How do you avoid absolute power?

[sabastious]

On my mission, I taught others that we are STUDENTS of the gospel... not blind followers. Just because you join a religious organization does NOT mean that your agency is removed from you and you can't make your own choices.

Right now I don't believe there is anything wrong with many of the things that your church believes is worthy of punishment. If I were to be baptized as a Mormon my agency, that I am currently displaying, would become void because I would then have to live by another set of standards at the penalty of reprimand and possibly even an expelling from the church.

The way I would assume you preserve agency into this controlled environment is to get the person entering it to agree not to commit acts that are the church deplores. Then if you commit the acts they get to say you are using your agency and then punishment is permissible. I cannot be gay for instance which is not a problem for me, but it would be a problem for a gay person. I have strong reservations about telling someone their salvation is not available to them because they engage in normal human behavior. If someone is compulsorily compelled to act a certain way then their free agency is being effected. Punishment turns council into law and law is in opposition to free will.

Regards,

-Sabastious

Edited July 10, 2012 by sabastious

[Dravin]

If I were to be baptized as a Mormon my agency, that I am currently displaying, would become void because I would then have to live by another set of standards at the penalty of reprimand and possibly even an expelling from the church.

You'd still have your agency. If I so desired right now I could go snort some cocaine and have an affair despite it being against teachings. You wouldn't have to live by another set of standards, you would have covenanted to do so, and if you do so or not rests upon your agency.

[sabastious]

You'd still have your agency. If I so desired right now I could go snort some cocaine and have an affair despite it being against teachings. You wouldn't have to live by another set of standards, you would have covenanted to do so, and if you do so or not rests upon your agency.

What is the point of agency if only a technicality? If a man walks into my house and points a gun at my son and asks me to give me all his money, do I have a choice? Yes, technically I do, but with a practical application and common sense factored in I do not REALLY have a choice. Because the love for my son far surpasses the money I have, so the choice between the two is not really a choice.

The same goes for paying taxes to your government. I can either choose to pay or go to prison. Again, technically there is a choice, but the disparity in circumstance based upon the choice is so great that the choice itself is diminished.

Regards,

-Sabastious

[Vort]

What is the point of agency if only a technicality? If a man walks into my house and points a gun at my son and asks me to give me all his money, do I have a choice? Yes, technically I do, but with a practical application and common sense factored in I do not REALLY have a choice. Because the love for my son far surpasses the money I have, so the choice between the two is not really a choice.

The same goes for paying taxes to your government. I can either choose to pay or go to prison. Again, technically there is a choice, but the disparity in circumstance based upon the choice is so great that the choice itself is diminished.

How about that? Here I have been a member of the LDS Church for my entire life, and I never knew that men with guns would come in my home and shoot me if I didn't do as the Church teaches.

Since I am not allowed to say that sabastious is a troll, I will content myself with opining that he is not a serious and honest poster, and may safely be ignored.

[Dravin]

What is the point of agency if only a technicality? If a man walks into my house and points a gun at my son and asks me to give me all his money, do I have a choice?

So you think your hypothetical future Bishop is going to follow you around with a gun pointed at your head? If not the comparison is nonsensical. If yes, you've bought into some whoppers. Covenants don't strip us of our agency. That we choose to keep a covenant is just as much an exercise of agency as if we don't choose to keep a covenant.

[skippy740]

The way I would assume you preserve agency into this controlled environment is to get the person entering it to agree not to commit acts that are the church deplores. Then if you commit the acts they get to say you are using your agency and then punishment is permissible. I cannot be gay for instance which is not a problem for me, but it would be a problem for a gay person. I have strong reservations about telling someone their salvation is not available to them because they engage in normal human behavior. If someone is compulsorily compelled to act a certain way then their free agency is being effected. Punishment turns council into law and law is in opposition to free will.

Incorrect conclusion.

Just because it is the law does not mean that I have to follow it. I will reap the consequences of not following the law.

You really ought to read all of 2 Nephi 2. 2 Nephi 2*

Here's verse 13:

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

Verse 16:

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

[sabastious]

So you think your hypothetical future Bishop is going to follow you around with a gun pointed at your head? If not the comparison is nonsensical. If yes, you've bought into some whoppers. Covenants don't strip us of our agency. That we choose to keep a covenant is just as much an exercise of agency as if we don't choose to keep a covenant.

It was just a logical exercise, not a for instance. It was used to illustrate the point that choice can be taken from you even though we always technically have a choice. I could choose to not breath by putting duct tape around my mouth and nose. The consequence would be a frightful death, but I COULD do it. Arguing the point that we all have a choice no matter what is fairly moot. The repercussions of our actions always play a role in the choices we make.

I come from an organization that holds the association of your entire family over your head at all times. If you slip up, you will be completely cut off from your family.

Lets say I am tempted to cheat on my wife and choose not to. How do I know that my choice was not based upon fear of shame from peers or church repercussions? The very fact that these moral laws are enforced with punishment takes away agency because then you cannot act upon your own volition because fear of repercussions imparted upon by the Priesthood will always play a factor.

Regards,

-Sabastious

Edited July 10, 2012 by sabastious

[sabastious]

Since I am not allowed to say that sabastious is a troll, I will content myself with opining that he is not a serious and honest poster, and may safely be ignored.

I'm not sure what I have done to inflame you, but I am sorry for whatever it was.

Regards,

-Sabatious

[Dravin]

It was just a logical exercise, not a for instance. It was used to illustrate the point that choice can be taken from you even though we always technically have a choice. I could choose to not breath by putting duct tape around my mouth. The consequence would be a frightful death, but I COULD do it. Arguing the point that we all have a choice no matter what is fairly moot. The repercussions of our actions always play a role in the choices we make.

I come from an organization that holds the association of your entire family over your head at all times. If you slip up, you will be completely cut off from your family.

Lets say I am tempted to cheat on my wife and choose not to. How do I know that my choice was not based upon fear of shame from peers or church repercussions? The very fact that these moral laws are enforced with punishment takes away agency because then you cannot act upon your own volition because fear of repercussions imparted upon by the Priesthood will always play a factor.

Regards,

-Sabastious

Ah... a fan of the agency is only agency if there are no consequences line of thought. Needless to say I disagree.

[sabastious]

Ah... a fan of the agency is only agency if there are no consequences line of thought. Needless to say I disagree.

I believe that natural consequences are enough to deter people from unrighteousness. There is no need to heap man made punishments onto people who are already subject to the set laws of the universe. For example if I cheated on my wife I would break her heart and that is enough reason for me not to do it. I love her and also I am a believer in oaths. I swore an oath to her and I will uphold it for a lifetime. There is no need to disfellowship or excommunicate, imo.

Regards,

-Sabastious

[Guest]

Do you believe in a need for redemption and repentance? That's what church discipline is about, not punishment.

[skippy740]

Should one who sins against his covenants be allowed to partake of the same blessings that those who keep their covenants enjoy?

Do you believe that marriage is a covenant between husband, wife and God?

Edited July 10, 2012 by skippy740

[Dravin]

I believe that natural consequences are enough to deter people from unrighteousness. There is no need to heap man made punishments onto people who are already subject to the set laws of the universe. For example if I cheated on my wife I would break her heart and that is enough reason for me not to do it. I love her and also I am a believer in oaths. I swore an oath to her and I will uphold it for a lifetime. There is no need to disfellowship or excommunicate, imo.

Regards,

-Sabastious

Christ does not share your opinion on excommunication.

28 And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it;

29 For whoso eateth and drinketh my flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul; therefore if ye know that a man is unworthy to eat and drink of my flesh and blood ye shall forbid him.

30 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out from among you, but ye shall minister unto him and shall pray for him unto the Father, in my name; and if it so be that he repenteth and is baptized in my name, then shall ye receive him, and shall minister unto him of my flesh and blood.

31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered.

32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.

So I guess the question for you to decide if those words are scripture or not. There are other scriptures addressing excommunication (Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants), but the crux of it can be seen in the above.

Edited July 10, 2012 by Dravin

[sabastious]

Do you believe in a need for redemption and repentance? That's what church discipline is about, not punishment.

I believe that long ago humanity suffered some sort of fall as a result of a rebellion in heaven (although heaven to me is not what most people think it is). That fall came with certain ramifications of which people like you and I had no chance but to born into. Therefore I believe that we should feel remorse for our bad deeds, but not feel guilty about our capacity to commit them. A person who does nothing but bad deeds is just following their natural instincts that were instilled into them by 2.4 million years of evolution in a fallen world.

Regards,

-Sabastious

[skippy740]

Wow. You really need to read that Gospel Principles manual.

Here are some chapters that may be of particular interest for you:

Gospel Principles Chapter 4: Freedom to Choose

Gospel Principles Chapter 5: The Creation

Gospel Principles Chapter 6: The Fall of Adam and Eve

Gospel Principles Chapter 16: The Church of Jesus Christ in Former Times

Gospel Principles Chapter 17: The Church of Jesus Christ Today

Just a few to get you started.

[sabastious]

Should one who sins against his covenants be allowed to partake of the same blessings that those who keep their covenants enjoy?

That's a good question. When I left my former religion my family was devastated because I was going against a covenant I made with what they believed to have been authorized by God. To be baptized as a Mormon, if you were previously baptized elsewhere, you must BREAK a covenant. As it was stated earlier covenants must be authorized by God in order to be valid.

Also it must be factored in how capable the person is of keeping said covenants. Are some people predisposed to sexual immorality? Science would suggest that to be the case. Therefore some people could be said to be at a disadvantage whereas others will not. In the end, imo, everybody has their account before God and not any set of rules laid down by man. This is not the case with most churches especially ones that have an excommunication policy.

Do you believe that marriage is a covenant between husband, wife and God?

Frankly, not really. Like I said there would be no reason to punish someone for leaving their spouse. The pain of emotional severance is punishment enough. The covenant is between the two people and the ability to love in such a way is bestowed upon us by our Creator.

The reason why I was abused so badly growing up is because my parents got stuck into a bad relationship. They are now divorced, but since the Bible says that only adultery is grounds for divorce my mother faithfully stayed with my father who abused me very badly and instead of punishment he was was appointed for church leadership.

Because of my horrific experiences I believe that divorce should be an viable option at all times with no repercussions socially or religiously. Too many children are victimized by men who know they get a free ride when "going into a covenant with God."

Regards,

-Sabastious

Edited July 11, 2012 by sabastious

[Guest]

I believe that long ago humanity suffered some sort of fall as a result of a rebellion in heaven (although heaven to me is not what most people think it is). That fall came with certain ramifications of which people like you and I had no chance but to born into. Therefore I believe that we should feel remorse for our bad deeds, but not feel guilty about our capacity to commit them. A person who does nothing but bad deeds is just following their natural instincts that were instilled into them by 2.4 million years of evolution in a fallen world.

Regards,

-Sabastious

I would think you were my husband's atheist grandfather if he hadn't died last year.

Why do you feel any need for religion? If we are helpless against our natural selves and in no need of moral direction, let alone a Savior, what is the point of religion at all?

[sabastious]

Why do you feel any need for religion? If we are helpless against our natural selves and in no need of moral direction, let alone a Savior, what is the point of religion at all?

I think Hebrews 10 answers that question:

Hebrews 10 - 24 And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, 25 not giving up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but encouraging one another —and all the more as you see the Day approaching.

There is a linear progression to all things and there is a purpose for mankind. Life is very discouraging and it's important to get together and discuss our lives in relation to the divine purpose for growth and encouragement. I am interested in religion, but I am frightened of it's leaders.

Regards,

-Sabastious

Edited July 11, 2012 by sabastious

[estradling75]

You are seriously over thinking this... And putting to much trust in your own arm of the flesh with trying to avoid falling into anyone else.

By now I am sure the missionaries have given you a copy of the Book of Mormon. Take that for your evidence, take it to God as you study it. Between just you and him ask God if it is of him. This is putting your trust in God that he will answer and tell you personally the truth of matter of the Book of Mormon.

Don't worry about anything else about the church until you get that answer. If you reach the answer of no it is not true then none of the other claims or actions of the church matter. If, however, after your studies and prayer between you and God you reach the answer of yes, you have not relied on the arm of the flesh. God has told you personally. Then at that point, the rest of the claims of the Church become much more likely, and you have already learned how to test the claims with God and get answers from him

[Just_A_Guy]

It was just a logical exercise, not a for instance. It was used to illustrate the point that choice can be taken from you even though we always technically have a choice. I could choose to not breath by putting duct tape around my mouth and nose. The consequence would be a frightful death, but I COULD do it. Arguing the point that we all have a choice no matter what is fairly moot. The repercussions of our actions always play a role in the choices we make.

Well . . . sort of. I agree with you that a certain, instant, and intolerable punishment does sort of cramp the choices you might make. In LDS theology, that's the whole reason we got taken out of the presence of God and put on earth--to see what we would do when He wasn't constantly and visibly looking over our shoulder.

On the other hand: agency, as a legal term, implies both that one is entitled to act and that one is entitled and obligated to receive the consequences of one's actions. You cannot have agency without consequences. The "discipline" Mormonism offers is not a punishment per se or an artificially imposed consequence; it is simply the (ideally temporary) suspension from certain rituals in which the excommunicated member would be making covenants that he obviously is not currently willing to observe. Occasionally, the action is publicized so that the excommunicated member cannot shroud himself in Church authority as he promulgates untrue teachings. We consider ourselves under scriptural mandate both to administer our rituals only to those who will honor them, and to protect the doctrinal integrity of the Church.

I come from an organization that holds the association of your entire family over your head at all times. If you slip up, you will be completely cut off from your family.

That is inapposite to the current discussion. Mormonism doesn't require you to sever family ties with a nonbeliever. Nor is your discussion of divorce (in a later post) really applicable here, since Mormonism doesn't view those who a party to a divorce as automatically "sinful" (which is a good thing for me, as a divorce lawyer).

Lets say I am tempted to cheat on my wife and choose not to. How do I know that my choice was not based upon fear of shame from peers or church repercussions? The very fact that these moral laws are enforced with punishment takes away agency because then you cannot act upon your own volition because fear of repercussions imparted upon by the Priesthood will always play a factor.

Ideally your love for your spouse--and for the Lord--and your respect for the covenant with those people, would be enough. But a person who abstains from the behavior--even for fear of punishment--is still in better shape than the person who gives right in. The Mormon concept of "degrees of heaven" (arguably borrowed from Emanuel Swedenborg; but that's another discussion) can be said to mirror these motives: celestial = those who obey for love, terrestrial = those who obey for fear, telestial = those who don't obey at all.

And more to the point is that people change. Even if I initially obey the commandment for the wrong reason, doing so spares me the heartache and spiritual complications that adultery inevitably causes. I am then more free to progress spiritually to the point where I obey the commandment for the right reason.

(And let's be honest: if fear of ecclesiastical punishment truly denied Mormons their agency with regard to adultery, then no Mormon would ever commit adultery. If you think that's true . . . go hang out on the Advice forum for a little while. )

Edited July 11, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[KirtlandSaintinZion]

What if he had been molesting children before he was called? Can the prophet choose a wrong apostle? I understand that Judas was both an apostle and a betrayer, but he wasn't a greedy betrayer when Jesus picked him or else Jesus' selection methodology should be considered highly flawed.

My father emotionally and physically abused me growing up, but the JW leadership still appointed him as a shepard of the flock. Application for elder leadership is sent to the society in Brooklyn for the the Governing Body's approval. It is said that Holy Spirit is used to make sure they are worthy of such a position. I knew, however, that my father was abusing me and was still appointed. I totally understand the concept of imperfect leaders, however appointing a leader who is not in the least bit qualified and calling it "by holy spirit" is appalling to me.

How do you know your faith is secure about men whom you don't know much about? How do you know the doctrine they come up with is in accordance with the Spirit's desires? How do you know Joseph Smith was wrong and needed to be changed? What if blacks ARE an accursed race and it was wrongly changed otherwise? How do you know what doctrine is solid when it changes over time? What methodology is used to determine why certain truths are kept from us until certain points in humanity?

Also why only a single prophet? If I remember correctly the Old Testament has certain junctures where many prophets are called at once. Paul and Barnabas were considered equals I believe in authority and rank in relation to the congregations. I know the kind of spiritual and physical carnage that can come from unqualified leadership being touted as more special than they are actually are.

Regards,

-Sabastious

Point of clarification:

George P. Lee wasn't "molesting children". He had sex with his children's 14 year-old babysitter after he was called as a Seventy (if the accusation is actually true).

[sabastious]

Don't worry about anything else about the church until you get that answer. If you reach the answer of no it is not true then none of the other claims or actions of the church matter. If, however, after your studies and prayer between you and God you reach the answer of yes, you have not relied on the arm of the flesh. God has told you personally. Then at that point, the rest of the claims of the Church become much more likely, and you have already learned how to test the claims with God and get answers from him

The missionaries gave me a free Book of Mormon when they first stopped by. Before they came over again I had asked God to point me to a page of truth in the BoM. I was directed to page 482 which was Mormon 8:13-24:

13 Behold, I make an end of speaking concerning this people. I am the son of Mormon, and my father was a adescendant of Nephi.

14 And I am the same who ahideth up this record unto the Lord; the plates thereof are of no worth, because of the commandment of the Lord. For he truly saith that no one shall have them bto get gain; but the record thereof is of cgreat worth; and whoso shall bring it to light, him will the Lord bless.

15 For none can have power to bring it to light save it be given him of God; for God wills that it shall be done with an aeye single to his glory, or the welfare of the ancient and long dispersed covenant people of the Lord.

16 And blessed be ahe that shall bring this thing to light; for it shall be bbrought out of darkness unto light, according to the word of God; yea, it shall be brought out of the earth, and it shall shine forth out of darkness, and come unto the knowledge of the people; and it shall be done by the power of God.

17 And if there be afaults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault; nevertheless God knoweth all things; therefore, he that bcondemneth, let him be aware lest he shall be in danger of hell fire.

18 And he that saith: Show unto me, or ye shall be asmitten—let him beware lest he commandeth that which is forbidden of the Lord.

19 For behold, the same that ajudgeth brashly shall be judged rashly again; for according to his works shall his wages be; therefore, he that smiteth shall be smitten again, of the Lord.

20 Behold what the scripture says—man shall not asmite, neither shall he bjudge; for judgment is mine, saith the Lord, and vengeance is mine also, and I will repay.

21 And he that shall breathe out awrath and bstrifes against the work of the Lord, and against the ccovenant people of the Lord who are the house of Israel, and shall say: We will destroy the work of the Lord, and the Lord will not remember his covenant which he hath made unto the house of Israel—the same is in danger to be hewn down and cast into the fire;

22 For the eternal apurposes of the Lord shall roll on, until all his promises shall be fulfilled.

23 Search the prophecies of aIsaiah. Behold, I cannot write them. Yea, behold I say unto you, that those saints who have gone before me, who have possessed this land, shall bcry, yea, even from the dust will they cry unto the Lord; and as the Lord liveth he will remember the covenant which he hath made with them.

24 And he knoweth their aprayers, that they were in behalf of their brethren. And he knoweth their faith, for in his name could they remove bmountains; and in his name could they cause the earth to shake; and by the power of his word did they cause cprisons to tumble to the earth; yea, even the fiery furnace could not harm them, neither wild beasts nor poisonous serpents, because of the power of his word.

I don't think it's fair to be tossed a large book written in cryptic Jameson English and expected to read through it and understand it enough to ask God about it. Instead, I asked God to direct me to the page. I realize that if the BoM is a fraud then I would be asking the impossible of God. To me if the book is a fraud that much should rightly be discernible without supernatural aid. There are many powerful and influential people out there that stand behind the idea that JS was a con man. It makes me uneasy to see the flurry of evidence thrown in my direction allegedly implicating Mr Smith.

I am currently in the process of dissecting the information of page 482. I find it fascinating that I was directed to a page that speaks of the golden plates and their reasoning to why they were not allowed into the world. To me this is God either saying that the Mormon church is completely right, or completely wrong and it all centers around the truth about those plates. If there were no plates then the LDS prophet and apostles have no authority, but have been acting as if they did. If the plates are true, then they are the guardians of truth on planet earth. An interesting dichotomy.

Regards,

-Sabastious

Edited July 11, 2012 by sabastious

[NeuroTypical]

Point of clarification:

George P. Lee wasn't "molesting children". He had sex with his children's 14 year-old babysitter after he was called as a Seventy (if the accusation is actually true).

Yeah, no.

There were apparently multiple victims, but only one went to trial.

The girl wasn't 14, the abuse allegedly happened starting around 1986 and lasted across years, between age of 9 and 12.

She wasn't a babysitter, she was a friend of the family who visited and traveled extensively with them.

In 1994, he admitted to a single act in court, pleaded down to attempted sexual abuse of a child, got 18 months probation and a fine, and was ordered to stay on the sex offender roles until 2011.

The excommunication occured years after the events allegedly started, but years before any of this went public.

(Sorry for the increased tangent - just correcting the record.)

[estradling75]

I am currently in the process of dissecting the information of page 482. I find it fascinating that I was directed to a page that speaks of the golden plates and their reasoning to why they were not allowed into the world. To me this is God either saying that the Mormon church is completely right, or completely wrong and it all centers around the truth about those plates. If there were no plates then the LDS prophet and apostles have no authority, but have been acting as if they did. If the plates are true, then they are the guardians of truth on planet earth. An interesting dichotomy.

Which is what I was headed toward... And you also understand how men can corrupt, distort, and fake physical evidence. Which is why we in the Church are big believers of the promise given James 1:5

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Once you get your answer from God about the Book of Mormon you have already figured out your next steps.

[Bensalem]

I have been studying Mormonism and I am currently having regular missionary visits. My largest concern is that of your prophet and his 12 apostles. To me a detailed description of how they are elected is paramount for me to consider Mormonism a serious religion. Prophets such as Elijah could part the Jordan river which would be very good evidence of a special supernatural connection. As we all know charlatan's are not only allowed the exist, if they are good enough they flourish for long stretches of time leaving behind widespread disappointment, but full bank accounts and security for them. Even people who did not start out with a greedy intent could have been infiltrated by the greedy as religion makes a LOT of money.

My main question is how does the LDS church avoid top leadership corruption? (as in the prophet and 12 apostles) This seems to be a problem that has never been solved in an organization even the American government. I believe firmly that absolute power corrupts absolutely and I don't believe any flesh to be an exception to that rule.

What a heavy responsibility it would be to head an organization that considers itself the only authority on earth to baptize in the name of the One True God. Such a position would be very susceptible to corruption, how do you get around that whereas so many have not?

Regards,

-Sabastious

I'm coming in late here, so forgive me if I present some repetition.

The LDS church's prophets and apostles don't have absolute power, Christ does. They, and all in the Melchizedek priesthood, do possess the authority to act in the name of Christ.

As far as I know, service in the Church (even at the top) is not a paid position. So our prophets and apostles are not collecting our contributions and tithe into their personal bank accounts. I'm not even sure they have access to or control of the funds.

Financial integrity is maintained through other callings to individuals with appropriate professional skills.

Moral integrity is a requirement that starts at baptism into the Church.

The lack of scandal or corruption is the witness of the Church's and the people's integrity. After all, we are saints.

Edited July 16, 2012 by Bensalem