Church for man, or man for Church?

[The_Tick]

I have been contemplating this all weekend and have some ideas, but was curious as to what most of you thought.

Was Church created for man, or was man created for Church?

I posted it as my facebook status and a bunch of the responses I received were "I am pretty sure you already know the answer to that.". Which is odd, because I don't really know if I do yet or not. I am pretty sure I know what they are hinting towards though.

What do you think? And if you would be willing to share your thought process.

[Maximus]

I have been contemplating this all weekend and have some ideas, but was curious as to what most of you thought.

Was Church created for man, or was man created for Church?

I posted it as my facebook status and a bunch of the responses I received were "I am pretty sure you already know the answer to that.". Which is odd, because I don't really know if I do yet or not. I am pretty sure I know what they are hinting towards though.

What do you think? And if you would be willing to share your thought process.

the church was created for man, to help us in the quest for eternal life. IMO

[Eddie]

the church was created for man, to help us in the quest for eternal life. IMO

I agree with this. The purpose of the church is to teach correct doctrines and provide priesthood ordinances that could not be gotten elsewhere.

So - my initial answer is that the church was created for man, to help us.

That said - it is also true that the church needs men (families) in order to operate. The church could not do the things it does without strong families.

So, in a sense, the church and man need each other. Neither would be much without the other.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't understand the question.

[Tim]

I agree with this. The purpose of the church is to teach correct doctrines and provide priesthood ordinances that could not be gotten elsewhere.

So - my initial answer is that the church was created for man, to help us.

That said - it is also true that the church needs men (families) in order to operate. The church could not do the things it does without strong families.

So, in a sense, the church and man need each other. Neither would be much without the other.

Why do you equate families with men?

[Eddie]

Why do you equate families with men?

Um...I don't.

The question was "church for man or man for church".

I suppose I substituted "church for families or families for church" somewhere in my answer there.

I probably did that by tying in the LDS doctrine of the purpose of the church being to support home and family. I know the church supports individuals too - but I see the role as being more one of supporting families.

So that is where the families aspect jumped into my answer. I don't believe any of us are alone. I think we are here as families for a reason.

Maybe I'm not making much sense, but honestly - I didn't think that hard about it (the use of that word) when I was typing out my answer.

[Jacob]

I have been contemplating this all weekend and have some ideas, but was curious as to what most of you thought.

Was Church created for man, or was man created for Church?

I posted it as my facebook status and a bunch of the responses I received were "I am pretty sure you already know the answer to that.". Which is odd, because I don't really know if I do yet or not. I am pretty sure I know what they are hinting towards though.

What do you think? And if you would be willing to share your thought process.

I'd be interested to hear any argument that man was created for the church. I can't come up with a single one. It seems counter-intuitive. Maybe I don't understand the question. Maybe you should define "church."

[Babs]

I'd be interested to hear any argument that man was created for the church.

We were created to glorify Christ.
The church is the body of Christ.'
Therefore, we were created for the church.

[TripletDaddy]

We were created to glorify Christ.
The church is the body of Christ.'
Therefore, we were created for the church.

[Jacob]

We were created to glorify Christ.
The church is the body of Christ.'
Therefore, we were created for the church.

Back to the need to define "the church" I suppose. The argument works with your definition.

[Babs]

Back to the need to define "the church" I suppose. The argument works with your definition.

Hey, you said *any* argument!

[The_Tick]

I don't understand the question.

Not sure how to expound....

All week something that someone posted on here was rolling around in my head.

"The people should be put in front of the programs."

So I started to think as to what is more important...the person or the program? The person or the Church?

And I started to think about how I view things.

I do things for people because I like/love them. I typically don't do it for any reason other than those two. Not because it makes me feel better or because I have been asked.

Sometimes, speaking for myself only here, I feel like we try to force a square peg into a round hole. (The peg being the person) And sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better to do what we can with the hole to make it easier for the peg.

I personally feel the Church was created for man. But I feel like the Church sees the person as something that belongs to it.

[Eddie]

Not sure how to expound....

All week something that someone posted on here was rolling around in my head.

"The people should be put in front of the programs."

So I started to think as to what is more important...the person or the program? The person or the Church?

And I started to think about how I view things.

I do things for people because I like/love them. I typically don't do it for any reason other than those two. Not because it makes me feel better or because I have been asked.

Sometimes, speaking for myself only here, I feel like we try to force a square peg into a round hole. (The peg being the person) And sometimes wonder if it wouldn't be better to do what we can with the hole to make it easier for the peg.

I personally feel the Church was created for man. But I feel like the Church sees the person as something that belongs to it.

I think that the church was created for man. I also think that almost everyone in the church understands this.

How they put it into practice is where the disconnect occurs. I think way too many people take the approach that the church is for you, it is to help you. So you dang well better show up. Failing to attend or support church activities and programs is just devaluing this great gift you've been given and failing to take advantage of it.

So the argument isn't whether or not the church is for man. The argument is whether or not man should be allowed to only take advantage of the parts of the church that he wants to? Or is it offensive to God for man to not accept this gift (the church) that has been given to help him?

It seems to me that THIS is what people end up arguing and judging each other over.

[mUUser]

I agree with this. The purpose of the church is to teach correct doctrines and provide priesthood ordinances that could not be gotten elsewhere.

This accounts for about 20 percent of the church today. This explains why the other 80 percent feels like time wasting crap.

[Eddie]

This accounts for about 20 percent of the church today. This explains why the other 80 percent feels like time wasting crap.

Well, in defense of some of the 80% - I think there is something to be said for making sure correct doctrines are taught and encouraging folks to receive ordinances. I recognize that to a certain degree, some of this has taken on a life of its own. But that shouldn't minimize the intent.