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

[Solon]

This is a clever line, but in fact this is only a highlight of your possible opinion of what is happening. The analogy breaks down immediately if you consider it. But, as pithy comments go, well done.

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.

[All-American]

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

[Topper]

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.

Well stated.

[Topper]

Invest wisely young man.

[myboynoah]

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.

Oh brother!!!!

[Green Monstah]

An non-exhaustive list of things the church spends money on that I'm okay with

1. Education
2. Facilities/operation
3. Humanitarian Aid/Self-Reliance Intiatives
4. Significant Historical Artifacts

This is especially true if the funds come from donors for the specific purpose.

[creekster]

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.

This is just an extended version of your earlier post. IOW, it only works and makes sense if one shares the same opinion as you. Otherwise it breaks down immediately. By your reasoning anything the church spends money on, anything at all (except that which you approve) shows a cozy relationship with mammon. Rather than use your admittedly clever but ultimately flawed line about birthright, you would more accurately say "I don't like that the church spends money on things I don't think it should spend money on."

[myboynoah]

This is just an extended version of your earlier post. IOW, it only works and makes sense if one shares the same opinion as you. Otherwise it breaks down immediately. By your reasoning anything the church spends money on, anything at all (except that which you approve) shows a cozy relationship with mammon. Rather than use your admittedly clever but ultimately flawed line about birthright, you would more accurately say "I don't like that the church spends money on things I don't think it should spend money on."

Well, he did say that he doesn't care how The Church spends its money.

[creekster]

Well, he did say that he doesn't care how The Church spends its money.

Except when he does.

[Green Monstah]

You touched a nerve, Solon.

[myboynoah]

lol

[creekster]

You touched a nerve, Solon.

Why do you say that?

[Solon]

LOL. Bravo, AA. I really did laugh out loud.

This is just an extended version of your earlier post. IOW, it only works and makes sense if one shares the same opinion as you. Otherwise it breaks down immediately. By your reasoning anything the church spends money on, anything at all (except that which you approve) shows a cozy relationship with mammon. Rather than use your admittedly clever but ultimately flawed line about birthright, you would more accurately say "I don't like that the church spends money on things I don't think it should spend money on."

Hmmm.
The classic creekster move is to accuse someone of flawed logic without offering facts or maybe the slimmest of rationale.

This is hardly mere opinion. This is called facts with interpretation.

I am open to modifying my interpretation should you deign to descend from the peanut-gallery and offer a counter-position.
I would, however, prefer you to avoid putting words in my mouth (or onto my keyboard) about what I "would more accurately say".

[creekster]

Hmmm.
The classic creekster move is to accuse someone of flawed logic without offering facts or maybe the slimmest of rationale.

This is hardly mere opinion. This is called facts with interpretation.

I am open to modifying my interpretation should you deign to descend from the peanut-gallery and offer a counter-position.
I would, however, prefer you to avoid putting words in my mouth (or onto my keyboard) about what I "would more accurately say".

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

[jay santos]

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.