Tithes going to fund BYU

[Daniel Peterson]

I appreciate the fairly open suggestion that I'm dishonest. I really do. I always find that such statements make for excellent conversation, especially when it concerns ethics and being Christlike.

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.

A quonset hut, or a prefab geodesic dome, would seem a pretty effective solution, by your lights.

Such temples would be very cheap, and gratifyingly unaesthetic.

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?

Here's my answer: No.

Just as I don't believe that the knowledge that x people have had their eyesight saved would wholly compensate for the disappearance of the New York, Los Angeles, Vienna, and Berlin Philharmonic orchestras, the end of opera, the virtual disappearance of painting, the entire extinction of fine architecture, and the death of literature.

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?

Didn't you believe that the number of blind children whose sight you could have saved would have justified your foregoing the new laptop that you just bought?

Don't you believe that your time would be better spent working to end world hunger right now than on conversing with a dishonest and absurd person such as you believe me to be?

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.

Just as your preference for how my tithing is spent doesn't carry its own certificate of correctness.

You've asserted that your preference for where my tithing goes is morally superior to my preference, but you've provided no consistent basis for your position.

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'm asking you to provide a solid, principled moral basis for your evident position that, while we don't need to give everything to the poor that we don't need in order to survive, we should give the things that I care about but you don't.

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".

There's nothing absurd about what I've been saying. It simply eludes you.

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.

In case anybody misses your point, let me restate it very clearly: Because I don't see eiguanteloko's position on where my tithing dollars should be spent in the same way he does, I'm either dense or, more likely, dishonest.

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

Or, it seems, there's a third option: I'm either stupid or, most likely, dishonest or, just possibly, frivolous and light-minded.

The audience will have to decide.

[elguanteloko]

I appreciate the fairly open suggestion that I'm dishonest. I really do. I always find that such statements make for excellent conversation, especially when it concerns ethics and being Christlike.

sure.

A quonset hut, or a prefab geodesic dome, would seem a pretty effective solution, by your lights.

Such temples would be very cheap, and gratifyingly unaesthetic.

...

Here's my answer: No.

Just as I don't believe that the knowledge that x people have had their eyesight saved would wholly compensate for the disappearance of the New York, Los Angeles, Vienna, and Berlin Philharmonic orchestras, the end of opera, the virtual disappearance of painting, the entire extinction of fine architecture, and the death of literature.

...and there you go again...

Didn't you believe that the number of blind children whose sight you could have saved would have justified your foregoing the new laptop that you just bought?

Don't you believe that your time would be better spent working to end world hunger right now than on conversing with a dishonest and absurd person such as you believe me to be?

I already explained these objections several times.

Just as your preference for how my tithing is spent doesn't carry its own certificate of correctness.

of course it does not, and that is part of my point!

You've asserted that your preference for where my tithing goes is morally superior to my preference, but you've provided no consistent basis for your position.

I'm asking you to provide a solid, principled moral basis for your evident position that, while we don't need to give everything to the poor that we don't need in order to survive, we should give the things that I care about but you don't.

you would have known the answer to this if you would have gotten the point I explained in my previous post and followed the discussion starting from it... I guess you will not do it.

There's nothing absurd about what I've been saying. It simply eludes you.

...

In case anybody misses your point, let me restate it very clearly: Because I don't see eiguanteloko's position on where my tithing dollars should be spent in the same way he does, I'm either dense or, more likely, dishonest.

Or, it seems, there's a third option: I'm either stupid or, most likely, dishonest or, just possibly, frivolous and light-minded.

The audience will have to decide.

You are seriously not getting the issue so I think the answer is that you are being honest in your error. I find no fault in that.

[Daniel Peterson]

...and there you go again...

I have no alternative.

I already explained these objections several times.

Then, if you care about my understanding them -- remember that, if I'm not dishonest, I'm stupid -- you'll try again. Or, perhaps, somebody else here on the board, somebody who understands your argument better than I do, should explain it to me.

of course it does not, and that is part of my point!

My initial response to your complaint about how the Church uses tithepayers' money -- I really am growing increasingly curious as to whether you're among those tithepayers -- was that what you see as "excessive" I don't, and that was that. After all the huffing and puffing on this thread, have you advanced the discussion beyond that point? If so, I don't see it.

you would have known the answer to this if you would have gotten the point I explained in my previous post and followed the discussion starting from it... I guess you will not do it.

I've read, I think, everything you've posted on this thread. Remember, as you've observed, I'm either dishonest or dumb. And you're now leaning toward the latter explanation. So be patient with me. Or, please, somebody else out there, help me!

You are seriously not getting the issue so I think the answer is that you are being honest in your error. I find no fault in that.

Golly. Thanks. My intellectual incapacities come back to bite me virtually every day.

It's very kind of you to go on working with me.

[elguanteloko]

I have no alternative.

Then, if you care about my understanding them -- remember that, if I'm not dishonest, I'm stupid -- you'll try again. Or, perhaps, somebody else here on the board, somebody who understands your argument better than I do, should explain it to me.

My initial response to your complaint about how the Church uses tithepayers' money -- I really am growing increasingly curious as to whether you're among those tithepayers -- was that what you see as "excessive" I don't, and that was that. After all the huffing and puffing on this thread, have you advanced the discussion beyond that point? If so, I don't see it.

I've read, I think, everything you've posted on this thread. Remember, as you've observed, I'm either dishonest or dumb. And you're now leaning toward the latter explanation. So be patient with me. Or, please, somebody else out there, help me!

Golly. Thanks. My intellectual incapacities come back to bite me virtually every day.

It's very kind of you to go on working with me.

I really tried to make myself as clear as possible. If you still don't see me making much sense I can't do more. Plus, if you think I am not making sense please don't follow me on this point.

and, yes, I am a tithe-paying member of the Church.

[Daniel Peterson]

I guess you're wise to give up on me. And I should learn to stay out of conversations that are beyond my abilities.

But if anybody else wants to jump in and help me to follow this, I would be most humbly grateful.

[elguanteloko]

I guess you're wise to give up on me. And I should learn to stay out of conversations that are beyond my abilities.

But if anybody else wants to jump in and help me to follow this, I would be most humbly grateful.

I am not wise enough to make myself clear for some to understand me, though. I'd say that's rather bad.

I hope someone else can help you with this issue.

See you around!

[selek]

I guess you're wise to give up on me. And I should learn to stay out of conversations that are beyond my abilities.

But if anybody else wants to jump in and help me to follow this, I would be most humbly grateful.

Herr Proffessor Doktor Peterson,

The problem lies not in you, but in the language presented to you.

Allow me to serve as a translator.

ElQuanteloko's gripe is that the Church doesn't spend the money the way he wants them to.

It matters not that it's not his money.

It matters not that it's not his stewardship.

It matters not that the Church answers to the Lord, and not to him.

It matters not that he has brooked not a single argument showing that his choices are more morally correct than your own or than the those of the Church itself.

It matters not that the log in his own eye has left him partially blind even as he tries to remove the speck in the eye of the Church.

The only critical factor is that the Church (and the Lord) aren't doing it HIS way and are therefore wrong.

Since our moral compass point to his opinion as "True North", we are hopelessly and irretrievably lost- and only he can show us the way (if only we had the wit to see it).

And all of his posts (in this thread and others) have hinged upon that single, pivotal axis of conceit.

[scooby]

nevermind.

[Rincewind]

Srta. Loko's arguments sound very familiar. I think some guy named Judas raised some very similar to them back in Jesus' day...and we all know how Jesus just loved them and genuflected to Judas' wisdom...oh, wait...

[selek]

Srta. Loko's arguments sound very familiar. I think some guy named Judas raised some very similar to them back in Jesus' day...and we all know how Jesus just loved them and genuflected to Judas' wisdom...oh, wait...

Ouch.

[Cold Steel]

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.

One assumes, though, that Christ determines what the temples should be, and even how they should be constructed. The Kirtland Temple may look modest from today's standpoint, but in its day it was the largest structure in the state and one of the most expensive buildings (per capita) in the nation. Temples are built, typically, through revelation (via Christ). If Temples are edifices to Joseph Smith's delusions, or to his deceptions, then we have far more to worry about than the gilded doorjams and the elaborate paintings and decor. On the other hand, if they are what they are said to be, what do you expect? Basketball courts adjoining the sealing rooms?

People in some places come to the Temple from far distances. Sometimes these people come from places of extreme poverty. You would think they would be the first to decry the money and effort spent on such buildings, but you should ask them. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the memories and experiences these people carry with them remain with them the rest of their lives. Temples are places they can let their minds dwell on God and Temples serve as reminders to all of us of the home we left behind and the glories we can expect upon our return. In my own life I have lived in some shabby places, with water coolers instead of air conditioners. Now I live in a typical American urban dwelling and I love the time I spend in temples. They represent heaven on Earth, and to build it with communist efficiency would be to destroy its very meaning. The people of God have always been expected to scrimp, save, and sometimes even help build Temples. And though we call a Temple the House of God, it is, instead, for us that we build them, for "the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands." (Acts 7:48)

Why does God require sacrifice in the buildings of Temples? Because they represent what we aspire to. And we do not aspire to the ordinary and mundane. Temples are, if you'll recall, all about symbolism.

.

[selek]

One assumes, though, that Christ determines what the temples should be, and even how they should be constructed. The Kirtland Temple may look modest from today's standpoint, but in its day it was the largest structure in the state and one of the most expensive buildings (per capita) in the nation. Temples are built, typically, through revelation (via Christ). If Temples are edifices to Joseph Smith's delusions, or to his deceptions, then we have far more to worry about than the gilded doorjams and the elaborate paintings and decor. On the other hand, if they are what they are said to be, what do you expect? Basketball courts adjoining the sealing rooms?

People in some places come to the Temple from far distances. Sometimes these people come from places of extreme poverty. You would think they would be the first to decry the money and effort spent on such buildings, but you should ask them. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the memories and experiences these people carry with them remain with them the rest of their lives. Temples are places they can let their minds dwell on God and Temples serve as reminders to all of us of the home we left behind and the glories we can expect upon our return. In my own life I have lived in some shabby places, with water coolers instead of air conditioners. Now I live in a typical American urban dwelling and I love the time I spend in temples. They represent heaven on Earth, and to build it with communist efficiency would be to destroy its very meaning. The people of God have always been expected to scrimp, save, and sometimes even help build Temples. And though we call a Temple the House of God, it is, instead, for us that we build them, for "the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands." (Acts 7:48)

Why does God require sacrifice in the buildings of Temples? Because they represent what we aspire to. And we do not aspire to the ordinary and mundane. Temples are, if you'll recall, all about symbolism.

Well said, Sir!

[Daniel Peterson]

As a matter of fact, the design of the Kirtland Temple was shown to Joseph Smith and his counselors in a kind of holographic-image revelation:

http://josephsmith.net/josephsmith/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=5badda73c0b52010VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD&vgnextfmt=tab3

And, of course, Brigham Young famously said that he never passed by what is now Temple Square but what the vision of the Salt Lake Temple was before him:

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=ac08d0640b96b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

The Salt Lake Temple is our biggest and most elaborate temple still today, and was built over the course of four decades when many in Utah were living in mud dugouts, etc.

Far be it from me, though, to suggest that either the prophets or the Lord got it right.

[Glenn101]

I raise my hand to sustain the first presidency of the church, the Twelve Apostles, the Seventy etc. I am confidant that my tithes are being used in a wise manner by those whose job it is to make the decisions of how, where, and when to spend those funds. I have the option of not sustaining those brethren, and I have the option of not paying my tithing.

Glenn

[blackstrap]

perhaps we can persuade the government to buy a couple less 100 million dollar planes and use that money to cure ALL the cataracts in the world. Elg ,please explain why such use of"our"money does not frost your cookies. Oh,I forgot,the planes are used to do GOOD !!!

[Cold Steel]

Daniel Petersen pointed out something I had never heard about the Kirtland Temple's construction. I also found this, which added a few more details. Note that the Lord said that the Temple would be built, "not after the manner of the world." Also that the saints "worked and sacrificed" to build it (see details).

On December 27, 1832, the Prophet Joseph Smith received a commandment from the Lord that the Saints were to begin building a temple in Kirtland (see D&C 88:119). On June 1, 1833, the Lord gave further instructions to the Prophet:

[Calm]

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

In case it hasn't been mentioned before (haven't finished reading the thread yet), I think building a temple is an act of worship itself and the act of beautifying it with special and often unique things is one way that worship can be expressed through taking the time and effort to produce exceptional work through sacrifice and dedication. One has only to read the description of the building of the tabernacle and temple in the OT to understand the significance of those choices, especially considering the tabernacle being created when they were nomads (assuming here the story is true; even if it isn't, it does describe an attitude of proper worship to the Lord through construction of a suitable House to bear His Presence which are what our temples are for today as well).

[Calm]

It matters not that the Church answers to the Lord

If one believes in the scriptures, it should be very clear that in regards to temples the Lord has commanded an "excessive" expenditure to beautify them.

IIRC, in the building of the Nauvoo temple, JS had visions of the stones that were to be carved among other complex details such as the round windows. This during a time where the Saints had much less capital to spend, the value apparently being over $1,000,000****...think of what that could have done for all the poor that were gathering with the Saints.....

And yet it would appear it was a command of the Lord. I would hesitate myself to tell the Lord that I was going to be taking most of that expenditure and spending it on what I thought was important (no matter how worthwhile of an endeavour) and leaving him with a building on par with a typical modern chapel at best and that he would just have to make due (or "do" if you prefer).

*****http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/temples/nauvoo_temple.html

add-on: if one truly believes that the President and those who ponder and seek out the Lord's Will where and when to build the next temple are inspired by the Lord in at least some of their choices, I wonder why there seems to be presumption of guilt that they did not also seek His Will on how much to spend of His money to build them. It seems like such an obvious question to go to the Lord with that it seems a significant lack of common sense to assume that those in leadership of the Church haven't seriously considered to the point of endless hours on their knees whether or not they should put the often desperate physical needs of the Saints and their neighbours that are before their eyes every day above the alllegedly less immediate spiritual needs of creating a vision of Heaven on Earth through the beautification of the temple. While I don't believe each item of decoration is a matter of inspiration...or even necessarily every design of a temple was truly inspired, my personal opinion is that the first of the list of inspirations the Lord is sending those involved is what resources should be devoted to each of the missions of the Church. Especially in the case of JS and BY. Even when BY and the Saints knew they were leaving the Temple behind almost as soon as it was finished, they still devoted a significant portion of their resources---resources that could have made their trek across the plains easier or available to more---to finishing a sacred structure that they would hardly use at all.

[Sleeper Cell]

Why does God require sacrifice in the buildings of Temples? Because they represent what we aspire to. And we do not aspire to the ordinary and mundane. Temples are, if you'll recall, all about symbolism.

Apparently, to some, our temples symbolize the church not doing enough to

[Skylla]

elguanteloko:

Do not accuse others of being dishonest.

Skylla

[Calm]

Yet, if

[Daniel Peterson]

In case it hasn't been mentioned before (haven't finished reading the thread yet), I think building a temple is an act of worship itself and the act of beautifying it with special and often unique things is one way that worship can be expressed through taking the time and effort to produce exceptional work through sacrifice and dedication.

That is certainly true of the Salt Lake Temple, which is topped by stones bearing small stone flames to symbolize the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. These can't be seen from below, and they are rarely seen from up on top, either; a friend of mine, who was preparing a script for a Church film about the Salt Lake Temple, was given a special tour that included the roof. He was stunned at that element of decoration, done, plainly, for the Lord rather than for the patrons of the Temple.

I can only speak to my own experience, but when I enter the temple my intent is to leave the temporal world behind and instead attempt to experience the eternal world. There is a time and place for everything and in the temple, that is the time for me to seek Heavenly Father directly, not through my usual 'mundane' way of service and seeing Him in my brothers and sisters, but more of a face to face encounter. I do not come to the temple to dwell on the problems of the world, if I come with a problem my intent is to turn that burden over to the Lord, the end result being either he gives me a solution and i can put aside the worry and concern and instead allow myself to be saturated with his peace and glory or he doesn't give me a solution but allows me to place it completely in his hands where I am blessed not to be troubled by concerns but feel with his peace. While knowing that others' lives have been improved always makes me happier, I do not see how this knowledge would somehow enhance my encounter with the Lord. Being surrounded by quiet and beauty separated from the woes of the world, by symbolic decorations that create in me thoughts and feelings of higher realms....now that does enhance my ability to focus on the eternal Now as well as to look forward to a time where the world will be a reflection of that great beauty.

And experiencing that elevation within the temple encourages me to work harder toward making the world that way.

If my experience is not unusual, it is possible that in the long run not much is lost in the amount of services and resources that are devoted to the poor and needy. If the temple encourages us to become more like God including caring for our brethren, the glory of the experience that helps us connect with the Lord in such a direct fashion might actually increase the overall humanitarian efforts outside of the temple in the long run.

So one could choose to look on the temple as a long term investment in the improving of the quality of life for all, especially the poor as the experience brings more and more to the oneness of the Lord rather that interpreting them as a drain on the humanitarian funds.

I couldn't agree more. That is to say, I would agree if I were competent to express an opinion on this subject.

[elguanteloko]

I wonder how you know so much about my position, selek. Let's see how well you did:

Herr Proffessor Doktor Peterson,

The problem lies not in you, but in the language presented to you.

Allow me to serve as a translator.

ElQuanteloko's gripe is that the Church doesn't spend the money the way he wants them to.

It matters not that it's not his money.

It is my money before I give it to the Church; it is obviously NOT mine after that. That it is my money or not is irrelevant since we were trying to see if it could be spent in a better way.

It matters not that it's not his stewardship.

It indeed does not matter.

It matters not that the Church answers to the Lord, and not to him.

I am not saying the Church has to answer to me about this at all. It can very well answer to the Lord and still be wrong.

It matters not that he has brooked not a single argument showing that his choices are more morally correct than your own or than the those of the Church itself.

If one is not getting the issue and constantly misses the point I guess a discussion becomes very hard to move forward.

It matters not that the log in his own eye has left him partially blind even as he tries to remove the speck in the eye of the Church.

lol!

The only critical factor is that the Church (and the Lord) aren't doing it HIS way and are therefore wrong.

Your own morality is all that exists for you, selek, just as it exists for anyone of us. You are saying here something we can all agree on and still miss the point.

Since our moral compass point to his opinion as "True North", we are hopelessly and irretrievably lost- and only he can show us the way (if only we had the wit to see it).

but you would not know this since you don't address the issue and try to figure out if our moral compasses point in different directions. The conclusions we base on them may be different but our morality is very much similar.

And all of his posts (in this thread and others) have hinged upon that single, pivotal axis of conceit.

...

[elguanteloko]

Srta. Loko's arguments sound very familiar. I think some guy named Judas raised some very similar to them back in Jesus' day...and we all know how Jesus just loved them and genuflected to Judas' wisdom...oh, wait...

would you please expand on this a little bit more? I am very interested in what you have to say about this.

[elguanteloko]

One assumes, though, that Christ determines what the temples should be, and even how they should be constructed.

It does not matter who orders its construction, Cold Steel. That God tells you to do something does not automatically mean you are correct in doing so.