President Monson dedicates bank building

[Just_A_Guy]

Or wonder why there is no money available to put the prophets advice into action...

Just a simple example from our ward:

a few years ago the 1st pres. sent a letter asking to replace doors that have no window and install doors that have a window to avoid situations where men/women/kids are alone in the same room. Apparently there have been (false?) accusations against priesthood holders in the past.

Nothing happend the last 2 years. I asked my bishop recently, why. Simple answer: our ward doesn't have the funds...

I can just see the headline:

"Mormons Revamp 500 Existing Structures; Slash 2010 Humanitarian Aid Budget".

[Moksha]

I can just see the headline:

"Mormons Revamp 500 Existing Structures; Slash 2010 Humanitarian Aid Budget".

Maybe the extra investments this blessed bank brings in could help fund both.

[BenRaines]

I didn't read the whole thread but in this case a local religious leader was asked to give a dedicatory prayer for a new building. I have seen this done by men of other faiths and it was never a problem. In this case it is a local religious leader who actually represents about 40% of the states population who is doing it.

I personally see nothing wrong with it.

Who knows President Monson could also be a very large share holder in Zions as well as the church could. Perhaps a surprise to some but The Corporation of the First Presidency", I believe, has substantial stock holdings.

[Gwen]

there are a lot of ppl that could represent the church for such an event. why pres monson?

i do not consider pres monson a "local religious leader". he holds a general leadership position, he represents the church as a whole not the church in ut. biships, stake pres, etc are "local" religious leaders.

[john doe]

Well, considering that until 1960 the church had majority control of Zions Bank, and that to this day many church organizations still have accounts there, especially in the areas where the bank has a presence, it can be argued that the church, and its units, are still a major portion of the bank's business. Many banks invite their larger depositors to attend their functions. Pres. Monson, being the head of the organization that represents a large portion of their business, would be a logical invitee to a function.

For his part, Pres. Monson likely also saw it as a way to do something a little different with his wife, who is in poor health and I suspect enjoys getting out and being as active as her health will allow. He could shutter her up in their home all day and night if he wanted to, but I would guess that he thinks this type of thing is good for her.

[Just_A_Guy]

Maybe the extra investments this blessed bank brings in could help fund both.

As I already pointed out to you in this discussion, the Church owns neither the structure nor Zion's Bank.

[Moksha]

As I already pointed out to you in this discussion, the Church owns neither the structure nor Zion's Bank.

If the Church has absolutely no ownership or direct interest, why are they dedicating the bank?

[Just_A_Guy]

Why does a Baptist dedicate each session of the Senate?

[Moksha]

Why does a Baptist dedicate each session of the Senate?

So if a Ret. Navy Admiral was elected by the Senate to serve as their Chaplain in 2003, it only stands to follow that the President of the LDS Church would dedicate banks?

[Just_A_Guy]

So if a Ret. Navy Admiral was elected by the Senate to serve as their Chaplain in 2003, it only stands to follow that the President of the LDS Church would dedicate banks?

Yes. Unless you think that the right to invite a locally-respected minister of the gospel to invoke a blessing on a secular endeavor, is solely the prerogative of the United States Senate.

What is it that's bugging you here? That a prayer was offered in public? Or that Thomas S. Monson was caught hanging out with capitalists?

Edited May 23, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Moksha]

What is it that's bugging you here? That a prayer was offered in public? Or that Thomas S. Monson was caught hanging out with capitalists?

I knew from several posts ago that you misunderstood what I said. I am in no way upset with this dedication. In many ways it makes perfect sense. You want the place where your money is kept to be safe and what better way than with a dedicatory prayer. If I were arguing I would suggest a better example, than the Admiral being named as Chaplain of that session of the Senate, would be that of Cardinal Glick blessing his golf clubs.

[Just_A_Guy]

I knew from several posts ago that you misunderstood what I said. I am in no way upset with this dedication.

Good to know.

In many ways it makes perfect sense. You want the place where your money is kept to be safe and what better way than with a dedicatory prayer.

Agreed.

If I were arguing I would suggest a better example, than the Admiral being named as Chaplain of that session of the Senate, would be that of Cardinal Glick blessing his golf clubs.

One could argue that, but the logical inference would be that one equate the efforts of Zion's Bank's depositors to provide for the financial well-being of their families, roughly on a par with some guy trying to use divine power to stoke his own ego--while at the same time thinking it is just and proper for the millionaire's club more formally known as the United States Senate to invoke divine benediction over its own wheeling and dealing.

[Guest mormonmusic]

I've followed the discussion here. I think the word "dedicate" is part of the eyebrow-raising this particular dedication has garnered.

We dedicate temples to the work of the Lord. After dedication, only the clean and worthy are allowed to enter.

To have a prophet dedicate a bank seems to be putting a commercial enterprise on the same sanctity level as dedicating a temple, which is supposed to be above the world. I don't know exactly everything he said or the format of his dedication, but when I read the headline, that gave me a gentle shock.

Also, issues of money are sensitive, in my view, given the Church's deep resources. I think that's why they won't open the books to the public. Average people make huge sacrifices to give their 10% -- to have the Prophet take time out of his day to dedicate a particular financial institution seems to put banking on a far higher importance scale than I think it should -- to the rank and file viewers of the Church's business activities.

I think if President Monson was present to give an opening prayer, or a talk on morality in banking, or something industry specific, that would be still pushing the limits. I agree that someone else from the Church might have been a better choice so the importance of this banking event took its true place in the overall scheme of things. And to "dedicate" is a bit "off" in my view.

Also, I think dedicating a session of government is a different animal. Government and religious freedom, and the inspiration of government leaders to make right decisions is part of our religion -- mentioned in the Book of Mormon and latter-day prophet's commentary (about how nations should obey God to flourish, how we should elect righteous people to office, how God raised up righteous men to build a constitution, as well as the King Noah-like governments that drag their people down to hell through their policies). Also, government is for EVERYONE, so it's not like President Monson would be favoring or endorsing a particular group within society if he was present at, or invoked a blessing of some kind on a session of government.

Dedicating Zion's Bank seems like an endorsement that's out of place to me, notwithstanding the church's long history with it. The wards I've been in are militant about NOT allowing anyone in formal positions to endorse particular businesses. So, this seems like an inconsistent application of Church policy if the Prophet is dedicating a bank building. I've never heard of this happening before....

And finally, the argument that doing the dedication would help keep the Church funds safe doesn't seem that compelling to me either. I think the same could be accomplished with a private prayer of the twelve in the temple, or in personal prayers, not in a public forum.

Now, am I saying the Church is corrupt or that my faith is shaken -- no, and ultimately, I'll probably just end up trusting there's nothing wrong with it.

By the way, I'm not necessarily closed on this one, but those are my initial thoughts.

Edited May 24, 2010 by mormonmusic

[pam]

I somewhat disagree with this. Dedicating is not done just for temples. There have been other buildings and monuments that have been dedicated even by Prophets of the Church.

We dedicate graves as well.

[Just_A_Guy]

Dedicating Zion's Bank seems like an endorsement that's out of place to me, notwithstanding the church's long history with it. The wards I've been in are militant about NOT allowing anyone in formal positions to endorse particular businesses. So, this seems like an inconsistent application of Church policy if the Prophet is dedicating a bank building. I've never heard of this happening before....

I agree with you that this is odd. Whether endorsement was intended or not, that's certainly how it will be interpreted; and one can only hope that the bank will prove itself worthy of that implied endorsement.

Also, I think dedicating a session of government is a different animal. Government and religious freedom, and the inspiration of government leaders to make right decisions is part of our religion -- mentioned in the Book of Mormon and latter-day prophet's commentary (about how nations should obey God to flourish, how we should elect righteous people to office, how God raised up righteous men to build a constitution, as well as the King Noah-like governments that drag their people down to hell through their policies). Also, government is for EVERYONE, so it's not like President Monson would be favoring or endorsing a particular group within society if he was present at, or invoked a blessing of some kind on a session of government.

I would respectfully submit that in today's day and age, the bank that holds my deposits holds just as much power over my life--and that of my family--as does my government. It can make the proceeds of decades of hard labor, evaporate in an instant. It can turn me out of my home, take away my car, and initiate judicial proceedings to (quite literally) take the clothes off my back. It, or its affiliates, can make decisions that will influence the quality of my family's health care (even in a post-Obamacare world) and my children's education.

Government may be for everyone, but Zion's Bank is also available to anyone who chooses to use its services. Especially now that government has gotten into the banking business, the only real distinction between government and banks is that I voluntary subject myself to the power of the latter; whereas the former maintains its power over me by force of arms.

So, why do we acknowledge government's right to an apostolic blessing, but deny that right to a private enterprise? Surely not merely because the former happens to a standing army. Nor does it seem particularly likely that a more noble class of men work in the Capitol than on Wall Street.

Edited May 24, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest mormonmusic]

Government may be for everyone, but Zion's Bank is also available to anyone who chooses to use its services. Especially now that government has gotten into the banking business, the only real distinction between government and banks is that I voluntary subject myself to the power of the latter; whereas the former maintains its power over me by force of arms.

There is only one government -- we have no choice once it's elected and in power. However, there are MANY banks. And we are free to choose any of them. Therefore your reasoning would suggest that the Prophet is obligated to "dedicate" all bank businesses because we are free to choose any or all of them if we wish.

I think we both realize it would be absurd for the Prophet to do this, so why set a precedent with Zion's bank?

[Guest mormonmusic]

I somewhat disagree with this. Dedicating is not done just for temples. There have been other buildings and monuments that have been dedicated even by Prophets of the Church.

We dedicate graves as well.

Regarding graves, that is again a spiritual/personal/individual matter, and one definitely within the realm normally addressed by the church, along with blessing babies and other cradle to grave life events.

I know we dedicate Church-related monuments, and Church meetinghouses, and priesthood holders dedicate their homes, but a commercial business, and separate entity of the Church, by a prophet of the Lord?

Again, it sounds like an endorsement of a private enterprise, which is discouraged in all other areas of Church life I'm familiar with, which concern I don't see anyone addressing, along with some of the other points I made.

[pam]

I guess I am just not seeing what the big deal is about this. So what that a Prophet dedicated a bank building.

[Just_A_Guy]

There is only one government -- we have no choice once it's elected and in power. However, there are MANY banks. And we are free to choose any of them. Therefore your reasoning would suggest that the Prophet is obligated to "dedicate" all bank businesses because we are free to choose any or all of them if we wish.

I think we both realize it would be absurd for the Prophet to do this, so why set a precedent with Zion's bank?

My wording in my last post was a bit careless, for which I apologize.

I'm not saying the prophet is obligated to dedicate any private enterprise. I'm saying the enterprise is free to ask him to do so, and he is free to consent.

If it's OK for the US Senate--which controls the Federal Reserve and, to all intents and purposes in the aftermath of TARP, calls the shots for several major financial institutions--to kick its activities off with a prayer, why is it somehow improper for private-sector competitors of what are basically the Senate's subsidiaries do likewise?

Edited May 24, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[john doe]

Sorry, I don't see how an LDS church president attending a building dedication means I should put my money there. In fact, I live in the area, and would choose several other institutions before taking my money there. In my opinion, Zions Bank charges exorbitant fees for their services, and I can find better banking deals elsewhere. I have no need for their services. But I also have no problem with Pres. Monson being there. He's acting as a man, not as a prophet telling us we have to put our money in this bank. I also don't think it has any significant value when I happen to know what kind of car a GA drives either, or what company installs or services their furnace. It's trivial information, and doesn't lend importance or endorsement to those companies.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Hmm, althoough the post with "So what, a Prophet dedicated a bank building" garnered some thanks, the response strikes me as void of any substance or reasoning one can hang their hat on.

You could use that response anywhere, such as "So what, we think the Godhead is three separate Beings, they think He's all one -- does it really matter? Big Deal"

It looks like we simply don't agree -- and that's OK.

I'm OK, you're OK.

Edited May 24, 2010 by mormonmusic

[Moksha]

Hmm, althoough the post with "So what, a Prophet dedicated a bank building" garnered some thanks, the response strikes me as void of any substance or reasoning one can hang their hat on.

What about the argument that if God watches out for this bank, the Church's money is safe or that safety may come due to greater deposits from members who are drawn to the Church's prefered bank, to help counter balance any shakier investments in the derivatives market?

[Guest mormonmusic]

What about the argument that if God watches out for this bank, the Church's money is safe or that safety may come due to greater deposits from members who are drawn to the Church's prefered bank, to help counter balance any shakier investments in the derivatives market?

Now, this becomes a fun exercise in reasoning...

Your response, while showing that phenomenal good might come from such a divine endorsement, it's still not consistent with Church policy to endorse a particular business -tacitly or explictly.

Speaking generally, whatever the Prophet does is likely to be viewed as symbolic in some way, given his office, so he has to be careful about tacit messages his association/actions/involvement, or even attendance at certain meetings might send.

I'm reminded of a British politician who was asked if he was going to attend the funeral of a political enemy.

He replied "No, but I agree with it!".

He saw his non-attendance at a certain event as symbolic, and felt the need to clarify it.

We might argue whether your whimsical reasoning above borders on a slipperly slope argument when we get to the counter-balancing the investments in derivatives. The other connections I think are reasonable -- people DO follow the lead of famous people on product selections, that's why famous people are paid large sums of money to publicly endorse products. And many people would think that if the Prophet thinks Zion is a good honest bank, and a safe place to put your money when banks have been failing in recent years, then perhaps they should put their money too.

Anyway, this issue isn't of strong importance to me, but was entertaining to discuss. It seems to have hit the threshold point where if we entertain it much longer people are going to start assuming there's emotional investment in the topic, and there isn't on my end.

People just disagree on it, and that's OK.

Edited May 24, 2010 by mormonmusic

[pam]

Hmm, althoough the post with "So what, a Prophet dedicated a bank building" garnered some thanks, the response strikes me as void of any substance or reasoning one can hang their hat on.

Sheesh must i have a reason to hang a hat on? I can't just say I don't understand the big deal about this?

You could use that response anywhere, such as "So what, we think the Godhead is three separate Beings, they think He's all one -- does it really matter? Big Deal"

You are right and that's exactly what I would say too. We do have Article of Faith #11 that would back that up. We allow people to worship how and what they may.

To be honest, I see in no way how these two would compare to each other. Totally different situations.

[Guest mormonmusic]

Sheesh must i have a reason to hang a hat on? I can't just say I don't understand the big deal about this?

Sure, you can. Just realize that it won't resonate with all people. We all come from different backgrounds and ways of deciding what to believe or do....and there's room for all of us.

You are right and that's exactly what I would say too. We do have Article of Faith #11 that would back that up.

That was my point -- a statement that could be used in a ton of different situations that have nothing to do with each other lessens the meaning of the statement to me.

However, I think your comment "we have the Article of Faith #11" shows a simple faith that is praiseworthy.

Don't attach too much importance to what I said Pam. I think we all appreciate the work you do here at LDS.net and I didn't intend to be offensive, if any offence was taken.