Your thoughts on church leaders

[Spicy McHaggis]

Lame argument. The church isn't sinking money into that mall. It's made by their business arm, and it's a profit maker. Now we can discuss whether or not it's a wise financial investment and whether or not the church uses the prophet to God communication tunnel to predict high returning investments, but it's lame to diss the church's charity by pointing to its business operations.

I guess I have a different world view. I believe God's one and only 'true' church should spend their profits by helping his children who have the greatest need.
How long will it take for a $4B mall to turn a profit? My best guess would say decades. Several decades. Why did these inspired leaders initially say this project would cost $500M but now it's gone up at least 8x that amount?

One number to consider is the amount they've spent on charitable projects amounts to roughly $20 per member per year. It puts the money spent on the mall in perspective, at least it does to me.

[Spicy McHaggis]

I certainly hope you're not spending your money on vacations, what with all the starving children and all.

I'm not God's one and only true church who has control of sacred funds.

[BlueHair]

I think the vast majority of church leaders have the best interest of the membership in mind most of the time. Local leadership seems to be consistently good considering time restraints they have to work with. I have a ton of respect for people willing to put the time and effort to build their church. Church callings are thankless jobs.

What it all comes down to, for me, is I don't believe church leadership is any more or less inspired than anyone else. They are, without a doubt, dedicated and hard working. I just don't feel comfortable turning my decision making over to someone else.

[Surfah]

I have an issue with the way this is always worded. It is really not the "Church" giving anything. It is the members of the church that are giving. Fast offerings are specifically given by members (and some non-members) to help the "poor". Poor can be a relative term based on where you are located. These funds would probably be given directly to other charitable organizations if not given directly to the Church for helping the poor.

Also how much of what the "Church" counts as giving in humanitarian service, comes from members sewing blankets, or making sanitation kits, or volunteering at the welfare farm, or serving a service mission? This is the members giving service that I would hope they would give to their neighbors and community even if they didn't belong to the Church.

I think it would be interesting to see how much the "Church" gives from Tithing (its money) to humanitarian causes.

This is kind of a silly semantical argument, no? The Church ultimately decides how and what to disburse. Do you feel similarly for all of the other charitable organizations that are dependent on telethons, donations and other various means of fund raising?

[UtahDan]

I have an issue with the way this is always worded. It is really not the "Church" giving anything. It is the members of the church that are giving. Fast offerings are specifically given by members (and some non-members) to help the "poor". Poor can be a relative term based on where you are located. These funds would probably be given directly to other charitable organizations if not given directly to the Church for helping the poor.

Also how much of what the "Church" counts as giving in humanitarian service, comes from members sewing blankets, or making sanitation kits, or volunteering at the welfare farm, or serving a service mission? This is the members giving service that I would hope they would give to their neighbors and community even if they didn't belong to the Church.

I think it would be interesting to see how much the "Church" gives from Tithing (its money) to humanitarian causes.

I disagree. Whatever money or property the church has, regardless of the source, is the personal property of Jesus Christ. Since Jesus is not here, it is titled in the name of his soul personal representative on earth, the prophet.

When the prophet strokes a check, or directs that a check be written, he does so as the representative of God himself. People pay tithing, make donations, leave bequests to God, not to a corporation that is a necessary formality that exists in part as a holding entity for God's property.

So you didn't give anything to the poor. You gave it to God who through his agents spent some on the poor and some on other things. This, to me, is why talk about the church having various arms with various purposes with the implication being that parts of them don't really belong to God doesn't make sense.

[Surfah]

I think the vast majority of church leaders have the best interest of the membership in mind most of the time. Local leadership seems to be consistently good considering time restraints they have to work with. I have a ton of respect for people willing to put the time and effort to build their church. Church callings are thankless jobs.

What it all comes down to, for me, is I don't believe church leadership is any more or less inspired than anyone else. They are, without a doubt, dedicated and hard working. I just don't feel comfortable turning my decision making over to someone else.

I agree with most of this. But I don't turn my decision making over to someone else either. Just because someone gives counsel doesn't mean that I have to follow it. And if I decide to follow the counsel given it doesn't mean I have given up my agency and am following blindly.

[YOhio]

What are local leaders asking us to do that require us to cede agency to them? Other than being given a calling, I can't recall ever being asked to do anything by a local leader that wasn't within the realm of mundane church work.

[Indy Coug]

What are local leaders asking us to do that require us to cede agency to them? Other than being given a calling, I can't recall ever being asked to do anything by a local leader that wasn't within the realm of mundane church work.

I've been "assigned" without being asked "please?" to spend 60 minutes once every 13 weeks to help clean the church with 10 to 20 other people. Draconian, simply Draconian.

[UtahDan]

I agree with most of this. But I don't turn my decision making over to someone else either. Just because someone gives counsel doesn't mean that I have to follow it. And if I decide to follow the counsel given it doesn't mean I have given up my agency and am following blindly.

Clearly it is not possible to turn over your free will. It can't be done. What one can do, however, is make the decision that when direction comes from a trusted source, no further analysis is necessary.

If Gabers woke me up and screamed at me to grab the kids and get the hell out of the house, there wouldn't be any questioning or pondering. I would do it. If she called me on the phone and said "I am at location X, I need you to come here right away," again, I would go and ask questions later. So in many ways, and on a lot of issues, I would decide that I trust her and would make the decision to do as she asked. If she came home today and told me that she was donating our mortgage payment to the local Mosque, however, there would be some discussion about that and I would not feel compelled to simply trust her on that. And then again, if she called and said "I'm at Walmart picking up half a dozen large inflatable lawn ornaments, can you transfer some money" I would probably not be tickled about it, but would quickly conclude that it is not a big enough deal for me to question it.

I think this is more or less how every believer approaches their relationship with the church. Somethings require no analysis but some things do. Where the real difference begins, and where people begin to talk past each other I think, is when a person does not trust the church to have done the analysis correctly. Then it becomes hard for them to just go with the inflatable lawn ornaments.

[UtahDan]

What are local leaders asking us to do that require us to cede agency to them? Other than being given a calling, I can't recall ever being asked to do anything by a local leader that wasn't within the realm of mundane church work.

I think what people mean is that they want whatever is being talked about to be optional so that they can feel good about having chosen to do it, as opposed to being required to so that if they don't do it they have to experience guilt and perhaps the disapproval or scorn of others. But deciding that something is guilt worthy or that someone's disapproval matters are also choices. Granted that as "all or nothing" as we sometimes are they are choices with a lot of negative consequences if you begin to decide doing certain things doesn't matter than much.

[Moliere]

I have an issue with the way this is always worded. It is really not the "Church" giving anything. It is the members of the church that are giving. Fast offerings are specifically given by members (and some non-members) to help the "poor". Poor can be a relative term based on where you are located. These funds would probably be given directly to other charitable organizations if not given directly to the Church for helping the poor.

Also how much of what the "Church" counts as giving in humanitarian service, comes from members sewing blankets, or making sanitation kits, or volunteering at the welfare farm, or serving a service mission? This is the members giving service that I would hope they would give to their neighbors and community even if they didn't belong to the Church.

I think it would be interesting to see how much the "Church" gives from Tithing (its money) to humanitarian causes.

If the church is not just a collection of members, then what is it? I agree with Indy, fast offering donations are made by the church and they would actually dwarf the amount of humanitarian aid that is given by what you would define as "the church."

[creekster]

I think what people mean is that they want whatever is being talked about to be optional so that they can feel good about having chosen to do it, as opposed to being required to so that if they don't do it they have to experience guilt and perhaps the disapproval or scorn of others. But deciding that something is guilt worthy or that someone's disapproval matters are also choices. Granted that as "all or nothing" as we sometimes are they are choices with a lot of negative consequences if you begin to decide doing certain things doesn't matter than much.

It is all optional. No one, ever, concedes agency to a church leader. If choosing to follow the church makes you lose agency then you never had it, becaseu you make decisions virutally every moment of every day and, by using the logic here, that act forfeits your agency.

[Sullyute]

So you didn't give anything to the poor. You gave it to God who through his agents spent some on the poor and some on other things.

I guess that we might have to agree to disagree. I give tithing to the Church (God/Jesus) to do what the church feels is best. Those in charge will be responsible with God in how they use the widow mite.

I give fast offerings to the poor thru the church with specific belief that it will be used for that purpose. If I found out that the Church was using my fast offerings to pay for the City Creek Center then I would be mad and I would stop paying a fast offering. If I didn't give fast offerings to the church then I would increase my charitable giving to other humanintarian group.

I see a distinction between tithing and any other donation/payment to the church or any of its arms for specific purposes (missionary fund, perpetual education, BYU tution, Deseret new subscription, Beneficiary life insurance premium, etc).

You are right that we have all covenanted to give everything to the Church/God, so you could argue that God will do what God will do with his money. So I guess maybe the question should be how much would we give to the poor if the church didn't ask for fast offerings. Then the difference could be said to have been given by the Church.

[UtahDan]

It is all optional. No one, ever, concedes agency to a church leader. If choosing to follow the church makes you lose agency then you never had it, becaseu you make decisions virutally every moment of every day and, by using the logic here, that act forfeits your agency.

Yup. We agree.

[creekster]

Yup. We agree.

I wasnt trying to argue; I shouldnt have quoted your post. no dispute intended.