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

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Solon

Aaah, Indy - you rose to the bait too easily.

Of course, the non-profit LDS church wouldn't tell people what their political opinions should be . . . no . . .never. That would conflict with the church's non-profit status.

LDS leaders just want the members to "express themselves." Sure, as long as their expressions don't conflict with what they want.

Ask Jeff Nielsen, a BYU adjunct professor who "expressed himself" in the form of an op-ed that appeared in the Salt Lake Tribune on June 4, 2006. Nielsen considered an amendment against gay marriage immoral - completely in accordance with his training in ethics as a prof. of philosophy.

Although I'm too cheap to buy the archived version of Nielsen's op-ed from the Trib., you can get the gist of it through the story originally reported by the SL Tribune, available at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1649439/posts

Nielsen was terminated by the BYU philosophy department, his termination letter reading in part, "Since you have chosen to contradict and oppose the church in an area of great concern to church leaders . . . in a public forum."
http://www.exmormon.org/mormon/mormon449.htm

Granted, Hinckley didn't fire this guy, but the significance stems from the fact that everyone seems to have been able to read between the lines, while the church maintained plausible deniability that it ever "told" someone how to vote.

Clever.

I read Nielsen's op-ed piece when it was freely available online and the biggest problem with it wasn't that he disagreed with the leadership of the church, it was the shoddy logic used and the factual errors it contained.

As an employer, I would hope that a representative of the university would have produced higher quality work than that.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm looking for a jarring intersection of reality with hyperbolic theory here.

I don't think there is a whole lot in the modern church that you are going to find. While I think there are teachings that some people may find jarring, I think there is very little if anything we asked to do that is.

On the other hand, being asked to take a plural wife would have been jarring. Being asked by Joseph whether he could take my wife as his own would have been jarring. There are books full of things in the early church that would have been jarring, but since we don't live in the early church it can't be any more than a theoretical discussion.

The Catholic church was the author of a fair amount of mischief over the centuries. It has evolved into an organization that primarily does good, but that doesn't change the fact that it is the organization of the inquisition, the one that showed Galileo the instruments of torture and invited him to recant, the organization that burned witches at the stake.

So what does the past that a church has departed from have to do with what a church currently asks its members to do? Ask the question in the reverse: what does what a church currently requires have to do with what it historically required?

Your implicit assertion that nothing controversial is currently required is no more of a trump card that someone else's assertion that one hundred controversial things were once required. You know the answer to your question. What is your point?

[MikeWaters]

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.

So what you are saying is that the cost to speak out on these moral issues isn't worth it.

That is what you are saying, right?

That's certainly the lesson I have taken from the church and the gay marriage issue. That it must not be that important to them, as they have gotten progressively less involved, less strident.

The question is why. Because it is morally less important, or because the church fears the consequence of speakings its mind?

Archaea, I apologize for laying out the issue starkly. It makes people uncomfortable when they realize what is being traded and bought. There will always (I hope) be people willing to point to what is actually going on.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I read Nielsen's op-ed piece when it was freely available online and the biggest problem with it wasn't that he disagreed with the leadership of the church, it was the shoddy logic used and the factual errors it contained.

As an employer, I would hope that a representative of the university would have produced higher quality work than that.

I can also agree with that.

He didn't display the professionalism one would have hoped to see from a professor from the Philosophy Deparment.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I read Nielsen's op-ed piece when it was freely available online and the biggest problem with it wasn't that he disagreed with the leadership of the church, it was the shoddy logic used and the factual errors it contained.

As an employer, I would hope that a representative of the university would have produced higher quality work than that.

Indy, biggest problem to you, or the church? If they were to fire professors for shoddy work at BYU, half the faculty would be out of jobs.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So what you are saying is that the cost to speak out on these moral issues isn't worth it.

That is what you are saying, right?

That's certainly the lesson I have taken from the church and the gay marriage issue. That it must not be that important to them, as they have gotten progressively less involved, less strident.

The question is why. Because it is morally less important, or because the church fears the consequence of speakings its mind?

The cost of speaking out must always be balanced against other costs. Sometimes one thing wins out over another. I love the ivory tower, but I don't live in it. Neither the Church nor almost any other organization not named Harvard is so awash in money that it can afford to disregard costs.

The Church saw its political capital be drained and lost through this last costly battle and probably has re-evaluated it to see if it is one worth emptying the coffers and decided against it. Only survival issues are worth emptying the coffers. One doesn't go ballistic on every affront.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Indy, biggest problem to you, or the church? If they were to fire professors for shoddy work at BYU, half the faculty would be out of jobs.

So in your opinion an employee can produce shoddy work and bring the employer publicly in disrepute and still retain his position? You must live in a dream world there as a researcher. Most employers would can somebody for much less than that.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The cost of speaking out must always be balanced against other costs. Sometimes one thing wins out over another. I love the ivory tower, but I don't live in it. Neither the Church nor almost any other organization not named Harvard is so awash in money that it can afford to disregard costs.

The Church saw its political capital be drained and lost through this last costly battle and probably has re-evaluated it to see if it is one worth emptying the coffers and decided against it. Only survival issues are worth emptying the coffers. One doesn't go ballistic on every affront.

So the church measured the cost (large), weighed that against the potential gains (small), and gave up.

Fair enough.

[Cali Coug]

Evil? Nothing comes to mind. Controversial?

A statement that I should oppose the ERA and support a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution prohibiting gay marriage come to mind.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

So in your opinion an employee can produce shoddy work and bring the employer publicly in disrepute and still retain his position? You must live in a dream world there as a researcher. Most employers would can somebody for much less than that.

You are correct in suggesting that BYU likes to keep its faculty's incompetence (not speaking of everyone) out of the spotlight.