Deleted

For discussing the Church, Gospel of Jesus Christ, Mormonism, etc.
User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by Arenera »

2 Nephi 5
16 And I, Nephi, did build a temple; and I did construct it after the manner of the temple of Solomon save it were not built of so many precious things; for they were not to be found upon the land, wherefore, it could not be built like unto Solomon’s temple. But the manner of the construction was like unto the temple of Solomon; and the workmanship thereof was exceedingly fine.

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by Michelle »

I think he'd be ok with it. See the scriptures below. It seems the preoccupation with money had more to say about Judas than Jesus.

Matthew 26:6-16

6 ¶ Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper,

7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.

8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?

9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.

10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.

11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

12 For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial.

13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

14 ¶ Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,

15 And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.

16 And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by oneClimbs »

Money is not the solution to help the poor. Many think it is but it isn't. There are various situations around the world and they all have their challenges. Even here in the US it would be practically impossible to starve with all the free food that is distributed via various charities. There are shelters as well. I've volunteered at some and you'd be surprised at some people who are there. One guy had a job and everything but hated the government taxing him and being chained down to obligations to he gave it all up to live a simpler life on the street. Another guy had his family back in Arizona begging him to come live with them and get back on his feet but he refused. The pastor of the church even offered to buy him a bus ticket to his family any time he wanted. You see these same guys walking down the street, but many people choose that lifestyle believe it or not. Others are bogged down with addiction, others are down on their luck and do need help and there are a lot of opportunities to get it.

Money isn't the solution to poverty. If people are to get out of poverty, you have to help them and the environment. If the church took a ton of money and threw it at the world and various people, they'd make a ripple that is hardly noticeable.

I've told this story here before but a ward in Idaho went into this really run down neighborhood and painted the homes, planted grass, trees, and flowers and cleaned it all up to bring it up to the same nice look at the rest of the neighborhood. Nobody kept it up, they trashed it and In 2 years it was back the way it was.

We will always have the poor with us. The situations are far more complex than most realize and to think that money magically fixes things is very naive. The church does a ton of great stuff to help alleviate suffering in this world. They build temples with the best of materials because they are heavily used and they are made to last as long as possible. These are not simple houses, they are structures that serve thousands of people per month.

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by Serragon »

5tev3 wrote: July 13th, 2017, 9:26 pm Money is not the solution to help the poor. Many think it is but it isn't. There are various situations around the world and they all have their challenges. Even here in the US it would be practically impossible to starve with all the free food that is distributed via various charities. There are shelters as well. I've volunteered at some and you'd be surprised at some people who are there. One guy had a job and everything but hated the government taxing him and being chained down to obligations to he gave it all up to live a simpler life on the street. Another guy had his family back in Arizona begging him to come live with them and get back on his feet but he refused. The pastor of the church even offered to buy him a bus ticket to his family any time he wanted. You see these same guys walking down the street, but many people choose that lifestyle believe it or not. Others are bogged down with addiction, others are down on their luck and do need help and there are a lot of opportunities to get it.

Money isn't the solution to poverty. If people are to get out of poverty, you have to help them and the environment. If the church took a ton of money and threw it at the world and various people, they'd make a ripple that is hardly noticeable.

I've told this story here before but a ward in Idaho went into this really run down neighborhood and painted the homes, planted grass, trees, and flowers and cleaned it all up to bring it up to the same nice look at the rest of the neighborhood. Nobody kept it up, they trashed it and In 2 years it was back the way it was.

We will always have the poor with us. The situations are far more complex than most realize and to think that money magically fixes things is very naive. The church does a ton of great stuff to help alleviate suffering in this world. They build temples with the best of materials because they are heavily used and they are made to last as long as possible. These are not simple houses, they are structures that serve thousands of people per month.
I have a homeless friend whom I have become very good friends with over the last 15 years. What 5tev3 has posted is absolutely correct. He could be off the streets tomorrow if he was willing to be a good citizen and abide by some simple societal rules. He would rather have the freedom of the street. He gets all of his food, clothing, health care for free. All of the money he gets is spending money, which usually goes to wine, cigarettes, and a few illegal substances.

His story is not anecdotal. It is representative.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by brianj »

When antichrists I know throw this accusation at me I have a simple and humble response ready to go:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has spent over $1.2 billion on humanitarian aid. How about the charities you donate money to?

Of course these people don't donate; they only oppose religion, so at this point they start kicking against the pricks. If they try telling me how much more we could have spent I am again ready to rebut:
Without the organization, teachings, and temples of this church the billion and a quarter would not have been donated.

Source: http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religi ... an-efforts

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13110
Location: England

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by Robin Hood »

brianj wrote: July 13th, 2017, 10:37 pm When antichrists I know throw this accusation at me I have a simple and humble response ready to go:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has spent over $1.2 billion on humanitarian aid. How about the charities you donate money to?

Of course these people don't donate; they only oppose religion, so at this point they start kicking against the pricks. If they try telling me how much more we could have spent I am again ready to rebut:
Without the organization, teachings, and temples of this church the billion and a quarter would not have been donated.

Source: http://www.worldreligionnews.com/religi ... an-efforts
While that is true, the fact is $1.2 billion is a very small amount compared to the funds and assets the church has at its disposal. Especially over a timeframe of a number of years, which is how that figure is arrived at.
And while an argument can be made in favour of the church's position regarding temples, which is the topic of the OP, we start to get into difficulties when things like City Creek are considered.

That said, we are a church and not a homeless charity.

User avatar
inho
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3286
Location: in a galaxy far, far away

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by inho »

Michelle wrote: July 13th, 2017, 9:15 pm I think he'd be ok with it. See the scriptures below. It seems the preoccupation with money had more to say about Judas than Jesus.

Matthew 26:6-16

...

11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

...
I like to ponder this. Jesus is teaching that the work he does is more valuable than any amount of money. Yet, while he does this, he quotes Deuteronomy 15:11
11 For the poor shall never cease out of the land: therefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto thy brother, to thy poor, and to thy needy, in thy land.
Since Jesus wanted to teach a lesson, he didn't sell the oil and give the money to poor. But while giving the lesson, he quotes a verse which specifically commands to take care of the poor.

Now I'm trying to find a way to tie this to the temples. Something like that these houses are expensive, but in these houses we are commanded to give everything we own...

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13110
Location: England

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by Robin Hood »

When I was on my mission there was a "teaching" doing the rounds which suggested that there would one day be as many temples as stakes.
This led to speculation that stake centres would have temple facilities included in their design; similar to the pre-temple Utah endowment houses.

There would be some practical difficulties of course, but I have often wondered about this idea.
It would certainly be less expensive, and would also address some of the temple focused idolatry that exists in the church.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by Silver »

Another way to say temple is: The House of the Lord. Considering that, I think it would be difficult to make the edifice too cheaply. However, the Lord is wise and would consider the circumstances of His followers. It's the Goldilocks story to me. The small temples we have now are "just right." To believe otherwise would open you up to Robert Sinclairism or to assume, incorrectly, that the Lord is actually so weak that puny man could corrupt His Kingdom here on Earth when we have already been promised that the Gospel will never be taken from the Earth again as in past periods of apostasy. If we look at the Kirtland Temple now, we can see how it lacks many of the refinements of even the least expensive of our currently operating temples. However, it was built with great sacrifice by the early saints. It was "just right" for the people of that time. Nauvoo also.

I'd also like to remind you that the Lord knows everything. Everything. Even the winning lottery ticket numbers from now until those pernicious programs are discontinued. If money were the main issue, every week our faithful stake presidents or bishops around the world, in each locale where the lottery system exists, would have a dream or some other manifestation and go out and buy the ticket needed to get that "free" money. Voila! The Church is afloat in a bunch more money. Well, maybe if the our stake presidents were winning every week, all the rest of the world would stop playing and those ideas would dry up and go away.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by David13 »

The answer has all been given here.
It's funny how people love to suggest that someone else's money be taken away from them to give to the "poor". As has been said, very few of these alleged "poor" are actually poor at all, but simply living their own chosen life style.
And, most importantly, giving someone else's money to them does not help them. In fact, some of the cases, they are given some money, and they go out and kill themselves with a big drug overdose. You didn't help them, you hurt them.

OP, here's an idea, do what you want with your money. And leave other people's money alone, no touch, as they say.
dc

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by Silver »

Robin Hood wrote: July 14th, 2017, 4:39 am When I was on my mission there was a "teaching" doing the rounds which suggested that there would one day be as many temples as stakes.
This led to speculation that stake centres would have temple facilities included in their design; similar to the pre-temple Utah endowment houses.

There would be some practical difficulties of course, but I have often wondered about this idea.
It would certainly be less expensive, and would also address some of the temple focused idolatry that exists in the church.
There are temples in both NYC and Hong Kong that are housed within buildings that contain chapels and meeting rooms so that idea has practical application in at least a few places already.

More importantly though, why do you Brits insist on sticking with the French spelling of the word "centER?" It clearly is not pronounced "cenTRA." Yes, yes, the French were our allies when we threw off the heavy hand of English oppression, but you don't see us spelling words like them.

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13110
Location: England

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by Robin Hood »

Silver wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:09 am

More importantly though, why do you Brits insist on sticking with the French spelling of the word "centER?" It clearly is not pronounced "cenTRA." Yes, yes, the French were our allies when we threw off the heavy hand of English oppression, but you don't see us spelling words like them.
True, but you do drive on the same side of the road as them.
Oh well, c'est la vie.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by Silver »

Robin Hood wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:19 am
Silver wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:09 am

More importantly though, why do you Brits insist on sticking with the French spelling of the word "centER?" It clearly is not pronounced "cenTRA." Yes, yes, the French were our allies when we threw off the heavy hand of English oppression, but you don't see us spelling words like them.
True, but you do drive on the same side of the road as them.
Oh well, c'est la vie.
More correctly stated, the British drive on the wrong side of the road. (While in my 2nd home, Japan, they merely drive on the opposite side of the road.)

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13110
Location: England

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by Robin Hood »

Silver wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:41 am
Robin Hood wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:19 am
Silver wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:09 am

More importantly though, why do you Brits insist on sticking with the French spelling of the word "centER?" It clearly is not pronounced "cenTRA." Yes, yes, the French were our allies when we threw off the heavy hand of English oppression, but you don't see us spelling words like them.
True, but you do drive on the same side of the road as them.
Oh well, c'est la vie.
More correctly stated, the British drive on the wrong side of the road. (While in my 2nd home, Japan, they merely drive on the opposite side of the road.)
Apparently the Irish have decided to fall in line with the rest of Europe and switch to the other side.
So on April 1st next year all cars will switch to driving on the right. If it proves successful, two weeks later all trucks and buses will too.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by Silver »

Robin Hood wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:48 am
Silver wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:41 am
Robin Hood wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:19 am
Silver wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:09 am

More importantly though, why do you Brits insist on sticking with the French spelling of the word "centER?" It clearly is not pronounced "cenTRA." Yes, yes, the French were our allies when we threw off the heavy hand of English oppression, but you don't see us spelling words like them.
True, but you do drive on the same side of the road as them.
Oh well, c'est la vie.
More correctly stated, the British drive on the wrong side of the road. (While in my 2nd home, Japan, they merely drive on the opposite side of the road.)
Apparently the Irish have decided to fall in line with the rest of Europe and switch to the other side.
So on April 1st next year all cars will switch to driving on the right. If it proves successful, two weeks later all trucks and buses will too.
Given your proximity to the Irish, I would have counted on you of all people here on LDSFF to never structure a sentence referring to them that also contains the word "successful." Are they going to overhaul their vehicles and switch the steering wheel to the opposite of the car?

User avatar
Robin Hood
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13110
Location: England

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by Robin Hood »

Silver wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:54 am
Robin Hood wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:48 am
Silver wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:41 am
Robin Hood wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:19 am

True, but you do drive on the same side of the road as them.
Oh well, c'est la vie.
More correctly stated, the British drive on the wrong side of the road. (While in my 2nd home, Japan, they merely drive on the opposite side of the road.)
Apparently the Irish have decided to fall in line with the rest of Europe and switch to the other side.
So on April 1st next year all cars will switch to driving on the right. If it proves successful, two weeks later all trucks and buses will too.
Given your proximity to the Irish, I would have counted on you of all people here on LDSFF to never structure a sentence referring to them that also contains the word "successful." Are they going to overhaul their vehicles and switch the steering wheel to the opposite of the car?

Two weeks of carnage on Irish roads.
Note the date. :)

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by Silver »

Robin Hood wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:57 am
Silver wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:54 am
Robin Hood wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:48 am
Silver wrote: July 14th, 2017, 8:41 am

More correctly stated, the British drive on the wrong side of the road. (While in my 2nd home, Japan, they merely drive on the opposite side of the road.)
Apparently the Irish have decided to fall in line with the rest of Europe and switch to the other side.
So on April 1st next year all cars will switch to driving on the right. If it proves successful, two weeks later all trucks and buses will too.
Given your proximity to the Irish, I would have counted on you of all people here on LDSFF to never structure a sentence referring to them that also contains the word "successful." Are they going to overhaul their vehicles and switch the steering wheel to the opposite of the car?

Two weeks of carnage on Irish roads.
Note the date. :)
Made me laugh.

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by oneClimbs »

Robin Hood wrote: July 14th, 2017, 3:34 am While that is true, the fact is $1.2 billion is a very small amount compared to the funds and assets the church has at its disposal. Especially over a timeframe of a number of years, which is how that figure is arrived at.
And while an argument can be made in favour of the church's position regarding temples, which is the topic of the OP, we start to get into difficulties when things like City Creek are considered.

That said, we are a church and not a homeless charity.
I'm not an expert on City Creek, I have been there a few times though when I have passed through Salt Lake on business, we'd eat at the Cheesecake Factory. The stickiness of the situation as I see it (and correct me if I am wrong in any way) is that the Church owns that property right smack in the middle of downtown where it affects the lives of the other citizens in the community and the economy as a whole.

What it seems to me happened is that they considered what the property was bringing in revenue-wise for the Church and the value it was bringing to the community and over time they considered plans that could make the best use of the property. When you have expensive land in the middle of a city and a huge structure built on it and need to make big changes, that isn't going to be cheap.

They could simply sell the land and lose control of what gets put there and use up all that money in a given period of time, or they could do a project that would continue to bring in revenue continually. Think of the principle of the talents. While I don't personally like the idea of the church building a mall because when you just spit it out like that it sounds course and definitely unappealing.

However, the facts of the situation are that the church owns that land and they had to make decisions on the value it was in it's current state or if it could be more valuable with some investment and a new strategy. Again, I'm just an outside observer but those are some things to perhaps consider.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by Arenera »

5tev3 wrote: July 14th, 2017, 9:25 am
Robin Hood wrote: July 14th, 2017, 3:34 am While that is true, the fact is $1.2 billion is a very small amount compared to the funds and assets the church has at its disposal. Especially over a timeframe of a number of years, which is how that figure is arrived at.
And while an argument can be made in favour of the church's position regarding temples, which is the topic of the OP, we start to get into difficulties when things like City Creek are considered.

That said, we are a church and not a homeless charity.
I'm not an expert on City Creek, I have been there a few times though when I have passed through Salt Lake on business, we'd eat at the Cheesecake Factory. The stickiness of the situation as I see it (and correct me if I am wrong in any way) is that the Church owns that property right smack in the middle of downtown where it affects the lives of the other citizens in the community and the economy as a whole.

What it seems to me happened is that they considered what the property was bringing in revenue-wise for the Church and the value it was bringing to the community and over time they considered plans that could make the best use of the property. When you have expensive land in the middle of a city and a huge structure built on it and need to make big changes, that isn't going to be cheap.

They could simply sell the land and lose control of what gets put there and use up all that money in a given period of time, or they could do a project that would continue to bring in revenue continually. Think of the principle of the talents. While I don't personally like the idea of the church building a mall because when you just spit it out like that it sounds course and definitely unappealing.

However, the facts of the situation are that the church owns that land and they had to make decisions on the value it was in it's current state or if it could be more valuable with some investment and a new strategy. Again, I'm just an outside observer but those are some things to perhaps consider.
Do we send our missionaries out to only LDS families?

Didn't Joseph Smith have a House (Hotel, B&B) for visitors to stay?

Serragon
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3444

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by Serragon »

CelestialAngel wrote: July 13th, 2017, 8:31 pm One thing I hear from non Mormons is with all the money used to build and maintain temples they could help the poor so much. So why can't we build humble temples and use the millions saved to help the homeless and starving. When Christ returns will He say wow look how decked out these temples and chandeliers are or will He say why havent you helped your neighbor in poverty and starving children. Couldn't temple ordinances still be done in less lavish buildings? And what do you think Christ wants more, hundreds of tens of millions of dollars palaces or for us to do our best to feed His sheep and help the less fortunate in the world? Even Utah has a serious homeless problem. Sorry for the rant but I just don't understand Jesus wanting luxury.
People who say things like this do not understand the purpose of our religion.

Because Christian churches and people do so much charity; and because charity is a virtue talked about in the scriptures quite often, people have the mistaken idea that the purpose of Christian churches is to do charity.

But the purpose of the church is to glorify God and help bring about your salvation and exaltation. Charity is an attribute we must have as individuals and the church helps us to achieve that. But charity done by the church as an organization does not actually help any of the members achieve their salvation. In fact, it may actually retard that development as it causes people to rely on the organization instead of doing it themselves.

It is wonderful that the church does do charity and help alleviate suffering. But whenever they do this they are actually taking away from their true purpose. This is why the priority is on temples, buildings, materials, etc. The tools to bring about your exaltation are in fact the priority. That is also why fast offerings are the main method of providing funds for the poor.. because it comes from you and not the organization.

drtanner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1850

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by drtanner »

The church is in the business of saving souls. They are partners with the Lord in this endeavor.

Did Jospeh Smith ever have instances where he tried to use his own wisdom for financial gain which he hoped would help the church? How did the Lord feel about him doing this? Was he commanded to stop or repent or did the Lord use these scenerios to move the work forward? Read section 111 for a perfect example.

I still receive a confirmation of the spirit that the men who lead this church hold the keys. I receive a witness when I walk through the temple doors and participate in the ordinances for others. What does this say to me about invenstment projects the men who lead this church decide to participate in? The Lord must not be as concerned as everyone else seems to be. The work moves on.
Last edited by drtanner on July 14th, 2017, 4:13 pm, edited 3 times in total.

davedan
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3064
Location: Augusta, GA
Contact:

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by davedan »

No

User avatar
oneClimbs
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3187
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by oneClimbs »

CelestialAngel wrote: July 14th, 2017, 10:56 amSo the church is as much of a business as it is a church?
So I think there are two competing theories at play. One is that this is the church trying to manage the land it owns in ways that benefit the LDS people and the surrounding community, a decent-sized US city and economy. The other is that there is a secret combination that has infiltrated the church that seeks power and gain by puppeteering the Lord's church for it's own ends.

Maybe there are other theories but whichever you subscribe to is probably not going to be backed up by any real world information unless you happen to know what actually goes on behind closed doors, etc.

So let's go with the facts, namely, the church is a land owner and as such, we are a part of society. If the local ward building was left in shambles in a neighborhood it could affect property values negatively. The Lord commanded the church in D&C to purchase property to build Zion. There is a stewardship that must be maintained. The land can sit there in the center of the city as an empty lot or it can be put to good use. That land was originally ZCMI which was the first department store that was established because Mormons were getting gouged on prices so they banded together for their own purposes. It's always been a marketplace and is probably zoned for that purpose to this day.

Imagine the fury if the church took all that land and made it a park or something that just benefitted the church. Do you think the city would go for that? We are a part of the community, this land isn't just on some farm somewhere, this isn't a casino out in the middle of a reservation. I imagine there were a lot of talks and negotiations on what should be done with the property.

If one option was to invest a lot into an updated marketplace that offered greater benefit to the city and community, along with the church as well, that would seem like a win-win for all. I don't think we need to jump to any evil Gaddianton theories. Here's what Hinckley said:
"I call attention to that which has received much notice in the local press. This is our decision to purchase the shopping mall property immediately to the south of Temple Square.

We feel we have a compelling responsibility to protect the environment of the Salt Lake Temple. The Church owns most of the ground on which this mall stands. The owners of the buildings have expressed a desire to sell. The property needs very extensive and expensive renovation. We have felt it imperative to do something to revitalize this area. But I wish to give the entire Church the assurance that tithing funds have not and will not be used to acquire this property. Nor will they be used in developing it for commercial purposes.

Funds for this have come and will come from those commercial entities owned by the Church. These resources, together with the earnings of invested reserve funds, will accommodate this program."

gardener4life
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1690

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by gardener4life »

Well I can think of several things right off the bat that are wrong with this point of view of the original post. Don't feel bad I'm not knocking you down and some of what you say is interesting. I just want to help you and hope you even feel friendship from us.

First, I know a man that has 3 sons. Of this person's sons, only 1 of them goes to church while the other 2 have denounced Jesus and are now Buddhists just to rebel. The oldest son holds a recommend and goes to church, and the other two don't. The oldest needs life saving medication to live but the father instead of helping the one that goes to church ignores him and helps the two disobedient children, who have no real physical ailments that they didn't cause to themselves or that can't be dealt with. Every month this guy hears a new creative story to help the disobedient and ignore the obedient, while the burdens of the obedient get heavier over time. We live in this kind of era.

The people going to church and to the temple have problems too just like those poor. And poor do attend the temple, but we see everyone dressed in white and everyone is beautiful there poor and rich alike, and that's necessary for us to be taught that, and to be taught that neither is more beautiful than the other. But the fact is some of the those temple goers will also be needy like the alternative we're thinking of donating too.

But right now in our era only the voice of the wicked is being heard. This particular idea is exceptionally dangerous; and the leaders have actually commented something along these lines in one of the recent conferences. The ones trying to go forward on their own are getting passed by the way side and neglected while only the wicked and those in the world are heard most the time. This is dangerous not just because we're helping the wrong side in many cases, but also because we only hear one side of the story that is remarkably twisted, the adversary is trying to confuse people and put down false conditions to make people think something else is happening other than already is. we hear also frequently perpetrators posing as victims, and trying to make others think the victim is perpetrator. As an example, I know of an instance of a relative where a certain brother calls his sister crying that their brother was mean and kicked him out of the house. She gets in a rage to go chew out that other brother and puts up a plan to gang up on him with the other siblings. And she also helps this brother get his vengeance against the wrongdoer and gets her sister and father in on it too. Then they go yell at the brother that kicked the one crying brother out of the house. But lo and behold, as time passes they found out the crying brother had actually brought a drug party of some kind over into his parents home (he's over 18), and he was actually the one that got violent on the other brother and had to run away because they had to call the cops and he'd actually left because they were after him for getting violent and the other brother hadn't done anything wrong. And because only one side of the story was represented everyone had the victim and the aggressor mixed up.

Giving the future of the obedient to the disobedient isn't an answer.

Here's another issue,...people will often look at something another has and think they deserve it more than the next guy. This kind of thinking poisoned the minds of Laman & Lemuel. They eventually even tried to convince themselves that Nephi had robbed them of their birthright. And society will hear these kinds of arguments and forget that Laman and Lemuel can really skillfully look like the victim. This is how we read dissenters in the book of mormon caused the Lamanites to attack the Nephites several times. And because it was profitable and popular the Lamanites were more than happy to go help relieve the Nephites of that wealth that was supposedly 'stolen'. Go read Alma, and you will see this part that the dissenters separated from the Nephites ...and then the next year or so later there's a lamanite invasion. Cross reference that with Laman and Lemuel saying Nephi robbed them and you can tell what happened.

One thing I would also point out is that a lot of IRS charity programs have almost no rules on how much of the money you donate goes to the people they are helping. They can claim almost any figure they can get away with for 'administrative costs'. This is the same people that at the grocery stand ask you to donate a dollar to breast cancer research, or to help orphans. You have no way of knowing how much of that money actually went to them. Studies show that a lot of charities are frauds, when not run by groups that are volunteer only and you have no way of looking up how many staff are paid. We're lucky with church we can know that almost all or all of what you donate actually does go where it's supposed to. But other charities where they are 'paid', this becomes a real issue. I even had business meetings with really smart people one time and they were talking about how they wanted to set up their own charities to get some nice income...and nobody would know because it's legit, the IRS stamp makes it so.

Its also true that we do need to help people. But we have to do it in a way that will help both the person that needs help and the one giving it, without taking the future away from either. You could even say that the person who robbed the poor in this case were all those businesses that shipped all our middle class jobs over seas because they conned our government with lobbyists. But looking at the churches to be the one at fault isn't the right thing either. But that's what will happen if people are only looking at who has wealth. They are looking for scapegoats.

I would suggest also that look how many programs for welfare and self reliance are being implemented now. This is a sure way to know that we are working on helping those people and that we do care. This homeless problem is real and I'm sure the other leaders are worried about it. Just the other day I saw a similar article for homelessness in L.A. being real young people who weren't on drugs either, but just the real estate costs so much down there and that pushed the rent up. That's very real. But more than giving them 20 bucks and a burger we need to give them mentorship. It just so happens the pathways programs and the other things coming out do give them help and mentorship. The mentorship is so valuable you can't put it into words. So in this manner Heavenly Father mentors us, we mentor the next guy, and then he mentors the guy below him and that's how all the blessings flow downward as we're all building each other up. That's the pattern and it's real. That's why we need to be a people that love and serve others. But we also are needy in some way each of us. All of us lack something.

And wouldn't you know it, I bet a lot of those people that need help will be adopted into eternal families in the spirit world. Who are they going to have adopt them if not the ones that mentored them their mortal life?

But some will say, that we can do this short cut and only help the poor by giving them the future of the obedient. That's a mess and it won't work. Both groups need help. Money isn't the answer though, but self sufficiency is. We have to also think about it in terms of if a person is obedient and disobedient and not other classifications. By rights we need to help the obedient and humble and willing to change first and not fall for the predators. Right now without the spirit and a good mentorship vehicle we can't tell the needy from the predators well. And ignoring the poor won't help either. That will cause severe problems too. Right now the problem isn't the churches but its the CEOs and companies moving things overseas and not leaving anything behind, and the government is becoming so strained that its struggling to keep up.

Suffice it to say, that also not having temples isn't the answer. Partly we do good when we're uplifted and see life can be beautiful. That's why we go to the temple; so we can see each of us is beautiful. We need to see all of Heavenly Father's children as beautiful and they are. We also need to be inspired of something bigger and better than we are now. We all dress equally in there to teach us that the poor is the same as the rich and we're no different regardless of skin color and so on.

One thing I can say in favor of the poor is one of the problems is everyone will ask why didn't their parents help them already, or their so and so, or that so and so...and they won't realize those people couldn't for a reason. But they may think well they didn't help them for a reason so maybe they are a bad person. So there's a lot of ways people can slip in the cracks. And not all poor did something to deserve it. Some of that is that this is a fallen world, and some parents couldn't help all their children and so they decided to only help some of them or none of them. Then this problem starts to grow...

We absolutely are trying to help the poor. And we need to do a better job I think at it in some ways. It's not an easy answer too because the bottom line is the cost of housing is a major obstacle in helping someone that's homeless. But if we don't have churches or temples then we won't be meeting somewhere to have someone teach us to help the poor...

The biggest argument for why we need more temples too is the fact that however costly you think that temple is, salvation costs more and is harder to get. So we need those temples. So we have to sacrifice and save to help us build that temple while it's teaching us that we still have a long way to go before we get back to Heavenly Father. And wouldn't you know it that having more temples will help us help more people! So we need to build more temples not less.

Well you brought up an interesting question. I hope that helps. You are going to run into this problem more in the future I would say, and I'm sad to say that but the problem is the middle class is dropping while the rich cut out the poor and middle class more. Banks and governments aren't as stable as they used to be either. That's not something we caused, but we're aware of it. We're trying to help people and will do so for as long as we can. But some problems are hard to do with just one person, like homelessness. It takes everyone to fix this.

User avatar
waialeale
captain of 10
Posts: 25

Re: Are temples too expensive?

Post by waialeale »

This is a good topic. Who is the Book of Mormon Prophet here referring to in the scriptures below? Note, who else could pollute the "Holy Church of God"?
"Mormon chapter 8
[37] For behold, ye do love money, and your substance, and your fine apparel (city creek?), and the adorning of your churches, more than ye love the poor and the needy, the sick and the afflicted.

[38] O ye pollutions, ye hypocrites, ye teachers, who sell yourselves for that which will canker, why have ye polluted the holy church of God? Why are ye ashamed to take upon you the name of Christ? Why do ye not think that greater is the value of an endless happiness than that misery which never dies -- because of the praise of the world?"

Post Reply