The Reuters Article

[Portland Ute]

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

There are plenty of organizations that offer charitable aid to people. Perhaps you should throw your resources and effort behind those instead of hoping for an organization of which you are skeptical to change.

[LA Ute]

After reflecting on this thread, I have a question and a proposed answer:

Given that Jesus clearly does teach, in all the Standard Works of the church, that caring for the poor and needy is essential to our salvation (see, e.g., Matthew 25:36); but that also He clearly does not teach that such service should be done to the exclusion of preaching the gospel of faith, repentance, baptism and the other ordinances essential to our salvation: Where should the church strike the balance between devoting financial resources to temporal and spiritual salvation?

This question was prompted by dear Solon's reference to the Franciscans being "dedicated to service, poverty, and the literal imitation of Christ," as opposed to those mean old Inquisitors, the Dominicans, who focused on "preaching and salvation of souls." (I think the Dominican emphasis also is a "literal imitation of Christ," but oh, well. ) I don't think anyone will disagree that this is not an "either-or" proposition, i.e., that we can't emulate the good from both the Franciscans and the Dominicans, but must choose instead to be like one or the other.

So how do we strike that balance? As a believing member, my answer is that we have to trust the FP, Q12, and PBO to do that. We will have our grumbles and misgivings about decisions from time to time -- some of us more often than others, as this thread and others show-- but there's no other practical solution, IMO.

By the way, I thought the addition of the 4th element to the mission of the church was an example of that and was delighted to see that happen.

Discuss.

[UtahDan]

It is also amusing that you ridicule me for saying i find the discussion tedious
..

This is the creekster principle:

As a discussion on CUF grows longer, the probability of a creekster saying he finds it tedious approaches 1.

[Indy Coug]

This is the creekster principle:

As a discussion on CUF grows longer, the probability of a creekster saying he finds it tedious approaches 1.

Any CUF thread this long, by definition, is tedious. It has nothing to do with creekster electing to declare the obvious.

[creekster]

This is the creekster principle:

As a discussion on CUF grows longer, the probability of a creekster saying he finds it tedious approaches 1.

Did you read the posts? I didn't declare anything. ERCougar accused me of being defensive on the issue. I merely said I wasn't defensive, but that I found this argument (which is found in MANY threads as you, of all people here, know very well) to be tedious.

Moreover, if you look, you will see that when I have made this claim in the past it is usually (if not always) in reference to pedantic conversations leveling criticisms at the church. This may explain why you think I use it a lot.

Even so, your idea might be fun. For example, the UD principle might be this:

When UD says he doesn't mean to mock he is about to do so.

How'd I do?

[UtahDan]

Did you read the posts? I didn't declare anything. ERCougar accused me of being defensive on the issue. I merely said I wasn't defensive, but that I found this argument (which is found in MANY threads as you, of all people here, know very well) to be tedious.

Moreover, if you look, you will see that when I have made this claim in the past it is usually (if not always) in reference to pedantic conversations leveling criticisms at the church. This may explain why you think I use it a lot.

Even so, your idea might be fun. For example, the UD principle might be this:

When UD says he doesn't mean to mock he is about to do so.

How'd I do?

Tedious.

[myboynoah]

After reflecting on this thread, I have a question and a proposed answer:

Given that Jesus clearly does teach, in all the Standard Works of the church, that caring for the poor and needy is essential to our salvation (see, e.g., Matthew 25:36); but that also He clearly does not teach that such service should be done to the exclusion of preaching the gospel of faith, repentance, baptism and the other ordinances essential to our salvation: Where should the church strike the balance between devoting financial resources to temporal and spiritual salvation?

This question was prompted by dear Solon's reference to the Franciscans being "dedicated to service, poverty, and the literal imitation of Christ," as opposed to those mean old Inquisitors, the Dominicans, who focused on "preaching and salvation of souls." (I think the Dominican emphasis also is a "literal imitation of Christ," but oh, well. ) I don't think anyone will disagree that this is not an "either-or" proposition, i.e., that we can't emulate the good from both the Franciscans and the Dominicans, but must choose instead to be like one or the other.

So how do we strike that balance? As a believing member, my answer is that we have to trust the FP, Q12, and PBO to do that. We will have our grumbles and misgivings about decisions from time to time -- some of us more often than others, as this thread and others show-- but there's no other practical solution, IMO.

By the way, I thought the addition of the 4th element to the mission of the church was an example of that and was delighted to see that happen.

Discuss.

What prevents Mormons from serving their fellow man outside the structure of the Mormon Church? That press release did a good job of explaining church priorities. Mormons aren't confined to church-initiated or sponsores service. Applying Gospel teaching in one's life should naturally lead to opportunities to serve outside of the church structure and context.

[Pheidippides]

After reflecting on this thread, I have a question and a proposed answer:

Given that Jesus clearly does teach, in all the Standard Works of the church, that caring for the poor and needy is essential to our salvation (see, e.g., Matthew 25:36); but that also He clearly does not teach that such service should be done to the exclusion of preaching the gospel of faith, repentance, baptism and the other ordinances essential to our salvation: Where should the church strike the balance between devoting financial resources to temporal and spiritual salvation?

This question was prompted by dear Solon's reference to the Franciscans being "dedicated to service, poverty, and the literal imitation of Christ," as opposed to those mean old Inquisitors, the Dominicans, who focused on "preaching and salvation of souls." (I think the Dominican emphasis also is a "literal imitation of Christ," but oh, well. ) I don't think anyone will disagree that this is not an "either-or" proposition, i.e., that we can't emulate the good from both the Franciscans and the Dominicans, but must choose instead to be like one or the other.

So how do we strike that balance? As a believing member, my answer is that we have to trust the FP, Q12, and PBO to do that. We will have our grumbles and misgivings about decisions from time to time -- some of us more often than others, as this thread and others show-- but there's no other practical solution, IMO.

By the way, I thought the addition of the 4th element to the mission of the church was an example of that and was delighted to see that happen.

Discuss.

Okay, I'll discuss!

I think looking to the FP, Q12 and PBO to give us the ultimate in guidance as to what Jesus actually wants is just a modern day version of the Catholic Church printing the scriptures in Latin only, requiring the membership to go through them to access the Word of God.

And if you've lost faith (and by faith I mean trust) in said FP, Q12 and PBO, where do you turn? If you believe they're just men - good men, well intentioned men, but men - and that the so-called prophetic teachings are far too contradictory to make any sense of or trust anything, what do you do? How do you pattern your behavior?

This is the situation in which I find myself. But it just so happens I know how to read. I have decided to study (and I mean study, not just read) the scriptures from a completely blank slate, ignoring anything I've ever been taught before to the extent I can AND with the eye of a bit of a skeptic. That is to say, I'm not going to ignore the fact that most of the early Bible is mythology, or that the letters of Paul (among other things) have suspect authorship, or that the New Testament and D&C are a bit arbitrary and cherry-picked. Etc.

So, as a semi-believing but fully participating member (admittedly not your paradigm) who just wants to formulate a way to live, I just want to see what the scriptures actually say. I give the most weight to the Gospels, followed by a tie between the rest of the NT and the BOM, some deference to the D&C as read in historical context, and reading but largely ignoring the POGP and the OT. I would like to know what Jesus actually says - not what other say Jesus says but what Jesus actually says. I will return and report.

[LA Ute]

Okay, I'll discuss!

I think looking to the FP, Q12 and PBO to give us the ultimate in guidance as to what Jesus actually wants is just a modern day version of the Catholic Church printing the scriptures in Latin only, requiring the membership to go through them to access the Word of God.

And if you've lost faith (and by faith I mean trust) in said FP, Q12 and PBO, where do you turn? If you believe they're just men - good men, well intentioned men, but men - and that the so-called prophetic teachings are far too contradictory to make any sense of or trust anything, what do you do? How do you pattern your behavior?

This is the situation in which I find myself. But it just so happens I know how to read. I have decided to study (and I mean study, not just read) the scriptures from a completely blank slate, ignoring anything I've ever been taught before to the extent I can AND with the eye of a bit of a skeptic. That is to say, I'm not going to ignore the fact that most of the early Bible is mythology, or that the letters of Paul (among other things) have suspect authorship, or that the New Testament and D&C are a bit arbitrary and cherry-picked. Etc.

So, as a semi-believing but fully participating member (admittedly not your paradigm) who just wants to formulate a way to live, I just want to see what the scriptures actually say. I give the most weight to the Gospels, followed by a tie between the rest of the NT and the BOM, some deference to the D&C as read in historical context, and reading but largely ignoring the POGP and the OT. I would like to know what Jesus actually says - not what other say Jesus says but what Jesus actually says. I will return and report.

I'll suggest that you won't find in those sources that Jesus ever taught that the aiding the poor and needy is more important than faith in Him, repentance and baptism. I'll also suggest that your conclusions won't be worth considering if you dismiss any of the Standard Works. There will always be an asterisk, so to speak.

[Pheidippides]

I'll suggest that you won't find in those sources that Jesus ever taught that the aiding the poor and needy is more important than faith in Him, repentance and baptism. I'll also suggest that your conclusions won't be worth considering if you dismiss any of the Standard Works. There will always be an asterisk, so to speak.

You'll suggest - but can you show me one way or the other using the scriptures themselves? I would guess you are right, but partially because what I've read doesn't have Jesus doing a comparative survey of what is more important than what. Based on what I'm reading so for, though, I'm not seeing a whole lot of LDS style repentance being preached. I see an awful lot of turn away and sin no more stuff being preached, however. Let us just say that The Miracle of Forgiveness is not on my short list of books to consult.

As to not worth considering, I can make the argument that some of the Standard Works aren't worth considering. But you wouldn't buy it any more than I would consider the first few chapters of Genesis to be anything more than legend. So you can have an asterisk too. Remember, we're not starting from the same point, even though we participate in the same organization at the same level superficially.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Okay, I'll discuss!

I think looking to the FP, Q12 and PBO to give us the ultimate in guidance as to what Jesus actually wants is just a modern day version of the Catholic Church printing the scriptures in Latin only, requiring the membership to go through them to access the Word of God.

And if you've lost faith (and by faith I mean trust) in said FP, Q12 and PBO, where do you turn? If you believe they're just men - good men, well intentioned men, but men - and that the so-called prophetic teachings are far too contradictory to make any sense of or trust anything, what do you do? How do you pattern your behavior?

This is the situation in which I find myself. But it just so happens I know how to read. I have decided to study (and I mean study, not just read) the scriptures from a completely blank slate, ignoring anything I've ever been taught before to the extent I can AND with the eye of a bit of a skeptic. That is to say, I'm not going to ignore the fact that most of the early Bible is mythology, or that the letters of Paul (among other things) have suspect authorship, or that the New Testament and D&C are a bit arbitrary and cherry-picked. Etc.

So, as a semi-believing but fully participating member (admittedly not your paradigm) who just wants to formulate a way to live, I just want to see what the scriptures actually say. I give the most weight to the Gospels, followed by a tie between the rest of the NT and the BOM, some deference to the D&C as read in historical context, and reading but largely ignoring the POGP and the OT. I would like to know what Jesus actually says - not what other say Jesus says but what Jesus actually says. I will return and report.

I have been trying to use this approach for quite a while now for scripture study. What is most remarkable to me is what you find (and what you don't find) in the D&C and BOM if you read carefully and without applying a church lesson manual filter. Especially the BOM. Fascinating stuff.

[Pheidippides]

I have been trying to use this approach for quite a while now for scripture study. What is most remarkable to me is what you find (and what you don't find) in the D&C and BOM if you read carefully and without applying a church lesson manual filter. Especially the BOM. Fascinating stuff.

I've been doing this in my own lesson prep for some time. The manual says "faith". Ignoring the fact that I'm allowing my topics to be correlated, I ditch the manual and ask, "well, what do the scriptures actually say about faith?" And then I read, research, and make a lesson out of that.

The teaching is received very well.

[creekster]

Tedious.

Stop mocking me.

[UtahDan]

I have been trying to use this approach for quite a while now for scripture study. What is most remarkable to me is what you find (and what you don't find) in the D&C and BOM if you read carefully and without applying a church lesson manual filter. Especially the BOM. Fascinating stuff.

What are you thinking of here?

[UtahDan]

Okay, I'll discuss!

I think looking to the FP, Q12 and PBO to give us the ultimate in guidance as to what Jesus actually wants is just a modern day version of the Catholic Church printing the scriptures in Latin only, requiring the membership to go through them to access the Word of God.

And if you've lost faith (and by faith I mean trust) in said FP, Q12 and PBO, where do you turn? If you believe they're just men - good men, well intentioned men, but men - and that the so-called prophetic teachings are far too contradictory to make any sense of or trust anything, what do you do? How do you pattern your behavior?

This is the situation in which I find myself. But it just so happens I know how to read. I have decided to study (and I mean study, not just read) the scriptures from a completely blank slate, ignoring anything I've ever been taught before to the extent I can AND with the eye of a bit of a skeptic. That is to say, I'm not going to ignore the fact that most of the early Bible is mythology, or that the letters of Paul (among other things) have suspect authorship, or that the New Testament and D&C are a bit arbitrary and cherry-picked. Etc.

So, as a semi-believing but fully participating member (admittedly not your paradigm) who just wants to formulate a way to live, I just want to see what the scriptures actually say. I give the most weight to the Gospels, followed by a tie between the rest of the NT and the BOM, some deference to the D&C as read in historical context, and reading but largely ignoring the POGP and the OT. I would like to know what Jesus actually says - not what other say Jesus says but what Jesus actually says. I will return and report.

Hop on Amazon right now and buy this:

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Testament-Anchor-Reference-Library/dp/0385247672"]Amazon.com: An Introduction to the New Testament (Anchor Bible Reference Library) (9780385247672): Raymond E. Brown: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51j9HfbzG8L.@@AMEPARAM@@51j9HfbzG8L[/ame]

Written for a lay audience but on the shelf of almost every biblical scholar (I am told by a biblical scholar). Very readable, very informative, doesn't go beyond the evidence and high lights all the tensions and disagreements with arguments for and against, absolutely indispensable for studying the NT. Father Raymond Brown was the man.