For those readers not native to Downtown Salt Lake:
Recently the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints invested in developing a mall right next to Temple Square. This has led, among some, to controversy about the Church's "for profit" ventures, and the corporate aspects of the Church. This controversy is generally limited to those who would be opposed to anything that any religion has ever done; however, since this is something of a sore spot for some, and since most of the information (as is generally the case) that is being spread the loudest is generally of a negative nature, I felt like it would be a good idea to try to explain some of the reasoning behind what is going on here. In no way should my views be construed to represent the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are purely my own, although I feel they are founded soundly both in the doctrines of Christ, and in logical reasoning. To those "That make a man an offender for a word...and turn aside the just for a thing of nought" (Isaiah 29:21), you're welcome not to read. Nobody's forcing you.
To those who are upset about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' involvement in the City Creek venture and other "for profit" ventures, and/or who feel such involvement is hypocritical, may I point out a few things:
1) Take a walk down main street sometime. Look at the businesses and services offered there. Generally speaking, there's not much to speak of that's worthwhile in the way of "wholesome family activity". Further, might I point out that Harmon's is pretty much the only game around for some of us in terms of grocery shopping (meaning that there really wasn't anything before the City Creek project). While City Creek may be making a profit, it is also beautifying and providing services in an area that most investors seem unwilling to make an effort. In fact, the Church has waited years to invest there, hoping someone else would make the effort.
2) When it comes to "for-profit" ventures seeming to defy the words and example of Christ, could I just point out the parable of the talents? Christ deplored people taking what was given to them and simply burying it; He taught self reliance, and "taking the initiative"...I, for one, am pleased to see that the Church is taking my tithing money, and investing it, in a manner that means that the most good will come from it, since they are investing it in ways that both aid communities, and give back to the Church coffers. The alternative, for those of you who don't know, would be that the Church ask extra donations of every local member in order to build every Church building, requiring much of the cost of local meeting houses and temples at the hands of those who live around them. What this would translate to is lots of nice Church buildings and temples in areas where Church member population is dense, and the people are well off (read: America, and especially Utah), but no Church buildings or temples to speak of, or much lower quality buildings in places (like my beloved India) where the people simply cannot afford the same kinds of donations.
3) To those concerned that the Church leaders are spending all of their time on ventures like this, and are "too busy to answer questions from the media", as someone put it: these concerns are not run directly by the Apostles or the Presidency. Walk into an LDS distribution center some time, and take a look at the cash register. They may not have the signs any more, but there used to be a sign at every register that said "Please make checks payable to the Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric". The Presiding Bishopric is responsible for the handling of all of the temporal (meaning worldly--ie paying for buildings, managing business ventures, etc) affairs of the Church. While members of the Quorum of the 12 and of the First Presidency of the Church were probably involved in the final approvals, at the end of the day the bulk of the work on things like this falls to the Presiding Bishopric.
I could continue to cite why I feel no qualms about ventures like this, but I suppose at the end of the day, it really won't matter to most. Those who seek a place to argue and bring down will always find something to latch onto. For those, however, who are members of the Church, and who do feel misgivings, may I point out another two things:
1) Men (and women) are fallible. Although the Church is led and organized by a perfect God, soemtimes the people He delegates to make mistakes and are imperfect. As it turns out, so do I, and, unless I'm very mistaken in assuming that at least one non-resurrected human being will read this, so do you. Take it for what it is.
2) This Church is based upon modern revelation, both to individual members, and to its leaders. If you have misgivings about what your leaders are doing, may I suggest that in almost every case I've observed, the problem has been with the objector, rather than the leader. When we take the actions of righteous, inspired men to be offensive or hard, generally it bespeaks something about the strength of our testimony of the organization of the Church. Are leaders fallible? Certainly. Does the Lord generally allow men and women to be called to prominent leadership positions in the Church, knowing their hearts, and knowing that they would lead His Church and His children astray? Generally no.
To me, this falls under basically the same head as accepting callings: if I have an issue with the calling that the Lord is offering me through His duly appointed servants, this indicates more to me a lack of testimony and faith on my side than it does a lack of revelation on the leader's side. So, I guess what I'm saying is, before you go criticizing the leaders of the Church, look critically at the strength of your own testimony, and ask yourself where you stand spiritually. As Nephi said to his brothers so many years ago when he found them disputing the revelations of their spiritual leader, "Have ye inquired of the Lord?" (1 Ne 15:8).
Recently the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints invested in developing a mall right next to Temple Square. This has led, among some, to controversy about the Church's "for profit" ventures, and the corporate aspects of the Church. This controversy is generally limited to those who would be opposed to anything that any religion has ever done; however, since this is something of a sore spot for some, and since most of the information (as is generally the case) that is being spread the loudest is generally of a negative nature, I felt like it would be a good idea to try to explain some of the reasoning behind what is going on here. In no way should my views be construed to represent the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They are purely my own, although I feel they are founded soundly both in the doctrines of Christ, and in logical reasoning. To those "That make a man an offender for a word...and turn aside the just for a thing of nought" (Isaiah 29:21), you're welcome not to read. Nobody's forcing you.
To those who are upset about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' involvement in the City Creek venture and other "for profit" ventures, and/or who feel such involvement is hypocritical, may I point out a few things:
1) Take a walk down main street sometime. Look at the businesses and services offered there. Generally speaking, there's not much to speak of that's worthwhile in the way of "wholesome family activity". Further, might I point out that Harmon's is pretty much the only game around for some of us in terms of grocery shopping (meaning that there really wasn't anything before the City Creek project). While City Creek may be making a profit, it is also beautifying and providing services in an area that most investors seem unwilling to make an effort. In fact, the Church has waited years to invest there, hoping someone else would make the effort.
2) When it comes to "for-profit" ventures seeming to defy the words and example of Christ, could I just point out the parable of the talents? Christ deplored people taking what was given to them and simply burying it; He taught self reliance, and "taking the initiative"...I, for one, am pleased to see that the Church is taking my tithing money, and investing it, in a manner that means that the most good will come from it, since they are investing it in ways that both aid communities, and give back to the Church coffers. The alternative, for those of you who don't know, would be that the Church ask extra donations of every local member in order to build every Church building, requiring much of the cost of local meeting houses and temples at the hands of those who live around them. What this would translate to is lots of nice Church buildings and temples in areas where Church member population is dense, and the people are well off (read: America, and especially Utah), but no Church buildings or temples to speak of, or much lower quality buildings in places (like my beloved India) where the people simply cannot afford the same kinds of donations.
3) To those concerned that the Church leaders are spending all of their time on ventures like this, and are "too busy to answer questions from the media", as someone put it: these concerns are not run directly by the Apostles or the Presidency. Walk into an LDS distribution center some time, and take a look at the cash register. They may not have the signs any more, but there used to be a sign at every register that said "Please make checks payable to the Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric". The Presiding Bishopric is responsible for the handling of all of the temporal (meaning worldly--ie paying for buildings, managing business ventures, etc) affairs of the Church. While members of the Quorum of the 12 and of the First Presidency of the Church were probably involved in the final approvals, at the end of the day the bulk of the work on things like this falls to the Presiding Bishopric.
I could continue to cite why I feel no qualms about ventures like this, but I suppose at the end of the day, it really won't matter to most. Those who seek a place to argue and bring down will always find something to latch onto. For those, however, who are members of the Church, and who do feel misgivings, may I point out another two things:
1) Men (and women) are fallible. Although the Church is led and organized by a perfect God, soemtimes the people He delegates to make mistakes and are imperfect. As it turns out, so do I, and, unless I'm very mistaken in assuming that at least one non-resurrected human being will read this, so do you. Take it for what it is.
2) This Church is based upon modern revelation, both to individual members, and to its leaders. If you have misgivings about what your leaders are doing, may I suggest that in almost every case I've observed, the problem has been with the objector, rather than the leader. When we take the actions of righteous, inspired men to be offensive or hard, generally it bespeaks something about the strength of our testimony of the organization of the Church. Are leaders fallible? Certainly. Does the Lord generally allow men and women to be called to prominent leadership positions in the Church, knowing their hearts, and knowing that they would lead His Church and His children astray? Generally no.
To me, this falls under basically the same head as accepting callings: if I have an issue with the calling that the Lord is offering me through His duly appointed servants, this indicates more to me a lack of testimony and faith on my side than it does a lack of revelation on the leader's side. So, I guess what I'm saying is, before you go criticizing the leaders of the Church, look critically at the strength of your own testimony, and ask yourself where you stand spiritually. As Nephi said to his brothers so many years ago when he found them disputing the revelations of their spiritual leader, "Have ye inquired of the Lord?" (1 Ne 15:8).
No comments:
Post a Comment