Leaks about Africa

[Pete Ahlstrom]

5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

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. 

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.

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.

May I suggest that you would be 10% wealthier if you did not tithe?  It seems obvious. Also, the all powerful God could have easily given his church an invention like the computer that the church could have patented in order to gain income, etc.  That wasn't done.  Was it so the members could sacrifice?  Doesn't sacrifice bring loyalty?  The sunk cost fallacy is real as well.  Nevertheless, I don't want to dissuade you from doing what you want to do with your money or from having the attitude that you do not need more things to consume.  Certainly, the church needs money to maintain its buildings, etc. and avarice is something to avoid.  However, I agree with Grey that tithing miracle stories suffer from selective memory.  When I was in Brazil on my mission, 30 years ago, the poor members didn't gain from tithing.  They sacrificed 10% of their income, sometimes at the expense of eating.  I witnessed this first hand.  I am sure the poor in Africa suffer the same tests of faith as do those in Brazil.  So, for me, it's hard to believe that giving money to some church organization will bring wealth.  In my own experience, I earned much more when I was away from the church than when I was involved in it. 

[juliann]

8 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

May I suggest that you would be 10% wealthier if you did not tithe?  

You will have spent less on one particular thing. Whether that gives you more wealth depends on whether it goes into a healthy bank or investment. I can't speak to congregations in other parts of the world (and the only person of color who is speaking up has been treated very rudely as whites talk about blacks.) 

Tithing might not be the best choice for some. But for those doing it, it is likely a good choice because what I keep saying as it is ignored, there are benefits. To keep this nitpicking over a sentence in a power point going, it has to be made all about money exchanges. I think the church is a force for good. I'm willing to contribute to its continued existence. Period. Evidently, some poor people feel the same but they are not given any respect to make their own decision. That doesn't sit right with most people, the only reason it seems to fly with some here is because it is couched in criticizing the church, which they seem to consider a higher moral ground than allowing less privileged peoples to be responsible stewards over their own lives. 

The trade-offs in being a persistent and unrelenting enemy of an organization sometimes include standing behind illiberal positions. 

[RevTestament]

23 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

May I suggest that you would be 10% wealthier if you did not tithe?  It seems obvious. Also, the all powerful God could have easily given his church an invention like the computer that the church could have patented in order to gain income, etc.  That wasn't done.  Was it so the members could sacrifice?  Doesn't sacrifice bring loyalty? 

You really have no idea what you are talking about. The all powerful God can bless people to buy the right assets, to get the right job, to move to the right place, etc. With my wife I have always called it luck. She prays, and God blesses her. To give 10% back to God for what He has blessed us with is quite minimal. Years ago when my wife decided to go to work, I prayed for her, and received an answer that she should look for work at the school where my children had gone. That they had some jobs. She did and they did, and she was hired. This job allowed her to spring into an ARL program to become a teacher, and she now earns more than me and provides our insurance. So would we be 10% wealthier if we had not tithed? We certainly would not have 10% less income.

Quote

The sunk cost fallacy is real as well.  Nevertheless, I don't want to dissuade you from doing what you want to do with your money or from having the attitude that you do not need more things to consume.  Certainly, the church needs money to maintain its buildings, etc. and avarice is something to avoid.  However, I agree with Grey that tithing miracle stories suffer from selective memory.  When I was in Brazil on my mission, 30 years ago, the poor members didn't gain from tithing.  They sacrificed 10% of their income, sometimes at the expense of eating.  I witnessed this first hand.  I am sure the poor in Africa suffer the same tests of faith as do those in Brazil.  So, for me, it's hard to believe that giving money to some church organization will bring wealth.  In my own experience, I earned much more when I was away from the church than when I was involved in it. 

And have you gone back to these people to see how God has blessed them? Do they still go without food? 

i too earned much more before I returned to the Church. In fact I was plunged into poverty by giving up my profession and dong the Lord's will. But I didn't starve, and rarely complain. I have what I need when I need it. Yet, I have been blessed in many other ways by following the Lord, and although the change was hard, and I certainly don't want to repeat my life, the Lord has blessed me with knowledge, and other gifts much more important and of more worth to man than monetary wealth. 

[juliann]

2 hours 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.

If you are truly embarrassed for someone, it means you have empathy and concern. Otherwise it is just another thinly disguised cheap shot, HJ. You guys come here to condemn a church that the Mormons on this Mormon board love, despite it flaws...and there are many.

Sometimes turnabout is fair play. And sometimes that is the only way to get a point across to those who consider themselves and therefore everyone else a victim of an institution they have rejected. Something that is considered intelligent, making those who disagree, unintelligent. This refrain is played over and over. We are supposed to remain understanding and compliant and listen attentively and respectfully as we, our culture, our families and friends are derided and demeaned.  

You have places where you can do all this to an appreciative audience. We are all stymied why you not only come here but expect us to also react with appreciation. We continue to have this conversation. The critics continue to behave in the same way with the same expectations.  BD's has had to point out how many of us liked her post. Still no comprehension that just maybe it is you critics who need to modify your behavior in somebody else's house. 

What a great discussion this could be. How enlightening it would be to join together to bring together credible information. But what you offer us is a ridiculous reaction to one line in a leaked power point, this time broadening the criticism to involve our brown skinned brothers and sisters. It is a step too far. Pull it back. 

[ksfisher]

40 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

May I suggest that you would be 10% wealthier if you did not tithe?  It seems obvious. Also, the all powerful God could have easily given his church an invention like the computer that the church could have patented in order to gain income, etc.  That wasn't done.  Was it so the members could sacrifice?  Doesn't sacrifice bring loyalty?  The sunk cost fallacy is real as well.  Nevertheless, I don't want to dissuade you from doing what you want to do with your money or from having the attitude that you do not need more things to consume.  Certainly, the church needs money to maintain its buildings, etc. and avarice is something to avoid.  However, I agree with Grey that tithing miracle stories suffer from selective memory.  When I was in Brazil on my mission, 30 years ago, the poor members didn't gain from tithing.  They sacrificed 10% of their income, sometimes at the expense of eating.  I witnessed this first hand.  I am sure the poor in Africa suffer the same tests of faith as do those in Brazil.  So, for me, it's hard to believe that giving money to some church organization will bring wealth.  In my own experience, I earned much more when I was away from the church than when I was involved in it. 

Does any of this matter from an eternal perspective?  God promises in the scriptures that the windows of heaven will be opened to those who pay tithing.  I would suggest that it is not money that comes from heaven, but love, grace, mercy, and most of all the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  Those are the real blessing that are showered upon tithe payers. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

18 minutes ago, juliann said:

You will have spent less on one particular thing. Whether that gives you more wealth depends on whether it goes into a healthy bank or investment. I can't speak to congregations in other parts of the world (and the only person of color who is speaking up has been treated very rudely as whites talk about blacks.) 

Tithing might not be the best choice for some. But for those doing it, it is likely a good choice because what I keep saying as it is ignored, there are benefits. To keep this nitpicking over a sentence in a power point going, it has to be made all about money exchanges. I think the church is a force for good. I'm willing to contribute to its continued existence. Period. Evidently, some poor people feel the same but they are not given any respect to make their own decision. That doesn't sit right with most people, the only reason it seems to fly with some here is because it is couched in criticizing the church, which they seem to consider a higher moral ground than allowing less privileged peoples to be responsible stewards over their own lives. 

The trade-offs in being a persistent and unrelenting enemy of an organization sometimes include standing behind illiberal positions. 

My critique is with the tithing brings monetary wealth myth. It is a sacrifice.

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 

And have you gone back to these people to see how God has blessed them? Do they still go without food? 

 

In some instances, yes. My sister funded an organization to provide chlidren protein supplements in Guatemala.  We shouldn't take this lightly or downplay their needs. 

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

You asked (ok, really told) me to let it go and that I had you all wrong on the white American mormon culture. You honed on that and told me that's not what you meant. So I assumed that's not what you meant from there on out.....but I pointed out that it appeared pretty clearly that you were interchanging "gospel" and "church," which is still not the same and was also part of my point that I was making. The whole point is that I'm missing the point because of some of the things you're stating. That's it. How am I to discuss, when the OP is simply ambiguously (and from my POV unnecessarily) negative? I am not the one moving the dart board. I'm more than willing to let an assumption go if you feel that wasn't what you were trying to say. But the problem is, I don't even see where the stinking dart board is. 

Quote

 

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'm not hiding behind anyone. I never have on this board that I'm aware of. It's not my style. I'm giving evidence to a concern that what you're saying and how you are saying it is leading to these assumptions. That there may be a concern in how you're presenting your points. That the problem isn't just about me. I can't give that evidence without pointing out other people have done and assumed the same. That's my point. I don't have to pretend. The proof is in how people have been "misreading" your OP from the start. 

And you told me to dismiss my own concerns because they weren't what you meant. I did so. I'm doing it right now. But my follow up concern is still the same: What's the point of your OP? What direction ARE you trying to go in? Do you have a direction? Is there a point? Cuz I'm not seeing it. I wouldn't ask if it is clear. But so far I've heard more about what your OP is not more so that what it actually is. And on the surface level, the PP by itself has little to actually discuss or be concerned about. Minus what appeared to me (and others) some strangely negative points that were felt like straining at gnats at the very least. 
 

Quote

 

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 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. 

 

You realize you're contradicting yourself here, right? If you're wanting peace and harmony, you can't sit there and say I'm being petty, tediuous, and my posts are non-related.  That's not peace and harmony, that's just a shut down. The response most likely to happen with such statements is push back and defensiveness. 

But here I'll simplify. I'll ignore that you currently think I'm being petty and tedious and getting stuck on unnecessary crap. All I want to know is: What the heck are you wanting to be discussed about this? What are your actual concerns? What. Is. The. Point. Particularly to being offended over a statement that's true and a principal/promise of tithing that probably everyone this PP was being addressed to agreed with? If you want civil discourse, give us a clearer understanding as to where you want the discourse to even go.

 

That's it Stem. 

 

With luv,

BD

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

My critique is with the tithing brings monetary wealth myth. It is a sacrifice.

I agree. I have enough wealth to call it a contribution. That is why it is very uncomfortable when privileged people start talking for the those who aren't and who we know next to nothing about.

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

My critique is with the tithing brings monetary wealth myth. It is a sacrifice.

It is a sacrifice that promises blessings.  

Those who pay tithing do so because they believe what God says about it.  And what God says about it is that when you pay it, He will bless you so much you won't have enough room to contain it.  He does not ever stipulate that He means all blessings except financial blessings.

Now, I don't see anyone arguing that the blessings are always financial or even usually financial.  I'm certainly not saying that.  But just because something is a sacrifice does not mean it cannot benefit the person doing it in multiple ways.

[thesometimesaint]

19 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?

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.

Christians had nothing against slavery.

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

If you are truly embarrassed for someone, it means you have empathy and concern. Otherwise it is just another thinly disguised cheap shot, HJ. You guys come here to condemn a church that the Mormons on this Mormon board love, despite it flaws...and there are many.

Sometimes turnabout is fair play. And sometimes that is the only way to get a point across to those who consider themselves and therefore everyone else a victim of an institution they have rejected. Something that is considered intelligent, making those who disagree, unintelligent. This refrain is played over and over. We are supposed to remain understanding and compliant and listen attentively and respectfully as we, our culture, our families and friends are derided and demeaned.  

You have places where you can do all this to an appreciative audience. We are all stymied why you not only come here but expect us to also react with appreciation. We continue to have this conversation. The critics continue to behave in the same way with the same expectations.  BD's has had to point out how many of us liked her post. Still no comprehension that just maybe it is you critics who need to modify your behavior in somebody else's house. 

What a great discussion this could be. How enlightening it would be to join together to bring together credible information. But what you offer us is a ridiculous reaction to one line in a leaked power point, this time broadening the criticism to involve our brown skinned brothers and sisters. It is a step too far. Pull it back. 

I don't see this need to create sides, Juliann.  I think we all criticize and we all defend things and ideas.  There are no sides in this.  We are just people talking, trying to get somewhere with our thoughts.  I'd much prefer we approach this as a we're all in this together way and we avoid the really hostile atmosphere that crops up from time to time. 

I love the Church and thus my criticisms are many.  When I offer a critique of a powerpoint, I mean no harm to the Church.  The powerpoint is not even said to be sanctioned by the Church itself.  For all we know some random employee threw it together in sloppy haste.  Whatever the case, for my critiques this thread took a really unhealthy direction.  It's a shame.  It makes me wonder if some here have any desire to be respectful to others.  It certainly doesn't feel like it. 

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

29 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Does any of this matter from an eternal perspective?  God promises in the scriptures that the windows of heaven will be opened to those who pay tithing.  I would suggest that it is not money that comes from heaven, but love, grace, mercy, and most of all the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  Those are the real blessing that are showered upon tithe payers. 

The powerpoint speaks of raising members out of poverty through tithing and I think that is a myth.

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, juliann said:

I agree. I have enough wealth to call it a contribution. That is why it is very uncomfortable when privileged people start talking for the those who aren't and who we know next to nothing about.

Not you too. Gosh, oh ye of little faith. I have not said God will make anyone wealthy by tithing. But God does bless us for following commandments. God can bring rain to Africans or fish to their nets. Stop thinking like a "privlleged people" talking for people we know nothing about and start thinking like a person authorized to teach the principles of God. That is all the Church is doing there. Has God not always taught that He will bless those who follow His commandments? God is fully capable of blessing Africans like He has the Gentiles don't you think? That doesn't mean the Church should not go in and help them, and make sure members have enough food, etc. I certainly hope we do, and many have posted the many ways the Church has. That is part of God answering faithful prayers. There is nothing wrong with being an instrument in the hands of the Lord to bless these faithful people.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It is a sacrifice that promises blessings.  

Those who pay tithing do so because they believe what God says about it.  And what God says about it is that when you pay it, He will bless you so much you won't have enough room to contain it.  He does not ever stipulate that He means all blessings except financial blessings.

Now, I don't see anyone arguing that the blessings are always financial or even usually financial.  I'm certainly not saying that.  But just because something is a sacrifice does not mean it cannot benefit the person doing it in multiple ways.

The powerpoint speaks about financial blessings, doesnt it?

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, juliann said:

If you are truly embarrassed for someone, it means you have empathy and concern. Otherwise it is just another thinly disguised cheap shot, HJ. You guys come here to condemn a church that the Mormons on this Mormon board love, despite it flaws...and there are many.

Sometimes turnabout is fair play. And sometimes that is the only way to get a point across to those who consider themselves and therefore everyone else a victim of an institution they have rejected. Something that is considered intelligent, making those who disagree, unintelligent. This refrain is played over and over. We are supposed to remain understanding and compliant and listen attentively and respectfully as we, our culture, our families and friends are derided and demeaned.  

You have places where you can do all this to an appreciative audience. We are all stymied why you not only come here but expect us to also react with appreciation. We continue to have this conversation. The critics continue to behave in the same way with the same expectations.  BD's has had to point out how many of us liked her post. Still no comprehension that just maybe it is you critics who need to modify your behavior in somebody else's house. 

What a great discussion this could be. How enlightening it would be to join together to bring together credible information. But what you offer us is a ridiculous reaction to one line in a leaked power point, this time broadening the criticism to involve our brown skinned brothers and sisters. It is a step too far. Pull it back. 

Your sanctimony and rudeness are hard to take. I don't expect you to be an "appreciative audience" but common courtesy and respect would be nice and really doesn't seem all that difficult. We all have our moments but recognition and self -evaluation seem beyond your capabilities. I'll respond here and then I'll let you have the final attack word.

I am embarrassed for you because it seems clear you either can't see the incongruity to your proclaimed beliefs and your behavior towards others, or you simply believe others like me deserve your abuse. It's a sad and unfortunate perspective either way, for which I am sorry for you.

You suggested Stem may be a "sexual predator". That you think this is a defensible statement is mind boggling. If Mods allow that kind of thing to stand I will lose all respect for them. What you said is not intelligent. No one is forcing you to listen attentively to other poster's POV's. You are choosing to participate and you seem to believe that you should have a most favored status on this board. But even if you strongly disagree with a person, I don't see why it would be so difficult to be "attentive" and "respectful" of the differences.

I have places I can go? Really? Thanks for the heads up. But I like coming here for what is usually an engaging conversation. I'm not seeking an echo chamber like you seem to want, so I don't want to go elsewhere. Get over it. "We" are all stymied why I come here? Who is this "we" you speak of? Are you really that incapable of being respectful to others?

I agree that this could be a great conversation. It was heading in a decent direction until your personal attack on Stem derailed it. I have NOT offered a "ridiculous reaction to one line in a leaked power point." What I have done is offered a reasonable reaction to your ridiculous statement about Stem in what I can only assume was an attempt to make a rhetorical point. But your attempt was unseemly and IMO inappropriate for a board on which we attempt to have respectful conversations.

What people like you don't seem to realize is that you push people further away. Your rudeness, accusations, and acrimonious approach to defending your faith only demonstrates your weakness and what some would consider a weakness of the faith. Does faith lead to that kind of acrimony? I don't think so, but you sure make it look unattractive. You are an anti-missionary, even if that is opposite of your intent.  

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

You asked (ok, really told) me to let it go and that I had you all wrong on the white American mormon culture. You honed on that and told me that's not what you meant. So I assumed that's not what you meant from there on out.....but I pointed out that it appeared pretty clearly that you were interchanging "gospel" and "church," which is still not the same and was also part of my point that I was making. The whole point is that I'm missing the point because of some of the things you're stating. That's it. How am I to discuss, when the OP is simply ambiguously (and from my POV unnecessarily) negative? I am not the one moving the dart board. I'm more than willing to let an assumption go if you feel that wasn't what you were trying to say. But the problem is, I don't even see where the stinking dart board is. 

I'm willing to start over, if that's what you want.  My post said:
 

Quote

 

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.

 

I see the responses you've given me haven't really addressed it, nor other points I"ve raised, so I'm not sure what you want to discuss regarding it.  Please advise.  I think I was pretty clear. 

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I'm not hiding behind anyone. I never have on this board that I'm aware of. It's not my style. I'm giving evidence to a concern that what you're saying and how you are saying it is leading to these assumptions. That there may be a concern in how you're presenting your points. That the problem isn't just about me. I can't give that evidence without pointing out other people have done and assumed the same. That's my point. I don't have to pretend. The proof is in how people have been "misreading" your OP from the start. 

That's not proof.  Multiple people could be mistaken.  So I challenge you, where did you read anything about what you accused me of?  I can't tell if you are wanting to apologize and are really saying you want to move on, or if you really think I said anything near what you accused me of saying in your first couple of responses in this thread. It turns out whether someone agrees with you or not has nothing to do with whether your point carries any merit.  Sorry...I need more than some vague "me and other's don't understand so it's your fault that we decided to mischaracterize what you said".  That's not to say I'm not open to feedback or complaints.  I simply haven't seen any thing for me to go off of, so I can change. 

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

And you told me to dismiss my own concerns because they weren't what you meant. I did so. I'm doing it right now. But my follow up concern is still the same: What's the point of your OP?

Iv'e addressed that a couple of times.  It was to discuss the content of the link.  My OP offered some points that I found either interesting or problematic with the linked material.  I said my piece. 

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

What direction ARE you trying to go in?

I offered the OP.  Some points.  A couple of questions.  What is not clear to you? 

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Do you have a direction? Is there a point? Cuz I'm not seeing it.

What point do you need beyond the questions and comments I offered?  Do I need to have an end goal when I offer a post?  The goal is to explore my thoughts by having people address what I say.  My goal has nothing to do with you and others trying to say I said things I did not say. 

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I wouldn't ask if it is clear. But so far I've heard more about what your OP is not more so that what it actually is. And on the surface level, the PP by itself has little to actually discuss or be concerned about. Minus what appeared to me (and others) some strangely negative points that were felt like straining at gnats at the very least. 

If you aren't interested...you aren't interested.  Not a problem.  But the way you came at me suggested otherwise.  If you want to discuss the points and questions raised int he OP, be my guest.  If not, no problem.  You don't have to.  But I still haven't seen any willingness for you to apologize for trying to put words in my mouth, nor for you trying to define my intentions. 

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

You realize you're contradicting yourself here, right? If you're wanting peace and harmony, you can't sit there and say I'm being petty, tediuous, and my posts are non-related.

Sure I can.  To call it like it is can be an effective way to move past it so we can get back to peace and harmony.  It's worked for me before in different venues.  I'm hoping ti works again.  If not, that'll be a shame.  It's easy to move on in most cases. 

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 That's not peace and harmony, that's just a shut down. The response most likely to happen with such statements is push back and defensiveness. 

Well welcome to the conversation.  I have no more to say about my thoughts on your participation to this point, if you'd like to move forward. 

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

But here I'll simplify. I'll ignore that you currently think I'm being petty and tedious and getting stuck on unnecessary crap. All I want to know is: What the heck are you wanting to be discussed about this? What are your actual concerns? What. Is. The. Point. Particularly to being offended over a statement that's true and a principal/promise of tithing that probably everyone this PP was being addressed to agreed with? If you want civil discourse, give us a clearer understanding as to where you want the discourse to even go.

 

That's it Stem. 

 

With luv,

BD

It feels like you're trying too hard to avoid the obvious.  I said what I said in the OP.  Comment on it, or leave it.  I don't mind either way.  I have no particular direction other than what I have said in the OP.  You don't like my comments and questions?  Cool.  I don't care.  You don't want to add to the discussion or apologize for getting me wrong?  no problem.  Have fun. 

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't see this need to create sides, Juliann.  I think we all criticize and we all defend things and ideas.  There are no sides in this.  We are just people talking, trying to get somewhere with our thoughts.  I'd much prefer we approach this as a we're all in this together way and we avoid the really hostile atmosphere that crops up from time to time. 

I love the Church and thus my criticisms are many.  When I offer a critique of a powerpoint, I mean no harm to the Church.  The powerpoint is not even said to be sanctioned by the Church itself.  For all we know some random employee threw it together in sloppy haste.  Whatever the case, for my critiques this thread took a really unhealthy direction.  It's a shame.  It makes me wonder if some here have any desire to be respectful to others.  It certainly doesn't feel like it. 

 

I understand what you're going through. Mind blowing. Juliann does fight hard, and sometimes unfairly. Been there, felt that.

[RevTestament]

17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Christians had nothing against slavery.

Which "Christians?" The Christians of the East? Or the Christians of Africa? There is no evidence either of these practiced any form of slavery. Islam did. In fact they consider themselves slaves to Allah, and still often don't see anything wrong with it. It is still secretly practiced in many parts of the Islamic world. I recently watched a show of slaves being freed in Yemen. They were inherited. That's how ingrained it still is an many parts of the Islamic world. Slavery in Christianity came from the Roman Empire. It was not practiced among the Arian Christians of the Gothic tribes until much later when they converted to Catholicism and became the toes of the Great Image of Daniel. Yet the Catholics called the Arians the barbarians. It was the Gentile Christians which eventually succumbed to the practice of slavery. I have not disputed that. I don't know what point you are trying to make.

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I understand what you're going through. Mind blowing. Juliann does fight hard, and sometimes unfairly. Been there, felt that.

Thanks for the acknowledgement, Tacenda.  I often enjoy some of her posts.  But I also acknowledge she does seem to take a particular hard line against some of us.  That's a shame because I see she is a great contributor otherwise. 

With that said, I really enjoy your posts.  I often find myself seeking out your name just so I can see what you have to say, as some discussions come and go. 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

You really have no idea what you are talking about. The all powerful God can bless people to buy the right assets, to get the right job, to move to the right place, etc. With my wife I have always called it luck. She prays, and God blesses her. To give 10% back to God for what He has blessed us with is quite minimal. Years ago when my wife decided to go to work, I prayed for her, and received an answer that she should look for work at the school where my children had gone. That they had some jobs. She did and they did, and she was hired. This job allowed her to spring into an ARL program to become a teacher, and she now earns more than me and provides our insurance. So would we be 10% wealthier if we had not tithed? We certainly would not have 10% less income.

And have you gone back to these people to see how God has blessed them? Do they still go without food? 

i too earned much more before I returned to the Church. In fact I was plunged into poverty by giving up my profession and dong the Lord's will. But I didn't starve, and rarely complain. I have what I need when I need it. Yet, I have been blessed in many other ways by following the Lord, and although the change was hard, and I certainly don't want to repeat my life, the Lord has blessed me with knowledge, and other gifts much more important and of more worth to man than monetary wealth. 

The last part makes my point nicely. You suffered a drop in monetary wealth by going back to church and paying tithing. It is a sacrifice but you believe it is a worthy sacrifice. Nevertheless, it is a sacrifice and not a pathway to wealth or to getting out of poverty.

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

In fact they consider themselves slaves to Allah, and still often don't see anything wrong with it.

To be fair, Christians are no different. 

In Romans, Paul says that either you are a slave of sin or you are a slave of obedience (6:16) or righteousness (6:18, 19) or God (6:22).

Reminds me of a good ol' Dylan song, "Gotta Serve Somebody"

 

[ksfisher]

58 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

The powerpoint speaks of raising members out of poverty through tithing and I think that is a myth.

The power point speaks about tithes, offerings (which I am assuming are largely fast offerings), and self-reliance principles as the means to raise them from poverty.

Self-reliance = learning to care for yourself

Offerings = caring for others

Tithing = returning a portion or what you have gained to the Lord, who has blessed you with all you have.  This portion can then be used by His church to continue to teach self-reliance to others.

All in all it seems like a process that is designed to lift people from poverty.

Edited June 14, 2017 by ksfisher

[thesometimesaint]

37 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Which "Christians?" The Christians of the East? Or the Christians of Africa? There is no evidence either of these practiced any form of slavery. Islam did. In fact they consider themselves slaves to Allah, and still often don't see anything wrong with it. It is still secretly practiced in many parts of the Islamic world. I recently watched a show of slaves being freed in Yemen. They were inherited. That's how ingrained it still is an many parts of the Islamic world. Slavery in Christianity came from the Roman Empire. It was not practiced among the Arian Christians of the Gothic tribes until much later when they converted to Catholicism and became the toes of the Great Image of Daniel. Yet the Catholics called the Arians the barbarians. It was the Gentile Christians which eventually succumbed to the practice of slavery. I have not disputed that. I don't know what point you are trying to make.

Christians and slavery.

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_slavery

[Pete Ahlstrom]

5 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The power point speaks about tithes, offerings (which I am assuming are largely fast offerings), and self-reliance principles as the means to raise them from poverty.

Yes. But I don't think tithing and offerings, taking away 10% plus, has anything to do with raising the poor out of poverty. Hard work and jobs do.