Moniker wrote: I understand that people organize and do GREAT deeds and charitable works through their Church, yet when buildings and human made constructs are more important then humans themselves it is unsettling to me. Why is this? My focus is on the lives that are in existence at this moment with the thought that there is only one chance to help a person -- and it is now. The LDS Church (as are all) is focused on saving lives for the afterlife. Would that be a fair statement? As someone that sees such suffering currently in the world I recoil from the idea of lavish buildings made to praise God when I see humanity as what needs to be praised.
I respond to Christ's message as it deals with humanity, not that which is found in his death and resurrection which I do not accept. So, perhaps I need to recall that the work of the Church is essentially that which pertains to what I reject. I forget that, at times.
I hope you are living in near poverty, with all your goods given to the poor. You have a small hut, walk to work, have one change of clothes, and eat only enough to barely sustain your body. No TV, no entertainments, no computer, nothing except the very bare necessities. With everthing else dontated to the poor. Otherwise your criticism would sound awfully hypocritical. And we wouldn't want that, would we.?
Wow! Charity, I think you misread me. It wasn't my intent to be critical with the above post. I was merely musing on what I am concerned with and how I view Christ's message -- then I had to place my mindset into those that see the message in a fundamentally different way. I actually respect anyone that believes the work they do (whatever it may be) to help their fellow man. The LDS believe they're doing so. I respect that -- although I disagree with how it should be done, just because I come to the table with an opposing view on the nature of the afterlife. Your work (and that of the Church) results from a belief I do not hold. I don't disparage your belief that you want to help humanity in the afterlife. Not at all! I didn't realize it read that way?
Inconceivable wrote: You live in a gated community, don't you C$*#ty? It's always the all or nothing qualifier, isn't it?
No, I don't. You know what they say about people who use profanity? It is the attempt of a small mind to express itself forcefullyi.
Inconceivable wrote:There are those that live very modest lives in order to contribute their time and talents to those less fortunate. It's not about money to them. It's not about money to myself. The church is not "less fortunate".
And do you know what I do with my money? Besides the tithing? Are you telepathic? Or just pathetic?
Inconceivable wrote:The church is an entity (it's a corporation). It dresses. How does it dress? With zillion dollar imported tile. Let's talk about it:
Imported isn't always the most expensive. How about those imported foreign cars that Americans buy because they are cheaper than American made. And I'll bet you have a lot of "Made in China" labels around your house. All that expensive imported stuff? Ever think about that?
Moniker wrote: I understand that people organize and do GREAT deeds and charitable works through their Church, yet when buildings and human made constructs are more important then humans themselves it is unsettling to me. Why is this? My focus is on the lives that are in existence at this moment with the thought that there is only one chance to help a person -- and it is now. The LDS Church (as are all) is focused on saving lives for the afterlife. Would that be a fair statement? As someone that sees such suffering currently in the world I recoil from the idea of lavish buildings made to praise God when I see humanity as what needs to be praised.
I respond to Christ's message as it deals with humanity, not that which is found in his death and resurrection which I do not accept. So, perhaps I need to recall that the work of the Church is essentially that which pertains to what I reject. I forget that, at times.
I hope you are living in near poverty, with all your goods given to the poor. You have a small hut, walk to work, have one change of clothes, and eat only enough to barely sustain your body. No TV, no entertainments, no computer, nothing except the very bare necessities. With everthing else dontated to the poor. Otherwise your criticism would sound awfully hypocritical. And we wouldn't want that, would we.?
Wow! Charity, I think you misread me. It wasn't my intent to be critical with the above post. I was merely musing on what I am concerned with and how I view Christ's message -- then I had to place my mindset into those that see the message in a fundamentally different way. I actually respect anyone that believes the work they do (whatever it may be) to help their fellow man. The LDS believe they're doing so. I respect that -- although I disagree with how it should be done, just because I come to the table with an opposing view on the nature of the afterlife. Your work (and that of the Church) results from a belief I do not hold. I don't disparage your belief that you want to help humanity in the afterlife. Not at all! I didn't realize it read that way?
Sorry if I didn't understand the message your were giving. And thanks for the respect.
OH, and by the way, I have lived on the streets and relied on the kindness of strangers. Often! That experience allowed me to have a great deal of empathy to those that go without.
I feel intense guilt with what I have, and strive to give more and be a better person. As I'm sure we all do. Perhaps, we come at it in different directions? But, I'm a-okay with that.
I think he was born there to remind his True Followers of what was NOT a qualifier. I would think differently if Jesus showed up at the Marriott (temple/Marriott - same thing).
Wasn't Solomon's Temple just another example of his excess?
(Supporting 1000 wives must have really cut into his meals-on-wheels program.)
Last edited by Anonymous on Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
I love how all of these posters keep comparing old testament temples to today.
The Old Testament God is a WAY different God than the Mormon God. You can't compare the two.
Also, how can many of you reject the flood and Adam and Eve as literal events, but believe that God commanded the temples be lavish? Couldn't these stories also just be the stories of men? Is it at all possible that Solomon just wanted a really lavish temple, and just SAID that God commanded it, even though God had nothing to do with it?
If you are trying to argue this point, shouldn't you be PISSED that the church isn't buying solid gold faucets and ivory staircases and such?? What's up with these mediocre temples? Surely the Old Testament God would outright reject such shoddy materials.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo