My Challenge To All Non-Lds Readers

[altersteve]

Anyone willing to propose this in a group to which they belong?

I truly believe it is an idea worth sharing and it can alleviate suffering

among the poor and homeless.

Bernard

I agree. Giving up food one day per month and using the money that you would have spent on food on helping the poor and needy instead -- what a beautiful concept, even for non-religious people. I think a secular charity organization, for example, that promotes such a wonderful means of helping those in need would be incredible. Organizing such a charity would be a cool thing to consider.

Edited December 4, 2011 by altersteve

[Storm Rider]

The Catholic Church has a wonderful emphasis on serving the poor and needy. I suspect that we could learn a lot from them in how they do it. One of the beauties of having so many groups/churches that follow Christ is that each has its own strengths. When we are able to seek out those strengths and emulate them, as a whole we all become stronger.

I agree that the LDS Church does some things wonderfully well just as others do the same. The Church has done a remarkable job of recognizing who does what better than it does and then cooperates. For this reason the Church has worked well with the Catholic Church and some of the Muslim organizations when assisting the poor around the world. When this same ease of cooperation moves from the organization to the membership at large, we will see a wider, conscious cooperative effort.

As I write this I remember my old stake in the states cooperated with a broad range of churches that cared for homeless men. This group provided a place for the men to sleep and provided daily meals for them. Though the organization at the top obviously worked well, it did not filter down so well amongst the actual participants or servers. I can remember delivering food on several occasions where the hosting church members would never speak to us. We arrived, indicated we brought food, they pointed to where it should be put, and we would make several trips bringing in all of the food stuffs (prepared food for the nightly meal and then stuff for breakfast and lunch fixings for the next day). They never assisted us and seldom talked to us in any meaningful way. We might have been involved in the same service, but we did not act as one. I tried talking, but it was just not easy to get them engaged in the process. In some ways I guessed that Mormons could be tolerated, but not welcomed in this joint service project.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

Of course fasting and charitable contributions should be given voluntarily. That's how faithful Latter-day Saints see it, and we don't see it as a "religious obligation," even doing it on a specific day. Rob, the challenge is to simply fast at least one day a month, and to encourage members of your church to do the same. I think most Christians would be very accepting of the idea.

Steve, you claimed that fasting and charitable giving in LDS thought are voluntary and not religious obligations, but gave no documentation or references to back up your statement. Scott and zerinus both argued, citing authoritative LDS sources, that they are indeed laws or commands. If you were in my position, hearing these two contrary opinions presented in these ways, what would you conclude?

[altersteve]

Steve,

You wrote:

Steve, you claimed that fasting and charitable giving in LDS thought are voluntary and not religious obligations, but gave no documentation or references to back up your statement. Scott and zerinus both argued, citing authoritative LDS sources, that they are indeed laws or commands. If you were in my position, hearing these two contrary opinions presented in these ways, what would you conclude?

That's not what I meant. I meant to say that faithful Latter-day Saints fast and give charitable donations to the Church voluntarily. They don't see it as a religious obligation. I never said that doing so is not a commandment.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

That's not what I meant. I meant to say that faithful Latter-day Saints fast and give charitable donations to the Church voluntarily. They don't see it as a religious obligation. I never said that doing so is not a commandment.

How is a commandment viewed as coming from God not a religious obligation? A commandment is something one is obliged to do. "Obligation" simply means it is a requirement, a "must," something one is supposed to do. If it is regarded as a commandment from God, then it is religious in nature. Hence, a divine commandment is a religious obligation.

[Loran Blood]

Bernard,

While of course I have no objection to people fasting and giving money to the poor, I do have some reservations about a public, institutionalized religious system of fasting and charity:

Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. 2 "Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.... 16 "And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matt. 6:1-4, 16-18 ESV)

It isn't. There is no "passing of the plate" in public in the Church of Jesus Christ.

[altersteve]

Steve,

You wrote:

How is a commandment viewed as coming from God not a religious obligation? A commandment is something one is obliged to do. "Obligation" simply means it is a requirement, a "must," something one is supposed to do. If it is regarded as a commandment from God, then it is religious in nature. Hence, a divine commandment is a religious obligation.

Again, I never said it's not a religious obligation. I said that we don't view it as one. In other words, we don't do it because we feel like we have to.

[Bernard Gui]

Steve,

You wrote:

Steve, you claimed that fasting and charitable giving in LDS thought are voluntary and not religious obligations, but gave no documentation or references to back up your statement. Scott and zerinus both argued, citing authoritative LDS sources, that they are indeed laws or commands. If you were in my position, hearing these two contrary opinions presented in these ways, what would you conclude?

With all due respect, I would conclude you need to buy some looser fitting boxers.

Bernard

Rob has let us know that this kind of humor is obnoxious to him. Please respect this and do not engage in it any more. - Ares

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

Again, I never said it's not a religious obligation. I said that we don't view it as one. In other words, we don't do it because we feel like we have to.

Steve, all I'm aiming at here is clarity. Please help us arrive at that goal. Is fasting once a month a religious obligation, or is it not? You must commit one way or the other on this question. If it is a religious obligation, then your earlier objection to me describing it as such is void. Furthermore, if it is a religious obligation, but Mormons do not view it as such, then they are not viewing it as what it is, are they? This makes no more sense than saying, "Yes, refraining from committing adultery is a commandment of God, but we do not view it as such"! On the other hand, if it is not a religious obligation, then it cannot be a divine commandment, as I have explained.

With regard to your last statement, nothing I have written in this thread has anything to do with whether Mormons "feel" like they have to do these things, by which I think you mean that they do them despite not wishing or desiring to do them, or that they do them despite feeling that the requirement is unfair or onerous. I am not talking about feelings, which presumably vary from one person to the next and in the same person from one time to the next. The issue I raised was simply whether or not they are in fact expected or required to do so.

[KevinG]

We are commanded by God to give charitably, tithe and fast. All are voluntary and the amounts and times are private as described in the scriptures (Matt. 6).

In addition and as a group we set aside time to fast, contribute charity and bear testimony. This time is a reminder and opportunity but the timing and amounts of donations are not commanded. Occasionally a Bishop or Stake president will announce a need (Missionary or Charitable) and encourage people to remember to donate generously.

Amounts of charitable giving are not prescribed.

Steve's comments would make more sense to someone familiar with the Latter-day Saints who as faithful followers of Christ do not see commandments as compelling us to act rather opportunities to obey God and receive His blessings.

Rob - you may be confused by comments addressing those in this conversation who seem to think LDS authorities check up on people to enforce certain practices. We do not. Ours is a religion that believes in teaching correct principles and letting individuals govern themselves. This may be what Steve was trying to address with the not compelled vs. commanded thoughts.

Regarding required vs. commanded. We are commanded to tithe, fast and give charitably. While failing to tithe will result in the immediate consequence of not being able to attend the Temple (as will failing to observe other important commandments) we are free to declare our obedience to commandments on our honor during the recommend interview. No Bishop asks for W-2s or checks our garbage for booze bottles. Of course lying in order to gain an earthly privilege will not gain us any eternal blessings.

Again- more familiarity with day to day Mormon practices will help you understand some of the statements made here that may seem confusing to someone with an outsiders and somewhat critical (critic influenced) view of Mormonism.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.

[Libs]

I'll gladly take up the challenge.

[KevinG]

I'll gladly take up the challenge.

Is it cheating if you already have practice? ;-)

[Libs]

Is it cheating if you already have practice? ;-)

lol....I always participated in fast Sunday for the, almost, seven years I was in the church. It was a good thing. I haven't really done it, since I left, but this is a good excuse and reminder to take it up again.

And, yes, it is cheating, because you can't take a challenge you are already doing. We'll have to think of something more difficult for you.

Edited December 7, 2011 by Libs

[Rob Bowman]

DaddyG,

To begin more or less at the end, you wrote:

Again- more familiarity with day to day Mormon practices will help you understand some of the statements made here that may seem confusing to someone with an outsiders and somewhat critical (critic influenced) view of Mormonism.

First of all, if you will please notice, I am here, asking Mormons about their beliefs and practices, inviting you to clarify and explain things to me. So I have proactively chosen to do the very thing you are lecturing me about doing.

Second, I already knew most of what you told me. I knew that the amounts you are to give as charity are not prescribed (your main point, repeated three times). That's not the whole truth, though, since the tithe is a prescribed percentage. I know that your bishop does not rummage through your trash looking for beer bottles. I know that commandments don't "compel" you to do anything (a fact in any religion).

Third, the only point about which I confess I did not have prior knowledge was whether or not Mormons are ever asked by their bishops if they observe the monthly fast. That is why I asked the question. Again, it's rather annoying for me to solicit information and then be lectured about needing to learn more about your religion! Some people here have stated that the bishops do not ask about a person's fasting habits. Fine.

Finally, while your bishops may not be rummaging through your trash or auditing your financial records, they are "checking up on you" if they are interviewing you periodically and asking you pointed questions about your habits. That remains a reasonable conclusion even if you are on your honor as far as how you answer the questions. The only way that failure to tithe can result in cancelling a person's temple recommend is if the person is asked directly whether he has been tithing faithfully. That is a form of enforcement, albeit not the extreme kind that would involve turning one's financial records over to the bishop.

[Bernard Gui]

I'll gladly take up the challenge.

Bravo! Bravissimo! It is a simple way that anyone healthy enough to fast can give of

themselves to the poor. You will be blessed.

Bernard

Edited December 7, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

Steve, you claimed that fasting and charitable giving in LDS thought are voluntary and not religious obligations, but gave no documentation or references to back up your statement. Scott and zerinus both argued, citing authoritative LDS sources, that they are indeed laws or commands. If you were in my position, hearing these two contrary opinions presented in these ways, what would you conclude?

I conclude that you are looking for heartburn where none exists. By definition, opinions can lead to different conclusions. There are many ways LDS contribute to the poor, as has been pointed out. This is the organized way, and I assure you it is highly effective.

I have had the blessing as a bishop of being able to provide considerable help to those in need because of generous fast offering donations of faithful members. Tithing is of the law of Moses. It is commanded, it is expected, it is accounted for. Fast offering is the law of Christ. It is a sacrifice and gift of your own free will. Poor and rich can observe it. It humbles the rich and exalts the poor. It gives everyone the opportunity to provide for their brethren and sisters.

Some even consider it a way to partially live the law of consecration: sell all thou hast and give to the poor and come follow me. I know LDS who give a large portion of their surplus to the fast offering fund in the spirit of consecration. It is administered honestly and fairly. It is a charitable donation that is used 100% for the aid of those in need. No one at any step along the way takes a cut from it. Can you name a charity that has no administrative costs or does not take a cut from the donations?

That you use this consummately Christian practice as a cause to pick nits and find fault is beyond my comprehension. That you can search through the words of the Christ and use them to unjustly condemn a most sincere, honorable, and charitable practice...I am astonished. All I can conclude is that you are really wound tight and need to stop and smell the roses once in a while, even if they are in a....ughghh....Mormon garden.

Bernard

Edited December 7, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

That you can search through the words of Christ and use them to unjustly condemn a most sincere, honorable, and charitable practice...

I did not question the sincerity, honorable intentions, or charitable results of the practice. Nor did I condemn the practice.

You concluded:

well, all I can conclude is that you are really wound tight and need to stop and smell the roses once in a while, even if they are in a....ughghh....Mormon garden.

See here.

[KevinG]

Very good on you for asking questions but you may want to ease up on the cross examination. I also recommend observation of Mormons in their natural habitat (church) to find out what really gets taught. The internet tends to concentrate on more esoteric ideas and debates.

As far as lecturing you on my faith, when your publications and questions demonstrate a fuller understanding of the core beliefs and practices of Mormonism you can expect fewer misunderstandings about your level of comprehension of said beliefs and practices.

[Bernard Gui]

Finally, while your bishops may not be rummaging through your trash or auditing your financial records, they are "checking up on you" if they are interviewing you periodically and asking you pointed questions about your habits. That remains a reasonable conclusion even if you are on your honor as far as how you answer the questions. The only way that failure to tithe can result in cancelling a person's temple recommend is if the person is asked directly whether he has been tithing faithfully. That is a form of enforcement, albeit not the extreme kind that would involve turning one's financial records over to the bishop.

Here is what my bishop said to me Sunday at our tithing settlement meeting:

"Do you pay a full tithe? [my answer could be yes or no]. Thank you. And thank you so much for your donations to the fast offering fund. God will bless you and your family." That's how he checked up on me. Since I pay both tithing and offerings freely and voluntarily of my own free will, not by compulsion, force, humiliation, or fear of exposure, it is neither any kind nor form of enforcement. Rob, we simply don't operate that way. I have to conclude that you are engaged in projecting your theology and practice on the Latter-day Saints.

Bernard

Edited December 8, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[KevinG]

Here is what my bishop said to me Sunday at our tithing settlement meeting:

"Do you pay a full tithe? (Answer could be yes or no). Thank you. And thank you so much for your donations to the fast offering fund. God will bless

you and your family." That's how he checked up on me. Since I pay both tithing and offerings voluntarily of my own free will and not by compulsion, force, humiliation, or fear of exposure, it is not any kind of form of enforcement.

Bernard

That is exactly the kind of thing I was trying to get across. We teach the most important signature on our Temple recommend is our own. The Bishop and Stake President are never there to enforce or catch us in a sin. They are there to represent Christ (as a judge in Israel) with whom we make covenants as though we were witnessing to Him directly and of our own accord. When we admit that we struggle with obedience they counsel us, pray for us and help us find ways to conform to the Lord's commandments.

This is something an active Saint would understand from having experienced it. Unfortunately digging around the internet or discussing Mormonism in a symposium will include a lot of misconceptions about the role of ecclesiastical authority. Blend in some good old fashioned apostate anti-Mormon stories about the controlling nature of LDS authority and you have a very skewed view of what really goes on.

Edited December 7, 2011 by DaddyG

[Bernard Gui]

I did not question the sincerity, honorable intentions, or charitable results of the practice. Nor did I condemn the practice.

Here is what you said:

While of course I have no objection to people fasting and giving money to the poor,

I do have some reservations about a public, institutionalized religious system of fasting and charity:

Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. 2 "Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.... 16 "And when you fast, do not look gloomy like the hypocrites, for they disfigure their faces that their fasting may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 17 But when you fast, anoint your head and wash your face, 18 that your fasting may not be seen by others but by your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. (Matt. 6:1-4, 16-18 ESV)

You were the first one to respond to the OP and right off the bat expressed your "concerns" about Mormons being hypocrites, going around making sure everyone knows that are miserable as they fast, and that our fast offering is for us to be seen of men. The process has been explained to

you in detail, and every accusation has been refuted. You took the Savior's words and used them to unjustly condemn the LDS. Period.

Supposing for the sake of argument that no one can tell whether a Mormon is practicing the fast, the concern I raised based on Christ's words in Matthew 6 are still relevant to the LDS religion as a whole. The very fact that Mormons point out publicly that they engage in this practice and seek to gain some respect in others' eyes by it, even taking some collective pride in the practice (as in this very thread), is enough to merit the concern.

Here you accuse us of trying to gain some respect from men and being prideful "as in this very thread." The OP was simply a suggestion that other people consider adopting or adapting this simple Christ-like method of helping the poor. You repeatedly ferret out the most simple expressions of LDS faith, and then accuse us of false and/or evil motives. To quote someone above, I find this very obnoxious.

Bernard

Edited December 7, 2011 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

One of the nice things about sharing the activity of fasting among our community is that when so moved we can fast together for a shared purpose. In the past I have experienced fasts have being held for members undergoing medical treatments such as radiation therapy for cancer or major surgeries, droughts, earthquake victims or other disasters, special needs of the ward and its members in general such as missionary work or economic hardships. It can bring a greater sense of community and mutual commitment to participate in such an activity.

[zerinus]

How is a commandment viewed as coming from God not a religious obligation? A commandment is something one is obliged to do. "Obligation" simply means it is a requirement, a "must," something one is supposed to do. If it is regarded as a commandment from God, then it is religious in nature. Hence, a divine commandment is a religious obligation.

I think what he is trying to say is that fasting and praying are religious obligations the timing, length, or frequency of which you determine for yourself. The Church tries to set a minimum guideline which is the least that we can do, and which we would be wise to follow. Even then you are allowed some discretion. If you are too week, or elderly, or unwell to fast, you are not expected to. It is not like the commandment not to commit adultery. You are never too sick to be excused from obeying that commandment.

[zerinus]

Steve, all I'm aiming at here is clarity. Please help us arrive at that goal. Is fasting once a month a religious obligation, or is it not? You must commit one way or the other on this question. If it is a religious obligation, then your earlier objection to me describing it as such is void. Furthermore, if it is a religious obligation, but Mormons do not view it as such, then they are not viewing it as what it is, are they? This makes no more sense than saying, "Yes, refraining from committing adultery is a commandment of God, but we do not view it as such"! On the other hand, if it is not a religious obligation, then it cannot be a divine commandment, as I have explained.

With regard to your last statement, nothing I have written in this thread has anything to do with whether Mormons "feel" like they have to do these things, by which I think you mean that they do them despite not wishing or desiring to do them, or that they do them despite feeling that the requirement is unfair or onerous. I am not talking about feelings, which presumably vary from one person to the next and in the same person from one time to the next. The issue I raised was simply whether or not they are in fact expected or required to do so.

See my previous post. Fasting is a religious obligation, but God has not set a timetable for it in the scriptures. You could neglect it altogether, or carry it to excess. You can kill yourself by fasting too much, or you neglect it by not fasting at all. The Church has set a minimum guideline which is the least that any healthy person can do. It is a religious obligation for those who are not prevented from performing it for health or other reasons. But it is not like the commandment not to commit adultery.

[zerinus]

Second, I already knew most of what you told me. I knew that the amounts you are to give as charity are not prescribed (your main point, repeated three times). That's not the whole truth, though, since the tithe is a prescribed percentage. I know that your bishop does not rummage through your trash looking for beer bottles. I know that commandments don't "compel" you to do anything (a fact in any religion).

Tithing is not used for charity, but for building up the kingdom of God on earth---although I am sure the Church would not be averse to using some of it for that purpose if there is a surplus, or if there is a dire need.

Third, the only point about which I confess I did not have prior knowledge was whether or not Mormons are ever asked by their bishops if they observe the monthly fast. That is why I asked the question. Again, it's rather annoying for me to solicit information and then be lectured about needing to learn more about your religion! Some people here have stated that the bishops do not ask about a person's fasting habits. Fine.

Bishops do not normally ask if someone is observing the fast; but I can think of situations where he might. If the bishop is counselling someone for example, and if he feels the person might benefit from observing that principle, he might ask them if they are doing so or not.

Finally, while your bishops may not be rummaging through your trash or auditing your financial records, they are "checking up on you" if they are interviewing you periodically and asking you pointed questions about your habits. That remains a reasonable conclusion even if you are on your honor as far as how you answer the questions. The only way that failure to tithe can result in cancelling a person's temple recommend is if the person is asked directly whether he has been tithing faithfully. That is a form of enforcement, albeit not the extreme kind that would involve turning one's financial records over to the bishop.

That is not quite true. The bishop does not just pull people into his office at random, or for no apparent reason, to "check up on them" to see if they pay their tithes and offerings or not. That "checking up" takes place only if the person voluntarily seeks an interview for a temple recommend; or if his name is put forward for a priesthood advancement. But you already know that being a full tithe payer is a requirement for those blessings; therefore if you are not observing that law, then you wouldn't volunteer.

Edited December 7, 2011 by zerinus