Thinking Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 And despite the fact that you were working (no doubt feverishly the whole time) on the fence, you nonetheless were able to pay rapt attention to your Elder's Quorum Presidency neighbor's comings and goings, such that you knew he was home the whole time. And not only that, you knew enough about his itinerary that he couldn't possibly have had any pressing matters that required his attention and from which he couldn't get away!Most people serve out of the goodness of their hearts. You, however, transcend such piddling, trivial concerns and serve, instead, so that you can look down your nose at those who are surely not doing enough!I only told the story because I received a challenge to serve.
Deborah Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 However, those LDS members objecting to it are not normally objecting based on the grounds that the idea wasnt a good one; there concern about the decision to spend church money on development in general.Then they don't understand the basic fact that every temple and every church building is development on which the church is spending money. 1
Ahab Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 Consumerism is not shopping. Consumerism is a social and economic order that encourages the purchase of goods and services in ever-greater amounts.This is from the wiki. And this is different from shopping. People have been shopping for thousand of years. People had to shop for furniture at the time of christ and they went to Joseph, the father of christ. I am sure that he welcomed the business as did Jesus.Ever greater amounts because when you buy something you are buying more than you had bought before. Consumerism is basically all about being a consumer, and a consumer is a person who consumes or uses up something, which in this world is just a given. An article of clothing doesn't last forever, and even very well built items wear out eventually, so after we consume what we "buy" we need to go buy something like it, again, whether it's clothing or food or furniture or whatever. We pretty much constantly need to buy something because what we've already bought won't last forever. Thus, we have to go shopping for more.
Stone holm Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 Then they don't understand the basic fact that every temple and every church building is development on which the church is spending money.True so you intend to pass sacrament in the Mall?
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 Disrespectful to note what the Master noted, that "The poor shall ye have with you always"?Come now, he didnt really mean that.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) True so you intend to pass sacrament in the Mall?Yes because having a temple and pointing out that it is a "development that the church is spending money on" is exactly the same as passing sacrament in the mall. You tried to be funny it failed. Edited July 19, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram 3
jim_mason Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) removed Edited July 19, 2013 by jim_mason
Stone holm Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 Yes because having a temple and pointing out that it is a "development that the church is spending money on" is exactly the same as passing sacrament in the mall. You tried to be funny it failed.I guess if you think pointing out the basic absurdity of a point to be an attempt at humor that would be your conclusion we don't build chapels and Temples for economic development purposes, but they may provide some economic stimulus. I don't think that was really the purpose behind City Creek Mall. The purpose there was damage control.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) Our church started with nothing and everything it received from early members was consecrated to the church by those members.Members who give today are disproportionally temple attending members versed in the covenants of consecration. Those giving are still involved in consecration (tithing or otherwise).Any interest earned off consecrated offering has its root in consecration and is also a consecrated resource.I'm not making any claims about what the church should or should not so with it. But to suggest to a consecrating member that they should not feel upset about the use of there consecrated offering based on the argument, "it isn't tithe money it is investment money", totally misses the psychological and religious angst expressed in the original frustration by a tithe paying member who feels concern on the matter. For such members I have great respect and I can sympathize, though I do not share there perspective on this specific matter.But the logic behind their "psychological and religious angst" strikes me as a stretch of intense proportions.The Church members way back in the distant past whose donated funds were used for temporal purposes, and from which investment the Church theoretically prospers today, likely as not had no objection to the purposes to which their donations were being put. At any rate, they are not here to ask about it, so it seems rather pointless to be raising a fuss in their behalf. My guess is that if they were here today, they by and large would feel gratified to see the economic prosperity of the Church, knowing that they helped build the foundation on which it rests.Meanwhile, those of us today who pay tithing can rest assured (if one is inclined to trust the leaders of the Church, and I for one am so inclined) that the donated funds are used for ecclesiastical purposes. That is sufficient to the moment. Edited July 19, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
why me Posted July 19, 2013 Author Posted July 19, 2013 Ever greater amounts because when you buy something you are buying more than you had bought before.Consumerism is basically all about being a consumer, and a consumer is a person who consumes or uses up something, which in this world is just a given. An article of clothing doesn't last forever, and even very well built items wear out eventually, so after we consume what we "buy" we need to go buy something like it, again, whether it's clothing or food or furniture or whatever. We pretty much constantly need to buy something because what we've already bought won't last forever. Thus, we have to go shopping for more.I think that you need to understand just when we went from a producer society to a consumer society. When I was a kid, we were a producer society. I remember that banks were for savings. There were birthday clubs, christmas clubs, vacation clubs etc where people could stash money away. Those days are long gone. Now we are a consumerist society where much depends on buying and buying more. But a mall is a mall. It is a place to buy goods. It is also a small community where people go to have an experience and this experience is not necessarily shopping.
cinepro Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 Yes, I sort of agree with you. ZCMI before it became just a department store chain which the Church disposed of was intended to spread the benefit in a more democratic fashion."Holiness To The Lord" indeed... 1
why me Posted July 19, 2013 Author Posted July 19, 2013 While people do need things. People do not need Tiffanys and the other high end costly apparels of the mall. Granted the Church or CCRI probably left such decisions to other management company, not to mention the scantly clad and alcohol used to promote the mall. It is teaching something is bad and yet placing the temptation on a persons doorstep.First, we are a consumerist society. This is ideological. And it is built into the system. And the church teaches against consumerism. Tiffany's is a company that sells expensive accessories. It has a right to do business. If I have money and if I want to buy something special for someone, I can go to Tiffany's. Why should I be denied that right? And people are working for that store and they are bringing home a paycheck.So, I see no problem. Detroit can only hope for such a Mall with a vibrant community to visit it.
Ahab Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 While people do need things. People do not need Tiffanys and the other high end costly apparels of the mall. Granted the Church or CCRI probably left such decisions to other management company, not to mention the scantly clad and alcohol used to promote the mall. It is teaching something is bad and yet placing the temptation on a persons doorstep.People work to make the high end stuff, too, and if nobody bought their stuff they would be out of a job.Or if you don't like that response, how about this one:It takes more skill to make some of the higher end stuff and if people didn't buy it then people wouldn't make it, or at least not as much of it, and society might lose those higher end skills to make things.Or if you don't like that response, how about this one:We teach people correct principles and let them govern themselves. Nobody is forcing anybody to buy the high end stuff.
Ahab Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 I guess if you think pointing out the basic absurdity of a point to be an attempt at humor that would be your conclusion we don't build chapels and Temples for economic development purposes, but they may provide some economic stimulus. I don't think that was really the purpose behind City Creek Mall. The purpose there was damage control.
Ahab Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 "Holiness To The Lord" indeed...Thank you for the picture. Now I have a better idea of what people have been talking about.
Stone holm Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) Thank you for the picture. Now I have a better idea of what people have been talking about.Some of Joseph Smith's original city concepts was to have all the buildings have that saying above their doors. The original concept behind ZCMI was to provide a market place for local manufactures to get the Saints to buy things made by their neighbours. Edited July 19, 2013 by Stone holm
USU78 Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 Only if you ignore what has been said of every translated city, "And there were no poor among them."A descriptor of a specific people in a specific place at a specific time trumps the Master's dictum. I see. 1
why me Posted July 19, 2013 Author Posted July 19, 2013 The original concept behind ZCMI was to provide a market place for local manufactures to get the Saints to buy things made by their neighbours.Times have changed. But that is not the church's fault. People chose the ideology in which they live in. Some do subconsciously through the ballot box. Globalization has changed the way people do business and in what people are willing to buy or spend their money on.
Bikeemikey Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 Then they don't understand the basic fact that every temple and every church building is development on which the church is spending money.Either that or they distinguish development of religious structures from structures for profit.I personally have no objection to the church doing both.
Bikeemikey Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 But the logic behind their "psychological and religious angst" strikes me as a stretch of intense proportions. The Church members way back in the distant past whose donated funds were used for temporal purposes, and from which investment the Church theoretically prospers today, likely as not had no objection to the purposes to which their donations were being put. At any rate, they are not here to ask about it, so it seems rather pointless to be raising a fuss in their behalf. My guess is that if they were here today, they would feel gratified to see the economic prosperity of the Church, knowing that they helped build the foundation on which it rests.Meanwhile, those of us today who pay tithing can rest assured (if one is inclined to trust the leaders of the Church, and I for one am so inclined) that the donated funds are used for ecclesiastical purposes. That is sufficient to the moment.Just because you and I may feel that way does not mean all members do.Nor does it mean we should look down on those who may feel differently.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 Just because you and I may feel that way does not mean all members do.Nor does it mean we should look down on those who may feel differently.I didn't say I look down on them. I said I find their reasoning flawed.
Bikeemikey Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) I didn't say I look down on them. I said I find their reasoning flawed.Stating that someone's reasoning is flawed is a criticism - for many their response is an emotional-psychological-religious response. as such criticism of such a position based on logical reasoning is irrelevant. At most you can say they have a different response to you.If we can't discuss variances with in our religious community with out regressing to combative ideas such as flawed or lacking in reason then that's a real shame. Edited July 19, 2013 by Bikeemikey
jim_mason Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 First, we are a consumerist society. This is ideological. And it is built into the system. And the church teaches against consumerism. Tiffany's is a company that sells expensive accessories. It has a right to do business. If I have money and if I want to buy something special for someone, I can go to Tiffany's. Why should I be denied that right? And people are working for that store and they are bringing home a paycheck.So, I see no problem. Detroit can only hope for such a Mall with a vibrant community to visit it.and the is no apparent conflict of message in teaching against pornography and permitting pornography to be used to lure consumer.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 19, 2013 Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) Stating that someone's reasoning is flawed is a criticism - for many their response is an emotional-psychological-religious response. as such criticism of such a position based on logical reasoning is irrelevant. At most you can say they have a different response to you.If we can't discuss variances with in our religious community with out regressing to combative ideas such as flawed or lacking in reason then that's a real shame.You are disagreeing with me right now, ergo you must think my reasoning flawed. Can it be said that you are looking down on me?The Church members you speak of who vocally object to the expenditure of funds on a shopping mall are criticizing decisions made by the leaders of the Church. Are they thus looking down on the leaders of the Church?And you appear to be saying that their objection is driven by emotions instead of reasoning. Do you think they would regard that as a fair assessment? Which is worse, to say that their reasoning is flawed or to say that they are not using any logical reasoning at all?If it were me, I think I would rather be disagreed with than patronized. Edited July 19, 2013 by Scott Lloyd
Recommended Posts