4 Questions Currently On My Mind

[DBMormon]

These are four questions currently on my mind that I seem to struggle finding quality answers to.  

 

Questions

 

1.) What is my ability to disagree?   Wherein can I dissent? To hold a

different stance? To share my opinion (as long as I make it clear it is my

opinion) which may differ from the accepted view?   I want to be safely

in the Church but also can not walk the line exactly as Mormonism's ask

me to do in terms of what beliefs are imposed or when information is portrayed

as factual when it is not so clear cut.

 

I love this quote from, of all people, Joseph Fielding Smith, who was quite

the dogmatist in his own right. -  ””It makes no difference what is written

or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the

Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any

other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the

revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have

accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances,

by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books

written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so

far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man

who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding

Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every

member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in

perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.”””

- Joseph Fielding Smith

 

But it leaves me still wondering how I am allowed to both be safely in the Church

while also incorporating what Joseph Fielding Smith has stated.

 

 

2.) The LGBT issue.   Let me say, I stand behind the Doctrine of the Church

(though I must also say If a change in policy/Doctrine came by revelation or

other means I would applaud it and welcome it). My question is this, isn't

there some way we can both support the Doctrine and also be more inclusive

of LGBT individuals?   As many of you well know, many of the homeless LDS youth

are LGBT youth who have either been kicked out of their homes or who have

left their homes not feeling loved and accepted.   As you also likely know, many

LDS LGBT suicides occur over such estrangement from families and the faith

of their LDS origin. I believe this is tragic and unacceptable. There has to be

more that we can do, right?   One suicide that is due to a human being feeling

unloved or unaccepted by us as a community, if we could have been more

understanding and inclusive, even understanding the issue more, is one too many  

 

 

 

3.) Tithing.   Tithing is taught as 10% of your increase.   It (increase) has been

interpreted as Net, Gross, and even Surplus at various times.   I also fully

understand the Doctrine from the First presidency statement   ""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.""

 

With that definition in mind that it is a personal decision between the member

and the Lord, why does the Church seem to emphasize that the right

interpretation is gross?   What I mean is that if I look at talks in the last

30 years on tithing, I see little room for a member to understand from what

is said that they have a right to decide for themselves, and that options such

as net and surplus are on the table.   It seems the Church is comfortable with

naive members assuming it must be gross rather than empowering them with

the Doctrine to seek out their own answer from the Lord.

 

Even the JST of Genesis 14 seems to indicate that even Abraham paid tithing

on Surplus

 

I feel like we will never tell people in conference that there are options and

that each member should seek personal revelation to get their own answer

on what the Lord expects from them. That would be so empowering and

show that teaching Doctrine is of value and that how much money is brought

in is not trumped by truth.

 

 

4.) I am struggling with a principle. The April 6th birthdate is messy

and not clearly “known revelation” The April 6th issue

in and of itself is truly meaningless to me and the assumption made is an easy

one to make that has been repeated throughout our history, even by leaders.

My issue is essentially “Why would the Church choose to entrench and defend

such position once it is aware that it is not clear cut”?. I am unconcerned with

the birth date per se of Christ because of the following: a) it is an easy

assumption to make from a surface reading of available

information (D&C sec 20:1 and other leaders who have perpetuated this

assumption);   and b) this issue has little impact on anything relating to

importance.   My issues, however, are the following:   when the Brethren (or a leader on his own)

claim that "we" (the church as a whole) "know" something by revelation,

only to discover that we indeed do not really "know", then rather than

acknowledging the issue is not that cut and dry, the choice seems to be

defending and entrenching on the issue which by all indications is not

ccurate.   The Ensign article used 4 sources to bolster its support that 

April 6th is indeed the birth date of Christ. Some examples are: 

 

A.) D&C 20:1 which we now know almost certainly came from John

Whitmer, was as we understand it never intended to define the birth 

date of Christ.

 

B.) Harold B. Lee's   "“Strengthen the Stakes of Zion" where Pres. Lee

refers back to D&C 20:1 as his source for his assumption.

 

C.)Pres. Kimball's "“Why Call Me Lord, Lord, and Do Not the Things

Which I Say?”  where Pres Kimball states the knowledge of  April 6th 

as the birth date of the Savio,r but gives no source for such knowledge.  

Are we claiming that Pres. Kimball was stating that as revelation?

 

D.) Pres Kimball's "“Remarks and Dedication of the Fayette, New York, Buildings,”

where unfortunately the audio has him saying something completely different than

the transcript, which brings into question whether this is even support of the original

point.   In the Audio portion, President Kimball states that we celebrate Christ being born on

this EARTH, and also expresses gratitude for his resurrection along with his birth.

The transcript says "This DAY" which is not what he said. The entire meaning and

point Pres. Kimball made changed.  While it could simply be that he meant to say one thing, 

accidentally said another and the transcript fixes it, I don't know that we can know that at this point.

 

E.) The last was President Hinkley where he simply says we know we celebrate

Christmas with the rest of Christianity, even though we know he wasn't born then.  

Again, what revelation is he attributing this to?  For us as a community to "know" something, there

must be a revelation we can all acknowledge and see exists otherwise "We"  as a community can't know.

 

My point here is that I feel like we are taking the path of saying something enough

and bolstering it with circular sources that all draw from an inaccurate assumption

of D&C 20:1, to eventually "force" it to be true when it likely isn't.   And if it is

true, what revelation are we attributing it to?   Where Does God or his Son

actually state Jesus' date of birth?...D&C 20:1?  We already know that this is almost

certainly not a correct assumption.  There is no anger here, just frustration and

bewilderment, and a feeling the Church is not ready to truly tackle such things.

(again not admit it is wrong but rather it is not clear cut and may be incorrect.  

aka - we likely don't know the birthdate of Christ)

Edited September 5, 2014 by DBMormon

[Alan]

Lots of things there.

I will comment on two.

The "6th April" position is clearly not revelation, irrespective of what Elder Bednar has said. I personally don't believe Christ was born on the 6th April.

 

You're right about tithing, it is up to the individual. Gross, net and surplus all appear to be legitimate interpretations. However, when the subject is studied in depth it appears to me the only conclusion that can be drawn is that it is on surplus. The scripture you mention from the JST is very good evidence of this.

 

Why does the church not just come out and say this? Well, it can't - and for very good reason.

The church appears to have tolerated, and possibly even encouraged, an interpretation other than this. Ensign articles have been written in which tithing on gross, and paying tithing first, even if you don't have enough to buy food for your family, have been permitted. General conference sermons have been given and lesson books written. Just imagine what would happen if the church announced that this was not correct. Thousands of ex-Mormons and perhaps even some current ones, would sue the church for a return of funds exacted under knowingly false pretences. It would be a nightmare!

Edited September 5, 2014 by Alan

[Storm Rider]

These are four questions currently on my mind that I seem to struggle finding quality answers to.  

 

Questions

 

1.) What is my ability to disagree?   Wherein can I dissent? To hold a

different stance? To share my opinion (as long as I make it clear it is my

opinion) which may differ from the accepted view?   I want to be safely

in the Church but also can not walk the line exactly as Mormonism's ask

me to do in terms of what beliefs are imposed or when information is portrayed

as factual when it is not so clear cut.

 

I love this quote from, of all people, Joseph Fielding Smith, who was quite

the dogmatist in his own right. -  ””It makes no difference what is written

or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the

Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any

other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the

revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have

accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances,

by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books

written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so

far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man

who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding

Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every

member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in

perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.”””

- Joseph Fielding Smith

 

But it leaves me still wondering how I am allowed to both be safely in the Church

while also incorporating what Joseph Fielding Smith has stated.

 

 

2.) The LGBT issue.   Let me say, I stand behind the Doctrine of the Church

(though I must also say If a change in policy/Doctrine came by revelation or

other means I would applaud it and welcome it). My question is this, isn't

there some way we can both support the Doctrine and also be more inclusive

of LGBT individuals?   As many of you well know, many of the homeless LDS youth

are LGBT youth who have either been kicked out of their homes or who have

left their homes not feeling loved and accepted.   As you also likely know, many

LDS LGBT suicides occur over such estrangement from families and the faith

of their LDS origin. I believe this is tragic and unacceptable. There has to be

more that we can do, right?   One suicide that is due to a human being feeling

unloved or unaccepted by us as a community, if we could have been more

understanding and inclusive, even understanding the issue more, is one too many  

 

 

 

3.) Tithing.   Tithing is taught as 10% of your increase.   It (increase) has been

interpreted as Net, Gross, and even Surplus at various times.   I also fully

understand the Doctrine from the First presidency statement   ""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.""

 

With that definition in mind that it is a personal decision between the member

and the Lord, why does the Church seem to emphasize that the right

interpretation is gross?   What I mean is that if I look at talks in the last

30 years on tithing, I see little room for a member to understand from what

is said that they have a right to decide for themselves, and that options such

as net and surplus are on the table.   It seems the Church is comfortable with

naive members assuming it must be gross rather than empowering them with

the Doctrine to seek out their own answer from the Lord.

 

Even the JST of Genesis 14 seems to indicate that even Abraham paid tithing

on Surplus

 

I feel like we will never tell people in conference that there are options and

that each member should seek personal revelation to get their own answer

on what the Lord expects from them. That would be so empowering and

show that teaching Doctrine is of value and that how much money is brought

in is not trumped by truth.

 

 

4.) I am struggling with a principle. The April 6th birthdate is messy

and not clearly “known revelation” The April 6th issue

in and of itself is truly meaningless to me and the assumption made is an easy

one to make that has been repeated throughout our history, even by leaders.

My issue is essentially “Why would the Church choose to entrench and defend

such position once it is aware that it is not clear cut”?. I am unconcerned with

the birth date per se of Christ because of the following: a) it is an easy

assumption to make from a surface reading of available

information (D&C sec 20:1 and other leaders who have perpetuated this

assumption);   and b) this issue has little impact on anything relating to

importance.   My issues, however, are the following:   when the Brethren (or a leader on his own)

claim that "we" (the church as a whole) "know" something by revelation,

only to discover that we indeed do not really "know", then rather than

acknowledging the issue is not that cut and dry, the choice seems to be

defending and entrenching on the issue which by all indications is not

ccurate.   The Ensign article used 4 sources to bolster its support that 

April 6th is indeed the birth date of Christ. Some examples are: 

 

A.) D&C 20:1 which we now know almost certainly came from John

Whitmer, was as we understand it never intended to define the birth 

date of Christ.

 

B.) Harold B. Lee's   "“Strengthen the Stakes of Zion" where Pres. Lee

refers back to D&C 20:1 as his source for his assumption.

 

C.)Pres. Kimball's "“Why Call Me Lord, Lord, and Do Not the Things

Which I Say?”  where Pres Kimball states the knowledge of  April 6th 

as the birth date of the Savio,r but gives no source for such knowledge.  

Are we claiming that Pres. Kimball was stating that as revelation?

 

D.) Pres Kimball's "“Remarks and Dedication of the Fayette, New York, Buildings,”

where unfortunately the audio has him saying something completely different than

the transcript, which brings into question whether this is even support of the original

point.   In the Audio portion, President Kimball states that we celebrate Christ being born on

this EARTH, and also expresses gratitude for his resurrection along with his birth.

The transcript says "This DAY" which is not what he said. The entire meaning and

point Pres. Kimball made changed.  While it could simply be that he meant to say one thing, 

accidentally said another and the transcript fixes it, I don't know that we can know that at this point.

 

E.) The last was President Hinkley where he simply says we know we celebrate

Christmas with the rest of Christianity, even though we know he wasn't born then.  

Again, what revelation is he attributing this to?  For us as a community to "know" something, there

must be a revelation we can all acknowledge and see exists otherwise "We"  as a community can't know.

 

My point here is that I feel like we are taking the path of saying something enough

and bolstering it with circular sources that all draw from an inaccurate assumption

of D&C 20:1, to eventually "force" it to be true when it likely isn't.   And if it is

true, what revelation are we attributing it to?   Where Does God or his Son

actually state Jesus' date of birth?...D&C 20:1?  We already know that this is almost

certainly not a correct assumption.  There is no anger here, just frustration and

bewilderment, and a feeling the Church is not ready to truly tackle such things.

(again not admit it is wrong but rather it is not clear cut and may be incorrect.  

aka - we likely don't know the birthdate of Christ)

 

DB, these are interesting questions, but before answering them I would say that you are like each of us; you are not unique; you are me; you are "them"; you are us.  One of the truths I have learned is that we create our own hell.  No one does it to us or for us.  We create our own hell by our actions and because we acquiesce to our own desires and forfeit our desire to follow Christ.

 

I will answer in my limited ability and capacity in the same number you posed above:

 

1. Your quote by JFS was excellent.  Follow it and forget the rest.  What you are asking is how can you disagree with others.  Common sense would say politely when required.  I have no desire to stir up a hornet's nest when you feel compelled to do so recognize that you have a problem with your ego and/or pride.  You don't need to be right in front of others and you don't need to correct anyone.  Make sense?
2. LGBT issue is answered by doctrine there is nothing to discuss, rehash, ad nauseum.  Your problems and concerns are about how others treat family members who choose or have chosen to act in a non-Christ-like manner toward their children.  We, you and me, act in an un-Christ-like manner every day.  What do we do when we act poorly?  What are we in need of?  How do we want to be corrected at these times?  All that same compassion to operate toward others when they do the same thing we do.  They are just as human as we are and are trying.  
3. Tithing. I don't really understand your problem.  You have been counseled and given options. Pray about it and follow your heart; be honest with yourself and when asked by the bishop if you are a full-tithe payer.  Don't worry about what other people are paying because that is their business and has nothing to do with you.
4. You are worrying about the date of Christ's birth?  Really?  This is one of the major concerns that some in the church want to call it doctrine and others don't follow?  Go back to #1 and read it again.  It does not matter who says it and it is not your job to correct them or the Church.  

 

What is the meaning of humility?  What does it look like when lived by a disciple of Christ?  What is the meaning of pride?  What does it look like when lived by a disciple of Christ?  

[Ahab]

If those are the issues you're grappling with right now, carry on. No biggies to worry about there. Just do what (you believe) is right and let the consequence follow, as the song (or hymn) says.

[cinepro]

3.) Tithing.   Tithing is taught as 10% of your increase.   It (increase) has been

interpreted as Net, Gross, and even Surplus at various times.   I also fully

understand the Doctrine from the First presidency statement   ""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.""

 

With that definition in mind that it is a personal decision between the member

and the Lord, why does the Church seem to emphasize that the right

interpretation is gross?   What I mean is that if I look at talks in the last

30 years on tithing, I see little room for a member to understand from what

is said that they have a right to decide for themselves, and that options such

as net and surplus are on the table.   It seems the Church is comfortable with

naive members assuming it must be gross rather than empowering them with

the Doctrine to seek out their own answer from the Lord.

 

Even the JST of Genesis 14 seems to indicate that even Abraham paid tithing

on Surplus

 

 

 

 

I can't help you with the other questions, but I can see where you're confused about tithing.  I don't blame you, because many church members are.

 

While we're supposed to pay tithing on 10% of our income, you're forgetting that this does not apply to that portion of our income that is "non-tithing" income.

 

For example, if someone gives you a gift and you designate that gift for business or investment purposes, that is "non-tithing" income and you shouldn't pay tithing on it.  Likewise, if you have investment income, or income from other capitalistic activities that aren't classified as regular income, then that is "non-tithing" income and you shouldn't pay tithing on it.  "Tithing income" is defined as that portion of income that is specifically set aside as "tithing income" by those who give it to you.  You pay 10% of that. 

 

But if your boss (or customers, or donators, or whoever else gives you "income") doesn't specify that money as "tithing income", or they specify that it be used for some non-tithing capitalist purpose, then you should adjust your tithing accordingly. 

[DBMormon]

DB, these are interesting questions, but before answering them I would say that you are like each of us; you are not unique; you are me; you are "them"; you are us.  One of the truths I have learned is that we create our own hell.  No one does it to us or for us.  We create our own hell by our actions and because we acquiesce to our own desires and forfeit our desire to follow Christ.

 

I will answer in my limited ability and capacity in the same number you posed above:

 

1. Your quote by JFS was excellent.  Follow it and forget the rest.  What you are asking is how can you disagree with others.  Common sense would say politely when required.  I have no desire to stir up a hornet's nest when you feel compelled to do so recognize that you have a problem with your ego and/or pride.  You don't need to be right in front of others and you don't need to correct anyone.  Make sense?
2. LGBT issue is answered by doctrine there is nothing to discuss, rehash, ad nauseum.  Your problems and concerns are about how others treat family members who choose or have chosen to act in a non-Christ-like manner toward their children.  We, you and me, act in an un-Christ-like manner every day.  What do we do when we act poorly?  What are we in need of?  How do we want to be corrected at these times?  All that same compassion to operate toward others when they do the same thing we do.  They are just as human as we are and are trying.  
3. Tithing. I don't really understand your problem.  You have been counseled and given options. Pray about it and follow your heart; be honest with yourself and when asked by the bishop if you are a full-tithe payer.  Don't worry about what other people are paying because that is their business and has nothing to do with you.
4. You are worrying about the date of Christ's birth?  Really?  This is one of the major concerns that some in the church want to call it doctrine and others don't follow?  Go back to #1 and read it again.  It does not matter who says it and it is not your job to correct them or the Church.  

 

What is the meaning of humility?  What does it look like when lived by a disciple of Christ?  What is the meaning of pride?  What does it look like when lived by a disciple of Christ?  

My issue with

#1 is how much room to I have to dissent without no longer being in the fold.  The line is what I look for.  

#2 My issue is why don't leaders say formally "no one should kick out their child becuase they are gay", "no one should shun their child because they are gay" ?

#3 my issue is why don't leaders help members better realize the choice is theirs and they have more than one option to consider and revealtion is available to them rather than being commended in all things.

#4 - forget the april 6th issue.  Let me ask it this way.  Why at times does the Church choose to defend a false assumption rather than acknowledge it may have misspoke after the fact?

[JDave]

It seems like perhaps #1 is a decent point to discuss on this forum.  The other three will bring nothing but speculation.  IIRC, you have contacts within Church leadership.  I would address your concerns to them.  You would be much more likely to get an accurate response, as well as more likely to see change that you are interested in.

[Ahab]

My issue with

#1 is how much room do I have to dissent without no longer being in the fold. The line is what I look for.

Enough to get yourself sent to Hell, as long as you don't try to get anyone else sent there with you.

#2 My issue is why don't leaders say formally "no one should kick out their child becuase they are gay", "no one should shun their child because they are gay" ?

Some do, and the ones who don't probably figure that other members can get their own revelation from God about how to behave.

#3 my issue is why don't leaders help members better realize the choice is theirs and they have more than one option to consider and revelation is available to them rather than being commanded in all things.

I think because enough is being said about all of us having agency to make our own choices, in all things.

#4 - forget the april 6th issue. Let me ask it this way. Why at times does the Church choose to defend a false assumption rather than acknowledge it may have misspoke after the fact?

It's a false notion that "the Church" teaches only one thing on any issue. The Church is all of the members and each member has their own peculiar beliefs which may or may not align with the beliefs of other members. It's not and never has been as if we are in total agreement on all our beliefs.

[DBMormon]

It seems like perhaps #1 is a decent point to discuss on this forum.  The other three will bring nothing but speculation.  IIRC, you have contacts within Church leadership.  I would address your concerns to them.  You would be much more likely to get an accurate response, as well as more likely to see change that you are interested in.

I have and will wait and see.

[Calm]

"of LGBT individuals?   As many of you well know, many of the homeless LDS youth

are LGBT youth who have either been kicked out of their homes or who have

left their homes not feeling loved and accepted.   As you also likely know, many

LDS LGBT suicides occur over such estrangement from families and the faith

of their LDS origin. I believe this is tragic and unacceptable. There has to be

more that we can do, right?   One suicide that is due to a human being feeling

unloved or unaccepted by us as a community, if we could have been more

understanding and inclusive, even understanding the issue more, is one too many.

I see lots of people repeating these but have yet to see actual studies demonstrating a direct cause. I think it is essential in dealing with suicide to ensure one treats the actual cause and not assume that one knows because such mistakes may just add to to the problem. For example, having suicide prevention efforts in school may actually raise rates of suicides rather than lower them according to some studies.

There is at least one study that shows a supportive home will drop suicide rates significantly....but having a supportive home for children is the right thing to do anyway. Of course some people view support as something more than being loving and accepting of your child no matter what and move into advocation for homosexual behaviour if the child so desires, I don't think the study differentiates well enough to require that conclusion.

"many LDS LGBT suicides occur over such estrangement from families and the faith of their LDS origin"

Suicides rates are high among LGBT across a lot of cultures, including very accepting ones. Do you have a study that determines LDS LGBT youth and young adults are more likely to commit suicide? There are studies that show active LDS young men are much less likely to commit suicide than less active and nonLDS so there would seem to be a possible protective quality to being an active, participating member of the LDS faith.

[CV75]

These are four questions currently on my mind that I seem to struggle finding quality answers to. 

Regarding #1, what do you mean when you say you want to be “safely in the Church?” Does it mean avoiding discipline, honoring your covenants according to your best conscience and ability, enjoying the status quo in your relationships with Church family, friends and social standing, or something else? Or which of these motivators is most important? This would help the conversation. Why do you use the phrase “want to be” in the first paragraph and “allowed to be” in the last paragraph? This would also help in the conversation.

 

In any case, I don’t see President Smith’s remarks as indicative of any standard for staying (“safely”) in the Church; only an invitation to weigh what is taught by the standard works, which is an individual responsibility.

 

If there is more that can be done for #2 by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, direction will be revealed to them line upon line, precept upon precept for them to lead and for the general membership to act upon as well. Individuals can also seek inspiration within their rightful scope of stewardship, as can the councils at all units and levels of the Church.

 

What is so remarkable about the quote in #3 that it should be taught in General Conference? Tithing is freely taught everywhere by those with the keys to answer members’ questions, and the Handbook gives the same guidance anyway. The variations in economic and monetary systems and circumstances across the world affect the application of the concept of “increase” in relation to the various accounting terms, if such terms are even considered by the member at all. (P.S. “gross” can rightly be considered “increase” in that it adds income to the previous level or total received in the prior period—not that everyone has to interpret it that way).

 

On #4, why worry about what someone else “knows” or how they know it or justify “knowing” it? If you don’t know it, so be it; if you “know” otherwise, so be it; for as you say, it really isn’t important in and of itself.

 

Can you identify a common theme between the four questions?

[CV75]

Why does the church not just come out and say this? Well, it can't - and for very good reason.

Of course it can't, for the reason stated in the OP. I think "surplus" can rightly be interpreted as an additional paycheck (gross or net) over the last one. Each breath I take comes from the Lord and is surplus over the last one, as I can hold my breath for many, many breaths-worth of time.

 

Also, if the examples of paying on gross work, and have been proven by testimony to work, those are valuable examples to use. That doesn't oblige anyone to follow that interpretation, as the Handbook says.

Edited September 5, 2014 by CV75

[DBMormon]

Regarding #1, what do you mean when you say you want to be “safely in the Church?” Does it mean avoiding discipline, honoring your covenants according to your best conscience and ability  (YES these), enjoying the status quo in your relationships with Church family, friends and social standing, or something else? Or which of these motivators is most important? This would help the conversation. Why do you use the phrase “want to be” in the first paragraph and “allowed to be” in the last paragraph? This would also help in the conversation. (because I want to be safely in the Church and I want to be allowed to be safely in the Church)

 

In any case, I don’t see President Smith’s remarks as indicative of any standard for staying (“safely”) in the Church; only an invitation to weigh what is taught by the standard works, which is an individual responsibility.

 

If there is more that can be done for #2 by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, direction will be revealed to them line upon line, precept upon precept for them to lead and for the general membership to act upon as well. Individuals can also seek inspiration within their rightful scope of stewardship, as can the councils at all units and levels of the Church.

 

What is so remarkable about the quote in #3 that it should be taught in General Conference? Tithing is freely taught everywhere by those with the keys to answer members’ questions, and the Handbook gives the same guidance anyway. The variations in economic and monetary systems and circumstances across the world affect the application of the concept of “increase” in relation to the various accounting terms, if such terms are even considered by the member at all. (P.S. “gross” can rightly be considered “increase” in that it adds income to the previous level or total received in the prior period—not that everyone has to interpret it that way).  Most members are completely unware they have options like net and especially surplus, very few have access to the handbook #1 and no one has ever shared the First Presidency statement on tithing in Conference so very few are aware of it, hence they feel inclined to see gross as the staus quo)

 

On #4, why worry about what someone else “knows” or how they know it or justify “knowing” it? If you don’t know it, so be it; if you “know” otherwise, so be it; for as you say, it really isn’t important in and of itself.  (I am more worried about claiming "WE" Know when we don't)

 

Can you identify a common theme between the four questions?

 

to your last question, yes.  When truth falls outside of what the Church norm is, how do I incorporate it without crossing a line.  I feel limited in my ability to receive and implement truth while also maintaining a "faithful member" status.

[DBMormon]

Of course it can't, for the reason stated in the OP. I think "surplus" can rightly be interpreted as an additional paycheck (gross or net) over the last one. Each breath I take comes from the Lord and is surplus over the last one, as I can hold my breath for many, many breaths-worth of time.

 

Also, if the examples of paying on gross work, and have been proven by testimony to work, those are valuable examples to use. That doesn't oblige anyone to follow that interpretation, as the Handbook says.

That ignores the surplus view some church leaders have shared

 

quotes Surplus is spoken about

• "In more recent times the Church has not called upon the members to give all their SURPLUS property to the Church, but it has been the requirement according to the covenant, that they PAY THE TENTH." (Emphases added. Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 4 vols. [salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1946-1949], 3: 120.)

• "The celestial law requires one-tenth part of all a man's substance which he possesses at the time he comes into the church (See D&C 119:1), and one-tenth part of his annual increase ever after(See D&C 119:4). IF IT REQUIRES ALL MAN CAN EARN TO SUPPORT HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY, HE IS NOT TITHED AT ALL. The celestial law does not take the mother's and children's bread, neither ought else which they really need for their comfort. The poor that have not of this world's good to spare, but serve and honor God according to the best of their abilities in every other way, shall have a celestial crown in the Eternal Kingdom of our Father." (The Millenial Star, 1847. Orson Hyde, editor)

Also the JST of Genesis 14 (I believe verse 36 or 37)

[Rodeo]

You can disagree with the church on issues. Its when you go around teaching it as truth that it becomes a problem. Just be careful you always state something is your opinion. The LGBT issue is a people to people problem and not a church issue. the church has already stated where its position is and its perfect logic and nothing to complain about. LGBT members can have full membership as long as they do not act upon their attractions. Its usually the ones who "act" upon their attractions that get disciplined by the church and rightfully so. The church has zero tolerance for those who act in sin in these areas. Too much harm can be done within the church when members break moral principles and still want full priveledges. The family unit is the fundamental unit of society and as such traditional marriage is to be upheld s the only means whereby a man or woman can be justified in sexual behavior in the eyes of the Lord.

[ksfisher]

Wouldn't it be better to start four separate threads, one addressing each question?  Each one is so different and could be discussed and some length by themselves.

[CV75]

to your last question, yes.  When truth falls outside of what the Church norm is, how do I incorporate it without crossing a line.  I feel limited in my ability to receive and implement truth while also maintaining a "faithful member" status.

What does it mean to be “allowed” to be safely in the Church—what is it you have no control over with regards to discipline and honoring your covenants? Why avoid inspired discipline if it is in your best interest—whom the Lord loves, He chastens.

 

When you speak of “most members,” they have access to Handbook 1 through their leaders and can get their questions about tithing answered. They do not grapple with accounting and tax terms (which in many ways are irrelevant) and rely on the inspiration they receive from D&C 119. And what is wrong with perceiving “gross” as “increase” or the “status quo” if they haven’t put that much thought into it, worried about it, or have accepted the authentic testimonies of those that have shared what works for them?

 

But “WE” do know, more than you seem to be willing to empathize with or allow.

 

 

That ignores the surplus view some church leaders have shared

Not ignored, just recognizing that the scope and circumstances of the membership as a whole has changed since 1847 / 1949 (hence my use of the term, “rightly interpreted.”). Why live in the past and impose what was shared so long ago for the saints in those times and places upon the saints wherever they live across the globe now?

[ERayR]

These are four questions currently on my mind that I seem to struggle finding quality answers to.  

 

Questions

 

1.) What is my ability to disagree?   Wherein can I dissent? To hold a

different stance? To share my opinion (as long as I make it clear it is my

opinion) which may differ from the accepted view?  

 

You can offer your opinion but you should not divert or disrupt an instructors efforts to follow their lesson plan.  Class room arguments would also be a serious breach of etiquette.   Personal conversations to exchange ideas with friends remembering it is but a sharing of ideas not a proselytizing exercise.   

 

2.) The LGBT issue.  

 

Same principles as above.  Let me say I have a couple of members of my extended family who have gender issues.  We have a cordial to pretty good personal relationship, depending on which one.  One of them has more problem with me than I with him.  This is because my values bother him more than his bother me.

 

3.) Tithing. 

 

I have never heard any Church Leader preach anything other than what the Church itself says.  I have heard some speakers give their interpretation but not as doctrine.  Just remember "Where your treasure is, so will your heart be there also:.

 

4.) I am struggling with a principle. The April 6th birthdate is messy

and not clearly “known revelation” The April 6th issue

in and of itself is truly meaningless to me and the assumption made is an easy

one to make that has been repeated throughout our history, even by leaders.

My issue is essentially “Why would the Church choose to entrench and defend

such position once it is aware that it is not clear cut”?.

 

Totally irrelevant.  Figure out why something so irrelevant as somebodies idea of Christs birthday bothers you.  My guess is that it gets repeated because it sounds good.  I really haven't heard anybody mount a serious defense of it.  It is usually mentioned incidentally as illustrative whenever I hear it .  Even if Elder Bednar believes it is still irrelevant.  Instead of complaining on a discussion board write him a letter outlining your concerns and see if you get an answer.

 

Prioritize what is really important.

 

Just some thoughts.  Hope it helps.

[VideoGameJunkie]

I pay tithing on the net, but I'm very generous with the fast offering, humanitarian aid, and missionary donations etc. I pay it every 2 weeks when I get paid so hopefully the donations add up. That's what I believe in helping build the kingdom of God.

[CV75]

When truth falls outside of what the Church norm is, how do I incorporate it without crossing a line.  I feel limited in my ability to receive and implement truth while also maintaining a "faithful member" status.

Focusing on one’s relative standing requires that he compare himself to others. But doing so undermines faith in the Lord and a relationship with Him. Emphasizing status over faith while proclaiming doctrine that runs contrary to that supported by those with whom he compares himself is a lethal combination, because it fosters enmity (and the persisting negative reactions you listed, such as frustration, bewilderment, and skepticism). I would not focus so much on preserving status but on being true and faithful to the Lord.

 

I wouldn't take the four examples you provided as examples of truths that fall outside of the Church norms (President Smith didn't use any).

 

Also, using the term "faithful member" when the priority is to avoid discipline can be considered an oxymoron.

[CV75]

I pay tithing on the net, but I'm very generous with the fast offering, humanitarian aid, and missionary donations etc. I pay it every 2 weeks when I get paid so hopefully the donations add up. That's what I believe in helping build the kingdom of God.

Then by all means, continue!

[DBMormon]

 

 

Totally irrelevant.  Figure out why something so irrelevant as somebodies idea of Christs birthday bothers you.  My guess is that it gets repeated because it sounds good.  I really haven't heard anybody mount a serious defense of it.  It is usually mentioned incidentally as illustrative whenever I hear it .  Even if Elder Bednar believes it is still irrelevant.  Instead of complaining on a discussion board write him a letter outlining your concerns and see if you get an answer.

 

Prioritize what is really important.

 

Just some thoughts.  Hope it helps.

If they won't correct the irrelevant when it would be easy, and it took forever to correct the serious (race theories and perhaps the ban itself) how can we be sure they will be willing to acknowledge truth and error on everything in between?  thank you for your response by the way.

[DBMormon]

VideoGameJunkie, on 05 Sept 2014 - 3:17 PM, said:

I pay tithing on the net, but I'm very generous with the fast offering, humanitarian aid, and missionary donations etc. I pay it every 2 weeks when I get paid so hopefully the donations add up. That's what I believe in helping build the kingdom of God.

 

I pay tithing on Surplus.  I have asked the Lord and we are both ok with that.  I paid gross my first 16 years in the Church but I was completely unaware that there were other options and that it was between me and the Lord.  Once I knew I had a responsibility to ask God and to ask for an answer with various options, I felt empowered and it has been a point of discussion between me and god, hence improving our relationship.

Edited September 5, 2014 by DBMormon

[CV75]

I pay tithing on Surplus.

Then by all means, continue! I don't see what this has to do with avoiding discipline or any requirement to promote your approach over others.

[stemelbow]

VideoGameJunkie, on 05 Sept 2014 - 3:17 PM, said:

 

I pay tithing on Surplus.  I have asked the Lord and we are both ok with that.  I paid gross my first 16 years in the Church but I was completely unaware that there were other options and that it was between me and the Lord.  Once I knew I had a responsibility to ask God and to ask for an answer with various options, I felt empowered and it has been a point of discussion between me and god, hence improving our relationship.

Sounds like you answered 3 yourself.

What does it mean to pay tithing on surplus? You mean after you pay all your necessities you give a tenth of what's left to the Church or that you give all your extra to the Church?