43 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
| Sunday, May 19, 2013 |
|
- A Bird's Eye View
- A Motley Vision
- Adventures in Mormonism
- Blognitive Dissonance
- Book of Mormon Blog
- By Common Consent
- Ethesis
- Face of the Other
- Faith Promoting Rumor
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Flooding the Earth With the Book of Mormon
- Golden Road to Samarqand
- Head Life
- Just Sayin'
- Juvenile Instructor
- Messanger & Advocate
- Millennial Star
- Mormon Matters
- Mormon Mommy Wars
- New Cool Thang
- Nine Moons
- Old Testament Blog
- Our Mother's Keeper
- Proud Daughter of Eve
- Segullah
- Sunstone Blog
- Times & Seasons
- Wheat and Tares
- Zelophehad's Daughters
Did they also start vituperating at practicing Jews, demeaning familial relationships, or focusing on hypocrisy to the exclusion of other evils? |
I feel okay about where my tithing and other donation money goes. |
President Hinckley didn’t think we need $50 million temples anymore. For the Las Vegas Temple, 25 years ago, the cost was about $20 million. |
So go ask your bishop what you can do to help people in your ward. Check with your local charities. “We give people good principles and let them govern themselves,” right? Do you need the leadership holding your hand to do good things? I don’t intend to sound harsh but I find myself a bit exasperated by the OP. I’m tired of the endless handwringing on the Bloggernacle of “oh why isn’t the church more like the way I want it to be?” The church, flawed and full of humans as it is, is awesome and is full of so much wonder and does so much good that sometimes I feel I could just burst. Maybe, just maybe, God knows that he’s doing. Imagine that. |
I agree that it’s not faith-promoting to criticize the church. But the point of the OP is valid – we should constantly self-examine to see if we as a church collective and as individuals are following Jesus. Here’s a BYU-Hawaii devotional that I totally agree with: http://devotional.byuh.edu/node/386 Let’s believe more in Jesus Christ. Love each other like He loves us. Spend our time on His priorities. Submit our wills to Him. Live with gratitude for Him. |
I’m with PDoE. We don’t need to wait for an “official program” to do something. Each individual can do something on their own, and invite others to join them. Devyn, Please tell us how you are going to “rebel against the American dream”. How are you going to take the idea and implement it in your life? (Personally, I’d like to see retired couples move out of Utah to places where there is a lower Mormon-density, so that they can have a bigger influence on non-members. There are struggling wards and branches all over the US, in all regions, in big cities and small towns. As I see it, after you retire it doesn’t matter too much where you live. Living close to the grand-kids is usually a selfish reason. I say move to somewhere where there is a hardship ward where they are struggling, and let your efforts at your home-teaching, visiting teaching, and callings lift up that ward, and by so doing, create new “lifter-uppers.”) |
1. DKL – Not sure what you meant by this besides some attempt at humor? 2. annegb – I am glad that you are satisfied! 3. John Mansfield – I should note that the Philly Temple is going to cost $70M according to media reports so we have not got away from that entirely http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/pa/20100803_After_dispute__Mormon_Temple_will_be_built_in_Philly.html |
4. Proud Daughter of Eve – thanks, and I do act on my own. However, why is it so wrong to question the way things are done? Are we afraid of the answer? If the Church is run by flawed humans, then by definition, it is flawed. Therefore, how does one correct that if the lay membership is afraid of ever asking a question about the way things are run because if one does, you are labeled a questioner or an apostate? And sure God knows what he is doing, but do we know what we are doing? Does every leader? 5. Angie – Thanks for the post – I liked the devotional 6. Bookslinger – True we don’t need an official program, but when large swaths of our income are given to the Church, we don’t have a lot left to give elsewhere so in some ways we are tied to what the Church does as far as economics go. Service is a different story as long as you don’t have a time intensive calling. How am I going to “rebel against the American dream”? I honestly don’t know yet, but I find the concept very intriguing. I have rebelled against the dream at times in my life but not at a wholesale level. To be honest, it is scary to think of wholesale rebellion against the American dream…. I like your idea of moving to needy areas. My wife and I did this for 14 years. We lived in a very needy branch which became a ward. We had wonderful experiences and made some wonderful lifelong friends. |
I’ve stopped handing over all my tithing to the Church so that I can support other worthy causes. Over the years I’ve seen very little charitable work done by the Church when compared to the resources it has at its disposal. That has cost me a temple recommend but I feel very comfortable with that decision. I can recite the entire temple ceremony from memory and I can reach far more living brothers and sisters than dead ones with my time and money. If Church finances were more transparent I might feel more comfortable giving everything to the Church but now it mostly seems like a black hole. |
Bookslinger; Proud DoE I’m amazed at the efforts of some Mormons I’ve gotten to know over the years, at the efforts they make to make the world a better place. Taking a caravan of books to Africa. Spending years in microlending organizations to help the undeveloped world. And even giving of their little resources to help those in need that they come across them. However, most of the humanitarian and charitable work I’ve seen Mormons do tends to be outside the structure of the church. Whereas, having gone to a non-Mormon Christian college, I saw a multitude of charitable works and projects take place under the umbrella of church. Multiple Habitat for Humanity projects in Mexico, and Latin America in general, under the guidance of church groups. Many church groups working hand in hand with local non-profits. An annual day where the whole college participated in humanitarian work throughout the LA area. I know some of this happens in the church as well, but it has felt to me like it is to a much lesser extent. There does seem to be a greater emphasis on tending to our own (home teaching) and spreading the gospel (missionary work) than to service and helping our fellow man. I don’t think its deep-seated corruption, but Devyn makes a great point: The church is by definition flawed. Good can come from questioning where those flaws are and looking for impovement. I agree that this is one area. |
Maybe I’m confused… when I read the post, I was sure it was talking about _our_ church. What part of it wouldn’t describe what we’ve done over the last 30 years when considered in total. Particularly considering the consolidated meeting schedules, focus off programs that keep families at the church 5 nights a week, but budget program, etc… I see the church doing this very same thing. We are even accused of this change outside of our organization… We’ve all heard that the Church is trying to be more Christian, and de-emphasizing the Mormon-ness. I’m still waiting for the day, that the University Sports programs are eliminated… Rebelling against the American Dream – My wife’s choice to stay home as a mother has put is in that category all together, a single income no longer supply’s a family with an income worth of the American dream. |
At the end of the day, for all of the talk, we just need to put our money where our mouth is. From the Church’s own website, over the past 25 years, they have spent around $15-20 million in actual cash on humanitarian needs annually. This inflates to around $40-50 million annually if they include the “in-kind” donations that members give (ie. time, volunteering, other material donations). Just as a comparison: - Temples are regularly built in the tens of millions of dollars range (ie. $50-100 million EACH). The press releases for the Draper Temple, for example, includes the following: All of the art-glass windows created by Utah artist Tom Holdman for the Draper Utah Temple miraculously survived a fire that left only a portion of one window damaged, even though the art studio itself was so badly burned, it was condemned. There are 221 exterior windows, 50 interior windows, and 432 door panels for a total of 35,420 hand-cut pieces of glass. The windows incorporate the Log Cabin quilt pattern used by the early pioneers. - Estimated tithing revenues for the Church are in the $4-6 billion range annually. Of this, the $20 million is about 0.5% of it’s “income”. - The Church spent an estimated $3 billion on a shopping mall in downtown SLC. In the past year, it has also spent tens of millions on various other parcels of land in downtown SLC. - Etc. A lot of rationalism could be done. The Church’s donation funds are different from it’s “business” funds. We want the best, most expensive materials we can find for temples as they are the House of the Lord. The property in Hawaii is run-down and the Church leaders need a nicer place to stay when they visit BYU-Hawaii. Downtown SLC needed to be revitalized. Etc. Arguments can be made for everything. At the end of the day, however, facts speak for themselves. Our Church seems much more concerned in property development than in humanitarian issues. |
9. PaulM – I admire your willingness to swim against the tide. I do tend to agree that it is a bit of a black hole as to where the money goes. 10. B.Russ – thanks for the comment and I would agree with your assessment. 11. zionssuburb – Some of it would apply to our Church, but have we really cut spending on buildings, etc. to reallocate the money elsewhere? I don’t know, but I am guessing the answer is no. Now if the University Sports programs were eliminated that would be revolutionary… We have recently tried the rebellion you mentioned – certainly it creates an interesting dynamic… |
Mike S: The tithing funds are, by revelation, meant “For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church” (D&C 119). In other words, to use it largely for humanitarian issues is actually a misuse of the tithing funds. PaulM: Also from D&C 119:
I didn’t notice anything in there about member oversight or requirements of transparency. I guess if you feel comfortable explaining to the Lord why you thought His commandment didn’t apply to you, go for it. |
Sure Nathan, But there is this scripture:
And This scripture (which might be a little redundant, but by the mouth of two or three witnesses . . . ) Doctrine and Covenants 28:13 And of course, this scripture:
Which, admittedly, was speaking of the United Order, but it seems pretty relevant in context of the other two, that the Church’s financial movements were in fact the concern of the people. Finally, where you might consider using tithing for humanitarian causes to be misuse (I, definitionally, don’t – since I see humanitarian work as “laying the foundation of Zion” directly), by your logic, it would be impossible to call the current SLC construction project anything but misuse, wouldn’t it? - I realize that the church claims that no tithing funds are being used for this project, but as a financial professional I see it as being pretty misleading to differentiate interest/dividends gained from funds from the principle in this manner. At some point in time, the money from which the money was made, that is being used, came from tithing. |
12. Mike S – thanks – I tend to agree with you that our Church is not as active as it could be on the Humanitarian front. Your examples highlight this fact 14. The Only True and Living Nathan – I think your scriptures could be interpreted a variety of ways. However, the point is that we don’t have much insight into where the money goes. It is a “black hole” as was mentioned earlier. |
“Now if the University Sports programs were eliminated that would be revolutionary… ” Didn’t BYU-Idaho eliminate all intercollegiate sports? |
BYU-Idaho did eliminate intercollegiate sports. Now BYU is a different story… |
Devyn, why would you think that my comment was an attempt at humor? Weren’t those Jesus’s true priorities as reflected by His behavior? What makes you think that helping the poor was a priority for Jesus? Sure, he healed the sick from all walks of life, but when did he every break a sweat helping the poor? |
Devyn–I’m with you on this one. I love inspirational stories like Platt’s and I do wish we heard more of them from people within Mormondom. I’m proud of the work our church involves itself in, especially in lifting the lives of our brothers and sisters in the gospel through programs like the PEF, but I do wish our culture bought a little less into the American dream. I think the church does a great job encouraging members to define their successes in terms of family, which is swimming against the tide a bit, especially in that it encourages women to stay out of the work force. I wonder how much that sacrifice makes us unable or unwilling to sacrifice further. PaulM–I stopped paying tithing as tithing a while ago, too. I now pay it entirely as fast offerings because I’m more comfortable knowing the money goes directly to help people in need. I can respect those who give to the church with no strings attached–I somewhat envy their faith. That said, I want to know the money I donate to the church is used toward ends that I approve of. |
DKL, it’s the do what I say not what I do Jesus they are following. |
How many children can we feed with the money that goes into BYU football? |
I think the church’s temples actually fulfill a humanitarian mission because the temples transform the lives of its members and teach them values such as obedience, sacrifice and consecration – among other positive values that contribute to lives that are dedicated to forgetting about selfishness and helping others. Think, for example, about what the temples teach the members about the topic of money. I sat in on the missionary discussions with a woman who had many negative past experiences with drugs. From the time the missionaries began to teach her to the time that she was baptized to the time that she attended the temple, she underwent a radical transformation. I was so awed and inspired by the process and by what she became. It was over a period of a year or so that I watched this happen and I knew it was the power of God in her life. The temple played an important role in that process – I know – because I saw how excited she was about going there and the way she felt after she had been there. I believe the temple plays a similar role in the lives of many members of the church. It brings a different perspective to the purpose of life and encourages members of the church to push aside materialism and to seek to become disciples of Christ. It’s a foolish thing to look at a temple and just see a price tag. Yes, a temple is a beautiful building and an expensive building – but we probably need a little more perspective here. The temples are rarely as ornate as the cathedrals or houses of worship that we see being constructed by other organizations. I’ve even seen the celestial rooms dismissively compared to hotel lobbys (I think that was by a writer of the Los Angeles Times who attended a temple tour before a temple was dedicated). I don’t write that to be dismissive of temples, just to bring some perspective to the argument. There are many buildings in this world that are much more expensive and ornate than any of our temples. We make our temples beautiful because they stand as symbols of something that is very important – but none of them is the Taj Mahal. |
I think it’s very shortsighted to look at a temple and just see a price tag. The temple teaches the members of the church values such as obedience, sacrifice and consecration – the temple gives members of the church a spiritual and cosmic perspective of life that actively feeds into humanitarian impulses and desires to serve others and to become disciples of Jesus Christ. Yes, temples are expensive but we probably need to get some perspective here. I have been in cathedrals and houses of worship that were much more ornate and expensive than our temples. I have even seen someone (non-LDS) write dismissively that the celestial rooms of a temple were no more beautiful than a hotel lobby. I think that was a rather nasty thing to say but in a sense it tells us something. The Church has yet to attempt to build a Taj Mahal kind of edifice. Yes the temples are beautiful and expensive – but I actually believe that sensitivity to the sacredness of funds and the ultimate best purposes of tithes is built into the level of expense that exists. More importantly, I have seen how the temple can change the perspective of an individual person and I know that temples do that for so many people around the world. I sat in on the discussion that were taught to a sister who had terrible past experiences with drugs. She took the discussion and was baptized and about a year later went to the temple. I literally saw the gospel, the church and the temple transform this woman’s life in a dramatic, substantial way and I know that happens for many other people as well on an individual basis. There is no greater humanitarian purpose than that – to lift people out of spiritual darkness and captivity and to bring them to the Lord. |
I also think that the Church has a broader, wider and wiser perspective in many ways. It’s quite the cliche for Western Christians to go off to India or to Africa and to donate funds and brief periods of time (a few weeks, a few months) to such efforts. The LDS Church actually contributes to disaster relief and to good causes all over the globe – but I think in some ways it is a more significant humanitarian effort, built into the Church’s purposes and programs, that it is constantly building and fortifying itself wherever it is and in the process of doing this, it builds up and fortifies the lives of its members and in some ways the lives of others who live in their commnities. I mean this in a positive way – in the sense that the church seeks to edify, educate and train its members to contribute and to support their families. It does this wherever the Church exists and as the Church grows in its membership around the world this becomes a worldwide effort. One example of this is the fast offerings of the church, which are a very localized and practical way for Church members to reach out to the poor who live in their very own area – and then, I assume, if there are funds left over, to others who live farther away. It’s not really a very dramatic thing – it’s the kind of program in which anyone can participate and the way it is handled is largely a secret. We are all familiar with this. It is much more mundane than someone going off to a foreign land – but over the course of a member’s lifetime it might actually mean a lot more in the sense of the overall every day practical good that it accomplishes. Another example of this kind of practical approach is the Perpetual Education Fund. I suspect, if we really give any time to think about it at all, that we will realize that the LDS church is probably doing far, far more than is being recognized in the post. |
19. DKL – I guess it depends on perspective given the pretty poor descriptions of Jesus’ life that we have in the scriptures. Did he care about the poor? I don’t know given pretty much everyone was poor, including himself. 20. kristine N – I agree with your agreement :) 23. danithew – yes, the Temples have an important function, but could one get that same experience for half the money? I also don’t think comparing one of our temples to a cathedral built hundreds of years ago is comparable – just look at the difference in ornateness between the Mormon Temples of the 1800s vs today. I don’t think anyone is saying the Temple has no purpose, nor that it does not change lives, I guess I would like to see it done for a much lower price as my God does not care how fancy or expensive a Temple is. 24. danithew – yes, we do many good things as a Church, but it is really a pittance in $$ vs the overall financial might of the Church. I think that is the rub – we are willing to spend $70M for a Temple in Philly for the 10,000 or so members there, but only spend less than that worldwide on humanitarian efforts. So yes, the Church does much good, but could it and should it do more??? I think the answer is yes. |
Devyn, Jesus was not poor. He was a tradesman, which made him part of the working class. Nor did his followers tend to be poor, as they were mostly fellow tradesman (e.g., fisherman with substantial capital investments, including boats and nets) or publicans, who were white-coller civil servants. They abandon their prosperity to offer spiritual enrichment to other people of relative means, because (let’s be perfectly honest), if you’re starving to death or dying of exposure, the last thing on your mind is baptism or the atonement or an assurance that you’ll inherit the Earth. I think it’s odd that you object to my description of Jesus as spending most of his ministry “vituperating at practicing Jews, demeaning familial relationships, or focusing on hypocrisy to the exclusion of other evils.” My description of Jesus reflects nothing more than His actual actions as recorded during his ministry. However, what’s more to the point is this: The notion that Jesus wants groups of people to focus on goods that are most saliently meaningful to people outside their group does not represent a better understanding of Jesus — it is a mere shift in devotional language. And that shift is no more reflective of the actual content of Jesus’s teachings than the original view of the “middle-class Jesus” who believes that a group of people do quite will to improve themselves. But there’s a self-congralatory tone to this shift in devotional language that is both irrational and perhaps a bit sickening. There’s an interesting fallacy when it comes to assessing what sociologists call “social capital.” Specifically, it’s customary to think of voluntary associations that are focussed on outward problems (e.g., the Red Cross) as being inherently morally superior to those voluntary associations that are focussed on addressing inward problems (e.g., your local PTA). The problem is that, other things being equal, there’s no a priori basis for privileging one group’s problems over another. Furthermore, in the abstract, if you have a two bona fide solution to a genuine problem that plagues a group, one that is executed internally by those within the group and another that is executed externally by those outside of the group, there is no coherent way to argue that the external solution is morally preferable to the internal one. A Mormon ward that focusses on the perfection of the saints is in no way morally inferior to a Mormon ward that focusses on the perfection of a bunch of starving African kids covered with flies. The truth is that Christianity has always been about the spiritual welfare of comparatively well-to-do peoples. Christ Himself did nothing to improve the lot of the poor. For more than an entire millennia, Christ’s teachings dominated the political and interpersonal ethics of Western civilization, and they accomplished absolutely nothing with respect to improving the average lot of the poor. Indeed, it wasn’t until the Enlightenment led to the express repudiation of ethics and morality founded on Jesus’s teachings that the average condition of the poor in Western civilization began to improve. Throughout history, most Christian efforts in the 3rd world were aimed at converting natives and extending colonial power and influence. That’s changed: Back then, Christians persecuted the natives; now the natives persecute the Christians. Put bluntly, Christianity is a fish-out-of-water when it comes to dealing with radically impoverished societies dominated by hostile political and religious regimes that it does not aim to abolish. Sadly, the 20th century saw Christianity perverted from an every-knee-shall-bow outlook to a let’s-save-the-world-from-itself outlook, which is no less futile, but diverts valuable resources from within Christian communities that might otherwise be improving themselves. And the world needs self-improving communities no less than it needs to save starving 3rd world peoples so that they can live in perpetual, subsistence-level poverty. That said, though I obviously disagree with your outlook, I object to the commenters here who characterize your outlook as an attack on Mormonism. The following proposition is so self-evidently obvious to me that I would not otherwise see the need to state it: It is not inherently heretical for Mormons to adopt the optative mood when describing possible futures for their religion. |
Devyn, the overall might of the church is what makes it possible for the church to continue to do the humanitarian efforts that it performs, day-after-day, month-after-month, year-after-year. The church description that is linked in your post – they have already shown that they are highly variable, perhaps even unstable, in the way they approach their work. One day they are building a megachurch and then they completely change their mind and decide they are about humanitarian effort. Who is to say they won’t change their mind tomorrow? The LDS Church, on the other hand, will be an unrelenting practical positive force. It will just keep on moving. Maybe the percentage of its wealth that goes to humanitarian services could be increased. But my experience with the church is that it tends to keep moving forward, putting one foot in front of the other – and then over the years it improves its models and its approaches and makes them more effective. |
Devyn, I guess my overall response to this post should begin with the title – I believe you do belong to a church like that – except the church you belong to is more effective and deserves more credit than you are giving it in the title/post. |
26. DKL – Thanks for the comment (been awhile since I had such a long comment from you – I feel special :) ). Ok – Poor is relative back then – from our standards nearly all of the Jews were pretty poor, but by their standards the abject poor were certainly not part of Jesus’ contingent – I will give you that. I would also agree that the starving (e.g., the really poor) don’t give a damn about spiritual salvation. I did not object to your description of Jesus but said that given the poor description of his life we have, it is difficult to know how much poor outreach he did in reality. Of course, the Jesus that we do have, as you mention, is probably not what some aspire for in Christianity as far as caring for those outside our “tribe”. I would agree that it probably does not matter whether one is helping inside or outside one’s group. However, there is likely a lot more need in Africa than there is in the Belmont wards, for example. “I object to the commenters here who characterize your outlook as an attack on Mormonism. The following proposition is so self-evidently obvious to me that I would not otherwise see the need to state it: It is not inherently heretical for Mormons to adopt the optative mood when describing possible futures for their religion.” Wow – all that discourse and you agree with me on one point – certainly my lucky day! Seriously, thanks as you have given me a few things to think about! |
27. danithew – I am not going to get into a discussion defending some random Church nor defending our Church. I think we disagree on this – you think our Church does everything wonderful in this realm and I think there is room for improvement |
Devyn, I just think we need to tally what the church and its members are already doing before we become critical. I remember feeling a bit scornful about LDS wedding receptions in cultural halls, until I took a second look and took into account that LDS people are already paying tithing, raising large families, sending those children on missions and then to college, etc. … they already carry a lot of responsibilities. Considering what is already on their shoulders, criticizing them for having simple festivities in pedestrian settings might be a bit cruel. It dawned on me that expensive and lavish weddings celebrations (however wonderful they might be to attend) could break the financial backs of those same families. It’s just not so important. In a similar manner, I think it’s a mistake to complain about a lack of LDS humanitarian service/aid that is out there when it seems to actually exist and is consistently in play. There are all kinds of examples that could be provided … we just need to take that second look and think about what is happening. Does that mean there’s nothing left to do or that we shouldn’t want to improve? Of course not. We’re not arguing there. I think a big part of my reaction stemmed immediately from the title of your piece – “I want to be part of a church like that!” because my immediate reaction is “You are!” We should also take into account that we are currently led by a president and prophet of the church who is consistently telling us that we should make special efforts to take care of widows, visit the sick in hospitals, doing good works, etc. If there was ever a time where we should be taking those kinds of steps and reaching out to those in need, this is certainly it. |
Just the cost of a plane ticket could also be better spent hiring locals in that place to do the same work you would have done. Brother X (in any church) spends $1,000 in travel expenses in order to donate 2 weeks of his labor to some community project in Central America. That same $1,000 could have hired a local worker/contractor to do (at least ) twice the work, accomplished twice the results, and had the side benefit of employing local workers, and adding money to their local economy. More than once, I’ve read about local church groups doing spending tens of thousands of dollars for their group to travel and donate their time/effort. Teens would have to raise something like $1,200.oo each to fund their trip. as I read those news articles, I kept wondering if there were already reputable organizations “on the ground” in those places that could have hired local/regional people to do the same for a cost that was less than the gringos’ airfare in and out. |
Devyn, I’ve been too argumentative in this thread. Sorry about that. |
31. danithew – I recognize the Church and its members do a lot of good – that is my starting point, but how can we do better? If I really did not like what the Church was doing, then I can go to some other Church, which I am not doing. 32. Bookslinger – that is a good point, but how much of that money would really be spent in those places as opposed to spent at home buying big screen TVs or whatever. Who knows, but a valid point. 33. danithew – don’t worry about that. We know each other virtually well enough to have a nice discussion with no after effects. :) |
Let us do it and lengthened our stride and take care of the poor and needy in addition to helping our Church members. This is the 4th mission of the LDS Church. Our Stake is having literacy class among refugees during Sunday School while teaching them the lesson. Can anyone present ideas or what other projects their Ward is working on? Check out http://www.mormonzionproject.wordpress.com for some ideas. The project I am working on is http://www.southsudandevelopmentnetwork.com I have read all of the post but I intend to . |
Some on this list posted Jesus Christ is in error concerning His ethics or did nothing improving the lot of the poor To do is dangerous while setting himself greater or more knowledgeable than He. He stated love ones neighborhood and taught the parable of the Good Samaritan. thus inferring His followers should take care of others. He knew His time was short was more focused on teaching others . His Apostles gave up their trade thus their class status to learn of him. Many of Jesus followers gave all they had and placed them below the Apostle’s feet in order distribute wealth. . A concept that can help the poor and have things in common. The Enlightenment did not repudiate His ethics thus brought about improvement of society. He taught to increase ones talents This is indeed the theology of self improvement as to liberate from ones poverty. The improper teachings of Jesus led to the lack of social mobility whereas teachings of Calvinism taught ones station in life is foreordain. The Enlightment did focus reason over faith and freed people from religious ignorance. It was the oppression of the Church that kept people in their poverty not Christ’s teachings. |
Influence of the Enlghtment Historian Peter Gay asserts the Enlightenment broke through “the sacred circle,”[8] whose dogma had circumscribed thinking. The Sacred Circle is a term used by Peter Gay to describe the interdependent relationship between the hereditary aristocracy, the leaders of the church and the text of the Bible. This interrelationship manifests itself as kings invoking the doctrine “Divine Right of Kings” to rule. Thus church sanctioned the rule of the king and the king defended the church in return. The Enlightenment is held to be the source of critical ideas, such as the centrality of freedom, democracy, and reason as primary values of society. This view argues that the establishment of a contractual basis of rights would lead to the market mechanism and capitalism, the scientific method, religious tolerance, and the organization of states into self-governing republics through democratic means. In this view, the tendency of the philosophes in particular to apply rationality to every problem is considered the essential change. Source: Wikepedia. Devine right to rule kept people in their societal condition not the taeachings of Jesus. The Church kept people in ignora. |
Sorry . The last sentence was not completed . The Church during the dark ages kept people in ignorance while condtioning them to follow edicts of Church leaders and kings. |
I’d love to see the Church do more humanitarian work. We have tons of hands, talented minds, and lots of energy for doing good. I really like the Church’s “Helping Hands” program. While there are so many things the Church needs to spend money on, I think there are so many more people that are suffering that we haven’t reached yet. What if, for example, a young woman’s program in a ward, or stake, did less crafting for themselves and sent some jars of food or quilts overseas? Or had a bake sale and sent that money to keva teams? That’s just a few ideas. With so many “activity” programs that we need to fill, we have so much more room for international service. We tend to get so sheltered and content in our close-knit ward communities that it’s easy to forget our brothers and sisters who are suffering. And talk about a way to expand our minds and world-view! There’s nothing like hearing the story of a child soldier in Africa–and there are LDS former child soldiers in Uganda–to make you grateful for what you have and eager to share your wealth. |
Zion – good to hear you are actively engaged in service. Missymeaygghan – thanks for the comments – great suggestions and I agree with you |
Maybe (up ’til now) the church leadership hasn’t encouraged much welfare/humanitarian efforts be turned outward (except missionary- and PR-related efforts) because collectively we’ve done such a poor-to-mediocre job of taking care of our own. (Most people here aren’t old enough to remember, but it wasn’t until about 1985 that the church’s non-emergency humanitarian efforts (such as well-digging, school-building, and wheelchair-providing) began. I was on my mission in 1985, but I remember the change when I came back. Even in 1985, at least in our mission, _welfare missionaries_ were usually the 21 year old full-time sister missionaries whose primary assignment was still proselyting and gospel-teaching.) Fer instance: How many wards come close to 100% home-teaching and visiting-teaching? How many wards come close to 100% convert-retention or youth-retention? If we put more focus at the stake/ward/family/individual level on humanitarian service outside the church, how is that going to impact the efforts of taking care of the Lord’s sheep who are already in the church? I’m not thinking so much of resources/money, but of time/effort. Alma 1:30 tells us that we should not discriminate against non-members when it comes to charity: “And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked, or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need.” Sometimes, you can kill two birds with one stone, recruit/encourage inactive members and youth to go fill sandbags during floods, or clean up after a storm. |
Zion, if you want treat Wikipedia like the definitive source for history, then be my guest, but don’t expect me to buy it. And if you want to make excuses for Jesus, that’s fine, too. Just the same, he never lifted a finger to save the poor, and it’s my guess that just about anyone who attends PTA meetings has said more to advocate helping the disadvantaged than Jesus did. Regarding your red herring of the divine right of Kings: The form of government that developed in industrialized nations impacted who made decisions, not what decisions were made. Britain started trimming the powers of the monarchy in the 13th century, but continued to have a powerful monarch at the head of their government well into the 19th century. France changed from Monarchy to Empire to Republic over and over. Until well after the enlightenment, most of the rest of Europe that was ruled by Monarch continued Monarchial rule with their power unabated. The Enlightenment introduced consequentialist ethics — the idea that the results of what you do is a major factor in whether it is correct. That’s what lead people to take steps that actually made a difference instead of simply doing what Jesus said to do. |
