A recent Mormon Stories podcast had John Dehlin interviewing Hans Mattsson, a former Area Authority 70 in Northern Europe, who has now left the church. John asked him what surprised him when he became a 70, and he talked about a training meeting in SLC where Pres Hinkley was the speaker. The Prophet told them that “We need more missionaries in North America because that’s where the money is. The ones we baptized in Africa don’t give us money” The Area President sitting next to him leaned over and whispered “You’ve seen Hinkley the Prophet, Now you get to see Hinckey the CEO”. Further, this was during the 2002 SLC Winter Olympics, and the church had spend many millions of dollars to support them, and Hinkley said that “we can’t see any return on our investment in the Olympics, now go home and make it happen!”
Does this surprise Wheat & Tares readers that the CEO of the Corporation of the First President would be thinking about money when assigning missionaries? Do you think that money, and potential tithing revenue is discussed when selecting temple locations? Is it wrong for money to be a factor in where to build a temple?
There are other examples of money being the driving factor for what appears as “inspired programs” Back in 1981, a new and improved edition of the BofM came out. But what was the church to do with the millions of copies of the previous edition? They came up with the “Family to Family” program. For you youngsters out there, this program had members buy several copies of the BofM, and write their testimony in the front cover, along with a photo of yourself, or family. Then you gave these copies to the local missionaries to hand out to investigators, or they were boxed up and sent to overseas missions. And guess which edition of the BofM they sold you for this program? That is correct, the old edition that they couldn’t get rid of. The Lord works in mysterious ways!
What are your thoughts? What do you thing the average church member would think if he/she heard these things? Would they be just more “anti-Mormon” lies, or could could they understand the complexity of running a multi-billion dollar corporation?
Wheat & Tares 
There are financial reason why Prez Oaks advises the youth to not delay marriage and to have lots of children. This advise was not for Africans (unfortunately, they already do that), but for members in developed countries (high potential tithe payers).
Once I listened to Quinn talk about how much money flowed out of the US to support the church in other countries it made sense.
Especially when you realize the church had a wealth profile like an NGO like the Gates Foundation.
A lot of groups break up when they exhaust their funds.
Though those who marry early and have children generate less tithing than couples who delay and focus on careers first.
So not everything is driven by money.
Yes, the Church is totally focused on making money. That’s why the Church sends missionaries and money to third world countries. What? You think that the fact that the Church spends far more money than it gets in tithing donations in almost every country where the Church operates doesn’t support that? That’s where humanitarian aid comes in. The Church hopes that by sending food to Africa, the economies in African countries will improve and before you know it, BAM, the tithing funds start flowing in!
Of course, that’s ridiculous. The Church could be doing a lot more to make money if that were the primary motivation. If money were the driving force, we wouldn’t be building so many temples. We wouldn’t send so many missionaries to third world countries. It’s pure cynicism that reads money into the equation (for example, two hour church).
As for the third-hand description of what a disaffected former member recalls of a meeting decades ago, I don’t put much stock in it. I’d be willing to bet that President Hinckley acknowledged the well-known fact that the members in North America subsidize the Church in the rest of the world, and that the Church must face that reality. Mr. Mattson’s account is surely filtered through a decade of cynicism.
As a side note, “Corporation of the First President”? Really, Bishop Bill? If you’re going to try to scare people with the word “Corporation” (a legal structure that most churches and non-profits use to establish their legal existence) you could at least bother to get it right.
“the complexity of ruining a multi-billion dollar corporation”
I suspect “ruining” was an auto-correction and not a Freudian slip.
Still, thanks for the amusement.
Dsc, why would the word “Corporation “ scare anybody? I thought all Mormons knew the church was a corporation. And the best recourse when you don’t agree with somebody is to attacking their grammar/spelling.
Roger Hanson – you say it is “unfortunate” that Africans are having lots of children. I’ve heard that point of view a lot, but I still find it very disturbing. Are you saying that the world would be better off with fewer Africans? Or that the solution to poverty is to make sure that less poor people are born in the first place?
Bishop Bill,
There shouldn’t be anything scary about it, but apparently there is, as ignorant anti-Mormons frequently point to the fact that the Church is a corporation sole (it’s actually two corporations sole and a number of other related entities), either out of their own ignorance or because people unfamiliar with the law and legal organizational structures associate corporations with scary big businesses.
So I’ll ask you, why would you use the word “corporation” when you’re not talking about a particular Church entity, but talking about the Church as a whole? What was your motivation for picking that word?
And it’s not about spelling or grammar. It’s clear that you don’t know the names of the Church’s legal entities.
Bishop Bill,
And don’t pretend I didn’t have other substantive criticisms of this post. Perhaps we all know that the best recourse when you don’t agree with someone is pretend that their only criticism was your spelling or grammar.
Bishop Bill, I hope you didn’t think my frustration/amusement with auto-correct was an attack. Auto-correct has made plenty of errors before. But now I may disagree on at least one point.
In the US, I think the church is not a corporation. Instead, it is an unincorporated association. The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a single member — the president of the church. It has been an active Utah corporation sole since 1923. I think US tithing funds go to that entity which does business under a variety of names. The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which owns “church” properties) is also a Utah corporation sole having a single member. It also does business under a variety of names. One of its dbas listed on the Utah Secretary of State’s website is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Intellectual Reserve, Inc. holds various trademarks and copyrights. You’ll see its name as copyright holder on “church” publications. One of its federally registered trademarks is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” I don’t know who owns Intellectual Reserve, Inc., but I’m not a member or shareholder of Intellectual Reserve, Inc. I have no idea how the church is organized in other countries, legally or not.
Incidentally, though a real historian might correct me at any point, if I recall correctly, there is no New York state record of the church ever being organized as a corporation in that state. Whatever the church was in 1887, the federal Edmunds-Tucker Act disincorporated it. In 1890 the US Supreme Court upheld the federal seizure of church properties and the Edmunds-Tucker Act was finally repealed in 1978.
There’s no good reason for anybody to be “scared” of the word “corporation.”
Yes, dealing with the church, the legal entities, the finances, the church’s missions (in a broad sense), etc. is incredibly complex. If the complexity were disclosed/discussed, I think most adult members could grasp the fact of its complexity, including the fact that it is not just a multi-billion dollar corporation (if it is technically a corporation at all). Some, however, would want to refuse to grasp complexity because they want simplicity more than they want reality.
JR,
I agree with most of what you say, with the following caveats. For most purposes, the Church is exactly what most people see. That is, it is a church, with the organizational features we associate with that.
The legal structure is only relevant for property ownership, contracts, and law suits. In the United States, “church” is not an organizational structure. Churches are generally organized as corporations or trusts, and trusts just don’t work for large, heirarchal organizations. For the three purposes I mentioned, the church is the two corporations sole plus associated entities.
I usually like what you have to say Bill, but this bothers me. I don’t know any of the higher ups on a personal level, but I am going to give them the benefit of the doubt on this one. The local leaders I know are great people and give of their time and money very generously.
That said, I can understand the frustration of people who have given a lot of their time and money and feel as though they were not told the whole story berforehand. Especially if the church tries to say they never hid anything and have always been as transparent as they know how to be.
I know of all the problems and still pay tithing because it is a great organization.
JR is right — the church to which we belong in the U.S. is not a corporation — the First Presidency and the Twelve and stake presidencies and bishoprics all exist outside any corporation. I am a member of a local ward (a voluntary association) and a stake (a voluntary association) at the local level — I also think of myself as a member of the general church — but I am not an officer or member or owner or participant in any corporation. Church leaders and members organize corporations (and use other legal mechanisms) to carry out certain important tasks, such as to own land and build buildings and to own bank accounts, but those corporations are not the church. When I raise my hand to sustain officers, I do so as a member of a voluntary organization and I sustain them as leaders in our voluntary organization. I have zero ownership in my ward building or the corporation that owns it.
The above applies for the U.S. In other countries, the church adapts. For example, the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop owns ward meetinghouses in the U.S., but in some other countries, local members organize corporations for this purpose. In some countries, local members organize charitable societies to comply with the local laws.
My relationships with my ward and stake, and with the Seventy and Presiding Bishopric and Twelve and First Presidency, are wholly unconnected to any corporation.
DSC,
Those two corporations are not the Church, not at all. You and I are not members of either corporation. Those corporations exist outside of the voluntary association that is the church.
For purposes of property, contracts and lawsuits only, those corporations are the church. I do agree that for the purposes that matter to members of the Church, those corporations are merely tools of the association that is the Church. It’s a matter of semantics, but for the most part, I agree.
JR, “I suspect “ruining” was an auto-correction and not a Freudian slip.” Yes, it was a slip. It’s been corrected in the post.
DSC who ownes the chapels you sit in ? The temples you attend ? Who pays the salaries of Church leaders? Who owns the trademark “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”,? Who owns 400 billion dollars of assets ? NOT some unincorporated association. Rather the corporation sole that owns EVERYTHING. It in turn is owned by a single man . That is the president of the Corpoartion of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.Wake up and smell the postum. The Church is not what you think it is .You have no say in anything and if you try to you will be punished .
Bellamy Brown,
I have acknowledged that in terms of property ownership, the two corporations hold legal title. But you make two mistakes. First, the Corporatoin of the President doesn’t own chapels. The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop owns the chapels. But that doesn’t mean that Bishop Causse owns the chapel. He is the only member of the corporation, but a corporation sole acts like a trust in many respects, in that the beneficiaries of the corporation could intervene if the office holder of the corporation sole attempted to use corporate assets for personal gain. The property owned by a corporation sole is no more the property of the office holder than is the property of a charitable trust the property of the trustee.
The church is not what YOU think it is. Neither is the law what you think it is.
It does not surprise me the Prophet is focused on Profits but I do find it sad. When I read about the life of Christ, I see a wide gap between his teachings and how the church operates.
DSC, Re: ‘That’s where humanitarian aid comes in. ‘
Sadly though the humantarian aid is tiny. The church spends only $40 million per year on humanitarian aid. That is around $8 per member. It is only 0.08% of the money it makes from tithing. The majority gets spent on its for profit money making activities like the 1.5 billion dollar high end shopping mall.
Read D. M. Quinn’s latest book on Church finances and corporate interests or at listen to the Gospel Tangents interviews.
You’ll come to a very different conclusion.
I think there are 2 issues here that have been conflated:
1) Whether the actions and mission of the Church are consistent with the priorities and mission of Jesus Christ.
2) The Church organization. It’s huge. It is a highly sophisticated tremendously wealthy organization. I don’t pretend to understand it, nor the army required to manage its billions (possible 100s of Billions) in total assets. Everything from ranches, shopping malls, apartments, temples, book store chain (that publishes and sells at a profit, the words of the Prophets), etc.
#1 is valid regardless of whether the Church has $100 or $100,000,000,000.
#2 is what receives the most attention. It only makes me uncomfortable because I have concerns about #1.
The comments from GBH, aren’t that concerning to me. Its obvious that tithing from the Western US drives and sustains Church growth everywhere else. I dont think its inappropriate to acknowledge realty.
I believe that most of the criticism is due (and deserved) to the lack of transparency and inexplicable secrecy sourrounding Church finances.
Interesting to say the least. Statistics show that the LDS Church and the SDA Church are towards the top of average member tithe giving. The SDA Church has about 5 million more members and is growing 3 times as fast. It loses twice as many members in a year than the LDS Church gains. Yet, and this is what falls in line with Bishop Bill’s observations, the LDS Church brings in about twice as much tithe. There are several reasons, but I wonder if the obvious push for $$ is primary. Probably so. It should be noted that the LDS Church is about 50% North American whereas the SDA Church is only about 1/20th North American. I guess President Hinkley was well aware of where the golden goose lives.
“Tax-exempt corporations of the LDS Church include the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,[114] a corporation sole which was organized in 1916 under the laws of the state of Utah to acquire, hold, and dispose of real property; the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,[115] which was established in 1923 in Utah to receive and manage money and church donations; and Intellectual Reserve, Inc., which was incorporated in 1997 to hold the church’s copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual property.[116] Non-tax-exempt corporations of the church include Bonneville International and the Deseret News. ”
(wikipedia)
I thought this article from 1991, interesting as well.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/170647/LDS-CHURCH-REAL-ESTATE-HOLDINGS-INCLUDE-FARMS-RANCHES-BUILDINGS.html
Even when I was a fully believing member, this was the atmosphere that bothered me most. You can subconsciously sense it even in the local ward meetings. A sanitized, corporate policy driving all aspects of LDS life. It makes finding true joy in the religion rare and distant, even as a full believer. There are hundreds of other evidence based reasons to lose one’s faith in it, but this corporate culture from the top down is the biggest ‘it doesn’t uplift my day to day life like it claims it should’ reason.
Dsc I am reluctant to be too contentious so I will try to be polite about this issue. Who owns the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop. Who is the sole shareholder of all the other church corporations.Look it up in the Sect of States office in Utah. It is all a matter of public record . The sole shareholder ( only owner ) is the Corpotation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It is pure sophistry to pretend ownership is otherwise.Lets try our best to be truthful. Who is the sole shareholder of the Corp of the President . Surprise it is the President of the Church. There are no other owners or shareholders.Basic corporation law 101. Corp soles do not operate as trusts .They are owned lock stock and shopping center by a single person . The President of the Corporation. That is why they are called “sole” ie one and only one owner,This is a very unusual form of oorporate structure. Most church’s do not use this structure . In fact the only one which does is the other multi billion church, the Catholic Church. Have you asked yourself why the church published an annual financial report in April conference from 1901 until 1959. Look at the 1959 conference RE port . It is on line at LDS .org . It runs 9 pages. Then the next year nothing. As Michael Quinn explains the church suddenly had a lot to hide and has been doing so ever since
Dsx forgive me but I must ask what law school did you graduate from and how long have you specialized in corporate law? Thanks
Bellamy Brown,
I will hold myself to no pretense of politeness: you have no idea what you’re talking about. The office holder in a corporation sole is neither owner nor shareholder. The Church corporations are religious non-profits, and as such, have no “owners”. And corporation sole is not a highly unusual form of church organization. Where are you getting that information? Also, the President of the Church is clearly NOT the officeholder for the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop. The Presiding Bishop is. Have you contributed to legal publications regarding ecclesiastical legal issues? Because I have. And again, you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
The structure of the Church has absolutely nothing to do with financial disclosures, but I will note that the Church disclosed precisely what it is required to by law.
Wesley, In sub-Saharan Africa, 41 percent live below the extreme poverty level, $1.90/day. It is my belief, that people shouldn’t have more children than they can afford. They should have children out a desire to have children, not because of ignorance of biology. And i’m against very young girls getting married.
The Church does not do enough for developing countries. But they make a big deal of the little they do.
Stephen, my point was supposed to be, in developed countries, Oaks is trying to grow members since conversions are static. Members in developed countries pay the vast majority of the tithing. The more members in developed countries the better.
The corporation discussion is a dead end, at least as far as the topic of the OP goes (which concerned the focus of senior management decisions, not the legal form of organization). What is much more interesting is: Who makes the decisions (within the formal structure of the Church) and what guides their decision-making? We ought to be a lot more concerned that decisions are being made based on dreams that Pres. Nelson remembers and writes down in the morning than that the legal form of the Church is a corporation sole or that there is such a thing as The Corporation of the Presiding Bishopric and Intellectual Reserve.
Bishop Bill suggests that financial imperatives drive some decisions and policies and programs. That’s understandable: you gotta pay the bills. In for-profit corporations, to explain or justify a decision with reference to finances and profit makes perfect sense and offends almost no one. Obviously, a not-for-profit corporation has a different mission, depending on the nature of the NFP. Again, it is natural for an NFP, including a church organized as a religion corporation of some sort, to explain or justify its decisions in terms of the mission of the NFP. At the same time, the bills need to be paid, so finances do enter into consideration for all NFPs.
How do you balance the mission of the NFP against finances? At what point do you cut back activities or programs that burn through money but don’t seem to further the mission of the NFP, at least to the degree necessary to justify the expenditures? It would be nice if some of this were actually presented to the membership so we had some idea how the Church is managed (that is, how the senior leadership weighs and decides these money-versus-mission issues).
Dave B I agree. Dsx seems to say ( and I don’t want to put words in his mouth ) that the Presiding Bishopric operates independently of the First Presidency . I doubt many on this blog believe that but at the risk of pulling the authority card I can say categorically that isn’t true . How can I be sure. My first cousin was the Presiding Bishop for years and we had detailed discussions on this very point. So Dave you are correct the legal structure is of interest only to a few . The real question is allocation of power. How that power is actually used and by whom is beyond dispute. Ps Dsc please send me a citation to your article. I would be interested in reading it
Bellamy Brown,
I have neither said nor implied that the Presiding Bishop acts independently of the First Presidency. What I have said is that the Presiding Bishop is the only officeholder in the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop, which holds title to most of the Church’s real property. You asked “Who owns the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop” and answered the President of the Church. That’s not true for two reasons, as I’ve already pointed out (nobody “owns” a nonprofit corporation, and the President is not the officeholder in the Corporation of the Presiding Bishop). The President does not own any Church property, and instead acts like a trustee in the office of the President of the Church. The President of the Church does not act independently; he acts in counsel with the rest of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.
So when you make snide, ignorant comments like “Wake up and smell the postum. The Church is not what you think it is.”, you are clearly wrong.
And, I’d rather preserve my anonymity, so I won’t be forwarding a citation to the treatise I worked on. But if you Google “who owns a non-profit” and “what is a corporation sole” you should be able to educate yourself.
Dave B,
“We ought to be a lot more concerned that decisions are being made based on dreams that Pres. Nelson remembers and writes down in the morning…” You say that as if there is no scriptural precedent for receiving revelation in dreams.
Dave and Bellamy—that was interesting. Appreciate your comments.
Dsc—I’d love a copy of your thesis and would be willing to preserve your privacy.
I remember in the 80’s when our chapel designs went from the ‘upside-down turtle’ with classroom wings to the ‘barn’ shaped design with the long circular hallway and classrooms that faced the 4 corners. There was a leader who stated (when walking through a chapel with the older design) that each additional corner added to a building represented an additional cost that was the equivalent to building a chapel in a third world country. I am not opposed to leadership that tries to balance costs and growth challenges. I am sure that the answer behind the one statement which is negatively reflecting President Hinckley is much more complex if it was not being given in a soundbite. It is a soundbite that is an unfortunate reflection, and I wish (if it is true) it had not been uttered. I can say that in the mission and leadership positions I have been in, I have never heard a comment directing those around me to remove resources from people based upon their economic status. It has been the opposite. I remember my former Bishop telling me that one recent convert who had a large number of health and economic problems lamented to him that she was fearful he would interpret her conversion as opportunistic to gain resources. He told her that he didn’t think that at all, and even if it was, we (the ward) would still want to help her. Bishops like this are leaders who were reared during the era of Hinckley’s leadership.
For me, as I think about the Christ of the New Testament – the Carpenter’s Son, I just have a really hard time wrapping my head around the possibility that this divine being would be concerned (one wit) about Italian marble, crystal chandeliers, $17,000.00 rugs, muti-million dollar business towers, shopping malls, luxury apartments and “the finest materials”. I think these things are nothing more than an ostentatious display of wealth. When Christ returns, I personally don’t believe that these will be the places were he goes……rather, I believe that he will go to care for those who are hurting, homeless, hungry and in need. I believe he will want to heal rather than impress. At least this is the God I can still believe in.
I could even acknowledge that maybe at one time that there was some truth in Mormonism . But, since they have become a financial, investment, real-estate, political and multi-billion dollar corporation. I just can’t do it any more. I don’t believe these kinds of things reflect the teachings of Christ, nor his life as taught in the New Testament.
On the other hand, the Christ of the New Testament went to and respected the temple in Jerusalem as a house of God. It was built of fine and expensive materials. He also approved of a use and disposition of expensive oil that could have been sold to benefit the poor. I am not sure the matter is as simple as I would sometimes like it to be.
JR: I suppose if you want to compare expensive oils of ancient times with “imported Italian marble and crystal chandeliers” that’s your perogative. For me, the ostentatious display of wealth – which Mormon Temples and real estate holdings regularly puts on display – is nothing more that “humble brag” for leadership of “the Church” and it’s associated wealthy muckity mucks. Personally, I think they (we) should be ashamed of it.
Yep. That’s a reason why it’s not as simple as I’d often like it to be. You did, however, conveniently omit the NT Christ’s respect for the temple which was built of a lot more than “expensive oils”. I don’t know about the extensive stone and gold sources, but there is reference to the imported cedars from Lebanon. Probably some pretty fine (and expensive) workmanship. No crystal chandeliers, however.
The issue for me is not the corporate structure of the church per se. I find that necessary for a multi-national organisation that has to handle a lot of money and other government regulated activities. The church owning my chapel and temple doesn’t bother me. I’m not a fan of some of the issues around tithing though, and some blurring of church and investments (ie: the mall)
The issue for me is I think one that is maybe unavoidable. The apostles were never intended to be stuck in SLC on company boards or opening malls. They’re meant to be travelling ministers, but they don’t. Most of them are too old to be useful for actually travelling around much. And when they do they just talk to stake presidents and bishops. The corporate culture is the thing that bothers me – it’s at times antithetical to what a church should be. The apostles should be out talking to individual ward members, not bishops. We need to be inspired, not just get second-hand corporate-style training sessions.
JR,
My friend I think you are misinformed as to the context of Herod’s Temple and its place among the 1st Century Christians.
The temple was a critical component of God’s covenant with ancient Israel. Jesus obviously showed respect for the Temple as an important part of the Jewish law. He also taught that the Temple would become OBSOLETE. He became the great and last sacrifice rendering the entire purpose of the Temple irrelevant forever more.
The Temple was synonymous with corruption and persecution of the early Church. In fact it was the Temple leadership that killed the Prince of Peace via a Roman cross.
What put the Temple leadership over the edge were Jesus’s threats against it. Especially the fulfillment of the promise that not one stone would remain. The Roman’s ensured this prophesy with the complete and utter destruction of the Temple.
To say that Jesus was obviously ok with the fancy things in Jewish temples at the expense of the poor,, and drawing a parallel to our modern LDS temples is a huge swing and miss on many fronts.
Regardless of how we in the Church view Temples today, there is ZERO evidence to suggest that New Testament Christians viewed the Temple as something necessary for salvation. In fact the statement “your body is a Temple” was a deliberate poke in the eye to those Jews who specifically felt the Temple was still relevant.
Yes, Greggggg, more reasons why it is not as simple as I would often like. Further, I did not say that Jesus was obviously ok with the fancy things in Jewish temples at the expense of the poor. That is your elaboration of my comment, not mine. Try elaborating on “no crystal chandeliers” instead.
Greggggg, perhaps you should reread Acts chapters 2 through 5. Early Christians were turned away from the temple; they did not turn away from the temple themselves.
Dsc,
I think you are “Mormonizing” the New Testament. The Temple of Herod was not like an LDS temple.
Why were sacrifices in the Temple a required element for early Christians?
The church has done many things with it’s wealth that is commendable – particularly its welfare system. Members likewise donate millions in terms of volunteer time. That said, there are times when its spending is cringe worthy and ripe for criticism. The Joseph Smith building (former Hotel Utah) is one. If I want a photograph of a representative Great and Spacious building, I need go no further than take a photo of its main lobby. It is so ostentatious I am too embarrassed to ever bring a non-member there and I avoid visiting it when I can.
Part of what made John the Baptist so hated by the Temple, was his blasphemy against it. How was he doing that? People were confessing sin and he was baptizing them for the remission of sin. This, confession and the process of forgiveness, was THE purpose of the Temple.
I will grant you that there was a period of time after the resurrection that the people were genuinely confused as to the role the Old Covenant and the Law in a the life of a Jesus follower.
This is a fascinating topic, I’ll shut up now as this clearly is off track from the OP.
Greggggg,
I agree that the temple discussion is off-topic, but it is certainly something worth considering. My final two cents: I think it’s clear that early Christians at least regarded the temple as sacred ground and still relevant (in some fashion) to their own relationship to God. What is most compelling to me is that while there is clear reverence for the temple expressed both by the Savior and the early Saints, there is no condemnation of the temple. The Book of Mormon makes clear that animal sacrifice, the primary ritual performed at the temple, is not part of the new covenant, but there is no indication that the new covenant did away with the concept of a space on earth consecrated to the Lord. To attribute reverence for the temple to confusion is to “protestantize” the New Testament.
Lefthandloafer writes “When Christ returns … I believe that he will go to care for those who are hurting, homeless, hungry and in need. I believe he will want to heal rather than impress.”
It will be a very long line at the doctor’s office. One of him, 7 billion people that have some combination of hurt, homeless, hungry or need something. Take a 9 digit number, he will get to you in about 743 years.
OR he will organize an army of volunteers and those volunteers will be called a “church”, and they will house homeless people but those houses do not magically come into existence, and they will feed the hungry but that food does not come into into magical assistance, and so on. Labor, and labor’s representation “money” will be needed and used for all these purposes.
It could still take a long time and the people doing all this providing aren’t getting much in return. Persuasion is needed and frequent reminder of duty and reward eventually..
Those who marry early and have children right away are too busy to transition from stage 3 to stage 4 faith, which makes them more likely to pay tithing on their meager incomes for much, much longer.
If you take the instance of the woman of Canaan who sought Jesus for healing for her daughter (Matthew 15:26) and received Jesus’ response, “It is not meet to cast the children’s bread to dogs”, you have a soundbite that comes across as insulting and uncaring. The advice to avoid broad brushstrokes and understand context is wisdom.