[wayfarer]

SilentDawning wrote:

OK — I think it was that people have an MBU degree — Make Blessings Up — is that better? I didn’t think anyone knew the real meaning of that acronym!!! And that I could get away with it.

Not better – stick with MSU — it will be our llittle secret, and of course everyone elses…

[wayfarer]

SilentDawning wrote:

My wife and I both agreed that people have degrees from MSU when it comes to tithing blessings. MSU meaning “make stuff up”. I don’t mean to be callous, but we think people invent miracles and connections to ease the dissonance.

On the other hand, I don’t deny God’s hand in all things….and his anger when we don’t acknowledge it — but is it really attached to tithing? And is that sale on an item in the store, or that new job worth the equivalent of a couple mortgages over your lifetime?

I think to the people who attach significant heavenly blessings, that is so. For people with testimony issues, less-so.

Stuff? I like the acronym, but I don’t think MSU means “Make stuff up”…

[wayfarer]

cwald wrote:

I think architecture of the SLC, Logan, Manti and DC temples are awesome. Provo temple —- not so much.

you mean the white birthday cake with a big candle on it? What’samatter with that?

[wayfarer]

Roy wrote:

wayfarer wrote:

So, all the ordinances, all the tithing, word of wisdom, obeying your leaders no matter what they say, following the prophet regardless of whether he is spouting opinion that is in direct conflict with scientific proof — all of these things must be subordinate to the REAL gospel. “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

Agreed! I particularly like how you said all these things are subordinate to the REAL gospel. Not antithetical to, not contradictory to, or diametrically opposed to, But subordinate to. It reminds me of a quote swimming around in my head, “and all these things are appendages there unto.” (Quote may have been garbled in my head, it is a confusing place )

Subordinate to and based in. If a principle does not lead to loving god and loving fellow man, then is it reasonable to follow the details of the subordinate principle to the letter?

To the topic of ‘paying to play’. Let’s say I have, at most 10% of my gross income as available for donations. If I define ‘tithing’ in the strictest sense of 10% of gross, then how do I comply with King Benjamin’s scriptural command to give to the poor? My strictness in paying a tithe on gross income, which only pays for church administration and infrastructure, does not enable me to pay for the poor — a far higher commandment. Even moreso, my MOTIVATION for paying 10% on gross is that I want to be sure that I don’t miss the boat on exaltation or I might be burned at the last day. Do you see where I’m going here? My stupid, rigorous compliance with the 10% of gross rubric — which is NOT the commandment — causes me to fall short on what Dieter Uchtdorf calls the ‘weightier matters’, based in scriptures very appropriate to this discussion.

I see the sense in tithing — there is no doubt that if I receive the benefits of the community of saints, I ought to chip in my part to support the infrastructure that makes that community possible. I see the sense in the word of wisdom as “eat and live healthy”, since my body is a tabernacle of the spirit, i should take care of it, using reason and moderation in what I do. I see the sense in giving ear to those who may be inspired, but never to the point of blind obedience. There are even times, when being asked to something, like teach principles I don’t necessarily fully accept as true, I do because by convention, it helps the community along.

But in no case should I do something that takes away from the weightier matters of the law.

Tithing, improperly administered, in my impression, takes away my ability to address these weightier matters, and when it does so, I’m not living the law.

Does that make sense?

[wayfarer]

Heber13 wrote:

wayfarer wrote:

With respect, your theology is a bit off here, at least in my humble opinion. Exaltation does not come “through Jesus Christ, after all we can do.”

Wayfarer, I agree Exaltation, or Eternal Life, is the over and above salvation or immortality. But it still only comes through the Atonement.

Quote:

Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, everyone will receive this gift (immortality). Eternal life, or exaltation, is to live in God’s presence and to continue as families (see D&C 131:1–4). Like immortality, this gift is made possible through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. However, to inherit eternal life requires our “obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel”

Anyway, I think I agree with what is being said, just emphasizing a different angle to try to convey how I feel about it. Thanks.

I think we agree as well. These discussions help us all to understand principles and be able to articulate our beliefs with greater degree of clarity.

My suggestion is the change the words you say above respecting exaltation. You say ‘It still only comes through the Atonement’. Exaltation is only possible through the atonement, but you must do ‘all you can do’, and it can only happen ‘by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel’, and by ‘enduring to the end’.

And when you get there, what happens? Mandatory Polygamy. More kids upon kids, a third of which will probably tell you to go to hell, or maybe they will. Adminstrative duties managing worlds without end. And you’ll be doing this for-e-ver…

I don’t know. The value proposition of the Terrestial Kingdom is so much more enticing to me when I read what the CK is all about. I’m thinking Billy Joel here…

[wayfarer]

cwald wrote:

wayfarer wrote:

Personally, I observe that all the church teaching on CK, TK, or TK is speculative theology, institutionalized fiction. The best comment I heard about the afterlife, if there is one, is “There will be a lot of surprises up there…”. that’s what I believe.

As do I. I would say we are LDS “faithful” exceptions, which is why we are here at StayLDS. If this was said at church, this statement would be deemed as absolutely heretical, perhaps even apostate.

No doubt it would be categorically rejected.

But how can speculation be anything other than fantasy? The taxonomy of heavens has been speculated about for thousands of years, and I will warrant that there are not two versions that are remotely the same. So, pick your fantasy and be done with it, I would say.

I say fantasy in a technical sense, and using the word of course would be highly offensive. But when someone lays out an elaborate structure of unknowable things, and if a Prophet of God, recently, says “I don’t know if we teach X — We really don’t know what the X is like”, then how can a specific structure of the heavens be anything other than fantasy?

But more to the point, I don’t care what the heavens are like, and I would suspect neither do you. Does the structure of the heavens have any practical, normative value to me here and now? Some would say ‘yes’, because if you don’t do all this crap now you won’t qualify for the BIG PRIZE of the HIGHEST DEGREE of the CELESTIAL KINGDOM (shouting, of course). I will fight this norm with all my soul, because there are many more other teachings that proclaim that what you are in the present, and the authenticity with which you love your fellow humans is FAR (shouting again) more important than some specific ordinance.

So, all the ordinances, all the tithing, word of wisdom, obeying your leaders no matter what they say, following the prophet regardless of whether he is spouting opinion that is in direct conflict with scientific proof — all of these things must be subordinate to the REAL gospel. “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

[wayfarer]

SamBee wrote:

I was wanting to talk a bit about architecture. Now while I find the interiors of SLC temple beautiful (in the pictures I’ve seen), am I the only one to find the outside ugly? It reminds me of Star Wars. Don’t get me wrong, I love a lot of the other temples, such as Kirtland and Nauvoo and some of the modern ones.

Salt Lake Temple reminds you of Star Wars? I don’t see that. When I’m on the east coast, the temple near me is called “Disneyland on the Beltway”. It also has a resemblance of the Emerald City, and for the longest time, there was a bit of grafitti on a railroad bridge over the beltway saying “Surrender Dorothy”.

[wayfarer]

Heber13 wrote:

What do you all think…is religion a big deal for a Presidential Candidate? Would you think a proclaimed Atheist would have a harder time than a Mormon running for office?

Religion is a HUGE deal for a presidential candidate today in the Red states.

Thomas Jefferson would never be elected today because he was a bona-fide atheist by today’s definitions and had an ‘interesting’ personal life. But it is no easier for a mormon — I don’t think that Mitt or Jon will be elected either because they’re the wrong religion.

Jefferson was by all current definitions, an atheist (I know people will say Deist, but he REALLY didn’t believe in anything supernatural). His opposition brought up all the dirt they could on him, and his “atheism” (their words) and affairs with Sally Hemmings figured prominently in the press. Jefferson was wealthier and more connected, and was able to seed dirt articles in the press, outright paying journalists to publish lies. It was a wonderful time.

But to get the nomination in the republican party today, you have to be acceptable to the Religious Right, who are dominated by evangelical Christians and viscerally hate mormons more than atheists or muslims. If you want to get the nomination in the democratic party today, you should not be in a gay-hating religion, and you need to not own slaves and have a slave mistress. Jefferson would flunk both tests, as does Mitt Romney.

[wayfarer]

Heber13 wrote:

You can nuance or parse what you want out of these lesson manuals, but I never hear it taught it is necessary for exaltation. I hear it taught as a commandment for which we will be blessed. Exaltation only comes through Jesus Christ, after all we can do. That is the theology…straight up.

Please, tell me how I’m wrong so I can learn better if that is not right. I hate to have meaningless answers to direct questions like Cadence asked.

I agree with cwald that the answer is YES. (although his comment about ‘false doctrine’ is a value judgment I’m not willing to make. Although I think the teaching is wrong, I do not know what ‘True Doctrine’ is, and therefore cannot declare something as ‘false doctrine’)

With respect, your theology is a bit off here, at least in my humble opinion. Exaltation does not come “through Jesus Christ, after all we can do.” The scripture refers to salvation in this manner:

2 Ne 25:23 wrote:

For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

Salvation, as a free gift resulting from the Atonement, enables all [with some very few exceptions] to be resurrected and live in a kingdom of glory, either telestial, terrestrial, or celestial, depending upon one’s obedience to the laws and ordinances appertaining to the kingdom of glory. I would also note that LDS do not pay attention to the grammar of this scripture. “it is by grace we are saved after all we can do” is not a standalone statement. The “for” in “for we know that” means that this is connected to the previous clause. It’s saying “to be reconciled with god, for we know that it is by grace we are saved after all [and independently of what] we can do.” Salvation, the free gift, results from our reconciliation with god and his grace which is freely given to us, and is entirely independendent of ‘all we can do’. Salvation, however, is not exaltation.

Exaltation is over and above salvation. Evangelical christians often refer to works as not being necessary at all for salvation, but rather, the works we do in faith contribute to our crown. In current LDS Doctrine, ‘exaltation’, this ‘crown’, is defined in explicit terms as the “Celestial Kingdom”, and in order to achieve the crown of exaltation in the celestial kingdom certain laws, ordinances, and covenants need to be entered into and upheld.

So, although Tithing is not an “ordinance”, it becomes part of three “covenants” of the temple: Obedience, Sacrifice, and Consecration.

I would submit to you that if a member of the church is in a position that s/he can pay tithing as a result of having ‘Interest’ or ‘Income’, then in order to comply with the covenants of obedience, sacrifice, and the Law of Consecration, s/he must pay to comply with his/her covenants in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom. Whether this compliance is in this life or in the life to come, I’m not sure. I would think that according to the teaching, if you know something should be done, and do not do it, and resisting repenting, you’re going to be held accountable for it.

As for cwald (hypothetical example! 😈 ), or anyone no longer willing to go to the temple or pay tithing, he’ll have to deal with the Terrestial or Telestial kingdom according to current teaching. He’ll still be saved.

Personally, I observe that all the church teaching on CK, TK, or TK is speculative theology, institutionalized fiction. The best comment I heard about the afterlife, if there is one, is “There will be a lot of surprises up there…”. that’s what I believe.

[wayfarer]

SilentDawning wrote:

I had once posted here on this forum what I read was the FULL TEXT of the 1970’s letter defining what a tithe means. After I had posted it, I came back to it, and the last sentence of the letter had been removed by a computer glitch or one of the Three Nephites. I know not which.

Quote:

“Unless a member meets with the bishop or branch president, the leader has no way of knowing whether or not the person is a full-tithepayer. This was emphasized in a 1970 letter from the First Presidency to members of the Church as follows:

“Every member of the Church is entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord and to make payment accordingly.” (March 19, 1970, letter from the First Presidency.)

… And the fact that one of the Three Nephites removed it from my post a couple years ago makes me wonder if they had ever heard it either, and thought I was misquoting!

I’ve always undestood it to be the case that a full tithe is a self-declared decision, and there are a number of references to the letter in cyberspace with those words.

However, the removal by one of the three is deeply suspicious to me. perhaps the moderators thought that it would bring too much attention by the SCMC or something. Allowing the perception to stand that members should pay 10% of gross income is a convenience the leadership responsible for church revenue would love to keep in place. Advising people otherwise would be a significant issue.

Now that we point out the quote on the Church News site, I wonder how long it will take the SCMC to remove that as well. Better make a copy.

[wayfarer]

cwald wrote:

I think both of your two’s answers are evasive and apolegetic. It sound like something a lawyer would say to protect their client.

But, whatever.

I agree — too much equivocation.

According to current MORMON THEOLOGY and PRACTICE (edited- added for cwald’s benefit… :lolno: :

Q: do we need to pay [tithing] to play [i.e. participate in exaltation]?

A: As members of the church with any income/interest (however you define that) and the reasonable ability to pay: Yes.

Q: Is tithing a scriptural principle, therefore part of ‘what it takes to get into the Celestial Kingdom”?

A: Yes. If you had the ability to pay tithing, and intentionally did not obey, you are not demonstrating with action your faith.

Q: Is sacrifice a scriptural principle, therefore part of what it takes to get into the CK?

A: Yes. If you intentionally withhold your income and are unwilling to make the sacrifice, you’re not demonstrating sacrifice.

Q: Does one have to pay tithing to the LDS church?

A: Yes, if you have income and the reasonable ability to pay, as a member of the church in good standing desiring a Temple Recommend, you need to.

Malachi 3:10 wrote:

Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

Now to more practical matters:

Q: Does the church define a specific way of accounting for tithing?

A: NO

Q: Shouldn’t my tithing go toward ‘giving to the poor’?

A: NO – That would be called ‘offerings’. I would submit that membership in the church receives some benefit by the organization and infrastructure of the church, therefore it is fair that the church use tithing, at least in part, for administration.

Q: Can my donations be split between tithing and other charitable giving in and out of the church?

A: YES – “Tithing” is one thing, “Charitable giving” is another.

Q: Do I need to donate more than 10% of my gross income?

A: NO – it is completely up to you how much you donate. If you define ‘Tithing” as “10% of gross income” and you still want to make charitable contributions, you will obviously exceed 10%, but if you cannot afford this, you are not being wise and following guidance.

This becomes the major point of tithes and offerings, and is most important:

1. The Lord does not require us to run faster than our strength

Mosiah 4:26-27 wrote:

And now, for the sake of these things which I have spoken unto you—that is, for the sake of retaining a remission of your sins from day to day, that ye may walk guiltless before God—I would that ye should impart of your substance to the poor, every man according to that which he hath, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and administering to their relief, both spiritually and temporally, according to their wants.

And see that all these things are done in wisdom and order; for it is not requisite that a man should run faster than he has strength. And again, it is expedient that he should be diligent, that thereby he might win the prize; therefore, all things must be done in order.

2. The Lord requires us to be responsible, to pay for our own household.

1 Timothy 5:8 wrote:

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

(I personally do not like the above scripture, but it is what it is.)

3. What we pay for tithing, that is, how we define 10%, is our own decision.

CHI 1970 and later wrote:

“For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that we have uniformly replied that the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself that the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their interest annually, which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.”

With the above three principles in mind, I feel strongly that how I pay tithing is completely up to me, as long as some definition of “10% of interest” is paid as Tithing to the church. To me, the wise thing to do is to lose the idea of “10% of gross income” as Tithing — the Lord does not need it — poor people need it, and tithing is not principally for the poor. We are given commandments in scripture to give to the poor; therefore my PRIORITY should be charitable giving. My approach is once a reasonable tithe is made, I feel strongly that i should pay as much as I can reasonably afford to charitable giving.

[wayfarer]

Cnsl1 wrote:

What is the real purpose of tithing settlement?

This article explains it. Simply put, there are three reasons:

1. ensure that the ward record of tithing matches the member’s record,

2. declare whether full tithe or not according to the member’s own decision, and

3. have a few minutes to meet with the bishop

the first two are the essential reasons.

[wayfarer]

cwald wrote:

Wayfarer. You make PERFECT sense to me, especially in my idealistic world. I’m glad that your REALISTIC world is the same as my idealistic one, because, well, I would never have believed it if it had not happened to me. What you espouse, is the way it should be. In my experience, it’s not the way it works. But, like many here will say (Ray), I do come from a different planet called Cache Valley/Franklin County.

Here is my story, if you are truly interested. It’s a long long thread.

http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2456” class=”bbcode_url”>http://www.staylds.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2456

ah. now i understand. your situation wasn’t a simple TS or TR, but an investigation about us awful, sinful, apostate, non-TBMers. i think my approach works for those who are essentially icognito, but if you are under suspicion of being an apostate, then they may see the need to investigate vigorously.

your story really does put the insanity in perspective.

Cheers!

[wayfarer]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

Because 41 is too many to handle.

I love it!!

[wayfarer]

cwald wrote:

wayfarer wrote:

I am wondering, really, if I don’t volunteer any information, whether any bishop has the right to audit my books?

Well, if you go from paying several thousand dollars a year in tithing, to just a couple thousand, and you have the same job, a public employee job where everyone know how much you make…..and your SP calls SLC to get your tithing record history…..

And yes, Wayfarer, you are an idealists. “We are all idealists down here.”

Really? I thought i was more of a pragmatist/realist than idealist, but i guess it depends upon which personality disorder I put on for the day.

I wish I knew your story better, but it isn’t my business, so I’m not askin’. After over five decades in the church, I haven’t seen an example like you’re mentioning, and I think I’ve had enough leadership positions to witness some. Most of the BPs I’ve known don’t want to get in the details because they’re as uncomfortable asking the questions as I am about answering them. I would hope you agree that an anecdote in a church full of wacky humans doesn’t necessarily become a rule, does it?

Heck, I could be totally wrong.

Let me play out a hypothetical arrangement here. Assume that I went from 7K/year to 2K per year in tithing, same job, public, whatever.

I go in, it’s two thousand on the books, and the bishop asks the required question, “Is this a full tithe?”

I answer, “Yes it is”.

Technically, he isn’t supposed to ask more questions. But hey, he’s a true blue that believes he needs to validate my answer. why would he go to SLC to get my tithing records, unless I told him, ‘I pay direct to church HQ’. If he suspected I was lying, then, if SLC said they have nothing from me, then I suppose he’s justified. But I’ve been suggesting that I don’t lie on this. I pay what i think is right, and that’s it.

So, back to my scenario, he says, “But wayferer, you paid 7,000 last year, and only 2,000 this year. How is that a full tithe? I mean you have the same pubic job don’t you?”

Do you REALLY think he’d ask that question? I don’t, but I trust you, so if you say he would, let’s go with it.

In response, I say, “Bishop, I am fully aware of the tithing principle, and I pay one-tenth of all my interest annually, according to scripture. I have prayerfully looked at my financial situation, and this represents my decision as to what I owe the Lord this year as a full tithe.”

What does the bishop do then? what CAN he do?

So, to take it one step further, he asks, “But wayfarer, your income as a public service employee is $70,000. How is $2,000 one tenth of your income?”

I say, “Bishop, I don’t think it’s appropriate to delve into my personal financial details — All I can say is that I have prayerfully looked at my financial situation, and this represents my decision as to what I owe the Lord this year as a full tithe.”

cwald, I’m honestly confused as to why the simple, direct, and honest answer as I’ve noted above would cause the Bishop or SP to take action. I’m looking for your clarity here — and I’m interested because I feel strongly that my personal convictions of what I believe on tithing, wow, and other compliance items trump the arbitrary definitions of a leader’s opinion. For any interview, I believe that the right approach is:

1. Know what you believe.

2. Define what complyng with the spirit of the question means to you ahead of time.

3. Be confident in your worthiness

4. Answer the question Y or N according to your own honest self-appraisal.

5. Don’t elaborate.

6. Don’t answer the question they didn’t ask.

7. Don’t try to interpret how they intepret the question.

8. be nice, courteous, humble, grateful for their time and respectful to their position.

Does this make sense? Is this being an idealist?

[Author]

Posts