Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Old-Timer wrote:
Tom, I would love to write such a post, but I’m not going to write it – for one reason only:
I have been asked not to do so.I spoke with someone about a particular question some time ago, and this person was very open with me – on the condition that I would not publicize the details of our discussion.
I am not aware of all that the Church gives– or to whom and how it gives, but that conversation was a real eye-opener for me. It made me step back and begin to look at the overall issue in a very different light. I feel comfortable sharing only a few of the broad outlines of the “charitable but not classified as such” aspect in vague categorical hints, so, realizing it is not providing what you really want . . .
1) Social Services
2) Employment
3) Welfare Assistance over and above Fast Offering contributions
4) Tangible, non-cash donations
5) Software
6) Service missions
7) Traditional humanitarian aid
Non-LDS, non-profit organizations 9) Education
10) Environmental Impact
I only am scratching the surface (really, the tip of the iceberg), and I won’t go further, but when even the amount of the resources that the Church pours into helping members and non-members alike of which I have become aware is calculated . . .
I will leave it at that. I know my initial statements sound hyperbolic, and there might be another organization that does more, but it would take a LOT to be more than what the Church does.
Ray, I’m not going to disagree with you–the Church does a LOT of good, but I stand by my original point. I don’t think the God of the universe, or Christ, cares about buildings more than people, and as long as there are people that need help, its tough to justify fancy buildings (keep in my, in a socialist libertarian so my whole life view is tainted by this). According to the Church, it gave 833 million dollars in humanitarian aid from 1985 to 2008, and an additional 233 million in cash for the same purposes. I’m not overlooking a billion dollars in aid over 24 years, but for 2007–last updated figures–the total amount given by religious organizations in the United States for humanitarian purposes was 100 BILLION–100 times the Church’s total of the last 24 years. Plenty of churches don’t do well enough to make a big contribution, so some of the churches out there are giving a heck of a lot–especially considering the fact that the LDS Church is considered the wealthiest in this country. I’ll leave my statement at this–I agree with you Ray, but I disagree with you.
swimordie wrote:I’m not sure if this is part of the OP but spending lots of money on temples is really good PR. Both internal and external.
Internal PR: temple-worthy members get “rewarded” for their rectitude. I mean, it IS pretty sweet to be allowed to hang out in such a nice place. Plus it makes you feel rich for a couple hours.
External PR: Very visible branding, demonstrative of growth, health, plenty. Who wouldn’t want to be a part of that?
I know, I know, it should be as nice as possible for the Lord. But, did you see Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? What was Christ’s “cup”?
Ray, you make valid points. I’m sure the Church does as much good as any other Church–possibly more. We see this differently, but I respect your points.
Swimwordie–do you really think PR is something the Lord cares about when his children are dying and starving all over the world? I’m not denying the Church’s humanitarian efforts, but they can do more. I’m not saying they shouldn’t build meeting houses, or temples, I’m saying the could build cheaper facilities and make a greater humanitarian effort. I have a hard time picturing God/Christ being petty enough to care about the material and look of a building when their starving, dying children could be saved with a little more help. I already posted the star fish story, but there will always be more people to help, and just because the Church can’t help everyone doesn’t mean they shouldn’t help as many as they possibly can. Doesn’t the story of Christ resonate more with the Church–born in a manger, a carpenter, etc. all positions lacking materially, and all humble. I think that Christ would give more than the Church gives, and he would care less about fancy buildings.
Old-Timer wrote:I am not aware of anyone who has been denied a temple recommend because of poverty, and I am aware of MANY hundreds of situations where people who were receiving church welfare assistance had temple recommends – who paid tithing and received AT LEAST that amount in assistance from the Church.
Sincere question, wordsleuth: Do you know of members who have been denied a temple recommend solely because they were denied Church welfare assistance and couldn’t pay tithing because they needed to feed their kids or pay their utilities?
Yes Ray, I know a few people personally that have been denied financial assistance, and when forced to choose between not paying bills or tithing, they chose to not pay tithing—no tithing, no TR. That’s a terrible choice to put someone in. We both know that the Church is enormously wealthy, with plenty of room to follow the spirit of the law if they chose to do so. I believe you when you say you are aware of hundreds that have been helped, but as I said earlier, a lot of this ultimately comes down to the Bishop. I believe its quite sad that poor members are put in a position of difficulty that lots of Church members don’t have to face when it comes to attending the Temple. Regardless of stories that end happy, plenty don’t, and that could be avoided if the Church chose to be less letter of the law in some circumstances.
I’m sure this is obvious due to my other posts, but of course I don’t “believe” in the law of tithing. I think it is a practical policy to help fund the Church, nothing more. I don’t think it is evil, but I think it’s strict enforcement for a TR is disturbing. And whether people on this site want to admit it or not, plenty of people put their faith in the safety/protection/blessings/promises of tithing, pay it when it makes no sense to do so, and suffer as a result; argue otherwise all you want, but it happens, and it happens because of the way the Church teaches about tithing. Maybe it’s just rogue Bishops/SP’s/GA’s, but plenty of them teach the blessings of tithing like the blessings are a guarantee, i.e., pay even if you can’t afford to and the Lord will find a way to bless you so things work out. I don’t believe Temples are anything more than a fancy building, so why should I care that people get to go there? I care because of people I know and love that still believe it is a special place to be, and they’ve faced some of the financial issues I’m talking about.
Some people do well financially, some don’t, and putting those that don’t in a situation where they have to give all they have, and then hope for enough assistance in return, seems both pointless and cruel. Why should someone give up their 10% just to get it back from the Church? That sounds like the law of consecration–give all you have, get back what you need. Why not simply make an exception for someone rather they make them dependent on the Church for survival? If they can barely afford to survive, give them that much independence.
Poppyseed wrote:Who says tithing has to be paid with money anyway? If a person doesn’t have cash, they can pay some other way.
And I know that anyone who receives help from the bishop is required to pay it forward by giving a certain number of hours to the bishop’s storehouse, for example.
I don’t think missionaries should hesitate to teach the law of tithing. The law is for the soul, not for the portfolio. If I were poor I might be offended. How dare you think that because I don’t have money that I don’t have faith?
Poppyseed, my main/original point is that I don’t think well intended people should be kept out of the Temple if they truly can’t afford to pay tithing. You’re right, if someone earns no income, they can give in other ways, but if someone has an income, and it gets used up on things that have to be paid, they can’t get a Temple recommend. I don’t care how poor you are, I’ve never implied that should be a reason not to teach the idea to someone. I just think it shouldn’t be so iron clad that it keeps good people away from the temple. Plenty of people put faith in the law of tithing and they get evicted, lose their means of transportation, don’t pay up on their debts and face bankruptcy, etc. Maybe there are blessings waiting in the afterlife, but I don’t think nearly the same sacrifice is required of lots of well to do members WHEN IT COMES TO GETTING A TEMPLE RECOMMEND.
I don’t have any issues with tithing in general; I understand that the Church has to have income to function. But when the Church has a surplus in the billions, and some members that face really difficult financial challenges, the rule shouldn’t keep those well intended members from going to the Temple if they are worthy in all other areas.
Old-Timer wrote:I think most people would be astounded at how much the Church contributes to fighting poverty and other difficulties around the world.
Can it do more? Perhaps. Does any other organization do more? Perhaps not.
I agree that the Church does a lot for the poor. My original point–it’s gotten side tracked–was that I find the cost/extravagant nature of temples to be…possibly over the top. Just because an organization or a person does good things doesn’t negate the fact that there are always more people that need help. I’ve heard this story numerous times in Church:
“There was a man who was walking along a sandy beach where thousands of starfish had been washed up on the shore. He noticed a boy picking the starfish one by one and throwing them back into the ocean. The man observed the boy for a few minutes and then asked what he was doing. The boy replied that he was returning the starfish to the sea, otherwise they would die. The man asked how saving a few, when so many were doomed, would make any difference whatsoever? The boy picked up a starfish and threw it back into the ocean and said “Made a difference to that one…”
Spending less on material things and spending more on people seems like a Christ-like endeavor. Once again, I’m not negating the good that the Church does, I’m saying it could/should do more when it comes to people vs. buildings.
quietblue wrote:I wouldn’t consider debt an auto writeoff from tithes,
debt is a bondage you willingly placed yourself under.
Considering the fact that one of the leading causes of debt in our country is medically related–often due to catastrophic events–the use of the term “willing” seems careless. Besides, in cases where someone willingly got in debt, the still have the obligation of paying their creditors if at all possible. If someone has to choose to pay a debt or tithing, I think the honest/honorable thing to do is pay the debt.
jeriboy wrote:Wordsleuth23 said….Why not build less expensive Temples, and use the money saved to provide clean drinking water to starving kids. It’s similar to the idea of fast offerings, just on a much grander scale. It doesn’t have to be just African kids, people all over the world, and our country, are impoverished and they really have no hope without some form of charity. The Church could do more in this area.
Jesus made the comment, the poor you have with you always. He also showed that even though he was the Son of God with great power, he did not come into the world to change such things. He once told a slave to be a good slave. If Jesus would not right all wrongs, neither can the church. Also we have been told that no matter what happens to us in this life, it will be so wonderful in the next life that the hardships of this one will hardly come to mind. The order of business seems to be, at least for me, get a body, live, enjoy, endure, improve, die, get your reward, live forever. The last one you mentioned, I would be real careful with that one.
So Jesus didn’t want to change things like helping the poor–I’m not sure that’s true–or ending slavery, and that means the Church shouldn’t help the poor today? Wait, the Church shouldn’t fight poverty–in your words, “change such things”–but it can put on a full-scale assault when it comes to gay marriage? I’m confused jeriboy. What’s the difference? Jesus isn’t concerned about starving children or slaves, but he’s really concerned that gay couples don’t get legal recognition–really? You also say I should be real careful with the last one I mentioned, what, that the Church can do more for the poor? Is that a dangerous idea?
Katzpur wrote:Heber13 wrote:Does that make sense to us? We can KNOW by saying we know? I think it can if the Spirit of God bears a witness that what I said was true, and after feeling that, I have greater confidence in it…but that is a very non-scientific way to prove something, isn’t it?
I don’t know. To me, saying “I know” when I don’t know is dishonest. Bearing one’s testimony doesn’t have to include the statement, “I know the Church is true.” Sometimes I think we forget that, and maybe that’s not what Dallin Oaks was saying in the first place. I know that I could bear my testimony that I know that God hears and answers my prayers and feel 100% honest in saying that. Maybe I don’t know that, either, but I do feel that I do, so it’s not dishonest for me to say it. It would, however, be dishonest for me to say, “I know the Church is true.”
I don’t think it’s dishonest, because people that say that often feel that way. Just because they think they know doesn’t mean they do, but its semantics. How do people define “know”; a lot of people say it out of habit when they are really saying something like belief or confidence. Katzpur, what is the difference between saying you “know” things about God, and saying you know the Church is true? They are both claims of knowledge that are based off of faith, not evidence. They strike me as being in the same category.
Old-Timer wrote:If someone believes in the principle of tithing, I think they should pay it and let the Church pay the bills they can’t as a result with Fast Offering funds and/or provide them food so they don’t have to buy groceries.
In theory, that sounds nice, but Bishops have a lot of discretion in this area, and not all Bishops are see peoples finances the same way.
Old-Timer wrote:
I know this thread isn’t about Utah bankruptcies, but the issue is not a simple one. If there is one “Mormon” connection, it might be over-confidence and a belief that “God won’t let me fail” – but the stats in the previous comment argue against it being a uniquely Mormon problem.Perfectly said Ray. By citing bankruptcies, I was trying to point out the fact that tithing isn’t a guarantee of financial success. Also, I was questioning/wondering whether really poor Church members should have to pay tithing to go to the temple, if they can’t pay both their bills and their tithing.
jeriboy wrote:A few years ago my bishop called me in to ask why I suddenly started paying tithing since I did not go to church.
My reply was that I needed my sales to start closing at a better rate than they had been and I knew that paying tithing would likely do the trick. I admitted it was a purely selfish act, and that my sales had indeed improved. He laughed, said OK get out of here.
I have since learned that God being the god of all people, rewards everyone of all faiths who pay tithing with the same blessings we receive.
You know what? I’ll bet he even answers their prayers.
If paying tithing guarantees rewards, why do so many faithful members go bankrupt? Utah–the highest percentage of Mormons in the country–has led the nation in bankruptcy filings frequently over the last decade. I know some of these people personally, and they face a catch-22 when they follow all the Church instructions: pay 10%, try not to have mom work, multiply and replenish the earth, avoid debt; it makes it very difficult for people that don’t have good paying jobs. If you are in a situation where you barely pay your bills, with no money leftover, should you still pay tithing? The Church is worth billions of dollars, they can get by if the truly poor members can’t pay. Should a family skip paying bills to pay tithing? Should good faithful, devout, active members that really can’t pay tithing be denied a TR?
swimordie wrote:wordsleuth23 wrote:My ultimate point is that the problems of free will and evil mean the current Mormon definition of God doesn’t work. That may not bother a lot of people; they just argue that we created the definition of God, so if our definition is wrong so what. For me, that doesn’t work. I don’t believe that a God capable of creating us would be incapable of stopping evil, or be unable to allow certain levels of free will but reduce the amount of evil in this world. This leads me to believe that if there is a God, he probably isn’t remotely similar to the God Mormons believe in.
I’m not sure if you meant to, but you answered your own question in this last paragraph. Like I said in a previous post, I think you’re preaching to the choir. I doubt many of us here as staylds actually have a belief in “God” that remotely resembles what the church “teaches”, at least as revealed by JS’ claims of what the godhead is, in a literal sense.
so, what jmb said…
Swimwordie, first of all, who isn’t preaching to the choir here? Just because people agree to a certain extent doesn’t mean something isn’t interesting to discuss. I have a question for you, and jmb as well–if you don’t believe we can define God, how can you believe in God? If you don’t have a concept of something–some sort of idea/definition–then where does your belief begin in the first place? Not only that, but if you use the term God, you are defining God in a sense simply by conceiving of him/it/her, so from there, some elaboration is necessary. What other words/labels do you use that have no definition/concept? I have responses to my questions, so in a sense I answered my own question, but the questions in my last post were posed for Jeriboy–not me.
jeriboy wrote:wordsleuth23 » 04 Aug 2009, 10:37
Not having read your forty page paper I can only guess at your belief on the subject. It appears God seems very much interested in keeping evil as an option simply as an outgrowth of choice. The preexistence shows that choice was an option, as does life on this planet. To stop evil in this world would be to except Lucifer’s plan in the preexistence.
You can choose a position of acceptance, based on faith, that can refute the best logical arguments. But ultimately, this is a logical argument. Why can we stop evil but God can’t? When we stop evil, are we taking away someones free will, or someones opportunity for growth? And if you use free-will as an argument, do we really have free will? If God created us, then ultimately he is the cause of everything we do, because we wouldn’t exist without him. The Church teaches that God is omniscient; if God knows exactly what we are going to do, doesn’t that imply that we don’t have free will? When factoring in environmental, biological, and genetic factors, do we really have free will? People with brain disorders are literally incapable of certain things; people with frontal lobe often times repeat the same mistake over and over–repeat prisoners for example; people with this problem are really unable to learn from mistakes. Do they really have free will?
If God is interested in keeping evil around as an outgrowth of choice, then why do little babies starve to death? Do they have a choice there? Do their starving parents have a choice? Do people that get murdered have a choice? Did holocaust victims have a choice? The list can go on and on. That is simply looking at moral evil; natural evil–hurricanes, tsunami’s–doesn’t seem to give people a choice? How do anything of things help peoples free will? People often say its the free will of the perpetrator that matters; really, a murderers free will is more important than an innocent person? That is a weak, morally unsustainable argument. If you have a family member that gets kidnapped or murdered, are you going to feel okay because it mattered that that evil person had the right to exercise free will?
My ultimate point is that the problems of free will and evil mean the current Mormon definition of God doesn’t work. That may not bother a lot of people; they just argue that we created the definition of God, so if our definition is wrong so what. For me, that doesn’t work. I don’t believe that a God capable of creating us would be incapable of stopping evil, or be unable to allow certain levels of free will but reduce the amount of evil in this world. This leads me to believe that if there is a God, he probably isn’t remotely similar to the God Mormons believe in.
jeriboy wrote:Quote:Wordsleuth23 said…. I should have clarified what I mean by orthodox. Granted, this only my opinion, but I view an orthodox member as one that believes in the literal truth of the gospel, disregards the contradictions found in the doctrine and the history, and in general accepts and follows the cultural norms of Mormonism. Certainly the definition of orthodox is open to debate and interpretation, but that is my view.
The above is a quote from wordsleuth23, below is my doctored version.
I should have clarified what I mean by orthodox. Granted, this only my opinion, but I view an orthodox member as one that believes in the literal truth of the gospel, …( has a testimony )…disregards the contradictions found in the doctrine and the history,…( trusts this is Gods restored church and lives by faith that God is pleased with the past and present leaders )… and in general accepts and follows the cultural norms of Mormonism…( has hope of receiving a crown of glory ),,, Certainly the definition of orthodox is open to debate and interpretation, but that is my view.
Jeriboy, I like your revised version, it was more thorough/better than my definition.
hawkgrrrl wrote:Quote:Why not build less expensive Temples, and use the money saved to provide clean drinking water to starving kids.
ws – I know the church does a lot of humanitarian work that is not published in places like this, but when I read your comment I immediately thought of the Phil Hartman sketch where he portrayed Bill Clinton at a McDonalds talking to the common people (but really just stealing bites of their food). He’s illustrating the problem with working with some of the developing nations that need US help, and he keeps saying the phrase “intercepted by warlords” as he takes a bite of their food. It’s a funny sketch, but the point is still valid. When nations have unrest, sometimes humanitarian efforts are intercepted and used against the people you intend to help. I have been associated with CCF (Christian Children’s Fund) for over 10 years, and they have some of the same issues in trying to do the work they need to do. In many cases they can deal with a benign dictatorship, but in countries where there is too much civil and political unrest, the people are truly held captive by their leaders who intercept the aid.
You’re absolutely right about many situations around the world, like Somalia or Sudan right now. But many of these African countries aren’t currently at war, and sending in Peace Corps volunteers to build water facilities, that unlike rice or wheat, won’t be intercepted, is something that is done regularly. The problem is that projects like this ultimately lack funding. One person that has done a good job in this area is James Dobson. He collects donations from his congregation, and makes regular trips to Africa to personally oversee the project he’s a part of. Maybe war lords will blow up these water wells/water stations, but does that mean we shouldn’t try? Not only that, but as I mentioned in my original post, there are lots of areas where help is needed–vaccines, educational materials, etc. I personally believe the Church could spend a little less on material buildings like Temples, and a little more elsewhere. I’m not advocating that they don’t build temples, nor am I saying they don’t do good things.
A really good book about issues like this was written about 6 months ago by Peter Singer, it’s called “The Life You Can Save”. It’s a really eye opening book. Just one example is the amount of money Americans spend on bottled water, when we have perfectly good drinking water. If everyone that buys bottled water just used tap water and used that money for good causes, an enormous amount of good could be done. I don’t have much money, but I stopped buying bottled water and I’ve saved about 100 bucks that I’m giving to a group that works to provide drinking water in Africa. It’s not much, but multiply it by thousands. Once again, its really the same principal as fast offerings–fast, donate the money from the skipped meals, i.e., reduce the amount of money spent on Temples, donate the leftovers to good causes.
