After two decades, the church goes after Mormon Stories

[Res Ipsa]

The issue is not simply “being poor.” There issue is the core teachings of Jesus as recorded in the Gospels: Do not concern yourself with the things of this world, especially the accumulation of wealth. Your reward is not in this life — it is in the next.

That’s what he taught. If one purports to be a Christian, one either sees this as an eternal truth or retreats into moral relativism as an excuse for not being willing to follow his teachings. Accumulating billions of dollars for use in this like is antithetical to how Jesus taught his followers to live.

I think I responded to your concern.

Regards,
MG

Let’s talk Turkey. I didn’t express a “concern.” I leveled a criticism. Also, you did not address my criticism in a post you made before I posted it. Unless you are a precog.

In fact, citing your earlier post proves my point: you’re a closet moral relativist.

Peter was making a living as a fisherman. Did he have a family that he was supporting? A wife and children to provide for? Jesus told him to drop everything and follow him. And that’s what he did. No church salary. No church living stipend.

Paul traveled all over the Eastern Mediterranean — no church salary, no church living stipend, no church paid travel.

All of the Apostles made similar sacrifices.

All of them gave up their worldly things as directed by Jesus. Jesus said, throughout the Gospels, that the things of this world do not matter — follow Jesus and your reward will be in heaven. And they did.

This was Jesus’s central teaching. Why does “complexity” of the circumstances change the moral calculus? If it does, why is that not moral relativism?

It sounds to me like your rationalizations come down to “it would be too hard to follow what Jesus said in today’s world.” Harder than Peter? Paul? Really?

[MG 2.0]

I think I responded to your concern.

Regards,
MG

Let’s talk Turkey. I didn’t express a “concern.” I leveled a criticism. Also, you did not address my criticism in a post you made before I posted it. Unless you are a precog.

In fact, citing your earlier post proves my point: you’re a closet moral relativist.

Peter was making a living as a fisherman. Did he have a family that he was supporting? A wife and children to provide for? Jesus told him to drop everything and follow him. And that’s what he did. No church salary. No church living stipend.

Paul traveled all over the Eastern Mediterranean — no church salary, no church living stipend, no church paid travel.

All of the Apostles made similar sacrifices.

All of them gave up their worldly things as directed by Jesus. Jesus said, throughout the Gospels, that the things of this world do not matter — follow Jesus and your reward will be in heaven. And they did.

This was Jesus’s central teaching. Why does “complexity” of the circumstances change the moral calculus? If it does, why is that not moral relativism?

It sounds to me like your rationalizations come down to “it would be too hard to follow what Jesus said in today’s world.” Harder than Peter? Paul? Really?

I'll repost what I've posted at least a couple of times:

If there is a 'moral problem' wouldn't it lie in the fact of whether or not there was exploitation and/or neglect of the poor that were at the core of the modern day church?

I'm the financial clerk in our ward. At the local level, at least in our ward, the primary concern of the Bishop is to make sure that there is no exploitation and/or neglect of the poor. That was at the very core of what Jesus was attempting to teach His disciples.

The needs of the widows and others in our ward that are in need...sometimes dire need...weigh heavily upon the leadership. I see it firsthand.

Local leaders drive cars, have mortgage payments, put braces on their kid's teeth, etc. General Authorities have done the same until they were called to the ministry full time from their previous responsibilities. The fact that they receive a stipend and that there is accumulated wealth for a rainy day and to maintain a world wide church does NOT lessen the concern and live they have for "the least of these".

Their lifestyles are by some standards modest. Yes, they fly from here to there as they minister. They need to eat. They need housing. They would like to see their own families have their needs and wants met. They have medical needs. Etc., etc.

Again, Jesus taught that the kingdom of heaven can only be obtained by those that are as little children. What do little children do? They love, they give, they are pure in heart. Critics would have us believe that Bishops, Stake Presidents, Relief Society Presidents, and General Leaders of the church do what they do for filthy lucre.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have seen it first hand all of my life. The jaundiced eyes of critics would not convince me otherwise.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

..I'm the financial clerk in our ward. At the local level, at least in our ward, the primary concern of the Bishop is to make sure that there is no exploitation and/or neglect of the poor. That was at the very core of what Jesus was attempting to teach His disciples...

Whoa. That's a new one. I'm curious why mentalgymnast included "exploitation... of the poor" as part of "the very core of what Jesus was attempting to teach His disciples."

Or maybe mg's AI threw that in? Weird.

[Res Ipsa]

Let’s talk Turkey. I didn’t express a “concern.” I leveled a criticism. Also, you did not address my criticism in a post you made before I posted it. Unless you are a precog.

In fact, citing your earlier post proves my point: you’re a closet moral relativist.

Peter was making a living as a fisherman. Did he have a family that he was supporting? A wife and children to provide for? Jesus told him to drop everything and follow him. And that’s what he did. No church salary. No church living stipend.

Paul traveled all over the Eastern Mediterranean — no church salary, no church living stipend, no church paid travel.

All of the Apostles made similar sacrifices.

All of them gave up their worldly things as directed by Jesus. Jesus said, throughout the Gospels, that the things of this world do not matter — follow Jesus and your reward will be in heaven. And they did.

This was Jesus’s central teaching. Why does “complexity” of the circumstances change the moral calculus? If it does, why is that not moral relativism?

It sounds to me like your rationalizations come down to “it would be too hard to follow what Jesus said in today’s world.” Harder than Peter? Paul? Really?

I'll repost what I've posted at least a couple of times:

If there is a 'moral problem' wouldn't it lie in the fact of whether or not there was exploitation and/or neglect of the poor that were at the core of the modern day church?

I'm the financial clerk in our ward. At the local level, at least in our ward, the primary concern of the Bishop is to make sure that there is no exploitation and/or neglect of the poor. That was at the very core of what Jesus was attempting to teach His disciples.

The needs of the widows and others in our ward that are in need...sometimes dire need...weigh heavily upon the leadership. I see it firsthand.

Local leaders drive cars, have mortgage payments, put braces on their kid's teeth, etc. General Authorities have done the same until they were called to the ministry full time from their previous responsibilities. The fact that they receive a stipend and that there is accumulated wealth for a rainy day and to maintain a world wide church does NOT lessen the concern and live they have for "the least of these".

Their lifestyles are by some standards modest. Yes, they fly from here to there as they minister. They need to eat. They need housing. They would like to see their own families have their needs and wants met. They have medical needs. Etc., etc.

Again, Jesus taught that the kingdom of heaven can only be obtained by those that are as little children. What do little children do? They love, they give, they are pure in heart. Critics would have us believe that Bishops, Stake Presidents, Relief Society Presidents, and General Leaders of the church do what they do for filthy lucre.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. I have seen it first hand all of my life. The jaundiced eyes of critics would not convince me otherwise.

Regards,
MG

There can be more than one moral issue. Certainly, exploitation of the poor would raise a moral issue, as would neglect of the poor. Recognizing those moral issues does not change the moral issue of an organization holding itself out as Christian while acting contrary to his core teaching.

What did Jesus say about eating. Something like, don’t worry about what you are going to eat or what you are going to wear? Lillies of the field and all that? Would it be a sacrifice to follow his instruction? Absolutely. Just as it was for the original apostles. Didn’t they need to eat? Didn’t they need to take care of their health? Didn’t they have obligations to their families?

Tell me how telling the poor that “we are not a wealthy people” while concealing billions of dollars in wealth is constant with anything Jesus taught. Jesus didn’t distinguish between his followers and others when talking about the poor. He didn’t say “give only to my poor followers.” He said take care of the poor. I’m not knocking the church’s welfare program. But how is saving building up earthly treasure of billions dollars not “neglecting the poor?” Building up earthly wealth is antithetical to Christ’s teachings.

And you’ve made up another giant straw man. I never even insinuated that Mormons perform their calling for money. I never said that about the General Authorities, let alone rank and file members. You are taking offense at things I’ve never said. I also claimed that Mormons are insincere. I never said that Mormons aren’t concerned about poor people.

But does the Bible teach Christians to merely be concerned? Or to take care of the poor? I’m talking about the instructions Christ gave his followers on how to live and treat others. And what I see is the COJCOLDS acting in in opposition to those teachings.

Christ’s teachings present his followers with hard moral choices. Making up excuses for why they don’t apply today is pure moral relativism.

[malkie]

...
What did Jesus say about eating. Something like, don’t worry about what you are going to eat or what you are going to wear? Lillies of the field and all that? Would it be a sacrifice to follow his instruction? Absolutely. Just as it was for the original apostles. Didn’t they need to eat? Didn’t they need to take care of their health? Didn’t they have obligations to their families?
...

I does indeed happen!

There are Mormons (but not LDS) who take this admonition seriously while traveling and preaching the gospel in the US. In Ohio I met missionaries who, according to what they told me, left their homes with nothing but a change of clothes and a basic vehicle, and depended on the kindness of strangers to survive. They sometimes went hungry, and sometimes had nowhere to sleep at night but their car.

According to my wife's memory (which I trust more than my own) they belonged to a polygamous sect based in Utah or Arizona. We had dinner with several members of the sect, and split the cost of the meals for the missionaries with them.

(Not really related to the "neither purse nor scrip" teaching, but they seemed like very pleasant, regular folks. One of the wives and I had an interesting conversation about a thermo-electric project she was working on. It was a Solar power tower that I had read a little about some months earlier. If I recall correctly, she was an engineer involved in the design and implementation of the project.)

[MG 2.0]

I met missionaries who, according to what they told me, left their homes with nothing but a change of clothes and a basic vehicle, and depended on the kindness of strangers to survive. They sometimes went hungry, and sometimes had nowhere to sleep at night but their car.

Res Ipsa seemed to condemn moral relativism as being something that is anathema to the gospel of Jesus Christ as we compare the ancient practice of "taking no thought" and the modern practice of "taking some thought".

And he leaves it there without any discussion.

These fine people that you met took 'no thought'. Fine. But look where that gets them organizationally. They can't grow an international church that way which can move throughout the earth and survive and thrive.

In the modern world anyway.

It takes money/wealth to do that large scale and then keep it going. I don't see that "moral relativism' really comes into play in this.

Today's world is not the world of Jesus.

I'm somewhat flummoxed as to why critics are always coming back to wealth/money as an evil. Straight up evil. Or that accumulated wealth to use for maintaining a worldwide church as it moves into the third world and maintains the physical facilities of a growing church is an anathema.

I don't get it. Never have. And that this is all somehow connected to people giving of their own free will at Christmas time to Light the World. Truthfully? It sounds kind of screwed up you critics out there.

Straight across moral relativism'? I don't think so.

I know I keep harping on this but, again, I'm seeing black and white thinking without the ability to be flexible based upon time, space, needs, culture, technology, or what have you.

We are not living in the time of Jesus, but we can follow Him as we take care of those that are in need and taken advantage of. Can the LDS Church do a better job? Sure! It's an organization administered by human beings. Put them in the mix and you will never have things as 'perfect' as you might like.

Those that nit pick and complain might do better to come inside the tent and help run the show from within. We could use some more talented and smart Saints.

Come back. Even you atheists. (just teasin' ya'). Of course it would take an adjustment with your own finances and sacrificing a bit.

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

The so-called apostles are chauffeured around in expensive luxury cars. They don’t take the bus. They don’t mingle with the poor. They speak volumes but their actions betray them.

The jet set life of celebrity is incompatible with true apostleship.

[malkie]

I met missionaries who, according to what they told me, left their homes with nothing but a change of clothes and a basic vehicle, and depended on the kindness of strangers to survive. They sometimes went hungry, and sometimes had nowhere to sleep at night but their car.

Res Ipsa seemed to condemn moral relativism as being something that is anathema to the gospel of Jesus Christ as we compare the ancient practice of "taking no thought" and the modern practice of "taking some thought".

And he leaves it there without any discussion.

These fine people that you met took 'no thought'. Fine. But look where that gets them organizationally. They can't grow an international church that way which can move throughout the earth and survive and thrive.

In the modern world anyway.

It takes money/wealth to do that large scale and then keep it going. I don't see that "moral relativism' really comes into play in this.

Today's world is not the world of Jesus.

I'm somewhat flummoxed as to why critics are always coming back to wealth/money as an evil. Straight up evil. Or that accumulated wealth to use for maintaining a worldwide church as it moves into the third world and maintains the physical facilities of a growing church is an anathema.

I don't get it. Never have. And that this is all somehow connected to people giving of their own free will at Christmas time to Light the World. Truthfully? It sounds kind of screwed up you critics out there.

Straight across moral relativism'? I don't think so.

I know I keep harping on this but, again, I'm seeing black and white thinking without the ability to be flexible based upon time, space, needs, culture, technology, or what have you.

We are not living in the time of Jesus, but we can follow Him as we take care of those that are in need and taken advantage of. Can the LDS Church do a better job? Sure! It's an organization administered by human beings. Put them in the mix and you will never have things as 'perfect' as you might like.

Those that nit pick and complain might do better to come inside the tent and help run the show from within. We could use some more talented and smart Saints.

Come back. Even you atheists. (just teasin' ya'). Of course it would take an adjustment with your own finances and sacrificing a bit.

Regards,
MG

I made a simple observation. A response of "interesting", or no response was what I expected - not a diatribe about what Res did or didn't do or say.

I have no idea where these people are as an organization, or where they want or expect to be. For all I know, they are OK with tending whatever part of the vineyard they are able to do, and don't consider size or wealth to be a measure of success.

[MG 2.0]

Res Ipsa seemed to condemn moral relativism as being something that is anathema to the gospel of Jesus Christ as we compare the ancient practice of "taking no thought" and the modern practice of "taking some thought".

And he leaves it there without any discussion.

These fine people that you met took 'no thought'. Fine. But look where that gets them organizationally. They can't grow an international church that way which can move throughout the earth and survive and thrive.

In the modern world anyway.

It takes money/wealth to do that large scale and then keep it going. I don't see that "moral relativism' really comes into play in this.

Today's world is not the world of Jesus.

I'm somewhat flummoxed as to why critics are always coming back to wealth/money as an evil. Straight up evil. Or that accumulated wealth to use for maintaining a worldwide church as it moves into the third world and maintains the physical facilities of a growing church is an anathema.

I don't get it. Never have. And that this is all somehow connected to people giving of their own free will at Christmas time to Light the World. Truthfully? It sounds kind of screwed up you critics out there.

Straight across moral relativism'? I don't think so.

I know I keep harping on this but, again, I'm seeing black and white thinking without the ability to be flexible based upon time, space, needs, culture, technology, or what have you.

We are not living in the time of Jesus, but we can follow Him as we take care of those that are in need and taken advantage of. Can the LDS Church do a better job? Sure! It's an organization administered by human beings. Put them in the mix and you will never have things as 'perfect' as you might like.

Those that nit pick and complain might do better to come inside the tent and help run the show from within. We could use some more talented and smart Saints.

Come back. Even you atheists. (just teasin' ya'). Of course it would take an adjustment with your own finances and sacrificing a bit.

Regards,
MG

I made a simple observation. A response of "interesting", or no response was what I expected - not a diatribe about what Res did or didn't do or say.

I have no idea where these people are as an organization, or where they want or expect to be. For all I know, they are OK with tending whatever part of the vineyard they are able to do, and don't consider size or wealth to be a measure of success.

And that may well be. But if the church is to prepare the world for Christ's Second Coming (I know in your mind I'm speaking of a hypothetical that has no obvious evidence) it's going to take a reach across the world with enough wealth to keep the work moving along. The days of the 'lilies of the field' is gone in that application/sense.

Although, as a concept, it is worth remembering. We should not dwell on wealth for wealth's sake.

Unfortunately, that is what some critics think the church is doing. I think I've said enough to counter that rather weak argument.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

I met missionaries who, according to what they told me, left their homes with nothing but a change of clothes and a basic vehicle, and depended on the kindness of strangers to survive. They sometimes went hungry, and sometimes had nowhere to sleep at night but their car.

Res Ipsa seemed to condemn moral relativism as being something that is anathema to the gospel of Jesus Christ as we compare the ancient practice of "taking no thought" and the modern practice of "taking some thought".

Why the sub tweet? I'm right here. Why are you complaining to Malkie about something I posted?

And you're shadow boxing again. I never condemned moral relativism or said it was anathema to your gospel.

I said that you are a moral relativist. And you just illustrated it again by arguing that Jesus's teachings don't apply today because things are different. Morals are relative to to the specific facts at hand. Amirite?

And he leaves it there without any discussion.

WTH? It's not like I bound your hands or anyone else's. If you want to discuss, discuss. Don't complain that I failed to read your mind and respond accordingly.

These fine people that you met took 'no thought'. Fine. But look where that gets them organizationally. They can't grow an international church that way which can move throughout the earth and survive and thrive.

Why not? Are people too stupid to recognize God's truth when they hear it? Did Jesus qualify his instructions with something like "Don't be concerned with wealth unless you can think of a reason to store up treasure on this earth? Or, say, turn the other cheek unless it results in you being taken advantage of? It really is stunning to me how easily you hand wave away the actual words and teachings of the son of God that you claim to follow.

In the modern world anyway.

It takes money/wealth to do that large scale and then keep it going. I don't see that "moral relativism' really comes into play in this.

Today's world is not the world of Jesus.

When you start making ad hoc excuses justifying your refusal to follow the teachings of your God, that's absolutely moral relativism. Remember when you were appalled at the concept of "cafeteria Jesus?" Cafeteria Jesus is exactly what you are doing.

I''m somewhat flummoxed as to why critics are always coming back to wealth/money as an evil. Straight up evil. Or that accumulated wealth to use for maintaining a worldwide church as it moves into the third world and maintains the physical facilities of a growing church is an anathema.

You're shadow boxing again. Who here has been arguing that money is evil? That's not even close to what people have been arguing. Your straw-manning is getting way out of hand. It's not that critics claim money is evil. It's that they claim it's hypocritical for a church to secretly hoard billions of dollars while claiming to be Christian. Amassing an enormous earthly treasure is antithetical to Christ's teachings, let alone hiding what it is doing from its own adherents.

I don't get it. Never have. And that this is all somehow connected to people giving of their own free will at Christmas time to Light the World. Truthfully? It sounds kind of screwed up you critics out there.

Of course you don't get it. You don't try to get it. You don't want to get it. You make up some distorted straw man in your head so that you can beat up on it instead of making the slightest effort to understand. That is screwed up. No one is criticizing people who give to charity, so why are you using them as a human shield? Your constant misrepresentation of others' posts is what is screwed up here.

Straight across moral relativism'? I don't think so.

Do you mean "straight up moral relativism?" If so, that's exactly right.

I know I keep harping on this but, again, I'm seeing black and white thinking without the ability to be flexible based upon time, space, needs, culture, technology, or what have you.

It's not black and white thinking to compare and contrast the teachings of the claimed son of God with the conduct of those who claim to be his followers. The problem is that Jesus's teachings are not full of the kind of nuance you are inventing out of thin air. He didn't qualify his instructions to his followers with stuff like "unless, you know, you need to hoard wealth as a hedge against the future." It's just not there. By your reasoning, there is no objective morality because the moral thing to do depends entirely on the set of facts and circumstances present at any given time. That's what makes you a closet moral relativist.

We are not living in the time of Jesus, but we can follow Him as we take care of those that are in need and taken advantage of. Can the LDS Church do a better job? Sure! It's an organization administered by human beings. Put them in the mix and you will never have things as 'perfect' as you might like.

Yes, human beings who decided to secretly hoard an enormous pot of gold while claiming not to be wealthy. That's a far cry from people being only human. That was a deliberate choice.

Those that nit pick and complain might do better to come inside the tent and help run the show from within. We could use some more talented and smart Saints.

By your own many, many descriptions, critics don't meet your definitions of talented or smart. But the notion that one can't criticize an organization unless one is willing to run the organization is just silly. Why in the world would I volunteer to work for an organization that I believe is not what it purports to be? By your logic, you shouldn't be able to criticize critics without becoming one.

Come back. Even you atheists. (just teasin' ya'). Of course it would take an adjustment with your own finances and sacrificing a bit.

So far, you haven't given me any good reason to sacrifice my personal integrity.

Regards,
MG