Rollo Tomasi wrote:Perhaps this is because for many faithful members there is a big difference between the LDS Church in terms of theology and the LDS Church as an institution.
Don't get me wrong, I agree there are institutional or cultural things about the Church I wouldn't mind seeing changed. I've thought a good deal about it. I read about when Pres. Woodruff personally signed each temple recommend, or when the prophet signed each mission call. I wondered about other things like how meetings are conducted, why I have the particular church calling I have, things like that.
At length I realized that this really isn't a "Wasatch Front" church anymore. There are good and bad things about the growth of the Church. So what can I do? Since my interest in in history and theology I can contribute through my blog. I can make comments in meetings. I learn to speak in a charitable way and hope I speak by the Spirit so that members know where my loyalty is. I'm not perfect at this.
I can't imagine what you do when you sit in sacrament meeting and hear talks with which you disagree. I don't know how you sit through 3 hours each Sunday and not raise your hand to disagree with all the things you would disagree with.
Perhaps there are many things she also agrees with. It's that way with me.
I didn't even know you attend Church. I don't sit and wonder about these things, I just never got the impression that you did. Sometimes I read a book during sacrament meeting or Sunday School. I am going to try to cut down on that.
I can't fathom your response (nor is it much my business) to the questions of the temple recommend interview. Joseph as a prophet, the current leadership as prophets, seers, revelators, etc.
No question asks if these persons were/are perfect or infalliable. As to the current leadership, the question is whether I "sustain." One can "sustain" and support without obeying, etc. in my opinion, "sustain" also means to think for one's self and point out when mere humans, even prophets, screw up.
Basically, the accusations leveled at the brethren in this thread seem more serious than "they are imperfect."
It seems to me that you hate the Church.
I don't get that impression from harmony at all.
I do. Same for you, though.
You say you love the Saints, and you do well, but Dan Peterson is a latter-day Saint.
In name, perhaps, but some of his actions here suggest otherwise.
So why do we get to judge him, though? What's all this about stewardship and all this when we are commanded to forgive all men? No matter what? Granted I am not perfect in this regard, but I'm aware of it.
"Rank and file" don't typically spend so much time talking about how awful the Church leadership is.
Perhaps they should. That's the only way change for the better comes about.
Because we ought to be telling the leaders how to run things.
They don't complain about every move the Church makes.
I think they should -- 'squeaky wheel gets the grease' and all that.
The wheel isn't squeaking, it appears to have fallen off the vehicle.
I don't remember you ever having one good thing to say about the Church.
I do.[/quote]
Can you show me?