a friend of mine recently contacted me regarding my involvement last friday in the signing for something letter delivery to church headquarters. For this post, I think the exchange is instructive. His letter, and my response, are below:

-------------------------------
Ivan, what is going on man, you are losing it. I am all for a good protest, but protesting the Church? I was once of your same mind set that the Church was a good thing, but enough doubt surrounding its establishment to make its sovereign position debatable. In order to debate The Church’s major policies ultimately you have to assume that The Church’s major policies are not directed by The Head, thus making it a false church, but a good church nonetheless. Like I said I was once of this mind set, and was all for the mainstreaming of The Church, which I saw happening with the extension of the priesthood to all males, renewed emphasis on Christ in the logo, Temple revisions, Hinckley’s reaching out to Christendom, etc.

After some time of this mind set I realized that I had lost what was special about the Mormon Church, and had fallen into confusion and doubt. I had disregarded the first principle faith, faith that policy is directed by The Head, faith that my limited understanding of The Church’s foundation did not cancel its position as the sovereign Church of Christ. Once I took that leap, over time I came to be at peace with many church positions and events that I did not initially agree with.

I just think to treat The Church as a negotiable entity, negates what is special about the Church. If we are going to behave that way, we might as well be protestant or any other Church created by the ideas of men. That is not to say as free men we should not express our concerns to our church authorities in a Christ-like manner (as before Pilot), but it is another thing to make a news spectacle. Don’t you think?

-------------------------------
-------------------------------

Well, I wouldn't exactly characterize what we did as a news spectacle. A small group of us delivered letter packets to the church office building. It wasn't a rally--the most noise we made was as we quietly sang "As I Have Loved You." Most of us walked away as soon as church security brought the letters inside. I'll grant you, though, that we did intend for the news to be there; it just wasn't intended to be, nor was it, a spectacle.

As for the negotiability of the church...I'll agree that the revelatory nature of the church shouldn't be discarded. If it were, we'd quickly become what the Community of Christ is--a largely protestant church driven by the political whims of its members.

I don't think that there's a dichotomy, though. It's certainly not what I'm asking for, nor is it what I think people like Peter Danzig are asking for. That is, I don't think that the church has to be either a purely revelatory entity which never has to listen to its members, or that the church has to be a purely democratic entity which never listens to the Spirit. Throughout the history of the Lord's churches, prophets have benefited by listening both to members and to the still, small voice.

Jethro spoke to Moses. Paul and Cornelius spoke to Peter. Emma spoke to Joseph. Early converts in Nigeria spoke to David O. McKay. I believe that there is room for an appropriate dialog among members, the prophets, and the Lord.

The question is whether this particular incident was appropriate. I'll grant you it's a close call. Initially, I had mixed feelings about it, even as we started to walk toward the building. Ultimately, though, the peaceable nature of the event won me over. It was simply a calm call for everyone to consider the feelings of our gay brothers and sisters.

I think it's important for the health and well being of the church for us to talk to each other, and to avail ourselves, at times, of public means to do so. The act of speech we engaged in on Friday, as you might imagine, was as much directed to the membership as it was to the leadership. There is a danger of contention when we air views publicly, but I think there is also a danger of contention when we harden our positions and refuse to engage each other, too. To the extent that we managed to express our views in a peaceful manner, I believe it was, overall, a positive and an appropriate act.