Any Word On The March 14 Summons Deadline?

[Stargazer]

It is quite a landmark case, and as I've tried to explain to my parents why it's different.

 

In the mormon church you must pay tithing to receive full benefits of the church (endowments, sealings, temple recommend, etc.)

 

in other churches tithing is anonymous and optional. In the LDS church tithing and donation is kept in full record.

 

However, personally I think this case will go nowhere.

I don't think it is landmark at all. It is a "globfly" as Worf like to call them.

Interesting that you think there's something noteworthy about something needing to be paid if you want the full benefit of something. If you want eternal exaltation, then there's a lot more than money to be paid. A willingness to give up one's life if necessary, or even more full of commitment, a willingness to devote one's life to glorifying God. Tithing is pocketchange in comparison, and merely demonstrates a commitment to the Gospel.

In other churches tithing is optional and anonymous? Sure, the collection plate is optional and anonymous -- except everyone near you can see what you put into it. If you would like a charitable donation credit for your income tax, guess what, you better be able to prove to the IRS that you actually donated something. And that requires receipts. Sure, you could donate anonymously, you can even do that in the LDS church. Hand the tithing envelope to the bishop, and on the donation slip write "Anonymous" as the donor. At tithing settlement, show up and tell the bishop you're a full tithepayer (if you are). Regardless of whether he can see any donation amounts on the paperwork, he has to accept your word on it. You can actually donate semi-anonymously. I send my tithing directly out of my bank account to SLC, and except for fast offering, never put anything into an envelope to hand to the bishop. When I set this up with SLC, they asked me if I wanted my donations reported to the ward, or if I wanted to keep the bishop in the dark. Well, they didn't say it quite like that, but it was an option to allow the ward to see my donations.

And yes, you're right, the case will go nowhere, as it deserves.

[Stargazer]

I'm wondering how JS was able to write the Book of Abraham...and not rewrite the lost book of Lehi?

I'm not. And this is apples and oranges. Joseph was told NOT to re-translate the lost portion, and told the reason why not. What does this have to do with the Book of Abraham?

[Tacenda]

I don't think it is landmark at all. It is a "globfly" as Worf like to call them.

Interesting that you think there's something noteworthy about something needing to be paid if you want the full benefit of something. If you want eternal exaltation, then there's a lot more than money to be paid. A willingness to give up one's life if necessary, or even more full of commitment, a willingness to devote one's life to glorifying God. Tithing is pocketchange in comparison, and merely demonstrates a commitment to the Gospel.

In other churches tithing is optional and anonymous? Sure, the collection plate is optional and anonymous -- except everyone near you can see what you put into it. If you would like a charitable donation credit for your income tax, guess what, you better be able to prove to the IRS that you actually donated something. And that requires receipts. Sure, you could donate anonymously, you can even do that in the LDS church. Hand the tithing envelope to the bishop, and on the donation slip write "Anonymous" as the donor. At tithing settlement, show up and tell the bishop you're a full tithepayer (if you are). Regardless of whether he can see any donation amounts on the paperwork, he has to accept your word on it. You can actually donate semi-anonymously. I send my tithing directly out of my bank account to SLC, and except for fast offering, never put anything into an envelope to hand to the bishop. When I set this up with SLC, they asked me if I wanted my donations reported to the ward, or if I wanted to keep the bishop in the dark. Well, they didn't say it quite like that, but it was an option to allow the ward to see my donations.

And yes, you're right, the case will go nowhere, as it deserves.

I have read on another board, they are discontinuing letting the bishops "stay in the dark" about your tithing any longer. But maybe there are exceptions.

[Stargazer]

I have read on another board, they are discontinuing letting the bishops "stay in the dark" about your tithing any longer. But maybe there are exceptions.

Yeah, I thought that was odd, myself, but whatever. I told them they could let the bishop know.

But you can still donate anonymously, and still declare yourself to be a full tithepayer, if you want. Which rather dilutes Truth 101's point.

Edited March 16, 2014 by Stargazer

[Calm]

I'm not. And this is apples and oranges. Joseph was told NOT to re-translate the lost portion, and told the reason why not. What does this have to do with the Book of Abraham?

Melody is an investigator and may not be up on all of the history.

[Danzo]

It is quite a landmark case, and as I've tried to explain to my parents why it's different.

 

In the mormon church you must pay tithing to receive full benefits of the church (endowments, sealings, temple recommend, etc.)

 

in other churches tithing is anonymous and optional. In the LDS church tithing and donation is kept in full record.

 

However, personally I think this case will go nowhere.

You are wrong

 

In the United States, at least, you cannot take a deduction for a charitable contribution unless you get a statement from the church showing how much you contribute.  Almost every church (in the US at least) keeps records on who donates. As a tax professional, I see these records every day from every type of church.

[Calm]

It is quite a landmark case, and as I've tried to explain to my parents why it's different.

In the mormon church you must pay tithing to receive full benefits of the church (endowments, sealings, temple recommend, etc.)

in other churches tithing is anonymous and optional. In the LDS church tithing and donation is kept in full record.

However, personally I think this case will go nowhere.

And yet no expert in the area has noted that as a significant difference. (for good reason as already pointed out.

Otoh, there are some interesting points indicating significance (beyond level of bizarreness) such as this one made when the case first went public:

"A senior correspondent for The Week also expects the case to fizzle, "but that doesn't mean the case is unimportant," wrote Damon Linker, author of the 2008 book "The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege."

"On the contrary," Linker continued, "it's part of a broader, troubling trans-Atlantic trend of secular liberalism steamrolling competing, non-liberal visions of the good. The trend marks an important change. Eight years ago I published a book with a subtitle describing how the religious right was placing 'secular America under siege.' Less than a decade later, the dynamic I discussed in the book has reversed itself, with liberalism now shoving traditionalist religion into a corner.""

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865595846/Bizarre-British-summons-roundly-criticized-by-legal-experts-religious-freedom-advocates.html?pg=all

It would seem that trends now vary more in direction and less in levels of extreme.

Edited March 16, 2014 by calmoriah

[ALarson]

Yeah, I thought that was odd, myself, but whatever. I told them they could let the bishop know.

But you can still donate anonymously, and still declare yourself to be a full tithepayer, if you want. Which rather dilutes Truth 101's point.

I think that is no longer the case, but I'm not 100% sure.  I have read that you can no longer donate anonymously even if you send your tithing directly to Salt Lake, your Bishop is sent the amount you paid for their records.  I'll try to see where I read that and post it.  Others may know more about this too.

[ALarson]

I just found a thread on another forum discussing paying tithing directly to Salt Lake and whether or not their Bishops receive a record of this.  It seems that their experiences vary with some Bishops getting the information (for tax records) and others not getting the information.

 

So if someone knows what the current guidelines are for this, it would be interesting to read.

[cdowis]

I think that is no longer the case, but I'm not 100% sure.  I have read that you can no longer donate anonymously even if you send your tithing directly to Salt Lake, your Bishop is sent the amount you paid for their records.  I'll try to see where I read that and post it.  Others may know more about this too.

 

The ward is not given a record of your contributions to SL.  My understanding is that privacy is one of the reasons to send it to SL -- the contributor may not want anyone to know the amount he is contributing.  The bishop only "needs to know" whether it is a full tithe.

 

The tax record is sent directly from SL to the contributor, and not thru the ward.  If you choose to pay something directly to the ward, fast offering, for example, you get a separate record from the ward.

Edited March 16, 2014 by cdowis

[Bikeemikey]

The ward is not given a record of your contributions to SL.  My understanding is that privacy is one of the reasons to send it to SL -- the contributor may not want anyone to know the amount he is contributing.  The bishop only "needs to know" whether it is a full tithe.

 

The tax record is sent directly from SL to the contributor, and not thru the ward.  If you choose to pay something directly to the ward, fast offering, for example, you get a separate record from the ward.

 

That is really interesting.

 

I had not idea that there was a set up like this in the church.

[ALarson]

The ward is not given a record of your contributions to SL.  My understanding is that privacy is one of the reasons to send it to SL -- the contributor may not want anyone to know the amount he is contributing.  The bishop only "needs to know" whether it is a full tithe.

 

The tax record is sent directly from SL to the contributor, and not thru the ward.  If you choose to pay something directly to the ward, fast offering, for example, you get a separate record from the ward.

Thanks cdowis for this info.  There are those who posted things like this (below) on another forum, so I wonder if sometimes a record is sent?

 

I don't know if this is a recent change or not, but just this week I got my tax receipt from the local ward, signed by the bishop, that included both my local and direct-to-HQ donations.

 

Edited March 16, 2014 by ALarson

[sheilauk]

So for those following at home, "Anderson" = Neil Addison, correct? Had Addison already been retained by the Church when he commented on the case to Dennis Wagner on 4 February (the day the summons was made public)? If not, I don't see what Addison is supposed to have done wrong.

Neither do I. Being asked to comment on a case, when you may be considered a expert on the subject of it, is very different to publicising that casevin the first place, blogging about it and fundraising.

[ALarson]

Hi Sheila!

 

I'd ask this above, but I am wondering what your gut feeling is regarding whether or not this will go to trial now?  

[sheilauk]

It is quite a landmark case, and as I've tried to explain to my parents why it's different.

 

In the mormon church you must pay tithing to receive full benefits of the church (endowments, sealings, temple recommend, etc.)

 

in other churches tithing is anonymous and optional. In the LDS church tithing and donation is kept in full record.

 

However, personally I think this case will go nowhere.

It is certainly a marker. It is also an indication of how the Church is still viewed. I can't imagine anyone prosecuting the Archbishop of Canterbury. Plus, people keep on about how you have to pay to have "full" membership. This is not the point. The charge is that Pres Monson - not the Church - made statements (which I maintain are doctrinal statements of belief) to two men and then he demanded they pay and they did because they believed those statements and for no other reason and those statements were misleading and Pres Jonson knew the statements were false and If they had been told the "truth" they wouldn't have paid. Nothing to do with the temple. And IMO deeply flawed and impossible to prove.

With respect to the tithe and the temple - going to the temple gives a member additional benefits not full membership. Each baptised person is in full membership - tithe paying or otherwise. I am a member of a political party. To even attend meetings I must have paid the fee. To have the party's support in elections (to have the full benefits of my membership) i must be up to date with my fee. I choose to do both. I choose to pay my tithe and go to the temple. In other churches, there were no other benefits than attending on Sunday morning and I still chose to make a tithe. If I don't pay a full tithe in the LDS church, it would be a choice and would I want to go to the temple? I would still be a member. Do I deserve the blessings from something I haven't worked towards? Like the Council work, the benefits of the temple are magnified by the commitment of those that do attend. And what does anonymity or the lack of it have to do with anything? Why do people get so worked up by the requirement to tithe for a temple recommend? Can we not set our own membership requirements? Do you want something for nothing? Must we be like all other groups?

[sheilauk]

Hi Sheila!

 

I'd ask this above, but I am wondering what your gut feeling is regarding whether or not this will go to trial now?

Sorry! I did see your earlier message but have been thinking about it. I haven't been able to decide. I hope it will be dismissed but the adjournment doesn't seem a good thing for the church and I fear it may go further. Whether it will go so far as a trial, I don't know.

[MichelleD]

Sorry! I did see your earlier message but have been thinking about it. I haven't been able to decide. I hope it will be dismissed but the adjournment doesn't seem a good thing for the church and I fear it may go further. Whether it will go so far as a trial, I don't know.

Sheila, your knowledge and posts on this case and the UK legal system have been so helpful here. I know we're all anxious for Thursday's decision. Hopefully it will be over, but I understand what you're saying.

Thank you again.

[Thinking]

With respect to the tithe and the temple - going to the temple gives a member additional benefits not full membership. Each baptised person is in full membership - tithe paying or otherwise.

 

I have been a member of the Church most of my life. I was baptized when I was seventeen and was ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood at age twenty-one. While still a young man, I served in many assignments and had many good experiences in the Church that helped me to learn many concepts that were helpful to me in building my faith and testimony. But I never felt that I had completed my full membership in the Church until I took my bride to the temple and received the new and everlasting covenant and the blessings and understanding of the work performed there. Link

[ALarson]

Sorry! I did see your earlier message but have been thinking about it. I haven't been able to decide. I hope it will be dismissed but the adjournment doesn't seem a good thing for the church and I fear it may go further. Whether it will go so far as a trial, I don't know.

Thanks for this response, Sheila.

 

I think most of us were hoping this would have been quickly dismissed.  I appreciate hearing your thoughts and now we just have to wait and see how it goes on Thursday. I will be shocked if there is a trial.

[Calm]

Well…there is wishing it would end as quickly as possible to avoid a waste of valuable resources all around and then there is wishing it would go on for quite a bit because the commentary surrounding it all is such an interesting display of human behaviour.

 

But there is always something causing talk so even if it ends, I can still get my fix from somewhere; even if there isn't actually a substantial controversy out there, it has never stopped anyone from creating one out of straw. 

[krampus]

The LDS church came out with a new essay on their website.

https://www.lds.org/topics/citizenship?lang=eng

In response to Thomas Monson's trial is the following quoted from their essay:

"With respect to freedom of religion, governments are responsible to not prescribe “rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion . . . [or] suppress the freedom of the soul” (D&C 134:4). Indeed, Latter-day Saints believe that “governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief” (D&C 134:7)."

While I agree that government should not exercise undue control over religion, that does not mean that they must not protect its citizens from fraud perpetrated by the leaders of organized religion. I stated the following on an online forum:

"Do you think governments should turn a blind eye to deception and fraud if it is conducted in the name of religion? I'm not talking about the LDS church specifically, but with other organized religions, if it is provable that they are giving a false persona and have false motives, and/or are provably saying things which the leaders of the organized religion know is false or unlikely, for their benefit, another's benefit, or for undue control through half truths, false promises, and exaggerated negative consequences that elicit unneccesary thoughts of fear, over-riding rational thought and agency (much like a sex offender manipulating under age youth or the mentally unstable). Another thing to consider is that this fraudulant conduct would also have a negative impact, whether intentional or unintentionally, on the mental welfare, monetary welfare, and on the security of those not involved as adherrants of the fraudulent faith, through the culture instilled."

[sheilauk]

sheilauk, on 16 Mar 2014 - 7:04 PM, said:

With respect to the tithe and the temple - going to the temple gives a member additional benefits not full membership. Each baptised person is in full membership - tithe paying or otherwise.

 

Quote

I have been a member of the Church most of my life. I was baptized when I was seventeen and was ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood at age twenty-one. While still a young man, I served in many assignments and had many good experiences in the Church that helped me to learn many concepts that were helpful to me in building my faith and testimony. But I never felt that I had completed my full membership in the Church until I took my bride to the temple and received the new and everlasting covenant and the blessings and understanding of the work performed there. Link

 

 

Just because this person felt that they weren't in full membership until they married in the Temple doesn't make it so.  Just because we are encouraged to make full use of all the benefits of the Church and to progress as far as possible whilst on the Earth doesn't mean that only those who were baptized, endowed and married in the Temple are in full membership.  I am not even married but I consider that I have full membership.  My view is that these things are a measure of full activity and committment rather than membership.  I suspect you know this.  Want to play semantics some more?

[Scott Lloyd]

Sorry! I did see your earlier message but have been thinking about it. I haven't been able to decide. I hope it will be dismissed but the adjournment doesn't seem a good thing for the church and I fear it may go further. Whether it will go so far as a trial, I don't know.

If it does, it will demonstrate the prescience of Church leaders and like-minded individuals in raising an alarm about the erosion of religious liberty in the nations of the world at large as well as in the United States.

[The Nehor]

I am not even married but I consider that I have full membership.  ?

New pickup line I need to try:

"Hey beautiful, want to become full members together?"

[Anijen]

Wouldn't that be something if Nehor and Sheila?...