I'm so glad the church spares no expense...

[_Inconceivable]

My emphasis is that it is wrong reason to enable those you know are irresponsible. Members are accountable simply through contributory negligence.

Mormon leaders are a direct reflection of those who belong to their organization They are representative of the whole. Outsiders make little distinction between members and representatives.

Not meaning to jab and twist here Harmony, but you are a member.

Indeed I am, Inconceivable. I remain for reasons of my own.

However, I don't think you can extrapolate the leaders' lacks (and there are many lacks among our leaders) to the general rank and file of the church, nor can you make the rank and file responsible for the irresponsible decisions of the leaders. Were that the case, the citizens are responsible for the government's excesses; the stockholders of Enron were responsible for the excesses of their CEO; the Laurels are responsible for the thoughts of the Priests.

We can only be responsible for ourselves. And we cannot be responsible for what we don't know, when that knowledge is deliberately kept from us. The leaders bear that responsibility alone. The books are closed; we have no input. We don't know what we don't know.

Yes I can.

Yes they are (the US is at least a representative government)

and

You know, even if many others don't.

Now, what is it that you're willing to do about it? Most do nothing and continue to (like Infymus says,) pray, pay and obey.

I just don't think that's the kind of sheep Jesus described as His own.

The temples represent Mormons. The leaders represent Mormons - past and present. You are a Mormon. Just like Bill Clinton, it's an untruth to say "I did not have relations with that...." church.

That is why I say, "contributory negligence".

[_Tori]

Since you ask how we members feel. I feel great about it. Temples are lovely buildings and if you read the inscription on each temple it is a House of the Lord. We don't expect our Lord and Savior to have to stay in a Motel 6.

Boy, Charity. I couldn't disagree with you more. I would imagine that the Savior is very saddened when he see's these prideful/material demonstrations of worship. I don't think he expects to walk on $240.00 a yard or have special imported rare mahagony handrails, or 25,000.00 chandeliers. These things are not necessary to show our love for him and worship him. He was born in a stable....not the Ritz-Carlton. He chose the poor blue-collar working class to be his disciples.

A Motel 6? LOL! I bet when he comes again, he'll visit first, the smallest most humble, least lavish of Church's.

[_harmony]

Since you ask how we members feel. I feel great about it. Temples are lovely buildings and if you read the inscription on each temple it is a House of the Lord. We don't expect our Lord and Savior to have to stay in a Motel 6.

Boy, Charity. I couldn't disagree with you more. I would imagine that the Savior is very saddened when he see's these prideful/material demonstrations of worship. I don't think he expects to walk on $240.00 a yard or have special imported rare mahagony handrails, or 25,000.00 chandeliers. These things are not necessary to show our love for him and worship him. He was born in a stable....not the Ritz-Carlton. He chose the poor blue-collar working class to be his disciples.

A Motel 6? LOL! I bet when he comes again, he'll visit first, the smallest most humble, least lavish of Church's.

I wonder why charity thinks Motel 6 is so awful. I've stayed in Motel 6's many times. It's sure a step up from my car. There's at least a bed to stretch out on and a pillow. Is the Savior somehow more deserving than I am? I doubt he would agree.

"... unto the least of these..." How quickly we forget. And our leaders forget quicker than anyone, I think.

[_harmony]

My emphasis is that it is wrong reason to enable those you know are irresponsible. Members are accountable simply through contributory negligence.

Mormon leaders are a direct reflection of those who belong to their organization They are representative of the whole. Outsiders make little distinction between members and representatives.

Not meaning to jab and twist here Harmony, but you are a member.

Indeed I am, Inconceivable. I remain for reasons of my own.

However, I don't think you can extrapolate the leaders' lacks (and there are many lacks among our leaders) to the general rank and file of the church, nor can you make the rank and file responsible for the irresponsible decisions of the leaders. Were that the case, the citizens are responsible for the government's excesses; the stockholders of Enron were responsible for the excesses of their CEO; the Laurels are responsible for the thoughts of the Priests.

We can only be responsible for ourselves. And we cannot be responsible for what we don't know, when that knowledge is deliberately kept from us. The leaders bear that responsibility alone. The books are closed; we have no input. We don't know what we don't know.

Yes I can.

No, you can't. I am no more responsible for the excesses of church leaders than I am responsible for your excesses.

Yes they are (the US is at least a representative government)

So? I didn't vote for the current leadership. I am not responsible for putting them in office. I am not responsible for their excesses. Had my candidate won, you might have a stronger case.

You know, even if many others don't.

Now, what is it that you're willing to do about it? Most do nothing and continue to (like Infymus says,) pray, pay and obey.

Not even Infymus could get me to stop praying. That is outside his power. And I pay, so I can complain about the way my tithing is used. As for the obey... well, that was good for a laugh. ;-)

I just don't think that's the kind of sheep Jesus described as His own.

And you are entitled to your opinion. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with you, or anyone else.

The temples represent Mormons.

I don't see it that way, and I doubt that's the way the TBM's see it either. The temples represent God, in the TBM worldview. To me, depending on the temple (personally, I love the Manti temple), they represent the sacrifices of the members at the time they were built, and stand as a testament to their faith.

The leaders represent Mormons - past and present.

Indeed. For good and for bad. Don't forget that occasionally they have and do still many good things.

You are a Mormon.

Indeed.

Just like Bill Clinton, it's an untruth to say "I did not have relations with that...." church.

Bill Clinton had relations with a church? Nevermind, I don't want to know.

I claim a relationship with the LDS church. I have made that claim for 37 years. I don't condone every move of the leaders, though. Please try to keep charity and I separate in your mind. We are both members, both converts, but we approach the church from diametrically opposed worldviews.

That is why I say, "contributory negligence".

I disagree. I am not about to throw the baby out with the dirth bath water, and I won't abandon my faith, just because the current crop of leaders is so lame.

[_Jason Bourne]

It isn't my job to know how it is spent. Tithing is my acknowledgement to the Lord taht all I have is what He has given me. My little stack of bills could be burned and it wouldn't matter.

That is not the point really. Actually it would be nice to know how it is spent. But the point is are those who are stewards over the Lord's money being good stewards. This is why questions like this thread are valid.

The Lord doesn't require burnt offerings. He allows the money to be spent on chapels, and temples, and schools and humanitarian aid.

Is tithing spent on humanitarian aid?

I know how it is spent

Do you? How much went to feed the poor last year?

[_Jason Bourne]

And Bill Gates operates within the tax system and the Church outside of the tax system

The Church does not operate outside the tax system. It operate within the tax system which by law, gives it tax exempt status. By the way, Gates gave his money, for which he got some major tax deductions for it, to the Bill Gates FOUNDATION. Private Foundations, if set up correctly are also non tax paying entities. His foundation gets the same tax advantages if it meets certain rules as the LDS Church does.

[_Jason Bourne]

As foolish as I think it is to "spare no expense" (since one can always find ways to increase expense), I'm also not so sure why it's the church's responsibility to feed the poor. Isn't that the responsibility of the individual members instead of the organization as a whole?

If the Church belongs to the Lord what would He desire the Church to do? If the Church is to glorify God then how better way to praise God than through helping his other children?

Does the LDS Church not do charitable works? My understanding was that the LDS Church was well known for helping their fellow man. That would, appear to me, something that was done to live the gospel of Christ.

THe LDS Church does substantial charitable work. It is however the opinion of some that it does not do enough in comparison to the amount of money it brings in.

[_Jason Bourne]

So the tithing of hard working members in places thousands of miles from SLC is used not to bring forth the three fold mission of the church, but to beautify downtown SLC. Uh huh. That is not God-breathed. That is man-made.

Did you miss the part abouit NO tithing funds used for the mall project? Or do you just not want to believe that? It is really hard to keep up the anti-Mormon line if you have to acknowledge the facts.

How many times does it have to be explained that:

1: Money is fungible and whether it is tithing, FOs, income from investments and so on it all goes into the same pot.

2: ALL the money the Church had originally came from member tithe or some other contributions. So it does not matter if the money came from tithing today.

3: If the Church has enough money to buy a mall, or invest in it, it is quite fine to wonder if it could have better used the money elsewhere whether it came from tithing or not.

[_Jason Bourne]

Years ago, funds were handled differently. There weren't the lavish excesses of the leaders. There weren't $5000 suits sitting on the stand in general conference

.

GAs have $5k suits???? How do you know that?

There weren't limos

I have never seen a GA ride a limo. Have you?

and private jets and

The LDS Church owns no jets. All GAs travel on regular airlines except Pres. Hinckley who travels often on a private jet that has bee loaned to the Church by John Huntsman.

million dollar condos.

Yes the Church pres lives is a condo in SLC that is worth over a million. One would think this makes sense from a security stand point. Other GAs live on their own homes that they bought themselves.

Church farms were to feed the poor, not make a profit.

Church farms still feed the poor and any farm has to make a profit or else it fails.

[_the road to hana]

Like I said God has left the building.

God has left the Church Office Building, indeed. But I think he's thriving quite well in at least a few ward buildings across the world.

Really, for those who believe in God, God should be just about everywhere, and not just in certain church buildings, or with a certain denomination. I think this points out again another salient difference between Mormonthought and non-Mormon Christian thought, which is again relevant when it comes to political discussions. Most non-LDS Christians would say that God is inclusive rather than exclusive, and that he (or the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit) exists just about everywhere, and particularly where there is a body of believers.

Mormons tend to think of God inhabiting houses of worship, and congregations, particularly if not exclusively their own.

Non-LDS Christians would see the "body of Christ" concept and the "church" concept as something much bigger than just one denomination.

So if there is a God, why wouldn't he be with LDS wards, as well as Protestant, Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Catholic and Jewish congregations everywhere? Why wouldn't he be with the man or woman on the street, the family in their home, the person at their workplace, the sick, those in prison, and even those who don't believe in deity?

Whether "God" ever was at the "Church Office Building" specifically would really be no different from whether or not he was at the headquarters of any other large corporation. Whether or not the LDS Church is truly "God's church," if one assumes for the sake of argument the existence of God, God would be there in spite of themselves.