Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I feel out of my element, defending the church so much… but Featherina, the goal of the church is not to feed every hungry person in the world. If it were, the church would have collapsed in utter failure by the end of summer, 1830. The goal of the church is to spread its gospel to every corner of the world. Along the way, the church has provided spiritual and fiscal aid to countless people. I’ve seen first-hand the good the the church can do simply by giving hope and a sense of purpose, where none existed before, regardless of any monetary aid. I’ve seen the care that members give to each other without dollars ever exchanging hands. The church PROVIDES for its own poor in very substantial ways, not all of which involve the church’s welfare system. I agree that if you want to make donations that will directly help feed the poor in Africa, then there are better ways to make that happen. But beware. You can find televangelists that have a program to feed a kid in some poor country. It only costs 1.70/day. But what they don’t tell you is that they collect a “passthrough” charge. It’s their fee for handling your money and getting the food into the hands of the child. You give 1.70/day, and they keep some percentage of it as passthrough. They are making money on the transaction between your giving, and the child’s need.
On the other hand, the LDS Church has built a temple in Ghana. It was not funded by tithing the members of Ghana, and it provides no monetary investment. In fact, the Ghana Temple is a money-loser for the church. Yet, I guarantee you that there are many members of the church in western Africa who count it as the most wonderful blessing in their lives.
Although I am an Atheist now, I have absolutely no regrets that I served as a missionary, because I saw the direct result of the good that the gospel brought to the lives of poor people. The church could never hope to gain financially from such people. But the church provided a light in their lives. I’m glad for them. I’m glad I was able to give them something, even if it’s now something I don’t believe in. If they still follow it, and it continues to help them, then… wonderful. The church uses its investments to further its own goals. While a person may disagree with the GOALS of the church, honestly, I have a hard time faulting the church for wisely investing money in order to increase its ability to achieve its goals.
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.
Interesting quandary, and one I’ve faced as well. I’ve enjoyed reading the other posters to see their thoughts. I echo mercyngrace’s comment that this site is a great place to discuss harder questions, because the general population here is much more open to alternate views. It’s actually one of the things I really appreciate about this site; you can say things here that you can never say in church, and sometimes hearing yourself say something outloud (or reading what you’ve written) is a great way to verify that you really believe something. A couple of thoughts on how to abide situations like the one you were in.
First of all, I’d consider Joseph Smith to be a type of socialist. That’d be a bombshell to blurt out in class, so there’s no good that could come from it. But in your own mind, in your own heart, you can chuckle to yourself and feel a little better that you get it. You don’t need to convince anybody in order to enjoy the irony.
More importantly, when a teacher or another class member is making statements that follow the party line, but which you don’t accept, at least for me, I find no need to interject. I respect that they feel that way… that’s their choice. Getting into a debate would only cheapen both of our beliefs. I don’t need to comment on everything in order to be filled with the knowledge that good people are trying to seek good. People on this site have wildly different ideas about the gospel from me. So be it. I applaud their personalization of the concepts into something that they can hold firm to. It’s really no different at church, except that the opinion expressed happens to be the majority, rather than minority one. So, what works for me, is simply to look at someone else’s faith and find the good in it.
I have spent quite a bit of time in the church as a Gospel Doctrine teacher. I always prepared my lessons with a main point that I would build towards throughout the lesson. I didn’t necessarily want a bunch of random comments about “when I read this chapter I thought of my Aunt who used to make apple pies in the fall and…” because it would throw off the rhythm. I’m not saying that I didn’t want participation, because I did, but I always tried to seek it in fairly narrow ways to stay on the basic arc of the lesson… still moving forward to a final meaning. A common practice, but one I don’t really like, is broad, unfocussed questions, like “does anyone want to share a personal experience about prayer?” Those will kill any organization to a lesson. On the same token, adding unsolicited comments is probably going to cause more awkward moments that positive ones. I’m not saying you have to stay silent, but maybe look more for opportunities to add value to what the teacher is trying to get to, rather than stating an off-topic personal platform.
One thing I’ve always tried to do when I’m giving a talk or a lesson, is to avoid preaching a concept. If it’s something we could do better, I turn it onto myself as an example of something I need to improve on… and try to say something like, “you know sometimes I start feeling like I’m doing OK, then when I read this passage, I don’t know, it was kind of a kick to the gut, because I realized that I’m not doing all the things that God expects me to do…” Then I go on to talk about it in a personal level. That way it doesn’t come across like I’m challenging other people. Rather, I’m admitting that I could do a better job, and most listeners will project that onto themselves, which is what I want anyway. Thing is, we are all in this together, so if we bring it down to a personal level, then the talk/lesson comes across as two comrades (that’s for you TT) that need help from each other. Maybe, when you have very good thoughts, like the taking care of the poor section, you could couch it in those terms instead of asking others if they are doing enough.
Anyway, those are just some thoughts. Your mileage may vary.
-On Own Now
My concept of JS is that he was more LIKE other people than unlike them… but that there was something about him that was compelling to people. One thing I know about him is that he wanted other people with him in all this, and valued his friendships much more than seems likely, had he been nothing but a swindler. Here’s a quote from Amasa Lyman who related the experience of meeting JS for the first time, a few months after joining the church:
Quote:Of the impressions produced I will here say, although there was nothing strange or different from other men in his personal appearance, yet, when he grasped my hand in that cordial way (known to those who have met him in the honest simplicity of truth), I felt as one of old in the presence of the Lord, my strength seemed to be gone, so that it required an effort on my part to stand on my feet; but in all this there was no fear, but the serenity and peace of heaven pervaded my soul, and the still small voice of the spirit whispered its living testimony in the depths of my soul, where it has ever remained, that he was the Man of God. –Amasa Lyman
What Wayfarer said. But I’ll also add a couple of thoughts. I think the Gospel of Thomas has some shadows and echoes of Jesus’ words, but they are hard to cull out because those sayings fell into the hands of the Gnostics who put their own words in his mouth. That’s not unique to them or to the GoT, but the GoT is what we are talking about here. I think the following is a good example:
hawkgrrrl wrote:107 Jesus said, “The kingdom is like a shepherd who had a hundred sheep. One of them, the largest, went astray. He left the ninety-nine and looked for that one until he found it. When he had gone to such trouble, he said to the sheep, ‘I care for you more than the ninety-nine.'”
Here, a familiar saying has been inflated with extra meaning. ‘Jesus came to save us, and he loved us more than all the others, because we are the best of the sheep.’ Generally, not always, but generally, I feel that when you have two forms of a story, one more succinct and one more developed, that usually the shorter is more true to the original, as it is natural for people to expand teachings… Our own stories that we tell at parties get bigger and better, for example. In the above case, Jesus’ own life tells you that the form of the story we have in the canonical gospels is probably more like the original… after all, Jesus was viewed as somewhat of a coo-koo for associating with the lower elements of society. Paul reminded next-generation Christians in Rome that Jesus “died for the ungodly” and that “we were yet sinners” and even God’s “enemies” when Jesus died for us. So 107 sounds like a later, elitist addition.
In the period of early Christianity, there were wildly competing philosophies that make the modern difference between Baptists, Catholics, JWs and Mormons seem inconsequential. You had the issue of whether Christianity was a form of Judaism or no (Christian Jews or Jewish Christians?). There were those that tried to sin as much as possible in order to give extra glory to the power of the atonement. Some thought that the God of the OT was a lesser God. All kinds of weird perceptions of the cosmos (which is where the Gnostics come in). The Gnostics had a belief that there had been secret teachings that Jesus had conveyed only to his most trusted followers, and that this knowledge (gnosis) was necessary for their form of salvation. I’ve heard this compared to our Temple concept, and, indeed, there are interesting parallels… but at the same time, it also seems a little like people that sell non-standard remedies and they always pitch it as “we know secrets that the doctors don’t want you to know… and for only 49.95 a month, we will let you in on it”… that idea of secret knowledge can be a powerful driver…
Unfortunately, Gnostic beliefs are stamped hard onto the Gospel of Thomas, rendering it of marginal value (to me). Oneness (male and female becoming one, among others) is one of those beliefs. Jesus did apparently teach a form of unity, like Wayfarer said, but the Gnostics took it soaring to new heights, so when I see difficult to parse statements like those in 22 and 114, I just shrug my shoulders and wish we had an earlier version of the teaching, if one even existed.
First, a priesthood blessing is a specific ordinance, but it is not required for healing. We typically pray for those that are sick, the the assumption that God can grant our prayers. We fast for those that need physical healing. And we have the prayer roll. I would not say that those are secondary to priesthood blessing in any way. In fact, based on the general stance of the church on related issues, I don’t think the church would assume that God would be unwilling to heal a faithful person in need just because a priesthood holder wasn’t available. But to the specific question of blessings at a distance, there is this:
John 4:46So Jesus came again into Cana of Galilee, where he made the water wine. And there was a certain nobleman, whose son was sick at Capernaum.
47When he heard that Jesus was come out of Judaea into Galilee, he went unto him, and besought him that he would come down, and heal his son: for he was at the point of death.
48Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe.
49The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child die.
50Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way.
51And as he was now going down, his servants met him, and told him, saying, Thy son liveth.
52Then enquired he of them the hour when he began to amend. And they said unto him, Yesterday at the seventh hour the fever left him.
53So the father knew that it was at the same hour, in the which Jesus said unto him, Thy son liveth: and himself believed, and his whole house.
Afterall, Obviously it’s not church doctrine or policy. Usually when I hear something really strange like that attributed to what someone told someone else, I just assume miscommunication.
I used to love going to the temple. Just being in the Celestial Room without any other concern in the world was a wonderful thing, and something I dearly miss. I clearly remember walking along a dirt road on my mission and looking up at the bright stars on a moonless night and the feeling coming over me how I knew why we are here, the purpose of our lives and how it all fit together so beautifully. I miss that, too. I remember the emotion of having a prayer answered, when I sought to know if the BofM were true. I never pray anymore. I remember the excitement of hearing a prophet speak in person, but he’s gone now, and I’ve lost the excitement. I remember home teaching with my dad, playing games with friends out on the church lawn after mutual, the first time I taught someone to pray, big family dinners on fast sundays, giving a blessing to a child while concerned parents looked on, embracing a man that I’d baptized when I visited him a year later, family home evening when my kids were little, a favorite religion class at BYU, my first kiss (at a stake dance), prayer with about 40 missionaries every night at the MTC, being baptized, a particularly fun camp-out when I was a priest, standing next to my wife who was so beautiful in her wedding dress in front of the temple; unable to wipe the smile off my face. It’s why I can’t be against the church. It was the fuel that provided happiness for most of my life.
SD, I struggle with many of the same concerns as you. But I also know, as Heber13 pointed out, that services is a necessary and wonderful way to keep from getting too self-absorbed. I think the issue for many of us in our situations, is that when you are ASSIGNED to do service, it is less fulfilling. I know that, for me, I feel like if I live to be 150, and don’t donate any more time or money to the Church, I will still be ahead of what most people in the world do. But that’s kind of unfair. I mean, people still need help.
Perhaps you could look for a specific calling where you can help, and just volunteer. Working with youth is a two-edged sword, because you work hard and sometimes your efforts go without any acknowledgement, but at the same time, there is opportunity for a lot of good. Maybe you could look for freelance opportunities… find somebody who isn’t expecting or asking for help. Find someone whose spouse is in Afghanistan and look for ways to help. Find an elderly person that is a widow/widower and do something nice for them. I used to know a woman that had lost her first husband in WWII. She’s gone now, but you and I could never have done enough kind things for her. The cynical side of me recognizes that many people in our society are free loaders and always have their hand out. But the reality is that most people never ask for help, and yet everyone could use a hand now and then. It’s very satisfying to provide un-requested assistance.
I think that integral to this discussion is the distinction be Prophet as an Oracle of God and the organization office of Prophet. I dispute the idea that the prophet, as the earthly head of the church won’t ever make a mistake. How about when the church went to 18 month missions for men, and then reversed the decision just 32 months later? I think, as a general rule, that it’s OK for the church to have a sort of authoritarian form of government. I mean, everyone here is a pretty independent thinker, but I believe the church would collapse if each ward voted for their bishop or on matters of policy, to be implemented locally. Each one of us has at least some ideas that we would change about the church if we could, but the sad reality is that if we at StayLDS collectively started our own church with all our own ideas, somehow I doubt that we would be as successful as Joseph Smith.
I believe that on matters of both doctrine and policy that the President of the Church (Prophet) and a majority of the Qof12 must be in agreement, and that should make for pretty steady hand guiding Church affairs.
But unless and until the Prophet says, “Thus saith the Lord…” which I don’t expect any time soon, then they are just acting as agents, not Oracles… and agents can make mistakes.
I agree with Ray’s points. I’m OK with the church saying that baptism, confirmation, endowment and sealing are saving ordinances, that it views as required, without having to affirm every aspect of those ordinances. That’s their prerogative. A mythology about the signs and tokens has built up in the church, because it’s common for religious adherents to overplay their hand, but that doesn’t mean that the whole Temple Ceremony is meaningless… not at all.
In religion, there are a number of concepts that are quite beautiful when taken figuratively, but quite uncomfortable when taken literally. Noah, Job, Jonah, Kolob, Sacrament, and Temple signs and tokens all fall into this category for me. It’s OK to look to the figurative meaning, and in my mind it enhances rather than cheapens the experience.
For example, Kolob is definitely symbolic (of Christ, read Abraham 3 all the way through, and look for the parallels), but is it also literal? Who cares? It’s OK if it’s not. It’s OK if it is. It’s OK if we say, “I don’t know.” The point of Abraham 3 is Christ, the spirit children of God, and the Plan of Salvation, not the stars.
I like the list and the concept. It’s a good reminder. Often, I find myself being steamrolled by life (work, especially) and just suck it up, without trying to change anything. We have choices, and choosing not to act (tolerating) is often one of our worst, but easiest choices. I find myself frequently bogged down in the mundane and not taking advantage of the wonder of being alive. Also, I laughed out loud when I read this:
Quote:often my kids’ negativity can really wear us down – we have teens
So true.
For me, the items from that list that affect me the most are 6, 7, 8, and 9.
In reality, I can’t change my career, but I can fill the rest of my life with more good, so that I minimize its soul-sucking power.
GBSmith wrote:The question I have, then, is the temple there to help us “frame our dedication to God” or is it necessary to our exaltation in a literal way such that without the signs, tokens, and keywords we can never return to the presence of God?
In my opinion, it’s the former; in Brigham Young’s opinion, it is the latter.
I just tend to look for the message behind the symbols more than some.
In the temple there are covenants that LDS adherents make. What if you don’t live up to your covenants, but you still know the signs and tokens… Of course, you don’t get in to heaven. What if you faithfully live the covenants, but forget the signs and tokens because you have a bad memory. I’m assuming you get into heaven anyway.
So, to me, the signs and tokens are just representative, in the interactive play that is the endowment, of our living up to the covenants that we have made.
Voted “Other”. JS clearly used Masonic symbols. BY institutionalized those symbols into something divine (my opinion). That doesn’t mean that it is just made up, though. I voted other, because I think the temple did try to coalesce various elements, including the ancient. For example, according to the NT, there was a veil in the temple (which was rent, when Jesus died on the cross). The temple altar is another component from the old world.
The matter of whether there is offense to be taken in the Masonic symbols is an interesting tidbit in Mormonology. To me, when I used to attend the temple, I was there more to BE IN the temple, or for the FEELING of the temple, than the specifics of the ritual. I’m guessing it’s the same for most of you. Given that, I would say that the temple rites, like all religious rituals, are less important, and the implication of them is more important. When a person is baptized, they are not literally washing away anything. If in NT times, the ritual had been defined as removing one hat and putting on another, then that’s what we’d be doing today, and we’d all talk about the rich symbolism of it. If some obscure person on a forum said, “imagine that baptism were immersing a person in water”, then we’d all kind of chuckle to ourselves. The temple ritual is just a progression of story, covenants, and personal acting in a play meant to represent the existence, purpose, and potential of mankind. JS and BY may have had a very human hand in forming the ritual itself, but they didn’t make up the ideas of the creation, the fall, the Messiah, commitment to God, and salvation. They just organized it into a tangible experience to be performed in a sacred occasion, allowing us to come near to God and to commit ourselves to him. In that way, it’s a parallel concept to baptism.
To me, it makes no difference whether some of the symbols that JS/BY built into the temple rites were borrowed or even stolen from Freemasonry, as long as the overall effect is the construction of a ritual that helps us frame our dedication to God.
