Another BYU Professor Weighs In

[_why me]

Still, I don't think that invalidates conscientious membership and participation in the LDS Church.

No, it doesn't. But it does mean that people in the church need to be realistic about their ability to change things in the church.

It is my understanding that people cannot change the church, but god can. If it were let up to people, the LDS church would be a man-made church.

[Guest]

It is my understanding that people cannot change the church, but god can. If it were let up to people, the LDS church would be a man-made church.

The LDS Church IS a man-made church. It is merely an association of members. The kingdom of God (Church of God) is an entirely different animal. The LDS Church can lead you to this Church, but LDS Church as we know it is certainly not the Church of God.

[_Bob Loblaw]

It is my understanding that people cannot change the church, but god can. If it were let up to people, the LDS church would be a man-made church.

You're assuming that God is leading the LDS church. Whether or not that's true, the leadership can change the church, but the members cannot.

[_Kishkumen]

No, it doesn't. But it does mean that people in the church need to be realistic about their ability to change things in the church.

Very true.

[_Kishkumen]

The kingdom of God (Church of God) is an entirely different animal. The LDS Church can lead you to this Church, but LDS Church as we know it is certainly not the Church of God.

"The kingdom of God is within you, and all around you." Luke 17:21

[_Juggler Vain]

Me too. In fact, it remains a key factor weighing against my willingness to entertain any sort of NOMish participation in the Church. I have ethical needs.

I wouldn't let people like that drive you out of the Church. There will always be people like bcspace, Droopy,... that do things like this. You take a stand against it. It is wrong and not something Christ would have done. He loved the poor and the needy and the Gospel and Church should be dedicated to helping those. The rich (particularly those that don't think it is there job to help those in need) were the ones Christ stood against because of their pride and how they treated those that were less fortunate.

First, this issue is only one of many factors that keep me out of the pews. If you are interested in seeing other factors, they are included in this list.

Second, I don't really consider this problem to be about people, especially not the people at the lower management levels of the institution, like the people who attend PEC, even though they are asked to do much of the dirty work. They don't have much control over institutional policies and practices that are forced upon them from above. Obedience is the first law of heaven, right? In fact, even middle and upper management have somebody above them expecting compliance with institutional policies, and results. In the LDS Church, institutional policies are created and enforced from the top, by the board of 12 directors, under the direction of the sole shareholder and his two advisors, and on the advice of a few other select executives.

When the apostles are the rich people who Christ would probably stand against, what are you supposed to do? If you're going to look to Jesus for an answer, doesn't the "new wine in old bottles" idea apply? You don't have to change existing institutions -- just find or make a new one. There is nothing holy about the corporate form.

-JV

[_Tobin]

First, this issue is only one of many factors that keep me out of the pews. If you are interested in seeing other factors, they are included in this list.

Understood, but we all have our "issues" with the LDS Church. We shouldn't cut ourselves off from fellowship with them just because we have problems with the LDS Church itself.

Second, I don't really consider this problem to be about people, especially not the people at the lower management levels of the institution, like the people who attend PEC, even though they are asked to do much of the dirty work. They don't have much control over institutional policies and practices that are forced upon them from above. Obedience is the first law of heaven, right? In fact, even middle and upper management have somebody above them expecting compliance with institutional policies, and results. In the LDS Church, institutional policies are created and enforced from the top, by the board of 12 directors, under the direction of the sole shareholder and his two advisors, and on the advice of a few other select executives.

But the problem IS the people. It is the people for blindly following blind leaders who are not inspired. And obedience is the first law of heaven - obedience to God which can only be done by recognizing and defending the truth as best you see it.

When the apostles are the rich people who Christ would probably stand against, what are you supposed to do? If you're going to look to Jesus for an answer, doesn't the "new wine in old bottles" idea apply? You don't have to change existing institutions -- just find or make a new one. There is nothing holy about the corporate form.

Set a good example. Christ stood against the Jewish leaders, who lead the "Church" in his day as well. He stood, spoke the truth, and showed and taught people how to be better people.

[_Tobin]

The kingdom of God (Church of God) is an entirely different animal. The LDS Church can lead you to this Church, but LDS Church as we know it is certainly not the Church of God.

"The kingdom of God is within you, and all around you." Luke 17:21

Very well cited. That is very true indeed.

[_Milesius]

Hancock says the piece may come to light in due time. Of course, we should all recognize that when it eventually does come out, none of us will have any way of knowing if it was the original piece or not. They could soften the tone, then publish it and say "see, it wasn't a 'hit piece' after all."

And if the original comes to light they'll just claim that it was altered by wicked men in an attempt to discredit them.