Lively discussion for NBI: Fighting for Jesus; where do we cross the line?

[Red Ryder]

In the MD post, Rob4Hope mentions feeling anger at the justification the church makes towards unsavory tactics to fight the war against evil and to protect the name of the church.

... I feel anger at the LDS justification of using satanic tactics to fight the war, feeling justified hypocritically because they are "The Lord's Church"...

Alas makes the point that this proves it’s not the Lords church.

That is the thing about using tactics the Lord would not use. It just proves you most certainly are not the lord’s church when you do things in “his name” that he would never do. The general authorities need to be send back to primary for a remedial course in WWJD.

While I tend to agree in principle I’m going to argue that the Church (and any organization) has the right and expectation to protect their brand from being destroyed by false accusations from former members, dissenters, and even insiders who may no longer be loyal to the brand. In arguing this, I’ll only focus on the Mormon church but I believe the principles apply across various venues.

I believe the church should have the right to fight against false accusations, to protect its constitutional rights and privilege, and push its agenda to protect the doctrines of the church.

This is a fundamental right that extends to individuals as well. Self preservation regardless of cost to collateral damage.

With that said, where do we draw the line between “fighting against evil” with questionable ethics? Is it ok to compile a dossier and smear the reputation of an accuser, a dissenter, an unbeliever to protect the reputation of the church?

Is it better that “one man perish” in the name of saving the reputation of the church?

In nature there are no holds barred. The Alpha Male will fight to the death to protect its territory, mating rituals, and continued existence. The church is merely doing the same things. It’s flexing its power and control with limitless resources. It will destroy anything in its path to protect itself. To not expect it to do this is naive.

Now before you call me stupid and point out the unethical bully tactics of a billion dollar corporation, ask yourself if you as the head of an organization would do the same thing?

Does the difference lie in personal ethics?

[Angel]

No company, organization, political party, school etc. is perfect. Most people do not expect perfection from anything in this world, but do appreciate honesty, transparency, the willingness to face problem areas and make improvements where need be.

The car I am currently driving has had a few recalls - does that mean I throw that company under the bus, take them to court, trash their name? If the company hid the problems, did not fix what was wrong, then yes - I and others would have to throw a fuss and take them to court etc. If the company catches their mistakes, sends out notices, pulls the cars into the shop and gets things fixed up - it is a hassle for everyone, but hey - no one is perfect, no biggie, thank you for getting things fixed and taken care of.

The church - is is infallible? No. Consider the original apostles - a mess every one of them. Doubting Thomas, Peter denied Christ 3 times before the co ck crew - could not stay awake, could not walk on water, could not heal everyone, they were pushing children away from Christ (suffer the children to come unto me, and forbid them not) - they were constantly being corrected and admonished. They were transparent about their mistakes, so we learn along with them. The apostles were examples showing us how to admit we were wrong, showing through example how to repent, change, and repair damage.

I respect those who can say "I'm sorry, I made a mistake, let's change" so much more than those who cannot repent, cannot change, lie about problems, cover up problems. The Pharisee way of doing religion, vs. the humble, loving, honest way of doing it.

Fallen leaders allow everyone to take personal responsibility for themselves and their own testimony. There is no borrowed light - everyone has to be led themselves, and not rely too heavenly on prophets/apostles/bishops or any leader. It is unhealthy for everyone to pretend prophets do not lead people astray. It is unhealthy to lie, cover up, pretend perfection - prideful and dishonest. We are supposed to go to the Savior - rely on the Savior - NOT rely on any arms of flesh, even if that arm of flesh is a prophet. Cursed is he who relies on the arms of flesh. What does it take for people to stop relying on imperfect leaders? Does God have to allow pedophiles into leadership positions? Call Judas as an apostle? What is the lesson of Judas? The lesson is Do not rely on apostles and prophets - they will betray you with a kiss. Rely and have faith only on Jesus, only on God, that is it, no one else.


I would LOVE to hear the church - just once - say "I'm sorry, I screwed up" - that is when I would know the church was true, and is what it is supposed to be... rather than a bunch of Pharisees.

Jesus was not killed by atheists - not by pagans - he was killed by prideful organized religious people who were power hungry and unwilling to admit mistakes.

39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also; 40 if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well; 41 and if someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

[Not Buying It]

Ah, excellent, a lively discussion! I’ve been waiting for one of these.

And for the sake of discussion, I’m going to take an unexpected position and say Red Ryder has a point, we would expect any organization to fight tooth and nail to protect its reputation. Particularly one that believes it is fighting on God’s side. It’s easy to say (and I have said in other discussions) “a Church truly led by Christ would never do such and such” - but that’s the same Christ who fashioned a whip, overturned tables, and kicked money changers out of the temple. He wasn’t above being less than polite at times. And he seemed on board with the version of God who rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah - we all love to invoke touchy-feely Sermon on the Mount Jesus, but fact is on the wrong day he was cool with wiping out Israelites with diseases if they wouldn’t look at a snake on a stick.

So, yeah, I think there is an argument that an organization led by Jesus might get a little aggressive if it felt threatened, and maybe those doing the threatening should consider themselves lucky if they don’t get hit by lightning or struck with emerods like the Philistines were in 1 Samuel 5. And really, is it reasonable we’d expect the Church to go full-on Eyeore and be all “I guess you’re right, we aren’t led by inspiration. Many happy returns of the day.” Of course the Church is going to hit back, and hit hard. Why would we expect any different? And is it really a sign it isn’t led by Christ himself, he who was down with drowning a planetful of humans for unspecified wickedness (and making two penguins walk all the way from Antarctica to get on the Ark on top of that).

Who’s to say the God of the Bible would really think digging up dirt on a rape victim is off the table? Hell, he was cool with making them marry their rapists in Deuteronomy 22 28-29. When we say a Christ-like Church would never do something, we are applying an imaginary standard of Christ-like behavior that never really existed.

As Red Ryder said,

While I tend to agree in principle I’m going to argue that the Church (and any organization) has the right and expectation to protect their brand from being destroyed by false accusations from former members, dissenters, and even insiders who may no longer be loyal to the brand. In arguing this, I’ll only focus on the Mormon church but I believe the principles apply across various venues.

I believe the church should have the right to fight against false accusations, to protect its constitutional rights and privilege, and push its agenda to protect the doctrines of the church.

This is a fundamental right that extends to individuals as well. Self preservation regardless of cost to collateral damage.

Why shouldn’t we expect the Church to push back hard when threatened? By what standard can we judge it inappropriate when they do?

And finally, which of us would not have “lied for the Lord” back when we were fully believing? I would - and did. Who am I to throw rocks at those who do now?

(Thanks Red Ryder! We’ve sorely needed a lively discussion around here!)

[moksha]

In nature there are no holds barred. The Alpha Male will fight to the death to protect its territory, mating rituals, and continued existence. The church is merely doing the same things. It’s flexing its power and control with limitless resources. It will destroy anything in its path to protect itself. To not expect it to do this is naive.

The Church has in the past has denounced the Natural Man and argued instead that we should pursue a moral course of behavior. This might be a case of watch what we do and not what we say. Personally, I expect the Church to operate on a higher standard that believed in no hitting below the belt or eye gouging.

Now before you call me stupid and point out the unethical bully tactics of a billion dollar corporation, ask yourself if you as the head of an organization would do the same thing?

Does the difference lie in personal ethics?

Personal ethics sounds good to me, but once again I expect the Church to hold itself to a higher ethical behavior than some money grubbing corporation.

[alas]

Hmmmm, since I am quoted as being on one side in the original post, would it be fair for me to switch sides? There is the belief that anything God does or orders is moral, but since I don’t believe that I guess I would have a hard time arguing that position. I am one who believes God is moral, and if he ISN’T moral, then by definition he isn’t God.

I apply the same logic to those who claim to practice in his name. If they have the morality of 45, then they are not God’s gift to the USA. If they have the ethics of Hobby Lobby, then I don’t shop there, and if they have the ethics of certain banks then I don’t work for them either. And if I owned a company, my first principle of running it would be “first do no harm” which is probably why I would go out of business rather quickly.

I don’t believe in the God of the Old Testament as portrayed. I believe that a primitive people had a primitive concept of what God would be like. The writers of the Old Testament Bible were about 1/2 inch away from paganism at best and were full blown pagans for most of the Old Testament. Look at what the Roman Gods were like. Plotting murdering jerks. The Gods of the Old Testament and specifically the God of Abraham was no better. Many of the stories in the OT are pagan stories, kinda, sorta rewritten, or just translated. The garden of Eden is the story of competition between the goddess of wisdom and some male God whose specific identity has been lost. The story of Hercules is the same legend as the story of Samson. Look up the details of both stories and compare, but you will need proper translation of the people and place names. Samson literally means son of the sun god.

If we toss out all of the Bible that has pagan origins, ummmmmm.....we are probably left with Taoism or something.



Anyway, before we agree on how God’s one true church would behave, we have to agree on just who the one true God is.

[wtfluff]

How 'bout we look at this in a slightly different way?

What if you are the CEO of a billion dollar real-estate corporation, and your daughter accuses one of your mid-level managers of rape? What if your daughter who accuses this mid-level manager of rape isn't a perfect little angel? What if more than one of your daughters has actually accused this same mid-level manager of similar improprieties?

[Red Ryder]

Anyway, before we agree on how God’s one true church would behave, we have to agree on just who the one true God is.

This is the core of the problem.

Every individual within the church defines the “behavior” differently.

Some think God allows choice to practice certain doctrines like polygamy.

Some think God is speaking directly to them.

Some think the Old Testament god has been replaced by the nice loving new testimony god.

Every individual outside of the church defines the “behavior” differently.

Some exmos think the church should be charitable and complain that it’s not; not remembering that is never has opened a soup kitchen or fed the homeless.

Some exmos think the church should serve the members when in reality it’s always been self serving and benefits only the leadership and their family dynasty.

So let’s define the Mormon church: a self serving organization generally led by specific familial dynasties, designed to control the mass of members through obedience in the name of God.

Protecting the organization and it’s inherent institutional dishonesty, corruption, and fraud becomes the mission and the norm. No wonder guys like Oaks, Cook, and Bednar exist in the leadership.

They’ll destroy every last person that tries to stop their church from continuing into the future.

All in the name of God because they are the Gods!

Mormons don’t worship God, they worship prophets and apostles who think they are God!

[Red Ryder]

How 'bout we look at this in a slightly different way?

What if you are the CEO of a billion dollar real-estate corporation, and your daughter accuses one of your mid-level managers of rape? What if your daughter who accuses this mid-level manager of rape isn't a perfect little angel? What if more than one of your daughters has actually accused this same mid-level manager of similar improprieties?

You would protect your multimillion dollar salary, fringe benefits, and pension as well as your reputation, your power, and your ego and send your daughter off to an undisclosed location while transferring the middle manager to a troubled unprofitable business unit and saddle the bastard with responsibilities and expectations that he’ll never achieve. You’ll sit back and watch as the stress and failure consume the guy until he has a heart attack or gives up and finds a new job.

Then you’ll continue to build the empire and enrich yourself at the expense of everyone who gets in your way.

[wtfluff]

How 'bout we look at this in a slightly different way?

What if you are the CEO of a billion dollar real-estate corporation, and your daughter accuses one of your mid-level managers of rape? What if your daughter who accuses this mid-level manager of rape isn't a perfect little angel? What if more than one of your daughters has actually accused this same mid-level manager of similar improprieties?

You would protect your multimillion dollar salary, fringe benefits, and pension as well as your reputation, your power, and your ego and send your daughter off to an undisclosed location while transferring the middle manager to a troubled unprofitable business unit and saddle the bastard with responsibilities and expectations that he’ll never achieve. You’ll sit back and watch as the stress and failure consume the guy until he has a heart attack or gives up and finds a new job.

Then you’ll continue to build the empire and enrich yourself at the expense of everyone who gets in your way.

Interesting. I don't think I could do that to my child.

I guess I know now why I'm not destined to be a CEO. (Or a God.)

[Not Buying It]

How 'bout we look at this in a slightly different way?

What if you are the CEO of a billion dollar real-estate corporation, and your daughter accuses one of your mid-level managers of rape? What if your daughter who accuses this mid-level manager of rape isn't a perfect little angel? What if more than one of your daughters has actually accused this same mid-level manager of similar improprieties?

You would protect your multimillion dollar salary, fringe benefits, and pension as well as your reputation, your power, and your ego and send your daughter off to an undisclosed location while transferring the middle manager to a troubled unprofitable business unit and saddle the bastard with responsibilities and expectations that he’ll never achieve. You’ll sit back and watch as the stress and failure consume the guy until he has a heart attack or gives up and finds a new job.

Then you’ll continue to build the empire and enrich yourself at the expense of everyone who gets in your way.

Interesting. I don't think I could do that to my child.

I guess I know now why I'm not destined to be a CEO. (Or a God.)

Well, you might not - but there are plenty of people who sell their kids out for far less. The parent who stops talking to their child who is gay or left the Church. The parent who looks the other way when another family member is abusing their child. The father who abandons his children and leaves the family for another woman. There are all kinds of ways parents do things to their children that are just as bad - for far less than a multimillion dollar salary.

Not only is Red Ryder's scenario plausible - it would almost be surprising if it didn't play out that way.

[Linked]

Anyway, before we agree on how God’s one true church would behave, we have to agree on just who the one true God is.

This is the core of the problem.

Every individual within the church defines the “behavior” differently.

...

So let’s define the Mormon church: a self serving organization generally led by specific familial dynasties, designed to control the mass of members through obedience in the name of God.

Protecting the organization and it’s inherent institutional dishonesty, corruption, and fraud becomes the mission and the norm. No wonder guys like Oaks, Cook, and Bednar exist in the leadership.

They’ll destroy every last person that tries to stop their church from continuing into the future.

All in the name of God because they are the Gods!

Mormons don’t worship God, they worship prophets and apostles who think they are God!

Let's define the mormon church by what it claims to be: God's kingdom on earth, led by prophets who are guided directly by God himself. The only path to the celestial kingdom. The only place you can find ALL good.

I expect(ed) that organization to be moral and transparent and to help people. I guess they are trying to be moral if you define morality as whatever is best for the church. The organization's transparency is the worst, they pretend to be transparent while not actually being transparent at all, "We audited the church finances and everything looks good!" And the way they help people is by keeping the organization strong at the cost of individuals, so they can continue to be around to keep helping at the cost of individuals.

My beef is with the organization of the mormon church pretending to be something it is not, and tricking people like me and my family into supporting and adopting it as our identities by putting on a facade of religion out front while doing what RR points out behind closed doors. Whited sepulchers and all that jazz. I feel similar disgust when I study some portions of the history of the Catholic church. What the mormon church does is immoral. C'est la vie. And I am not stupid nor wrong to notice and protest.

[Red Ryder]

Let's define the mormon church by what it claims to be: God's kingdom on earth, led by prophets who are guided directly by God himself. The only path to the celestial kingdom. The only place you can find ALL good.

I expect(ed) that organization to be moral and transparent and to help people.

Why? Where did these expectations get developed? Did we just all assume this was standard practice for any religion? Did we all just think that there was a natural symbiotic relationship where the expectations of the members should be reciprocated towards the church?

This is what made my faith transition feel like betrayal. Here I am, required to meet with the Bishop and Stake President annually/bi-annually and answer questions about honesty and commitment to the leadership.

Betrayal hurts.

Now I look at it as it was my fault that I held too much trust in the organization.

Never again.

I lost the ability to trust in many things.

I gained the ability to trust my instincts.

[redjay]

The group exists to perpetuate the group. It will take whatever measures it needs to survive. That's to be expected. When I thought the way of life was healthy and rewarding I supported the group and its objectives. Now I see it as unhealthy I oppose it. However my opposition is largely muted because I don't want to damage relationships with friends and family who hold it in high esteem. But if I did chose to up the ante and vocally and publicly oppose it that would be my right as well. And any more divisive nonsense from RMN I might just find myself pushing back.

Although expected the church did cross the line ethically when it was not transparent and expected me to work for free for two years walking the streets peddling a mythology about Joseph the martyr.

It crossed the line when I paid tithing while it used a prosperity gospel approach. Resulting in being middle age and having only a few years of pension, and two family holidays, my children are mostly grown and left now so I will never get that time back.

It crossed a line when my two eldest children went through their faith crisis experience with no support from me or DW because we thought THEY were misguided.

It crossed a line when my own teen years were riddled with questions of self-worth trying to force myself to live a culture that is alien to my local culture. Including giving up nearly every teenage friend I had because their lifestyles were incompatible with how I was trying to live.

And it crossed a line when it required that I wore stupidly long underwear.

It crossed a line when it required me to declare my worthiness in interviews

It crossed a line when it required me to put my hands on peoples heads and say whatever came into my mind and had me tell them that was the will and mind of God.

I think I'm going off on a tangent here. But as NOM is no longer an endeavor to find a middle way, it's still a great forum to vent

[RubinHighlander]

No company, organization, political party, school etc. is perfect. Most people do not expect perfection from anything in this world, but do appreciate honesty, transparency, the willingness to face problem areas and make improvements where need be.

The car I am currently driving has had a few recalls - does that mean I throw that company under the bus, take them to court, trash their name? If the company hid the problems, did not fix what was wrong, then yes - I and others would have to throw a fuss and take them to court etc. If the company catches their mistakes, sends out notices, pulls the cars into the shop and gets things fixed up - it is a hassle for everyone, but hey - no one is perfect, no biggie, thank you for getting things fixed and taken care of.

Let's take the car analogy a step further when comparing it to TSCC. At least there are some rules in place to keep the car maker accountable. Not that crap doesn't happen, like when VW faked mileage results in their software, but they were eventually made accountable. So TSCC sells you a car, one that's leased at 10% of your income for your entire life. In exchange you get a car that they tell you will drive you all the way to super VIP heaven with you and all your family. Now the problem is that this car not only fakes it's mileage it fakes everything else it purports to be. You find out it's nothing like it was advertised to be. So for TSCC to make all these truth claims and that their car is the one and only true car on the planet, then you find out none of that is true, yet TSCC keeps all the money you paid them and keeps it for themselves for all their land and stock investments, only to benefit a few old rich white guys at the top of the corp ladder. Then to also allow that TSCC non-profit corp to also blatantly mess in all the politics of your state's government.

I'm not saying other regular corporations don't do the same. I'm not saying TSCC can't or won't fight for it's survival, but I will say that overall that TSCC and others like it are bad for society because of the way they prey on the innocent and keep most of the resources tied up for a few and not helping many. I'm saying they have crossed many lines and will continue to do so until enough of us push back and say it's been enough. I say their non-profit status should be revoked and they are held accountable for their false claims; yet we continue to give religions like this a pass to keep their MO.

[Linked]

Let's define the mormon church by what it claims to be: God's kingdom on earth, led by prophets who are guided directly by God himself. The only path to the celestial kingdom. The only place you can find ALL good.

I expect(ed) that organization to be moral and transparent and to help people.

Why? Where did these expectations get developed? Did we just all assume this was standard practice for any religion? Did we all just think that there was a natural symbiotic relationship where the expectations of the members should be reciprocated towards the church?

This is what made my faith transition feel like betrayal. Here I am, required to meet with the Bishop and Stake President annually/bi-annually and answer questions about honesty and commitment to the leadership.

Betrayal hurts.

Now I look at it as it was my fault that I held too much trust in the organization.

Never again.

I lost the ability to trust in many things.

I gained the ability to trust my instincts.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Good for you protecting yourself. But the shame is on the mormon church, not you and I, for perpetrating a fraud against us since before our freaking conception.

Now, after a faith transition which allows me to see the church more objectively, I can see that the mormon church is an organization like many others. But I think it is pretty clear why people who once drank the kool-aid served by the church have a problem with the way they do business. And it is clear for even the least interested 3rd party that the mormon church is not living consistent to its own teachings, two-faced, speaking out of both sides of their mouths, etc.

[Angel]

No company, organization, political party, school etc. is perfect. Most people do not expect perfection from anything in this world, but do appreciate honesty, transparency, the willingness to face problem areas and make improvements where need be.

The car I am currently driving has had a few recalls - does that mean I throw that company under the bus, take them to court, trash their name? If the company hid the problems, did not fix what was wrong, then yes - I and others would have to throw a fuss and take them to court etc. If the company catches their mistakes, sends out notices, pulls the cars into the shop and gets things fixed up - it is a hassle for everyone, but hey - no one is perfect, no biggie, thank you for getting things fixed and taken care of.

Let's take the car analogy a step further when comparing it to TSCC. At least there are some rules in place to keep the car maker accountable. Not that crap doesn't happen, like when VW faked mileage results in their software, but they were eventually made accountable. So TSCC sells you a car, one that's leased at 10% of your income for your entire life. In exchange you get a car that they tell you will drive you all the way to super VIP heaven with you and all your family. Now the problem is that this car not only fakes it's mileage it fakes everything else it purports to be. You find out it's nothing like it was advertised to be. So for TSCC to make all these truth claims and that their car is the one and only true car on the planet, then you find out none of that is true, yet TSCC keeps all the money you paid them and keeps it for themselves for all their land and stock investments, only to benefit a few old rich white guys at the top of the corp ladder. Then to also allow that TSCC non-profit corp to also blatantly mess in all the politics of your state's government.

I'm not saying other regular corporations don't do the same. I'm not saying TSCC can't or won't fight for it's survival, but I will say that overall that TSCC and others like it are bad for society because of the way they prey on the innocent and keep most of the resources tied up for a few and not helping many. I'm saying they have crossed many lines and will continue to do so until enough of us push back and say it's been enough. I say their non-profit status should be revoked and they are held accountable for their false claims; yet we continue to give religions like this a pass to keep their MO.

I agree - any organization who has never said "I'm sorry, I screwed up" is bad for society.

Show me a company who made mistakes, admit their mistakes, and fixes them - I am a happy camper.

Show me a company more than a few years old who has never admitted a mistake - claims to be perfect? Sorry, no one is perfect. I call BS.

How a Christian church should handle accusations against it:
39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also; 40 if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well; 41 and if someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two.

if someone claims a member of your company abused them? stole from them? lied to them?, let him have therapists, support groups, let them have their tithing money back, set the record straight - explain the true history to everyone etc. etc.

A church that is not broke and penniless is a church that has not given anyone tunics, has not fed the poor, has not clothed the naked, has not built homes for the homeless.

I'm sure the church rationalizes never repenting - never admitting their mistakes - by saying "if we admit wrongdoing, then no one will believe us for anything". I say - I don't believe you or trust you for anything because you have not repented, because you are not humble, because you will not admit your mistakes. Truth speaks for itself.

A church which is imperfect, admit mistakes, apologizes, and is an example of repentance is will have quite a few more followers than a church that pretends to be perfect, and never says "I'm sorry".

[Angel]

Ah, excellent, a lively discussion! I’ve been waiting for one of these.

And for the sake of discussion, I’m going to take an unexpected position and say Red Ryder has a point, we would expect any organization to fight tooth and nail to protect its reputation. Particularly one that believes it is fighting on God’s side. It’s easy to say (and I have said in other discussions) “a Church truly led by Christ would never do such and such” - but that’s the same Christ who fashioned a whip, overturned tables, and kicked money changers out of the temple. He wasn’t above being less than polite at times. And he seemed on board with the version of God who rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah - we all love to invoke touchy-feely Sermon on the Mount Jesus, but fact is on the wrong day he was cool with wiping out Israelites with diseases if they wouldn’t look at a snake on a stick.

So, yeah, I think there is an argument that an organization led by Jesus might get a little aggressive if it felt threatened, and maybe those doing the threatening should consider themselves lucky if they don’t get hit by lightning or struck with emerods like the Philistines were in 1 Samuel 5. And really, is it reasonable we’d expect the Church to go full-on Eyeore and be all “I guess you’re right, we aren’t led by inspiration. Many happy returns of the day.” Of course the Church is going to hit back, and hit hard. Why would we expect any different? And is it really a sign it isn’t led by Christ himself, he who was down with drowning a planetful of humans for unspecified wickedness (and making two penguins walk all the way from Antarctica to get on the Ark on top of that).

Who’s to say the God of the Bible would really think digging up dirt on a rape victim is off the table? Hell, he was cool with making them marry their rapists in Deuteronomy 22 28-29. When we say a Christ-like Church would never do something, we are applying an imaginary standard of Christ-like behavior that never really existed.

OT vs. NT
In the NT all of the snide remarks Jesus made were directed towards the hypocritical religious organizations of the day. The OT is a mess, but the NT I think really does teach "turn the other cheek". I mean - Jesus picked that ear up, and put it back on the guy - "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" - it does not get more touchy-feely than that.

I'm a fan of the NT Jesus in any event.

[Red Ryder]

A church which is imperfect, admit mistakes, apologizes, and is an example of repentance is will have quite a few more followers than a church that pretends to be perfect, and never says "I'm sorry".

I don’t know if I agree.

We assume by definition that God is perfect (because God said so) and we project that perfection on to the church (because God suggests so).

Then wouldn’t we as members expect the church to be perfect and leave when we see that it’s not?

An imperfect church is just a sign that it’s not living up to “God’s expectations”.

Yet we as humans avoid that conflict by suggesting that “the Church is perfect, the members are not” which is masking the real problem.

The real problem is that the church nor the members aren’t perfect because God is schizophrenic!

See NBI’s post above for examples.

Let’s blame God, not the church, or it’s faux leadership.

Let’s blame God; after all shouldn’t he had just simply destroyed Joseph Smith when he started making up doctrines to bed women?

Shouldn’t God have destroyed Brigham Young when he (fill in the blank)?

Shouldn’t God have destroyed all of the prophets for buying real estate rather than feeding the homeless?

Blame God. He’s the weak link in all of the bad horrible things that have happened in the name of religion.

Maybe he’s not such a Dear and Kind Heavenly Father after all!

[Phil Lurkerman]

A church which is imperfect, admit mistakes, apologizes, and is an example of repentance is will have quite a few more followers than a church that pretends to be perfect, and never says "I'm sorry".

I truly wish this were true, but from the state of sectarian divide and devotion in the world it seems like the hard-line, unapologetic factions have been pretty successful at attracting followers.

[alas]

Switching sides, one of my social work professors pounded in a point about all organizations. They will do what they need to do to survive. He went through several organizations and showed how survival of the organization was a higher priority than ANY thing else. Take March of Dimes. Well polio got conquered. No more need for the March of Dimes. Did they have a big party and disband the organization? They did not. They found something that could never be conquered. Birth defects cannot be cured with an immunization. So, now the March of Dimes will be around forever fighting the many many causes of birth defects.

Now a healthy organization does not have to resort to unethical, cruel, immoral tactics to survive. A healthy organization delivers a product or gives a service for a fair price. There is a balance between the product or service and the price customers pay. Let’s go back to March of dimes. They collected donation and provided or paid for a service of researching something to prevent a terrible disease. (You young whipper snappers around here are unlikely to know a victim/survivor of polio. But some of us baby boomers knew kids who died or were left crippled for life from polio.) so, valuable service if it can be accomplished. The price paid was dimes. There were donation cards where you inserted your dime in a slot at check out stands at your local five and dime. March of Dimes was a healthy organization. It didn’t have to lie and say that polio was worse than it was. It didn’t have to demand that people pay their dimes to it rather than feed their children. It did not have to attack victims in order to protect mid level manager against charges of sexual abuse. It didn’t have to excommunicate people for criticizing a policy. It could admit to mistakes and people would forgive it without destroying its product/service. It’s founder could have committed adultery and it would remain healthy because the service/product was independent of the founder’s reputation. It could fire mid managers or even CEOs without destroying its product/service.

The church however is NOT a healthy organization. Organizations can be unhealthy by having faulty services/products. For example, Kirby vacuums had a hard time competing with cheaper vacs. Their product was superior, but expensive. The cost was seen as too high for the product. So, they cheapened them but stuck with door to door sales men, which is an expensive sales model. They now had an expensive product that was not superior to what you could buy from a retail store cheaper. Yikes, they started to lose their reputation as a superior product and had to fix their product to keep it superior if they were going to keep door to door salesmen. I don’t know if they succeeded but I haven’t heard of them going bankrupt yet.

The church has an expensive product. To maintain, it has to have a product/service that is superior enough to justify the high price tag.

The organization also has to have a good reputation. The Catholic Church has taken a serious reputation hit with the clergy sex abuse scandal. People are leaving because the service people are looking for is not having their children molested. The reputation depends on the Pope being trustworthy, of mid level management being trustworthy, because unlike the March of Dimes the reputation of leaders is tied to the service/product.

See where I am going with this? The church is not currently a healthy organization and can not afford a reputation hit. Or to have its product be seen as defective. So it will do what ever it thinks it has to in order to protect the organization. What ever it thinks it has to. Lie, cheat, kill, whatever. The first priority is not the product, but survival of the organization.