I have had several discussions with people on the subject of tithing over the past few days as it has been part of the landscape of issues surrounding the recent summons of LDS Prophet Thomas S Monson on charges of fraud in the UK.
Heart and Sole
KKK – at least they opened their books…
One aspect that I point out is that, unlike other churches which regularly publish financial reports, there is no accountability to the LDS church members of how tithes are used and directed once they are donated to the Church. The church publishes no such records, which is somewhat unique among charitable or religious organizations. The KKK even used to publish it’s financial records for goodness sakes!
The church exists as a trademark of the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. as a Corporation Sole, the single member of that corporation is the current Prophet and President Monson and he owns and directs all church resources – tithes, property, holdings, etc. (see an unverified text of the articles of Incorporation here) As such members surrender all rights and accountability of donated funds and the president is not required to make those financial records public.
Other churches typically operate under constitutions and bylaws which guarantee members certain rights and include provisions for reporting of finances. This holds leadership accountable and has the effect of minimizing or mitigating abuse.
A Prophet Responds
When asked about the Church’s lack of financial reporting by a reporter in 2002, Then Prophet Gordon B Hinkley responded as follows:
REPORTER: In my country the…we say the people’s churches, the Protestants, the Catholics, they publish all their budgets, to all the public.
HINCKLEY: Yeah. Yeah.
REPORTER: Why is it impossible for your church?
HINCKLEY: Well, we simply think that the…that information belongs to those who made the contribution, and not to the world. That’s the only thing. Yes.
It is noted that church members do not receive any such report. At the end of each year members receive a report of how much they themselves donated, which is used for tax purposes, but there is no report of the full donation income of the church, nor a budget of how the church spends those funds. Generous people might say that this is simply an oversight in the Prophet’s response to this reporter.
A Mormon Trusts
So it is part of the accepted experience of being a tithe paying member of the Mormon church that when you donate – you trust that the inspired men at the head of the church will use those sacred funds as the Lord directs.
When I ask members why such blind trust should be given, I am usually met with statements that would appear to accuse me of not trusting the Lord’s anointed to be honest in their financial dealings. Believing that there should be accountability in the Church leadership is equated with the implication that one of the Apostles or Prophet would either be corrupt in their financial dealings or could be deceived – both of which assertions are tantamount to speaking ill of the Lord’s anointed.
Even if a member working in the church administration were to discover embezzlement or fraud by one of the Church Leaders – they have been taught that it would be wrong to criticize the leader. Apostle Dallin H Oaks stated:
“It’s wrong to criticize leaders of the church, even if the criticism is true.”
(Dallin H. Oaks, PBS Interview 2007 )
In 1987, Apostle Russell M Nelson also taught:
“Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true.” (Russell M Nelson “The Canker of Contention” Ensign, Feb 1987 Lds.org)
Covenant not to Criticize
One may wonder where this deep restriction on criticizing church leaders comes from. During temple ceremonies, church member currently promise never to reveal or discuss certain things. I will not mention or describe any of that. One of the things that they are told in the Temple, without promising never to reveal, is a charge to avoid all “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed.” They covenant with God to obey this restriction on criticism of church leaders. Mormon’s take their covenants very seriously.
No accountability leads to… ?
In such an organization there is not only no reporting of finances to the members, but there is active suppression of criticism, enforced by covenant in the Temple. While in government or business this type of non-accountability would by all accounts inevitably lead to abuses, in the Mormon church members consider it a part of fulfilling their commitment to God and an expression of faith in God to place such trust in their leaders to handle the temporal affairs of the church.
The other side
Remarkably, given this lack of institutional accountability, there is actually a great deal of preaching and teaching of individual accountability and stewardship in the church. See the guide to the scriptures on Stewardship and Accountability for numerous scriptural examples.
The difference in the Mormon church is that accountability is always in one direction. The member at the lowest level is accountable to the president of his quorum or to the Bishop for worthiness issues. People in auxilliary callings are accountable to the bishopric who are in turn accountable to stake authority. These are then accountable to area authorities and so on all the way up to the Prophet. There is never accountability in the opposite direction.
Conclusion
A church that adheres to the Christian principle of “But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.” (Matt 23:11) understands that when those who administer the worldly affairs act as servants – this abasement is not just in word but also in deed. They then, as servants, are held accountable to those whom they serve – the members of the church whose charitable donations they have stewardship over.
You know, even to this day, everytime they sustain people who are appointed to positions or callings within the church, I am always thinking to myself, that I wish as a kid I had raised my hand in a fantasy of mine and chose instead to not sustain the member. The reason I don’t now is it’s not funny, as much as I thought it was funny as a child, I’m positive if I did have an objection, it would be addresed before the calling was approved. I think your just ignoring mechanisms of how people are held accountable. Yet, it’s not the way you envision it, but to say there is no accountability is an error.
To say there are things that might, could change on the order of good, better, best, with members making suggestion, it might happen. I certainly don’t always remember 2 person deep accountability with primary children, but I think, given past examples, it’s a good system to have.
If you have a good idea, make a suggestion, wait for a response, then let time prove the wisdom of your suggestion.
I think, for at least some members of the church, the way they view it is that they see tithing as a commandment of The Lord and have a testimony of that. What the church does with that offering is unimportant to me personally, especially since it is the lord’s purse. If one has the guts to go toe-to-toe with The Lord and literally rob god, I have nothing but a heavy heart for that person, because that, at least to me, is just plain reckless and I pity the consequences to the person so inclined.
I believe in a just god, and I am absolutely certain that when I offer my tithes, they are to god. I believe that god knows the intent of my heart, and if that’s the reality of the tithe, don’t you think that if he is a just god, if anyone violated that trust, someday, however far away, that injustice would be balanced? So I have no need at all to question the churches use of the tithes. If I want to question the church about how it spends tithes, I can but being accountable to me, seems like your asking the wrong person, since I gave it god, and if they squander it, that’s on their heads, which I find to be an extremely unenviable position.
by analogy, there are “internal controls and accountability” in the National Security Agency (NSA). IF you had asked any of the officials of that agency if they were conforming with the law and protecting the rights of the people – they would have answered yes. Mr. Clapper even testified to that effect to congress. It wasn’t until Edward Snowden released the documents proving what the NSA was up to that the american people saw that they had in fact been acting outside of constitutional boundaries and were spying on the american people in direct contradiction to Mr. Clapper’s testimony before congress under oath.
Just saying that there is internal accountability and oversight is not enough. If open reporting is not done, then it breeds corruption. we are just waiting around till that corruption is revealed.
Your willingness to allow God to hold the power accountable is well and good, but for many people the sacrifices they make in their life to continue to support the church with tithes are significant. Utah is a leading state for bankruptcies. (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595072079/Utah-stays-No-1–in-bankruptcies.html?pg=all) maybe that is related to tithing and maybe not. One can only guess.
“By analogy, there are “internal controls and accountability” in the National Security Agency (NSA).”
This is a strange preface to your argument because while in the long term, the American people became informed about government collection of bulk “metadata”, it seemed that the “internal controls and accountability” only revealed one fact, it wasn’t effective. You might even point to Snowden and say what he did was good and necessary, but I think one could make the argument that the costs in damage to American interests are incalculable. Congress was already dimly (if not by some of it’s members actually) aware of what was being done, which is why the questions were so precisely posed to Mr. Clapper in the first place.
I also ask the question with regards to the church, “Accounting to whom?” When I was an assistant to the clerk, there were multiple checks on everything we did for our ward. Someone within the church performed periodic 3rd party audits. They would come and check our statements and make sure we had filed all paperwork for all transactions. Weekly, we wouldn’t go home till all the proper paperwork was filled out for outstanding checks to be disbursed/deposited and we would both check what the other was recording into the church records and the written deposits that were made. Furthermore, our statements were electronically uploaded to Church HQ, which I’m certain was reviewed. Who are the people with whom you are drawing comparisons?
I’ve made an attempt to make this connection, but I lack some key points using the basic premise from Wikipedia about accountability. Obviously this can be multilayered since congress is accountable to the American people so it gets a little less simplistic.
“…A is accountable to B when A is obliged to inform B about A’s (past or future) actions and decisions, to justify them, and to suffer punishment in the case of eventual misconduct…”
Public Oversight (Transparency for Government e.g. Privacy, etc.)
-Ministerial Oversight (Transparency for Church Ministry e.g. Tithing, etc.)
Mr. Snowden
-Somebody*?
NSA (Accountable Party B)
-Church?
Mr. Clapper
-Prophet OR some church representative?
Congress
-Judgment Bar of God
-Members OR Sustained church representatives?
Law/Privacy
-Tithing, Priesthood, etc.
Protecting Rights
-Not guilty of misusing “the Lord’s purse”, focus as property of the lord?
-Not guilty of misusing “Member’s 10% earnings”, focus as property of the members?
American People, aka constituents (Accountable Party A)
-“God”
-“Members” or “House of Israel”?
*Presumably, from your point of view, I assume you are waiting for someone who is a member in good standing before the lord or by some standard. Additionally, this person is in a key position to witness, observe and document incontrovertible evidence that traces all or some portion of church financial assets to something not tied to the 4 fold mission of the church, 1. To Proclaim the Gospel, 2. To Perfect the Saints, 3. To Redeem the dead, 4. To Care for the Poor and Needy. Perhaps, this will be tied to just one person, or perhaps he can show that from spanning 2 or more prophets, such an “arrangement” exists, where someone misused church funds. I’m not sure what this would say about the church, other than perhaps to strengthen your argument that perhaps checks don’t exist or rather enough of them don’t, otherwise you wouldn’t have learned about the alleged corruption in the first place.
From my point of view, while I do concede that it’s wise to have internal checks (which I personally think do exist, though this is speculation based on experience, so a little better than hopeful guessing), ultimately, it’s the lord who hold’s the final word checking the books of his church, remembering D&C 1:38. I would also needlessly add, it’s impossible to lie to our creator, he knows the thoughts and intents of our hearts, which makes this entire need for oversight, a moot argument. I would add that it seems unprecedented from a scriptural point of view that this was done (remember who you’re talking to though, perhaps you can find a precedent I have overlooked) I will concede that I can think of a few instances in the history of the Church, that oversight probably should have existed and may not have at that time.
I feel that you are entitled to ask the question, the same as anyone, but it’s a little akin to my asking for people to tell me about things that aren’t my business to know. (a.k.a. salaries, ledgers of private corporations, where you flicked that sharp-toothed snail poop, whatever did taco bell do with the money I as a customer paid to them for my burrito i.e did they use it to thicken their own wallets or that of their investors, etc.).
Perhaps it might be the business to know of the oversight committee you indicate should be there, but as I pointed out, 1. I feel there is oversight within the church based on my own experiences. 2. You say, its non-existent. I can only shrug my shoulders and say, “ok”. I doubt that’s the case, personally, but that’s only because I’ve had a glimpse of how the church handles money and how it sustains its members. From my experience, as far as finances are concerned, what I saw reflected what we all (those assisting the clerk) felt, and that was a very heightened sense of responsibility about the tithes and offerings.
Even today, the fact that there is no fleeing god, or justice for that matter, is always at the forefront of my mind. Justice will have it’s due. You cannot rob justice, period! Every law that exists rests on this simple precept. Something that isn’t yours, will never be yours no matter how clever the artifice to secure it’s possession. Justice unwinds every tangled justification. In my mind, the person who would reveal even the most tangled web, would be the self-same person who created it. So, in any fantastic scheme any member could design, the fact that you can’t outwit yourself remains a problem, to say nothing of the fact that even if you could, you can’t outwit justice.
“…We are just waiting around till that corruption is revealed…”
Indeed, I think that much is obvious about you. It remains unclear who the others are that you are including in the “we”. Presumably, you are referring to people who view the church in a less favorable light or everyone that agrees with you about the necessity of oversight. I think the church has already learned this from it’s own history by what happened among early members of the church, though I can’t provide you the exact kind of account you’re looking for (see http://www.lds.org/manual/church-history-in-the-fulness-of-times-student-manual/chapter-fourteen-the-apostasy-in-kirtland-1836-38?lang=eng).
“… but for many people the sacrifices they make in their life to continue to support the church with tithes are significant…”
Your concern for the flow of money in the church is perplexing to me. For one, when I pay my tithing I give it to those whom I regard as representatives of the lord. I think you’ll agree with me on that point. How much I give to god seems vastly unimportant except where the lord has actually asked for a tithe (a.k.a. 10 percent), but the lord has never really cared about the amount of money he receives from it’s members. This is further illustrated in the account of the widow’s mite. [Mark 12:41-44](http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/mark/12.41-44?lang=eng#41). Add to this, when you consider the vastness of the universe, I think it’s laughable that offering my tithes has any meaning at all to the lord. But if we look back at the widow’s mite, it’s remarkable to me the kind of faith the widow showed in the offering.
“Utah is a leading state for bankruptcies. (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595072079/Utah-stays-No-1–in-bankruptcies.html?pg=all) maybe that is related to tithing and maybe not. One can only guess.”
An interesting speculation, logically speaking if lenders are lending to members of the church without factoring in a 10% deficit to their income for charitable donations, perhaps your argument suggests they should revise their lending practices. This is a blind potshot to link 2 unknowns which is a little like just shooting in the dark hoping you hit the “bad guys” shedding little to no light on who or what you hit or even if they deserved it.
Pointing out faults or what’s wrong with something is easy, coming up with answers and seeing them through is hard, and changing how something has been done requires patience and being continuously involved. You’ve got down the pointing out problems, maybe even a little bit of coming up with answers, but you’ve removed yourself from being continuously involved, so I’m not sure what your stake is in the outcome. If it’s just being right, I don’t think I’ve said your 100% wrong, but it seems you’re sure spinning your wheels in the mud, making a big mess, but little headway.
I’ll close with a link to a joke that I remember from a movie I watched once called “Short Circuit” discussed by someone else who makes some interesting observations about the joke and about the fruitlessness of doing exactly what I am doing. (http://openandwilling.blogspot.com/2008/06/whatever-god-wants-he-keeps.html).
Hehe, I think I got Party A and Party B mixed up. Oh well. You win some, you lose some.
I don’t doubt that there are all sorts of internal audits and oversight of each individual little worker bee. I am not talking about embezzlement or theft. In the NSA analogy, there are all sorts of little internal checks to what each agent does – but I am talking about whole programs that are setup and determined by higher authorities within the NSA, not what an individual workerbee is doing. If you think that Snowden’s revelations caused “incalculable” damage to american interests then you have no idea what American interests are. American interests are nothing other than preserving the rights that we have which are articulated in the constitution. The Government cannot preserve those rights by violating them.
Read the conclusion of my post. In America, the government is accountable to the people. In a Church based on the Christian principle of the greatest among you being the servants, the church leaders are accountable to the members.
I am not saying that that I have to point out faults with particular programs. I am saying that just having those programs public and out in the open makes leadership accountable.
In your explanation above you equate the mission of the church with the mission of God. as long as that is how you see it you are never going see my perspective.
some people are so quick to subject yourself to the authority over you and grovel and defer to it as a sign of their own piety. They are asking to be abused and then ready and willing to say “thank you sir may I have another” when it happens. Most church members would say it’s a sign of pride not to do that. It isn’t. We should humble ourselves before God, but examine cirtically people who claim to speak for God, because if they infact do not speak for God but are just using His name to gather power and deference then we owe them no abasement.
I think that it’s safe to say we stand on different slants on these tithing ideas and we’re both saying things that, for the moment, without a new perspective, won’t allow us to further the conversation.
I think as an American, I have interests, and I think I’m entitled to my opinion, so stating that I don’t know what American interests are is naive, but I’ll take your point that perhaps there are other American interests, that from your perspective take precedence. Different because I think you and I attach different priorities to some of these privileges.
9/11 changed the American recipe for a lot of things. But I don’t think I would say, “Thank you sir, may I have another” to any Tom, Dick or Harry who just decided to make decisions for +300 Million Americans without so much as a vote for or against it. You might say that is exactly what the NSA did, but if you succeed in securing the lives of the people you’re sworn to protect, you just get complaints about how your doing your job. On the other hand, if you screw up in fulfilling your responsibility, you get crucified. You might ask, “Are you saying the ends justify the means!?” No, but are you saying that if there’s a house on fire, we should wait for the owner to come move his car rather than bust the windows on a car to pass through a fire hose to put a fire out? Laws and oversight mechanisms take time to catch up to what you might say are circumstances on the ground.
In the car/fire analogy, I was speaking more about the government in it’s role to achieve it’s purpose, to prevent foreign (9/11, exploding underpants guy, etc.) and domestic attacks (School shootings, Marathon bombs, etc.) and provide law and order. Maybe I’m a fool about government, and I’ll talk myself out of a luxury sedan into a pinto, and that may be what I am arguing for. As I see it, the “luxury sedan” is a great ideal that existed before 9/11, if we want to keep driving now, we’re driving a “pinto” or walking. You, no doubt have an avalanche to say about politics, and this is certainly not my arena, but I guess I’ll tie my own noose anyway.
We were all affected by, yes, the NSA but, as deplorably shocking as it sounds, privacy is an idea Americans have in some cases, opted out of through the political process in the interest of preventing the harsh realities that we can no longer ignore. Additionally, in some sense, we’ve all surrendered to the conveniences of technology and surveillance, which leave us susceptible, if not to the NSA, then definitely to the Chinese. Americans are naïve. We’re still using magnetic strip credit cards…Hello!
Snowden made a decision for every American and, in my view, didn’t consider the consequences or even the full weight of such a decision. I think telling everyone what’s behind the curtain, means those people who want to ruin America are now a little more savvy about what pitfalls to avoid. I see login attempts on my network from Vietnam, I know of departments at my university who’ve fallen victim to CryptoLocker Ransomware, U.S. Corporations are having their trade secrets literally stolen off their computers, millions of unsecured computers with unwitting owners are participating in bot nets that attack our own assets, etc. Because of our ignorance, we’re our own worst enemy. We don’t live in a society of rainbows and high ideals, we are in an age of information warfare. Maybe you’re right about the government and my ignorance about American ideals, but in my book, people are extraordinarily bad at articulating what they want and are even worse about knowing what they need.
To wrap this up, I would add to your rebuttal, you also don’t play “Go Fish” and win by showing people what cards you’re holding. Can thinking like that be applied to what Snowden did? I dunno, but I think you have to look at it on a sliding scale, maybe it’s a slippery slope and maybe I should just go have a Nutter Butter and leave the politics to smarter people than me.
I agree that perhaps you need to leave discussion of important tgings to people more intelligent than yourself, Spencer. So, then the question is: Why are you trying to discuss this with people smarter than yourself? Go get fat on your Nutter Butters and we’ll do the thinking for you, little boy.
“Owww! You booted me in the head!”
Jennifer, that sounds an awful lot like an ad hominem attack . . .
Nope, not an ad hominem attack if you are merely agreeing with the other person – which is exactly what I did. Spencer doesn’t evidently believe himself intelligent enough to engage in these conversations and would confine himself to stiing back and eating cookies. I simply affirmed his post.
Spencer,
The reason the leaders are expected to be accountable to the members regarding tithing funds is because the Lord commanded them to be. See D&C 26:2 and D&C 104:71 for starts.
One of the primary purposes of April General conference from the very beginning was to account to the members how funds were disbursed. This commandment was strictly obeyed by the leaders until 1959, when they stopped abruptly providing the information.
You can insist all you want that this is the Lord’s money, but the Lord never said we are to pay and forget. The Lord put certain rules of accountability in place, and you are making excuses for those who are in rebellion against God. Instead of excusing this flagrant disobedience, why don’t you instead insist, as does Thinker, that ALL members obey the commandments of God, including those at the top?
Short answer – Uhm…(eaaaahnt!)
Announcer : “ladies and gentlemen that’s the ‘wrong answer’ buzz from our responder. Let’s see what he has to say for himself .”
Long answer – So, conversely, then are you saying he intended us to pay and find fault with our brethren? I guess, I’m not built that way. The scriptures comfort me and show me where my heart should be, as laid out in Matthew 7, Matthew 22, 2 Nephi 28 and especially 3 Nephi 11:29-30. All of the counsel found there frees me from the burden of worry.
Maybe this is a bad example, but I don’t call my wife and ask her what she’s doing with her time during the day (well, I guess I do call her and ask her what she’s doing, so that’s not completely true, but I’m just talking to my girl ‘cuz I’m sweet on her…yea I know…blech, but, hey, it’s how I feel) and demanding a report bi-annually of how effective she is as a parent. Likewise, I know people make mistakes and I want to give them the space to shine or show me what they’re made of and let time bear out the fruits of that relationship. Perhaps you contend that “No, Spencer, the church is different and blah, blah, blah…Pink elephants have stars and rainbow glitter shooting out of their snouts, and we should march right in there and take a handful of marshmallow sprinkles and demand to know the ingredients or, by gum, this ice cream sundae shall not pass!” Ok, I was just checking to see if you were reading.
Seriously now, do I expect that you or …(cough) the “thinker of thoughts” (that just cracks me up every time, I see it, sorry Jon :P) will go “Oh…OH!…Ok, Spencer, I totally get it, I never thought about it that way.”? Well, I wish it WERE that easy. I am offering my opinion, you’re welcome to see it differently. I’m not anxious about money that isn’t mine, to paraphrase D&C 104, this tithing is the lord’s or else my faith is vain and the church and it’s members are stewards over the lord’s treasury.
Maybe I’m not “the guy” you wanted to address. I’m simply uninterested in the money trail and I do trust the church, so maybe that’s a part of why we find ourselves on vastly different footing. Perhaps that open’s the church, up to potential financial mismanagement, and me, but since the tithing is to the lord, the intention that I desired to achieve was fulfilled in the paying of my tithing. The lord will bless me for keeping his commandments. The lord has promised that whosoever shall break the covenant, will be cursed and trodden down, which sounds pretty terrible to me, and if anything, my heart is heavy (scared even) for those who find themselves subject to the wrath of our heavenly father.
Those at the “top” (…wow that’s weird) are in those positions of trust and will answer for their stewardship. I don’t need to worry about that. All I have to do is remember the parable of the talents in [Matthew 25:14-30] (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/25.14-30?lang=eng#19). Furthermore, these people live a lifetime in the church, accepting callings, sharing their lives with families and members. If after all that, they want to throw away their very lives to embezzle or misuse or whichever results in the squandering of the lord’s talent, wow…I’m heartbroken for whoever would do that. But I’m not going to be apart of a assault on the church or even it’s members, I didn’t sign up for that. I’ld rather paint blue on my face and go fly a Aerospatiale SA-2 Samson dodging missiles in Pandora instead. ;P
So, I gather that Spencer, when faced with scripture directly contradicting his opinions, becomes an arrogant windbag? Waterman raised an excellent point that Spencer just pooped all over like a monkey at a zoo.
Ow, oh, my head!
You are complaining of your head hurting? Waterman’s point was really not so difficult to understand that a headache would ensue.
Nice straw man there at the beginning. That wasn’t what Rock was saying, and I believe you understand that.
Later, you wrote: “The lord will bless me for keeping his commandments. The lord has promised that whosoever shall break the covenant, will be cursed and trodden down, which sounds pretty terrible to me, and if anything, my heart is heavy (scared even) for those who find themselves subject to the wrath of our heavenly father.”
It seems you have a good idea of how tragic it is for someone who breaks covenant with the Lord. I believe that’s a big reason God gave us the passages Rock cited–to provide a safety net for those with great responsibility and great temptation. Remember Joseph’s first thought upon seeing the plates? The indigence of his family, and how far that gold would go to alleviating it. God was merciful to shock him tremendously for trying to retrieve them with those thoughts in his heart. It seems uniquely and barbarically harsh to just say, “You know, I trust God. And if my fellow-believers are falling into the depths of sin and transgression against God, God will sort it out later, and MAN ALIVE, will He ever kick their butts!” And then, as if in an aside, you added: (“I’m so glad it won’t be me!”)
Your language was far more pious and civilized-sounding, but that’s the fruit underneath.
Really?
Annalea,
I think it’s a little easier to level an accusation than to respond to one. You seem to have decided I was posting from atop of a Rameumptom, which was not my intent. Perhaps this is because I didn’t visit all 4 sides of the argument, but I’m not sure that anyone posting in a Blog has the patience to intellectually wade through so much analysis if it can’t be summarized in a few short sentences. Your rejoinder about my reply and the net null effect of my previous postings are not very encouraging outcomes from a writer’s perspective. Finding answers we can agree on requires more harmony and less dissonance, let alone finding the answers our heavenly father intended for us. I am certain there are questions you could raise that can teach me more about my beliefs, but I have my own reasons to remain skeptical and cautious as I am sure you are of me.
In the forum of a quasi-secular discussion based on the intellectual arguments you, Rock, Jon, or I cling to (excluding our heavenly father or confining his input to an arbitrary interpretation of scripture) there will always be evidence that appears to be consistent with both sides of the argument. So the exercise is no longer about what is correct, but who sounds more convincing, with the added bonus that if “I” expend enormous amounts of energy, and the end result is no different than where we started, then that is rapidly approaching the definition of insanity.
I can appreciate that we all have different approaches to faith, doctrine, and religious living. If you’re bound and determined to stand on another side of an issue, nothing any of us says will ever change a mindset. I don’t believe that is something you or I need to be convinced of and we could all spare ourselves a moment’s heartache by turning our time to more fruitful endeavors, and maybe you have.
I think Rock is forgetting the more significant messages contained within the gospel and has caused his eyes to not gaze solely on the glory of god. I can hardly blame him for that; I make that mistake more often than I would like to admit.
I’ll submit for your consideration that on multiple occasions, Christ and the Apostles counsel members against disputation, envying’s and strife. In 3 Nephi 11:28-29 Christ says “…neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me…” He also reminds us in Luke 11:17-18 “…Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation…” Paul, writing to members of the church in Corinth who were doing a fair approximation of what we are doing here (see 1 Cor. 1:10), said “…Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment…” And finally God through Joseph Smith revealed, “…And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness…”(see D&C 50:23).
Rock is stating that common consent “by appointment” does not extend or is not a sufficient application of the law regarding disbursement of the tithes, by historical precedent or his own personal interpretation. We simply disagree on this point for any number of reasons, the law of Christ, avoiding strife and envying’s, free agency, unity, faith, etc. (see also 2 Cor. 12:19-20). Not to mention that the church isn’t a democracy and he has just as much access to the Lord as do the, sustained and member supported, leadership of the church.
I’ll conclude by leaving some possibly related humor that might help you leave with a smile, in spite of myself,
Studio C – Protecting the Innocent (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pn0n_-rM4E),
Studio C – Hunting Trip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpGF4u7pX4I),
Studio C – Background Check (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEzEsr0Mut8),
and my favorite, Studio C – Drivers Ed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP53YTa2SEQ).
Feel free to draw your own conclusions.
Annalea,
I think it’s a little easier to level an accusation than to respond to one. You seem to have decided I was posting from atop of a Rameumptom, which was not my intent. Perhaps this is because I didn’t visit all 4 sides of the argument, but I’m not sure that anyone posting in a Blog has the patience to intellectually wade through so much analysis if it can’t be summarized in a few short sentences. Your rejoinder about my reply and the net null effect of my previous postings are not very encouraging outcomes from a writer’s perspective. Finding answers we can agree on requires more harmony and less dissonance, let alone finding the answers our heavenly father intended for us. I am certain there are questions you could raise that can teach me more about my beliefs, but I have my own reasons to remain skeptical and cautious as I am sure you are of me.
In the forum of a quasi-secular discussion based on the intellectual arguments you, Rock, Jon, or I cling to (excluding our heavenly father or confining his input to an arbitrary interpretation of scripture) there will always be evidence that appears to be consistent with both sides of the argument. So the exercise is no longer about what is correct, but who sounds more convincing, with the added bonus that if “I” expend enormous amounts of energy, and the end result is no different than where we started, then that is rapidly approaching the definition of insanity.
I can appreciate that we all have different approaches to faith, doctrine, and religious living. If you’re bound and determined to stand on another side of an issue, nothing any of us says will ever change a mindset. I don’t believe that is something you or I need to be convinced of and we could all spare ourselves a moment’s heartache by turning our time to more fruitful endeavors, and maybe you have.
I think Rock is forgetting the more significant messages contained within the gospel and has caused his eyes to not gaze solely on the glory of god. I can hardly blame him for that; I make that mistake more often than I would like to admit.
I’ll submit for your consideration that on multiple occasions, Christ and the Apostles counsel members against disputation, envying’s and strife. In 3 Nephi 11:28-29 Christ says “…neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me…” He also reminds us in Luke 11:17-18 “…Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation…” Paul, writing to members of the church in Corinth who were doing a fair approximation of what we are doing here (see 1 Cor. 1:10), said “…Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment…” And finally God through Joseph Smith revealed, “…And that which doth not edify is not of God, and is darkness…”(see D&C 50:23).
Rock is stating that common consent “by appointment” does not extend or is not a sufficient application of the law regarding disbursement of the tithes, by historical precedent or his own personal interpretation. We simply disagree on this point for any number of reasons, the law of Christ, avoiding strife and envying’s, free agency, unity, faith, etc. (see also 2 Cor. 12:19-20). Not to mention that the church isn’t a democracy and he has just as much access to the Lord as do the, sustained and member supported, leadership of the church.
I’ll conclude by leaving some possibly related humor that might help you leave with a smile, in spite of myself,
Studio C – Protecting the Innocent (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pn0n_-rM4E),
Studio C – Hunting Trip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpGF4u7pX4I),
Studio C – Background Check (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEzEsr0Mut8),
and my favorite, Studio C – Drivers Ed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP53YTa2SEQ).
Feel free to draw your own conclusions.
Spencer, I’m impressed with the amount of time you put into this. My response was based on the other comments you’ve left, and the way you go about things. I disagree with you about Rock’s state of heart. And yes, I’ve moved on. You have a good day, and God bless.
Annalea,
I’m not sure I deserve the praise since I have many things that occupy my time and take me away from blog commenting, but thanks.
As to how I “go about things” I will have to beg your forgiveness, as there is more at stake to me than a discussion about tithing. I probably could use a few pointers on my “terrible approach” but I may just have to learn through what simply doesn’t work. You must understand that I don’t really invest much on the net for the purpose of posting for the benefit of others and I don’t lose a lot of sleep for anyone but family. I don’t need to be right, but I’m very stubborn. When someone shows me the door, I’ll just walk around the house and climb in through a window so as not to bother the way you like doing things but so I am still where I need to be. I am only here for my brother, he knows me and I’m chalk full of imperfections, but I’m like a bad penny.
Unless there is a way to repurpose the message of a conversation for the benefit of Jon, I generally let people revel in their own mud. My response to you was something that was born out of what you said, but was an opportunity I engaged in more for my brother than I can credit my devotion to respond to your personal ego.
As for Rock’s position, I’m surprised you stand on that side of the aisle, with one foot in disputed mormonism, another on the website of an ex-mormon, that seems precariously close to the edge but I guess to each his…er or as the case maybe “her own”. I would say something in parting that was inspirational and intended to diffuse ill will, but I think it would smack of insincerity. Nevertheless, I’m happy you’ve moved on as well. In parting, I will say I think your name is pretty and that is a sincere compliment.
Cheers.
Once again, you are saying the church is untenable because it doesn’t do what other organizations do? Even the KKK? (Nice move equating the church with the KKK.)
The church does what it does. As a privately held corporation, it can do legally do that. That doesn’t make one ‘wrong’ and the other ‘right.’ This is a specious argument.
As an aside, I have always wondered why the church puts everything in one person’s name. Doesn’t that mean that one profit could ruin the church?
Yes, that was a bad example.
You did not give your wife her time, so *of course* she doesn’t have to account for it to you.
But if it’s agreed she will handle all joint funds and one day she comes home with a Lamborghini (*cough*..City Creek..*cough*), would you expect a little accountability or would you just trust that since the power hasn’t been shut off or anything it’s not your place to ask if she spent your rainy day fund and retirement on the Lamborghini?
Just for the record: Evil Speaking is not the same as Criticizing.
From https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/evil-speaking:
EVIL SPEAKING
: Saying things that are wrong, hurtful, and wicked. Often in scripture such speaking is directed at a person with the specific intent to cause pain.
Basically it is to lie about another to hurt them.
From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criticism:
CRITICISM
: the act of expressing disapproval and of noting the problems or faults of a person or thing : the act of criticizing someone or something
: a remark or comment that expresses disapproval of someone or something
: the activity of making careful judgments about the good and bad qualities of books, movies, [The Church, LDS Leaders] etc.
[] added by me.
So we are free to criticize if the criticism is not evil speaking.