IRS there is a natural consequence to not paying taxes correct? Maybe in between would be mention that all nontaxpayers will go live in nontax kingdom where the roads are terrible, social programs don't exist, and you'd be cast out of Nancy Pelosi's presence. I know, I know, it sounds more like a reward than a punishment.

What forms/levels of coercion do you support Jason, and what forms of coercion would you say most LDS support, and can you think of any extreme cases of coercion in Church?

Well this is a difficult question. I have wrangled with it personally as I raised my children. Certainly there must be some sort of discipline r consequences for poor choices that a child makes. And it is the parents job based on their own beliefs to decide what is behavior triggers punishments or rewards. From the LDS stand point there has never been a time when even the term free agency meant do what you want but have no results positive or negative. I think coercion may be the wrong word but for my children the older they got the more liberty they had to m,ake choices I did not agree with but with less punishment and even none. But even without the Church children do not operate in a vacuum. And even for a young adult child, if they are making poor choices in life, even ignoring LDS Church issues, cutting off financial support seem appropriate. For example, I would not pay for college ofr achild that is attending but failing every class due to staying up all night partying or playing vidoe games.

[_ajax18]

For example, I would not pay for college ofr achild that is attending but failing every class due to staying up all night partying or playing vidoe games.

This only seems reasonable. I would do the same if I had my way. I think my Dad would have as well if my mother had let him.

What I'm talking about is, "If you're too sick to go to Church than you're too sick to go to school," or the ultimate in my view, "Serve an honorable mission or you'll get no help completing your college." I've seen many SPs encourage such manipulation via family ties. This is why I felt that at least these men who were representing the Lord had adopted Satan's plan. The fact that nobody seems to have corrected them implicitly states to me that this is now Church doctrine. How could Satan coerce us any more than this? This is why I'm wondering if they meant something completely different by coercion.

I've also heard elders say when asked to give a blessing to an inactive who really hadn't put any effort into Church, "I don't mind going out there, but I don't think the blessing will help him any if he's not keeping his baptismal covenants?" Yet on the other hand I've heard people argue that God allows the sun to shine upon the righteous and the wicked. If God were to bless every righteous action and punish every sin, this would limit our agency. How do you sort this out?