- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
Wordsleuth23 said….Why not build less expensive Temples, and use the money saved to provide clean drinking water to starving kids. It’s similar to the idea of fast offerings, just on a much grander scale. It doesn’t have to be just African kids, people all over the world, and our country, are impoverished and they really have no hope without some form of charity. The Church could do more in this area.
Jesus made the comment, the poor you have with you always. He also showed that even though he was the Son of God with great power, he did not come into the world to change such things. He once told a slave to be a good slave. If Jesus would not right all wrongs, neither can the church. Also we have been told that no matter what happens to us in this life, it will be so wonderful in the next life that the hardships of this one will hardly come to mind. The order of business seems to be, at least for me, get a body, live, enjoy, endure, improve, die, get your reward, live forever. The last one you mentioned, I would be real careful with that one.
jeriboy wrote:Wordsleuth23 said….Why not build less expensive Temples, and use the money saved to provide clean drinking water to starving kids. It’s similar to the idea of fast offerings, just on a much grander scale. It doesn’t have to be just African kids, people all over the world, and our country, are impoverished and they really have no hope without some form of charity. The Church could do more in this area.
Jesus made the comment, the poor you have with you always. He also showed that even though he was the Son of God with great power, he did not come into the world to change such things. He once told a slave to be a good slave. If Jesus would not right all wrongs, neither can the church. Also we have been told that no matter what happens to us in this life, it will be so wonderful in the next life that the hardships of this one will hardly come to mind. The order of business seems to be, at least for me, get a body, live, enjoy, endure, improve, die, get your reward, live forever. The last one you mentioned, I would be real careful with that one.
So Jesus didn’t want to change things like helping the poor–I’m not sure that’s true–or ending slavery, and that means the Church shouldn’t help the poor today? Wait, the Church shouldn’t fight poverty–in your words, “change such things”–but it can put on a full-scale assault when it comes to gay marriage? I’m confused jeriboy. What’s the difference? Jesus isn’t concerned about starving children or slaves, but he’s really concerned that gay couples don’t get legal recognition–really? You also say I should be real careful with the last one I mentioned, what, that the Church can do more for the poor? Is that a dangerous idea?
I think most people would be astounded at how much the Church contributes to fighting poverty and other difficulties around the world. Can it do more? Perhaps. Does any other organization do more? Perhaps not.
Old-Timer wrote:I think most people would be astounded at how much the Church contributes to fighting poverty and other difficulties around the world.
Can it do more? Perhaps. Does any other organization do more? Perhaps not.
I agree that the Church does a lot for the poor. My original point–it’s gotten side tracked–was that I find the cost/extravagant nature of temples to be…possibly over the top. Just because an organization or a person does good things doesn’t negate the fact that there are always more people that need help. I’ve heard this story numerous times in Church:
“There was a man who was walking along a sandy beach where thousands of starfish had been washed up on the shore. He noticed a boy picking the starfish one by one and throwing them back into the ocean. The man observed the boy for a few minutes and then asked what he was doing. The boy replied that he was returning the starfish to the sea, otherwise they would die. The man asked how saving a few, when so many were doomed, would make any difference whatsoever? The boy picked up a starfish and threw it back into the ocean and said “Made a difference to that one…”
Spending less on material things and spending more on people seems like a Christ-like endeavor. Once again, I’m not negating the good that the Church does, I’m saying it could/should do more when it comes to people vs. buildings.
I think the church thinks it IS doing for the people by building these buildings. And they are nice and they use the best materials but they aren’t Donald Trump mansions dripping in gold everywhere. I think the church does try to accomplish its goals on a budget. And I am not offended by it because this is the Lord’s house. Shouldn’t it be built to show our devotion and reverence….and place created to emmulate peace to contrast a loud and busy world? I do see the suffering in the world and wish that we could stop it. I wish the church was big enough to stop it. But as long as there are governments who oppress, these circumstances will be created faster than any one group could handle. Clearly the world and all its well meaning organizations can’t keep up.
I also see there is a balancing of temporal salvation and spiritual in the churches goals. I sometimes read the scriptures and think that God isn’t nearly afraid of suffering and death as we are. Not saying we shouldn’t help the poor. Just saying that some times creating a place for spiritual growth is as important or more important that making everyone safe.
I think the church is building as many temples as they can so that people alive today can enjoy the blessings, not only of taking out their own endowments, but of visiting often and marrying in the covenant.
And I don’t think the number of temples in SL county is some caluculated scheme to keep the numbers up. It happens because one temple exceeds its capacity and they need another facility to keep up.
Maybe temples isn’t the real issue. Maybe it is the latter-day saints who need to get outside of themselves and serve more in the world. Perhaps we need to stop letting the church do it for us. I remember hearing Neal A Maxwell speak on this as he told us that there was a time for the church to turn inward and take care of its own. But that time is past. We are to look and mingle outward to do whatever good we can wherever we find ourselves.
ws, I understand what you are saying. I’m saying simply that I believe we disagree as to what the actual ratio is – especially when ALL expenditures that I consider to be “charitable” in nature are considered. Fwiw, I’m not going to elaborate on that– largely because the Church itself has chosen not to elaborate on that. I believe in the principle of “they have their reward” – and I’m not about to deny the Church the opportunity to give in secret, even if that deprives it of earthly recognition. I’m also not about to deny the Church the opportunity to allow the MANY millions it spends annually on things that are charitable in nature but almost never get classified as such by others to remain uncounted as charitable contributions. I’m just saying if I were to lay out my feelings about this issue fully, and if others were inclined to agree with my view on this, the general issue of spending priorities would melt away into insignificance, imo.
(If your point is that the temples could be built at a lower cost per temple, I think you have a valid argument – even if I don’t see it that way. From a budget standpoint, I see what they could cost to build if the Church really wanted to make them grandiose and ornate – and that simply isn’t happening. I think the balance between what could be at the low end and what could be at the high end is just about right.)
I’m not sure if this is part of the OP but spending lots of money on temples is really good PR. Both internal and external. Internal PR: temple-worthy members get “rewarded” for their rectitude. I mean, it IS pretty sweet to be allowed to hang out in such a nice place. Plus it makes you feel rich for a couple hours.
External PR: Very visible branding, demonstrative of growth, health, plenty. Who wouldn’t want to be a part of that?
I know, I know, it should be as nice as possible for the Lord. But, did you see Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? What was Christ’s “cup”?
swimordie wrote:I’m not sure if this is part of the OP but spending lots of money on temples is really good PR. Both internal and external.
Internal PR: temple-worthy members get “rewarded” for their rectitude. I mean, it IS pretty sweet to be allowed to hang out in such a nice place. Plus it makes you feel rich for a couple hours.
External PR: Very visible branding, demonstrative of growth, health, plenty. Who wouldn’t want to be a part of that?
I know, I know, it should be as nice as possible for the Lord. But, did you see Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? What was Christ’s “cup”?
Ray, you make valid points. I’m sure the Church does as much good as any other Church–possibly more. We see this differently, but I respect your points.
Swimwordie–do you really think PR is something the Lord cares about when his children are dying and starving all over the world? I’m not denying the Church’s humanitarian efforts, but they can do more. I’m not saying they shouldn’t build meeting houses, or temples, I’m saying the could build cheaper facilities and make a greater humanitarian effort. I have a hard time picturing God/Christ being petty enough to care about the material and look of a building when their starving, dying children could be saved with a little more help. I already posted the star fish story, but there will always be more people to help, and just because the Church can’t help everyone doesn’t mean they shouldn’t help as many as they possibly can. Doesn’t the story of Christ resonate more with the Church–born in a manger, a carpenter, etc. all positions lacking materially, and all humble. I think that Christ would give more than the Church gives, and he would care less about fancy buildings.
ws, this really is a catch-22 – since we are dealing in ratios. Fwiw, I have heard MANY complaints that the churches meetinghouses are too plain and “cookie-cutter” – that they aren’t aesthetically pleasing like many other denominations’ buildings are. The fact is that the homogeneity of the buildings was done explicitly to cut costs – to be able to use tithing and other funds for other purposes. I’m going to say this very gently, but this is a lose-lose for the Church IF someone is inclined to want more than what they see. Those who want physically beautiful meetinghouses complain about the plainness of ours (that number in the thousands), while those who want less beautiful temples complain about the cost of ours (which number less than 200) and easily could be MUCH more costly. Meanwhile, the Church gives LARGELY in secret and in ways that most people don’t stop to classify as humanitarian – so relatively few members and others realize how extensively they give.
I’ll say it again: I’m not sure there’s another organization in the world that gives as much, in as many varied ways, in as many countries, through as many channels as the LDS Church does. Chastizing the largest charitable giver in the world for not doing more, when it absolutely prioritizes such giving as one of its first areas of concern . . .
I’m going to bow out of this one, since I’ve expressed myself as well as I can – and I absolutely don’t want to turn it into an argument. We just see this diferently, I suppose. I just think few people realize how extensively the LDS Church gives – and I think this discussion really would change dramatically if people did understand the fuller picture.
Old-Timer wrote:Chastizing the largest charitable giver in the world for not doing more, when it absolutely prioritizes such giving as one of its first areas of concern . . .
Careful the hyperbole, Ray.
Though your point is well taken.
@wordsleuth:
I guess you missed my Indiana Jones reference at the end of my post. That reference was inferring exactly what you said in your “rebut”. For those who haven’t seen it: *SPOILER ALERT* At the end of the movie, Indy has to figure out which “cup” was the grail of the Christ. There were dozens of beautiful, gold plated, adorned with jewels, etc. but Indy chose the simple wooden hand-carved cup: the work of a simple carpenter. And he was right and didn’t melt, yeah!
Old-Timer wrote:I’ll say it again: I’m not sure there’s another organization in the world that gives as much, in as many varied ways, in as many countries, through as many channels as the LDS Church does. Chastizing the largest charitable giver in the world for not doing more, when it absolutely prioritizes such giving as one of its first areas of concern . . .
Ray, I have no desire to quibble with your hyperbole. Since this is StayLDS.com, I would like to see into your internal calcs on this. In my observation it is practically an article of faith in the disaffected Mormon underground that the church gives comparatively little “free” money. I would love to have this notion dispelled for myself if possible. Could you do something, a blog or a thread perhaps, to explain how you see it? I’d love to feel totally comfortable giving most of my alms via the LDS church.
Tom, I would love to write such a post, but I’m not going to write it – for one reason only: I have been asked not to do so.I spoke with someone about a particular question some time ago, and this person was very open with me – on the condition that I would not publicize the details of our discussion.
I am not aware of all that the Church gives– or to whom and how it gives, but that conversation was a real eye-opener for me. It made me step back and begin to look at the overall issue in a very different light. I feel comfortable sharing only a few of the broad outlines of the “charitable but not classified as such” aspect in vague categorical hints, so, realizing it is not providing what you really want . . .
1) Social Services
2) Employment
3) Welfare Assistance over and above Fast Offering contributions
4) Tangible, non-cash donations
5) Software
6) Service missions
7) Traditional humanitarian aid
Non-LDS, non-profit organizations 9) Education
10) Environmental Impact
I only am scratching the surface (really, the tip of the iceberg), and I won’t go further, but when even the amount of the resources that the Church pours into helping members and non-members alike of which I have become aware is calculated . . .
I will leave it at that. I know my initial statements sound hyperbolic, and there might be another organization that does more, but it would take a LOT to be more than what the Church does.
Old-Timer wrote:Tom, I would love to write such a post, but I’m not going to write it – for one reason only:
I have been asked not to do so.I spoke with someone about a particular question some time ago, and this person was very open with me – on the condition that I would not publicize the details of our discussion.
I am not aware of all that the Church gives– or to whom and how it gives, but that conversation was a real eye-opener for me. It made me step back and begin to look at the overall issue in a very different light. I feel comfortable sharing only a few of the broad outlines of the “charitable but not classified as such” aspect in vague categorical hints, so, realizing it is not providing what you really want . . .
1) Social Services
2) Employment
3) Welfare Assistance over and above Fast Offering contributions
4) Tangible, non-cash donations
5) Software
6) Service missions
7) Traditional humanitarian aid
Non-LDS, non-profit organizations 9) Education
10) Environmental Impact
I only am scratching the surface (really, the tip of the iceberg), and I won’t go further, but when even the amount of the resources that the Church pours into helping members and non-members alike of which I have become aware is calculated . . .
I will leave it at that. I know my initial statements sound hyperbolic, and there might be another organization that does more, but it would take a LOT to be more than what the Church does.
Ray, I’m not going to disagree with you–the Church does a LOT of good, but I stand by my original point. I don’t think the God of the universe, or Christ, cares about buildings more than people, and as long as there are people that need help, its tough to justify fancy buildings (keep in my, in a socialist libertarian so my whole life view is tainted by this). According to the Church, it gave 833 million dollars in humanitarian aid from 1985 to 2008, and an additional 233 million in cash for the same purposes. I’m not overlooking a billion dollars in aid over 24 years, but for 2007–last updated figures–the total amount given by religious organizations in the United States for humanitarian purposes was 100 BILLION–100 times the Church’s total of the last 24 years. Plenty of churches don’t do well enough to make a big contribution, so some of the churches out there are giving a heck of a lot–especially considering the fact that the LDS Church is considered the wealthiest in this country. I’ll leave my statement at this–I agree with you Ray, but I disagree with you.
ws – I understand your concern. I simply don’t share it. You have your perspective and figures; I have mine. I’m ok with that. I just want to point out that the numbers you cited don’t address my actual comments at all. In a way, that’s a good example of the heart of the issue on many things with which we struggle – reconciling what we see with what we desire.
ws, I think it’s ideal for us (you and me) to be able to have our steadfast vision of a “kingdom without bricks and mortar” while still appreciating that bricks and mortar are meaningful in some useful way to a whole lot of people. I’m not going to claim I appreciate it as I should, but I am at least coming to the point where I can say, “The LDS religion is far from perfect. But it’s a giant step in the right direction for a lot of people.” I think that implies that for a lot of people, giving their time and money to temples is a huge step in the right direction. And I’ve got to quit begrudging that. At least, that’s how I see my growth duty. Tom
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.