- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Featherina wrote:Roy wrote:
Now to answer the original question. I do not believe that my understanding of Jesus would own a shopping mall…but then again I’m not entirely sure that he would belong to a church or organized religion.
Agreed, but I hadn’t thought of it that way before.
Except that he did belong to a church and organized religion. He read in the synagogues, was obviously trained as a rabbi who then went and called disciples (only the second of two rabbis known to call disciples rather than have young students request discipleship).
He went to the temple as a boy and was questioning, typical educational path of an orthodox Jewish boy His age of his day.
His parents offered sacrifice, had him circumcised, and followed traditional law. He observed Passover and other Jewish feasts, etc.
I think when we take Him out of His clearly Jewish religious context, we miss the point that He changed the church from the INSIDE. He didn’t throw stones at it from the OUTSIDE.
Now where it gets interesting for me is that there were branches of Judaism (Pharisees, Saducees, Orthodox, Essenes, etc) and He never seemed to care about whether people believed the specifically right things. He cared about whether they lived what they did believe.
In other words, He didn’t call people heretics but He did call them hypocrites.
This tells me that there is a much bigger tent than organized religion often recognizes and that wherever we find ourselves, we need to be practicing human kindness and living the two great laws – love God and love our neighbors – rites, rituals, and dogma notwithstanding.
We need like buttons on this board. Mercy I love your post. We do forget that he was an active member of the Jewish faith. Thanks for the beautifully written reminder. mom3 wrote:We need like buttons on this board. Mercy I love your post. We do forget that he was an active member of the Jewish faith. Thanks for the beautifully written reminder.
:thumbup: Likemercyngrace wrote:I think when we take Him out of His clearly Jewish religious context, we miss the point that He changed the church from the INSIDE. He didn’t throw stones at it from the OUTSIDE.
He TRIED to change it from the inside, but they crucified him.Then Christianity branched off into a completely new religion, one, IMO not completely based on Jesus’ original teachings.
Quote:Now where it gets interesting for me is that there were branches of Judaism (Pharisees, Saducees, Orthodox, Essenes, etc) and He never seemed to care about whether people believed the specifically right things. He cared about whether they lived what they did believe.
In other words, He didn’t call people heretics but He did call them hypocrites.
This tells me that there is a much bigger tent than organized religion often recognizes and that wherever we find ourselves, we need to be practicing human kindness and living the two great laws – love God and love our neighbors – rites, rituals, and dogma notwithstanding.
This is so interesting, how you put this.It sounds like Buddha – how religiously tolerant & even embracing he was & taught.
And I like how you concluded with what is most important is (1) loving God & (2) loving others as ourselves.
The scripture continues,
“On these 2 commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”-Matt 22:40 Featherina wrote:mercyngrace wrote:I think when we take Him out of His clearly Jewish religious context, we miss the point that He changed the church from the INSIDE. He didn’t throw stones at it from the OUTSIDE.
He TRIED to change it from the inside, but they crucified him.Then Christianity branched off into a completely new religion, one, IMO not completely based on Jesus’ original teachings.
True – they crucified Him – but the rest may be debatable. His converts were Jews and evidence points to the fact that they saw themselves as Jewish followers of Christ. Take for example the contention over whether gentiles could fully come into the faith or whether circumcision was a requirement for a Christian. The early church follows a fascinating trajectory as it passed beyond the boundaries of Judaism.
That’s kind of beside your point though. I agree that Christ came to shake the ancient church at its core and I think He would do the same today.
Featherina wrote:
Quote:Hi Mike,
I understand & agree that the “survival of the fittest” mentality is not Christ-like.
Yet, I hope that you remember that there are good people at church.
My dad knows it’s a crock & has known for a while, but he still goes to church (just Sacrament meeting) because he’s made friends & enjoys people there.
I still go to church, mostly for my kids, & because I have a calling.
The way I see it & explain to my kids, is that every organization is going to have problems, we just need to find what will help us, take the good & leave the bad. I constantly remind my kids of what is good & what is wrong, of what they’ve been taught, which also helps remind myself.
Maybe this is naive, but I do have a glimmer of hope that the people in the church will wake up & demand change & for the church to promote more Christlike behavior. We might be able to help in this, if we feel inspired that it would be best for us in our unique circumstances.
Featherina, I do understand (& completely agree) that there are good people at church. I also have good friends in my ward that I feel close to.
The part I have difficulty with sometimes is when the organization (church) seems to be run like a business.
My activity now seems to be similar to your Father. I am open to increase my participation if moved by the spirit to do so.
My wife has a calling in the nursery & loves it. We are taking it slow for now.
Mike from Milton.
Back to the Original Question…He does own the shopping mall…he owns the entire universe and everything in it. I don’t think it’s in his teachings or personality to want shopping malls anywhere.
The bottom line is all He has to do is blink.
Also I am of the idea that He would much rather the church feed and shelter the homeless.
For just a second, I’m going to take the church’s side on this. I don’t know. It doesn’t seem like a big deal. I agree, in general, that highly visible investments by the church are not really desirable, but I understand why the church is both justified in investing and why they would invest in this particular venture.
I’ll caveat this by saying that, as I’ve said before here, I wish the church were less draconian about demanding tithing from its members, and the church’s financial power makes that a particularly sore subject. But that is not what the present discussion is about… it’s about whether it’s proper to invest in building of a mall…
Why I think it’s OK: As others have mentioned, the church has assets. It would actually be irresponsible simply to hide their money under a rock somewhere in the hills. It would be just as irresponsible to spend of the church’s income each year so that no money is ever left over. Instead, they invest their assets in order to generate additional income. The church is far-reaching. 120-something temples, meetinghouses in places like Indonesia and Indiana, 300 missions, institutes, seminaries, advertisements, internal welfare system, external humanitarian efforts. For good or ill, the church has to be run like a corporation. Corporations invest money to make money. The difference is that as a not-for-profit, the church uses its profits to help fund its programs. Building of a mall is not the purpose of the money, the building of the mall is an investment to make more money. More money = more ability to do what the church is trying to do. Can you imagine the LDS church if it were bankrupt? How many temples, meetinghouses, missions could the church sustain?
Why I think they are in this particular investment: By a mile, the church’s most recognizable icon is Temple Square. In many ways, it is the church’s best missionary tool. Sure, you can send a missionary to every door in the world, but nothing can compare to strangers coming to TS to find out what the church is all about. It’s in the church’s own best interest to keep downtown vital. I don’t know about you, but there have been many times in my life I’ve looked at a rundown property in my neighborhood and thought ‘I should buy that place, fix it up, sell it for a profit, and at the same time that will improve my neighborhood’s value.’ Am I the only one? Also, and importantly, by being a major investor in the project, the church gains a say in how the whole thing will be done, and can ensure that the project enhances, rather than diminishes Temple Square’s prominence in the area.
As a point of reference, the RLDS bookstore, inside their temple, is open to sell you items on Sundays. The Vatican museum charges a fee. I recently saw Jim Bakker peddling a survivalist hand-crank generator on his show. The Islamic Republic of Iran is not just a corporation but a government, ruling over the 18th largest country in the world.
mercyngrace wrote:I agree that Christ came to shake the ancient church at its core and I think He would do the same today.
And what’s the saying?… “We are his hands.”Mike wrote:Featherina, I do understand (& completely agree) that there are good people at church. I also have good friends in my ward that I feel close to.
The part I have difficulty with sometimes is when the organization (church) seems to be run like a business.
My activity now seems to be similar to your Father. I am open to increase my participation if moved by the spirit to do so.
My wife has a calling in the nursery & loves it. We are taking it slow for now.
I agree & am taking the same approach.Maybe I was trying to remind myself more than you, that there is good in this church – that the people are often very different than the top leaders, in actually expressed honesty & compassion.
Arwen wrote:I don’t think it’s in his teachings or personality to want shopping malls anywhere.
A shopping mall does seem to conflict with his teachings.Although some have tried to justify it by saying when Jesus taught the talents parable, he was teaching compound interest & captialism.
🙄 But based on the context, Jesus was teaching a spiritual law, not an economic one.
We each are given so much potential & it’s up to us to use it for as much good as possible, especially for keeping the greatest commandments of all: to love God & to love others as ourselves…”on these 2 commandments hang all the law & the prophets.” -Matt 22:40
Quote:The bottom line is all He has to do is blink.
I’d say all he has to do is hope that we will choose & learn to love & show compassion, above all.All will fail – this shopping mall, prophets, governments will eventually fail – but charity (the pure love of Christ) will never fail. -Moroni 7:52
Quote:Also I am of the idea that He would much rather the church feed and shelter the homeless.
Exactly!Considering there are currently almost 1,000,000,000 men, women & children hungry – more than ever in history – there is much work to be done!
It is sad that it is not on the news that more than 20,000 men, women & children died today… “8,000 children dead of malaria, 5,000 mothers and fathers dead of tuberculosis, 7,500 young adults dead of AIDS & thousands more dead of diarrhea, respiratory infection, & other killer diseases that prey on bodies weakened by chronic hunger.” -Jeffrey D. Sachs
Sometimes it’s a 20 cent shot that is needed.
Deut 14:28-29 specifically states that 1/3 of TITHES are to be given to the poor.
Interestingly, if you search “tithing” in LDS bible indexes & dictionaries, this scripture is not listed.
I think OOO makes a fair point. JS was a warm guy who was total crap as a financier, resulting in mass exodus from the church. Now we have leaders who are cold but fiscally responsible, and it’s a black eye, too. Jesus would certainly not own a shopping mall, but Peter, James & John might have cooked up this sort of idea to legitimize Christianity if they had the funds to do it. We’re certainly not in the ballpark of the Vatican by a long shot. Now that’s extravagance! Plus, one of the popes had all the hoo-hahs whacked off priceless greek statues because he felt they were obscene. No, I’m not crazy about it. I definitely think we should be doing much much more for the poor with no hope of reward in converts. But so long as it doesn’t lose money on the investment, I think the parable of the talents is a good analogy for it. If it yields a gain in terms of an appreciable asset, it means more ability to help the poor in the future. Giving directly to the poor is not an investment that yields dividends to help more poor (except projects like kiva and other microloans).
OnOwnNow, I understand basic economics.
And if the church wasn’t robbing from the poor, but giving the poor 1/3 of TITHES, I’d be more supportive of investments.
But as it is, the church leadership have chosen to prioritize corporate involvement (money making) over the needs of the poor.
This is completely against what Jesus Christ taught & IMO is disrespectful to use His name to make money without prioritizing the poor.
Never before in history, has there been so many in need: The World Health Organization states that almost 1,000,000,000 are starving.
Tens of thousands will die today, as they did yesterday, of preventable causes.
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm No LDS tithing goes to the poor… If the church followed Deut 14:28-29 & gave 1/3 of tithes to the poor, consider how much good it could do – in providing basic clean water, schools etc.?
Church leaders keep finances secret, but it is estimated that less than 1% of church funds go to help the poor:
[
The link was deleted,because it is to an explicitly anti-Mormon site – that, for example, “calls on the LDS Church to cease its bogus vicarious work for the dead”. Our policies don’t allow links to anti-Mormon sites.] This is unacceptable & is why I no longer pay tithing to the church, but directly to those in need.
For those interested, here is a charity navigator which shows detailed info about charities, including financial transparency:
hawkgrrrl wrote:I think the parable of the talents is a good analogy for it. If it yields a gain in terms of an appreciable asset, it means more ability to help the poor in the future. Giving directly to the poor is not an investment that yields dividends to help more poor (except projects like kiva and other microloans).
But they hardly help the poor… & rob the poor of 1/3 of TITHES. -Deut 14:28-29And do you honestly believe Jesus was trying to teach compound interest and capitalism when he taught the parable of the talents?
Everything he taught was based on the 2 greatest commandments: to love God & to love others as ourselves… “on these 2 commandments hang all the laws and the prophets.” -Matt 22:40
“Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these, ye have done it unto me…
Inasmuch as ye have NOT done it unto one of the least of these, ye have NOT done it unto me.” -Matt 25:40,45
Let’s put the PARABLE of the talents in context… (Matt 25) Before teaching it, Jesus taught about the 10 prepared virgins… about reponsibility & keeping the big picture in mind, in our priorities.
Then he taught the parable of the talents – how 2 used their talents wisely, but 1 did not.
What does “wisely” mean?
He explains in the next parable of dividing the sheep from the goats…
He says to the sheep,
“Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherity the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was hungred, & ye have me meat: I was thirsty, & ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, & ye took me in: Naked, & ye clothed me: I was sick, & ye visited me: I was in prison, & ye came unto me.Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, & fed thee? or thirsty, & gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, & took thee in? or naked, & clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, & came unto thee?
And the King shall answer & say unto them, Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil & his angels: For I was an hungred, & ye gave me no meat: I was thristy, & ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, & ye took me not in: naked & ye clothed me not: sick, & in prison, & ye visited me not.
Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, & did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you,
Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the rightous into life eternal.” In the parable of the talents, Jesus was teaching the Lord who was mad at the one who hid his talent was not mad at him for not making money, but for not using his money to bless others as himself(the 2 greatest commandments, which “ hang all the law & the prophets“/profits). “According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty. And they “die quietly in some of the poorest villages on earth, far removed from the scrutiny and the conscience of the world. Being meek and weak in life makes these dying multitudes even more invisible in death.”
http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
- The topic ‘Would Jesus Own a Shopping Mall?’ is closed to new replies.