RevTestament Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Some might. I refuse to claim my tithing on my taxes. Doesn't feel like I gave it to the Lord if I get it right back, even a portion. You are not "getting it back" - you are just paying less of it out as tax. It is just decreasing your tax liability. The money you gave is all given no matter what. However, I generally don't make enough to itemize & make that deduction anyway... 4
Calm Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 26 minutes ago, RevTestament said: That might still be in the realm of "tithing" but good point. Full disclosure would certainly help me to understand these things... Nevertheless just because I choose to give more than 10% doesn't mean it is not "a tithe." I would concede unconditionally tho that bequests to the Church and other such gifts do not represent a part of an annual increase, and therefore scripturally are not a tithe. A "tithe" is what God commands his people to return to him. If there are those who wish to show gratitude or commitment to the Lord by giving to the Church greater contributions than what is commanded, I don't think we should dismiss the intent of either action (the obedience demonstrated by the first, the service, charity, and generosity by the second)by labeling all as "tithing". We are not being charitable when we pay our tithes as commanded, but dutiful. Offerings that are intended to assist the poor are also commanded, but can be done with the spirit of obligation or charity depending on if we give what we view as the minimum or give generously. We are being charitable when we go beyond the command of tithing and the prescribed amount of fast offerings. In charity, we emulate to the best of our ability God's charity. 1
bluebell Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 39 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Nevertheless just because I choose to give more than 10% doesn't mean it is not "a tithe." A tithe is a tenth. By definition, more than 10% is not a tithe. 3
ERayR Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 48 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Nevertheless just because I choose to give more than 10% doesn't mean it is not "a tithe." I would concede unconditionally tho that bequests to the Church and other such gifts do not represent a part of an annual increase, and therefore scripturally are not a tithe. If you designate it as a tithe then it is tithing. 1
Calm Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, bluebell said: I don't know that King Benjamin is all that relevant today (because our societies work differently), but i see your points.... If our leaders could support themselves by going out and working the crops or assisting in building, caring for domesticated animals, hunting, etc. in their spare time, I suspect a lot of them would, just as our bishops and other leaders do with their careers. There comes a level of involvement though, imo, due to the complexity of the needs of the Church that leaders can no longer operate with their church calling as a second job after they have provided for the needs of their family. The Church could choose to split these callings among a number of people, but then there are a lot of time and resources lost due to the increase need for communication/information sharing...which requires more people devoting free time to callings to cover this...which creates more complexity, etc. etc. It becomes cost effective to the Church, imo, to devote funds to supporting a small percentage, thereby eliminating confusion and some complexity, likely saving the Church money and resources long term over what could be saved if everyone donated time to their callings, but had to limit that time due to needing to eat, have a home for their families, etc. And if the only people called to the First Quorum, as Mission Presidents, the 12, and all other callings (as opposed to actual jobs) were those who could afford to take them without any reimbursement or stipend, that would eliminate many who currently serve and turn our leadership into a completely elitist group or one whose families were destitute and having to live off charity. PS: all leaders currently in supported positions have already demonstrated a willingness to serve without pay as they have been bishops, stake presidents, unpaid seventies, etc. They have likely thus volunteered endless hours of service uncompensated by anything but blessings from the Lord and fulfilling desires to serve him and others. Edited January 10, 2017 by Calm 3
JAHS Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 12 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Income from "investments" is indirectly from tithing since tithing money was used to make the investments - unless they are taking the money from fast offerings, church building funds or other funds which I would find much more disturbing. Back in the early days of the church is when the investments started and much of them probably did start from tithing donations. It had to start somehow. But I think what concerns people right now is whether or not "their" tithing money is going into these other extraneous expenses today, which is not the case.
RevTestament Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Calm said: A "tithe" is what God commands his people to return to him. If there are those who wish to show gratitude or commitment to the Lord by giving to the Church greater contributions than what is commanded, I don't think we should dismiss the intent of either action (the obedience demonstrated by the first, the service, charity, and generosity by the second)by labeling all as "tithing". We are not being charitable when we pay our tithes as commanded, but dutiful. Offerings that are intended to assist the poor are also commanded, but can be done with the spirit of obligation or charity depending on if we give what we view as the minimum or give generously. We are being charitable when we go beyond the command of tithing and the prescribed amount of fast offerings. In charity, we emulate to the best of our ability God's charity. I pay a tithe of 10% of my annual "increase." A higher amount might still be a tithe. We also pay fast offerings, and I have paid money toward an education fund started by Hinckley and other worthwhile things. My father used to contribute to a building fund which was separate. I realize I don't have to pay those things, but I wish to do so, and even though they come out of my "annual increase" I don't consider them tithing although the Lord might. I still would deduct them in the same place. The thing I am distinguishing is that people do make gifts of their real estate and other personal property which is not part of their annual "increase." These things scripturally are not tithing, so I do see my initial statement on the subject was incorrect, and I stand corrected. So I do see that the stipends or salaries (they have to be reported to the IRS as taxable income or salary) may not come out of tithe money in any form as I initially stated. My qualms with the GAs does not come out of a belief that they are being dishonest, so I don't think full disclosure would help my "qualms." I do believe the Church has gone astray in a few places tho. I don't know or necessarily believe that there is a commandment not to accept pay, but I wonder why our leaders seem to exempt themselves out of voluntary service while asking it of others. I understand some may not be able to afford travel, and that the church should reimburse that, etc. But the members of the MTab pay at least a good part of their travel expenses. I don't understand why they receive support for their families, while asking other missionaries to leave their families without any offer to help support them. I don't really wish to get on the subject, so I have said I will bow out. It is getting too far off the subject anyhow.
HappyJackWagon Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 59 minutes ago, CV75 said: The principle is the same as ever (D&C 26), as are the accountability and presidency principles set up by the Lord. Application and practice are bound to change, but still follow the principles as revealed, according to the character preserved in canon. “That was then” came about and ended, and “This is now” also came about, by common consent, a principle of faith, involving members and leaders, both who are accountable to the Lord. As for a whittling away of the practice, yes, the United Order and anything that might be construed as its practical derivatives no longer exist, but I have been in settings in the last 12 months where decisions and its actions were proposed to be sustained by the common consent of the presided group. The principle is still alive and well. We disagree. Is there any kind of record where common consent was obtained to change past practices like providing financial disclosures to the body of the church? The only use of common consent I see is the perfunctory process of sustaining leaders. Many leaders then extrapolate that sustaining to mean common consent has been given for anything they choose to do. 2
Calm Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 Just now, JAHS said: Back in the early days of the church is when the investments started and much of them probably did start from tithing donations. It had to start somehow. But I think what concerns people right now is whether or not "their" tithing money is going into these other extraneous expenses today, which is not the case. Other forms of donations were often used, such as stocks and shared investment in real estate...sometimes not particularly wise as it allowed for speculation at the cost of one's fellow saints by the greedy. (Think the Kirtland Safety Society and why it went bankrupt).
Calm Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 9 minutes ago, RevTestament said: A higher amount might still be a tithe. In your mind perhaps, but not as instructed by the Lord to the Church in general imo. Edited January 10, 2017 by Calm
rongo Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I contribute to a church that is under mandate to do all things, including finances, by common consent. They ought to return to that practice. CFR that the Church "is under mandate to do . . . finances by common consent." If we had to vote as a body on appropriations, can you imagine how long that would take? It would be a never-ending process. Edited January 10, 2017 by rongo 3
JLHPROF Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 52 minutes ago, RevTestament said: You are not "getting it back" - you are just paying less of it out as tax. It is just decreasing your tax liability. The money you gave is all given no matter what. However, I generally don't make enough to itemize & make that deduction anyway... I understand that from a financial perspective. My feeling though is that tithing is meant to represent a form of sacrifice. If I know I'm getting it back it becomes less of a sacrifice doesn't it? If the Lord commanded you to sacrifice 10/100 sheep, and then by telling the king you did this he gives you 10 sheep back did you really give anything up? I know there is no requirement of commandment behind my thinking. It just feels right to not expect to get anything back for tithing to the Lord.
rongo Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Gray said: Personally I would supported expanding pay to other church clergy. The unpaid volunteer thing takes its toll on families. That would be over $1 billion, assuming each bishop and branch president were paid or paid the equivalent of $35,000 per year. This does not include stake presidents. Would we be including the counselors as well? What about health care and other benefits? I think it is much better to have our local leaders completely ehrenamtlich (voluntary and unpaid). And I'm a 2nd time bishop. Although there are times when it is extremely time-consuming, and it would be nice (and helpful) to be able to visit people instead of work. I don't sneer at non-LDS clergy being paid, because if you are magnifying that calling, you don't have time for anything else. LDS clergy are asked to do the impossible, and largely succeed. The trouble is that as soon as you make it a paid position, you automatically suck the vitality and power out of it that comes from it being unpaid. The Church and the work would never recover. I don't criticize the Brethren for paying themselves, but I wish that they didn't have a "living stipend" because I can't think of one who needed/needs it. A pre-requisite for being a general authority is to be wealthy. And, I think a "living stipend" of $120,000 is not needed in any of their cases by any metric, regardless of what they could be getting in the private sector.
Gray Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, rongo said: That would be over $1 billion, assuming each bishop and branch president were paid or paid the equivalent of $35,000 per year. This does not include stake presidents. Would we be including the counselors as well? What about health care and other benefits? The church spends a lot more than that in real estate investments. Why not invest in the church? Quote I think it is much better to have our local leaders completely ehrenamtlich (voluntary and unpaid). And I'm a 2nd time bishop. Although there are times when it is extremely time-consuming, and it would be nice (and helpful) to be able to visit people instead of work. I don't sneer at non-LDS clergy being paid, because if you are magnifying that calling, you don't have time for anything else. LDS clergy are asked to do the impossible, and largely succeed. The trouble is that as soon as you make it a paid position, you automatically suck the vitality and power out of it that comes from it being unpaid. The Church and the work would never recover. I don't criticize the Brethren for paying themselves, but I wish that they didn't have a "living stipend" because I can't think of one who needed/needs it. A pre-requisite for being a general authority is to be wealthy. And, I think a "living stipend" of $120,000 is not needed in any of their cases by any metric, regardless of what they could be getting in the private sector. Has all the vitality been sucked out of the FP and Q12 because they are paid? Regarding their specific circumstances, I can't think of any who would have been been so wealthy when they were called that they could survive without pay for decades. Thomas Monson was a general manager at Deseret News, but he was called as an apostle in 1963. President Packer worked for CES. President Nelson was a surgeon. I'm sure he made good money, but that ended in 1984. Edited January 10, 2017 by Gray 2
halconero Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 21 hours ago, Duncan said: Correct me If am wrong but didn't Grant Palmer say that Apostles get a million dollars? I am no mathematician but 90K isn't a million big ones if this is even legit, they would make more in the private sector than they do working in the Church. Interesting to see a name I know on there. He was being considered as a Mission President. He came here to our stake as an Area Seventy in 2003 or 4 and I vividly recall him having all the Bishops call all the new male converts and get them into an interview to be advanced in the priesthood. This all happened during the Sat. leadership session, well the Stake President got upset at him and there was some back and forth between them and it was awkward but anyways so the bishops called these men and one from our ward quit the Church over this interview-never saw him again. So, I don't know what the outcome of all these interviews were beyond him but I do know our SP was not happy it backfired in that one brother's case and he wanted to know from other bishops if that happened to them as well. I just checked he was an Area 70 from 2001-2007, what he's done since i have no idea. But that weekend's plan to advance more men in the priesthood didn't really work out so I am not too surprised he wasn't called as a Mission President Obviously he meant a million pesos, not dollars. 1
RevTestament Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: I understand that from a financial perspective. My feeling though is that tithing is meant to represent a form of sacrifice. If I know I'm getting it back it becomes less of a sacrifice doesn't it? If the Lord commanded you to sacrifice 10/100 sheep, and then by telling the king you did this he gives you 10 sheep back did you really give anything up? I know there is no requirement of commandment behind my thinking. It just feels right to not expect to get anything back for tithing to the Lord. You may feel this way if you have been prepaying your taxes during the year, and in the end get some back based on the lower liability. But what if you earn less than expected, so then get some taxes back? Is that going to make you feel guilty? I don't pay any taxes during the year, so if I were to itemize I will only pay less tax... I won't get anything "back." However, we do need some brave souls to try to lower our national debt, so I am glad you are trying to do your part. It's only up to about 200,000 per taxpayer with no end in sight.
Yirgacheffe Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 23 hours ago, rockpond said: "It has been noticed that the disrespect for the temple and grounds is increasing at the Salt Lake Temple. Children are knocking on doors, playing on steps, etc. It is a great privelage [sic] to be able to go up and touch the temple. This privelege [sic, with a different misspelling] might be taken away if there isn't a better control of the facilities. Bro. Olsen was given the assignment to post couples at the bottom of the stairs to keep people reverent around the temple." I find this part sad.
SeekerB Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 5 hours ago, cdowis said: But you have to have your temple recommend renewed every six six months for security purposes. Nothing special about the renewal. As an actual employee I did have to show it once a year.
rockpond Posted January 10, 2017 Author Posted January 10, 2017 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I'm guessing that our leaders interpret the law of common consent differently than you do. Either that, or they are willfully choosing to disobey it. I don't think that they are willfully choosing to disobey it. I just think that they interpret it differently. 1
halconero Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 16 hours ago, Tacenda said: I really don't think the Lord likes how the church spends His money. Nothing in the Bible about malls, land development etc. Maybe shelters, hospitals, nursing homes, would be better suited. There's always the parable from the New Testament about being friends with mammon. To clarify, Jesus specifies that we are not to love mammon (money), but he does advise in the parable to be financially prudent and to have nest eggs set aside. 1
rockpond Posted January 10, 2017 Author Posted January 10, 2017 58 minutes ago, rongo said: CFR that the Church "is under mandate to do . . . finances by common consent." If we had to vote as a body on appropriations, can you imagine how long that would take? It would be a never-ending process. D&C 28:13 For all things must be done in order, and by common consent in the church, by the prayer of faith. Obviously there is some level of detail that we can't drill down to as a common body of saints. But I see no valid reason that we can't return to the process we followed pre-1959.
bluebell Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 (edited) 16 minutes ago, rockpond said: I don't think that they are willfully choosing to disobey it. I just think that they interpret it differently. I agree. And since church leaders believe that they are currently following the law of consent, I don't know what else we can require of them. Edited January 10, 2017 by bluebell 2
CV75 Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: We disagree. Is there any kind of record where common consent was obtained to change past practices like providing financial disclosures to the body of the church? The only use of common consent I see is the perfunctory process of sustaining leaders. Many leaders then extrapolate that sustaining to mean common consent has been given for anything they choose to do. I’m not sure what point you think we disagree on. But I think what you term an “extrapolation” is the actual instruction provided in D&C 26 Posted 2 hours ago, depending on how you characterize “choose to do.” Because we have the overarching principle of common consent in place as used in the canon, the President of the Church is not required to conduct a Church-wide procedural application of it in every instance where an action or decision is made. As President, that is really up to him, and I have no evidence that that hasn't been the case all along. It is worth noting that in the 19th century, Joseph Smith’s day, consent meant: accordance, agreement, unity and harmony, etc., as well as permission, all of which in a community scale are reflected by attitude more often than by procedure http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/consent
rockpond Posted January 10, 2017 Author Posted January 10, 2017 14 minutes ago, bluebell said: I agree. And since church leaders believe that they are currently following the law of consent, I don't know what else we can require of them. We can't "require" anything of them. Though it's possible that the D&C does require it. But that doesn't change my belief that they should be transparent with finances as the church used to be.
CV75 Posted January 10, 2017 Posted January 10, 2017 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: We can't "require" anything of them. Though it's possible that the D&C does require it. But that doesn't change my belief that they should be transparent with finances as the church used to be. Your proposal has been dul considered and... Nah-thanks...
Recommended Posts