Tithes going to fund BYU

[handys003]

All good stuff!

Why does the Catholic church own a university, if it's not to help more people receive an affordable education? Just wondering.

They own more than one

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Roman_Catholic_universities_and_colleges_in_the_United_States

that's just the USA and not the rest of the world.

[Brenda]

They own more than one

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

that's just the USA and not the rest of the world.

Wow. Lots. So why do they have them?

[elguanteloko]

The early Apostles thought likewise when his head was annointed with oil in Matt 26: 6-13:

6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, 7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ^aointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. 8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this ^awaste? 9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor. 10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath ^awrought a good work upon me. 11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. <A name=12> 12 For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it ^afor my burial. 13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her.

is Christ with us? no. are there dirt poor among us? "Always", says the Lord. Now that He is not among us, are we using enough resources to help them? it is obvious to me that we are not.

We often think that all funds should go to the poor until there is no poor.

not me.

Sometimes it is good to keep the House of the Lord in order and befitting of a home of holiness.

Order is pretty different from excessive expenses. Do I need to be dress expensively to pray or to go to the temple? It would make a lot of sense for a loving God to prefer us to use more on the poor and needy (as He did) and less money on beautifying buildings for ourselves. don't you believe so?

[Daniel Peterson]

Order is pretty different from excessive expenses.

And, I take it, you believe that the money spent on temples is "excessive."

I don't.

I guess that pretty much ends the discussion.

.

[handys003]

Wow. Lots. So why do they have them?

IDK ask Ceeboo

[paulpatter]

So this friend of mine recently quit the Church, she has issues.. but one of them is that she found out that the Church is funding BYU with tithing. Her thinking is that kids who go there should pay for it themselves or get student loans like everyone else everywhere else and build the kingdom whereever they are To me its hardly startly that it does that but what percentage of tithes go to fund it? What do you think of that? I get blessings from tithing so I could not care less what the Church spends it on is my point of view.

I do not see in this thread any reference to a fact that looms large in the Church's practice of subsidizing BYU (and BYU-Hawaii, and BYU-Idaho). It is this: Tuition alone will not cover BYU's operating costs, a circumstance that is also true of public colleges and universities. Those institutions are subsidized by tax revenues. BYU will not accept public monies (tax revenues) because--particularly if the source is the federal government--major strings are attached which run counter to BYU's religious convictions. Those strings include co-ed dorms, participating in athletic events on Sunday, and probably (need to check on this) certain provisions of BYU's Honor Code. Moreover, when I was employed at BYU many years ago, they had a ceiling on the amount of federal grant money they would accept for projects such as cancer research.

I once heard a statement from a credible source that "the Brethren" sometimes wished they had never gotten into the education "business," because of the enormous cost and the ever-present potential for legal conflicts. That was, IMO, the reason why the Church divested itself of its hospitals; they saw the "handwriting on the wall."

[pcarthew]

So this friend of mine recently quit the Church, she has issues.. but one of them is that she found out that the Church is funding BYU with tithing. Her thinking is that kids who go there should pay for it themselves or get student loans like everyone else everywhere else and build the kingdom whereever they are To me its hardly startly that it does that but what percentage of tithes go to fund it? What do you think of that? I get blessings from tithing so I could not care less what the Church spends it on is my point of view.

Very said your friend left the church, but who cares how the Brethren spend the money. That is part of their responsibility and they are accountable to the Lord, because that is who tithing belongs to. The Brethren are best position to decide where the money goes, we just have to pat it and be blessed.

[Ceeboo]

IDK ask Ceeboo

Can I use my "phone a friend"?

A very short response to a VERY long and convoluted answer.

Although clearly the Catholic Church (Vatican) has enormous power, political influence, and very, very deep pockets, I am not sure it's fair/accurate to say She "owns" all these places of higher education.

Having said that, there are indeed many Bishops/Monks/Priests/Friars/etc that hold very powerful seats at many of these institutions and clearly, they make important decisions in their roles.

Many of these "decisions" are highly contested/debated amongst the Catholic brethren (Not to mention the Non-Catholics who are watching). You might recall the loud and firm Catholic stances taken (both sides) in regard to the President of Notre Dame (A Catholic Priest) when he extended the invite to President Obama to come and get his honorary degree.

No matter what "side" you happen to be on, it provided some of the most heated threads I have ever seen at CAF (Catholic answers forum). Me saw some furious Catholics

Anyhooo, that is the best I can do without using another lifeline.

Peace,

Ceeboo

[blueadept]

Brenda,

When my daughters shortly reach the decision of going to Catholic College or not, I would encourage the religious choice and that would be their first choice. The point is that there isn't the tuition breaks for us as LDS members get by going to BYU.

[Brenda]

Brenda,

When my daughters shortly reach the decision of going to Catholic College or not, I would encourage the religious choice and that would be their first choice. The point is that there isn't the tuition breaks for us as LDS members get by going to BYU.

I'm pretty sure the LDS Church subsidizes the tuition at the BYUs etc. to 1. enable more people to get their educations, and 2. to provide a more wholesome learning environment. The Church doesn't make money from them; I've even heard it said from a source I don't remember, that the BYUs etc. are the biggest drain on church monies, and the Church would like to offer more, but it just isn't financially possible. Even the non-LDS can attend at a cost that's less than many state universities, so even though the tuition is higher at BYU for non-members, it's still a good deal.

So why then do other churches own colleges/universities, if it isn't for the same purposes? And if their tuitions aren't reduced, that only leaves the 2nd reason. Are their environments wholesome? I don't know.

I live in a town with a "BYU" of another Christian church. Lovely campus and good Christian environment. But the tuition is extremely high. Frankly I don't know how anyone can afford it.

[Daniel Peterson]

Although clearly the Catholic Church (Vatican) has enormous power, political influence, and very, very deep pockets, I am not sure it's fair/accurate to say She "owns" all these places of higher education.

Actually, my understanding is that the Vatican, as such, doesn't have especially deep pockets, and that it hasn't for at least a century or two. (The Sistine Chapel and St. Peter's Basilica and the Piet

[elguanteloko]

And, I take it, you believe that the money spent on temples is "excessive."

I don't.

I guess that pretty much ends the discussion.

.

..huh?

let's see, would it be better to build more temples by making them less expensive (President Hinckley style) or to make them more expensive and make less but more beautiful?

[Daniel Peterson]

..huh?

let's see, would it be better to build more temples by making them less expensive (President Hinckley style) or to make them more expensive and make less but more beautiful?

Now it's my turn to say "Huh?"

You were talking about giving more to the poor, and citing "excessive" spending on temples as something that interferes with giving more to the poor.

Now you've raised a quite different issue, whether we should build more small temples or fewer large temples.

But whether we spend x on ten large, elaborate temples (each costing x/10) or we spend x on a hundred small, simple temples (each costing x/100), we will still have spent x. And that x won't have gone -- not directly, anyway -- to the poor.

My point is that I don't believe that our temples represent "excess." And I suspect that the Saints in and around Cebu City, for example, who will be able to enter that beautiful new structure will be grateful for and moved by its beauty, and will feel that, for at least a short while, they've been closer to heaven. Could the ordinances be presented in a cardboard shack? Certainly. Would that have the same impact on the typical temple-goer? I doubt it.

[elguanteloko]

Now it's my turn to say "Huh?"

You were talking about giving more to the poor, and citing "excessive" spending on temples as something that interferes with giving more to the poor.

Now you've raised a quite different issue, whether we should build more small temples or fewer large temples.

it is actually the same issue but with different approaches.. since you did not get it I guess I am going to have to say why: if you were to agree that we can lower the luxury in the potential new temples that are to be built in order to build more temples that would mean that we can lower luxuries in ALL temples to help more to the poor and oppressed. The point in temple building is functionality, as President Hinckley seemed to understand, and if we can have the same level of functionality while helping more those in need... all the better!

But whether we spend x on ten large, elaborate temples (each costing x/10) or we spend x on a hundred small, simple temples (each costing x/100), we will still have spent x. And that x won't have gone -- not directly, anyway -- to the poor.

see above.

My point is that I don't believe that our temples represent "excess." And I suspect that the Saints in and around Cebu City, for example, who will be able to enter that beautiful new structure will be grateful for and moved by its beauty, and will feel that, for at least a short while, they've been closer to heaven. Could the ordinances be presented in a cardboard shack? Certainly. Would that have the same impact on the typical temple-goer? I doubt it.

don't you think that difference in the 'spiritual experience" can be made up by people being informed on what specific actions were taken to save the lives of many poor or to save the eyesight of hundreds of thousands of children with cataracts? but even assuming that there would be a decrease in the awe people feel by looking or being at a not-so beautiful temple, don't you think that price is worth restoring the eyesight to two thousand children with cataracts in poor countries where eyesight can be the difference between life and death?

[blueadept]

Actually, my understanding is that the Vatican, as such, doesn't have especially deep pockets, and that it hasn't for at least a century or two. (The Sistine Chapel and St. Peter's Basilica and the Piet

[Daniel Peterson]

it is actually the same issue but with different approaches..

If you say so. Your position, as you've expressed it, seems to me to have been shifting between two different poles -- one of them relevant to what I said, the other not.

since you did not get it I guess I am going to have to say why: if you were to agree that we can lower the luxury in the potential new temples that are to be built in order to build more temples that would mean that we can lower luxuries in ALL temples to help more to the poor and oppressed.

Yup. And the ordinances could, in principle, be performed in canvas tents, adobe brick cabins, cardboard shacks, aluminum quonset huts, or dedicated areas outdoors. The question is, where should we draw the line? You seem to think that our temples (at least some of them) are lavish and excessive. But I don't. I find them nice, but not extreme. They're built to a very high standard, but they're not dripping with gold and elaborate ornamentation. I think they're right about where they should be.

If you want to see an overdone church, have a look at the Wieskirche, south southwest of Munich. It stands in a Bavarian meadow, with a few cottages around it (representing a congregation that, even at its height, was probably significantly smaller than my ward). We build nothing like that. (It was built in an artistic period, the Rococo, when people really went for the over-the-top, in my not very admiring judgment, and not merely in churches.)

The point in temple building is functionality, as President Hinckley seemed to understand,

The point, in President Hinckley's view, was very obviously not mere "functionality." The Preston and Nauvoo Temples, for instance, are not simply "functional."

President Kimball's temples were spare. No murals. Very simple. President Hinckley's temples (e.g., in Newport Beach and Sacramento and Snowflake) have murals, and are considerably more beautiful on the interior.

and if we can have the same level of functionality while helping more those in need... all the better!

I'm all for helping the poor. And I'm delighted that the Church does so. I happily contribute to this, and to other projects, as well.

But -- and I realize that this is a difficult issue that will be resolved differently by different people -- what should be given up in order to help them? Everything? Can symphony orchestras or CDs be justified while there are poor people in the world? Can you justify going to movies? Attending sports events? Eating out at a restaurant? Spending time on a message board? Skiing or water skiing? Owning a deer rifle or a boat or a cabin or a horse? Owning a personal computer? Owning a pet? Each of these things could be considered, in a sense, frivolous, and certainly unnecessary for survival. And each of these things, if given up, would free more time and/or money for the poor. But do you really want to live in a world entirely without art, music, literature, sports, entertainment, etc.? Without any beautiful architecture? Can a degree in, say, art history be justified? Shouldn't all art historians and music performance majors change their focus to nutrition and international development?

Where to draw the line? It seems that you and I simply draw the line differently. And I don't see any way to resolve that by argument. Hence my comment above.

don't you think that difference in the 'spiritual experience" can be made up by people being informed on what specific actions were taken to save the lives of many poor or to save the eyesight of hundreds of thousands of children with cataracts? but even assuming that there would be a decrease in the awe people feel by looking or being at a not-so beautiful temple, don't you think that price is worth restoring the eyesight to two thousand children with cataracts in poor countries where eyesight can be the difference between life and death?

See above.

[Sleeper Cell]

it is actually the same issue but with different approaches.. since you did not get it I guess I am going to have to say why: if you were to agree that we can lower the luxury in the potential new temples that are to be built in order to build more temples that would mean that we can lower luxuries in ALL temples to help more to the poor and oppressed. The point in temple building is functionality, as President Hinckley seemed to understand, and if we can have the same level of functionality while helping more those in need... all the better!

CFR

[Traela]

I personally believe it is entirely appropriate for tithing funds to support Church schools, and not just because my daughter will be attending BYU-I next fall.

First, the Church encourages education. So why shouldn't it "walk the walk" by helping fund the education of its members?

And second, education is one of the best ways of lifting people out of poverty. By financially supporting education in various ways, the Church is helping the members increase their overall standard of living, which in turn allows them to help others.

[Bernard Gui]

And second, education is one of the best ways of lifting people out of poverty. By financially supporting education in various ways, the Church is helping the members increase their overall standard of living, which in turn allows them to help others.

Hence the beauty of the recently revealed Perpetual Education Fund...which brings an education within

the reach of the poor anyplace in the world.

Bernard

[Jeff K.]

I think some of the complaining whiners don't take into account that for the LDS tithing isn't really a donation, it is a small and at best miserly repayment. If your attitude is that you are giving money and therefore you should have a say in where it goes, then don't pay tithing because you do not really have the context of it and therefore you payment will be like unto Cain's. However if you see tithing as a repayment to the Lord to do as He and His church see's fit, then you understand tithing and you realize that it isn't your money to complain about in the first place.

[LeSellers]

I think some of the complaining whiners don't take into account that for the LDS tithing isn't really a donation, it is a small and at best miserly repayment.

Indeed. That's the reason I insist on the difference between paying tithing and making a fast offering.

Lehi

[Pahoran]

Ask her when she pays her taxes that goes to funding the state or local county sponsored colleges, Is she going to stop paying her share of the tax also?

My thoughts exactly. Intelligent governments invest in the next generation, through education. Why should not the Church do likewise? It seems to me that of all the possible niggles about the Church, the use of tithing funds for educational purposes is the least objectionable thing she could find to whine about.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Cold Steel]

So this friend of mine recently quit the Church, she has issues.. but one of them is that she found out that the Church is funding BYU with tithing. Her thinking is that kids who go there should pay for it themselves or get student loans like everyone else everywhere else and build the kingdom whereever they are To me its hardly startly that it does that but what percentage of tithes go to fund it? What do you think of that? I get blessings from tithing so I could not care less what the Church spends it on is my point of view.

The real problem here is that she thinks she knows how to spend the Lord's money better than the Lord's servants, who are answerable only to Him. What I'm saying is that her problems have nothing to do with how tithing money is spent. Her problem is finding fault with the leaders of the church while she thinks that she knows best. Isn't that the way Joseph Smith said the Adversary works? He's an accuser, and he stands to accuse the Brethren of misdeeds. The scriptures are full of this tactic. Chances are that if the Brethren immediately stopped funding BYU with tithing, that your friend would not come back to the church. In fact, if all of her issues were resolved, I doubt it would be long before she had another list.

So tell your friend that her problem goes far beyond how the Lord spends the tithing funds. Her problem is within her.

.

[elguanteloko]

If you say so. Your position, as you've expressed it, seems to me to have been shifting between two different poles -- one of them relevant to what I said, the other not.

well, I gave my reasons. I didn't just state it expecting people to think I am correct.

Yup. And the ordinances could, in principle, be performed in canvas tents, adobe brick cabins, cardboard shacks, aluminum quonset huts, or dedicated areas outdoors. The question is, where should we draw the line? You seem to think that our temples (at least some of them) are lavish and excessive. But I don't. I find them nice, but not extreme. They're built to a very high standard, but they're not dripping with gold and elaborate ornamentation. I think they're right about where they should be.

you do realize they are all pretty different, right? are they ALL as they should be? "whatever the Church did on temples was right each time" seems to be your position... I just can't take that seriously. What you are saying sounds even more absurd when you consider than in Africa you could save the eyesight of a child for about 30 dollars. I would expect a little bit more of effort from those that consider themselves as being in contact with God Himself.

If you want to see an overdone church, have a look at the Wieskirche, south southwest of Munich. It stands in a Bavarian meadow, with a few cottages around it (representing a congregation that, even at its height, was probably significantly smaller than my ward). We build nothing like that. (It was built in an artistic period, the Rococo, when people really went for the over-the-top, in my not very admiring judgment, and not merely in churches.)

oh, thanks.

The point, in President Hinckley's view, was very obviously not mere "functionality." The Preston and Nauvoo Temples, for instance, are not simply "functional."

President Kimball's temples were spare. No murals. Very simple. President Hinckley's temples (e.g., in Newport Beach and Sacramento and Snowflake) have murals, and are considerably more beautiful on the interior.

President Hinckley stated:

Now, in conclusion I wish to make an announcement. As I have previously indicated, in recent months we have traveled far out among the membership of the Church. I have been with many who have very little of this world's goods. But they have in their hearts a great burning faith concerning this latter-day work. They love the Church. They love the gospel. They love the Lord and want to do His will. They are paying their tithing, modest as it is. They make tremendous sacrifices to visit the temples. They travel for days at a time in cheap buses and on old boats. They save their money and do without to make it all possible.

They need nearby temples--small, beautiful, serviceable temples.

Accordingly, I take this opportunity to announce to the entire Church a program to construct some 30 smaller temples immediately. They will be in Europe, in Asia, in Australia and Fiji, in Mexico and Central and South America and Africa, as well as in the United States and Canada. They will have all the necessary facilities to provide the ordinances of the Lord's house.

[...]

If temple ordinances are an essential part of the restored gospel, and I testify that they are, then we must provide the means by which they can be accomplished. All of our vast family history endeavor is directed to temple work. There is no other purpose for it. The temple ordinances become the crowning blessings the Church has to offer. (quoted from lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,49-1-26-35,00.html )

Granted that functionality (and by this I mean getting the 'spiritual job' done) was not his only goal but it was definitely a priority... needless to say it provided many more people with the opportunity to work in the temples.

I'm all for helping the poor. And I'm delighted that the Church does so. I happily contribute to this, and to other projects, as well.

The issue is not whether the Church helps the poor or not but if we should help more. (Any organization that gives a dime a year to the poor could be said to 'give to the poor' and that does not mean they are doing good enough)

But -- and I realize that this is a difficult issue that will be resolved differently by different people -- what should be given up in order to help them? Everything? Can symphony orchestras or CDs be justified while there are poor people in the world? Can you justify going to movies? Attending sports events? Eating out at a restaurant? Spending time on a message board? Skiing or water skiing? Owning a deer rifle or a boat or a cabin or a horse? Owning a personal computer? Owning a pet? Each of these things could be considered, in a sense, frivolous, and certainly unnecessary for survival. And each of these things, if given up, would free more time and/or money for the poor. But do you really want to live in a world entirely without art, music, literature, sports, entertainment, etc.? Without any beautiful architecture? Can a degree in, say, art history be justified? Shouldn't all art historians and music performance majors change their focus to nutrition and international development?

These are all GREAT questions, sir! I think I'll open a thread about this but I would like to use this quote in the OP, do you give your permission? I would love to count with your participation.

Where to draw the line? It seems that you and I simply draw the line differently. And I don't see any way to resolve that by argument. Hence my comment above.

Actually you don't seem to be drawing any line at all. Big temples are cool with you... small temples are also cool with you. I don't see you drawing any line. (I explained this in the second quote of this post)

[Daniel Peterson]

you do realize they are all pretty different, right?

They all exist as points on a portion of the spectrum that begins well beyond cardboard shacks and ends well before the Wieskirche.

It's a moderate position that I'm quite comfortable with.

I just can't take that seriously.

Then go ahead and laugh. I don't mind.

What you are saying sounds even more absurd when you consider than in Africa you could save the eyesight of a child for about 30 dollars.

How many children could you save from blindness if you would sell the computer you're posting on? How many times would $30 go into the price you paid for it?

How much could you make per year, and donate to those children in Africa, if you were to stop wasting your time here and get another job?

How can you justify what you're doing right now?

I would expect a little bit more of effort from those that consider themselves as being in contact with God Himself.

I, in turn, would expect considerably less hypocrisy from the person leveling the accusation.

It's good, though, to see the Church-critical gloves coming off, with your demand that "those that consider themselves as being in contact with God Himself" hew to a standard that you don't seem to require of yourself.

President Hinckley stated:

President Hinckly stated, repeatedly, that the small temples would be built to the same quality-standards as the larger temples. And, as a matter of fact, they were and are.

The issue is not if the Church helps the poor but if we should help more.

What's stopping you?

Do you really need the car that you have? The computer that you have? The phone that you have? The quality of food that you eat? The music you own? As many clothes as you have?

These are all GREAT questions, sir! I think I'll open a thread about this but I would like to use this quote in the OP, do you give your permission? I would love to count with your participation.

You have my permission to use the quote, but you don't have a promise from me that I'll participate. I may, or I may not.

Actually you don't seem to be drawing any line at all. Big temples are cool with you... small temples are also cool with you. I don't see you drawing any line.

You evidently missed my point about the Wieskirche.