Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
10THAmendment

I'm beginning to have a tithing problem, only not in the traditional sense

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

I invite you to consider the possibility that you’ve noted no difference between how you feel when you do and don’t pay tithing because you didn’t experience the peace, comfort, certainty and love that is available by tithing in a way that provides those blessings.  Thus you don’t have that experience to contrast against your current state.

Maybe. But your argument could be used to explain why you don’t feel any more or less happy when you do and don’t drink orange juice.

”If only I appreciated how beautiful a commandment it is to drink orange juice, then I would really, really miss it when it is gone!”

I’m not trying to be flippant. Just rational.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 3/24/2019 at 7:31 AM, SouthernMo said:

This is a good point. If we believe Moses was in line with God’s will, we need to consider your point here.

But, it begs the question: Why does god love fine linens and gold and expensive things in His home?  And if we are trying to be like God, should we adorn our own homes as He demands?  Should we make our homes as temples?

We are guests in His home. Saints all over the world enjoy being in His beautiful temples, many of  which could not be constructed using only the resources available at the local level. I am very happy to contribute to their enjoyment when I am able.

We try to make our home as inviting as possible for family and friends. Tasteful and clean, but not ostentatious. 

While serving as bishop, I attended a training session where the stake president talked about the welfare program. He mentioned that he had received multiple complaints that people getting bishops’ storehouse food had butter and other “luxury” commodities instead of the ordinary stuff that other  members could afford. His reply...”the needy are eating at the Lord’s table.”

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The Lake of Fire is a metaphor for the state of the wicked dead. It is not a place God chucks you. It is a state you choose to be in. Blaming God for choosing to be miserable is the sin that wiped out the Nephite nation.

I'll keep that in mind.  It'll be another of the great questions I'll ask God --"God, did you wipe out the nephites because they chose to be miserable and blamed you for it?"  

Edited by stemelbow

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Maybe. But your argument could be used to explain why you don’t feel any more or less happy when you do and don’t drink orange juice.

”If only I appreciated how beautiful a commandment it is to drink orange juice, then I would really, really miss it when it is gone!”

I’m not trying to be flippant. Just rational.

If Deity had made such a promise about drinking orange juice I would agree with you. Since they haven’t I don’t really see any correlation between a practice  where they have made such a promise and one where they have not.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Lots to respond to here. I’ll be as concise as I can:

You say point of temples is to help other people. I assume you mean vicarious ordinance work.  My question: why does god “require” this be done in temples at all?  Can that goal be achieved without an expensive building?

I get your point about faith. The principle of faith has helped me grow as a person. I’m skeptical that funding a massive corporation is the best way to grow God’s children’s faith.

See - a big point here that your words underline is that so many LDS do not see a difference between God/truth/church. You (jokingly 😊) mock me for wanting to meetinghouse) without air conditioning.  Not a single chapel was built while Joseph Smith was President of the church.  I must consider what implications that fact has on how we could run this faith today.

Please, I am not mocking you. I am making a practical point. I'll wager that you live in a heated and air-conditioned home. Joseph did not. Those things were not available nor practical then. The Lord did not command Joseph to build chapels, but He did command them to build temples, and the Church spent quite a bit doing it. 

While I may not personally agree with everything the modern Church does, its careful spending and investment has enabled it to build a lot of temples over the last 20 years - enabling many people to do work for their ancestors, which is something I applaud. It has carried forth a big mandate to the Church which I feel it had not been doing as well on theretofore.

The leadership does carry a heavy responsibility to look after the welfare of the Church members, and has made investments to enable it to do so in the event hard times befall the United States and the world. While I may not feel all those concerns are warranted, I do see wisdom in being able to care for its members in times of trouble. In that event who are you going to look to for help? We currently don't have much turmoil in the United States. What if that day comes, and the Church is unprepared? Will you be so quick to criticize the Church for buying ranches, farms and dairies? Will you then see the Church as being shortsighted? I believe the Church sees itself as replacing the US government structure one day. In Joseph's day the Lord told them to buy up the lands around Independence. The day may quickly come for the Church to do that again. It would not be right to take it from any who own it. Looking at these issues from our present circumstances may not be terribly wise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, let’s roll said:

If Deity had made such a promise about drinking orange juice I would agree with you. Since they haven’t I don’t really see any correlation between a practice  where they have made such a promise and one where they have not.

We have the opportunity to try god at his word. We are invited to plant a seed of faith and nurture it.  If it grows, we are told, it is good.

Ive tried god on some of the LDS commandments. I have not seen the growth or swelling or difference on some of them having lived both following and not following them.

Dont get me wrong. Some LDS commandments I have a testimony of. Others I do not after personal experience testing them.  So, I assume they are commandments from men. not god.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 I believe the Church sees itself as replacing the US government structure one day.

If this is the goal, then I applaud the church.  Its accumulation of wealth will be of great value in that day.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

We have the opportunity to try god at his word. We are invited to plant a seed of faith and nurture it.  If it grows, we are told, it is good.

Ive tried god on some of the LDS commandments. I have not seen the growth or swelling or difference on some of them having lived both following and not following them.

Dont get me wrong. Some LDS commandments I have a testimony of. Others I do not after personal experience testing them.  So, I assume they are commandments from men. not god.

How’s your planted seed of faith worked in connection with receiving personal revelation?  If you’ve been successful in having God reveal His will to you I’d invite you to have Him confirm the source of any commandment.  Seems like too important a question to resolve by making an assumption.

Godspeed to you.

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/23/2019 at 7:47 PM, 10THAmendment said:

I realize it's not my money. I'm a big believer in that. I'm just having major doubts that this is the only tithe possible. 

 

Then fast and pray over it and then exercise faith to pay tithing and the Lord will prove it to you

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/23/2019 at 8:35 PM, SouthernMo said:

How does learning to be obedient help me?  I see the value of following divine teachings because they are good in and of themselves, but I do not see value in being obedient for obedience’s sake. Why would god do that?  Why would he test us just to see if we will obey?  I see no love in that kind of a god.

We aren’t asked to be obedient for obedience sake. We are asked to obey because we love Him.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Avatar4321 said:

We aren’t asked to be obedient for obedience sake. We are asked to obey because we love Him.

And trust Him. The word translated as ‘faith’ in the NT means trust, loyalty. We are therefore saved by our trust/loyalty, according to Jesus. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I see what you mean.  Hedonism can be detrimental to long-term happiness.

But, here are the implications of your position (as I understand it):

The Mormons (who supposedly have the best insight into God’s commandments, and hence obedience) should be happier than those who do not have as many of gods commandments (and hence are disobedient).

Do you believe that the active Mormons who keep the commandments are happier than the other 5 billion+ people in the world?

Having God’s commands doesn’t make you happier unless you obey them.

having God’s commands and not obeying them leads to greater unhappiness.

Unfortunately pride is still a problem amongst the saints

we are still murmuring. Still complaining 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Long time ago when I served as a branch president in a small servicemen's branch in Germany, we had a family in the branch whose father was an excommunicated member.  He was not in the military (we had both Army and Air Force personnel in the branch, but they were the only civilians).  As he had been exed before ever showing up in the branch, I didn't have any jurisdiction over him, ecclesiastically, so I didn't consider it my business to dig into his situation vis-a-vis the Church, but I came to know about it anyway.  He had been exed because he had embezzled tithing funds.  He still had his testimony, and still attended church with his family weekly.  His problem was that he couldn't be re-baptized until he paid back what he had stolen.  It was apparently a hefty amount, and it wasn't going to be paid back quickly.  

One reason why the church regards misuse of tithing funds so seriously is because it erodes confidence in the church in general, and confidence in how sacred funds are handled.  And can theoretically affect tithing faithfulness.  @10THAmendment's concerns are, even if I feel they are misplaced, evidence for the reality of the concern.

Let me bring up the matter of Eli and his sons (Old Testament time).  Eli's sons were priests, and did the office of receipt of sacrifice.  But they did it unrighteously, taking from the portion that was supposed to be the Lord's, instead of being satisfied with the portion that was allotted to them by the Law of Moses.  Eli did little about it except to fuss with them over it.  Eventually the Lord dealt with them personally, and with Eli, but one of the effects of their behavior (which involved not only fiscal malfeasance, but moral as well) was to cause the people of Israel to sin themselves.  I'm pretty sure that one of the effects would have been the refusal of some of the people to come forward to offer the required sacrifices, seeing how these were being treated unrighteously.  

22 ¶ Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
23 And he said unto them, Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people.
24 Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear: ye make the Lord’s people to transgress.
25 If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall entreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them. (1 Samuel 2)

The thing that concerns me is this: the Lord requires the sacrifice of tithing.  He will deal with his servants appointed to receive the sacrifice according to his will, as he treated Eli's sons, for the Lord sent a prophet to Eli who essentially gave him a last chance to rectify the situation by saying to him:

34 And this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them.
35 And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever.

But at no time did the Lord say that if those appointed to receive the sacrifice should be untrustworthy, or misuse them, that this then relieved those obligated to make the sacrifice from making it.  The Law of Moses required those sacrifices to be made.  No exceptions.  And the sacrifice was to be made by entrusting it to those whom the Lord had designated it to go.

If there is to be such a concern for principle above all, it needs to be a concern over the true principle, which is obedience.  If you have a testimony of the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then your obligation is to be honest with the Lord in your dealings as it pertains to tithing, and let Him deal with His servants as seemeth Him good.  

For some reason the Old Testament comes to mind again. 

In 1 Samuel 13 there was a war with the Philistines, and King Saul had arranged for the Prophet Samuel to come to offer a sacrifice before the battle.  But for some reason Samuel was delayed, and Saul, worried that the Philistines might arrive before the sacrifice could be made, decided to offer the sacrifice himself.  So he did, but shortly thereafter Samuel did arrive.  And he condemned Saul's action, proclaiming that he was now rejected from being King.  And why was that?  Disobedience, because Saul did not have ecclesiastical authority to offer a sacrifice.  And there's another problem in there, too.  He had in effect also misdirected that which was the Lord's into his own use.  It was not his right to decide that he knew better how to use that which was the Lord's property.

On another occasion, King Saul had been commanded to utterly destroy the kingdom of the Amalekites (1 Samuel 15), but instead saved the best of the cattle:

9 But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but every thing that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.

The Lord was displeased at this, and sent Samuel to proclaim Saul's kingship forfeit.  Saul's excuse for saving the best of the cattle was that he was going to sacrifice them to the Lord, but in reality (it seems) he was more concerned with the wealth that these cattle represented.  In response, Samuel told him that he was wrong:

22 And Samuel said, Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

Saul's sin was disobedience.  What he did was to object to the disposition of the spoil from the action he had been commanded to do -- in other words, he decided that he didn't like how the funds were being spent, decided that he had a superior idea of how to spend them, and so misappropriated them according to his own judgement.  

The principle seems clear to me.  If one does not approve of how the Lord's funds are being used, this does not relieve one of paying His funds to those who have been appointed to receive and manage them.  Giving the funds to another who has not been so appointed, or declining to give them, is disobedience to the Lord's command.

To say again, one's obligation is obedience in paying what one owes to the Lord.  If those whose responsibility is to manage those funds are doing so unrighteously that is for the Lord to judge.

 

 

Even when I was a member, I’d cringe every time I heard God’s order of genocide being used to justify obedience. As a former member, it’s even worse. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Even when I was a member, I’d cringe every time I heard God’s order of genocide being used to justify obedience. As a former member, it’s even worse. 

God kills the whole world. People don't think of it that way, but for generations we get old and die, sick and die, in accidents and die. Many people don't want that either. Notice the command to Israel to first publish peace to a people. Israel gave a lot of time to Jericho to surrender - and some actually did, and were spared. Even though the land had been promised to Abraham's descendants, the natives could live in peace if they submitted to God's and Israel's rule at a time when Israel had no king. Some natives did, and simply paid tribute. When the people have a choice, genocide may not be quite the right word. That usually applies to people who have no choice, and are killed anyway.

I wonder what people will say when great hail kills many? My guess is they will say it was not God. When God takes punishment into His own hands, will it be genocide? When people see His words coming true, and refuse to repent, what is their lot? Is letting them go to hell genocide? Or is warning them that they can be saved from hell an act of love?

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

God kills the whole world. People don't think of it that way, but for generations we get old and die, sick and die, in accidents and die. Many people don't want that either. Notice the command to Israel to first publish peace to a people. Israel gave a lot of time to Jericho to surrender - and some actually did, and were spared. Even though the land had been promised to Abraham's descendants, the natives could live in peace if they submitted to God's and Israel's rule at a time when Israel had no king. Some natives did, and simply paid tribute. When the people have a choice, genocide may not be quite the right word. That usually applies to people who have no choice, and are killed anyway.

I wonder what people will say when great hail kills many? My guess is they will say it was not God. When God takes punishment into His own hands, will it be genocide? When people see His words coming true, and refuse to repent, what is their lot? Is letting them go to hell genocide? Or is warning them that they can be saved from hell an act of love?

I opened the BOM the other day and started in on 1 Ne.  I was left again wondering what was so bad about the people in Jerusalem.  What'd they do?  Eat babies or have open marriages or something?  I wondered what it'd be like to have Lehi standing in the hurried masses and whining at you--"repent, ye wicked fool.  Don't you know that God spake unto Moses and saved Israel.  Repent of your' evils and stuff."  

I wondered what would be said if I was like "what did I do that was so bad?  I'm just living my life, working my knuckles to the bone trying to support my people and all of that.  Scraping together resources for us to live."

"ye have failed to live righteously and god will destroy you even this whole city for their wickedness"

me:  "What wickedness?  Again what did I do?"  

"ye have not heard he voice of God.  He saved the Israelites from destruction and he's not going to do it this time.  He's going to destroy the city lest ye repent."  

Me:  "here, lets talk a minute.  you and the rest of you blessed elites, like Laban, might kill me on whim someday and there seems to be little I can do about that.  All I know is I have to work hard or else my family will eventually waste away.  You worry that the city will be destroyed but I'm barely getting by and might die tomorrow.  And yet, there you are in your lavish estate, with your fine stuff, apparently with enough time on your hands to come out on the street corner and yell at us because we are so bad.  And when we ask, what we did, you're like, "hundreds of years ago God made Israel wander around in the desert, therefore you must repent or God will have you killed".  You haven't given me any reason to believe this God.  You haven't even given me one thing I can do.  Repent?  I don't know what I did wrong.  What do I need to repent of?  

Lehi:  "Well god told me you are all evil and bad and will die unless you repent.  So repent.  It sounds to me like you are wicked and don't hear God and you like to look at pretty things and do things to entertain yourself.  You evil doer. Repent"

Me:  "I did.  I do each day.  I get upset and then I apologize.  I help my neighbor when I can.  I feed a stranger as he wanders in my area.  I look up to God.  I try.  I don't see him.  I don't hear him.  I'm not saying he's not there.  I'm saying, ok.  If he's there, great.  But I'm still busy trying to live and exist.  Trying to appreciate others and all of that."  

Lehi: " His judgements are just and you need to repent or die.  Your choice.  Destruction is coming and you can't do anything about it unless you repent."

Me: "ugh.  See ya.  I've got better things to do."

I suppose Laman and Lemuel tell us a bit about what was so bad about the people of Jerusalem.  They were quick to want to kill, I guess.  The people apparently wanted Lehi dead.  I wonder what that'd be like--to live in a society where people didn't like something so they decided to kill.  Then again, that was the message they got--God will kill us if we do that which he doesn't like.  All of their scriptures gave them that message and then they had Lehi saying the same thing--repent of your evil or God will have you killed.  

What a mess.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 3/25/2019 at 2:07 PM, SouthernMo said:

Your thoughts are scriptural based, insightful, and well-reasoned.

However, my mind keeps going back to my struggle with the idea you emphasize over and over again in your position: that God loves obedience and worship.  Even if that idea has scriptural backing, it makes no sense to me in the context of a god who loves me.

I wish you would explain how it makes no sense in the context of a god who loves you.  Because it makes perfect sense to me.  If I can understand where you're coming from on this, I might be able to meet you halfway.  As of right now I find myself more than a little puzzled.

Quote

How does burning a sacrifice help me or anyone?  Specifically?  If the answer stops at “obedience” you have lost me because the principle becomes a benefit for God, nor his children.  Alternatively, the lesson to be obedient for obedience’s sake is lost on me as well. 

You may recall that Adam was commanded to burn a sacrifice, but didn't know why, exactly.  Just that he had been commanded to.  Then an angel came to him to ask him why he was doing it.  He told the angel he was doing it because he was told to.  He was then told why he was doing it.  If Adam had decided it was a pointless exercise, then the angel would never have come, and he would never had found out what it was all about. 

I'm in my late sixties and after all this time, one of the things I have learned is that the Lord requires many things of us that he does not explain the reason for, but if we are faithful we eventually find out.  But if we are unfaithful, we will not learn the lesson that is intended for us.

Ever see the first Karate Kid movie?  To help young Daniel to deal with the bullies that have been making his life miserable, Mr. Miyagi tells him he will teach him Karate. Daniel comes to Mr. Miyagi's house after school and on weekends, expecting to be taught, but instead Mr. Miyagi has him do various tedious and repetitious chores, including waxing Mr. Miyagi's fleet of old cars, sanding his wooden decks, and painting his fence and house.  Miyagi insists upon specific motions and techniques for each item.  It wears Daniel out, but he is really serious about learning Karate, so sticks it out, wondering to himself when Miyagi will get around to the Karate.  Finally, after many days of this seemingly pointless labor which seems to benefit only Mr. Miyagi and not Daniel, the young man confronts Miyagi about the Karate.  

Things are not always what they seem.  I note parenthetically that at one time I studied Kenpo, which is a Chinese fighting style.  The first thing we were taught, just as Mr. Miyagi did, was how to stand and how to block.

You say that "...the principle becomes a benefit for God, no[t] his children."  Not so.  For one thing, God is God, and he doesn't need your money.  He owns it all already.  The benefit is entirely with and for his children.  Are they going to be Daniel and learn the lesson, or are they going to wander off complaining that too much is being asked of them, and who cares about that old man anyway?

But really there is only one question.  That question is WHY.  Put that aside for a moment.

Obedience for obedience's sake is for self-absorbed and egotistical dictators.  And God is not one of those.  For God, obedience has a purpose, and the purpose is for the sake of right.  What will you do today?  Will you do what is right, or will you do what is not right?  And this is not just the future tense "will" we've talking about here.  English actually lacks a native future tense, unlike some other languages. We use helpers like "will", "shall", and "are going to" to express it, but the word "will" is actually tied up with the verb "to want".  When we speak of the "will of God", it is something that God wants, or demands.  "Will you do what is right" really means "Do you want to do what is right?"

God is extremely clear what his goals are, and there is really only one goal.  We read about it in Moses 1:39, "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man."   That is the WHY of it.  

God has raised us up to the point, where He must now determine whether or not we will do what is right, even when we are unsupervised, when we not only don't see Him watching, but when we have even forgotten who He is and who we ourselves are.  This life is your final exam.  You are a candidate for exaltation, to be an heir of God, and a joint-heir with Christ. Are you made of the right stuff?  If you prefer disobedience over obedience you are not made of the right stuff.  And you will fail the exam.  Not to worry of course; the Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms are wonderful places to be.  They just fall short of what God wants for you.

Alma made it very clear that God is not unconstrained by law.  In Alma 42:13 he wrote:

13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

This verse alludes to the fact that, having disobeyed, you are lost, and justice must have its way with you.  God CANNOT excuse you; he CANNOT cause justice to pass by you.  Because there is an eternal principle that even God cannot disobey.  Because if he did he would cease to be God.  This is why he had to send a perfect being, Jesus Christ, to suffer justice in your stead -- something that Christ could only do if he himself was guiltless.  This is the mercy loophole.  

I don't know how this can even be brought into question.  It is something that fills the scriptures from one end to another.  Obedience to law is an absolute principle.  You can break the law, of course, but if you do you must repent.  To repent is to obey.  When Jesus says to Nicodemus "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" he is speaking of repentance and obedience.  

And even if you don't understand why you must obey a particular law, you must obey nevertheless, or you will not find out why you needed to obey.

God loves you, and because he loves you, you must obey his law.  But it isn't obedience for its own sake.  It is obedience for the sake of righteousness, and because only through obedience can God lift you to meet the destiny he desires above all for you to have.

 

Edited by Stargazer
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Even when I was a member, I’d cringe every time I heard God’s order of genocide being used to justify obedience. As a former member, it’s even worse. 

I understand the cringe, believe me.  

But God allowed death itself to enter into the world.  In the Flood he killed every single human being except for Noah and Noah's family.  He killed every inhabitant of Sodom and Gomorrah except Lot's family.  He allowed six million of his chosen people to die at the hands of wicked men.  He created plagues that wiped out multiple millions of human beings.  He watched, doing nothing at all about it, when the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan killed off about 5% of the human race.  And finally, he allowed his only begotten son to die a horrible, torturous death, for crimes his son didn't commit, when, all the while, he could easily have sent a legion of angels to save him.

Maybe the purpose of this mortal life is not what you think it is.  And maybe how you leave it is less important than what you do while you're here.  Because we all must die.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

He watched, doing nothing at all about it, when the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan killed off about 5% of the human race

Or so it appears because we don't know if he acted to avoid worse cases....like 10% being destroyed perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post

The dominant theme of so many of those in this thread who don't "get" (or "grok") the law of tithing, or for that matter the principle of obedience is the theme of "missing the point".  And in so many ways.

But if one does not have a testimony of it (whatever "it" might be), then there we are.  

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Calm said:

Or so it appears because we don't know if he acted to avoid worse cases....like 10% being destroyed perhaps.

Well, yes.  That wasn't the point I was trying to reach, however.  I was trying for a more worldly view while remaining at least notionally sarcastic.

Why doesn't it ever occur to people that God could have caused Adolf Hitler to suffer crib death?  That one little death would have saved so many others.  The salient point is this: life is not intended to be a bed of rose petals. Life must be hard, or else God's purposes will not come to pass.  Removing those who will cause much wickedness (and he knows who will do it), will break the test.  Too many people mistake this life for the ultimate destination, when it is a destructive testing ground whose intent is to try us to see whether we can be added upon and rise to the level that God has risen to.  Too many people miss the point entirely.  I suppose we all do so from time to time, however.

Edited by Stargazer

Share this post


Link to post

So I have been thinking with all the changes lately;  if the basic unit of the Church is the family, and if the gospel is Home Centered and Church Supported perhaps my tithing should go to my family.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The dominant theme of so many of those in this thread who don't "get" (or "grok") the law of tithing, or for that matter the principle of obedience is the theme of "missing the point".  And in so many ways.

But if one does not have a testimony of it (whatever "it" might be), then there we are.  

I think you’re taking for granted the diversity of values and perspectives that exist, even within otherwise homogeneous groups. Understanding “the point” is not the same as agreeing that the “the point” is a sufficient justification for doing something. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/23/2019 at 7:23 PM, 10THAmendment said:

The church easily brings in $20,000,000,000 a year in tithing alone. They have another $32,000,000,000 in investments. Missionaries pay what is it, $400 each month? So $300,000,000 a year from the missionaries to fund a big chunk of the missionary program. There is no way chapel maintenance and building a few temples a year costs anywhere near $20 billion dollars each year. The San Diego temple cost $24,000,000 when it was built, which is $42,000,000 in today's money. So the church could literally build 500 temples each year with their annual tithing income. I can't imagine where even half of $20B goes. It certainly doesn't go toward helping people. Why?

CFR

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...