Answering John Dehlin

[_harmony]

Your worldview does not comport with a study the church commissioned from one of my clients.

A study with an agenda manages to make sure that agenda is supported; big surprise!

That still doesn't make BYU a good use of tithing funds, when a strong and fully supported Institute system would do just as well without spending all those tithes on the BYU elite.

Sometimes I wonder at the gullibility of some of the most educated people around. But then I remember my Soc 501 class, and am not at all surprised.

What other complaint do you have with my list?

[_Yahoo Bot]

Your worldview does not comport with a study the church commissioned from one of my clients.

A study with an agenda manages to make sure that agenda is supported; big surprise!

Let's see --- I have a scientific polling study on the one hand and you have, what, derision.

And anonymously so, I might add.

Like I say, the Church was just about to jettison BYU when it determined that BYU was more important to the Church's mission than previously thought.

[_harmony]

Let's see --- I have a scientific polling study on the one hand and you have, what, derision.

And anonymously so, I might add.

Like I say, the Church was just about to jettison BYU when it determined that BYU was more important to the Church's mission than previously thought.

Statistics can be read from any side, Bot. Surely you know this.

The study that you say determined that the church should keep BYU was written by people who support BYU. Why am I so surprised that you don't understand that?

Did the survey offer alternatives to keeping BYU? When was this study made... back when Pres Hinckley was telling members to not send their children to BYU; instead to send them to state schools and use the Institute program? Who commissioned the study? (which of the Brethren didn't agree with Pres Hinckley's--a UofU alum-- agenda?) Where is this study published? Who are the authors? How do you know about this study?

And then lo and behold! A study emerges that shows *shock* that BYU is manifestly important to the worldwide (leadership) mission of the church... moreso than missions, temple marriage, and seminary... nevermind that most of the rest of the world's members don't have access to... *shock*... missions, temple marriage, and seminary. Or BYU, for that matter.

Do you always accept every study's conclusion at face value?

Good grief. Who was it who said there was a fool born every minute? I think the LDS church has more than her share.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Incidentally, I've never understood the argument that the Church doesn't devote enough of its resources to charity. To me, that's rather like complaining that the Audobon Society or the Sierra Club doesn't given enough to alleviate hunger in Africa. What they do is their charitable service. The Church's primary functions are many, and they include helping the poor and the needy. But they also include building chapels, doing missionary work, and erecting and maintaining temples, etc.

I don’t think that analogy works Dan, since neither the Audubon Society or the Sierra Club are religious institutions that claim to represent Jesus Christ. When people read the Gospels, they don’t see Jesus proclaiming a church or building temples, they read Jesus proclaiming God’s Kingdom and a radical renunciation of material things for the things in heaven that neither moth nor rust corrupt.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Good grief. Who was it who said there was a fool born every minute? I think the LDS church has more than her share.

Oh my goodness. What a controversial proposition I am advancing. BYU advances the Church's mission AND a study supports it.

I better get my comments in before you suspend me for such an outrageous offense as offering self-edits in red. Never mind all the mind-blowing meme-posting life-threatening stuff that goes on around here.

[_harmony]

When people read the Gospels, they don’t see Jesus proclaiming a church or building temples, they read Jesus proclaiming God’s Kingdom and a radical renunciation of material things for the things in heaven that neither moth nor rust corrupt.

Nor termites nor dry rot.

Just sayin'...

[_malkie]

And I forgot to mention: Paying for funerals (well, basically, burials) for non-members who heard that LDS bishops do that. And presiding over them. And getting calls from the local big cemetery in town to help out.

Again, was I thrilled? Perhaps you can tell my attitudes. But I give huge credit to the Church to motivate people like me -- a lawyer who works 80 hours a week with a large family -- to do this stuff.

Well done, sir! - Prof Peterson too, and many others who serve. I'd prefer to think, however, that your motivation is more internal than external.

I've long been of the opinion that (within reason) there is little virtue in doing the right things that come naturally and easily to you, but much virtue in doing what's right in spite of wishing that you could do something else (also good) instead. I know that there's a contrary scripture (something to do with giving a gift unwillingly?), and I don't know how to resolve the contradiction, because that scripture seems to express a valid PoV too.

Leaders who serve with love and compassion in their hearts are truly the salt of the earth.

[_why me]

If I could only choose one of my suggestions, it would be the first one: Stop thinking like a corporation and start acting like a charity (even John's question is a sympton of this mentality). I

Most churches with a USA base must act like a corporation to safeguard its interests. I am sure that the lutheran and catholic church in the USA act like a corporation too. When a church reaches a certain size, it can not grow through charity alone. Charity can be only one part of the pie. The LDS church contributes to humanitarian aid during severe crises and it helps to ease poverty worldwide. However it doesn't blow its own horn and if it did, you would be the first to offer a critique of horn trumpeting and how this doesn't gel with the Bible.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I am sick to death of my tithes being used to make life easier for Utah Mormons.

Utah is a net exporter of tithing monies, not a net importer.

And BYU serves mostly non-Utahans.

Facts, harmony. Facts. They're actually pretty helpful.

[_why me]

I don’t think that analogy works Dan, since neither the Audubon Society or the Sierra Club are religious institutions that claim to represent Jesus Christ. When people read the Gospels, they don’t see Jesus proclaiming a church or building temples, they read Jesus proclaiming God’s Kingdom and a radical renunciation of material things for the things in heaven that neither moth nor rust corrupt.

Well I suppose that one must blame Peter, James and Paul for the establishment of churches. I suppose one reason for a church was to remember Christ and partake of the supper as an act of remembrance. To my mind, people gathered together as a community of saints and lived accordingly. They also went to church, usually over someone's home to have a service. I don't think that there was a need to have a church during Jesus' time. But afterwards, it was necessary to keep the believers together in fellowship.

And of course, in the early church of Peter, tithing was not 10 percent but a communal way of living with major holdings going to the church.