Tithes going to fund BYU

[elguanteloko]

They all exist as points on a portion of the spectrum that begins well beyond cardboard shacks and ends well before the Wieskirche.

It's a moderate position that I'm quite comfortable with.

this does not answer my objection to you, man. again, your position is that "whatever the Church did on temples was right each time", do you think that is a reasonable position to take?

Then go ahead and laugh. I don't mind.

I am trying to get the best position possible, not to laugh at anyone. I would seriously appreciate if you considered this discussion more seriously, though, instead of imagining I am here to attack you which I am not.

How many children could you save from blindness if you would sell the computer you're posting on? How many times would $30 go into the price you paid for it?

This laptop that I just bought yesterday because my old one burned could have paid for 12 cataract surgeries (360 dollars)... thanks for asking. This misses the point for quite a bit, though. I never said, nor did I imply, that we should sell all our stuff and give it to the poor. I never said that we should stop building temples or to make them of cardboard to help the poor. We can, though, make prudent choices on our everyday lives to save money to help those in need such as not buying bottled water when you can consume clean tap water, choosing to buy a modest car instead of a new Mercedes-Benz, trying to buy cheap clothes and cheap accessories, buying homes that are not expensive and cover our necessities, adopting a vegetarian diet so more grains would stop going to the meat industries instead of feeding people, etc.

How much could you make per year, and donate to those children in Africa, if you were to stop wasting your time here and get another job?

Taking time to learn and discuss with others can be seen as 'spreading the word' to others on issues that I think are important. Taking time to enjoy recreational activities can be seen as part of a healthy life (it actually is) and I don't think we should deny this to anyone.

How can you justify what you're doing right now?

I just did. Anyways, though, I never implied nor intended to set such a ridiculous standard where you could not even go to the movies on a date or something. I don't try to apply it to the Church, to others, or to myself.

I, in turn, would expect considerably less hypocrisy from the person leveling the accusation.

...

It's good, though, to see the Church-critical gloves coming off, with your demand that "those that consider themselves as being in contact with God Himself" hew to a standard that you don't seem to require of yourself.

just don't be so fast in thinking you understand my position when I am barely explaining it. I am not raising such an absurd standard as you are assuming I am.

President Hinckly stated, repeatedly, that the small temples would be built to the same quality-standards as the larger temples. And, as a matter of fact, they were and are.

and I have no problem with this. do you think I am so thoughtless that I did not consider that if you make a very cheap building people may die unjustly in an earthquake or the Church may end up spending more time and money in the long run due to reparations?

What's stopping you?

please, man, don't be so fast in judging what you think is my position.

Do you really need the car that you have? The computer that you have? The phone that you have? The quality of food that you eat? The music you own? As many clothes as you have?

I explained this already.

You have my permission to use the quote, but you don't have a promise from me that I'll participate. I may, or I may not.

that is good enough. thanks!

You evidently missed my point about the Wieskirche.

I think I got it but your answer seems to be missing the point as I explained in the first quote of this post.

[Sleeper Cell]

President Hinckley stated ...

Granted that functionality (and by this I mean getting the 'spiritual job' done) was not his only goal but it was definitely a priority... needless to say it provided many more people with the opportunity to work in the temples.

I note that you have modified your previous assertion that:

the point of temple building is functionality as President Hinckley seemed to understand

[elguanteloko]

I note that you have modified your previous assertion that:

I accept your modification as a reasonable response to my CFR. Thank you.

I was not counting admiring the beauty of temples as a purpose of temples as I don't think President Hinckley was. That you want something to be beautiful does not mean the purpose of that thing is to be beautiful.

However, I do not understand what you mean by

[Walden]

So this friend of mine recently quit the Church, she has issues.. but one of them is that she found out that the Church is funding BYU with tithing. Her thinking is that kids who go there should pay for it themselves or get student loans like everyone else everywhere else and build the kingdom whereever they are To me its hardly startly that it does that but what percentage of tithes go to fund it? What do you think of that? I get blessings from tithing so I could not care less what the Church spends it on is my point of view.

I'm not sure what your friend thought her tithes were going to, but when I paid tithes, I understood that they were being used to build up the kingdom of god. What better way to do that than to provide education.

I attended a Christian university for my undergrad degree, and I can tell you that I only wish the sponsoring church had contributed as much money as the LDS church does to BYU.....I paid nearly 8x what my sister at BYU paid for her education. Check the cost of tuition at any Catholic university and you will see that it is outrageous compared to the tuition at BYU.

When I did pay tithes, I also at the time thought that the church did not do enough to fund the building up of educational institutions. With the log jam of applicants applying to BYU-Provo, there certainly seemed enough interest to supprt the addition of another major university (and by major, I mean student populations in the tens of thousands, not the BYU-Idaho or BYU-Hawaii variety).

To quit the church over this issue seems extremely odd, and of all the many exit stories I have read and heard, it would be up there with the most peculiar. A believing LDS member understands that the money belongs to god, and the leadership in Salt Lake will use it according to how god sees fit.

[Sleeper Cell]

'spiritual job' would be temple work (sealings, baptisms for the dead, marriages for time and eternity, etc). how do you determine it? that one is pretty obvious.

This is precisely why we strongly disagree. I do not regard the temple as merely an

[Jeff K.]

I always wonder why people who pay nothing, or pay without understanding (denying themselves the blessings) worry about the rest of us who pay, and pay with an understanding what tithing is.

If they want to give more to the poor than do so, and stop worrying about an organization they disdain anyway. It akes them look small minded, self centered and completely without credibility. They remind of Judas when he complained about Christ not giving perfume to the poor. Get over it and clean up your own act first. If you can.

[yesucan2]

Although I disagree, I can vaguely understand a member feeling that way. However, it does seem to be a bit inconsistent for her to list that among the reasons why she quit the Church. How can she criticize kids for not building the kingdom wherever they are, when she has decided that she is not going to build the kingdom anywhere?

I have been tempted to leave the church before, but when I prayed about it and search it over in my mind, it became clear that it wasn't the Church's problem; it was mine. If someone wants to leave the church and go down the my way highway, I've found that they usually start making up excuses to justify their apostasy, and, just like those who are justifying their divorce, feel the need to point the finger at something else other than themselves. What is kind of funny yet sad is how flimsy the reasons given so often like saying it's because tithing going to BYU. There is a woman I know of who claims up and down that the reason she left the Church is that she read a book about Joseph Smith that she claims gives his "real" history and exposes him as a womanizer, etc. It's amazing.

[Brenda]

I personally believe it is entirely appropriate for tithing funds to support Church schools, and not just because my daughter will be attending BYU-I next fall.

First, the Church encourages education. So why shouldn't it "walk the walk" by helping fund the education of its members?

And second, education is one of the best ways of lifting people out of poverty. By financially supporting education in various ways, the Church is helping the members increase their overall standard of living, which in turn allows them to help others.

Exactly. Related to the old saying, I LIKE the idea of the Church teaching people to "fish", rather than JUST giving fish to the poor. It not only helps them to help themselves, but it raises their self-respect.

[elguanteloko]

This is precisely why we strongly disagree. I do not regard the temple as merely an

[Daniel Peterson]

again, your position is that "whatever the Church did on temples was right each time", do you think that is a reasonable position to take?

Yes. It's just as reasonable as your position that what the Church has done in temple building has been wrong some proportion of the time.

This laptop that I just bought yesterday because my old one burned could have paid for 12 cataract surgeries (360 dollars)... thanks for asking. This misses the point for quite a bit, though. I never said, nor did I imply, that we should sell all our stuff and give it to the poor. I never said that we should stop building temples or to make them of cardboard to help the poor.

Then you draw lines, too. The only difference is that, with regard to temples at least, you draw them differently.

Which was precisely what I first observed.

We can, though, make prudent choices on our everyday lives to save money to help those in need such as not buying bottled water when you can consume clean tap water,

Check.

choosing to buy a modest car instead of a new Mercedes-Benz,

Check.

trying to buy cheap clothes and cheap accessories,

Check.

buying homes that are not expensive and cover our necessities,

Check.

Though what is "expensive" is a pretty subjective matter, just as what is "excessive" is.

adopting a vegetarian diet so more grains would stop going to the meat industries instead of feeding people, etc.

You lost me on that one.

And, in any case, as somebody with a strong interest in economics, I'm not sure that I agree with your apparent belief that people worldwide would be clearly and unambiguously benefited were we to wipe out much of the meat industry and dump U.S. wheat into third world countries. Developing economies are, very often, rather like fragile ecosystems; interventions can have unforeseen consequences, and it doesn't really pay simply to blunder in, even with the best of intentions. There have been more than a few cases, for instance, where U.S. wheat shipments have so undercut local farmers that increased poverty and dependence were the long-term result. The long-term problem is often one of local politics (e.g., war, corruption, and socialist mismanagement) interfering with local production and distribution, not of biology or climate. Shipping wheat can, certainly, help with short-term famine, but it can also exacerbate or solidify the local problems that caused it in the first place.

Taking time to learn and discuss with others can be seen as 'spreading the word' to others on issues that I think are important. Taking time to enjoy recreational activities can be seen as part of a healthy life (it actually is) and I don't think we should deny this to anyone.

Meanwhile, for every two movie tickets you buy, a little boy or girl in Africa goes blind. Twelve African children sacrificed their eyesight so that you could buy a laptop.

Contemplating beauty -- paintings, fine architecture, great music, etc. -- is also very important (even if it seems of negligible value to you). Yet every painting purchased, every new CD, every bit of adornment to a building, every symphony ticket, deprives some African child of his or her eyesight, starves some sub-Saharan peasant to death.

I am not raising such an absurd standard as you are assuming I am.

But my question is, Why not?

You're in favor of moderate consumption. So am I. We simply differ about what "moderate" means. And, as I first said, that is where the discussion begins and, so far as I can see, that's where it ends: De gustibus non est disputandum.

[Stargazer]

So this friend of mine recently quit the Church, she has issues.. but one of them is that she found out that the Church is funding BYU with tithing. Her thinking is that kids who go there should pay for it themselves or get student loans like everyone else everywhere else and build the kingdom whereever they are To me its hardly startly that it does that but what percentage of tithes go to fund it? What do you think of that? I get blessings from tithing so I could not care less what the Church spends it on is my point of view.

Wow, I've known about this for, what, forty years? This hasn't been a secret, and in the publicly available literature I saw on the issue, members who have paid tithing could attend BYU at a reduced rate -- similar to a state college where residents who have presumably paid taxes could attend at a reduced rate -- and non-members had to pay a larger amount (but were still partially subsidized). Seems entirely reasonable to me, in fact to this point I have never heard anyone at all finding a problem with it.

Your friend seems to have been just cooking up a laundry list of things to use as objections to leave. Too bad.

[elguanteloko]

Yes. It's just as reasonable as your position that what the Church has done in temple building has been wrong some proportion of the time.

I can't believe you think this is the case. Is it more reasonable to think an organization has been right all of the times or that it made mistakes with regards to a particular issue? Is it more reasonable to think a person has been right all the time or that he has made mistakes?

Then you draw lines, too. The only difference is that, with regard to temples at least, you draw them differently.

Which was precisely what I first observed.

again, I am giving reasons for why we can do much much better in helping those in need... all you answer is that my line is just different than your line; that is not a justification for your position. you are closing the door to any discussion based on principles that I think you and I can very well agree on... if at least you tried to discuss this issue you would easily realize it.

Check.

Check.

Check.

Check.

Though what is "expensive" is a pretty subjective matter, just as what is "excessive" is.

again, I am offering reasons for my position and all you offer is "that is just your line; I have a different one" instead of addressing the issue.

You lost me on that one.

And, in any case, as somebody with a strong interest in economics, I'm not sure that I agree with your apparent belief that people worldwide would be clearly and unambiguously benefited were we to wipe out much of the meat industry and dump U.S. wheat into third world countries. Developing economies are, very often, rather like fragile ecosystems; interventions can have unforeseen consequences, and it doesn't really pay simply to blunder in, even with the best of intentions. There have been more than a few cases, for instance, where U.S. wheat shipments have so undercut local farmers that increased poverty and dependence were the long-term result. The long-term problem is often one of local politics (e.g., war, corruption, and socialist mismanagement) interfering with local production and distribution, not of biology or climate. Shipping wheat can, certainly, help with short-term famine, but it can also exacerbate or solidify the local problems that caused it in the first place.

You have two options: continue with the meat production and waste 18 lbs of soy and grains for each pounds of meat produced or stop consuming meat and stop contributing to the wasting of resources here and abroad. Well fed but poor people is better than dead people (again, ignoring the political factors). If you feed a child you will have some chances of helping them succeed; if you let them die you have zero chances of helping them.

Meanwhile, for every two movie tickets you buy, a little boy or girl in Africa goes blind. Twelve African children sacrificed their eyesight so that you could buy a laptop.

Contemplating beauty -- paintings, fine architecture, great music, etc. -- is also very important (even if it seems of negligible value to you). Yet every painting purchased, every new CD, every bit of adornment to a building, every symphony ticket, deprives some African child of his or her eyesight, starves some sub-Saharan peasant to death.

Contemplating beauty is pretty different from buying it; the same with fine architecture.

But my question is, Why not?

actually, this is irrelevant since we can agree on very basic moral standards and work our way form there. We can't discuss the issue because you keep on refusing to address my points claiming that is just 'my line'.

You're in favor of moderate consumption. So am I. We simply differ about what "moderate" means. And, as I first said, that is where the discussion begins and, so far as I can see, that's where it ends: De gustibus non est disputandum.

you would realize we can indeed agree if you dared to engage in the discussion.

[yesucan2]

Exactly. Related to the old saying, I LIKE the idea of the Church teaching people to "fish", rather than JUST giving fish to the poor. It not only helps them to help themselves, but it raises their self-respect.

Further, BYU supports other church related functions.

[Daniel Peterson]

Is it more reasonable to think an organization has been right all of the times or that it made mistakes with regards to a particular issue? Is it more reasonable to think a person has been right all the time or that he has made mistakes?

The question of whether the temples are extravagant or not is not one to be determined by the laws of probability, or by abstract reasoning. It's an empirical question, coupled with a kind of ethical judgment. The temples have to be actually looked at, not merely reasoned about in a vacuum.

I've looked at lots and lots and lots of them, around the world. And, because I once dreamed of being an architect (the only obstacle was my utter and complete lack of any relevant talent) and am still interested in architecture, and because I have a particular love for temples, I've pored over the photographs even of those I haven't visited much more carefully than the average Church member seems to have done.

Based on that, and based on my particular ethical judgment in this regard, I don't know of a temple that I consider extravagant.

I am giving reasons for why we can do much much better in helping those in need.

I don't disagree. Although I suspect that my prescription for helping those in need may not be identical to yours.

all you answer is that my line is just different than your line; that is not a justification for your position. you are closing the door to any discussion based on principles that I think you and I can very well agree on... if at least you tried to discuss this issue you would easily realize it.

What "principles" have you proposed?

You've implicitly declared some unidentified proportion of the temples to be extravagant, or, in your words, "excessive" in their architecture. But you haven't explained what you mean by "excessive." You haven't specifically identified an "excessive" temple. You've signaled that you're not calling for cardboard-shack temples, but you haven't told us where, along the continuum that would run from such structures to, say, something resembling the Wieskirche (or even beyond), you would draw your line. What have you given us to discuss?

Would you permit murals in temples? If not, would you permit paintings? If so, how many? Prints or original works of art? Would you permit chandeliers in the celestial room? If not, precisely what kind of light fixtures would you authorize? (Presumably, you won't limit us to bare 40-watt bulbs hanging from the ceiling. But where, between that and a chandelier, would you draw the line?) Would you ban marble? How about fine hard woods? Do you favor bricks, instead? Painted or unpainted? (Paint is unnecessary for the ordinances.) Where, exactly, would you draw the line? And why? Why there, and not somewhere else?

I am offering reasons for my position and all you offer is "that is just your line; I have a different one" instead of addressing the issue.

That's the only issue that I can identify in your comments here.

Should we help the poor? Obviously.

Should we give absolutely everything beyond what we need to subsist to the poor? I say no, and so do you.

So we're agreed that what we should give to the poor lies somewhere between Everything and Nothing.

You think that we should divert money from building temples to care for the poor. I don't. That's our disagreement. What, exactly, do you propose to discuss?

You have two options: continue with the meat production and waste 18 lbs of soy and grains for each pounds of meat produced or stop consuming meat and stop contributing to the wasting of resources here and abroad. Well fed but poor people is better than dead people (again, ignoring the political factors). If you feed a child you will have some chances of helping them succeed; if you let them die you have zero chances of helping them.

There are far more options than those two. The choice isn't simply between vegetarianism and global starvation.

Contemplating beauty is pretty different from buying it; the same with fine architecture.

If nobody buys created beauty, it will eventually cease to exist. And particularly so if nobody "buys" it in the continuing sense of preserving it, caring for it, supporting it.

No symphony ticket sales, no symphony orchestras. No purchase of art, eventually no art. No sales of literature, ultimately no publishers and no literature. Nobody hiring architects to design great buildings, eventually no great buildings.

No symphony orchestras, art, literature or great buildings? No way, in that case, to enjoy them.

actually, this is irrelevant since we can agree on very basic moral standards and work our way form there. We can't discuss the issue because you keep on refusing to address my points claiming that is just 'my line'.

you would realize we can indeed agree if you dared to engage in the discussion.

What, again, have you offered for discussion?

Beyond your unexplained, fiat declaration that some indeterminate number of temples have been "excessive," which I reject, I can think of nothing.

.

[Jeff K.]

Either/or arguments are fallacious at best when many more alternatives, especially more efficient alternatives exist. A temple is built, it is built not necessarily for man to look at, nor for man to judge it. It is built for God, I know that concept seems strange and somewhat surreal to some here, but that is why the temple is built. So the basis of the building or architecture is to provide the best we have to offer for the beauty as we can define it. If that beauty calls for something basic, then it shall be done so. But a temple is a thing of sacrifice, it is representative of Christs sacrifice to us, and when we built it, we do not do so on the cheap. Christ/\'s sacrifice was not "cheap" the spiknard of ointment placed upon Jesus (whose price would probably be around 10,000 dollars today) was not "cheap", nor would anyone argue that it was wasted, well, I should adjust that. Judas Isariot claimed it was "wasted" and that the oil could have been used for the poor.

Funny how history repeats itself that way, same people, same arguments, same churlish jealousies....

Perhaps elguanteloco should perhaps give some thought to what he can do for the poor, rather than complain what the church is doing for the poor. I can guarrantee as a body, relative in size, the church does much more for the poor than he does. And in appreciation of that great sacrifice or atonement. I can guarrantee that the sacrifice for a temple that is the house of the Lord, is small when compared to the atonement we have all received from the owner of that house.

Is there anyone else we should cheat, other than God that is?

[Sleeper Cell]

what can you do on temples that you can't do anywhere else?

Absolutely nothing.

IIRC, every ordinance now performed in the temple was, at one time or another, performed elsewhere. There is certainly nothing done in the temple that couldn

[elguanteloko]

Absolutely nothing.

IIRC, every ordinance now performed in the temple was, at one time or another, performed elsewhere. There is certainly nothing done in the temple that couldn

[Brenda]

Not sure how this thread went from BYU to temples.

If you are not LDS, nor have been to the temple, YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT in a discussion about the purpose of temples.

Since the LDS Church is probably one of the leading religions to help the poor and needy world-wide, including sending teams of medical help and training into the poorer regions of the world, then if it chooses to use some of its funds to build temples, which are the center and focus of our religion, and chooses to make them as beautiful as possible as a token of devotion to God, it is its right to do so.

[Daniel Peterson]

I was actually assuming the necessity of temples and arguing for simpler, more modest buildings...

But you have offered no principled standard for how modest those temples ought to be.

My point, though, is that there seems to be a kind of inconsistency (a very strong one) in how we ought to use our resources to help those in need and the way in which the Church spends money (temples included).

It would be simple and neat to give everything to the poor beyond what is needed for survival.

It would be equally simple and neat to give nothing to the poor.

Any point between everything and nothing can be criticized as arbitrary and wrong by anybody who thinks that the meter ought to be set at, say, 0.3 or at 0.8 instead of at 0.45.

What is the relevant purpose of building big, more expensive than necessary buildings while there are so many people we could help with those resources?

You haven't defined "more expensive than necessary," just as you've never defined "excessive." You've said that you don't favor cardboard-shack temples, yet -- since the ordinances could, plainly, be performed within a cardboard shack -- you've offered no reason why anything even slightly nicer than that shouldn't be considered "excessive" and "more expensive than necessary."

And "big"? Try going into the Mt. Timpanogos Temple on a Friday night or a Saturday morning. You may well wish it were bigger.

so, what is the beauty of temples for?

You're right. Beauty has no direct function in feeding the poor or preventing blindness in African children.

Perhaps it can and should be dispensed with.

My suspicion, though, is that the poor Filipinos who are, even now, worshiping in the new Cebu City Temple love and are uplifted by its beauty. It gives them a taste of heaven, something quite lacking, in that sense, in the (very) modest homes from which they come.

what do you think can have a greater impact in people's minds: going to a modest building and being taught why it is so modest and how resources are channeled constantly to help those in need (as a model for our own lives, too) OR going into a beautiful big building?

This isn't an either/or.

[elguanteloko]

The question of whether the temples are extravagant or not is not one to be determined by the laws of probability, or by abstract reasoning. It's an empirical question, coupled with a kind of ethical judgment. The temples have to be actually looked at, not merely reasoned about in a vacuum.

I've looked at lots and lots and lots of them, around the world. And, because I once dreamed of being an architect (the only obstacle was my utter and complete lack of any relevant talent) and am still interested in architecture, and because I have a particular love for temples, I've pored over the photographs even of those I haven't visited much more carefully than the average Church member seems to have done.

Based on that, and based on my particular ethical judgment in this regard, I don't know of a temple that I consider extravagant.

...

I don't disagree. Although I suspect that my prescription for helping those in need may not be identical to yours.

...

What "principles" have you proposed?

...

You've implicitly declared some unidentified proportion of the temples to be extravagant, or, in your words, "excessive" in their architecture. But you haven't explained what you mean by "excessive." You haven't specifically identified an "excessive" temple. You've signaled that you're not calling for cardboard-shack temples, but you haven't told us where, along the continuum that would run from such structures to, say, something resembling the Wieskirche (or even beyond), you would draw your line. What have you given us to discuss?

Anything that is not necessary to perform the ordinances in a safe and decent way would be considered unnecessary and wrong. You could argue, however, that you are promoting art by beautifying the temples but I would consider that as not convincing at all for a religious institution that claims to follow Christ's example. If people gave me a bunch of money believing I was a true disciple of Christ the last thing where I would think to spend it would be in 'art'. People can seek for art as they wish and I don't think I would have to spend people's money in that instead of helping brothers and sisters get the basics to live. Notice you could also use the 'art' argument for the Catholics... I don't think you want to go there.

Would you permit murals in temples? If not, would you permit paintings? If so, how many? Prints or original works of art? Would you permit chandeliers in the celestial room? If not, precisely what kind of light fixtures would you authorize? (Presumably, you won't limit us to bare 40-watt bulbs hanging from the ceiling. But where, between that and a chandelier, would you draw the line?) Would you ban marble? How about fine hard woods? Do you favor bricks, instead? Painted or unpainted? (Paint is unnecessary for the ordinances.) Where, exactly, would you draw the line? And why? Where there, and not somewhere else?

I would not "ban" anything; do with the money people give you as you want. Again, the question is not "would you permit X?" but "Is X necessary?". Do you think marble is necessary to perform the ordinances? do you think murals are necessary to do the work of the Lord? Having good quality buildings is indeed necessary since natural disasters could damage it and the people inside and more resources could end up being used in repairs. Painting is indeed necessary.

That's the only issue that I can identify in your comments here.

Should we help the poor? Obviously.

Should we give absolutely everything beyond what we need to subsist to the poor? I say no, and so do you.

So we're agreed that what we should give to the poor lies somewhere between Everything and Nothing.

You think that we should divert money from building temples to care for the poor. I don't. That's our disagreement. What, exactly, do you propose to discuss?

...

There are far more options than those two. The choice isn't simply between vegetarianism and global starvation.

sure, but I was talking about vegetarianism and your objection that sending grains to the poor would ultimately damage them.

If nobody buys created beauty, it will eventually cease to exist.

because artists only work for money, obviously.

And particularly so if nobody "buys" it in the continuing sense of preserving it, caring for it, supporting it.

No symphony ticket sales, no symphony orchestras. No purchase of art, eventually no art. No sales of literature, ultimately no publishers and no literature. Nobody hiring architects to design great buildings, eventually no great buildings.

No symphony orchestras, art, literature or great buildings? No way, in that case, to enjoy them.

As I mentioned before, there is nothing wrong in enjoying and supporting art; these are healthy activities and even necessary, I would argue... I think we should expect less 'beautifying' and more 'helping' those in need' as Christ taught with His example for an institution that claims to follow Him.

What, again, have you offered for discussion?

Beyond your unexplained, fiat declaration that some indeterminate number of temples have been "excessive," which I reject, I can think of nothing.

we could not get to the issue before because of your absurd excuses for not addressing it.

[elguanteloko]

My suspicion, though, is that the poor Filipinos who are, even now, worshiping in the new Cebu City Temple love and are uplifted by its beauty. It gives them a taste of heaven, something quite lacking, in that sense, in the (very) modest homes from which they come.

W.O.W.

[elguanteloko]

The question of whether the temples are extravagant or not is not one to be determined by the laws of probability, or by abstract reasoning. It's an empirical question, coupled with a kind of ethical judgment. The temples have to be actually looked at, not merely reasoned about in a vacuum.

I guess I did not address this one well enough so I am going to do it here.

This answer of yours misses the point. I was not asking how we should determine if how temples are made is appropriate or not. I was criticizing your position that it is just as reasonable to think an organization did not make any mistakes with regards to an issue than to think they made mistakes. again, "is it more reasonable to think an organization has been right all of the times or that it made mistakes with regards to a particular issue? Is it more reasonable to think a person has been right all the time or that he has made mistakes?"

[Daniel Peterson]

Anything that is not necessary to perform the ordinances in a safe and decent way would be considered unnecessary and wrong.

Then, as I've suggested, an adobe brick building or a cardboard shack or, for that matter, a secluded outdoor spot would suffice, and anything more elaborate than one of those "would be considered" (by somebody holding consistently to your claimed principles, at least) "unnecessary and wrong." The ordinances could be performed in a safe and decent way in any of them.

Yet you have said, above, that you don't expect us to perform temple ordinances in cardboard shacks -- but have said so without offering any principled reason for what seems an arbitrary decision on your part.

You could argue, however, that you are promoting art by beautifying the temples

Certainly that. But not only that. I think that beauty in a temple contributes greatly to the spirit of worship.

but I would consider that as not convincing at all for a religious institution that claims [emphasis mine] to follow Christ's example. If people gave me a bunch of money believing I was a true disciple of Christ the last thing where I would think to spend it would be in 'art'.

Speaking as a tithepayer -- I have no idea whether you are or aren't (you're anonymous here, so . . . are you?), but I have considerable reason to believe that my attitude toward temples is more typical of the general tithe-paying populace than yours is -- I give money to the Church for it to use in a wide range of ways, including assistance to the poor but also the building of beautiful temples in which I and my fellow believers can worship and can perform service for the living and the dead.

You're right, of course, that art can never be justified as the most urgent human need, or as something that directly feeds the poor or saves the eyesight of African children. Every dollar that goes toward art is a dollar that could have gone to the poor (or, of course, toward buying a new laptop in order to discuss helping the poor on a message board). Nevertheless, I would not favor a world in which little or no art (or music or literature or good architecture) was produced.

People can seek for art as they wish and I don't think I would have to spend people's money in that instead of helping brothers and sisters get the basics to live.

And yet, as I've said above, every dollar spent on art is a dollar, by your reasoning, taken from the mouths of the starving poor. And every minute devoted to art of any kind is a minute that could have been devoted, instead, to relieving human suffering.

I can't find, in the logic of your position, any justification for devoting even a dime or a minute to art, music, or literature so long as there are hungry people in the world. Yet, quite arbitrarily, as it seems to me, you balk at the logical implications of your position, allowing for the existence (though apparently not for the funding) of art, music, and literature -- and then, on the basis of some principle that you haven't disclosed, claim that my different allowance for art, music, literature, and architecture is immoral and "wrong."

Notice you could also use the 'art' argument for the Catholics... I don't think you want to go there.

I happily go there. I'm grateful for the Sistine Chapel and the Piet

[Daniel Peterson]

Having good quality buildings is indeed necessary since natural disasters could damage it and the people inside and more resources could end up being used in repairs.

A cardboard shack, if damaged in an earthquake or a fire, could be replaced cheaply and easily. If it fell on the heads of those inside it, it wouldn't hurt them.

Painting is indeed necessary.

Not on cardboard. Nor on forest air.

because artists only work for money, obviously.

Plainly, they don't do what they do solely for money. But they do, I'm reliably informed, have to eat, and to feed and clothe their families.

Violinists who aren't paid will eventually have to leave the symphony. Architects whose designs are never funded will need government unemployment benefits, or remedial training as foreign aid workers. Writers whose works don't sell have to find alternative employment, and they write less (or not at all). Painters who never sell a painting or get a commission have to go into wheat farming or the production of laptop computers or something else of that sort.

No music, no good architecture, no literature, no visual art.

As I mentioned before, there is nothing wrong in enjoying and supporting art; these are healthy activities and even necessary, I would argue.

How would you argue that? On what logical, principled basis? Every cent, every second, that is devoted to art is a cent or a second that could have been devoted to the poor.

I think we should expect less 'beautifying' and more 'helping' those in need' as Christ taught with His example for an institution that claims [emphasis mine] to follow Him.

Once again, you've declared that we should spend less on beautifying and more on helping the needy, but you haven't supplied a principled basis on which to decide how much to devote to the needy and how little to devote to beauty.

we could not get to the issue before because of your absurd excuses for not addressing it.

There has been absolutely nothing absurd in the way I've responded to your vague claims.

This answer of yours misses the point. I was not asking how we should determine if how temples are made is appropriate or not. I was criticizing your position that it is just as reasonable to think an organization did not make any mistakes with regards to an issue than to think they made mistakes. again, "is it more reasonable to think an organization has been right all of the times or that it made mistakes with regards to a particular issue? Is it more reasonable to think a person has been right all the time or that he has made mistakes?"

My answer remains. This is an empirical question, not a question of abstract "reasonability."

The temples are there to be inspected. I've inspected a significant proportion of them, and am unusually familiar with those that I haven't personally inspected. I've seen none that I regard as extravagant or "excessive."

Much, of course, hinges on the definitions of those terms. But you've provided no clear definition for either extravagant or excessive, and it's not at all certain, even if you did, that I or anybody else here would accept your definition.

[elguanteloko]

Then, as I've suggested, an adobe brick building or a cardboard shack or, for that matter, a secluded outdoor spot would suffice, and anything more elaborate than one of those "would be considered" (by somebody holding consistently to your claimed principles, at least) "unnecessary and wrong." The ordinances could be performed in a safe and decent way in any of them.

I don't know the specifics of what type of construction would be better for each type of weather or surrounding. Cardboard shacks definitely do not seem to be a good idea in the rain and wind and I am not sure that secluded outdoor spots would conserve the sacredness of the ordinances (plus the rain, rats, ants, winds, etc); plus, if they are secluded they might become hard to access. Adobe brick buildings would most certainly don't make safe buildings where I live (lots of earthquakes). It depends on the conditions but this issue definitely does not seem like something that can't be figured out with a mentality of helping those in need.

Yet you have said, above, that you don't expect us to perform temple ordinances in cardboard shacks -- but have said so without offering any principled reason for what seems an arbitrary decision on your part.

I just explained it. If it can be performed in them in a safe and decent way I see no problem with them but I think they are not convenient at all.

Certainly that. But not only that. I think that beauty in a temple contributes greatly to the spirit of worship.

I offered several questions about this issue that you never answered directly. Here they are: "don't you think that difference in the 'spiritual experience" can be made up by people being informed on what specific actions were taken to save the lives of many poor or to save the eyesight of hundreds of thousands of children with cataracts? but even assuming that there would be a decrease in the awe people feel by looking or being at a not-so beautiful temple, don't you think that price is worth restoring the eyesight to two thousand children with cataracts in poor countries where eyesight can be the difference between life and death?"

Speaking as a tithepayer -- I have no idea whether you are or aren't (you're anonymous here, so . . . are you?), but I have considerable reason to believe that my attitude toward temples is more typical of the general tithe-paying populace than yours is -- I give money to the Church for it to use in a wide range of ways, including assistance to the poor but also the building of beautiful temples in which I and my fellow believers can worship and can perform service for the living and the dead.

We are actually arguing if it is correct for the money to be spent in a specific way and not what group prefers what more. That you choose your tithes to be spent in a certain way does not mean it is correct for them to be spent in that way; this is what we are discussing.

You're right, of course, that art can never be justified as the most urgent human need, or as something that directly feeds the poor or saves the eyesight of African children. Every dollar that goes toward art is a dollar that could have gone to the poor (or, of course, toward buying a new laptop in order to discuss helping the poor on a message board). Nevertheless, I would not favor a world in which little or no art (or music or literature or good architecture) was produced.

And yet, as I've said above, every dollar spent on art is a dollar, by your reasoning, taken from the mouths of the starving poor. And every minute devoted to art of any kind is a minute that could have been devoted, instead, to relieving human suffering.

I can't find, in the logic of your position, any justification for devoting even a dime or a minute to art, music, or literature so long as there are hungry people in the world. Yet, quite arbitrarily, as it seems to me, you balk at the logical implications of your position, allowing for the existence (though apparently not for the funding) of art, music, and literature -- and then, on the basis of some principle that you haven't disclosed, claim that my different allowance for art, music, literature, and architecture is immoral and "wrong."

All morality is arbitrary to an extent... and that does not matter for this issue. Again, Daniel, we can very well agree on some basic points and there is no need to justify the existence of your (or my) specific moral instincts. The way to discuss a moral issue is NOT to put into question the very basis for the other person's morality since yours are based on the same type of instincts. We discuss practical moral issues by 'trying them out', if you will; that is, you "try" them in your brain and imagine how it would be to apply a specific principle. If it clicks then it seems you are going in the right direction; if it does not then it is not the right direction. All you are doing by putting into question the basis of morality itself and asking for me to give you a universal law of morality is to close ALL moral issues for discussion. I have repeatedly said this and you just don't seem to get it. That is why saying "that's your line; I just have another one" is absurd when discussing practical issues in morality. Every time I ask you to analyze a specific situation so we can get to a very practical agreement you ignore the question and go to the absurd "well, that is your morality; I have a different one".

I seriously just can't continue to try to make you understand this simple issue. Or you simply just don't get it or you are being plain dishonest in this discussion... it seems to me like it is the second one. I just hope people here can distinguish how ridiculous your arguments are and how you are constantly refusing to address my points directly.

When you want to discuss this issue seriously and honestly you can contact me here. Have a great day, Daniel.