Whose Church Is It Anyway?

Over the past year there have been numerous articles and blogs addressing the Church, its doctrine, practices, and people. Much of this is due to the Romney candidacy. I have taken an interest in following this discussion about the Church. As I have tracked threads from articles and blogs, I am sometimes led to the pages of those who are members of the Church, yet unhappy with its doctrines and/or practices, or some of those who have left the Church. I do not dwell on these pages for I find little constructive discussion.

I came across the blog of one individual who recently resigned his membership in the Church. He posted on his blog, “The 96 Theses: Constructive Suggestions for Improving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” I suppose he is trying to beat Martin Luther’s 95 Theses. Here are a few of his suggestions or criticisms:

• The Church should acknowledge that the “faith-promoting” history it has been teaching through its correlated materials is often misleading or false and the Church should present members with accurate and complete information about Church history. The Church should not teach through word or visual image things that are demonstrably false.
• The Church should sell its interest in KSL and other media ventures. The Church should not be in the media business.
• The Church shows disrespect toward women by withholding the priesthood from them. The Church should grant women the priesthood and the right to officiate in all the offices pertaining thereto.
• The Church shows disrespect toward homosexuals by supporting a constitutional amendment to prevent states from granting all the same legal rights and privileges to homosexual couples that married heterosexual couples enjoy.
• The Church shows disrespect for members whose spouses are not members of the Church or are disaffected with the Church by teaching that only couples sealed in the temple who maintain strict obedience to Church teachings and requirements will enjoy family relationships after death.
• The Church should clarify for its members that a “full and honest tithe” should be paid on one’s “surplus,” that is, on the amount of money one has left over after paying for taxes and necessary living expenses such as food, housing, clothing, utilities, and transportation.
• The Church should shift focus to humanitarian service missions rather than active proselyting missions.

I would love to discuss each of these challenges (and maybe I will at some future time), however all of these challenges and criticisms boil down to one single question: Whose church is it anyway? In his preface to the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord stated, “Wherefore, I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments” (D&C 1:17). Later on in the same revelation that Lord stated, “And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased” (D&C 1:30).

The Lord has claimed this Church as his own. He called Joseph Smith to be his voice upon the earth. Through him, priesthood authority, the authority to act in God’s name, was given to men. An organization was revealed that would perpetuate God’s kingdom upon earth. If this is not the Lord’s church, then whose church is it? If it is not the Lord’s, why belong to it? Apparently, the writer of the 96 Theses does not believe it is the Lord’s church or he would not have resigned his membership. In which case, why the 96 Theses? Why try to reform something that is not what it claims to be?

One of my favorite missionary scriptures is found in Amos 3:7, “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” If this is the Lord’s church, he will reveal his will through his prophet. The Church is not a democracy where we gather in a convention to discuss doctrines and practices and then vote to decide what to change or not change. They tried that at the Council of Nicea, which excluded the will of God, and ultimately led to the incredible fragmentation of Christianity.

Is the Church (meaning the membership) perfect? No. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. This is the reason for the existence of the Church, “For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive” (Ephesians 4:12-14).

As members, we can make suggestions for improving the effectiveness of this great work. Within the limited authority granted through our callings, and through inspiration, we can do that which helps us to succeed and carry out our responsibilities. In the 1930s, Harold B. Lee, then president of the Pioneer Stake, along with other stake leaders, came up with a welfare plan for their stake that was eventually adopted by the whole church. However, the acceptance of the plan at higher levels was subject to approval by the Brethren under the guidance of the Lord.

This is the Lord’s church. Changes as suggested by the writer of the 96 Theses are not the prerogative of the writer, myself, or even the entire body of the Church. Such changes in doctrine and practice must be approved by the Lord and revealed to “his servants the prophets.” It continues to amaze me that such individuals that have separated themselves from the Church even care whether it changes or not.

A final note. We all loved President Hinckley. I never met him personally, but he was my friend and counselor. I came to know that he was the Lord’s prophet. Upon his death, I felt the loss of my friend and prophet. Though I have admired President Monson over the years and cherished his counsel, I could not see him filling the great shoes of President Hinckley. Last evening I attended General Priesthood Meeting at our stake center. As I watched President Monson speak to the priesthood brethren assembled throughout the world, the spirit manifested to me that the mantle of the prophet has been moved and President Thomas S. Monson is the man bearing that mantle. There is a new prophet in town.