- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
However the church does not exercise faith. If they did they would distribute every dollar by year end and have faith the lord would provide for the future.
That isn’t faith. That is stupidity. No individual or organization should operate that way. It is a surefire recipe for disaster – and the Church doesn’t encourage that approach from members, either. They encourage saving and setting aside funds (and food), whenever possible, for difficult times.
Demanding extremes isn’t healthy – by the Church of us or by us of the Church.
I had an experience today. I went to one of those mega-Church complexes. Inside, they have a FANTASTIC indoor playground for kids. It was exceptionally well-kept, three stories, two sections. The best thing is, it was absoultely free to the public. You didn’t need to be a member, didn’t need to pay tithing. I’ve paid $10-$15 for entry into “play centers” only a fraction as nice. It was a wonderful community service that they do. And tt’s open every day of the week, except Thursday and Sunday. 
As I’ve said, what’s turned me off from the Church was not policy, but truth. Any religion with a primary emphasis on “correctness of belief” and “truth”, ought to be judged by those standards; and according to my current best judgement and the evidences I’ve seen, both churches fall short on that front. But if you look at “effectiveness” and “policy”, I think this megachurch, for all its shortcomings, has the LDS Church beat on a few fronts.
I LOVE temple square. I love it when the Church invests in public works and services. I think Temple Square is beautiful. Most temple grounds are very well kept. I like Camp Joseph, in Vermont. They can do some phenominal work. But the biggest expendature they take is in their temples. I think it’s fair to draw a comparison, since the goal of both mega-church complexes and LDS temples is to build family relationships and keep them together.
You’re only allowed to enter the temple if you’re an adult, a tithe payer, hold specific beliefs, and adhere to certain “living standards”. This excludes a lot of people. Inside, you are forced to wear a particular type of clothing, which to be blunt, is outdated and looks pretty silly. The ceremonies are very wrote, with a lot of “deep” symbolism and metaphors that, being honest, no one really understands. It has a lot of “repeat after me” sections, and secret signs and tokens, all of which we are told, somehow enable us to be with our families forever.
On the flip side, at the mega-Church I was able to spend the same amount of time having a blast with my daughter. It was a phenominal experience. It cost me nothing. I wasn’t judged or excluded. We had lots of fun. We drew closer together. As far as “Return on Investment” goes, I think the Mega-Church has been much more wise and effective in bringing families together, than the temple. I’m not recommending we get rid of temples… for doctrinal reasons, I doubt that’ll ever happen. But with all that cash the Church is sitting on, there’s really plenty of other ways they can achieve their goals of bringing families together. I wish they’d spend more in those areas.
dande48 wrote:
The ceremonies are very wrote, with a lot of “deep” symbolism and metaphors that, being honest, no one really understands. It has a lot of “repeat after me” sections, and secret signs and tokens, all of which we are told, somehow enable us to be with our families forever.
Don’t know what you mean by “very wrote”, but a lot of the metaphors are not half as complex as they are made out to be.
Quote:The church is actually a typical charity. If most people knew how major charities were run then they would not give to them.
Having worked with a small number of such organizations, I would agree. No question that some do precisely what charities do, expend most of their funds in the service of whatever cause they were formed for. At worst, they are out and out scams. Most fall in between, organizations run by good, decent (but at times incompetent) individuals perhaps doing their best but still falling somewhat short of the ideal. I think the LDS Church is run by good, decent and overall competent individuals who may still fall somewhat short of the ideal (whatever that may be).
My own take on the Church’s resources is not so much the money (though admittedly it is eye-popping
😯 to get a glimpse at the vast resources the Church has), as the attitude that led to the acquisition of wealth. There is a corporate flavor to our Church that is distinctly “unchurchlike.” It makes me uncomfortable at times. In some ways, I’m grateful that wards are not overfunded. When I attend my ward, it feels like like “church.” It consists of a small group of people with overall common goals working together to accomplish those goals. Sometimes, it involves money but other times it involves service. Among other things, it’s the lack of funds that give it a kind of “grass roots” feel.It doesn’t mean things can’t change. I’d like to see our buildings become more like community centers with services on Sunday but community-enhancing activities during the week (regardless of faith). I think opening those doors in that manner and having more “non-religious” activities would be a great activating tool as well as a missionary opportunity. At a minimum, it would be providing the kind of service that many of us aspire to provide. And it would be organized around the wards and branches which exist throughout most countries. You could call people to positions like “community service director”, etc. and (under that individual’s direction) ward councils could assist in developing their own unique service priorities (given that different communities have different needs). It would require adjusting financial policies but the money would be more targeted and focused than if the Church tried to develop a more general service model run from the top down.
One can dream, right?
A bit off topic, but I attended a community event a month ago. It was held in a church which is also a brewery. It’s owned by the Lutheran church, but is a different concept. It was very hip in side, located in an industrial park kind of area. They were talking about making one bay a mechanical shop where the members can come and have other members repair their cars. Inside the “church” was a shop where you could get sandwiches and beer.
I am not necessarily advocating this, just describing an alternate church concept to what we’re used to seeing.
Back to the topic at hand…
Gerald wrote:
Quote:The church is actually a typical charity. If most people knew how major charities were run then they would not give to them.
One can dream, right?
Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people living for today
Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no XXXXXX too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day you’ll join us
And the world will be as one….
SilentDawning wrote:
They were talking about making one bay a mechanical shop where the members can come and have other members repair their cars.
I’d be absolutely estatic if the Church were to do this!!! Having the right tools and a good garage, can save you thousands of dollars in repairs. And since the poorer among us usually drive beaters and can’t afford to pay that kind of price, it’d be a major community service.
dande48 wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:
They were talking about making one bay a mechanical shop where the members can come and have other members repair their cars.
I’d be absolutely ecstatic if the Church were to do this!!! Having the right tools and a good garage can save you thousands of dollars in repairs. And since the poorer among us usually drive beaters and can’t afford to pay that kind of price, it’d be a major community service.
I have mixed feelings about it. There are smaller mechanic shops (the kind where you have to wait 3 days to get your car fixed) that are not that expensive. Such a shop takes away from that business, and these guys are actually shining examples of good business in an industry that is often more expensive than the average person can afford.
Also, when does service become simply free labor? I see it as a great thing for the poor…but it could quickly become like moving in our church. Expected, a drag, and not even really in line with our mission. I think simply funding or subsidizing an existing repair shop might make the dollars go further. Creating some kind of educational program for brake work, oil changing, alternator switchouts, wiring kit replacements, headlights, battery changes, tune ups etcetera is a good idea. This is so people can do these things on their own. That would be in harmony with a self-reliance mission idea…
SilentDawning wrote:
Also, when does service become simply free labor? I see it as a great thing for the poor…but it could quickly become like moving in our church.
I’d say “whenever the Church is involved”. ButI was talking about the individual fixing their own car, using the Church’s garage. It’s not “free labor” if you’re doing it yourself. All you would need is a facilities manager… who the tithes can pay, but honestly would require less work than quite a few unpaid callings. Auto work isn’t hard, by any stretch, so long as you have access to the right tools… and access to youtube.
😆 As for the smaller mechanic shops, if they haven’t been bought out, I think it’s more the rich who would use them than the poor. Most of the poor generally only have one car, and work hourly jobs with no vacation. Not that they could afford to take a vacation anyways. Missing work for a couple of days usually means getting fire, and if not, even a 100% free job that takes a few days would cost them far more than they could afford.
As for myself, I pay someone to change my oil and rotate the tires, not because I can’t do it or haven’t done it plenty of times before… I just don’t want to deal with the time or hassle, and make enough to afford it. I can afford to be without a car, partly because I can telecommute whenever I feel like, and partly because I have a second. I would take it to one of those small mechanic shops, because I’m cheap and trust them more. As long as a Church garage doesn’t lead to a wealthy person (like me) dropping off their car and expecting someone else to take care of it, I’d be fine. If you expect help, you better be working just as hard any anyone else.
Old Timer wrote:Quote:However the church does not exercise faith. If they did they would distribute every dollar by year end and have faith the lord would provide for the future.
That isn’t faith. That is stupidity. No individual or organization should operate that way. It is a surefire recipe for disaster – and the Church doesn’t encourage that approach from members, either. They encourage saving and setting aside funds (and food), whenever possible, for difficult times.
Demanding extremes isn’t healthy – by the Church of us or by us of the Church.
I don’t disagree no organization would survive giving everything away. I was just trying to make a point the church should not expect members to sacrifice at all costs and have faith but seemingly not doing the same.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
dande48 wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:
Also, when does service become simply free labor? I see it as a great thing for the poor…but it could quickly become like moving in our church.
I’d say “whenever the Church is involved”.
For me, it’s when individuals use church volunteer labor for things they could afford or do themselves. Service like the kind we’re talking about is for people who have no other alternative in my view. Like you say, a wealthy or at least, self-reliant person dropping off their car for someone else to fix for free would be an example of free labor. A single parent with 3 kids living below the poverty line, or barely making it dropping it off — for fixing — would be an example of service.
Quote:But I was talking about the individual fixing their own car, using the Church’s garage. It’s not “free labor” if you’re doing it yourself. All you would need is a facilities manager… who the tithes can pay, but honestly would require less work than quite a few unpaid callings. Auto work isn’t hard, by any stretch, so long as you have access to the right tools… and access to youtube.
😆 That would be empowering. There was a shop like that in Canada once and for some reason it was closed due to some kind of outside pressure. You paid by the hour to rent the shop and tools, and there were actually several bays.
For the church, the investment in tools would be significant depending on the scope of the work it would claim to be possible in the shop. And someone would have to staff it to make it accessible. Not sure if it would work…
Little story — years ago my FIL was a branch president. He let me store a vehicle I wasn’t using at his expansive property. We were newly married, my wife and I, and I have always been, and still am, an old-car driver. The car I stored there still worked, and could be driven immediately, but it was old and close to the end of its life.
I happened upon a newer vehicle that was in good shape, so I drove that one and kept the old one as backup for when I needed to look for another car, or our circumstances changed.
One of his flock had a financial problem and didn’t have a car to get to work. He asked if they could drive mine. I asked for how long and he didn’t have an answer. It sounded indefinite.
Sounds good on the surface, right? I said “No” for a few reasons. If they couldn’t afford a car, and were in financial trouble, could they repair it if it broke down? What about insurance? Who would pay that (it had only comprehensive on it, no liability)? And what about wear and tear? The car was near the end of its life — did I want to give away that life to someone when I could be in the same position they are in if my own main car broke down?
This was a case when service was going a bit far, in my view. Basically, a long-term free car rental. In the end the person made the right decision — they moved out of the country house they were in, and moved into the city where they could take a bus.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.