[wayfarer]

SilentDawning wrote:

I agree with WayFarer — where you get into trouble is going into details. I think if you feel confident about your decision with the Lord then you just need to answer without guile to the priesthood leader.

But I see where cWald is coming from….sometimes you get leaders who are too far into it. Had one Bishop that stood up and went into tithing and how to calculate it in minute detail. Totally out of line.

For most of the gospel, people only know what you tell them or what you let them see.

Did the bishop audit your books in order to confirm that you paid a full tithe? We had one bishop a few years back that was so pedantic that he had to give a sermon during Tithing Settlement. In the end, it still got down to ‘is this a full tithe’, and the answer is ‘yes’.

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

[wayfarer]

cwald wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

Ultimately, this is between you and the Lord.

Really? My SP doesn’t think so.

Ultimately, when it comes to participation and callings, and temple “exaltation” in the LDS church, it’s between you and your Bishop/Stake President. God has nothing to do with it.

Oh you silly Idealists here at StayLDS.

it must be that your COJCOLDS of cache valley must be different than the one I sometimes go to in Virginia, when I’m on this side of the globe. DW and I went to Tithing Settlement last night. None of the three in the room cared what the amount was or how it was calculated. It’s pretty simple: FT Y/N? Y. How’s your family Bishop…? Great. When are you going back to India…

I have no clue why it needs to be more complicated than this.

I don’t believe in going into details. Ever. Does that make me a silly idealist?

[wayfarer]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

Hyrum Smith leaving the church was a huge deal. The guy was one of the best known Mormons in the 90s due to the popularity of the Franklin planners. Finding out he had an affair was like a betrayal to everyone in a way. Before the “I’m a Mormon” campaign, average members looked to this guy as a great example of gospel principles in action. And he was a huge hypocrit as he points out. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

I don’t think it’s true that someone needs friends in high places to come back into the fold. I know many who were exed and rebaptized later. I think it’s that when you fall from such a prominent height, having been in roles where you were the judge of other people (Newt Gingrich *cough* *cough*), it’s important to make sure the person really is committed to coming back and is repentant and that this isn’t the first return in a long string of them.

i think you make a good point, especially in the context of judging. my issue is that the members look to these guys as heros, and thus measure themselves, ourselves to the unreal standard of heroism.

to LDS, JS is the ultimate hero, and during his lifetime and ever since, the church leadership hides his humanity. in my impression, by obscuring JS’s failings then and now, it creates a sick dysfunction about the ideal life. by lying to everyone, JS had no healthy way to recover. in the end, his coverup of polygamy and polyandry resulted in him commiting felony in destroying the expositor, and resulted in his death. and yes, to me, JS is a hero, but a tragic one who fell hard.

to me, the ideal hero is the authentic one. the ideal life is the authentic life. i have more respect for hyrum smith as a recovering hypocrite than i ever did as the hero successful lds businessman.

[wayfarer]

SilentDawning wrote:

Quote:

“I think Latter-day Saints have a greater challenge admitting they are leading a double life, because the culture doesn’t encourage you to fix problems but to hide them.”

He believes the two most welcome groups of people in the church “are the righteous ones and the liars. If you screw up and admit it, you get chewed up by the culture.”

His description of the four-hour interrogation leading to rebaptism was also enlightening — about how it takes the Church longer to catch up to the Lord sometimes.

It bothers me a bit how the upper leaders tend to give time and an ear to prominent Mormons, as they did Smith. He talks about his conversations with different leaders who reached out to him. Us average Joe Mormon’s dont’ have such luxury….we get letters read over the pulpit to leave them alone….that part bothers me a bit….

Anyway, thanks for the article. I liked how balanced Smith was — recognizing the downside of our culture, while ponying up for what he did and taking steps to be right with God — how the Mormons define it, anyway.

amazing article…very telling. the process of church discipline is clearly flawed…i tend to think that his prominence and financial stature gave him access to ‘friends’ that, even as difficult as it was, enabled his return. i think the winner is hyrum smith, who in the end recognized that whatever people in the church thought of his being exed no longer mattered.

the idea that the church welcomes only the “righteous and the liars” is so antithetical to what it should be: a refuge for those who are honest about their weaknesses. as sinners all, perhaps not with grounds for excommunication, there are no truly “righteous” (except maybe my DW). each person’s weakness (sin) is a cross to bear. excommunication, imho, brands a scarlet letter on the honest person, often removing him or her from exactly the support s/he needs to get whole.

the ultimate paradox is that when the savior said, “be ye therefore perfect” he was talking about the need to accept those who are “different”, and to be whole (telios) and loving of all, rather than being partial, favoring only those who appear righteous, and shunning the sinner. even the TR interview implies the need to shun those who are opposed to the church: apostates and sinners. everything the savior said and did is diametrically opposed to the LDS process of church discipline.

the problem is the sinners aren’t different than the so called righteous, because we all sin, and the only difference is degree. we need to talk openly about getting whole. whenever i have seen open discussion emerge in the church, it rapidly gets squashed–instead, there is only happy talk about how wonderful it is to follow all the commandments and GC talks ever given. if we follow the brethren, we will be happy. since we almost never hear an honest talk about recovering from sin, where then is the path to follow if i am honestly a sinner?

in another context, that of 12-step programs, each person introduces himself or herself as an addict, alcoholic or otherwise, a person who qualifies to be part of that group by virtue of weakness. each person who shares doesn’t paint a rosy picture, and doesn’t preach or tell you what to do. instead, each shares personal experience, strength, and hope. there is no excommunication or censure, in fact, it is by being a recovering ‘sinner’ one qualifies in being there. listening to another recovering ‘sinner’ tell about how s/he has daily been able to succeed gives me strength and hope, and practical advice as to how to get better.

in these groups i have seen love and compassion beyond all measure. i no longer attend, having moved well beyond the specific weakness that got me there, and being led by the spirit (as i understand it) to a path of my own. i miss the fellowship and love, and find it so unfortunate that because the church forces hiding of sin, there is little real sharing in meetings.

[wayfarer]

cwald wrote:

Ray, I think you are right about the lying thing. The problem is, is Doug is absolutely right to. The church presents them as facts – coming from the prophets of god — and we are not allowed to ever question the prophet.

The foundational concepts of the 14Fs are just so detrimental to reason and logic, and our church is entrenched neck deep into them.

You know guys, and gals, all this kind of problem could be solved so easy if the church really wanted to. All they need to do is come out in GC and give up the claim that the LDS church is the “ONE TRUE CHURCH ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH” with God’s true and only prophet, and that the LDS church has the exclusive priesthood rights necessary for exaltation.

You’re right — the church will not retract the ‘one true church’ position. But they could do a lot to clear up the mess they’ve painted themselves into.

The 14 Fundamentals are categorically wrong, deceptive, and harmful — to this we agree. And I would agree that the members of the church and many GAs are neck deep in them.

In my impression, the two most important revelations of the period after BY are the Manifesto, and Blacks and the Priesthood. Both of them were deliberative, corrective, and pronounced formally to the Church. I would consider them “Official Doctrine”, if anything can be. As well, the Church formally repudiated “Adam-God”, which was also corrective, but did not get announced as a formal proclamation.

The 14F was a talk given by an apostle at BYU. It was not in general conference, although it’s been cited numerous times in GC. That same apostle, ETB, was also actively engaged in talks and positions authored by the John Birch Society. In reading the original talk, his context was in support of the divinely-inspired constitution of this country (USA). This was his codeword for preaching that which was in support of the JBS and his political position. To say the very least, the 14F is “NOT DOCTRINE” because (1) it was not given in any official church capacity, (2) it contradicts the scriptures, (3) it contradicts earlier statements by the Prophets, (4) in contradicts current statements by the church leaders, and (5) it has no policy support in any of the official publications of church policy (CHI).

Nevertheless, the church leadership has not formally repudiated the 14F, and tacitly support it by allowing conference addresses to cite the abomination. This is done conveniently, because obedience, especially to things like tithing are in the financial interests of the church. But they are making a huge mistake by not repudiating this abomination, because the hardliners are forcing a choice between the iron rod and liahona paths, and the liahonas will have no place in the church. And by making every statement made by any Prophet, Seer, or Revelator “Scripture”, it becomes quite easy to show that the church is fatally flawed. I have tried to express this same concept in a recent blog entry.

My bottom line: The Church should explicitly repudiate the 14 Fundamentals as NOT DOCTRINE, and in place, encourage that each statement in GC and elsewhere should be tried and personally validated rather than blanketly accepted. This may be hard for the church to do, but there are numerous statements by LDS leaders supporting this position going back to JS.

In SS today, this issue came up as we discussed James chapter 2 juxtaposed with “we are saved by grace after all we can do”. I spoke up, as usual, when that horrid verse comes up, and made it clear that “after all” can also means ‘no matter what’, which actually was received quite well. I went up to one of the former bishops and asked if I had apostasized yet, and he said not, because it has been the same point i have made for years… The thing that gave me hope was when the teacher quoted the 2009 October talk by Pres Dieter Uchtdorf

Dieter Uchtdorf wrote:

How Do We Become True Disciples of Jesus Christ?

The Savior Himself provided the answer with this profound declaration: “If ye love me, keep my commandments.” This is the essence of what it means to be a true disciple: those who receive Christ Jesus walk with Him.

But this may present a problem for some because there are so many “shoulds” and “should nots” that merely keeping track of them can be a challenge. Sometimes, well-meaning amplifications of divine principles—many coming from uninspired sources—complicate matters further, diluting the purity of divine truth with man-made addenda. One person’s good idea—something that may work for him or her—takes root and becomes an expectation. And gradually, eternal principles can get lost within the labyrinth of “good ideas.”

This was one of the Savior’s criticisms of the religious “experts” of His day, whom He chastised for attending to the hundreds of minor details of the law while neglecting the weightier matters.

Such talks give me a little hope. But they don’t go far enough. He softens the repudiation by saying ‘many coming from uninspired sources’, so as to not be controversial, and in my impression, avoid having to re-record the sermon.

[wayfarer]

I dunno. My take on the entire parable is “WTF?”

Outlines of Doctrinal Theology wrote:

Holy Scripture is the Word of God, and carries the full authority of God. Every single statement of the Bible calls for instant and unqualified acceptance. Every doctrine of the Bible is the teaching of God and therefore requires full agreement. Every promise of the Bible calls for unshakable trust in its fulfillment. Every command of the Bible is the directive of God himself and therefore demands willing observance.

So…as instant and unqualified acceptance of this ‘teaching of god’, to what do I agree? That it’s ok to defraud my employer if I’m about to be fired? I don’t get it at all.

Articles 11 and 12 of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy wrote:

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

Here is falsehood, fraud, and deceit big time. How does this work?

[wayfarer]

cwald wrote:

hawkgrrrl wrote:

… I refuse to spend more than $200 on a designer handbag….

Wh wha what?

200 dollars for a HANDBAG! wtf?

I think your tagline says, “Gender=Male”. You aren’t supposed to understand.

In like manner, my DW will complain that I spent $500 for my a single club in my golf-bag…

[wayfarer]

SilentDawning wrote:

8. One of the Church’s aims is to grow the Church’s assets and wealth. Spiritual principles serve that end.

What does this mean? Spiritual Principles serve the end of growing the Church’s assets and wealth?

I do not understand.

[wayfarer]

Mike wrote:

, how do I repent? How would I ever make restitution for the years I didn’t tithe?

repentence=change. there is no need for payment of back tithing. after determining the way you want to pay it, start paying it regularly. once you start paying with the intention to continue, you’ve repented and are a full tithe payer.

some people pay as “income” comes in, others pay lump sum at settlememt. to declare full tithe at settlement, I think there is an assumption that it is a full tithe for the year, but no specific questions will be asked.

Heber13 wrote:

Let me ask another question about tithing…I have heard bishops will sometimes ask a family to be faithful, pay the full-tithe and if they are unable to make ends meet, the ward’s Fast Offering funds can be provided to help the family be faithful with tithing. Do they still do that? Has anyone heard of that being done? It kind of seems to support they are doing it for a purpose rather than for money collections if they really teach that…unless they go for the long-term money commitment even if the short-term help is needed? I don’t know…anyone else know about that scenario?

i have seen that as well. when someone is at the edge, a commitment to pay in the future is both burdensome to them and not very credible. i think a lot of bishops focus on tithing worthiness as a prequal for ongoing support for a number of reasons, including evidence of commitment.

when someone needs financial help, the BP and RSP sit with the family to walk thru their budget — a financial needs statement, making recommendations as to what changes the family can make to improve their situation. the first expense line item is “tithing”, and that is expected to be nonzero. if the bottom line is negative after working through the income and expenses including tithing, then help is provided temporarily. there needs to be a plan to get whole.

[wayfarer]

Heber-ji,

i couldn’t agree with you more. Joseph Smith, like so many other founders of great religions committed a lot of pious fraud, yet in spite of that, or maybe because of it, he was able to legitimize his teachings and gain a significant enough of a following to do a lot of good.

I remember years ago as a NOM I was the GD teacher, and really getting into trying to be accurate and factual about the history of scripture, and what the stories actually meant. I loved to stimulate; except that every week people were complaining to the bishop. I think it hit a peak during the Monica Lewinski scandal that I was teaching about Judah and Tamar, Onan and the whole smear, and took a copy of the Washington Post and wrote on it in Magic Marker, “Sex, Lies, and Genesis”. Ah, more complaints.

I was working at an office in DC at the time, and the office director was a part time African Methodist Episcopal preacher. I sat down with him to get some insight on some of the Old Testament stories from his vantage point, and told him of my ‘stimulating’ lessons. He said to me that I was doing the wrong thing — I wasn’t edifying my class. He used the terms, you’re not preaching, you’re not teaching. He taught me a valuable lesson. People come to church mostly to be fed and provided something comforting from the challenges of the world. They want to feel the spirit, and they want to feel good about themselves. Making them uncomfortable because of my own dissonance does not preach, does not teach.

The fact is that nearly all LDS who have lived the church long enough, or been converts, have had a spiritual experience with the material. That spiritual experience was a real thing, with real physical manifestations, the indians call “Kundalini”. It is a very good thing — it is healthy and edifying to the soul. Frankly, the goal of a good class or talk should be to affirm the spiritual experience, and to help people be edified. As much as I think it important to embrace the truth of history, some of the uglier historical truths simply do not make me feel better about the fact that my entire family of origin, as well as the majority of my children, are active, practicing LDS. Staying is dissonance, as well as leaving. It’s all dissonance in one way or another for me. So the question is, where do I go for strength?

I think you have identified an anchor. While the church may resemble McDonalds in so many ways — it’s bland uniformity, it’s inability to address its historicity, it’s stifling of anything creative — the church serves a very good spiritual meal — and I have tried at this point almost all spiritual cuisines, and there are a number i really like. But, if I want to enjoy the meal with my family, I’m afraid McDonalds will have to do. The key is to select from the McDonalds menu the things that I find most edifying — the service, the temple, the fellowship, and some of the better points of the theology that are consistent with my understanding of the universe and the Way.

I think there is room for this thinking. I will bristle, question, and annoy the crap out of leaders, but I believe it’s worth it.

[wayfarer]

Heber13 wrote:

Let me ask a follow-up question…let’s say someone sins and truly repents, including confession to the bishop. The Bishop teaches they are not worthy to take the sacrament. Then the person feels from prayer they are forgiven…and perhaps that part you mentioned about “God’s love and atonement operates sooner than we think” they truly feel in their heart. But the bishop continues to make them wait for a certain period of time (6 months or a year).

Do you think the sin is forgiven prior to the worthiness to take the sacrament or enter the temple, or can a person be forgiven prior to the bishop’s waiting period?

my personal feeling is that a person is forgiven the moment the spirit tells them they are forgiven.

church forgiveness is on an entirely different schedule. according to CHI, the informal probation ends upon meeting certain conditions. if you have met them aside from timeframe, i would think that some bishops are in tune enough that if you came to him after a personal spiritual experience of forgiveness, he might change an informal probation punishment period, but there are no guarantees. formal probation, the result of a disciplinary council, would require a reconvening of the council to lift the probation. same deal with disfellowshipment, except that the guidance is usually a year. in both cases of formal probation and disfellowshipment, the disciplinary council considers whether a full repentance has been completed.

that is what i read of the policy. i am not a fan, because it all depends on human judgment, and that is oh so different from ward and stake to ward and stake.

it is what it is.

[wayfarer]

cwald wrote:

wayfarer wrote:

…On the other hand, if a member claims that they paid SLC and SLC doesn’t have any record of it, regardless of amount, perhaps the bishop or SP may be justified in concluding that a person has lied on a TR interview or tithing settlement. That’s the only justification I can find for what you mention as what may be happening. And in my impression, outright lying to leadership is not ethical or moral behavior…

Six months ago this would have sent me into a meltdown. Today, I just chuckled and shrugged it off. Thanks StayLDS. Give credit where credit is due.

cwald, I think I can see where you’re coming from and probably agree, or at least am trying to sort out your response. Although it may be clear the the Church has lied and deceived, and continues in many cases to do so, either intentionally or otherwise, it doesn’t justify lying and deceiving on my part. The Doc & Cov has this gem:

Doctrine and Covenants 10:28 wrote:

Verily, verily, I say unto you, wo be unto him that lieth to deceive because he supposeth that another lieth to deceive, for such are not exempt from the justice of God.

Of course, in the context of Joseph Smith, this drips with irony, but it’s not a bad statement. Lao Tzu also said:

Lao Tzu in Tao Te Ching, chapter 49 wrote:

To the faithful (honest), the sage is faithful (honest). To the unfaithful (dishonest), the sage is also faithful

Confucius stated much the same things, as did Jesus on the Sermon on the Mount. The universal ethic that stands above the pettiness of a church that lies and deceives is to not do the same. You and I both have struggled with this concept of integrity in interviews and the like. It’s not easy, perhaps, but it’s the only think one really can do, ultimately.

please tell me if I misunderstand your intent with the comment.

[wayfarer]

doug wrote:

Quote:

But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. Matthew 5:37

I don’t know if they still do this, but at one time BYU students were required to periodically fill out a questionaire or write an essay (can’t recall which) to their ecclesiastical leader explaining why they were worthy to continue in attendance. A friend of mine would write “Yea, yea” on his and send it in. They called him on it.

Ecclesiastical endorsement — not an essay, but something filled out between student and BP. Required confessional as a prerequisite for continued enrollment.

[wayfarer]

SilentDawning wrote:

As jaded as I may have sounded on this earlier, I do think there is some role as supporter. Even Church disciplinary councils put “doing what is best for the [transgressor]” in the list…and in my last read of the old CHI, the Bishop was the only one in the ward who was supposed to give counseling to members. So, this is part of his role.

Now, in practice what does it mean? Probably not a lot as the Bishop is not trained in counseling. When I pointed out some really useful books on diagnosing marital problems to our Bishop, back when I was in leadership, he indicated that if someone comes to him with marital problems, he just refers them to the LDS Social Services.

Also, if you look at the “counselling training footprint” of effort expended by our organization, the majority of the leadership meetings I’ve attended tend to focus on administrative training, with motivational and spiritual talks present as well to help people feel the spirit….but I rarely hear or or see training happening to help people be better spiritual counsellors.

Perhaps everyone feels the “mantle” is enough of the calling so it’s unecessary to train Bishops in counselling principles.

the term bishop in greek is episkopos, or literally, overseer. In literal terms, one who looks over the church, but in fact ‘overseer’ is administrative manager of the church. Oh how I wish it were different, but that’s what ends up being the calling. Some who are called to it have genuine empathy and are good listeners, and it serves them well to do so. others see their role as the one true representative of the rod of iron. there is personal latitude in the counseling area, but not in the area and role of administration and church discipline. Given the lack of effective pastoral training and the lack of time available to the bishop, counseling and support are often not well served by the administrative role that by itself requires nearly a fulltime commitment.

[wayfarer]

SilentDawning wrote:

I have one other angle on this though. Someone regular on this site mentioned a few months ago that during a Cache Valley focus on middle way mormonism, the Bishop or SP kept mentioning they were going to extract tithing records from SLC…as part of the whole assessment of whether there should be Church discipline (perhaps?)…what reason could they have had for this? For me, this goes well beyond the paying to play concept, or the membership fee concept.

Perhaps to see if there was temple attendance that was not given worthily? And given the fact that the amount paid in tithing is not verified to be 10%, relying on member’s integrity to report, how could this investigation have helped or contributed to the inquiry? When I read about the tithing involvement in that situation, it concerned me, because it seemed to go well beyond character-building, and into administrative territory — potentially linking a person’s disciplinary proceedings to financial contributions. It seemed way out of disconnect.

I honestly don’t see how the amount one pays matters. I personally have lost more net worth in the past two years than my income or increase has been, so it is quite conceivable that my ‘full tithe’ will be zero or very minimal. When I owned my own business, the concept of paying on gross anything was unimaginable, because the first few years of a business one typically makes no profit whatsoever. The point is that there are a lot of reasons for which ‘zero’ is an acceptable, full tithe, and it’s none of anybody’s business what the personal circumstances are.

to be clear the church says:

Quote:

Tithing is a commandment from the Lord to give one-tenth of all our increase, which we understand to mean income.

gross income? income net of taxes? income net of taxes and expenses (as would be the case of a proprietorship)? all of these are legitimate interpretations, and the church refuses to make any distinction — it is up to your personal intepretation. Therefore, the definition of ‘full tithe’ does not have an amount associated with it.

On the other hand, if a member claims that they paid SLC and SLC doesn’t have any record of it, regardless of amount, perhaps the bishop or SP may be justified in concluding that a person has lied on a TR interview or tithing settlement. That’s the only justification I can find for what you mention as what may be happening. And in my impression, outright lying to leadership is not ethical or moral behavior.

I think it’s really important that one be confident and sure of one’s own beliefs. Paying nothing in tithing to the church when you expect some benefits from that church, including a place to worship for your family, is not exactly right. I believe that the moral, ethical thing to do is the determine what ‘tithing’ means to you in terms of amount of charitable donations, then to pay in good conscience what you think the church’s portion of that is, and to then confidently and honestly report a full tithe in both the tithing settlement and TR interview. There should be no equivocation or explanation further, in my opinion.

[Author]

Posts