Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the News

[falafel]

I like creekster's response.

for Solon's response.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

The "this isn't what Jesus would do posts" when it comes to church finances don't really have much of an effect on me. Jesus didn't lead a 15 million member church. Jesus didn't live in a time when the gospel message was distributed to members in 200 different nations and languages and cultures. Jesus didn't live in a modern, corporate age. Maybe he would charge 10% and build up assets. Maybe he'd do things willy nilly, and if the church went bankrupt, nbd? Who knows, really.

Seriously, why do even reference that old hippie? He has no idea what 2017 is like.

[jay santos]

Seriously, why do even reference that old hippie? He has no idea what 2017 is like.

No, no no, not implying anything like that. I'm just saying if you find yourself managing a 15M person church, with $20B+ in assets and $10B in annual tithing income, and you happen to have opportunity to purchase a historical relic for $35M from another church, should you take advantage of this XYZ tax code and shuffle some money around and make it happen? Or not? You're not going to find the New Testament Jesus commenting on such things. So I think it's very difficult to judge one way or another.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I don't really care if the church wants to spend millions of dollars on the document, but it's not about what I care about or don't care about.
The fact is, the church cares deeply about controlling its image and its history (like any other organization), and this document is a key part of its founding story.

The LDS church is firmly committed to deploying its impressive financial resources to project & protect its chosen image, to advance its causes, and to promote its legitimacy - whether that involves developing real estate around Temple Square in SLC, hiring ex-Legislators in Utah as lobbyists, or spending $35 million on a manuscript.

Dead on accurate.

[creekster]

Dead on accurate.

Nice classic creekster move. My professor tells me that is not worthy of a response.

[Solon]

I didn't even realize I had a classic move. That's sort of cool.

First you equated the purchase to the sale/purchase of the birthright. The CoC/LDS relationship is, I guess, sort of like Esau and Jacob, but not too much. But even if it is, the notion that the purchase of the manuscript constitutes a birthright is silly. It bestows no more legitimacy on the LDS church than existed prior to its purchase. As you and others realize, the entire manuscript was already published. So this purchase does nothing except allow the church to guarantee that the manuscript will be preserved and protected. To the extent that there is any 'birthright' accompanying the manuscript it comes not with the possession of the manuscript, but with access to the content of the manuscript, which is already fully and widely shared. As a result, the analogy you promoted in your first post, suggesting that the church could buy a birthright/legitimacy becasue it has money, doesn't follow.

Now, I suppose one could argue that they are trying to buy the birthright/legitimacy by arguing that becasue they have the manuscript it must be what God wants to happen and therefore they are more legitimate. But I don't think anyone in the church ir asserting that, and I don't think that is what you meant, either. So if the point cant be based on the content of the manuscript, and if the possession of the manuscript doesn't affect legitimacy, then what's left for the 'birthright' to represent? The only thing, really, seems to be that you simply dislike that the church spent that much money on this manuscript. Certainly a reasonable position, but nowhere near a sufficient basis to condemn the church as cyncially purchasing a birthright.

Additonally, the use of the esau/jacob analogy carries additional implications, as you know, that the legitimacy of the LDS church's purchase is questionable. That it may not deserve the money that it used to purchase the manuscript. But, here, the book of mormon and its genesis is every bit as much a part of the LDS birthright as it is for the CoC. SO the implication of the anlaogy is also flawed, unless you are relying on an implied classic creekster move.

Your second post, while much more lengthy, more quickly reveals your bias and the attitude that you brought to bear when you initially posted your clever but flawed analogy. Initially, we should note, that you never allow that the LDS church may be true or, at the very least, that those who are acting on its behalf believe that it is true. This is important to consider when evaluating these actions. My question about the second coming, which elicited an "oh brother" sneer from Cardiac, was an effort to do this. How does this move look from a true believers POV? If you are guarding the legacy of the church God founded and ordained, what do you do when this manuscript is available? This is even more important if you are going to accuse them of choosing to serve Mammon and not God. Your failure to even examine this possibility makes your attitude fairly evident, particularly if, as you say, you spent a long time considering this position.

Now your second post was not an analogy. Instead, it was a direct and rather scathing criticism of the church, in virtually all of its actiivites. You are so eager to get to that conclusion, in fact, that you reveal your bias without even bothering to be logically consistent. You said:



That sounds about right. You acknowledge, sort of, that it really isnt your business to decide how a church you reject chooses to spend its money. It is also fair to allow that like any organization (my wife is historian for a major corporation that spends loads of dough to buy artifacts that relate to its founding story, for example) the LDS church can and, really, should, seek to preserve its history. ANd it is not like the manuscript isnt a key part of the LDS church's history. It's not like they are buying a seat in the house of Lords. This document is very much a part of the hisotry of the LDS church, without question. But from this launching point, you jump to this rather facile and even puerile conclusion:



What? real estate? Lobbysists? What do they have to do with the manuscript or the notion of a birthright? ANd protecting its image? Is that now wrong? Isnt that exactly what you said, in the prior section, was legitimate behavior by ANY organization? And even if they do spend the money, how does that make their relationship with 'mammon' so cozy? Or were you not trying to conjure the dichotomy between God and Mammon presented by Jesus? If the latter then even the second quasi-analogy breaks down.

Supposedly you don't care how the church spends its money. Except you clearly do, as you think they shouldn't spend to protect their image, or preserve their history, or improve their physical facilities and surroundings. And, drawing no distinctions, it is impossible from your now vastly over-extended analogy to even guess where the line of propriety might be drawn. Do you spend money for a belief? Then you, mister, have a very cozy relationship with mammon, too.

In the end, you might be right, of course, but this conclusion is an opinion, not a fact. And it has nothing to do with some sort of esau/jacob rivalry. It has to do only with your view that the church spends money unwisely.

I don't care if you think that. I would have predicted that you think that. I, myself, am not sure it was a great idea to spend 35 million on this manuscript, but to lump it together with other expenditures and conclude that they all show a devotion to mammon (as opposed to God) does not automatically follow. SO, in my opinion, your original analogy does NOT follow and you contradict yourself and fail to specify the basis for your conclusion in the the second post when you suggest that the church serves mammon and not God.

You're a gifted writer. And you're a very bright guy. And you're one of my favorite posters. But this particualr stuff is just whining without much more there. Don't be bitter becasue the church has the resources. Maybe thats just how God wants it.

Thank you for your reply, creekster. I think you bring up some interesting points, a few of which I will address.

First off, while I agree that I "never allow that the LDS [faith] may be true", I am going to dismiss this as a non-starter. I am fundamentally uninterested in discussing the "truth" of a religion. I do agree that the actions of those who do consider the LDS faith "true" (and, by true, I am assuming the typical definition of divinely inspired and directed, etc. etc.) are fundamentally interesting and this should inform any investigation into a person’s or group’s motivations. You didn't get an "oh brother" from me.

In addition, on this point, your criticism of my apparently anti-LDS bias in not acknowledging that the LDS leadership may indeed have spiritual motivations in buying this manuscript is a weak (almost ad hominem) argument to begin with. Obviously, the LDS leadership felt that buying this manuscript was an important and worthwhile endeavor. However inspired they may feel their decision to be, my unwillingness to entertain possibilities of actual inspiration is hardly “biased” in a derogatory sense. I am equally unwilling to investigate whether the LDS leaders were ordered at gunpoint to buy this manuscript, or else the Ensign Swimsuit Issue would be leaked a month early.

Secondly, I must reiterate that I do not care how the LDS church spends its money. My observations about "Mammon" are just that - observations. I pass no moral or authoritative judgment on the church's decisions to buy a $35 million manuscript. Your insistence that I condemn this activity by equating it with Mammon probaby says more about you than about me, or at least about how much of a Mormon (or non-Mormon) you think I am. I see this purchase as being part of the same equation of the LDS church situating itself like any other large organization with an eye towards its history, its reputation, and its legacy. So, again, I do not care about this purchase in anything more than an academic sense (in fact, I am a dedicated supporter of preserving important historical documents). I see the LDS church’s activity in these regards as a version of other organizations doing the exact same thing.
So, with those disagreements out of the way, I may now engage in a defense of my analogy.

I contend that the RLDS (or Community of Christ) has a better historical claim to LDS authoritative succession than the LDS church. While the LDS claim to legitimate authority rests in the Brigham-Young-Transfiguration story, historians have cast considerable doubt on the authenticity of this account. (see, for instance, the very good Van Wagoner article in a 1995 issue of Dialogue. https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-c...4N0102_171.pdf). Historically speaking, Sidney Rigdon had the strongest claim to be the successor to Joseph Smith, or Joseph Smith III, if we believe the rumors of the Blessing (which I mentioned earlier). Brigham Young’s authority was, perhaps, indicated by his success in leading the people west, but this is hardly definitive. Indeed, in many ways, the accession of Brigham Young represents the closing of the LDS canon (for the most part), and a fundamental reshuffling of LDS doctrines. But that’s a discussion for a different day.

Thus, to me, the LDS church has the weakest claim to successional authority in this matter, in relation to the Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith III adherents. It is for this at I contend that the RLDS church had the “birthright”. Like Esau, perhaps the LDS were privileged of God and favored to “buy” this birthright, as the Genesis account indicates for the twins of Rebekah. As I conceded before, I don’t really have much evidence for the RLDS church willingly “selling” this birthright, other than this instance of selling the manuscript.

So, what of this manuscript? Why is it worth so much money? Clearly not because of its words, since the words are available in innumerable formats for no charge at all. On the other hand, it is precisely because of those words that the manuscript is so valuable. This manuscript represents a fundamental and foundational text for the LDS faith. The possession of this manuscript asserts a fundamental connection to the genesis of the Book of Mormon. In this sense, the manuscript is indeed very valuable to a large organization eager to project and protect its image, and provide for its legacy. As I indicated earlier, I pass no moral judgment on this development. I merely note its impact, as the possession of a historical text directly ties contemporary worshipers to an earlier era. We see the same thing with the Dead Sea Scrolls on display in Israel at the national museum.

The actions of the LDS church to emphasize prophetic, authoritative, and divinely inspired leadership underscore this attention to and desire for authoritative legitimacy. Old copies of the Book of Mormon that highlighted (inapt) comparisons between Meso-American cultures and Book of Mormon references; the insistence that current LDS leaders are “prophets, seers, revelators”, as heirs to the Old Testament tradition; the emphasis on authority and hierarchy as restored practices of ancient Christianity – all of these things are intended to tie contemporary LDS to past religious observance.
I think it is a defensible and tenable position to claim that the LDS church is very much aware of the importance of authoritative legitimacy – in the eyes of God, and in the eyes of humans. Thus, I posited the birthright analogy as encapsulating this idea of securing the authorititative & legitimate birthright.

But why speak of Mammon? These are spiritual matters, not temporal matters – are they not? My assertion that the LDS church is interested in using money to help bolster its authoritative legitimacy again brokers no moral condemnation. It is a reasonable interpretation that manifests in all sorts of ways, from the manicured gardens of City Creek Center to the glittering prosperity of the brand-new Cedar City Temple. A temporally prosperous church suggests Divine approval - an idea at least as old as the Puritans.

And finally, you are right to assert that I do not come to this question from a position of faith. But nor do I come to this situation from a position of anti-faith. I am interpreting events using historical context and my own mental faculties, flawed as they may be.

With respect.

[The_Tick]

I disagree. I spent a good deal of time considering it, although I confess deep ignorance of the CoC's day-to-day workings.

My immediate thought upon reading this was of the Hoffman-forged Joseph Smith III blessing, which the LDS church was all too willing to buy, as well as the holograph that Hoffman sold to GB Hinckley.
On the one hand, the accumulation of archival material by an institution (or an individual) denotes a strong sense of that institution's historical import and value.
On the other hand, it also suggests a sense of wanting to control the historical narrative. After all, there's a reason that Leonard Arrington left his documents to Utah State U, and not to the LDS Archives.

I don't really care if the church wants to spend millions of dollars on the document, but it's not about what I care about or don't care about.
The fact is, the church cares deeply about controlling its image and its history (like any other organization), and this document is a key part of its founding story.

The LDS church is firmly committed to deploying its impressive financial resources to project & protect its chosen image, to advance its causes, and to promote its legitimacy - whether that involves developing real estate around Temple Square in SLC, hiring ex-Legislators in Utah as lobbyists, or spending $35 million on a manuscript. The alliance with Mammon is cozy indeed.

Like I wrote, with enough money, the church gets pretty much whatever it wants.

Should I know who this is? Honest question.

[BigFatMeanie]

Should I know who this is? Honest question.

If you're a student of LDS history, you should know who he is. Basically the Father of LDS History. The first official historian for the church. If you're an average LDS believer, probably not - he was before your time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_J._Arrington

[Jeff Lebowski]

Should I know who this is? Honest question.

Served for a time as the official LDS historian. Good dude.

[Northwestcoug]

Should I know who this is? Honest question.

If you want to know what type of historian he was, read 'American Moses', his biography of Brigham Young. He didn't pull too many punches in it.

[Topper]

If you're a student of LDS history, you should know who he is. Basically the Father of LDS History. The first official historian for the church. If you're an average LDS believer, probably not - he was before your time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_J._Arrington

He has been discussed on these boards before. A very honest scholar.

[Mormon Red Death]

I scored it 10-9 In favor of solon. Creek got some good jabs in but the overall punch impact was better by solon

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

[falafel]

I scored it 10-9 In favor of solon. Creek got some good jabs in but the overall punch impact was better by solon

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

So after deconstructing your built-in bias, looks like its a close win for creekster.

[myboynoah]

So after deconstructing your built-in bias, looks like its a close win for creekster.

TKO for cr33kster. Use of the word mammon tips us all off to Solon's underlying feelings.

If you think about it, if you change just two letters in "mammon," you get "Mormon." What does that say?

Go #teammammon!

[Mormon Red Death]

TKO for cr33kster. Use of the word mammon tips us all off to Solon's underlying feelings.

If you think about it, if you change just two letters in "mammon," you get "Mormon." What does that say?

Go #teammammon!

So after deconstructing your built-in bias, looks like its a 2nd round knockout win for Solon.