- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Tom Haws wrote:
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 are right Tom, plenty of Church members and the Church itself are headed in the right direction. It’s easy to overlook that and expect more, and in one sense, that is a flaw of mine. I’m sure my comments haven’t done a good enough job of saying that I really do think the Church does lots of good with its finances. My very original point was simply the idea that saving X amount of dollars per Temple, and giving that amount to a specific life saving cause, would be very similar to fast offerings. No matter what the Church has done to this point,
it has the capacity to do more–that is all I’m saying. Some of my comments may have been too harsh, and that’s my fault. I guess I hold the Church to a very high standard because it claims to be Christ’s one true church, because it does do good things, and because its in a very secure financial position. I don’t claim to be right, I’m just sharing an opinion that I believe has somemerit. I respect that, ws – and I actually can agree in principle with the general concern. I sympathize with wordsleuth on his last point. I think maybe we all hold the church to incredibly high standards. Maybe that is why its weaknesses sometimes shake us the way they do. I think one thing that comforts me is that I believe God and His Son are working through out this earth on many different fronts and through all different kinds of people. While I think the gospel was restored in this one part of the vineyard, I don’t think this church is the only tool in God’s tool belt. I feel comforted by that. We don’t have to feel like we have to solve every earthly problem in every country and for every individual. Nor do we need to feel like we need to do it all today. There is personal responsibility here too with regards to governments and agencies and individuals. Some need help. Some needed help before the help could come. I am not downplaying any suffering or the responsibility we have to each other. I am just saying that we must not run faster than we have strength. And we mustn’t get so fixated on one world problem that we forget the commands of God in other areas.
There is my two cents for the week.
Quote:Tom Haws said…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.
Tom, last year I found a web site that told what many churches give; the LDS was close to a billion. Years ago I learned the LDS church gives the Salvation Army a lot of money and chapels they no longer need because they help a lot of LDS that fall through the church’s cracks. The chapel across from the old Arcade theatre is one of them.
wordsleuth23 wrote:You are right Tom, plenty of Church members and the Church itself are headed in the right direction. It’s easy to overlook that and expect more, and in one sense, that is a flaw of mine. I’m sure my comments haven’t done a good enough job of saying that I really do think the Church does lots of good with its finances. My very original point was simply the idea that saving X amount of dollars per Temple, and giving that amount to a specific life saving cause, would be very similar to fast offerings. No matter what the Church has done to this point,
it has the capacity to do more–that is all I’m saying. Some of my comments may have been too harsh, and that’s my fault. I guess I hold the Church to a very high standard because it claims to be Christ’s one true church, because it does do good things, and because its in a very secure financial position. I don’t claim to be right, I’m just sharing an opinion that I believe has somemerit.
Well said wordsleuth23. Although I think we cannot be faulted for holding the church and its leaders to a very high standard (because of their claims), it doesn’t make it the right thing to do. In some sense we are foolish for holding something/someone to an impossibly high standard (despite their claims).Quote:poppyseed said…There is my two cents for the week.
Your two cents worth left a very comforting feeling inside today, thanks.
Quote:wordsleuth said…The Church could do more in this area.
Quote:Jeriboy said…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.
Quote:wordsleuth…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?
Wordsleuth, sounds like I may have hit a raw nerve, sure didn’t mean to do that. The first part about helping the poor…your reply very much overstates my intent…no matter how much we ALL do, their will always be the poor…that’s what I meant…as to the gay issue, the church supported prop 8 and I supported the church…last of all ” I would be real careful with that one.”…that’s just my personal (mental/emotional) response to to your willingness to be critical of the church, but, on the real world level, by all means, go for it, I support your right to say what you want, and I hope we both support each others right to an exchange of ideas.
jeriboy wrote:Wordsleuth, sounds like I may have hit a raw nerve, sure didn’t mean to do that. The first part about helping the poor…your reply very much overstates my intent…no matter how much we ALL do, their will always be the poor…that’s what I meant…as to the gay issue, the church supported prop 8 and I supported the church…last of all ” I would be real careful with that one.”…that’s just my personal (mental/emotional) response to to your willingness to be critical of the church, but, on the real world level, by all means, go for it, I support your right to say what you want, and I hope we both support each others right to an exchange of ideas.
I guess I still don’t understand your point jeri; because there will always be poor people we shouldn’t maximize our ability to help them? My original point was the idea that the Church has the ability/capacity to do more, i.e., reduce spending on material things like Temples, and use that money for specific humanitarian causes. The reason I referenced Prop 8 is because it is an example of the Church fighting something that will always exist. There will always be gays/gay couples, and soon enough, there will be gay marriage in most of our country; yet the Church chose to fight something it will inevitably “lose”.
Helping the poor isn’t a zero-sum game–it doesn’t have to be completely eradicated for it to be worth fighting. As for my “criticism” of the Church–I’m an agnostic Mormon–meaning I’m culturally linked, but I have no belief in the Church. Not only that, but most of this website consists of things that would be considered critical by mainstream Mormons. You haven’t offended me, I respect your right to exchange ideas, and I enjoy a good friendly debate, so no hard feelings.
wordsleuth23 wrote:I guess I still don’t understand your point jeri; because there will always be poor people we shouldn’t maximize our ability to help them? My original point was the idea that the Church has the ability/capacity to do more, i.e., reduce spending on material things like Temples, and use that money for specific humanitarian causes. The reason I referenced Prop 8 is because it is an example of the Church fighting something that will always exist. There will always be gays/gay couples, and soon enough, there will be gay marriage in most of our country; yet the Church chose to fight something it will inevitably “lose”.
I really am a mixed bag on this one. I think our temples are costly, and I’m not a fan of buying shopping malls, and I do think the church could spend more to help the poor (but I have no proof since they won’t release their financial record, a topic for another day). At the same time, I look at my own life. Do I spend every spare dollar helping the poor? No. Does that mean I don’t care about them, or want to help them? No. I spend money on nice things for myself, that I certainly don’t always “need.” Does that mean I don’t care about the poor? No. I think the church is still in fear mode when it comes to finances. Remember that once upon a time the church was nearly bankrupt, and had it not been for an emphasis on tithing, they would have gone under.Your point about Prop 8 is well taken. I’m not sure why we don’t stand up for life, and get rid of the death penalty. That seems to me to be worse than gay marriage. Nevertheless, what the church does with its money is really not that critical to me. I understand why people criticize it, and I have in the past a lot. I guess I just don’t care much anymore. I think this has to do with detaching myself and life from the church as an institution, and instead focusing on my own spirituality and using the church as a tool.
This is Ray. I deleted this entire comment, jeriboy, because discussing something is NOT name-calling and derision and slighting someone else’s faith – and that is exactly what your comment did. jeriboy, It was and is extremely difficult to put into words the mission of this site and the target audience. And perhaps there is room to debate how well it has been done. The current front page wording stands like this:
Quote:StayLDS.com is dedicated to helping people who are struggling in some way to remain involved in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
And in the first linked document (“
An overview of our approachQuote:While we fully support those who choose orthodoxy, and while we continue to strive to understand those who feel the need to leave — we write this essay to let people know that there can also be a “middle way” within Mormonism that lies between orthodox, literalistic observance and complete abandonment.
(You may want to skim the entire
How to Stay LDSI think he wanted a community that would be a relief and a support to those LDS who feel their old LDS religious foundations have dissolved, shifted, or snapped underneath them. Or to people who feel their previous LDS perspective is no longer robust and fit enough for the realities of their present life. He wanted a community of people who desired to make a new spiritual meaning for themselves within the LDS Church and religion–people who just wanted to stay if there were any possible place for them in all their non-piccolo awkwardness.
Yes, jb, it was assumed by John, I think, that many of his target audience would be so heterodox as to say, “It’s not what I thought it was, but it is a good church, and I believe perhaps I may be able to come to say in some way that it is even true.”
I’m rambling, so I’ll go ahead and raise my hand as one who says, “Sure, any church would do. But I’m LDS.” “It’s my church too. I’m here to stay. You can love me or hate me; I’m going to do my best to choose love.” “Joseph Smith was a prophet, and hopefully so are we.” “Joseph Smith had a vision of the Highest. Have you?”
The point of all this is that, yes, most of us are, or desire to be, believers. But that may not mean what any given person expects it to mean. We want to respect the leaders of the church and have faith in their innate human goodness, combined with the weight of their responsibilities. And I likewise would want to have respect and faith in the Pope, the Dalai Lama, and the President of the United States.
Aww, man! I’ve talked too much. Now I can’t say anything about helping the poor vs. “sell all and give to the poor”. Maybe later.
Quote:Tom Haws said…I think he wanted a community that would be a relief and a support to those LDS who feel their old LDS religious foundations have dissolved, shifted, or snapped underneath them. Or to people who feel their previous LDS perspective is no longer robust and fit enough for the realities of their present life. He wanted a community of people who desired to make a new spiritual meaning for themselves within the LDS Church and religion–people who just wanted to stay if there were any possible place for them in all their non-piccolo awkwardness.
Yes, jb, it was assumed by John, I think, that many of his target audience would be so heterodox as to say, “It’s not what I thought it was, but it is a good church, and I believe perhaps I may be able to come to say in some way that it is even true.”
I’m rambling, so I’ll go ahead and raise my hand as one who says, “Sure, any church would do. But I’m LDS.” “It’s my church too. I’m here to stay. You can love me or hate me; I’m going to do my best to choose love.” “Joseph Smith was a prophet, and hopefully so are we.” “Joseph Smith had a vision of the Highest. Have you?”
The point of all this is that, yes, most of us are, or desire to be, believers. But that may not mean what any given person expects it to mean. We want to respect the leaders of the church and have faith in their innate human goodness, combined with the weight of their responsibilities. And I likewise would want to have respect and faith in the Pope, the Dalai Lama, and the President of the United States.
Aww, man! I’ve talked too much. Now I can’t say anything about helping the poor vs. “sell all and give to the poor”. Maybe later.
Tom thank you, I assume you might be suggesting I just might not be adjusting to this blog, if that’s the case I would be happy to go else where. So if your in charge be good enough spell it out and say so. If this is all about people who have no interest in that golden thread i refered to, I also think I should go else where.
jeriboy wrote:Tom thank you, I assume you might be suggesting I just might not be adjusting to this blog, if that’s the case I would be happy to go else where. So if your in charge be good enough spell it out and say so. If this is all about people who have no interest in that golden thread i refered to, I also think I should go else where.
jeriboy,I have to admit that I had trouble figuring out where you were coming from, at first. Now I understand that you are a believing but less-active LDS who struggles with the Church in a somewhat different way than most of us. But I also recognize the similarities in our struggles. I’m cool with that.
You ARE welcome here, but your issues are different from most of the folks here. As long as we all understand the different nature of our individual struggles, I think we can all get along.
HiJolly
jeriboy, I will say this one more time – as directly as I can: I also would like to have you continue here, but to throw out claims that seem to imply that we don’t value a testimony of the spirit – that just isn’t accurate for many of us, and it’s really hard to respond without an edge. All I have asked all along is that you respect and value where everyone else is coming from and how they are trying to work through their own issues.
One more thing:
I love your comments when you focus on your own experiences and feelings and share your life and struggles. What is hard is when you seem to be challenging and dismissing others – and, especially, the comment where you essentially just called wordsleuth names and challenged his righteousness. That’s just not what we are about here.
If you can understand what we are trying to say, I think all of us would like to see you continue here; if not . . . that’s up to you, in the end. If you leave, I really hope you can find a better fit – and I think a site like By Common Consent or Times and Seasons might be perfect for you.
jeriboy wrote:Tom thank you, I assume you might be suggesting I just might not be adjusting to this blog….
I don’t know. I certainly don’t feel I or the community would be better off with your absence. I think, as HiJolly said, the important thing is to understand and respect the different nature of the struggles each of us have. There are probably some general “traditions” of the fledgling community that happen to have held true recently. That doesn’t perhaps make them sacred. You may want to explicitly help us examine them in other threads. However, it’s probably fair to ask you to read the How To Stay LDS document.
Ray and Valoel and John,
As hard a balancing act as it is, it may be wise to consider again tweaking the first sentences of the
http://www.staylds.com intro. I don’t think it’s giving the right first impression. It’s kind of unfair to jeriboy and others to present a description that doesn’t really prepare him for the core mission of the community. Why not have the clause at the end that’s in the title of the How To Stay LDS essay?Instead of this:
Quote:StayLDS.com is dedicated to helping people who are struggling in some way to remain involved in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Why not this?
Quote:StayLDS.com is dedicated to helping people who are struggling in some way to remain involved in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints after a major shift in (or challenge to) their faith.
Tom
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.