The Reuters Article

[Portland Ute]

The Church is evolving slowly; too slowly for some, but it is evolving. My hope is that this evolution includes an increased transparency into finances, which I think will push humanitarian efforts even further. The Church does much more than they are given credit for but it's obvious they can do more.

My father has served several missions for the church including a 3 yr proselyting and 3 yr Mission Presidency, but his past 5 missions have all been humanitarian (Russia/Phillipines/several US prisons). He has long sought for a reconciliation between the mission of the church and the mission of Christ (I know that sounds like I'm saying these missions are completely contrary to each other but they're not and that's not what I'm suggesting). So much so that his past 2 missions were without LDS Church affiliation. 'We teach about Christ but we fail to act like Christ' he often points out.

Not knowing anymore than you have told us, your father is a "stud" and a good human being. You can tell a lot about people by the way they spend their time. (me to myself: ouch)

[ERCougar]

My understanding from personal friends that are not church members but have volunteered several years of their lives to service in the 3rd world getting clean water to people is that to affect a lasting change, impoverished people have to make fundamental changes in owning thier circumstances. My friends' time in the peace corps doing this was described to me as kind of harsh in some aspects. That is, if the impoverished didn't literally buy into the water company (with a sizable chunk of their own assets), they didn't get water, period.

This is probably not news to anybody here, but I think that the Church is sincere in its belief that preaching and teaching is helping to affect a fundamental change in people that can lead to lasting material improvement.

This is the final word from me on this.

This makes sense. I guess I'd just say that the question of whether the church is primarily a humanitarian or religious entity is different from the question of which the church should be. The first answer is pretty clear, the second one much more in the air, and would afford an interesting discussion.

There are charities that focus on long-term infrastructure change. There are also charities that focus on "teaching a man to fish" rather than just giving money away--kiva is a well-known example, but there are many variations on a theme here. There are also plenty of charities that don't waste money on high-paid executives. Charitynavigator is just one of several that does a decent job of comparing and rating charities in these respects. When I hear these comments about charitable donations just being thrown away or wasted, I think people just aren't looking at the right charities--it's not just a bunch of soulless organizations hacking away at branches. The frustration I have, and why I think that humanitarian ratio should be a bit higher, stems from wondering just how much some of these could do with even $800 million (10% of the best estimate of tithing revenues floating around). They gush over $500 donations.

In the end, the Church has made it very clear, through both its press release and its practice, that 1) its priorities are overwhelmingly religious/spiritual and 2) it is not accountable to its membership how it uses its money. If you're comfortable with that (and even if I'm not, I'm not saying you shouldn't--I do see it as a matter of faith), then this is a pointless (and tedious ) discussion.

[lambdacoug]

Why?

More charitable aid for people in need, is always a good thing.

[Paperback Writer]

In case it gets misconstrued, my beef is not with the current level of humanitarian aid or welfare. I love the church's welfare model and have never seen anything that is as good or efficient as it works. I've participated in hurricane clean ups, budgeting for ward members, job searches, helping put together resumes, cut fast offering checks, etc. and I think the church gets it right in this area. Sure they could do more and I wish they would, but that is not my main issue.

My issue also isn't with the church owning for-profit businesses. As someone with a good understanding of finance, there isn't much difference between owning stock in a company and owning a for-profit ag farm (except one is more liquid and better represents a temporary investment of excess funds and the other can look bad on paper). I see both as a way to invest excess cash and I understand a rainy day fund is necessary. I do question how much is necessary, but I can't make that determination without more financial info so I take it in faith. This is why the church owning for-profit businesses don't affect my testimony.

My issue is with the CCC and the reason it was built. It was not built for profits. It was built to "revitalize" downtown SLC. I take revitalize to mean beautify or keep up the neighborhood. I just find it interesting that the church would choose a semi-luxurious shopping mall as a means to revitalize downtown, especially when there was already a shopping mall four blocks away. The juxtaposition of the mall with the temple is really what bothers me. It speaks volumes when a church would rather a shopping center be the first thing someone sees when exiting their temple grounds.

If you don't get what I'm saying, then please sit in on a gospel doctrine lesson that discusses either Matthew 19:16-23 or Jacob 2:18-19. I kid you not, in every one of those lessons I've been in since my mission the general consensus is that being rich is not evil. Now, I'm not saying being rich is evil, but Christ makes a pretty good insinuation that the rich will not make it into the kingdom of God. I just think the building of CCC, and more specifically the reason it was built, will just continue to perpetuate this doctrine (which I find contrary to Christ's teaching in the NT and BOM) throughout the church.

End of rant.

Another concern is the revitalization of Salt Lake City. I understand that SLC is church HQ and that temple square is a kind of Mormon Mecca. But there are probably more Mormon Americans outside of Utah than within Utah. What would the reaction be in Utah if the LDS church revitalized a section of Houston or Los Angeles that hosts a LDS temple by building an upscale shopping mall? Perhaps the great majority of funds used for CCC were generated within Utah and I would be OK with that but we'll never know because of the lack of financial disclosure.

[All-American]

I did not know this until your post just now pushed me to look into it, but the manuals already do that. Here's a fully correlated statement:



Priesthood and Auxiliary Leaders’ Guidebook, (2001), 1–3

More recently, when the revised Handbook of Instructions came out, Elder Oaks said this in the worldwide training session (emphasis mine):

Interesting. Thanks.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Thanks. His second son, yours truly, unforunately hasn't put this into practice as much as he should. His eldest just returned from China and is having his 2nd book published later this month. The subject: Service.

What a dissappointment I am.

Cheer up, buckaroo! FWIW I think you are a great person, and from what I know of you on here, you appear to be well adjusted and appreciated by those around you. Your family (father/brother) has just set a very high bar in the outward service category. You just excell in other areas.

p.s. thanks for sharing the parts about your father and brother. They are to be commended for such pure service. I am highly impressed. But I still like you...

[myboynoah]

I don't think your responses in this thread are tired at all--youre one of the only ones to actually acknowledge that the church (outside of the Church in its own press release, to its credit) is really after the spiritual over the temporal. I just think continually posting to remind everyone how boring they find a discussion (youre far from the only one) is funny.

I do think the take it or leave it line is tired (and uninteresting and cultish), but you've reasonably clarified that now.

I thought this was universally understood. Read the recent press release. Why such fanfare over someone "acknowledging" this?

[ERCougar]

I thought this was universally understood. Read the recent press release. Why such fanfare over someone "acknowledging" this?

If you'll rewind three words prior to the part you bolded, you'll find the end of the phrase "outside of the Church in its own press release, to its credit".

As for your question, I'm not really sure what you're asking. I was explaining why I didn't think creek's responses were "tired". Maybe you ought to take this up with him?

[Blueintheface]

Cheer up, buckaroo! FWIW I think you are a great person, and from what I know of you on here, you appear to be well adjusted and appreciated by those around you. Your family (father/brother) has just set a very high bar in the outward service category. You just excell in other areas.

p.s. thanks for sharing the parts about your father and brother. They are to be commended for such pure service. I am highly impressed. But I still like you...

Thanks. It is a lot to live up to but I try to do my part. One thing I was taught was to serve without seeking recognition so I've tried to do as much as I can anonymously.

I do make a mean chili though and I don't care who knows!

[LA Ute]

In the end, the Church has made it very clear, through both its press release and its practice, that 1) its priorities are overwhelmingly religious/spiritual and 2) it is not accountable to its membership how it uses its money. If you're comfortable with that (and even if I'm not, I'm not saying you shouldn't--I do see it as a matter of faith), then this is a pointless (and tedious ) discussion.

On your #1, this is just my opinion, but I think you're basically right. If the whole idea is to invite all to come to Christ, then that spiritual objective is the top priority. All the other aspects of that mission (a) perfecting the saints, (b) proclaiming the gospel, (c) saving our kindred dead, and (d) caring for the poor and needy) have their highest value as means to that end. In fact, the first 3 of those are entirely spiritual and have no intrinsic value for the church unless they are part of inviting souls to Christ.

Maybe that's the rub in this discussion: Is the most important reason we want to care for the poor and needy is so they can hear "the word?" Not the only reason, but the reason the church devotes substantial resources to it? I'm not buying that one. Jesus never said, "Go the second mile if you think it'll help you bring that soul to me." I also think that caring for the poor and needy helps with (a), because we just need to do that in order to be disciples of Christ. But I do think the church's priority in the use of tithing funds is to invite souls to Christ, rather than to become a well-funded temporal aid center.

I'll just leave it at that because I can see another can of worms opening....

[Solon]

If you'll rewind three words prior to the part you bolded, you'll find the end of the phrase "outside of the Church in its own press release, to its credit".

As for your question, I'm not really sure what you're asking. I was explaining why I didn't think creek's responses were "tired". Maybe you ought to take this up with him?

This debate about the church's mission(s) is nothing new. It reminds me a little of the Dominicans vis a vis the Franciscans in the late medieval / early modern era.

The Dominicans were instituted for the preaching and salvation of souls.

The Franciscans were dedicated to service, poverty, and the literal imitation of Christ.

The Dominicans were heavily involved in the Inquisition. Just sayin'.

[DU Ute]

This debate about the church's mission(s) is nothing new. It reminds me a little of the Dominicans vis a vis the Franciscans in the late medieval / early modern era.

The Dominicans were instituted for the preaching and salvation of souls.

The Franciscans were dedicated to service, poverty, and the literal imitation of Christ.

The Dominicans were heavily involved in the Inquisition. Just sayin'.

Zing!

[Jeff Lebowski]

This debate about the church's mission(s) is nothing new. It reminds me a little of the Dominicans vis a vis the Franciscans in the late medieval / early modern era.

The Dominicans were instituted for the preaching and salvation of souls.

The Franciscans were dedicated to service, poverty, and the literal imitation of Christ.

The Dominicans were heavily involved in the Inquisition. Just sayin'.

Ha. Nicely done.

Solon posts rarely disappoint.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Thanks. It is a lot to live up to but I try to do my part. One thing I was taught was to serve without seeking recognition so I've tried to do as much as I can anonymously.

I do make a mean chili though and I don't care who knows!

Oh, I think EVERYBODY knows when there is a mean chili about.

Serving without seeking recognition is awesome. Jesus would be proud.

[LA Ute]

This debate about the church's mission(s) is nothing new. It reminds me a little of the Dominicans vis a vis the Franciscans in the late medieval / early modern era.

The Dominicans were instituted for the preaching and salvation of souls.

The Franciscans were dedicated to service, poverty, and the literal imitation of Christ.

The Dominicans were heavily involved in the Inquisition. Just sayin'.

You're on then list now, pal. The good news is that we won't get to Cedar City for a few month, so you, ER and JIC have time to turn things around.