- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This week my ward’s Young Men and I had a tour of SLC and I want to share some miscellaneous observations with you from that trip. Merely sharing in case any of you are interested. We visited the church history museum and viewed the best First Vision film I’ve seen – and I’ve probably seen most of them the church has put out. It was the 1838 version and not the verbiage from the missionary discussions. The beginning of the film openly stated there are at least 8 (or maybe it said 9) versions from JS or his friends. The film didn’t emphasize the incorrectness of other faiths.
There were large photographs of the seer stones and other artifacts. One exhibit explained the many reasons why 1840s people saw Mormons as a threat – although I didn’t read in enough detail to see if the exhibit was neutral or defensive of the church.
I skipped the prophet exhibit because of lack of time but I did enjoy the room about the history of the tabernacle organ. (I’m a music geek).
We had a special behind the scenes tour of the church office building. We saw the offices of someone higher than a Q70 (being intentionally vague here) and the offices were as at least as nice as or maybe nicer than any corporate executive I’ve seen. Lots of wood, retracting computers, art work, space, couches, windows, etc. Definitely the feel of a business VIP. There was an org chart (names and faces) and world map on the wall, and exactly one position was held by a women – head of LDS philanthropies. None of the org chart positions were general authorities so I’m not sure why women would be disqualified.
The man providing the tour gave a detailed description of church operations across the globe. It runs and sounds like a well funded international company. I got the feeling the church owns a whole lot more land and business ventures than is commonly known. It reminded me of a visit I made to the HQ of a financial services company not long ago. The guy providing the tour reminded us that LDS church employees don’t make much money. I got the feeling that the presiding bishopric has the ear of the First Presidency as much as the Q12, but I could be wrong there.
Security and surveillance systems of everything within a one mile radius of temple square was nothing short of impressive. I didn’t know some of that technology existed but I’m sure it’s not new to those in the industry.
We also took a guided tour of BYU. Top notch academic programs. I saw lots of girls with shorts much shorter than the knee. Maybe campus police had the day off. Or maybe they don’t enforce the dress code as much. 20 years ago I would never have seen that much skin. Legacy Hall is an impressive shrine to BYU athletics, even my young men who dislike BYU were impressed. Compared to state schools where I live BYU looks immaculate with abundant funding. I was reminded why I wanted to go to school there 20 years ago.
Overall my feeling was that the church operates very well as is, believes strongly in its mission of saving souls. Also reminded why i can’t live in Utah, but absolutely beautiful in the summer!
Thanks for sharing. Each time I visit Utah I also come away with “It’s a nice place to visit, but….” It is beautiful, but I also very much like the greenery of the Northeast US. I visited the church museum last summer and was similarly impressed. Likewise I visited the Priesthood Restoration site and appreciated the openness there as well – there is a hat on the table and the missionaries explain the seer stone process as best as we understand it.
Was it the Office Building or the Administration Building your visited? I was under the impression the Q15 & Presidency of the 70 were actually located in the Administration Building. How does one go about getting a tour of either of them?
Roadrunner wrote:
The film didn’t emphasize the incorrectness of other faiths.I’m torn about this. While it sounds inclusive, or at least, less arrogant or exclusionary than the “don’t join any of the churches because they are ALL wrong”, it’s not what we believe. To selectively remove the objectionable parts until after people commit doesn’t smell good to me…and it’s a strategy I don’t feel good about. Remember in the old missionary discussions how all the lessons were laced with the statement “so we can become like God”. Investigators only learned by accident that we become gods ourselves — the true meaning of that statement. That felt wrong on my mission too.
Quote:We had a special behind the scenes tour of the church office building. We saw the offices of someone higher than a Q70 (being intentionally vague here) and the offices were as at least as nice as or maybe nicer than any corporate executive I’ve seen. Lots of wood, retracting computers, art work, space, couches, windows, etc. Definitely the feel of a business VIP.
Torn about this. People are giving up 10% of their income to fund these operations, I personally would rather see them as Spartan, but who am I to judge…
Quote:
The man providing the tour gave a detailed description of church operations across the globe. It runs and sounds like a well funded international company. I got the feeling the church owns a whole lot more land and business ventures than is commonly known. It reminded me of a visit I made to the HQ of a financial services company not long ago. The guy providing the tour reminded us that LDS church employees don’t make much money. I got the feeling that the presiding bishopric has the ear of the First Presidency as much as the Q12, but I could be wrong there.Reinforced my desire not to make too many financial sacrifices for the church. Taken with my lunchbag letdowns over the years when I’ve needed non-welfare kinds of help, it is reinforcing to hear that the church is probably pretty well funded with more than just tithing funds.
Thanks for sharing the experience, much appreciated.
SilentDawning wrote:
Roadrunner wrote:
The film didn’t emphasize the incorrectness of other faiths.I’m torn about this. While it sounds inclusive, or at least, less arrogant or exclusionary than the “don’t join any of the churches because they are ALL wrong”, it’s not what we believe.
It’s what I believe. Reading all the accounts reveals that Joseph Smith was much more concerned about his own salvation and standing before God than which church to join. All of the other accounts emphasize Joseph went to ask for forgiveness – which he did obtain. Great talk in the subject by Bushman:
http://devotional.byuh.edu/media161115http://devotional.byuh.edu/media161115” class=”bbcode_url”> DarkJedi wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:
Roadrunner wrote:
The film didn’t emphasize the incorrectness of other faiths.I’m torn about this. While it sounds inclusive, or at least, less arrogant or exclusionary than the “don’t join any of the churches because they are ALL wrong”, it’s not what we believe.
It’s what I believe.
Reading all the accounts reveals that Joseph Smith was much more concerned about his own salvation and standing before God than which church to join. All of the other accounts emphasize Joseph went to ask for forgiveness – which he did obtain.Great talk in the subject by Bushman: http://devotional.byuh.edu/media161115http://devotional.byuh.edu/media161115” class=”bbcode_url”>
That might have been true when he was searching initially, but all you have to do is sit in testimony meeting and also read the D&C to know the culture of “one true church” started with JS after he founded the church — and is alive and well in our current culture and doctrine.
Should we deempahsize everthing that is objectionable when introducing the gospel to people, only to reveal the hard truth to which they may well have objected to later? At what point are we behaving unethically? that is the part I’m torn about.
“The hard truth” is incredibly subjective – and NO organization is held to that standard to admit new members. Catholicism doesn’t teach about adulterous, muderous Popes (or pregnant nuns being the reason for celibacy being demanded, or rape being a regular part of many interrogations of heresy, etc.) prior to becoming a member; businesses aren’t required to share previous activities that were unethical or illegal (or actions of former leaders); athletic teams don’t have to disclose shady financial practices or racists beliefs of owners.
Organizations do the best they can to strike a reasonable balance. That is all that can be asked reasonably.
SilentDawning wrote:
DarkJedi wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:I’m torn about this. While it sounds inclusive, or at least, less arrogant or exclusionary than the “don’t join any of the churches because they are ALL wrong”, it’s not what we believe.
It’s what I believe.
Reading all the accounts reveals that Joseph Smith was much more concerned about his own salvation and standing before God than which church to join. All of the other accounts emphasize Joseph went to ask for forgiveness – which he did obtain.Great talk in the subject by Bushman: http://devotional.byuh.edu/media161115http://devotional.byuh.edu/media161115” class=”bbcode_url”>
That might have been true when he was searching initially, but all you have to do is sit in testimony meeting and also read the D&C to know the culture of “one true church” started with JS after he founded the church — and is alive and well in our current culture and doctrine.
Should we deempahsize everthing that is objectionable when introducing the gospel to people, only to reveal the hard truth to which they may well have objected to later? At what point are we behaving unethically? that is the part I’m torn about.
I think we could do a better job at talking about some things in missionary discussions. But if the point of missionary discussions is that the investigator finds a testimony or spiritual witness, does it matter? I do recall the days when I took the discussions, and I especially remember the first discussion on Joseph Smith. I believed it then, and while I still believe Joseph Smith had a profound spiritual experience I don’t necessarily believe it exactly the same way I did then. In other words, I had a testimony of JS then (in 1981) and I have a testimony of JS now. Frankly, I did not have a testimony of the BoM when I was baptized, but I liked it because it was easier to read and understand than the Bible and did eventually gain a testimony of it – that testimony was also different than the testimony I have of it now (which I suppose some would not consider a testimony). I also did not have a testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ when I was baptized, nor did I have one when I served a mission. I do now.
I do believe I was deceived and that was part of my faith crisis – but it was not the missionaries who deceived me, nor does that perceived deception have anything to do with what they taught me. That deception came from “deeper” parts of church teachings, which in my newer perspective really don’t matter much. That deception came from members and leaders of the church.
The part I think we could do better on with the missionaries and investigators is teaching the pure gospel, especially the atonement of Christ. That stuff is in the lessons, but I think most missionaries have the same problem I did – they don’t actually have testimonies of Christ and/or the atonement and so can’t effectively teach it. It’s also worth pointing out that Preach My Gospel makes very little direct reference to the “one true church.” It’s biggest fault is conflating the gospel and the church, but I have come to expect that from the vast majority of members and can live with their ignorance.
Old Timer wrote:
“The hard truth” is incredibly subjective – and NO organization is held to that standard to admit new members.Catholicism doesn’t teach about adulterous, muderous Popes (or pregnant nuns being the reason for celibacy being demanded, or rape being a regular part of many interrogations of heresy, etc.) prior to becoming a member; businesses aren’t required to share previous activities that were unethical or illegal (or actions of former leaders); athletic teams don’t have to disclose shady financial practices or racists beliefs of owners.
Organizations do the best they can to strike a reasonable balance. That is all that can be asked reasonably.
Curt — it’s a continuum though, we have to acknowledge that — at some point, you cross a line.
You are right, we aren’t bound to share the details of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which was an isolated although large and unfortunate incident of the obedience principle gone wrong. We don’t start by talking about plural marriage (people hear about that on their own no matter who they are, or where they live, it seems so there is no ethical issue there). But at what point are we leaving out material facts that someone needs in order to make a fully informed decision — to the point we are being unethical? And should a church founded on moral principles be held to the same low standard as a temporal business? I think not.
Also, consider what DJ said above about feeling he’d been misled when he was looking into the church…
This gets to the thing that bugs me the most about the church — we tend to claim morality when its convenient and furthers our interests, yet tend to avoid the responsibility of being moral when it is inconvenient for us. Not on a wide scale — generally, I think people who join the LDS church want to be good. The leaders think they are acting out of testimony and love of their fellow man — so I am not painting the church as an evil organization, or wanting to sound anti-Mormon. But one price you pay for claiming you are ethical is that people expect you to be ethical, and you can’t skirt that.
So, to sugar coat and mislead people about what “becoming like God” means, and now, just deleting from the narrative the part where the Godhead tells JS all other religions are wrong — that bothers me. I am not saying they have deleted it from the scripture, but they are downplaying that too.
There are times I think our church would be so much better off if we could just delete everything prior to 1900 and start over with what we are now, and a sanitized version of the first vision. What the church is now, minus its history, is not so bad, notwithstanding some of its cultural problems that run counter to liberal thought. But our history is what it is — and if people can’t get testimony to overpower that past, then we have to let the chips fall.
DarkJedi wrote:
Was it the Office Building or the Administration Building your visited? I was under the impression the Q15 & Presidency of the 70 were actually located in the Administration Building. How does one go about getting a tour of either of them?
Hi DJ – it was the Church Office Building or whatever they call the tall 26 story building. The tour was a result of connections from someone in our ward. Our tour guide was a fairly senior LDS church employee, probably a step below GA status. We saw some of the GA offices as well as the underground tunnels and walked around the rostrum of the Tabernacle and Conference Center.
SilentDawning wrote:
Torn about this. People are giving up 10% of their income to fund these operations, I personally would rather see them as Spartan, but who am I to judge…Quote:
The man providing the tour gave a detailed description of church operations across the globe. It runs and sounds like a well funded international company. I got the feeling the church owns a whole lot more land and business ventures than is commonly known. It reminded me of a visit I made to the HQ of a financial services company not long ago. The guy providing the tour reminded us that LDS church employees don’t make much money. I got the feeling that the presiding bishopric has the ear of the First Presidency as much as the Q12, but I could be wrong there.Reinforced my desire not to make too many financial sacrifices for the church. Taken with my lunchbag letdowns over the years when I’ve needed non-welfare kinds of help, it is reinforcing to hear that the church is probably pretty well funded with more than just tithing funds.
Thanks for sharing the experience, much appreciated.
I’m also torn about this, but the tour guide pointed out that they host high level dignitaries that may expect some level of decorum or prestige. For example the VP of the USA had visited this one room in the past few years.
The thing that surprised me was that the Presiding Bishopric reports directly to the First Presidency, and that they meet quite often, and it’s the Presiding Bishopric that controls the finances and temporal welfare of the church. For whatever reason I thought of the Presiding Bishopric as a somewhat minor appendage of the GAs (after they are always listed at the bottom of the GA list). All of the people that report to the Presiding Bishopric have quite extensive experience outside of the church managing large institutions or funds.
I like Church history. A few years ago my DW & I went to the Nauvoo temple do the ordinances for my parents. There were very few members there & the temple workers were excited to show us elements of the temple & objects
on display. We didn’t ask to be shown around. They did it because they were proud of what they were doing & wanted to
show other members what was “behind the scenes”.
We saw the oil painting of historical scenes of early Nauvoo. We saw a display of the keys to the original Nauvoo temple.
And JS sword when he was General of the Nauvoo Legion. I believe most Church workers at these sites feel the same way as the
workers in Nauvoo IL.
Roadrunner wrote:
I’m also torn about this, but the tour guide pointed out that they host high level dignitaries that may expect some level of decorum or prestige. For example the VP of the USA had visited this one room in the past few years.Easily dealt with. Rather than catering to materialism, why not precede each visit with an “Orientation to LDS Home Offices” or similar in print given to the aides of the people visiting the church. Or some other communication that helps visitors understand the backdrop. I know I would appreciate hearing the perspective of an organization on itself when I visited them as a secular leader. It would help me understand the sacred cows.
Let them know that ideologically, our church is funded by great sacrifices made by members. As a result we have spartan offices and prefer to invest our donations in programs that benefit our membership and the non-members in the surrounding area. Let them know about the extent of our operations in the write-up so they see that we are indeed a strong force, not just one that caters to the trappings of materialism (without saying that).
Quote:The thing that surprised me was that the Presiding Bishopric reports directly to the First Presidency, and that they meet quite often, and it’s the Presiding Bishopric that controls the finances and temporal welfare of the church. For whatever reason I thought of the Presiding Bishopric as a somewhat minor appendage of the GAs (after they are always listed at the bottom of the GA list). All of the people that report to the Presiding Bishopric have quite extensive experience outside of the church managing large institutions or funds.
Doesn’t surprise me at all. Temporal matters are DEEPLY important to the church. In my experience, as important and sometimes more important that spiritual ones when it comes to individual members. The fact the presiding Bpric has direct access/reporting to the FP makes completely perfect sense to me. And with the sacrifices members make to fund the church in tithing, those funds should be handled properly.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.