Survey To Evaluate False Doctrine Among Membership

[california boy]

Many of your questions have had multiple doctrine's taught about the same question.  Answers that would have been given even 40 years ago are quite different than answers currently given.  There are a heck of a lot more "we don't knows" than there used to be as science has gotten more exact and less disputable.  Historical records have also become more available, taking away many of the sure answers and replacing them with "we don't know".

 

One you forgot to include that I think is pretty major is

Church doctrine clearly states that

A,  All indians living on the American continent are descendants of the Lamanites.

B. Almost all indians living on the American continent are descendants of Lamanites.

C. Only a few indians living on the American continent are decadents of the Laminates

D. We don't know if indians living on the American continent are descendants of Lamanites.

[canard78]

Many of your questions have had multiple doctrine's taught about the same question. Answers that would have been given even 40 years ago are quite different than answers currently given. There are a heck of a lot more "we don't knows" than there used to be as science has gotten more exact and less disputable. Historical records have also become more available, taking away many of the sure answers and replacing them with "we don't know".

One you forgot to include that I think is pretty major is

Church doctrine clearly states that

A, All indians living on the American continent are descendants of the Lamanites.

B. Almost all indians living on the American continent are descendants of Lamanites.

C. Only a few indians living on the American continent are decadents of the Laminates

D. We don't know if indians living on the American continent are descendants of Lamanites.

I like that one. Would love to know what people think.

Edited November 16, 2013 by canard78

[DBMormon]

I'll message you again.

You replied suggesting I check my spam folder for the confirmation email.

 

Got ya. I know which one now!

[thesometimesaint]

Standard LDS doctrine is wrong on this count. It isn't the first time.

 

Nor likely to be the last. But I'm fine with that. We, as Saints, are to be open to learning new and important things concerning the Kingdom.

[Tacenda]

DB, I'd be very interested in the results of this.

I'm a full time, qualified, market researcher. I emailed you about FairMormonsupport today. If you seriously want to do this and comply with the Market Research Society Code of conduct then I'd be willing to help. It's the "mackay..." email address. Dehlin's survey was interesting but also a flawed methodology.

Some thoughts: just asking the question could introduce people to information they are unaware of and could cause the beginning of a faith crisis. I don't think it's fair to impose information like seer stones or 33 wives. Open questions, post coded would be better. You have to treat respondents with respect.

The prompted codes you offer make it pretty obvious what the "right" answer is. It would need rephrasing. Or, like I said, open questions.

What better place then this to read and discuss unsavory or shocking history. Just like teaching the birds and the bees, parents would be more suitable than friends. Plus, both are in the JSP's, the 33 wives is discussed in a book by Brian Hales that you can order through DB, online only. The seerstones, are mentioned in an Ensign article by Russell M. Nelson.

[rongo]

If that surgeon is plowing $200K back into his business then yes he could be considered a full tithe payer. We don't really ask to see their profit and loss claims on their tax documents.

 

Sometimes we do ask ---- or we at least confront people about it. It would almost never be necessary to "ask to see their profit/loss claims on their tax documents" when asking for an explanation ---- the truth of the situation will almost always out without that. When I was a bishop, I did point out to certain people that their tithing on the statement did not appear to match their situation, and asked them to explain their declaration of "full" (like a couple who were an insurance adjustor and an ER nurse, but had only paid $1000 tithing). There were a couple of other examples of this, and in *every* case, they admitted that they weren't full tithe payers, without getting into a "documentation" discussion. I never had anyone engage in DB's preferred excuse of "I get to decide if I'm a full tithe payer, not you, bishop. You're not the boss of me!"

Edited November 16, 2013 by rongo

[DBMormon]

Well I will need to correct the Indian descendant question as it can be misleading in it's present form.  I will add to my survey and repost but in a corrected form

 

I would love other questions I need to add.  Let's see where this goes.

[DBMormon]

Sometimes we do ask ---- or we at least confront people about it. It would almost never be necessary to "ask to see their profit/loss claims on their tax documents" when asking for an explanation ---- the truth of the situation will almost always out without that. When I was a bishop, I did point out to certain people that their tithing on the statement did not appear to match their situation, and asked them to explain their declaration of "full" (like a couple who were an insurance adjustor and an ER nurse, but had only paid $1000 tithing). There were a couple of other examples of this, and in *every* case, they admitted that they weren't full tithe payers. I never had anyone engage in DB's preferred excuse of "I get to decide if I'm a full tithe payer, not you, bishop. You're not the boss of me!"

 

What about the First Presidency who gave the official stance which is the same as I take-

 

"For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that we have uniformly replied that the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself that the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their interest annually, which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly."

 

Which by the way - this statement is the OFFICIAL doctrine

Edited November 16, 2013 by DBMormon

[canard78]

What better place then this to read and discuss unsavory or shocking history. Just like teaching the birds and the bees, parents would be more suitable than friends. Plus, both are in the JSP's, the 33 wives is discussed in a book by Brian Hales that you can order through DB, online only. The seerstones, are mentioned in an Ensign article by Russell M. Nelson.

 

This place is fine. The idea is that the survey would be asked of a wider audience. Random sampling among the general membership. This board is no where near close to being representative of the general membership.

[rongo]

What about the First Presidency who gave the official stance which is the same as I take-

 

 

What about it? What does that have to do with asking people for an explanation or clarification if things don't look right? That isn't "making any other statement that that" ---- it's asking people to explain their reasoning and justification. In my experience, that's all that's necessary, and people then "govern themselves" --- and make the right choice.

 

As a bishop, you've never asked for further explanation? I think that's dereliction of duty. What in the world are bishops for, during tithing settlement? Why don't they just have an automated check the box feature through lds.org to declare, then? In your world, the common judge in Israel should do no "common judging" or teaching at all during tithing settlement.

 

I had about five people/couples who initially declared full, but then admitted that they weren't full tithe payers when I asked them to explain (like the couple I mentioned). It seems like in your book, I was way out of line, and should never have questioned their initial declaration. But, they themselves admitted that they weren't full tithe payers when asked to explain their reasoning. If I hadn't done my calling as bishop, they would have continued to not keep this very important spiritual/temporal commandment. And I think some of the guilt would have been on my hands for failing to teach and judge.

[canard78]

Sometimes we do ask ---- or we at least confront people about it. It would almost never be necessary to "ask to see their profit/loss claims on their tax documents" when asking for an explanation ---- the truth of the situation will almost always out without that. When I was a bishop, I did point out to certain people that their tithing on the statement did not appear to match their situation, and asked them to explain their declaration of "full" (like a couple who were an insurance adjustor and an ER nurse, but had only paid $1000 tithing). There were a couple of other examples of this, and in *every* case, they admitted that they weren't full tithe payers, without getting into a "documentation" discussion. I never had anyone engage in DB's preferred excuse of "I get to decide if I'm a full tithe payer, not you, bishop. You're not the boss of me!"

 

That's really inappropriate. You don't take people at their word? The church definition of tithing is so ambiguous that a person could, in good conscience, pay $1,000 on an income of $200k. I couldn't. But someone else might be able to.

 

Do you also go through their DVD collection and scrutinize the contents of the tissues in their bedroom trash can? (or rubbish bin... I was trying to speak the lingo).

[DBMormon]

What about it? What does that have to do with asking people for an explanation or clarification if things don't look right? That isn't "making any other statement that that" ---- it's asking people to explain their reasoning and justification. In my experience, that's all that's necessary, and people then "govern themselves" --- and make the right choice.

 

As a bishop, you've never asked for further explanation? I think that's dereliction of duty. What in the world are bishops for, during tithing settlement? Why don't they just have an automated check the box feature through lds.org to declare, then? In your world, the common judge in Israel should do no "common judging" or teaching at all during tithing settlement.

 

I had about five people/couples who initially declared full, but then admitted that they weren't full tithe payers when I asked them to explain (like the couple I mentioned). It seems like in your book, I was way out of line, and should never have questioned their initial declaration. But, they themselves admitted that they weren't full tithe payers when asked to explain their reasoning. If I hadn't done my calling as bishop, they would have continued to not keep this very important spiritual/temporal commandment. And I think some of the guilt would have been on my hands for failing to teach and judge.

 

my issue was your stating "I never had anyone engage in DB's preferred excuse of "I get to decide if I'm a full tithe payer, not you, bishop. You're not the boss of me!""  which implies that one does not have the right to determine for themselves - and since the First Presidency has said no other person can say more and each member should decide for themselves, I see your stance and it's sounding like a complaint of anyone who would take the position I quoted you saying as incongruent with both parts of the Official statement

 

Tithing is ten percent.  The member seeking the Lord's direction is to determine 10% of what.  I taught that and went no further.  I was confident based on my knowledge of members in my ward and their situations that they were honest with me.  Nothing was out of place.  Had it been, I would have taught the definiton and taught them that the answer is theirs though the Lord will not be mocked.

Edited November 16, 2013 by DBMormon

[strappinglad]

What about it? What does that have to do with asking people for an explanation or clarification if things don't look right? That isn't "making any other statement that that" ---- it's asking people to explain their reasoning and justification. In my experience, that's all that's necessary, and people then "govern themselves" --- and make the right choice.

 

As a bishop, you've never asked for further explanation? I think that's dereliction of duty. What in the world are bishops for, during tithing settlement? Why don't they just have an automated check the box feature through lds.org to declare, then? In your world, the common judge in Israel should do no "common judging" or teaching at all during tithing settlement.

 

I had about five people/couples who initially declared full, but then admitted that they weren't full tithe payers when I asked them to explain (like the couple I mentioned). It seems like in your book, I was way out of line, and should never have questioned their initial declaration. But, they themselves admitted that they weren't full tithe payers when asked to explain their reasoning. If I hadn't done my calling as bishop, they would have continued to not keep this very important spiritual/temporal commandment. And I think some of the guilt would have been on my hands for failing to teach and judge.

Great minds think.... well at least some do. I was about to say the same thing. The Bishop is to act as a judge in Israel. To get an answer the unspoken question, had the couple not changed their statement, would you as a bishop have signed off on the full status still ?

Edited November 16, 2013 by strappinglad

[strappinglad]

That's really inappropriate. You don't take people at their word? The church definition of tithing is so ambiguous that a person could, in good conscience, pay $1,000 on an income of $200k. I couldn't. But someone else might be able to.

 

Do you also go through their DVD collection and scrutinize the contents of the tissues in their bedroom trash can? (or rubbish bin... I was trying to speak the lingo).

One should read the report of a member who went to the home of the President of the church as a 'home teacher' and asked some very pointed questions of the Prophet. His response was interesting. I will try to find a link.

[juliann]

Um, back to the topic....

 

It seems there should be something on there about women's roles in the church.   No one has really teased out the question to know what people think about priesthood.  They do it in either/or questions.   There has to be a distinction between women having more leadership vs. just having the priesthood....something that gets to the level of dissatisfaction with current policy without having to commit to turning it on it's head.

[rongo]

That's really inappropriate.

Not a huge surprise that you and DB have common cause with this, canard.

 

You don't take people at their word?

 

Sure, but what does "common judge" actually mean if he's handcuffed and can't ask for clarification or explanation when things don't seem/look/feel right?

 

What if he feels that he has the gift of discernment through the Holy Ghost, and in connection with his keys? What about then?Would asking follow-up questions be all right then?

 

The church definition of tithing is so ambiguous that a person could, in good conscience, pay $1,000 on an income of $200k.

 

I don't think so, and I think that's why people in this boat "fold" easily under gentle questioning. It doesn't have to be a stern interrogation, just a gentle "This seems to be not quite right to me. Could you please explain how you arrived at this?"

 

I couldn't. But someone else might be able to.

 

You couldn't? Why not? And if someone else thinks they might be able to, why would it be inappropriate for a priesthood leader to ask them how they think they "might be able to?"

 

Do you also go through their DVD collection and scrutinize the contents of the tissues in their bedroom trash can? (or rubbish bin... I was trying to speak the lingo).

 

Of course I didn't, but it raises an interesting question (you did fine, by the way, with the lingo. You could pass for American)

 

If allegations about a person's morality come to a bishop's attention, is it inappropriate to visit with the person and ask him/her?

 

If that is okay (or might sometimes be okay), what is the difference between that and possible tithing impropriety coming to the bishop's attention (via the statement and his personal knowledge of circumstances)?

[DBMormon]

What about it? What does that have to do with asking people for an explanation or clarification if things don't look right? That isn't "making any other statement that that" ---- it's asking people to explain their reasoning and justification. In my experience, that's all that's necessary, and people then "govern themselves" --- and make the right choice.

 

As a bishop, you've never asked for further explanation? I think that's dereliction of duty. What in the world are bishops for, during tithing settlement? Why don't they just have an automated check the box feature through lds.org to declare, then? In your world, the common judge in Israel should do no "common judging" or teaching at all during tithing settlement.

 

I had about five people/couples who initially declared full, but then admitted that they weren't full tithe payers when I asked them to explain (like the couple I mentioned). It seems like in your book, I was way out of line, and should never have questioned their initial declaration. But, they themselves admitted that they weren't full tithe payers when asked to explain their reasoning. If I hadn't done my calling as bishop, they would have continued to not keep this very important spiritual/temporal commandment. And I think some of the guilt would have been on my hands for failing to teach and judge.

 

 

my issue was your stating "I never had anyone engage in DB's preferred excuse of "I get to decide if I'm a full tithe payer, not you, bishop. You're not the boss of me!""  which implies that one does not have the right to determine for themselves - and since the First Presidency has said no other person can say more and each member should decide for themselves, I see your stance and it's sounding like a complaint of anyone who would take the position I quoted you saying as incongruent with both parts of the Official statement

 

Tithing is ten percent.  The member seeking the Lord's direction is to determine 10% of what.  I taught that and went no further.  I was confident based on my knowledge of members in my ward and their situations that they were honest with me.  Nothing was out of place.  Had it been, I would have taught the definiton and taught them that the answer is theirs though the Lord will not be mocked.

[DBMormon]

Um, back to the topic....

 

It seems there should be something on there about women's roles in the church.   No one has really teased out the question to know what people think about priesthood.  They do it in either/or questions.   There has to be a distinction between women having more leadership vs. just having the priesthood....something that gets to the level of dissatisfaction with current policy without having to commit to turning it on it's head.

 

JuliAnn - I would love for you to develop a question and send to me that would capture what your thinking

[DBMormon]

RONGO - What do you think it means when the First Presidency says

Both - No one is justified in making any other statement than this.

and - every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly ? I would be very interested in your interpretation.

[strappinglad]

The statement is that tithing is 10% of " income" . No one is changing that statement when they ask for clarification about what the member feels is income.

[rongo]

  I was confident based on my knowledge of members in my ward and their situations that they were honest with me. 

I think it's clear that, in the cases I've referred to, I was not confident that they were honest with me. I thought that was obvious. What would you do if you thought/felt that someone wasn't?

 

 

 

 Nothing was out of place.  Had it been, I would have taught the definition and taught them that the answer is theirs though the Lord will not be mocked.

 

Oh.

 

This reminds me of the increasingly prevalent practice in our world of people going overboard to shield themselves from liability and refusing to answer the most simple of questions, no matter how non-binding or simple. Last week, my wife went with a sister from another ward who wanted help in beginning eviction proceedings on a tenant (the sister is extremely shy and lacks self-confidence). The lady at the courthouse's answer to any question was that the papers are over there, and she is not allowed to give legal advice. My wife was frustrated. They weren't looking for legal advice, or any advice at all ---- they just needed to know what papers they needed. The papers are over there ---- that's all I can tell you. I can't give any legal advice. Okay, thanks. How do we call the constable? He's on vacation, and another constable will be handling his workload. I can't give you his number, though ---- you'll have to go to the website and look that up. Why can't you give us his number? I'm sorry, ma'am ---- I can't give you any legal advice. Etc., etc.

 

 

RONGO - What do you think it means when the First Presidency says

Both - No one is justified in making any other statement than this.

and - every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly ? I would be very interested in your interpretation.

 

The First Presidency means that we are not to teach our own interpretations (e.g., "gross vs. net," etc.) as being the official position of the Church. We agree on that. What we don't agree on, apparently, is what a bishop should do when it appears that someone is not being honest about their tithing (regardless of that person's personal view). Your position appears to be that a bishop should do and say absolutely nothing because of the above excerpts. I strongly disagree. I believe that a bishop can and should ask members in that position to explain how they arrive at their numbers (i.e., what it their logic, where are they coming from, etc.). In my experience, that is all that is necessary (get the member to explain and detail how the member "made his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly") to clear up the situation. And it is the member who clears up the situation, not the bishop.

 

You seem to be saying that a bishop cannot even ask the member to explain how he "made his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly."

Edited November 16, 2013 by rongo

[rongo]

The statement is that tithing is 10% of " income" . No one is changing that statement when they ask for clarification about what the member feels is income.

DB is going to say that it isn't "income," it's "interest annually." Which, for the vast majority of members and leaders, means "income." There are situations, such as a small business or business losses, where determining income isn't simple or cut-and-dried.

 

In my experience, people who are seeking to not pay a full tithing are W-2 wage earners (they receive a paycheck from an employer), so it's a moot point. Naturally, it comes down to where a person's heart is, and what they are trying to do. I actually believe in the gift of discernment, and that it isn't just a nice theoretical thing from our past. It is relevant and comes into play in our day, too.

 

Rongo, start your own thread on this.  This is derailing the OP.

[Calm]

DB, haven't read the rest yet...I am on a very slow connection that keeps interrupting my reading...

 

If someone hasn't brought this up, I think it would be much better to leave the survey answers where the Church has no position as simply stating that.  Anything else added especially about personal positions of leaders will likely cause at least some people to read things into the Church's position that isn't there.

 

I would also remove the "racist" from "personally held Racist views" as there may be faithful who believe that BY's views were the primary cause for the way it was implemented, but see "racist" as going too far (instead they would see him as a 'man of his time' where in his own time he would not be viewed as racist even if looking back from our current climate he...and pretty much everyone else of that time...would be seen as racist).

 

In the evolution question, the Church does not teach evolution at BYU, the Science department and its professors do while stating that students don't have to accept it as Truth.

Edited November 16, 2013 by calmoriah

[canard78]

Um, back to the topic....

It seems there should be something on there about women's roles in the church. No one has really teased out the question to know what people think about priesthood. They do it in either/or questions. There has to be a distinction between women having more leadership vs. just having the priesthood....something that gets to the level of dissatisfaction with current policy without having to commit to turning it on it's head.

That would be interesting too.

To rongo and strappinglad, I'm not sure whether DB wants to turn this into a debate about the topics or a questionnaire brainstorm session.

 

Everyone get back to the topic.

[canard78]

Not a huge surprise that you and DB have common cause with this, canard.

Sure, but what does "common judge" actually mean if he's handcuffed and can't ask for clarification or explanation when things don't seem/look/feel right?

What if he feels that he has the gift of discernment through the Holy Ghost, and in connection with his keys? What about then?Would asking follow-up questions be all right then?

I don't think so, and I think that's why people in this boat "fold" easily under gentle questioning. It doesn't have to be a stern interrogation, just a gentle "This seems to be not quite right to me. Could you please explain how you arrived at this?"

You couldn't? Why not? And if someone else thinks they might be able to, why would it be inappropriate for a priesthood leader to ask them how they think they "might be able to?"

Of course I didn't, but it raises an interesting question (you did fine, by the way, with the lingo. You could pass for American)

If allegations about a person's morality come to a bishop's attention, is it inappropriate to visit with the person and ask him/her?

If that is okay (or might sometimes be okay), what is the difference between that and possible tithing impropriety coming to the bishop's attention (via the statement and his personal knowledge of circumstances)?

Hi Rongo, I'm going to hold off on answering this and ask Bill a question.

Bill, this discussion on tithing and now on how much a bishop should discern/probe is a major derail. Do you want your thread to continue down this route? If so, I'm happy to get back to the discussion with Rongo. If not then I'll drop it.

(To answer one question, I consider tithing to be 10% of net income, after income tax but before bills. If I had an income, after tax, of $200k then I would pay $20k and say I was a full tithe payer. But there is room in our doctrine for increase to be prayerfully viewed as after essential costs. If the person paying $190k of medical bills for their mother (or something) then $1000 on the remaining $1000 might be viewed as a a full tithe by the person. That's what I mean. It wouldn't work for me but I can still accept it might for someone else.

Based on the mod comment above, this will be my last comment on this tangent)

Edited November 16, 2013 by canard78