Leaks about Africa

[stemelbow]

22 minutes ago, Judd said:

In the original post the "superseding" comment is referenced. It then gives examples of marriage decisions and marriage equality, true conversion vs. attending church and servant leadership and ministering to others rather than authority alone leadership. Which of those were troublesome for you?

My point was not addressing those.  It was simply I did not like the wording of title of those two slides.  I did not comment on the content, as you can see. 

22 minutes ago, Judd said:

You haven't quite answered that but rather referenced finding "gospel culture superseding local culture" as being problematic -- do you take issue with any of the examples that were given to clarify what that statement meant or do you find the idea troubling in that it pertains to something extraneous to their given explanation/examples?

The examples are the examples.  There is no indication the slide's titles were only meant to refer to those examples.  It clearly says superseding local cultures.  I simply don't think there is everything in a given local culture that needs to be superseded.  I think it could have been worded much better. 

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

No, we don't know that, and that's the point of my post. 

 

Well then I misunderstood then.  I thought Gray's point was something along the lines of if you pay tithing you have less money.  But you seemed to challenge that by suggesting it could be that God blesses those who pay tithing.  I challenged that by saying GOd could just as well bless those who don't pay tithing and when someone feels blessed for paying tithing it may be that they would have received that blessing if they did not pay tithing.  We'd never know.  SO ultimately the best bet is to go with Gray's point over yours.  At least that was my take.  But again, if I misunderstood, so be it.  And I apologize. 

[stemelbow]

5 hours ago, juliann said:

Which has nothing, and I mean nothing, to do with what I said. You are dodging again. 

(Do I need to remind you that I said I don't like the cash out cash in approach to tithing and that tithing gives you stuff beyond that? I have only talked about the beyond that stuff.)

Hey, I'm just following your lead in responding with stuff that has nothing to do with what I had said...yet you persisted.

My point was those blessings you mention, that aren't cash out cash in, could be made up for by those who don't pay tithing because if they save the 10% they could use their extra funds to help support a  world wide social support network, have more food, and more money, have more for education funding, and thus give more for humanitarian services, etc., etc. if they hit hard times. 

I thought it was an appropriate response. 

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

https://mormonleaks.io/wiki/index.php?title=File:Africa_West_Area_Overview.pdf

 

Here is a leak regarding West Africa. 

A couple of observations:

1.  It's interesting that this shows the smaller the unit the higher the level of attendance.  makes ya wonder of the wisdom the Church has taken to make units larger and cutting some units as a result. 

2.  The number of convert baptisms has grown by more than 200%, well at least from 2010 to 2015. 

3.  While the Church added 24,000 converts in 2015, the number of people attending sacrament increased in that year by 10,000--a ration of 2.4 baptisms gains us 1 member, roughly put.

4.   Jesus is presented as being white in West Africa. 

5.  The Gospel Culture needs to supersede local culture feels offensive to me. 
               

6.  Helping members rise from poverty through the  payment of tithes and offerings and the application  of self­ reliance principles. 

not sure I can get on board with the, "well we know they are in poverty, but if we can get them pay tithes and offerings there'll get out of poverty" type of stuff.  Sounds like the goal is to get them out of poverty so the Church can make more off of them.

Anyway, thoughts?

Yeh, don't sweat the small stuff.  Take care of the big matters and the small matters will eventually take care of themselves.

Have faith in the goodness of the common people.  Offerings in kind are very familiar to the locals in West Africa:  A chicken or the like for a healing by a witch doctor, or for a fast offering is quite enough.  They will know when to do more.

Lift where you stand.  Do what you can at the moment, in your own bailiwick, and the rest will take care of itself.

Patience is a virtue.  Local traditions should be respected and followed, unless they are in fact in opposition to the Gospel.

Small congregations can be very intimate, friendly, and meaningful.  Accept them in a practical way, so that burdens are not placed unnecessarily on the supposed need for bigger, fancier congregations, and the long-distance travel to get to them.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

That seems very cynical even for  you. The Church has always taken the view that the Lord will financially bless the tithe giver. The Church sees that principle as part of the basic gospel message. I'm not sure I totally agree with it, but I believe most members do, and in fact I believe most members are so blessed. You are like saying Jesus was encouraging the old widow to enrich the priests at her expense. Yet, Jesus said she was blessed. Either one accepts the principle of tithing or one doesn't. Perhaps these new converts are willing to tithe because they see what the gospel is doing in the lives of their friends. The Church has also always emphasized the gospel culture sometimes at the cost of personal jobs, etc. And all the sudden that is offensive to you? Is that because you as a "privileged white guy" must presume God won't bless them?

Brave words, Rev, and I agree with the principle.  However, we need to understand the additional principle of "milk before meat."  I can recall a time when I knew nothing, and didn't bother to pay tithes or offerings -- without pangs of conscience.  Over time that all changed

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Africa once had large, prosperous Christian societies. All that changed when Islam took over and destroyed these societies, and plunged these people back into medieval 7th century Arabian society, and brought massive slavery to Africa. It was these slave traders who were responsible for the slaves being sold to the Portugese, Spanish, and English in the Americas. Stop being "offended" by Christianity helping people, and learn why they need help in the first place. If they want to accept the gospel, that is a completely voluntary change in their lives and culture rather than the Islamic culture which was forced upon them, and has largely left Africa a poor, divided and forelorn place. They don't want your pity of your feeling offended for them. They are capable of pulling themselves out of the chains which have held them bound for centuries with a little help from the gospel and the Lord.

Not so.  The golden age of Islam saved civilization when Christian Europe was in the throes of the Dark Ages.  The so-called "Christian" Renaissance (courtesy of that Islamic golden age) brought the rapacious European colonial powers to divide up Africa among themselves -- enslaving Africa without mercy.  Africa is still recovering from that "Christian" onslaught.

[Gray]

10 hours ago, juliann said:

But again, there are benefits even removing the spiritual element. It is rather like those who don't think they are getting anything for their taxes. Even if they don't directly benefit you, it benefits others.  I wish so many didn't make tithing a cash in cash out exchange. It also operates as insurance, in a way. I know that I have a score of people at the ready should I need help...up to making house payments. I haven't ever needed that, beyond fixing a fence and a funeral, but I'm glad that what I pay goes towards a brother or sister who has needed it. 

Doesn't that describe fast offerings rather than tithing?

[Gray]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

You can't say that people paying tithing always have 10% less than they started with unless you also deny that God can and does intervene, sometimes financially, on behalf of those people who pay tithing.

Is that something that you feel comfortable denying?  

Tithing isn't a matter of math as much as it's a matter of faith and making room for the miracle.  

I will say very confidently that God doesn't intervene to provide cash back benefits as a reward to people who pay tithing - I'm as confident about that as I am about saying that God doesn't provide special miracle cures as a reward to people who avoid medical attention.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I've always had a problem with this. It seems so obvious that paying 10% to the church won't make you richer. I always thought it was a sacrifice.

Yes, it's a lucky rabbit's foot kind of belief.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

8 hours ago, RevTestament said:

No. And the Lord does not bless the Gentiles, and has nothing to do with why the United States became a prosperous nation compared to oh say Afghanistan.

The people of Afghanistan aren't gentiles too? Most of them certainly aren't Jewish. You think God plays favorites with Americans, and that's why we're wealthier?

 

Quote

 

The Lord has no power to bless me with more work, yada yada yada. All those people who testify in Church that the Lord blessed them after they tithed so that they could pay their bills are liars all!!! 

If paying tithing made people wealthier, Utah would be the wealthiest state. If paying tithing made it so people could miraculously pay their bills on time even though though they didn't have enough money after tithing, I dare say Utah wouldn't have be the "personal bankruptcy state"

This kind of thinking thrives under a sloppy sort of correlation/causation mental outlook. People who believe in tithing miracles tend to be very selective about how they choose to interpret the events in their lives.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Many people know, with certainty, that mud made from spit simply does not, indeed cannot, cure blindness.

And they're right, it can't.

 

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Other people choose to see.

And this is why critics will always face frustration when they encounter Saints who seem blissfully resistant to 'the truth', mathematical or otherwise.

 

Let's not confuse wishy thinking with spirituality or devotion to God. They're not the same thing.

[Hamba Tuhan]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

Let's not confuse wishy thinking with spirituality or devotion to God.

I see you've used the first-person plural here. Please leave me out of your faithlessness next time. It takes a special kind of arrogance to tell a man with sight that he really can't see just because you can't/won't.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Hamba Tuhan

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I see you've used the first-person plural here. Please leave me out of your faithlessness next time. It takes a special kind of arrogance to tell a man with sight that he really can't see just because you can't/won't.

That's a strange rhetorical tactic - I think my meaning was clear. Devotion to God and devotion to a sloppy notion of correlation/causation are not at all the same thing. There are many faithful believers in God who are not faithful believers in superstition.

Your rejection of the Christian Scientist notion that skipping the hospital will bring blessings of health doesn't make you faithless or arrogant, does it? If not, then my rejection of the notion that paying tithing brings monetary blessings is also neither faithless nor arrogant.

I think it's especially morally problematic to teach this kind of thing (tithing = monetary blessings) to people who living on subsistence wages. Tithing hits the poor the hardest. In the Christian Scientist examples, it's like telling cancer patients to forego medical treatment and then to expect blessings from God. It's not ethical.

Edited June 14, 2017 by Gray

[CV75]

12 hours ago, Gray said:

Just as Christian Scientists don't believe in modern medicine, many Mormons seem not to believe in math. The result of people paying tithing is that they have roughly 10% less income. Paying tithing doesn't increase income for anyone but the church itself.

I don't say that to be offensive, I'm just trying to be realistic. I know full well that Latter-day Saints aren't the only Christians who believe this way.

Realistically, you're simply not understanding the math and/or the full picture, or applying the math to the full picture. Take a remedial course!

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

If paying tithing made people wealthier, Utah would be the wealthiest state. If paying tithing made it so people could miraculously pay their bills on time even though though they didn't have enough money after tithing, I dare say Utah wouldn't have be the "personal bankruptcy state"

This kind of thinking thrives under a sloppy sort of correlation/causation mental outlook. People who believe in tithing miracles tend to be very selective about how they choose to interpret the events in their lives.

Item #5, “Helping members rise from poverty through the payment of tithes and offerings and the application of self-reliance principles.”

Your selectivity betrays a sloppy mental outlook by equating the “rise from poverty” with “becoming wealthier” (i.e. rising from prosperity to having even greater surplus of money, resources, or assets), and by disregarding “the application of self-reliance principles” and focusing solely on “tithes and offerings.” This is being far from realistic.

Edited June 14, 2017 by CV75

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I will say very confidently that God doesn't intervene to provide cash back benefits as a reward to people who pay tithing - I'm as confident about that as I am about saying that God doesn't provide special miracle cures as a reward to people who avoid medical attention.

I know some people who say very confidently that God doesn't take two fish and five loaves of bread and feed 5,000 people.  They claim that it's an issue of math.  They don't understand God.

I've seen God provide financially for people who pay tithing.  I'm not saying that He always (or even usually) provides cash, but you can bless people financially without providing cash, as i'm sure you know.  And getting out of poverty is not just an issue of having more cash (it's not usually even the most important issue), as I'm sure you also know.  

It's very possible to pay tithing and also become financially better off than when you started paying tithing. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

13 hours ago, juliann said:

Then you won't mind if I say it sounds like you are a sexual predator? I mean, that does not in any way say anything about anybody being a deviant.....  

You are not going to be able to clean it up, Stem. We are in an era where it just doesn't come off right for rich American white folk to be speaking for poor African black folk halfway around the world. Even LDS.org has the good sense to have Africans speaking for themselves even though you probably consider them to be fooled as well. The only way to make Mormonism evil is to haul out the captivity tales which is pretty much what you heading right into. 

You are not going to be able to twist out of this. Maybe just maybe, it really is time for critics to start providing the whole truth about what they take potshots at day in and day out. Maybe just maybe it is time for an obligation to provide documentation and sources behind those quick and dirty daily potshots. 

This level of hostility and rudeness is unacceptable. You owe Stem a sincere apology. Nice job defending your faith with this kind of vitriol and hyperbole as you continue to poison the well against a poster with whom you disagree.  You should be ashamed. I'm embarrassed for you.

Edited June 14, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Well that's good.  'Cause upon reading the rest of your post, it's obvious you didn't pay attention to what I said.  So whatever it is that is stupid, you seemed to have missed it. 

That's really weird you went on to do just that.  Let's see: 

Here's what I said, simply: "The Gospel Culture needs to supersede local culture feels offensive to me. "Upon reading your response it's as if I said something about "Mormon culture" or "UT or American LDS culture".  But I did not.  Then a lecture, ending with, "It may help if you let go of the assumption that somehow white, western american LDS culture is somehow getting a free pass here."  As you may be able to see in what I did say, there was no assumption that somehow white, western American LDS culture is somehow getting a free pass here.  But yet you advise, "It may help if yet let go of the assumption.."  I made no such assumption. 

If that's what you meant, that's what you meat. To be fair, the reason I assumed that you were using gospel and church interchangeably....is because you litterally used it interchangeably a few posts down from the OP here:

"My comment was directed at the wording of that title--superseding local culture.  TO be clear, there was nothing in there that said the Church should embrace any of their culture, but that it should be superseded."

If you're going to criticize a powerpoint slide about wording choice and what it could imply, it would be nice if you would also be clear and precise as to what you mean and how you are using terms.

 

Quote

 

Here's what I said, "not sure I can get on board with the, "well we know they are in poverty, but if we can get them pay tithes and offerings there'll get out of poverty" type of stuff.  Sounds like the goal is to get them out of poverty so the Church can make more off of them."

As I explained earlier in this thread.  My thinking here was to criticize the way it was worded in the slide deck.  I have no problem, just for you, since it seems you think I do, with anyone's personal experience with God.  This slide deck is just that.  It is not stamped with approval from the Church.  I don't think you've really given my words any consideration. 

Do you seriously think I said anything about spirituality or spirituality among African members?  This is all coming from left field for me. 

 

 

 

Yes. I did. I don't have time to just make up concerns out of thin air. 

Quote

 

Again, or look.  We all have our experiences in life, and simply put, you don't know mine at all.  IT's weird you feel the need to assume you do. 

Please back down.  I did not say one thing about the command to pay tithing or whether it should be paid, or whether those in poverty should pay it, or should feel good about paying it.  Indeed, if someone in poverty feels it is best that God wants them to pay tithing at the expense of everything else, I'm actually supportive of it. All I indicated is I did not appreciate how it was worded in the slide deck and explained how it came off to me.  That you think I said anything about:

--African members (I did not)

--that I said something extremely offensive to them, even though I did not mention them at all.

--That I said anything about whether members earnestly or honestly believe

--That I said anything about whether they believe in the principle of tithing.  Or that I said anything about the level of belief among anyone, let alone African members. 

--THat I said anything about the anonymous leaders who used or created the powerpoint

THis all comes from left field.  Its as if you didn't read a word I typed out and instead offered criticism based on what you assumed I must have said based on Juliann's comments, or something.  I'd actually appreciate it if you did go back and read my words and responded in kind.  But if not, no big deal.  I'll take this cheap distraction as an agreement with my post. 

Good 'cause you obviously did not address what I have said.  The weird direction you took this, as if you set up a soap box for you to talk down to me from, was really not helpful, if you ask me. 

 

 

Look Stem. If that's not what you meant, it's not what you meant. But you may want to note that I had 9 other people who seemed to feel similarly enough to appreciate my argument. Which means that it's something that is fairly easy to get to from your post. It's not a weird direction. It's one that several were seeing in your post. You may want to look back and look at what you're writing and how its coming off. Because it's not just me out here in "left field" and if a large number of people are giving you the similar line of criticism in varying ways, than it may indicate more about your writing than it does our reading comprehension/interpretation. 

To me, when reading it as simply critiquing wording choice, finding superseding as"offensive" (or that it "feels offensive to you," to get the exact phrase), and finding potentially negative unnecessary interpretations for a leaked powerpoint consisting of 21 slides meant for an LDS audience for an LDS training meeting....it just seems nit-picky and petty to worry about. Let alone bringing up for dialogue and debate. And at the very least, that such a criticism would be brought up about a PP about the west African group at the very least, still has a level of irony.... considering the west Africans I know and meet generally could care less and prefer straight forward/blunt explanations to things. 

If that's all you really meant, my thought to it is...."so ....who cares." Or better yet, why should this be a point of discussion in an OP? Why point out the possible sour notes that are so slight that one of them (tithing) only someone really critical, cynical, or doubting of the principal tithing and the church might potentially reach (I can't imagine a believing LDS person going there...or most faithful people who believe in tithing period)? Or the other is so slight that it is just a vague amorphous, non-directional, feeling you have (offensiveness of a phrase)? I assumed that this commentary went further into at least some sort of critique/concern about the church and how it was addressing the work in West Africa. That made sense and held greater significance. Particularly when your first comment of interest was followed with potential criticism of the church's ward merging practices.  Instead it's a feeling. Feelings simply aren't significant in and of themselves. So I'm left wondering, what is your point with this? Where are you going with it? Is there a point?

I mean it. At this point its just confusion as to where you were even going minus criticizing in a manner that feels like shooting from the hip. If there really isn't a point or a tying concern, then so be it. At which  point my only response would be, I don't feel that way at all, wholeheartedly agree and appreciate the power point, and am excited by the prospects it indicates for an area that I feel linked to by blood and family. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited June 14, 2017 by BlueDreams

[stemelbow]

25 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I know some people who say very confidently that God doesn't take two fish and five loaves of bread and feed 5,000 people.  They claim that it's an issue of math.  They don't understand God.

I've seen God provide financially for people who pay tithing.  I'm not saying that He always (or even usually) provides cash, but you can bless people financially without providing cash, as i'm sure you know.  And getting out of poverty is not just an issue of having more cash (it's not usually even the most important issue), as I'm sure you also know.  

It's very possible to pay tithing and also become financially better off than when you started paying tithing. 

 

Bluebell, I admit I remain confused by your point, but I'm intrigued enough to try and figure it out.  Are you saying that if someone pays tithing and somehow feels compensated for giving tithing, that the compensation is God blessing that person for paying tithing?  Is it not possible that that blessing that came after someone paid tithing could have come even if that person did not pay tithing? 

I'm quite curious because as it turns out, every single blessing I've heard described by members for paying tithing has also been had by other people who don't pay tithing.  Recently a gentleman in my ward described how when his dad decided to start paying tithing.  he did it.  and soon afterward he got a raise.  But just that week, I also knew a gentleman who got a raise.  This guy had decided years before to stop paying tithing and more recently stopped Church altogether.  He too was given a raise.  Now it's possible my friend who was granted a raise could have stayed in the church and could have continued to pay tithing up until this point of getting a hefty raise.  And it could have been if that had happened he might have attributed that raise to paying tithing.  The thing is, we'd never know. 

It is also true that if a family in Africa who is in poverty, decides to pay tithing and forsake other expenses because of it, we simply don't know if God will help them or not.  We can guess.  We can guess Jesus will multiply for them.  But as it turns out, millions of people have starved in this world.  So that Jesus multiplied fishes and bread at one point, it does not stand to reason that he'll always provide food.  I'm not finding good reasoning to your critique of Gray's point. 

[CV75]

28 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

But you may want to note that I had 9 other people who seemed to feel similarly enough to appreciate my argument.

Make that ten...

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Brave words, Rev, and I agree with the principle.  However, we need to understand the additional principle of "milk before meat."  I can recall a time when I knew nothing, and didn't bother to pay tithes or offerings -- without pangs of conscience.  Over time that all changed

Not sure I said anything different. Don't know what your "However" is about, but thanks for your agreement.

Quote

Not so.  The golden age of Islam saved civilization when Christian Europe was in the throes of the Dark Ages.

Yes, it is so. Europeans need to relearn history. N. Africa had large Christian sections long before Islam came along which were separate from Europe. When Islam came they conquered these people, and their Christian societies were destroyed. Christianity had had hundreds of years to spread into Africa. I am not talking about later European colonial Christianity. That came long after Islam. Your impression that the "golden age of Islam saved civilization" is also a probable fallacy. First of all the Christian societies of the Middle East were doing wonderfully before Islam came along and took over their peaceful societies. Muslims were smart enough to know they were ignorant, and rather than destroying everything these early Arabs enlisted the Christians as translators to translate all the texts of their large libraries into Arabic. Do you think the "Golden Age of Islam" came out of a void? No, of course it didn't. They absorbed the knowledge of the Persian Christian society, which before Islam was having its own Golden Age, and had peacefully converted most of Persia to Christianity. So no Islam did not save this society, but replaced it, and eventually enslaved it when the Ottoman Turks and Timurlane came along. 

It is highly probable that Islam also caused the European Dark Age as they took control of Africa cutting off wheat supplies, and later took total control of the Mediterranean as well and purposefully shut down European shipping. History reveals the Muslims boasted about ships not being able to plow the waves. So all trade from the east was shut down by the Muslims - both land and sea. This is why the Europeans were desperate to find another route to India, and was the whole impetus for the voyages of Columbus. Nor did Islam share its technology with Europe. Europeans never learned the secret of Damascus steel from the Muslims, and always fought the Muslims in the crusades with a technological disadvantage.

Quote

The so-called "Christian" Renaissance (courtesy of that Islamic golden age) brought the rapacious European colonial powers to divide up Africa among themselves -- enslaving Africa without mercy.  Africa is still recovering from that "Christian" onslaught.

You tell me how the Muslim Golden Age "saved" civilization when the Timurlane destroyed the great libraries of the east including the Muslim's own Baghdad library, and the Muslims were probably responsible for destroying the great library of Alexandria? I want to hear exactly what the Muslims did for Europe to "save" it? Indeed, Islam is responsible for bringing its own Golden Age to an end by creating the monster of Timurlane who destroyed the Middle Eastern Muslim civilization as well as the Christian one. The Ottomans enslaved European Christian boys, to become their armies, and girls to become their concubines. Nevertheless, this is not a point I was trying to make. I never said that the European form of colonial Christianity ever did Africa any good. By that time true Christianity was lost, and largely invaded Africa in competing forms of Catholicism and Protestantism. Slavery had long existed in Africa courtesy of Islam. There are several books documenting this fact, and indeed still exists there in the Sudan as recent film documentaries have shown. It is not something the Europeans introduced. The Europeans bought their slaves from who? From the local African and Muslim slave traders. This is something Mohmar Gaddafi apologized for to African nations on behalf of Arab Islam - an ignored fact in the West but the probable impetus for the Muslim Brotherhood talking Obama into helping rebels overthrow Gaddafi. Don't believe the tripe reported in the press about oppression baloney. At the time Gaddafi had renounced terrorism and had sparked massive foreign investment in Libya, and had made the country one of the most prosperous in Africa probably only next to Egypt and S. Africa. After America's inexcusable involvement now Libya is left destroyed and in the throws of civil war with refugees still seeking asylum, and is no longer a threat to Saudi Arabian hegemony in the area. Next Obama was doing the same thing in Syria - the third civil war he was responsible for - but I digress. I disagree that Islam had much to do, if anything, with the European renaissance or "saving civilization", but even if it did it doesn't change the fact that Islam was responsible for destroying early Christian societies in Africa - in Egypt and elsewhere. However, I do agree with you that the European form of Christianity introduced into Africa was bad for it. And LDS Christianity not only needs to offer salvation to Africans from Islam but from these other false forms of Christianity. That had nothing to do with my original point. Islamic Africa would probably already have been completely Christian if it were not for Islam. When the Portugese arrived in India they found a Christian sect already there - but the Catholic priests insisted on burning their books and replacing their liturgy etc - the same story everywhere else Catholicism went. If it weren't for Islam, the Portugese probably would have found the same thing all over Africa.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

If not, then my rejection of the notion that paying tithing brings monetary blessings is also neither faithless nor arrogant.

What blessings do you receive from paying tithing and living the principles of self-reliance?

23 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The thing is, we'd never know.

What blessings do you receive from paying tithing and living the principles of self-reliance?

[stemelbow]

24 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

If that's what you meant, that's what you meat. To be fair, the reason I assumed that you were using gospel and church interchangeably....is because you litterally used it interchangeably a few posts down from the OP here:

"My comment was directed at the wording of that title--superseding local culture.  TO be clear, there was nothing in there that said the Church should embrace any of their culture, but that it should be superseded."

 

My concern is not that you assumed I was using gospel and Church interchangeably.  In the part you just quoted to make this point, there was nothing in there that suggested I am taking issue with your characterizing my position as if I'm using gospel and church interchangeably.  But since you seem to have missed my point I'll repeat it:

Here's what I said, simply: "The Gospel Culture needs to supersede local culture feels offensive to me. "Upon reading your response it's as if I said something about "Mormon culture" or "UT or American LDS culture".  But I did not.  Then a lecture, ending with, "It may help if you let go of the assumption that somehow white, western american LDS culture is somehow getting a free pass here."  As you may be able to see in what I did say, there was no assumption that somehow white, western American LDS culture is somehow getting a free pass here.  But yet you advise, "It may help if yet let go of the assumption.."  I made no such assumption. 

Please note I said nothing about you assuming I was using gospel and church interchangeably.  My concerns were much different than that.  I'd be eager to converse on any of these points if you really intend to stand behind your accusations.  But moving the dart board in the middle is not helpful or appropriate. 

24 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

If you're going to criticize a powerpoint slide about wording choice and what it could imply, it would be nice if you would also be clear and precise as to what you mean and how you are using terms.

 

Yes. I did. I don't have time to just make up concerns out of thin air. 

Look Stem. If that's not what you meant, it's not what you meant. But you may want to note that I had 9 other people who seemed to feel similarly enough to appreciate my argument. Which means that it's something that is fairly easy to get to from your post. It's not a weird direction. It's one that several were seeing in your post. You may want to look back and look at what you're writing and how its coming off. Because it's not just me out here in "left field" and if a large number of people are giving you the similar line of criticism in varying ways, than it may indicate more about your writing than it does our reading comprehension/interpretation. 

To me, when reading it as simply critiquing wording choice, finding superseding as"offensive" (or that it "feels offensive to you," to get the exact phrase), and finding potentially negative unnecessary interpretations for a leaked powerpoint consisting of 21 slides meant for an LDS audience for an LDS training meeting....it just seems nit-picky and petty to worry about. Let alone bringing up for dialogue and debate. And at the very least, that such a criticism would be brought up about a PP about the west African group at the very least, still has a level of irony.... considering the west Africans I know and meet generally could care less and prefer straight forward/blunt explanations to things. 

If that's all you really meant, my thought to it is...."so ....who cares." Or better yet, why should this be a point of discussion in an OP? Why point out the possible sour notes that are so slight that one of them (tithing) only someone really critical, cynical, or doubting of the principal tithing and the church might potentially reach (I can't imagine a believing LDS person going there...or most faithful people who believe in tithing period)? Or the other is so slight that it is just a vague amorphous, non-directional, feeling you have (offensiveness of a phrase)? I assumed that this commentary went further into at least some sort of critique/concern about the church and how it was addressing the work in West Africa. That made sense and held greater significance. Particularly when your first comment of interest was followed with potential criticism of the church's ward merging practices.  Instead it's a feeling. Feelings simply aren't significant in and of themselves. So I'm left wondering, what is your point with this? Where are you going with it? Is there a point?

I mean it. At this point its just confusion as to where you were even going minus criticizing in a manner that feels like shooting from the hip. If there really isn't a point or a tying concern, then so be it. At which  point my only response would be, I don't feel that way at all, wholeheartedly agree and appreciate the power point, and am excited by the prospects it indicates for an area that I feel linked to by blood and family. 

 

With luv,

BD

Bluedreams, I'm sorry I can't respond to you point by point.  You have gotten way too petty and way too tedious about non related crap.

I pointed out why what you had said about me was untrue.  You won't defend what you had said, but instead come back with this, "I don't have time to just make up concerns out of thin air"..."I had 9 other people who seemed to feel similarly enough to appreciate my argument" (as if having a group of supporters means what you said was true or reasonable).  no that's simply not civil discourse, nor a reasonable way to proceed.  if you think it "means that it's something that is fairly easy to get to from your post"  Then by all means explain yourself. Show it.  Don't just appeal to unrelated pat yourself on the back nonsense.   Please don't pretend you have a point by hiding behind other people agreeing with you.  I'd appreciate and feel like I deserve a better explanation then such dismissiveness.  Or if you have nothing, which I'm pretty sure don't, then an apology seems appropriate.  I'm guessing that's not coming, though.  I'd guess if you do reply it'll be more of your digging in your heels. 

I don't mean to get unnecessarily harsh here.  I like posting here.  I like posters here.  I appreciate your contributions.  But I think this thread represents a pretty ugly turn of events.  I'd hate to see things devolve because of the tactics you and Juliann have used in this thread, so I'm being tough about it.  I want to see peace and harmony amongst us.  I want people to accept that we can disagree without having to make up crap about the other's position, or the other person--which both of you did to me. 

[stemelbow]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What blessings do you receive from paying tithing and living the principles of self-reliance?

I dont' seek blessings for doing such, so I couldn't tell you.  I haven't really made space in my head to think of it that way. 

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This level of hostility and rudeness is unacceptable. You owe Stem a sincere apology. Nice job defending your faith with this kind of vitriol and hyperbole as you continue to poison the well against a poster with whom you disagree.  You should be ashamed. I'm embarrassed for you.

Thanks happyJack.  I thought I was going crazy there for a bit, as I read this thread and replied.  I might have unraveled a bit myself as I reacted.  But, I thought I was being reasonable and respectful in my responses.  Then this and other stuff came at me, and I was like, "what is going on?  What is really driving these responses?  Can't we all just get along?"

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

The people of Afghanistan aren't gentiles too? Most of them certainly aren't Jewish. You think God plays favorites with Americans, and that's why we're wealthier?

No, the people of Afghanistan aren't gentiles. Gentiles are descended through Japheth according to the Bible. Afghans are a mixture of Asian, Arabian, Greek, Hebrew and who knows what other peoples. I do believe God has blessed the Gentiles. I believe the Gentiles are wealthier because of their principles of freedom, hard work, and originally Christianity, but I also believe the time of the Gentiles is fulfilled. 

Quote

If paying tithing made people wealthier, Utah would be the wealthiest state. If paying tithing made it so people could miraculously pay their bills on time even though though they didn't have enough money after tithing, I dare say Utah wouldn't have be the "personal bankruptcy state"

Utah is listed as 14th in the country per capita income, with a lower cost of living than most of the ones listed higher such as California and Hawaii - that is pretty dang high given that it started rock bottom 130 years ago. Utah is definitely not a poor state. It is also one of the few that maintained a balanced budget through the crash. I never claimed paying tithe created wealth either. That is a misinterpretation of what I said. I said God has blessed the Gentiles - many of whom no longer pay any tithe - but as Protestant Christians, yes, God did bless them. I also said God blesses those who tithe. He does this in many ways. Being the richest is not usually a blessing - it brings pride and other bad things.

Quote

This kind of thinking thrives under a sloppy sort of correlation/causation mental outlook. People who believe in tithing miracles tend to be very selective about how they choose to interpret the events in their lives.

In your very humble opinion I am sure. They see it differently. Since I have returned to the Church, I have always paid my tithe. I am certainly not the richest LDS - in fact I am borderline poor, but I have always had enough food, something to drive, a roof over my head, and modern conveniences. I don't need anything else, although I really would like to have a garage...if anyone is listening.... By world standards I am rich. But, my family is blessed with relatively good health, my wife with a new job, and she also stopped getting sick so she can work it. What more do I really need? I have what I need to do the Lord's work. I have more than Jesus had - at least in terms of possessions - but what I lack is His knowledge and countenance. These are the truest blessings one can seek or receive.