Given my faith in Christ, I nevertheless could live more or less authentically with or without an organized church.  This, I think, is self-evident.  Joseph Smith's own family for long periods chose to remain nondenominational Christians.  Yet I have come to believe that for most of the people most of th time (perhaps all of the people most of the time) it is better to belong than not to belong to an organized (Christian) church.

I recognize that this is a large assertion, for the institutionalization of anything brings with it certain potential liabilities, because of the very nature of institutions.  In any organized chruch, for example, (just as in any secular organization) there may develop unseemly pressures to conform to a misconceived "orthodoxy."  There may develop an unspoken etiquette, implying that one may rarely talk in public about what he actually feels or thinks, but only about what he ought to feel or think--therby straining "authenticity."  as in any organization, unecessary and unhelpfull restrictions of autonomy may accrue.  Ther may be complacency or exasperating bureaucratic entanglements.  Morover, formal, institutionalized religion may sometimes function as an ironic, distracting buffer between God and His worshippers; the focus may unconciously shift from "servicng god and man" to "doing things correctly."  One will inevitably witness occasional instances of pettiness, unfairness, distateful personalities--"people problems."  Since such difficulties will exist in any large organization that involves human beings, one may therefore be tempted at times to live one's religion apart from other persons, int he peace of solitude.

The profound error in this course of action is demonstrated by the Savior's example.  Jesus did not choose to remain above and apart from human beings.  Instead, He condescended to our condition in order to heal, teach, and serve us.  Indeed, it was precisely in the midst of our imperfections that He found opportunity to accomplish His redeeming work.

With modest effort, after all, one can largely avoid letting a church become a buffer between oneself and God.  And with a little stregnth of character one need only believe what he or she believes.  Moreover, some of the "problems" of religious organizations are themselves ultimately a part of the answer to my central question--"How do I live with meaning and authenticity?"  Indeed, "people problems," not sanitized isolation, are precisely what genuine disciples of Jesus are invited to engage.  Anyone (including a robot) and unthinkingly conform, and anone (including a dog) can rebel and withdraw. The more difficult and worthy accomplishment lies in the Way of Jesus--in meek, but courageous service, in constructive interaction with God's children.

In extended isolation from the worshipping community one is especially susceptible to conceit, to forgetting how much one may learn from other human beings, whatever their station.  Apart from the congregation, one has radically fewer opportunities to serve.  One's ability to love becomes abstract, remote from the life-giving power constricted, academic, emasculated.  In this isolation one is in danger of losing a sharp awareness of collective sin, of group power, and of the resources of community ritual.  It is clear that love, service, and the acquisition of knowledge are better worked out in regular contact with a community to which one feels responsible than in comfortable, unadulterated solitude.

-Philip L. Barlow, "The Uniquely True Church" (pg 247-249) A Thoughtful Faith