Downtown Slc Revival And The Lds Church

[Scott Lloyd]

Yep. That's how I read most of the comments.

If you lost interest, why continue to comment

Yours piqued my interest. I wondered, all things being equal, what there is particularly objectionable about operating a shopping mall as opposed to other means of "turning a profit" -- say, dealing in cocaine or operating a brothel or running a sweat shop with slave labor. I could see objecting to those things.

 

And in point of fact, this thread had gone inactive and was not resurrected until yesterday.

Edited October 1, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Paddy]

Yours piqued my interest. I wondered, all things being equal, what there is particularly objectionable about operating a shopping mall as opposed to other means of "turning a profit."

And in point of fact, this thread had gone inactive and was not resurrected until yesterday.

I have stated my views in this thread already. Your welcome to go back and read through it. I think this thread should die as well.

[Kenngo1969]

Please demonstrate that I have misquoted McMullin.

 

You haven't misquoted him, but that's far from the only way to abuse someone's words.  One can do that while still quoting every word that a person says, as I'm sure you know, and that's how Bishop McMullin's words are being abused here.

 

As for the rest of your post, it seems a very personal situation; and out of common decency and respect, it does not appear to that commenting on very personal experience of yours is something I or anyone should do. I have the same pain and frustration before.

 

I would like someone to point out where the Church teaches "that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually."  If we as Church believe that, then there is some teaching from the Church to support it.

 

Your concern for my tender soul is touching.  I'm afraid, however, that it does nothing to allay my suspicion that you simply cannot (or choose not to) deal with the substance of what I wrote.  That's fine; you wouldn't be the first, and you won't be the last.  As for support for the notion that "a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually," testimony to that fact can be found at every LDS Employment Resource Center, every Bishop's Storehouse, every LDS Cannery, and every other facility dedicated to improving temporal welfare anywhere in the world.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[tonie]

kenngo I am really at a loss as to why you come across as s antagonistic about your experience.

If the Church believes what Mcmullin claimed, then there are official teachings of the Church about temporally impoverished can nit blossom spiritually. Please identify the teaching of the Church to support it.

[ksfisher]

kenngo I am really at a loss as to why you come across as s antagonistic about your experience.

If the Church believes what Mcmullin claimed, then there are official teachings of the Church about temporally impoverished can nit blossom spiritually. Please identify the teaching of the Church to support it.

Bishop McMullin, as a General Authority, would be one soucre of church teaching on this matter.

Personally, I live in a stake where many people struggle to provide basic necessities for themselves and their families. I have seen many converts enter the church in such circumstances. It is my personal observation that those converts struggle to live the basic principles of the gospel and keep the Spirit with them. The inability to provide the basics seems to weigh people down both temporally and spiritually.

[Kenngo1969]

kenngo I am really at a loss as to why you come across as s antagonistic about your experience.

If the Church believes what Mcmullin claimed, then there are official teachings of the Church about temporally impoverished can nit blossom spiritually. Please identify the teaching of the Church to support it.

Antagonistic?  No.  I have little patience for those who believe Bishop McMullin necessarily is faulting the poor for their own plight, or for those who believe he is preaching some form of The Prosperity Gospel .  Unless I'm misreading you, your apparent stance seemingly is proof positive that neither Bishop McMullin nor the Church of Jesus Christ can win: half of their detractors believe the Church of Jesus Christ faults the poor for their own plight or preaches The Prosperity Gospel , while the other half believe that the Church doesn't do enough to help the poor.  I guess if one's determined to beat up on the Church of Jesus Christ and its (former) leaders, any ol' cudgel'll do.  

[Calm]

Perhaps the problem is that some are reading "blossom" as not being spiritual at all as opposed to being able to devote time and attention to one's personal spiritual growth to become significantly more spiritually focused and closer to the Spirit by intentional seeking.

 

Poor people can be and often are very spiritual, but those who are burdened with constant physical cares including the diseases and overall ill health that generally accompanies significant impoverishment are not able to devote significant time to spiritual study and self development because they must put all their available time and energy and resources into survival.  

 

Perhaps people are judging his use of impoverishment in terms of the US while he was thinking in terms of areas of the world like Africa and other places where impoverishment means wondering if one is going to be able to get clean water to drink that day or some small amount of food for a meal for oneself or one's children and this is not an occasional occurrence but a daily one.

 

I highly doubt Bishop McMullen was claiming that poor people in the sense of the US level of poverty couldn't blossom given that Joseph Smith and his family would be probably seen as poverty level these days with the uncertain financial state, but the Smith family was still much better off than many in third world countries these days unfortunately.

Edited October 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[Kenngo1969]

Cal,

 

You deserve much more than the single rep point I was able to give you.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Don't worry Kenngo, I gave cal a rep point too!

[Calm]

And a couple of others too!  Thanks.  

[tonie]

Bishop McMullin, as a General Authority, would be one soucre of church teaching on this matter.

Personally, I live in a stake where many people struggle to provide basic necessities for themselves and their families. I have seen many converts enter the church in such circumstances. It is my personal observation that those converts struggle to live the basic principles of the gospel and keep the Spirit with them. The inability to provide the basics seems to weigh people down both temporally and spiritually.

 

When has any or every utterance from a General Authority automatically counted as a teaching of the Church? If we as Church believe something, then wouldn't it be documented and taught? I think, as given, McMullin is incorrect; he may have been sloppy with his response.

[Kenngo1969]

When has any or every utterance from a General Authority automatically counted as a teaching of the Church? If we as Church believe something, then wouldn't it be documented and taught? I think, as given, McMullin is incorrect; he may have been sloppy with his response.

A lot of people think a lot of things.  From where I sit, you'll have demonstrate why yours is the superior reading of Bishop McMullin's remarks before you'll be able to convince those who disagree with your reading that he was "incorrect" and "sloppy."  And while I've never heard it taught in a Church setting, I believe E = mc²  is a correct principle.  We needn't confine ourselves to the single criterion as to whether something is taught over a pulpit to know whether it is true.  Perhaps many Church leaders would agree with Maslow's hypothesis that someone who is constantly concerned with fulfilling lower-order needs such as survival and shelter cannot fulfill higher-order needs with which the Church of Jesus Christ, in addition to helping people fulfill lower-order needs, also concerns itself.  I happen to believe that Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs also contains truth and that his hypothesis that lower-order needs must be met before higher-order needs can be fulfilled is also true, even though I've never heard those things taught in a Church setting. And I think many members of the Church of Jesus Christ would agree that those things are true.  

 

Come to think of it, I would be very surprised if Maslow's principles weren't taught in psychology classes at BYU.  And, whether they credit Maslow or not, if you were to take a poll of volunteers and employees at Church welfare facilities and ask them whether they think it is easier or harder for someone who is concerned mainly with lower-order needs to fulfill higher-order needs, if I were a betting man, I'd bet that a very high percentage of your respondents would say that it is harder.  Again, whether they credit Maslow or not, the fact that it is harder for someone concerned mainly with lower order needs to fulfill higher-order needs is a basic, bedrock principle of the Welfare Program of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I think that's exactly what Bishop McMullin was saying, even if you think he was "incorrect" or "sloppy."

 

P.S.: Too bad I don't still have access to Handbook 1.  If I did, I would wager (if I were a wagering man) that something very similar to what I've said above is contained in it.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Scott Lloyd]

Perhaps the problem is that some are reading "blossom" as not being spiritual at all as opposed to being able to devote time and attention to one's personal spiritual growth to become significantly more spiritually focused and closer to the Spirit by intentional seeking.

 

Poor people can be and often are very spiritual, but those who are burdened with constant physical cares including the diseases and overall ill health that generally accompanies significant impoverishment are not able to devote significant time to spiritual study and self development because they must put all their available time and energy and resources into survival.  

 

Perhaps people are judging his use of impoverishment in terms of the US while he was thinking in terms of areas of the world like Africa and other places where impoverishment means wondering if one is going to be able to get clean water to drink that day or some small amount of food for a meal for oneself or one's children and this is not an occasional occurrence but a daily one.

 

I highly doubt Bishop McMullen was claiming that poor people in the sense of the US level of poverty couldn't blossom given that Joseph Smith and his family would be probably seen as poverty level these days with the uncertain financial state, but the Smith family was still much better off than many in third world countries these days unfortunately.

Then too, serving others is an essential way to grow spiritually. It is difficult to find ways to do that when one is struggling to keep body and soul together.

As I think about it, I realize that what Bishop McMullin reportedly said makes sense.

Edited to add:

Serving others and developing self-reliance are both concepts that have been taught extensively by Church leaders over the years. They are key principles of the welfare plan.

Severe poverty is a hindrance to achieving both those things. What Bishop McMullin reportedly said seems self-evident, and it is hardly surprising that a past member of the Presiding Bishopric would say it, since welfare services are so much a part of their calling.

 

I also find it bizarre that someone would fault Bishop McMullin -- or any other Church leader -- for saying such a thing.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

Jacob 2

17 Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that they may be rich like unto you.

18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.

19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

[dianaiad]

There is just so much wrong with this, I don't know where to start.

Well, try starting at the first thing you see wrong with it. Personally, as a devout capitalist, I see nothing wrong with any of it. What can possibly be wrong with growing funds that may be used to help others?

 

The parable of the talents, already referred to here, is, I think, utterly appropriate.

[Thinking]

I am in the minority of critics about this issue. I think what the Church did was a good thing. Jobs were created for the construction of the mall and for the continuing operation of the mall. How is that a bad thing?