the City Creek controversy

[pam]

How does that saying go? "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."

[Just_A_Guy]

But if he knows how to fish, he won't need you anymore and there goes your core constituency.

Wait--what were we talking about again? Oh. City Creek. Right.

[talisyn]

teach a man to fish in the desert...

[Just_A_Guy]

Put a fully-equipped fisherman on a desert island and try to make him forget he's smack dab in the middle of the ocean, so that he drops his rod and reel and comes begging to you for fish (even though you've done the math and know you don't have enough fish to feed him yourself) . . .

Edited April 13, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Vort does homework? What????

[Magus]

yeah, i've been a bit dismayed at the level of thinly veiled disdain that seems to have been directed toward me from some members here for daring to question the Church leadership on this.

I don't think there's anything wrong with me for being a bit bugged that the Church developed a property that flagrantly displayed the fashions of the world (anti-temple code) and the ways of worldly life (anti-word of wisdom).

I realize an argument can be made to neutralize that concern - which would be that "oh, well, the Church has to operate in the world and the owners of the individual businesses residing at City Creek are not all necessarily LDS and they are free to advertise as they see fit" and yadda yadda. But I'm not sure that argument really effectively neutralizes the concern, it feels, to an extent, like excuse making. I mean, who was in charge of advertising for this?? The Church just let them get away with portraying such anti-LDS ways of life by a Church owned property? Why??

[On a side note - Maybe it says something about the nature of the law. I personally don't think we're gonna have to wear the uber-modest temple garments FOREVER, and I would have no problem with those "worldly" fashions being allowed by God in the Millenium/next life (in fact, I honestly hope they do, they're beautiful) and I am not so sure other health code items might be "forbidden" at some future point as well...but I digress....]

I also don't think there's anything wrong with me for being a bit bugged that the Church doesn't put more money toward actual, financial charitable contributions in needed areas of the world. The Church, as a financial organization, toots its horn very loudly about its charitable contributions (which are done largely by members out of faith and on their own accord) and then doesn't have a problem taking credit for that favorable image which can suggest large financial involvement, when in reality, it's the members that of the Church that deserve the spotlight as faithful Christians of a Christian church, as opposed to the supposed financial generosity of the Church. It was certainly news to me that the Church doesn't contribute as much financially as I would have thought - and that is a false perception the Church has willingly allowed to work in its favor. (Though, granted, contributions in terms of food and other aid, as opposed to just pure $$$ should definitely be taken into account, and I am proud of the Church's record on that, though still think there could be room for improvement.)

And yes - while I realize that the members of the Church and the Church leadership, etc, are all "one Church" and the same, it's also unrealistic to not differentiate between what each of us are responsible for. I am not responsible for the finances of the Church and where they go. I am only responsible for myself. But some group of people, somewhere, IS responsible for the finances of the Church - and to so willingly take full credit for what individual members do, when they are independent of that and have vast capabilities of their own, is a bit dishonest.

Granted, the Church doesn't need to go and proclaim to the world "OH BY THE WAY WE DIDN'T GIVE ANYWHERE NEAR AS MUCH FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO CHARITY AS YOU MIGHT THINK", and indeed that would be foolish and unwise, but some tweaking in how they portray where the charity comes from might be nice.

And the thing about members tearing out their gold fillings to contribute to the building of a temple in South America bugs me also. The Church is more than capable of building a temple with its own finances. I am really hoping that someone just dropped the ball on this and that there was a misunderstanding of some kind where members thought, or felt, like they needed to sacrifice like that....and that it wasn't actively encouraged to sacrifice like that by any higher ups. Because while of course it is blessed to sacrifice for a great cause - that kind of stuff is just unnecessary for poor members of a rich Church to do.

Anyway.......By all means, spotlight the members to glorify the Church, but let there be credit where credit is due - and maybe don't be so stingy with the money. I can't help but think that Jesus Christ himself might be more charitable with such vast sums of money the Church possesses when there is such need in the world. And yes, I agree that we need to teach self-reliance...but Christ also taught mercy and generosity. That would make me happy.

And yes, while I'm being critical of a few things, I do think it is wise for the Church to invest in properties, ranches, and whatever else. The kingdom does need to be built up, and after all - one of these days we are going to return to Missouri and literally build the city of Zion. And that will take money, and money doesn't come from nowhere, and it will take more than the tithing of members to make it happen. So I'm cool with that.

Anyway. The Church is still true, obviously. But I think it's possible someone, somewhere, might be fudging up a bit in realizing the full breadth of their responsibilities.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Magus

[EarlJibbs]

Magus, I am sorry that you were not prepared for real, unadulterated, unfiltered comments about the subject. I have a feeling that if you were to ask this same question in a live group setting with friends, you may feel more comfortable and less attacked. But that is why I come here, I know what my friends in a safe situation will say. But I do not know what people will say here. And I know for sure that most will simply give it to me straight.

[Guest]

yeah, i've been a bit dismayed at the level of thinly veiled disdain that seems to have been directed toward me from some members here for daring to question the Church leadership on this.

There's no "thinly veiled disdain". Some of us here are merely pointing out reasons why we disagree with you. You can be bugged all you want, nothing wrong with that but it doesn't mean we will nod our heads and say, "you're right, brother" when we don't agree.

I don't think there's anything wrong with me for being a bit bugged that the Church developed a property that flagrantly displayed the fashions of the world (anti-temple code) and the ways of worldly life (anti-word of wisdom).

I realize an argument can be made to neutralize that concern - which would be that "oh, well, the Church has to operate in the world and the owners of the individual businesses residing at City Creek are not all necessarily LDS and they are free to advertise as they see fit" and yadda yadda. But I'm not sure that argument really effectively neutralizes the concern, it feels, to an extent, like excuse making. I mean, who was in charge of advertising for this?? The Church just let them get away with portraying such anti-LDS ways of life by a Church owned property? Why??

Okay, there are two arms of the Church - the Church and its membership, and the for-profit business. They are completely separate. So, when you say Church-owned property when it comes to City Creek we are talking about the for-profit business that are run by businessmen, not the Apostles.

So, why City Creek can put anti-WOW posters? Because, the businesses of City Creek are not under covenant to follow the WOW. And applying a BYU Code of Conduct for mall operators will pour all that money spent on a mall down the drain because as businessmen, we know there is not enough clientele for Deseret type things to keep a mall afloat.

I also don't think there's anything wrong with me for being a bit bugged that the Church doesn't put more money toward actual, financial charitable contributions in needed areas of the world. The Church, as a financial organization, toots its horn very loudly about its charitable contributions (which are done largely by members out of faith and on their own accord) and then doesn't have a problem taking credit for that favorable image which can suggest large financial involvement, when in reality, it's the members that of the Church that deserve the spotlight as faithful Christians of a Christian church, as opposed to the supposed financial generosity of the Church. It was certainly news to me that the Church doesn't contribute as much financially as I would have thought - and that is a false perception the Church has willingly allowed to work in its favor. (Though, granted, contributions in terms of food and other aid, as opposed to just pure $$$ should definitely be taken into account, and I am proud of the Church's record on that, though still think there could be room for improvement.)

And yes - while I realize that the members of the Church and the Church leadership, etc, are all "one Church" and the same, it's also unrealistic to not differentiate between what each of us are responsible for. I am not responsible for the finances of the Church and where they go. I am only responsible for myself. But some group of people, somewhere, IS responsible for the finances of the Church - and to so willingly take full credit for what individual members do, when they are independent of that and have vast capabilities of their own, is a bit dishonest.

Granted, the Church doesn't need to go and proclaim to the world "OH BY THE WAY WE DIDN'T GIVE ANYWHERE NEAR AS MUCH FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO CHARITY AS YOU MIGHT THINK", and indeed that would be foolish and unwise, but some tweaking in how they portray where the charity comes from might be nice.

The Salt Lake Tribune is not in any way shape or form an arm of the Church. They toot horns loudly for anything they deem can get you riled up and continue to buy their newspaper.

The rest of what you are saying here does not make sense to me. I don't know how the Church as an organization can take credit for anything. I have never heard any Church leadership say - "The Church gave 15million to Hurrican Sandy victims". No, they always say, "The Saints gave 15million....".

And as far as where the money goes, the Church has a Church Auditing Department that investigates the books of the Church. The Auditing Department gives a report every Priesthood Session of General Conference.

And the thing about members tearing out their gold fillings to contribute to the building of a temple in South America bugs me also. The Church is more than capable of building a temple with its own finances. I am really hoping that someone just dropped the ball on this and that there was a misunderstanding of some kind where members thought, or felt, like they needed to sacrifice like that....and that it wasn't actively encouraged to sacrifice like that by any higher ups. Because while of course it is blessed to sacrifice for a great cause - that kind of stuff is just unnecessary for poor members of a rich Church to do.

The requirement of having a temple in your region is the faithfullness of its members. Cebu City did not get a temple until very recently even with the size of membership in the area because it took them until a couple years ago to have enough tithe-paying members who quality to enter the temple. We don't get temple recommends until we consistently fulfill certain covenants so that we can make more covenants in the temple. The cost of building the Cebu City temple is waaaaaaaay more than the meager tithes of the members in the region. Therefore, it wasn't that they needed the money of the members to build the temple. It was merely a measure of faithfullness.

The Church do not build a temple in the middle of a City with only a few members who qualify to enter it. They build temples elsewhere where it is most needed.

I don't know the story about tooth fillings. But, if the tooth filling paid their tithes, then that's how it's supposed to work.

Anyway.......By all means, spotlight the members to glorify the Church, but let there be credit where credit is due - and maybe don't be so stingy with the money. I can't help but think that Jesus Christ himself might be more charitable with such vast sums of money the Church possesses when there is such need in the world. And yes, I agree that we need to teach self-reliance...but Christ also taught mercy and generosity. That would make me happy.

See, saying "but Christ also taught mercy and generosity" implies that the Church does not teach mercy and generosity. This is where your post starts to rub people the wrong way.

The problem Magus is you have a different view of what is Charity. You believe that Charity is taking tithing money from A and giving it to B. First of all this is not the purpose of tithes. Tithes are for building temples and ward buildings, publication of scriptures and church materials, and running a missionary program. Fast offerings are for Charity.

And yes, while I'm being critical of a few things, I do think it is wise for the Church to invest in properties, ranches, and whatever else. The kingdom does need to be built up, and after all - one of these days we are going to return to Missouri and literally build the city of Zion. And that will take money, and money doesn't come from nowhere, and it will take more than the tithing of members to make it happen. So I'm cool with that.

Anyway. The Church is still true, obviously. But I think it's possible someone, somewhere, might be fudging up a bit in realizing the full breadth of their responsibilities.

Yep, it's always fun to be a quarterback from the armchair as long as we realize that when we are put in the middle of the field with gigantic guys coming at us with merely 3 seconds to scan the receivers and make the decision on where the ball is thrown, without the benefit of slow-motion instant replay, we are going to just take a knee, while the "real quarterbacks" make the attempt to complete the pass.

Edited April 16, 2013 by anatess

[Anddenex]

And the thing about members tearing out their gold fillings to contribute to the building of a temple in South America bugs me also. The Church is more than capable of building a temple with its own finances. I am really hoping that someone just dropped the ball on this and that there was a misunderstanding of some kind where members thought, or felt, like they needed to sacrifice like that....and that it wasn't actively encouraged to sacrifice like that by any higher ups. Because while of course it is blessed to sacrifice for a great cause - that kind of stuff is just unnecessary for poor members of a rich Church to do.

I truly am not understanding why you are allowing, making to the choice, to be bugged by the individual choice of sacrifice by Church members?

I could understand if the Church asked the members to give their gold fillings to the Church, but the Church did not ask them to give their gold fillings. The Church simply asked that they would sacrifice to, show their individual faith in promoting the temple (similar to all other generations -- we give what we can -- we sacrifice according to our individual hearts -- if that is their individual choice, then God BLESS THEM!)

Maybe we are to young to recognize the blood, sweat, and tears which went into the development of the Nauvoo Temple and the Salt Lake Temple.

Why would I personally be bugged by the personal choice of a member to show his/her faith in God -- by sacrificing a gold filling or two?

I assume people who are bothered by the gold filling might be a little bothered by the "widow's mite", and why didn't the Lord grab the money given by the rich men and give to the widow. Instead, the Lord praised her for her faith while chiding those who appeared to give more.

[Leah]

yeah, i've been a bit dismayed at the level of thinly veiled disdain that seems to have been directed toward me from some members here for daring to question the Church leadership on this.

I don't think there's anything wrong with me for being a bit bugged that the Church developed a property that flagrantly displayed the fashions of the world (anti-temple code) and the ways of worldly life (anti-word of wisdom).

I realize an argument can be made to neutralize that concern - which would be that "oh, well, the Church has to operate in the world and the owners of the individual businesses residing at City Creek are not all necessarily LDS and they are free to advertise as they see fit" and yadda yadda. But I'm not sure that argument really effectively neutralizes the concern, it feels, to an extent, like excuse making. I mean, who was in charge of advertising for this?? The Church just let them get away with portraying such anti-LDS ways of life by a Church owned property? Why??

[On a side note - Maybe it says something about the nature of the law. I personally don't think we're gonna have to wear the uber-modest temple garments FOREVER, and I would have no problem with those "worldly" fashions being allowed by God in the Millenium/next life (in fact, I honestly hope they do, they're beautiful) and I am not so sure other health code items might be "forbidden" at some future point as well...but I digress....]

I also don't think there's anything wrong with me for being a bit bugged that the Church doesn't put more money toward actual, financial charitable contributions in needed areas of the world. The Church, as a financial organization, toots its horn very loudly about its charitable contributions (which are done largely by members out of faith and on their own accord) and then doesn't have a problem taking credit for that favorable image which can suggest large financial involvement, when in reality, it's the members that of the Church that deserve the spotlight as faithful Christians of a Christian church, as opposed to the supposed financial generosity of the Church. It was certainly news to me that the Church doesn't contribute as much financially as I would have thought - and that is a false perception the Church has willingly allowed to work in its favor. (Though, granted, contributions in terms of food and other aid, as opposed to just pure $$$ should definitely be taken into account, and I am proud of the Church's record on that, though still think there could be room for improvement.)

And yes - while I realize that the members of the Church and the Church leadership, etc, are all "one Church" and the same, it's also unrealistic to not differentiate between what each of us are responsible for. I am not responsible for the finances of the Church and where they go. I am only responsible for myself. But some group of people, somewhere, IS responsible for the finances of the Church - and to so willingly take full credit for what individual members do, when they are independent of that and have vast capabilities of their own, is a bit dishonest.

Granted, the Church doesn't need to go and proclaim to the world "OH BY THE WAY WE DIDN'T GIVE ANYWHERE NEAR AS MUCH FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO CHARITY AS YOU MIGHT THINK", and indeed that would be foolish and unwise, but some tweaking in how they portray where the charity comes from might be nice.

And the thing about members tearing out their gold fillings to contribute to the building of a temple in South America bugs me also. The Church is more than capable of building a temple with its own finances. I am really hoping that someone just dropped the ball on this and that there was a misunderstanding of some kind where members thought, or felt, like they needed to sacrifice like that....and that it wasn't actively encouraged to sacrifice like that by any higher ups. Because while of course it is blessed to sacrifice for a great cause - that kind of stuff is just unnecessary for poor members of a rich Church to do.

Anyway.......By all means, spotlight the members to glorify the Church, but let there be credit where credit is due - and maybe don't be so stingy with the money. I can't help but think that Jesus Christ himself might be more charitable with such vast sums of money the Church possesses when there is such need in the world. And yes, I agree that we need to teach self-reliance...but Christ also taught mercy and generosity. That would make me happy.

And yes, while I'm being critical of a few things, I do think it is wise for the Church to invest in properties, ranches, and whatever else. The kingdom does need to be built up, and after all - one of these days we are going to return to Missouri and literally build the city of Zion. And that will take money, and money doesn't come from nowhere, and it will take more than the tithing of members to make it happen. So I'm cool with that.

Anyway. The Church is still true, obviously. But I think it's possible someone, somewhere, might be fudging up a bit in realizing the full breadth of their responsibilities.

You clearly think the church mishandles money and is "stingy".

Can you point to a church that does a better job? I would be interested is an example (with documentation land specifics, of course). Surely, if the LDS church is a poor example, there must be a better example you can provide by contrast.

[rameumptom]

Magus,

"And now, verily I say unto you, and this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you" (D&C 82:22).

Perhaps the Lord sometimes has us deal with the world on its level for a purpose?

[pam]

The kingdom does need to be built up, and after all - one of these days we are going to return to Missouri and literally build the city of Zion. And that will take money, and money doesn't come from nowhere, and it will take more than the tithing of members to make it happen. So I'm cool with that.

Just a little clarification here. Not everyone will be returning to Missouri. Just in case anyone took that to think they had to get ready for a big move.

[Connie]

Magus,

"And now, verily I say unto you, and this is wisdom, make unto yourselves friends with the mammon of unrighteousness, and they will not destroy you" (D&C 82:22).

Perhaps the Lord sometimes has us deal with the world on its level for a purpose?

I was wondering if City Creek would fall within that particular verse. Glad i'm not the only one who thought so. I was about to ask about it. :)

[Guest]

Just a little clarification here. Not everyone will be returning to Missouri. Just in case anyone took that to think they had to get ready for a big move.

I ask DH after every Priesthood session if we need to pack for Jackson County. It bugs the heck out of him.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just a little clarification here. Not everyone will be returning to Missouri. Just in case anyone took that to think they had to get ready for a big move.

Actually, Pam; that's just what they keep telling us to tell you.

[pam]

Actually, Pam; that's just what they keep telling us to tell you.

Did you use the smallest font knowing I wouldn't be able to see it? Or maybe it gives me a good excuse to just ignore you.

[Just_A_Guy]

I was just trying to bait you into giving me an opportunity to make an age joke.

[pam]

I was just trying to bait you into giving me an opportunity to make an age joke.

May I remind you of the site rules you agreed to when you registered for this account?

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

[selek]

May I remind you of the site rules you agreed to when you registered for this account?

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

Only if we get to remind you of Rule #6:

6. Posting issues you have with a moderator or administrator anywhere on the site will not be allowed.

Since JaG is a Senior Moderator, doesn't that mean he gets to moderate seniors?

[Wingnut]

May I remind you of the site rules you agreed to when you registered for this account?

3. Personal attacks, name calling, flaming, and judgments against other members will not be tolerated.

You should have referred to site rule #14:

Comments about Pam's age will not be tolerated. Unless they're started by, laughed at, or thanked by other moderators. Also allowable are age-related comments directed at Pam when she opens herself up for geriatric ridicule.

[rameumptom]

Pam,

Do you suppose the geriatric group that is called to "walk" to Missouri will drive down on their electric wheelchairs?

[Wingnut]

Countdown to thread closing...

[pam]

I'm ignoring all of you.

[skippy740]

Based on that, just send me a PM on all posts and I'll be sure to "thank" or "laugh".

[slamjet]

https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/3260272640/h1866A3BA/