DiscussMormonism.com

We know how to get things done according to several of our current Apostles. As well they should, with their collective background in business, education, medicine, shystering and aviation.

Looking back at the historical ending of our 134 year Priesthood ban on blacks of African origin, it becomes obvious we know how to get things done when faced with insurmountable racial purity concerns in Brazil regarding Temple eligibility, as well as tax exemption problems for the Church and BYU.

Having high powered executive backgrounds let's our leaders know how to get things done.

My question concerns not so much our strength in this area, but rather what potential strengths could be drawn from having a more theological or philosophical background in evaluating the right thing to do. Ending the ban because doing otherwise would be wrong would seem to me to be better than ending it through expediency alone.

Any thoughts on this matter?

moksha wrote:
Looking back at the historical ending of our 134 year Priesthood ban on blacks of African origin, it becomes obvious we know how to get things done when faced with insurmountable racial purity concerns in Brazil regarding Temple eligibility, as well as tax exemption problems for the Church and BYU.

Having high powered executive backgrounds let's our leaders know how to get things done.

Your church's unique claim is that the LDS prophet is the mouthpiece of the Lord. That means he speaks to all of the Earth on behalf of God. If that's the case then he shouldn't need an MBA to know what is right.

For example, Nephi was told to build a boat. He told God that he didn't know how. God said that He would show Nephi the way. The message is like that of Abraham and Isaac, "the Lord will provide." Why not apply the same standard today?

Kittens_and_Jesus wrote:For example, Nephi was told to build a boat. He told God that he didn't know how. God said that He would show Nephi the way. The message is like that of Abraham and Isaac, "the Lord will provide." Why not apply the same standard today?

But these ancients also used the medium of stones with a yes or no on each side. The Apostles drew lots (sort of like pick-up-sticks) to choose a new member among their ranks. My guess is that actions come from heavenly inspiration and earthy convictions for most matters. The voice from the Orifice of Eternity is not quoted very often nor do the actions always seem that a message was received, as in the case of the long delayed recension of the Priesthood ban or possibly in the case of involving the Church in covert political actions.

moksha wrote:,,,,,in covert political actions.

and this thread's credibility just left the room.....

subgenius wrote:

moksha wrote:,,,,,in covert political actions.

and this thread's credibility just left the room.....

Then you deny the church's political actions surrounding Prop were covert?

moksha wrote:My question concerns not so much our strength in this area, but rather what potential strengths could be drawn from having a more theological or philosophical background in evaluating the right thing to do. Ending the ban because doing otherwise would be wrong would seem to me to be better than ending it through expediency alone.

Any thoughts on this matter?

I think it would stop people with brains from getting cynical about the Church -- people like ME. After bubbling to the top of various Stake and Ward leadership callings, I saw firsthand how the decisions are made VERY MUCH from the perspective of business expediency.

I therefore feel less willing to fork over my kids college fund, my retirement savings, and the security of knowing I have a roof over my head when I see the decisions are made with a strong orientation toward business and organizational interests first and foremost -- secondary to those of individuals and also to philosophy.

So, I think people who get a look under the hood would have fewer testimony issues if they saw the Church putting their money where their philosophy is.

I think we would see greater kindness from our local leaders when individual and organizational/business interests conflict.

Cases in point about their tendency to be expedient rather than consistent with values:

1. Recent, open discussion and ownership about MMM and the historical memorial is probably due to the fact the Church can't hide what happened any longer from the members. This is due to the Internet -- not because it's morally right to own what happened there and make amends. It has become a bigger PR issue, so it has to be dealt with -- a long time in coming.

2. They would rather split wards and drive everyone into major burnout than invest in a new building. Because local labor is free, it's cheaper to pack everyone into staggered meeting times and duplicate effort in leadership callings across Wards, so they do that. They use the argument "more people get the opportunity to serve" but the real motive is saving investment in buildings.

I often wonder what would happen if they had to pay the Ward council a decent stipend for their service. I think we would see larger Wards to save overhead, with new reasons given for NOT splitting the Wards.

3. They ceased plural marriage only after the government threatened to confiscate their assets. The Church let all the members go to prison, lose their businesses, etcetera. But threaten the Church's assets!! THEN you get action.

Yep, a more philosophically driven leadership would lead to far less cynicism among people who try to live their life from an ideology.

Someone said, "A religion that is truly committed to truth can't care about the longevity of its own existence". The implication is that if you want to live your life from pure values, sometimes you have to make sacrifices that hurt your organization. The Church is GREAT at expecting this from individuals, but terrible at expecting it from itself.