the City Creek controversy

[pam]

It's very difficult to catch sarcasm in written word. Much of sarcasm is tone and inflection.

[Guest]

It's very difficult to catch sarcasm in written word. Much of sarcasm is tone and inflection.

And a smiley or two.

Case in point:

1.) C'mon, Pam, are you really that blind?

2.) C'mon, Pam, are you really that blind?

See the difference?

... I have to admit, I don't know if I have the same interpretation of what a particular smiley conveys as everybody else...

[selek]

It's very difficult to catch sarcasm in written word. Much of sarcasm is tone and inflection.

Good thing I never, ever use sarcasm.

My posts are always a perfectly accurate and thoughtfully expressed summation of exactly what I actually think.

Edited April 12, 2013 by selek

[selek]

I've found that you can find this sort of criticism leveled against any religious figure or organization. "You should use your resources the way I think they should be used."

And thus is revealed the root of the problem.

For all of the melodramatic and holier-than-thou posturing, I'd bet dollars to Navy beans that those criticizing the expenditures on the Mall have singularly failed to take a vow of poverty themselves.

"Charity starts at home" but sanctimony and hypocrisy know no boundaries.

Edited April 12, 2013 by selek

[pam]

And a smiley or two.

Case in point:

1.) C'mon, Pam, are you really that blind?

2.) C'mon, Pam, are you really that blind?

See the difference?

... I have to admit, I don't know if I have the same interpretation of what a particular smiley conveys as everybody else...

As a matter of fact..these days I really am that blind.

[estradling75]

Good thing I never, ever use sarcasm.

My posts are always a perfectly accurate and thoughtfully expressed summation of exactly what I actually think.

Which causes a totally different set of problems

[LittleWyvern]

Would Jesus prefer us to spend 3 billion dollars and counting, or feed and teach people?

Ah, such a lovely false dichotomy.

[Guest]

Good thing I never, ever use sarcasm.

My posts are always a perfectly accurate and thoughtfully expressed summation of exactly what I actually think.

As a matter of fact..these days I really am that blind.

Selek was not paying attention. You need a smiley! Okay, see Pam's post - the perfect use of the smiley.

:D:D

[Windseeker]

Missions of the church

1.Proclaim the gospel;

2.Perfect the Saints;

3.Redeem the dead; and

4.Care for the poor and needy

We are taught that the poor will always be with us. If one day the Church gave all it's billions of dollars to help the poor, we would have poor the very next day and the day after that.

The order of these is important.

Nothing lifts someone out of poverty like living the gospel does. Which enables them to help the poor.

By proclaiming the gospel and perfecting the saints we are feeding much more poor then by throwing money at them.

[rameumptom]

I can give the poor some food, and they will be hungry tomorrow. Or, I can give them a job, and they can feed their family for a long time, plus the money regenerates throughout the community to provide jobs for others.

It is the same concept as the Church building wells in Africa. We can give them bottles of water to drink, or build them a well where they can get their own clean water. Which is better in the long term?

[Vort]

Oops, I seem to have overlooked the idea that Jesus personally supervised the building of a mall, using a ridiculous sum of church money in one of the gay capital of the country, in order to cement the idea that Zion.

Glad you realize that. Next time, look harder before speaking.

[Vort]

Oops, I seem to have overlooked the idea that Jesus personally supervised the building of a mall, using a ridiculous sum of church money in one of the gay capital of the country, in order to cement the idea that Zion.

Glad you realize that. Next time, look harder before speaking.

Evidently, sarcasm is unwelcome.

I would say rather that stupidity is unwelcome.

[EarlJibbs]

I still like the idea that the Church took the lead in making and keeping downtown looking great. Let's be honest, that area was looking dumpy compared to what temple square was offering. Does anyone think that the State would have dreamed of puting anything like this in?

Salt Lake is the headquarters of the Church, a tourist destination that draws millions of people to it's doors. Even if the mall is a bust and failes financially for the church, does it matter to our Heavenly Father how much resources and money is lost if it can bring people to repentance and make them covenant making people? Getting people near temple square helps many find out about the gospel.

I suppose that this is less about commerce than we know.

[rameumptom]

Oh, and for those who are critics of what the Church does, do not forget that Jesus was considered a drunk who hung out with the lowest of slimes (tax collectors, etc). Seems to me that if there will always be critics, even for the Son of God, then his prophets should fare no better....

[Praetorian_Brow]

Ah, I see the mistake, I made. I suggested Jesus was a socialist and for the present company to swallow that, would be asking too much. My intentions were to remark on that fact that SLC and its finances, are not what I expected from our church. I was unsettled by the disparity between charity and presentation while touring the various buildings.

Taking the Sister missionary tour was interesting too, as at the end of it, they asked me what went wrong when everyone melted away, when it was message time. Sometimes selling something, even words, is unsettling as its intentions are suspect.

Fair enough, I have already considered all of your remarks and I do appreciate the quaint nature in which they were presented. Thank you for your insights.

Cui bono.

[carlimac]

Quaint? Is that supposed to be an insult?

[Guest]

Ah, I see the mistake, I made. I suggested Jesus was a socialist and for the present company to swallow that, would be asking too much. My intentions were to remark on that fact that SLC and its finances, are not what I expected from our church. I was unsettled by the disparity between charity and presentation while touring the various buildings.

Taking the Sister missionary tour was interesting too, as at the end of it, they asked me what went wrong when everyone melted away, when it was message time. Sometimes selling something, even words, is unsettling as its intentions are suspect.

Fair enough, I have already considered all of your remarks and I do appreciate the quaint nature in which they were presented. Thank you for your insights.

Cui bono.

I frankly have completely no idea what you're talking about. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Are you trying to say that you can't be a "good church" unless you're operating out of a shack? It costs a lot of money to build temples... and they don't feed the poor.

Illustration:

Cebu City LDS Temple

And a few miles away -

What do you suggest the Church should have done? I seriously want to know.

Edited April 13, 2013 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

Ah, I see the mistake, I made. I suggested Jesus was a socialist and for the present company to swallow that, would be asking too much.

Whereas the Church's mistake was embracing trickle-down economics and then actually using that theory to accomplish something positive--which is heresy in the eyes of some.

[rameumptom]

Ah, I see the mistake, I made. I suggested Jesus was a socialist and for the present company to swallow that, would be asking too much. My intentions were to remark on that fact that SLC and its finances, are not what I expected from our church. I was unsettled by the disparity between charity and presentation while touring the various buildings.

Cui bono.

Actually, Jesus was NOT the socialist. Peter was the communitarian (different from socialist). It is way too easy for people to place labels to justify their own views, when they only see a veneer of what they want to see. This only shows your ignorance of the scriptures and who Jesus really was. Your attempt to lowbrow the other commenters here is unsettling.

Jesus stated to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. He did not tell anyone to have a state run organization to feed the people - which is a major component of socialism. Instead, Jesus encouraged people to have charity and give freely to the poor. Yet, he also noted that the poor would always be with us.

That you walked through the LDS buildings and thought we could do more for the poor leaves me wondering some things. First, how much do you personally give annually to charity? Second, if you are not donating to the LDS charities, why should you care what Mormons purchase with their donated funds? Do you hear any of us demanding you to donate 10-20% of your earnings to a charity, but only ones that will spend the money the way others want? No one forces me to pay tithes and other offerings to the LDS Church. I voluntarily do so, and approve of how the Church spends the money.

Meanwhile, Socialists tend to want more, much more, than 10% and it is never enough. Yet, millions starved to death under socialism in the Soviet Union. Millions are starving to death in North Korea right now, even though they are taxed very high.

I tire of hearing people criticize the actions of a Church or other private organization that does much good in the world, simply because they spend their funds different than the individual would. This is especially true of outsiders who don't have anything in the game, or worse, don't give of their own free will to the extent that I do.

If you think socialism is wonderful, then form a socialist organization to take care of the poor. Freedom allows you to do that. But quit talking down at us when you don't know what the heck you speak of.

[Praetorian_Brow]

Socialism in this example does not infer Marxism, that was perverted by dictators. The word itself speaks of social justice. I do find it interesting that capitalism was suggested as a policy of the church. If we have learned anything from this, discourse, it is that Jesus is not political.

As it is my turn to be on the defensive, as I gather that the present majority feels that I am intentionally undermining the church, insulting fellow forum members and possessing a sub-standard understanding of the church and the gospel. The above assumptions are incorrect, as I love the church, appreciate the perspectives shared here and have no need to quantify my faith for others.

I do realize that most of what I write is taken for face value, so my sarcasm is lost in translation. I also forget that most people are letter of the law, as opposed to the spirit. My remarks are not directed in a manner that is derogatory, as that is not my style, however, I am sure its been noted that I can be frustrated when my intentions are judged wanting.

To sum up my intentions; we can all do better. Goodnight.

[Vort]

I do realize that most of what I write is taken for face value, so my sarcasm is lost in translation. I also forget that most people are letter of the law, as opposed to the spirit. My remarks are not directed in a manner that is derogatory

Must be another of his lost-in-translation sarcasms.

[rameumptom]

If you are going to use a specific form of a term (i.e., "socialism" as communitarianism vs statism) then it is your responsibility to explain using the non-popular definition. If people do not follow what you say, then it is your responsibility to define your terms, not ours. Words have specific meaning, which can differ depending on time period, location, etc. For someone whose moniker denotes knowledge, you are assuming too much of your audience. You assume we are going to view things from your point of view, using your definition of terms. You assumed wrong.

It is not our responsibility to draw the specific definitions of terms out of you. It is yours to explain them up front, or expect to be questioned from our own perspective and definition of terms. You'll note that I distinguished between socialism and communitarianism. Why? Because the term socialism is now closely defined to a statist bureaucracy (whether Soviet Union, Red China, or Sweden, they are all large state organizations). Meanwhile, communitarianism has long been a form that, while sharing some concepts with socialism, dispenses with the force of state and with the need for it on a large level. Even Joseph Smith and Brigham Young focused on communitarianism in small communities, rather than imposed across the entire Church.

As for your manner, you used terminology that suggested you were talking down to a lesser and more ignorant people. In reality, you made statements that could not be supported (Jesus was a socialist), and then got defensive when we questioned your statements. So, being derogatory, at least in this instance, IS your style. If your intentions are judged wanting, it is because you either did not explain them properly, or they are simply opposite what others believe and they DID find them wanting.

The reality is, if you make claims, then you ought to be ready to backup those claims with evidence. You should also expect to be mistrusted if you speak down to people with erudite speech and attitude.

Finally, if you are going to claim things from the scriptures, you'd better be ready to defend your statements. Some of us have read through the scriptures dozens of times, and read some of the major works by LDS and others scholars on such topics. I For example, I respect Vort because I know he's done his homework, even though we may not always come to the same conclusion. You, however, do not seem to have done much homework on this, and so I cannot yet place you in the same category as Vort. (and I'm sure he's much relieved to know that).

[Vort]

Socialism in this example does not infer Marxism

Jillian was her name; she was sweeter than aspartame.

Her kisses reconfigured my DNA, and after that I never was the same.

And I loved her even more than Marlon Brando loved souffle!

She was gorgeous, she was charming -- yeah, she was perfect in every way!

Except she was always using the word 'infer' when she obviously meant 'imply',

And I know some guys would put up with that kind of thing, but frankly, I can't imagine why.

[talisyn]

omgosh someone used the word 'socialism' in a non-derogatory way. break out the verbal torches and pitchforks

[skippy740]

Socialism in this example does not infer Marxism, that was perverted by dictators. The word itself speaks of social justice. I do find it interesting that capitalism was suggested as a policy of the church. If we have learned anything from this, discourse, it is that Jesus is not political.

As it is my turn to be on the defensive, as I gather that the present majority feels that I am intentionally undermining the church, insulting fellow forum members and possessing a sub-standard understanding of the church and the gospel. The above assumptions are incorrect, as I love the church, appreciate the perspectives shared here and have no need to quantify my faith for others.

I do realize that most of what I write is taken for face value, so my sarcasm is lost in translation. I also forget that most people are letter of the law, as opposed to the spirit. My remarks are not directed in a manner that is derogatory, as that is not my style, however, I am sure its been noted that I can be frustrated when my intentions are judged wanting.

To sum up my intentions; we can all do better. Goodnight.

No, we are readers of the American English language (most of us anyway) and words have meaning behind them.

When one uses emotionally charged words (anything politically related), expect to be misunderstood, unless you provide your own clarification.

Assuming that we cannot understand your intentions behind the words you use is incorrect. You need to be more clear to help avoid misunderstanding.

Then we can understand the letter AND the spirit by which you are speaking. And, btw, I took that line in your post to be rather insulting when the person speaking it wasn't the one who was clear in the first place.