President Oaks Address on the Need for a Church

[bluebell]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Thanks. I’ll see if the library has a copy. 

It's brand new so it might be difficult to find in the library, but sometimes you can get lucky.  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I've been attending the same ward in the same building for nearly sixteen years.  I have been in the building many hundreds of times, for cumulatively some thousands of hours.

The last few weeks I have been working on a project at home.  I am converting my carport into a garage.  I hired a guy to pour the cement footings, frame the walls and install a window and a door.  I am doing the tyvek wrap, flashing, trim, siding, sealing, painting, etc.  It's taking me a while, as I'm doing it in my (limited) spare time, and I've never done it before, and I'm not very good with my hands.  However, I have been taking pains to install these things in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations and in line with YouTube tutorials I've watched.  In the process I've become, well, pretty critical of the work.  I cut some of the siding too short (these are 4 by 8 foot panels, trimmed to fit).  Some of the gaps are too wide.  Some of the cuts aren't perfectly straight.  Not all of the screws have been into the studs.  Also, the carport is about 60 years old, so its angles are not perfect.  The concrete on one corner has settled a little.  

Last Saturday morning I and my family went to the church building because it is our ward's turn to clean.  Few people showed up, so we ended up being there a while (1.5 hours, instead of the typical 20-30 minutes).  While there I found myself noticing . . . all sorts of flaws in the building.  A small crack running several inches in the masonry above the door to the library.  A small gap in the trim in one of the foyers.  A "rise" in the carpet outside the bishop's office (the subfloor is buckling up about 1/2 an inch). I had previously been aware of some odd design/construction things with the building.  For example, the "funeral door" leading out of the chapel has about a 1.5 inch concrete lip on the outside, which makes getting a casket into the chapel through that door very difficult.  Also, the Primary Room was, I've been told, added on years after the construction of the building.  It's ceiling is plenty high in the middle of the room, but it slops downward and at each end is very low (under six feet).  The fire alarm goes off fairly often, often for no apparent reason.  The heating and cooling systems don't seem to reach the classroom in the northeast corner of the building, where the young women meet.  They are often hot in the summary and sold in the winter while meeting there.

Anyway, last Saturday I began pointing these things out to my wife.  We both remarked how we had been coming to this building for years and had never noticed them.  I told her that I think I had noticed these flaws because of the work I had been doing with our carport/garage.  My wife then remarked that she had likewise not noticed the flaws in my work on the siding and such until I had specifically pointed them out to her.  Prior to that she had thought I had been doing a really good job.  She said that even after I pointed out the flaws, the overall work still looked quite good, even though she was now more cognizant of my mistakes.  She then said something like "I guess it's the same with these flaws in the church building.  They are certainly there, but you don't really notice them unless you go looking for them."

Thanks,

-Smac

To a great extent, I agree with you.  In the discussion I had with my daughter, she basically said that for now, she liked going to church and even though she had issues with the Church, it was still a good place for her to be.  I agreed with her and support her in her decision to stay involved..  There is a lot about the Church and the community that surrounds the Church that is enriching and praiseworthy.  I do think church members are good people in general.

A lot of times, my comments on this board is meant to present my perspective, a different perspective.  A perspective that shows why the actions the Church can cause real harm to others that don't fit well into their very closely defined idea of what the Church expects its members to look like and to think.  At some point, all those flaws and cracks may reach the point where some might not feel safe attending that Church.  Shouldn't those cracks and flaws be pointed out, addressed and fixed before things get so bad that a person no long feels safe in attending?  Shouldn't the Church receive pushback from a community that feels like the Church's actions are taking away their own rights and the way they want to live their lives?  

Some Church members see no reason why so many people are leaving the Church, because those flaws don't affect them.  They don't even see them. Instead they just accept them.

[ksfisher]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

To a great extent, I agree with you.  In the discussion I had with my daughter, she basically said that for now, she liked going to church and even though she had issues with the Church, it was still a good place for her to be.  I agreed with her and support her in her decision to stay involved..  There is a lot about the Church and the community that surrounds the Church that is enriching and praiseworthy.  I do think church members are good people in general.

A lot of times, my comments on this board is meant to present my perspective, a different perspective.  A perspective that shows why the actions the Church can cause real harm to others that don't fit well into their very closely defined idea of what the Church expects its members to look like and to think.  At some point, all those flaws and cracks may reach the point where some might not feel safe attending that Church.  Shouldn't those cracks and flaws be pointed out, addressed and fixed before things get so bad that a person no long feels safe in attending?  Shouldn't the Church receive pushback from a community that feels like the Church's actions are taking away their own rights and the way they want to live their lives?  

Some Church members see no reason why so many people are leaving the Church, because those flaws don't affect them.  They don't even see them. Instead they just accept them.

If a building is in need of repairs the owner would be responsible for directing the work to repair the flaws, or to hire professionals to direct that work.

In a like manner our Father in Heaven calls prophets and apostles to direct the work of His church.  When He see's flaws in His church directs His servants to do the work.

The analogy is not perfect as the relationship between God and His earthly servants is much different than between an owner and a hired contractor.

 

[california boy]

34 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If a building is in need of repairs the owner would be responsible for directing the work to repair the flaws, or to hire professionals to direct that work.

In a like manner our Father in Heaven calls prophets and apostles to direct the work of His church.  When He see's flaws in His church directs His servants to do the work.

The analogy is not perfect as the relationship between God and His earthly servants is much different than between an owner and a hired contractor.

 

Nice thought.  But I personally don't see any direction coming from God.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

I’m sorry but how does your case relate to the comment/issue you are responding to?

I thought the application would be self-evident.

I guess I had in mind the (fictitious) quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln in Disney's Pollyanna:

Quote

Reverend Paul Ford: [reading Pollyanna’s locket] When you look for the bad in mankind, expecting to find it, you surely will. – Abraham Lincoln.
Pollyanna: He was the President.
Reverend Paul Ford: Yes, yes I know … but I never heard that before.
Pollyanna:  Neither had my father. Anyway, he said it started him thinking and from then on, he was gonna look for the good in people. 

Res ipsa loquitur.

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

Are you really suggesting that the consequences of the small imperfections you mention re: your reno/church building are akin to the serious issues and problems experienced by marginalized people in the church??

No, I am suggesting that what you call "serious issues and problems" are, in the main, not "serious."

White shirts?  Injunctions against tattoos and multiple ear piercings?  These are, in your view, "serious issues and problems?"

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

I have a theory:

Maybe you don’t really notice these problems because they don’t really affect you all that much,

Well, that's probably part of it.  But the other part is that I am not looking for "these problems."  I am not seizing on a few minor quibbles about the Church, or even one or two more-than-minor grievances, and using them to condemn the entirety of the Church.

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

as nobody who’s affected by the problems that California Boy describes has to look all that hard to notice them.

But that's my point.  I didn't have to "look all that hard to notice" the flaws in my ward's church building.  They where there, but I didn't notice them until I went looking for them.

One of the worst things about faultfinding is just how easy it is to become an expert at it.  

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

They are an impactful part of their reality as a Latter-Day Saint.

Should they be, though?  I think . . . not.

I'm reminded of Matthew 23:

Quote

23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

To be sure, "the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith" matter much more.  We ought to be kind and patient and loving with each other.  But there are also things that matter not as much, but are still not for us to "leave . . . undone."

When I was a soldier, I was required to shave every day.  This was an annoyance.  But it was a requirement (and, broadly speaking, a good and reasonable one).  It seemed like a rule for the sake of itself (it wasn't).  It was a fairly minor daily routine, but some chose to make it more than "minor."  

So it is, I think, with things like wearing a white shirt (which even California Boy leaves as a theoretical grievance), or abiding by prophetic counsel regarding tattoos and earrings.  These are the less-then-weightier matters that are nevertheless not to be left "undone."  The very fact that people like CB point to these as valid grounds for estrangement from the Church only proves my point.  I think we ought not to be in the habit of faultfinding.  Of looking for things about which we can take offense, and then proceeding to publish - even by proxy - such grievances.

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

It’s about *privilege* plain ‘n simple. 

What "privilege" are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 21, 2021 by smac97

[Canadiandude]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What "privilege" are you referencing here?

White, male, heteronormative, religious-Christian privilege 

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, california boy said:

Nice thought.  But I personally don't see any direction coming from God.

If they're no direction from God then there is really no point to the church and why bother.  If it's just a social organization then people should find the one that they like best.

If the prophets and apostles who lead the church are really are being directed by God, then seems like we should be doing everything we can to follow their counsel.  Even the smallest of things.

Edited October 21, 2021 by ksfisher

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Or the best friend of my daughter who got a CTR tattoo on her ankle and then was told that she was not following the prophet.

Apparently no one here has yet seen fit (or dared) to remark about the glaring irony here, so I will. CTR stands for “choose the right”. Having it tattooed on one’s person is in direct contravention of the clear direction of a prophet (or prophets) and thus is decidedly not choosing the right. 
 

I could document the direction, but I doubt it’s necessary. 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

It's brand new so it might be difficult to find in the library, but sometimes you can get lucky.  

Our county library system is good about getting those new titles in promptly, so odds are they have it or soon will. 
 

[bluebell]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Our county library system is good about getting those new titles in promptly, so odds are they have it or soon will. 
 

It's excellent.  I highly recommend it.  If you have a Deseret Bookshelf account you can also listen to it, though I prefer reading these kinds of books so that I can highlight and take notes.

[let’s roll]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

 

I think you are kinda missing the point.  If your beliefs in the teachings and examples that Christ taught are in conflict with what the church is doing and teaching, then the Church becomes a roadblock in their relationship with Christ.  Do you follow the Church teachings which are suppose to be the will of Christ?  Or do you follow what you believe is the true message Christ taught and take the consequences that those actions may have on your membership.  

I will give you an example of what I am talking about.  I was talking with my son about some of the issues he has with the Church.  One of his big issues is the staggering amount of wealth the Church is holding.  He is feeling like he doesn't want to pay his tithing to the Church, but would rather give 10% to a local charity that spends all of their donations on caring for others.  To him, this seems more like the message the Savior taught.  But if he doesn't pay his tithing to the Church, what are the consequences.  Will he still get a temple recommend?  

Thank you for you thoughtful response.  My invitation to focus on discipleship springs from personal experience, a lifetime of experiencing the inverse relationship between the quality of my discipleship and my propensity to be bogged down by things related to the Church and its leaders.

On your son’s question, I find noteworthy the proportion of the Savior’s time spent on things spiritual compared to things temporal.  Also noteworthy is the fact that Jesus was perfectly content having most of His temporal needs met via the generosity of others.  Could your son, or I, find peace in tithing both the Church and a local charity of our choice, content to sustain ourselves on what remained?

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

...   The heating and cooling systems don't seem to reach the classroom in the northeast corner of the building, where the young women meet.  They are often hot in the summary [sic] and sold in the winter [sic] while meeting there. ...
 

Drat!   Speech-to-text strikes again!

Sorry!   Couldn't resist!

[Kenngo1969]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently no one here has yet seen fit (or dared) to remark about the glaring irony here, so I will. CTR stands for “choose the right”. Having it tattooed on one’s person is in direct contravention of the clear direction of a prophet (or prophets) and thus is decidedly not choosing the right. ...

Ah, well!  If someone were to ask me, I would say, "Don't get a tattoo, but if you're going to get a tattoo ..."

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Ah, well!  If someone were to ask me, I would say, "Don't get a tattoo, but if you're going to get a tattoo ..."

That’s like saying embezzlement is immoral and you shouldn’t do it, but if you do, be sure to pay tithing on your gains. 

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Drat!   Speech-to-text strikes again!

Sorry!   Couldn't resist!

This conjures all manner of unsavory mental images. 

[Kenngo1969]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That’s like saying embezzlement is immoral and you shouldn’t do it, but if you do, be sure to pay tithing on your gains. 

With due respect, I think that's a non sequitur, because, certainly, I don't put embezzlement in the same category as getting a tattoo.  If someone were to tell me that he or she is thinking of (or is planning on) doing the former, I would discourage him or her.  However, if someone were to tell me that he or she is thinking of (or is planning on) doing the latter, not only would I discourage him or her, I would notify the intended target of the embezzlement and would report the would-be-embezzler to the appropriate authorities. 

As regards Latter-day Saint belief, while getting a tattoo may be discouraged, it is much closer to being in the category of being malum prohibitum, wrong because the entity making the judgment says it is, than embezzlement (which, in contrast, is malum in se, that is, inherently or morally wrong), and, while I might be disappointed if the person chose to disregard prophetic counsel, I would not love him or her any less.  In the case of the would-be-embezzler, while I wouldn't love him or her any less, certainly, I would be much more inclined to take a "wise-as-a-serpent-yet-harmless-as-a-dove" approach with him or her than I would with someone who gets a tattoo.  The former is someone about whom I would have serious questions when it comes to whether to repose even a basic degree of trust in him or her, while the latter, simply because he or she happens to have a tattoo (even if he or she chose to disregard prophetic counsel in getting it) is not.

[california boy]

57 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Thank you for you thoughtful response.  My invitation to focus on discipleship springs from personal experience, a lifetime of experiencing the inverse relationship between the quality of my discipleship and my propensity to be bogged down by things related to the Church and its leaders.

On your son’s question, I find noteworthy the proportion of the Savior’s time spent on things spiritual compared to things temporal.  Also noteworthy is the fact that Jesus was perfectly content having most of His temporal needs met via the generosity of others.  Could your son, or I, find peace in tithing both the Church and a local charity of our choice, content to sustain ourselves on what remained?

I think you are missing the part that he has a problem with the amount of wealth the Church has built up and their lack of spending any significant amount of that to care for the less fortunate.  He is not looking to add to their wealth portoflo.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Apparently no one here has yet seen fit (or dared) to remark about the glaring irony here, so I will. CTR stands for “choose the right”. Having it tattooed on one’s person is in direct contravention of the clear direction of a prophet (or prophets) and thus is decidedly not choosing the right. 
 

I could document the direction, but I doubt it’s necessary. 

She got the tattoo prior to tattoos being banned by the prophet.  How was she to know that tattoos would become an issue for God.  Now she is uncomfortable when she attends meetings for the very reason you brought it up.  While she got the tattoo as a reminder to choose the right, it is now a brand that somehow makes her feel shame for something she did before God had issues.

Edited October 21, 2021 by california boy

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

White, male, heteronormative, religious-Christian privilege 

Trendy, unserious, substance-free blather.  

The Church is a voluntary association of individuals.  It's sort of odd that I have to point that out.

Thanks,

-Smac

[let’s roll]

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think you are missing the part that he has a problem with the amount of wealth the Church has built up and their lack of spending any significant amount of that to care for the less fortunate.  He is not looking to add to their wealth portoflo.

I didn’t miss the fact that he sees the Church’s balance sheet as problematic...my point was that a focus on discipleship might result in a change in perception and priorities...after all Jesus didn’t spend any time or effort trying to defund either the Roman Empire (render unto Caesar) or the orthodox church of His day.

That said, we should all encourage stewards over funds, public and private, to discharge their stewardship in a thoughtful and conscientious manner

 

[smac97]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

To a great extent, I agree with you.  In the discussion I had with my daughter, she basically said that for now, she liked going to church and even though she had issues with the Church, it was still a good place for her to be.  

I'm glad to hear it.  No organization or society or community can long withstand the corrosive effects of A) fetishizing and glorifying "victim"-ness, B) endlessly self-indulgent and capricious individualism, C) glass-jawed crybullying.

If the Church is what is claims to be, then we need to buck up and be devoted to and appreciative of its merits and virtues, while also being resilient and patient as to its flaws and shortcomings.  I find it hugely ironic that our critics endlessly fault us (often unfairly) for our supposed pursuit of "perfectionism," and then turn around and rail against us for not being perfect.  For having flaws and making mistakes.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I agreed with her and support her in her decision to stay involved..  There is a lot about the Church and the community that surrounds the Church that is enriching and praiseworthy.  I do think church members are good people in general.

That is appreciated.  I too think the members are good people in generaly, and that goodness principally flows from adopting the doctrines of the Church into our daily lives.

2 hours ago, california boy said:

A lot of times, my comments on this board is meant to present my perspective, a different perspective.  A perspective that shows why the actions the Church can cause real harm to others that don't fit well into their very closely defined idea of what the Church expects its members to look like and to think.  At some point, all those flaws and cracks may reach the point where some might not feel safe attending that Church.  

"Safe."  Rather a strange word to use in this context.  

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Shouldn't those cracks and flaws be pointed out, addressed and fixed before things get so bad that a person no long feels safe in attending?  

Not really.  I think this notion of "safety" is infinitely malleable, and facially unsound.  Worse, it's a subtle manipulation.  "I won't come to church until and unless I feel 'safe.'  And I won't feel 'safe' until everyone around me hops to and capitulates to my personal preferences and choices."

Again, no organization or society or community can long withstand the corrosive effects of this sort of thing, which I think relates back to what I said above about fetishizing "victim"-ness (note the scare quotes), capricious individualism (I can't think of a better example than "I don't feel 'safe' because...") and crybullying.

There is nothing unsafe about reasonable guidelines regarding dress and grooming.

There is nothing unsafe about doctrine-based constraints on tattoos, particularly as pertaining to youth.

I think you raise a reasonable point about unkind (and likely unsolicited) generalized remarks about "the gay community."  I have never heard such disparagements in any church setting during my adult life, but I won't altogether discount individualzed anecdotes.  That said, I think the Church is trying very hard to maintain its doctrines and policies regarding the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage while still being compassionate and kind and respectful toward those who have divergent viewpoints.   

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Shouldn't the Church receive pushback from a community that feels like the Church's actions are taking away their own rights and the way they want to live their lives?  

I don't know what this means.  Also, "pushback" seems cover a broad spectrum of behavior, some of which is quite appropriate (reasoned and reasonable disagreements in the Marketplace of Ideas),  and some of which are not (endless disparagements, unfair characterizations, evil-speaking, intentional efforts to alienate and terrify LGBT youth, etc.).

2 hours ago, california boy said:

Some Church members see no reason why so many people are leaving the Church, because those flaws don't affect them.

I think we would have some substantial disagreements about what can or ought to be categorized as "flaws" in the Church.  

2 hours ago, california boy said:

They don't even see them. Instead they just accept them.

Could you provide some examples?

Thanks,

-Smac

[california boy]

19 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I didn’t miss the fact that he sees the Church’s balance sheet as problematic...my point was that a focus on discipleship might result in a change in perception and priorities...after all Jesus didn’t spend any time or effort trying to defund either the Roman Empire (render unto Caesar) or the orthodox church of His day.

That said, we should all encourage stewards over funds, public and private, to discharge their stewardship in a thoughtful and conscientious manner

 

So your solution you offer my son is to tell him he is not being a good enough disciple?  Isn't this the exact problem that is being talked about.  Shaming people for having a disagreement with the amount of wealth the Church's stock portfolio when he wants to focus his tithing more on helping the less fortunate?  

yeah I can see why he is struggling with this issue.

 

[california boy]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm glad to hear it.  No organization or society or community can long withstand the corrosive effects of A) fetishizing and glorifying "victim"-ness, B) endlessly self-indulgent and capricious individualism, C) glass-jawed crybullying.

If the Church is what is claims to be, then we need to buck up and be devoted to and appreciative of its merits and virtues, while also being resilient and patient as to its flaws and shortcomings.  I find it hugely ironic that our critics endlessly fault us (often unfairly) for our supposed pursuit of "perfectionism," and then turn around and rail against us for not being perfect.  For having flaws and making mistakes.

That is appreciated.  I too think the members are good people in generaly, and that goodness principally flows from adopting the doctrines of the Church into our daily lives.

"Safe."  Rather a strange word to use in this context.  

Not really.  I think this notion of "safety" is infinitely malleable, and facially unsound.  Worse, it's a subtle manipulation.  "I won't come to church until and unless I feel 'safe.'  And I won't feel 'safe' until everyone around me hops to and capitulates to my personal preferences and choices."

Again, no organization or society or community can long withstand the corrosive effects of this sort of thing, which I think relates back to what I said above about fetishizing "victim"-ness (note the scare quotes), capricious individualism (I can't think of a better example than "I don't feel 'safe' because...") and crybullying.

There is nothing unsafe about reasonable guidelines regarding dress and grooming.

There is nothing unsafe about doctrine-based constraints on tattoos, particularly as pertaining to youth.

I think you raise a reasonable point about unkind (and likely unsolicited) generalized remarks about "the gay community."  I have never heard such disparagements in any church setting during my adult life, but I won't altogether discount individualzed anecdotes.  That said, I think the Church is trying very hard to maintain its doctrines and policies regarding the Law of Chastity and same-sex marriage while still being compassionate and kind and respectful toward those who have divergent viewpoints.   

I don't know what this means.  Also, "pushback" seems cover a broad spectrum of behavior, some of which is quite appropriate (reasoned and reasonable disagreements in the Marketplace of Ideas),  and some of which are not (endless disparagements, unfair characterizations, evil-speaking, intentional efforts to alienate and terrify LGBT youth, etc.).

I think we would have some substantial disagreements about what can or ought to be categorized as "flaws" in the Church.  

Could you provide some examples?

Thanks,

-Smac

I always seem to regret answering your posts.  You seem to slice and dice what I write to portray it in the worse possible light even when I compliment the Church for what it does do right.

 

[smac97]

21 hours ago, california boy said:

If your beliefs in the teachings and examples that Christ taught are in conflict with what the church is doing and teaching, then the Church becomes a roadblock in their relationship with Christ.  

That's a mighty big "if."

I suspect you have in mind a laissez-faire approach to sexual ethics.  That is, the Church does not have such an approach, and instead teaches a set of ethics that - by modern standards - are stringent and exacting.

I submit that the real "roadblock" to a meaningful relationship with Jesus Christ is the laissez-faire approach.  If and when we impose restraints on what we allow Jesus to say about how we live our lives, we distance ourselves from Him.  Hence we get the mealy-mouthed "I'm spiritual, but not religious" stuff.  If the Gospel of Jesus Christ is to have meaning and effect in our lives, there must be obedience to the precepts He taught.  "If ye love me, keep my commandments."  (John 14:15.)  "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."  (Matthew 7:21.)

We each of us must overcome our own roadblocks.  For some, the roadblock is the Lord's constraints on our sexual behavior.  For others, it is the pursuit of wealth, or the use of harmful substances, or the refusal to forgive, or the failure to repent, or laziness, and so on.  

21 hours ago, california boy said:

Do you follow the Church teachings which are suppose to be the will of Christ?  

I'm trying to, yes.

21 hours ago, california boy said:

Or do you follow what you believe is the true message Christ taught and take the consequences that those actions may have on your membership.  

I don't know what this means.  

I sure would like to be free to disavow polygamy.  I sure would like to be indifferent to same-sex marriage.  I sure would like to not having to endure the endless disparagements and vitriol that so many folks these days send our way.  But here's the thing: I believe the Lord has, at times, ordained and commanded polygamy.  I also believe the Lord expects and requires us to obey the Law of Chastity.  I also believe the Lord expects us to not bend to prevailing social winds as regarding the radical re-definition of marriage.  

Because I believe these things, and because I believe these are part of "the true message Christ taught," then I guess yes, I am willing to "take the consequences may have on {my} membership."  Those consequences are . . . that I carry to obligation to stand up for and defend the Church of Jesus Christ against those who endlessly speak and act against it.

I reject the notion that "the true message Christ taught" includes laissez-faire sexual ethics.  I find that notion wholly incompatible with both scripture and modern prophetic counsel.

21 hours ago, california boy said:

I will give you an example of what I am talking about.  I was talking with my son about some of the issues he has with the Church.  One of his big issues is the staggering amount of wealth the Church is holding.  He is feeling like he doesn't want to pay his tithing to the Church, but would rather give 10% to a local charity that spends all of their donations on caring for others.  To him, this seems more like the message the Savior taught.  But if he doesn't pay his tithing to the Church, what are the consequences.  Will he still get a temple recommend?  

I doubt it.  Because he's choosing to disobey a commandment.  Deliberately.  He doesn't get to re-define the commandments to suit his personal tastes and preferences.

I'm reminded of this anecdote about Abraham Lincoln:

Quote

There are strong reasons for saying that he doubted his right to emancipate under the war power, and he doubtless meant what he said when he compared an Executive order to that effect to “the Pope’s Bull against the comet.” In discussing the question, he used to liken the case to that of the boy who, when asked how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg, replied, ” Five,” to which the prompt response was made that calling the tail a leg would not make it a leg.

The individual is, of course, at liberty to tithe or not tithe.  But just as we can't re-characterize a calf's tail and say it has five legs, we also cannot re-define "tithing" and then pretend that this constitutes obedience to the Lord.  It ain't.

My membership in the Lord's Church is an important part of the covenants I have made with Him.  I'll not play politics with it, nor will I impose capricious conditions on it. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 22, 2021 by smac97

[mrmarklin]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

She got the tattoo prior to tattoos being banned by the prophet.

I don’t think tattoos have been banned by anyone. Prophets have opined that they don’t think them a wise choice of what to do with one’s body, but banned?  No.