LDS Freedom Forum

laronius wrote:
I only hope the proof you have received in such matters is the kind that only the Spirit can provide.

"The Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said one of the main goals of the City Creek project has already been met.

"One of the paramount objectives was to try to instill a sense of economic confidence in investors (interested) in Salt Lake City, and that others would come forward (to) invest in jobs and homes in the downtown area," said H. David Burton, the Presiding Bishop of the church."

kcwhite wrote:For those who have difficulty understanding why the Church would spend billions on a shopping mall and not spend that money for humitarian purposes do not understand U.S. tax law.

I am not a lawyer, but I do know that the Church has to keep their for-profit money separate from their non-profit money (i.e. tithing, fast offering, etc.). They would lose their status as a non-profit if they were to co-mingle those monies. They cannot use for-profit monies to build temples, feed the poor, etc.

Bishop Burton has publicly stated that one of the primary reasons they built the mall was to give investors confidence to invest in Salt Lake.

"The Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said one of the main goals of the City Creek project has already been met.

"One of the paramount objectives was to try to instill a sense of economic confidence in investors (interested) in Salt Lake City, and that others would come forward (to) invest in jobs and homes in the downtown area," said H. David Burton, the Presiding Bishop of the church."

The Church has a very vested interest in preserving and beautifying downtown SLC. It is the world HQ of the Church and they strongly desire to present a positive impression to those who come to visit the area.

Please don't let this be a stumbling block to you good latter day saints. There is no need to steady the Ark by second-guessing the motivations of the presiding bishopric in ths matter. You (nor I) have a complete picture of all the discussions that went into this and it is arrogant of us to assume that years of planning were done without seeking the Lord's guidance.

kcwhite wrote: There is no need to steady the Ark by second-guessing the motivations of the presiding bishopric in ths matter. You (nor I) have a complete picture of all the discussions that went into this and it is arrogant of us to assume that years of planning were done without seeking the Lord's guidance.

kcwhite wrote:For those who have difficulty understanding why the Church would spend billions on a shopping mall and not spend that money for humitarian purposes do not understand U.S. tax law.

I am not a lawyer, but I do know that the Church has to keep their for-profit money separate from their non-profit money (i.e. tithing, fast offering, etc.). They would lose their status as a non-profit if they were to co-mingle those monies. They cannot use for-profit monies to build temples, feed the poor, etc.

Bishop Burton has publicly stated that one of the primary reasons they built the mall was to give investors confidence to invest in Salt Lake.

"The Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said one of the main goals of the City Creek project has already been met.

"One of the paramount objectives was to try to instill a sense of economic confidence in investors (interested) in Salt Lake City, and that others would come forward (to) invest in jobs and homes in the downtown area," said H. David Burton, the Presiding Bishop of the church."

The Church has a very vested interest in preserving and beautifying downtown SLC. It is the world HQ of the Church and they strongly desire to present a positive impression to those who come to visit the area.

Please don't let this be a stumbling block to you good latter day saints. There is no need to steady the Ark by second-guessing the motivations of the presiding bishopric in ths matter. You (nor I) have a complete picture of all the discussions that went into this and it is arrogant of us to assume that years of planning were done without seeking the Lord's guidance.

Truth B Known wrote:

Ben McClintock wrote:Let's get a list going then. If we are going to start with the idea that this mall doesn't "square with the revelations" (though it clearly does) ) , let's be fair and list everything the Brethren have done/taught that doesn't "square with the revelations" so we can help each avoid those evils.

Fill in the blanks:

1. 2 Nephi 28: 9, 12-15
2. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/vain-vanity?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
3. http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/v/3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
4. http://www.josephsmith.net/ldsorg/v/ind ... 82620aRCRD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
5. President Hinckley: "When we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man” (D&C 121:36–37).

6. http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/5 ... inion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is not some men or even most men, but almost all men (and, it might be added, some women) who are disposed to the exercise of unrighteous dominion over others. That the Prophet would write this in the context of the Savior's words that "many are called but few are chosen" (see verses 34 and 40; see also Matthew 22:14) indicates that the tendency toward unrighteous dominion is a nearly universal fault that extends even to some who might occupy positions of responsibility in the Church. It would appear that this is a characteristic of the natural man that must be overcome if one is to achieve sanctification (see Mosiah 3:19).

Examining Doctrine and Covenants 121:34-46, one senses the implication that unrighteous dominion has any of at least three characteristics:

1. It fails to honor the God-given moral agency of men and women.

2. Its objective is worldly acclaim and gratification of pride and vain ambition instead of divine approbation.

3. It emphasizes tasks and agendas at the expense of human relationships and the welfare of souls.

AussiOi wrote:again, mark. this. does. not.follow mark
i am sick of your mindless rant saying anyone who disagrees with YOUR view of the LDS world is apostate
are you incapable of more sensible communication that this mark?
5 years and you are as predictable as sunset

patriotsaint wrote:

Truth B Known wrote:

Ben McClintock wrote:Let's get a list going then. If we are going to start with the idea that this mall doesn't "square with the revelations" (though it clearly does) ) , let's be fair and list everything the Brethren have done/taught that doesn't "square with the revelations" so we can help each avoid those evils.

Fill in the blanks:

1. 2 Nephi 28: 9, 12-15
2. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/vain-vanity?lang=eng" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
3. http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/v/3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
4. http://www.josephsmith.net/ldsorg/v/ind ... 82620aRCRD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
5. President Hinckley: "When we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man” (D&C 121:36–37).

6. http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/5 ... inion.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is not some men or even most men, but almost all men (and, it might be added, some women) who are disposed to the exercise of unrighteous dominion over others. That the Prophet would write this in the context of the Savior's words that "many are called but few are chosen" (see verses 34 and 40; see also Matthew 22:14) indicates that the tendency toward unrighteous dominion is a nearly universal fault that extends even to some who might occupy positions of responsibility in the Church. It would appear that this is a characteristic of the natural man that must be overcome if one is to achieve sanctification (see Mosiah 3:19).

Examining Doctrine and Covenants 121:34-46, one senses the implication that unrighteous dominion has any of at least three characteristics:

1. It fails to honor the God-given moral agency of men and women.

2. Its objective is worldly acclaim and gratification of pride and vain ambition instead of divine approbation.

3. It emphasizes tasks and agendas at the expense of human relationships and the welfare of souls.

I counted at least 5 times in general conference that D&C 121 was referenced or quoted from. Glad to know that the very brethren that are teaching from this section don't understand it and have violated its teachings according to flag. Explain to me flag how the brethren have exercised unrighteous dominion? The way you desperately grasp at straws and bend over backward to smear the church blows my mind.

If only you would put so much effort into sustaining the brethren.

shadow wrote: Back in the day when I did home health care I had a patient who told me his will stipulated that 1 million go to the church. This wasn't tithing or a fast offering. I'm sure a lot of people have included the church in their wills. Heck, even my Grandma has.

Also, back in the 60's my mom used to work for the real-estate arm of the church. She told me people would donate land and buildings to the church all the time. In fact she was responsible for collecting rent (or making sure rent was paid) on some of the properties in the area. Once you get a little money saved up you buy other properties like Warm Springs in Nevada. The church sells millions of dollars worth of water to Las Vegas from that little investment http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/ ... 26264.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; They then take that money and put it in the pot and reinvest it etc. etc. and then they have billions to invest in the properties surrounding church headquarters. None from tithing. Actually, I'm not sure exactly how the church manages their money or how they invest/reinvest it, it's really none of my business, but I highly doubt they use tithing funds for these expenditures/investments. There simply is no need to!

gruden2.0 wrote:

AussiOi wrote:again, mark. this. does. not.follow mark
i am sick of your mindless rant saying anyone who disagrees with YOUR view of the LDS world is apostate
are you incapable of more sensible communication that this mark?
5 years and you are as predictable as sunset

From Hugh Nibley in Approaching Zion:

Every rhetorician knows that his most effective weapons by far are labels. He can demolish the opposition with simple and devastating labels such as communism, socialism, or atheism, popery, militarism, or Mormonism, or give his clients’ worst crimes a religious glow with noble labels such as integrity, old-fashioned honesty, tough-mindedness, or free competitive enterprise. “You can get away with anything if you just wave the flag,” a business partner of my father once told me. He called that patriotism. But the label game reaches its all-time peak of skill and effrontery in the Madison Avenue master stroke of pasting the lovely label Zion on all the most typical institutions of Babylon: Zion’s Loans, Zion’s Real Estate, Zion’s Used Cars, Zion’s Jewelry, Zion’s Supermarket, Zion’s Auto Wrecking, Zion’s Outdoor Advertising, Zion’s Land and Mining, Zion’s Development, Zion’s Securities, Zion’s Bank – all that is quintessentially Babylon now masquerades as Zion.

the tongue is an unruly member—hold your tongues about things of no moment—a little tale will set the world on fire. ...It is necessary to hold an influence in the world, and thus spare ourselves an extermination; and also accomplish our end in spreading the Gospel, or holiness, in the earth. If we were brought to desolation, the disobedient would find no help. There are some who are obedient, yet men cannot steady the ark—my arm cannot do it—God must steady it.

but to save the Church from desolation and the sword; beware, be still, be prudent, repent, reform, but do it in a way not to destroy all around you. I do not want to cloak iniquity—all things contrary to the will of God, should be cast from us, but don’t do more hurt than good, with your tongues—be pure in heart.

coachmarc wrote:Ok, so this thread is now about that. In my personal opinion, an area is only ready for a temple when the people of that area are worthy of it. The church can have all the wealth of the world, but if the people are not worthy/ready, then they don't get a temple. If God wanted, he could fill the Delta Center to the ceiling with gold in order to build temples and also to feed the hungry and the poor. But it is the people that should be feeding the poor and visiting people in prison and tending to the widows and fatherless. Read Matt 25. There are three very important parables that tie in together. There could be temples in every city on earth, but they would be empty because if the people aren't worthy, they will not attend. They're too busy complaining, or watching sports or wasting time NOT laboring in the vineyard. I can't imagine any of the few vineyard laborers having time to complain because they GET IT.

"No unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done.”

So in my opinion, if our leaders have built this mall, then that's between them and the Lord. Who else are we going to sustain? What else are we going to do? Rise up? Start a new church a la Harmston? To what end? See this through to conclusion.

Beams and motes.

coachmarc wrote: Even Emma Smith, the Lord was very charitable in washing away those sins, so she can be with Joseph to this very day.

kathyn wrote:So, awake, you do actually believe that you are judging the Brethren with righteous judgment? (That's a mighty large mote there.)

awake wrote:

coachmarc wrote: Even Emma Smith, the Lord was very charitable in washing away those sins, so she can be with Joseph to this very day.

Just for the record, I'd like to say, that from every trustworthy source I have read about Emma, she was just as righteous all her life as Joseph. It appears to me that she was one of the most righteous women I have ever heard of in the Church. I do not believe she committed any sins that would make her unworthy of any eternal blessings. I believe there has been much falsehood spread about her unfortunately. I believe she was truly an elect lady.

."To my certain knowledge, Emma Smith is one of the damnedest liars I know of on this earth; yet there is no good thing I would refuse to do for her, if she would only be a righteous woman; but she will continue in her wickedness.

kcwhite wrote:For those who have difficulty understanding why the Church would spend billions on a shopping mall and not spend that money for humitarian purposes do not understand U.S. tax law.

I am not a lawyer, but I do know that the Church has to keep their for-profit money separate from their non-profit money (i.e. tithing, fast offering, etc.).

Tithing was used to make investments which allegedly earned the interest that was used to help fund the church's $2.5 billion donation for it.

They would lose their status as a non-profit if they were to co-mingle those monies. They cannot use for-profit monies to build temples, feed the poor, etc.

Perhaps, but what business does a church have being a corporation in the first place to where they have to incorporate and then worse, succumb to filing 501c3 tax-exempt status through the IRS which ties their tongues at the pulpit? Former Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin wrote a fantastic article last year about this issue - here it is:

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin662.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Bishop Burton has publicly stated that one of the primary reasons they built the mall was to give investors confidence to invest in Salt Lake.

Then why aren't we called LDS, Inc.? Again, when is a church a corporation?

"One of the paramount objectives was to try to instill a sense of economic confidence in investors (interested) in Salt Lake City, and that others would come forward (to) invest in jobs and homes in the downtown area," said H. David Burton, the Presiding Bishop of the church."

Is that one of the 4-fold missions of the church?

The Church has a very vested interest in preserving and beautifying downtown SLC. It is the world HQ of the Church and they strongly desire to present a positive impression to those who come to visit the area.

Downtown hardly resembled a run-down, 3rd world country before the mall complex was built and where was Christ himself born? A fancy hotel in a warm bed with all manner of fanciful things to honor his birth? Nope - a lowly manger in the dark and cold of night.

Fiannan wrote:Actually there is no reason to revere Emma Smith. Look up what Brigham Young had to say about her.

."To my certain knowledge, Emma Smith is one of the damnedest liars I know of on this earth; yet there is no good thing I would refuse to do for her, if she would only be a righteous woman; but she will continue in her wickedness.

Brigham Young was loyal to Joseph Smith in every respect and loyal to the Gospel as well.

coachmarc wrote: I don't disagree with you and there will never be ill spoken of Emma or Joseph by me. That said, I will direct you to a scripture, which I just finished reading in Miracle of Forgivness where Spencer W. Kimball wrote, "And Emma, the Prophet's wife, by revelation was called to repentance:

D&C 132:56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid forgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to rejoice."

We all sin and we all need to forgive. That is all.

awake wrote:

Fiannan wrote:Actually there is no reason to revere Emma Smith. Look up what Brigham Young had to say about her.

."To my certain knowledge, Emma Smith is one of the damnedest liars I know of on this earth; yet there is no good thing I would refuse to do for her, if she would only be a righteous woman; but she will continue in her wickedness.

Brigham Young was loyal to Joseph Smith in every respect and loyal to the Gospel as well.

I realize what BY has said about her, but I know it wasn't true.

kcwhite wrote: The Church has a very vested interest in preserving and beautifying downtown SLC. It is the world HQ of the Church and they strongly desire to present a positive impression to those who come to visit the area.