What's the most evil/controversial thing the Prophet has asked you to do?

[creekster]

WHile I think I understadnm what Indy is up to here (it doesn't seem hidden) I must confess I find the question and some of the earnest responses to be inappropriate for practicing memebrs of the church. WHile I think many memebrs are far too unwilling to discuss the chruch, its policies and changes and possible mistakes that have occurred, I do think there is a line that can be crossed and asking, even if the purspoe is to defend, what a prophet has done that is evil is, in my mind, encouraging answers that are over the line. It's just bad form I would prefer not to see here or anywhere.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think I disagree with you here Arch. The so-called employer is a University. Not a for-profit enterprise where employee could hurt the bottom line. Not a partisan think-tank where an opposite view would work against the partisan goal. . .

Well maybe that is the problem. Maybe BYU isn't really a university. . . another discussion for another day.

Judge Tom Griffin told the JRCLS winter meetings at Pepperdine this last year that Elder Holland would say, sometimes aspirationally, "BYU IS a University!"

We can hope with him.

The Church sponsors BYU, so it is basically an appendage at the current time. Thus, critisizing the parent of a subsidiary is even less wise.

I remember when a certain advertising company in New York had some ads which advertised, I believe at the time it was for the airline industry, where they championed no smoking. The Company also had major tobacco accounts. The Tobacco Industry got angry and pulled the accounts causing the loss of numerous jobs within the Ad Company. You don't piss off a substantial donor, calling that donor or sponsor and expect no consequences.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

The point is that we are asked to do things that are neither evil nor controversial by our prophet.

But sometimes it's wrong to ask at all (e.g. voting - and even though you don't think the church "told" people how to vote on this 2006 issue, I think it's fairly easily established that the church expected to use its clout to effect a certain outcome; furthermore, this type of influence was commonplace in the early days of the church - JS, BY . . .).

Some things aren't the church's business.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Do you have any idea how much it would cost to operate as a for-profit organization?

I realize economics is not your forte, but are you trolling on your own board? It is not hard to understand that these "sacred" funds must be used as prudently as possible.

they should just reincorporate off shore then. There are ways around taxes where you could speak your mind if you want

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

But sometimes it's wrong to ask at all (e.g. voting - and even though you don't think the church "told" people how to vote on this 2006 issue, I think it's fairly easily established that the church expected to use its clout to effect a certain outcome; furthermore, this type of influence was commonplace in the early days of the church - JS, BY . . .).

Some things aren't the church's business.

As a general proposition, one might speculate everybody agrees, but the devil's in the details.

Why is it inherently evil for any organization to suggest or to persuade its adherents how the leaders would like its followers to vote? There's no mechanism for verifying.

You're operating from a basic assumption that hasn't been examined or challenged. If I don't like what a leader suggests, I can either follow or not follow. What's so horrific about that?

[Solon]

Originally Posted by Archaea

As a general proposition, one might speculate everybody agrees, but the devil's in the details.

Why is it inherently evil for any organization to suggest or to persuade its adherents how the leaders would like its followers to vote? There's no mechanism for verifying.

You're operating from a basic assumption that hasn't been examined or challenged. If I don't like what a leader suggests, I can either follow or not follow. What's so horrific about that?

I wouldn't call it inherently evil, but inappropriate to somehow tie salvation, righteousness, and the clout that comes with "speaking for God" to actions outside of the ecclesiastic realm.

I have no problem with LDS (or any religion's) leaders preferring a certain outcome to a political situation. A public statement, however, implies that God wants people to vote (or believe) a certain way, and they're sinful if they don't.

I doubt the LDS leaders conceptualize the issue this way, but they have to know that many LDS (despite the FP's repeated assertions to the contrary) think that "when the brethren speak, the thinking has been done."

I don't think people's political beliefs should be related to their standing in the eyes of their religion or religious leaders.

[Mormon Red Death]

Originally Posted by Archaea

As a general proposition, one might speculate everybody agrees, but the devil's in the details.

Why is it inherently evil for any organization to suggest or to persuade its adherents how the leaders would like its followers to vote? There's no mechanism for verifying.

You're operating from a basic assumption that hasn't been examined or challenged. If I don't like what a leader suggests, I can either follow or not follow. What's so horrific about that?

well one person didnt follow and they lost their job

[il Padrino Ute]

Did the Brethren tell Crowton to "win or else"?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Mormon Red Death

well one person didnt follow and they lost their job

Not true.

He lost his job for criticizing the sponsor of his employer.

If he had stated "I hate GBH, I hate brown people and and I wish everyone would destroy Cache Valley," he would have also been fired.

The crux of the matter was not his divergent viewpoint, which he could have expressed without an attack on the Church, but the attack on the Church.

I submit, if he as a member had said, "I would like to support gay marriage," he would not have lost his job. I know members who publicly supported gay marriage, still have temple recommends but never attacked the Church. That was the reason; it wasn't free speech, but failure to respect one's sponsor or one's sponsor of one's employer.

I dare Solon or SIEQ to call the sponsor of their departments, "F... ing Shitheads who don't know what they're doing," and to do so publicly. Thereafter, let's see how they fare in their employment course.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

I don't think people's political beliefs should be related to their standing in the eyes of their religion or religious leaders.

Never?

Read Isaiah, Deutero Isaiah or Trito Isaiah, and tell, historically, prophets of old never linked political views with salvation?

Are you willing to state that as a categorical, or in just this instance?

If you're not willing to make it a categorical imperative, then you're picking and choosing which issues are important to you.

As a general rule, I believe the Church will be well-served to avoid being involved in politics at all. However, I'm uncomfortable with the categorical proscription.