Church Finances---official source

[mfbukowski]

On 5/23/2018 at 6:59 AM, hope_for_things said:

I thought that the first time I read it as well, the writing style is annoying because you'd expect with a Q&A section to have a question and then a direct answer to that question in answer format, but that's not how its worded.  The answer is at the bottom of the paragraph when it says that the church provides all the information required by law.  I wish they would word these "answers" differently.  I could imagine something like this:

Q - Why doesn't the church publish its financial information?  

A - Because they aren't required by law to disclose financial information.  The philosophy of the church is to keep as much information private as possible and only make public any information that is required by law or in other situations when it becomes expedient for good public relations.  

Now that would be an honest and straightforward answer.  I actually think I could write better answers that are more honest depictions of how the church operates than what was presented in this newsroom piece.  

If they did publish it, they would be criticized even more for NOT spending where every critic decided the funds should go instead.

Yes it would be a more honest answer but the fact is that whatever they do would be seen as "wrong" anyway.

They have nothing to gain by publishing the info and just more criticism if they do. 

[smac97]

Just now, bluebell said:

So coercion exists whenever someone tells another about the negative consequences of their choices?  That seems like a definition that is too broad to be useful.  

So too is the notion of "coercion" where the Church has no ability to coerce.  The Church's relationship with and authority over its members is A) bilaterally voluntary (meaning the individual gets to decide how much, if any, of the Church's authority he accepts), and B) is necessarily and significantly constrained by D&C 134:10.

When I was in high school, I was in the marching band.  Participation meant that I had to agree to follow instructions from the band director, the drum majors and my section leader.  I also agreed to practice X number of hours each week on my own, to attend band practices during the summer vacation, to memorize the music, to participate in all events (parades, field shows, etc.), to wear a uniform, and so on.

I was not "coerced" into doing these things.  I accepted them as a condition of membership in the band.  Being in the band was entirely voluntary.  The school didn't force me to do it.  My parents didn't force me to do it.  I was never threatened with violence or intimidation by the band director or anyone else.  I chose to participate, and to do all the things that such participation entailed.  I chose.  I had the option of dropping out.  I also had the option of not showing up to practices, not practicing/memorizing the music, and so on.  If I had, I would not have been able to participate in the performances.  The band director was a reasonable guy, but particpating in the performances was something that required real effort on my part.  If I wanted to participate, I had to fulfill the conditions I had agreed to.  That was not coercion.  It was just the necessarily a readily-understood and previously-accepted requirements for participation.

To suggest that adhering to the conditions I had previously agreed to accept amounts to "coercion" is absurd.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Analytics]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I fear there is no reasoning with such people. 

That is because the logic of the argument is impeccable. The original analogy is air-tight. It's not like you can say that the analogy is flawed because while it is unlawful for a mobster to threaten to torture and kill you for not paying him a percentage of your income, Jesus Christ is above the law (and/or is the ultimate lawmaker) and hence it is perfectly lawful for him to torture and kill you if you don't pay.

A reasonable response would simply be, "I can see why you consider such rhetoric to be coercive. Hopefully, the Church has toned down the rhetoric in the 38 years since that was published. It wasn't meant to be taken so literally." 

Edited May 24, 2018 by Analytics

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So coercion exists whenever someone tells another about the negative consequences of their choices?  That seems like a definition that is too broad to be useful.  

Can you answer this question though, if tithing, and everything that the church teaches about it, is a result of God's teachings and His will, do you still feel comfortable describing it is an attempt to commercialize religion?  If it was all true, would you feel justified in accusing God of commercializing His religion?

Coercion exists when someone threatens to inflict negative consequences. So leaders can coerce individuals to pay tithing with the threat of losing a temple recommend. Likewise, the church can coerce individuals to pay tithing by threatening eternal damnation if they don't pay, and since the church is viewed by most members as authorized agents for God, then it would appear the church had the power to impose that consequence by simply removing a recommend. Telling a kid not to touch the hot stove because it will burn them is not coercion. Telling the kid that if he uses the stove YOU will burn him, is a threat and therefore coercion.

I don't believe God engages in pay-to-play religion. IF you pay me, then I will love you. Or IF you pay me, then I will save you from eternal torment. I don't believe God operates that way but it seems to be the way the church teaches obedience to tithing. The commercialization of religion is man's making, not God's.

[Analytics]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So too is the notion of "coercion" where the Church has no ability to coerce.... 

CFR that Jesus Christ has no ability to burn you up in this life and in the life to come.

[SteveO]

7 minutes ago, Analytics said:

CFR that Jesus Christ has no ability to burn you up in this life and in the life to come.

🙄

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Coercion exists when someone threatens to inflict negative consequences. So leaders can coerce individuals to pay tithing with the threat of losing a temple recommend. Likewise, the church can coerce individuals to pay tithing by threatening eternal damnation if they don't pay, and since the church is viewed by most members as authorized agents for God, then it would appear the church had the power to impose that consequence by simply removing a recommend. Telling a kid not to touch the hot stove because it will burn them is not coercion. Telling the kid that if he uses the stove YOU will burn him, is a threat and therefore coercion.

Who does that?  If you are going to use analogies then at least make them accurate.   The bolded part seems like a straw man.

Quote

I don't believe God engages in pay-to-play religion. IF you pay me, then I will love you. Or IF you pay me, then I will save you from eternal torment. I don't believe God operates that way but it seems to be the way the church teaches obedience to tithing. The commercialization of religion is man's making, not God's.

Ok, but you didn't answer my question.

We're looking at this from the perspective of people who do believe that God asks us to sacrifice money, right? (Though no LDS would ever put it in the words you did, so that seems like a purposefully inaccurate and uncharitable interpretation of the law of tithing) 

You post is about what the church teaches and believes, so from that perspective, is your interpretation of their beliefs reasonable?  

From my perspective, i would find any religion that did not have God asking its members to sacrifice money in some form or way (in pursuit of following the two greatest commandments) deeply suspect.  Considering what God is trying to help us to become, and our natural tendencies that He is trying to help us master and overcome, it wouldn't make any sense to me for God to ignore the one thing that is hardest to give up and that the love of causes so much evil and suffering in the world.

 

[smac97]

32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So a movie theater owner says "If you want to see the movie, please buy a ticket," he is "threatening" the patron.

1- That is commerce, not coercion.

So "commerce" and "coercion" are mutually exclusive categories?  Because . . . you say so.

Totally ad hoc.

Quote

It's selling a product. I'm still shocked you can't see a difference between commerce and religion.

I'm still shocked you are publicly comparing Jesus Christ to a mafia thug threatening to murder someone who fails to pay "protection money."

"Commerce" is simply "an interchange of goods or commodities."  Jesus Christ asks (asks, mind you) us to obey His commandments.  Obedience from the one side results in blessings from the other.  Per D&C 130:

Quote

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

So in a sense, yes, there is an "interchange" between us and God.  God asks that we go forth and exercise faith and do good things.  If we do, He will bless us.

• "My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; And then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes."  (D&C 121:8-9).
• "For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.  And unto one he gave five talents ... Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. ... And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.  His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord." (Matthew 25)
• "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."  (Matthew 7:21)
• "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."  (1 Cor. 2:9)

It's a lopsided "interchange," to be sure.  Stephen Robinson's Parable of the Bicycle illustrates how that is so.  But it's still an "interchange."  

Quote

Perhaps that is part of the problem. I expect there to be a difference.

Yes, there is a difference.  Analogies, after all, are comparisons of two otherwise dissimilar things.

Quote

If a parent says to his child "If you want dessert, then eat your vegetables," he is "threatening" his child.

2- Yes, that is coercion.

No, it's not.  The child has the option of not getting dessert.  Coercion would be "Eat your vegetables or I will whip you until your back bleeds," or "Eat your vegetables or I will make you sleep in the snow inyour underwear."

"Coercion" is a big word.  It's a meaningful word.  It is not an endlessly elastic word.

Quote

It is an attempt to change a behavior by threatening the child with a negative consequence.

But it's not coercive.  Not in any meaningful or useful or reasonable sense.

Quote

That doesn't mean that all coercion is some kind of terrible evil, but it's coercion nonetheless.

No, it's not.  It's not like the child is entitled to dessert.

I ask you to consider this point.  Think of those few things on which payment of tithing is conditioned (entry to the temple and some callings in the Church).  Are you suggesting that we are entitled to these things?  That withholding them is unjust / evil / unlawful?

Quote

If a John encourages his friend Jim to start saving money for retirement, John is "threatening" Jim.

3- That's called encouragement, not coercion.

And what the Church does can also be "called encouragement, not coercion."

Unless, of course, you have an implacable need to vilify and find fault and demonize and speak evil of and misrepresent the LDS Church.  

Quote

Are you trying to be obtuse?

Says the guy comparing Jesus Christ to a mafia thug?

John encouraging Jim to plan for the future is very similar to what the Church is doing when it encourages obedience to commandments.  Obedience is a necessary component of faith in and love for God ("If ye love me, keep my comandments").  Obedience brings blessings ("Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord").

Quote

If this friend said something like, you need to start investing in your retirement by allowing me to be your financial planner or I will tell your wife you don't care enough about her to plan for the future, that would be coercion. Lame coercion, but it is coercion.

I agree.  This alternative involves dishonesty, malice, unlawfulness, disregard of Jim's will and autonomy, and so on.

In contrast, payment of tithing involves none of these things.  It is voluntary.  The Church has tons of members who are not full tithe-payers, yet they continue to be members, and are continued to be welcomed in fellowship.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited May 24, 2018 by smac97

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Fair question. I'm having to think about it a little because the academic arguments are actually important to me. I think they speak to the psychology of why transparency is important in my relationship with the church. They can't be fully segregated.

But for me I think it comes down to issues of trust. Whether it is treatment I've experienced by local leaders that have impacted my trust at the micro level or what I perceive as incompatible history/behaviors/policies of the church and its leaders with the teachings of Christ and even the church's own core teachings at the macro level, I don't have trust that leaders and the organization are always doing God's will or even understanding God's will. But there seems to be an expectation that we should treat them as infallible. These leaders have total control with no accountability. I find the idea that there is no "appropriate" way to communicate disapproval or even consider better ways of doing things, or that it's inappropriate to be loyally opposed to certain things, to be harmful to the culture of the church. Church leaders seem to act more like kings that cannot be challenged than servants of the people. I think that is backwards. I find it arrogant for leaders to act like they are above challenge and accountability to members.

 

Thank you for a very reasonable reply! I too think that trust, however that stands at the moment, flavors one’s expectations about Church financial reporting. As you noted, the quality of trust also impacts our perceptions of any Church initiative and activity and whether they reflect proper alignment with or understanding of God’s will (you listed a few).

I was focusing on financial reporting, but since you mentioned the other issues, is there any matter in which you possess the level of trust you expect to have in relation to the Church (setting the purpose of the Church, the Gospel, or Deity aside for a moment)?

Would greater financial reporting improve your trust in relation to the other matters you raised? If not, what do you think is the most important area of trust to resolve?

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If they did publish it, they would be criticized even more for NOT spending where every critic decided the funds should go instead.

Yes it would be a more honest answer but the fact is that whatever they do would be seen as "wrong" anyway.

They have nothing to gain by publishing the info and just more criticism if they do. 

I also think it is a matter of priority as to what the Lord wants us to spend in the way of time, attention, resources, (heart, might, mind, strength,) etc. on publishing.

[Analytics]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In that scenario (and in the theology of the gospel), is Jesus the cause of the torture?

I mean, if someone drinks and drives and then is in a horrible accident that causes life long harm and suffering, is the guy who warned the person not to drink and drive and also offered to provide a ride home, the cause of the negative consequences?  Taken at face value, does that guy sound like a mobster?

Everyone interprets the theology of the gospel somewhat differently, of course. I have no doubt that you sincerely ignore the Ensign article I quoted and view tithing as some sort of benign charitable giving that has intrinsic blessings associated with it. However, according to Marion G. Romney, tithing is a "legal obligation" which "everyone" owes to a "preferred creditor" and that "a penalty for nonpayment is always exacted" in the form of "burning, both in this life and in the life to come."

To me, that implies that Jesus will in fact be the cause of the torture, as punishment exacted for not paying him what he is legally obligated to receive.

If you interpret it differently that is fine. I'm just trying to explain why some people view certain teachings as a form of coercion. If you see these teachings differently, that is great.

[Analytics]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Who does that?  If you are going to use analogies then at least make them accurate.   The bolded part [Telling the kid that if he uses the stove YOU will burn him, is a threat and therefore coercion] seems like a straw man.

 

“For after today cometh the burning … for verily I say, tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.

“Wherefore, if ye believe me, ye will labor while it is called today.” (D&C 64:23–25.)

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Who does that?  If you are going to use analogies then at least make them accurate.   The bolded part seems like a straw man.

Ok, but you didn't answer my question.

We're looking at this from the perspective of people who do believe that God asks us to sacrifice money, right? (Though no LDS would ever put it in the words you did, so that seems like a purposefully inaccurate and uncharitable interpretation of the law of tithing) 

You post is about what the church teaches and believes, so from that perspective, is your interpretation of their beliefs reasonable?  

From my perspective, i would find any religion that did not have God asking its members to sacrifice money in some form or way (in pursuit of following the two greatest commandments) deeply suspect.  Considering what God is trying to help us to become, and our natural tendencies that He is trying to help us master and overcome, it wouldn't make any sense to me for God to ignore the one thing that is hardest to give up and that the love of causes so much evil and suffering in the world.

 

I'm trying to give examples of what is and is not coercion since it seems to be such a challenging concept for so many to understand. The stove analogy had been used earlier so I was hearkening back to that. Hopefully no one does that, however I'm guessing something similar has been done before. There all kinds of abusive threats.

I'm sharing a different perspective, not agreeing with yours. Asking for a donation is a totally reasonable thing for an organization to do. It becomes problematic when it moves out of the realm of request and into the realm of "do it or suffer the pains of eternal hell" kind of territory. When it reaches that level, then it is pay-to-play. If you want to be saved you have to pay the money. I understand why you wouldn't like that framing, but its accurate.

The church teaches that IF someone pays their tithing they can be found worthy of a recommend and then go to the temple to receive their endowment which is necessary for eternal life. So if a person doesn't pay their tithing the church will not allow the person to go to the temple and be endowed, making it possible to receive eternal life. The carrot and stick are both present. That's coercive.

You would find a church that doesn't ask for money to be suspect? That's strange. God NEEDS our money, right?

I sometimes attend a Methodist church with some friends. They ask for donations yet they never teach or imply that if a donation isn't given that the person will be eternally damned. It's truly an invitation to support the church and its missions and there aren't eternal consequences inflicted by the church if someone doesn't donate. Donating out of love and desire is great. Doing it out of fear of the consequences ...not so much.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So "commerce" and "coercion" are mutually exclusive categories?  Because . . . you say so.

Totally ad hoc.

I'm still shocked you are publicly comparing Jesus Christ to a mafia thug threatening to murder someone who fails to pay "protection money."

"Commerce" is simply "an interchange of goods or commodities."  Jesus Christ asks (asks, mind you) us to obey His commandments.  Obedience from the one side results in blessings from the other.  Per D&C 130:

So in a sense, yes, there is an "interchange" between us and God.  God asks that we go forth and exercise faith and do good things.  If we do, He will bless us.

• "My son, peace be unto thy soul; thine adversity and thine afflictions shall be but a small moment; And then, if thou endure it well, God shall exalt thee on high; thou shalt triumph over all thy foes."  (D&C 121:8-9).
• "For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.  And unto one he gave five talents ... Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents. ... And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.  His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord." (Matthew 25)
• "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."  (Matthew 7:21)
• "But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him."  (1 Cor. 2:9)

It's a lopsided "interchange," to be sure.  Stephen Robinson's Parable of the Bicycle illustrates how that is so.  But it's still an "interchange."  

Yes, there is a difference.  Analogies, after all, are comparisons of two otherwise dissimilar things.

No, it's not.  The child has the option of not getting dessert.  Coercion would be "Eat your vegetables or I will whip you until your back bleeds," or "Eat your vegetables or I will make you sleep in the snow inyour underwear."

"Coercion" is a big word.  It's a meaningful word.  It is not an endlessly elastic word.

But it's not coercive.  Not in any meaningful or useful or reasonable sense.

No, it's not.  It's not like the child is entitled to dessert.

I ask you to consider this point.  Think of those few things on which payment of tithing is conditioned (entry to the temple and some callings in the Church).  Are you suggesting that we are entitled to these things?  That withholding them is unjust / evil / unlawful?

And what the Church does can also be "called encouragement, not coercion."

Unless, of course, you have an implacable need to vilify and find fault and demonize and speak evil of and misrepresent the LDS Church.  

Says the guy comparing Jesus Christ to a mafia thug?

John encouraging Jim to plan for the future is very similar to what the Church is doing when it encourages obedience to commandments.  Obedience is a necessary component of faith in and love for God ("If ye love me, keep my comandments").  Obedience brings blessings ("Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord").

I agree.  This alternative involves dishonesty, malice, unlawfulness, disregard of Jim's will and autonomy, and so on.

In contrast, payment of tithing involves none of these things.  It is voluntary.  The Church has tons of members who are not full tithe-payers, yet they continue to be members, and are continued to be welcomed in fellowship.  

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Why do you have to make it personal. I have not compared Jesus to the mafia. Show me where I said that.

I'm giving examples of what is and isn't coercion. I've never brought Jesus into it. I'll accept your apology.

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't think you really get members. I joyfully tithe, and I sincerely hope that the Church's income is so great that it can do pretty much whatever the Lord directs. I want the Church's revenue to be huge.

Maybe your right and I don't understand any more. I just can't wrap my head around joyfully giving and the amount of trust needed to do so when there is little disclosure. I guess I forgot how it was.

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Quote

"The torture" being, at the absolute worst, . . . the Telestial Kingdom?  Eternity in a place that if full of glory which "surpasses all understanding" (D&C 76:89)?

I am at a loss for words.  I never had intended this discussion to devolve into evil-speaking of Jesus Christ.  But so far He has been characterized as a mafia thug, a kidnapper, a murderer, a torturer, and "a lot worse" than all of these hings.

By you and those who agree with you.

I am at a loss as to what to say to these things.

I'm not trying to be offensive.

Let's review what you just said.  Publicly.  On a message board full of followers of Jesus Christ: "If you take what Jesus Christ allegedly said at face value, he sounds a lot worse than a mobster. The mobster might torch my business, torture me, and kill me. But at least with the mobster, the torture ends at death. With Jesus Christ, at death the torture is just beginning."

This was, in your view, not intended as "offensive?"

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

I'm just trying to articulate why, if you take the Church's teachings literally, the commandment to pay tithing seems an awfully lot like coercion.

And your articulation involved publicly characterizing Jesus Christ as being worse than a mafia thug, a kidnapper, a murderer, a torturer.  On a message board full of people who profess belief in Jesus Christ.

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Of course if it is all said with the understanding that this is all just religious talk that nobody is supposed to take seriously then it isn't coercion--it's just tinkling brass in the land of make believe. 

No, it's intended to be taken seriously.  But it can be taken seriously and still not be coercive.

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

But if it is taken seriously in the context of Mormonism, tithing isn't like a choice to see a movie or not.

Yes, it is.  Plenty of Mormons do not pay tithing (or a full tithe).  It's a choice.

Some Mormons also drink alcohol.  It's a choice.

Some Mormons violate the Law of Chastity.  It's a choice.

These are real, meaningful choices that Mormons make all the time.

Coercion exists only the absence of meaningful choice.

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

It is like being told I owe money to somebody who claims to be a preferred creditor, even though I never entered into a contract promising to pay. And it's like that creditor threatening a penalty for non-payment that consists of burning, both in this life and in the life to come. In fact it is not like that. It is that. Precisely.

It is nothing like that.  The creditor is acting unlawfully and wrongfully and with malicious motives.  God is not.

And in any event, it's still a choice, as evidenced by the fact that there are plenty of Mormons who do not pay tithing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

13 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Thank you for a very reasonable reply! I too think that trust, however that stands at the moment, flavors one’s expectations about Church financial reporting. As you noted, the quality of trust also impacts our perceptions of any Church initiative and activity and whether they reflect proper alignment with or understanding of God’s will (you listed a few).

I was focusing on financial reporting, but since you mentioned the other issues, is there any matter in which you possess the level of trust you expect to have in relation to the Church (setting the purpose of the Church, the Gospel, or Deity aside for a moment)?

Would greater financial reporting improve your trust in relation to the other matters you raised? If not, what do you think is the most important area of trust to resolve?

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking with the first question. I have some level of trust with the church and its leaders. I think they are good men doing their best to help the organization grow and do good things. I trust the general motives.

Yes, greater financial reporting would help me trust them more. It wouldn't be a silver bullet to rebuilding trust as there have been many ways in which trust has been lost, but it would be a good start. It is something that is totally within their capability to do. They could be transparent if they desired to be. The fact that they aren't is just another reason to distrust them. Again, for me, refusing to disclose implies to me that they don't feel any accountability to the membership. That attitude is harmful and I'd like to see it changed.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Why do you have to make it personal.

You compared Jesus Christ to a mafia thug.  I find that problematic.  I'm not sure that makes it "personal."

Quote

I have not compared Jesus to the mafia. Show me where I said that.

Right here:

Quote

I like the analogy used earlier about paying protection  money. It's totally voluntary for you to pay the money or  not, but if you don't, there will be consequences so its cheaper  just to pay. 

You were referring to Analytic's comments here:

Quote

As an example of threats and coercion, consider the following hypothetical.

Say you open up a new restaurant, and a mob boss shows up. He asks for a “voluntary donation” of protection money which he explains this way: 

Let me explain something to you, Mr. Smac. Protection money is a debt which everyone owes to Mr. Corleone for his use of the things that Mr. Corleone allows him to have. It is a debt just as literally as the grocery bill, or a light bill, or any other duly incurred obligation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Corleone, to whom one owes protection money, is in a position of a preferred creditor. If there is not enough to pay all creditors, he should be paid first….

Protection money is not a mere freewill offering. And although Mr. Corleone does not enforce it as we enforce debts in our society by foreclosing the mortgage or turning off the water or the lights, a penalty for nonpayment is always exacted.

In fact, Mr. Corleone is coming here soon, and he isn’t as nice as I am. Mr. Corleone himself said, “Today is a day of sacrifice and a day to pay protection money. I’m coming to you soon, and when I do, I am going to burn down the businesses of everyone who hasn’t paid. I ain’t gunna to spare nobody who is behind in their payments. After I burn down your businesses only ashes will be left.” 

So you see, Mr. Smac, protection money is, in a very real sense, a form of fire insurance.

If somebody came to you with that message, would that be a threat? Coercion? 

Compare and contrast to this First Presidency Message. ...

Are you seriously suggesting that you don't know who "Mr. Corleone" is?  What "protection" rackets are?

Quote

I'm giving examples of what is and isn't coercion. I've never brought Jesus into it. I'll accept your apology.

And now you're . . . what, pretending that the LDS Church fabricated the concept of tithing?  

The scriptures are full of references to it.  The LDS paradigm posits that tithing is a revealed doctrine.  From God.  God is the one asking (or, if you prefer, commanding) us to pay tithing.  God, then, is analogous to the author of the protection racket, which analogy you "like."

So

Quote

Protection money is a debt which everyone owes to Mr. Corleone for his use of the things that Mr. Corleone allows him to have.

Is analogous to 

Quote

Tithing is a debt which everyone owes to Jesus Christ for his use of the things that Jesus Christ allows him to have.

Analytics was very explicit in drawing a direct comparison between "Mr. Corleone" and Jesus Christ:

Quote

As an example of threats and coercion, consider the following hypothetical.

Say you open up a new restaurant, and a mob boss shows up. He asks for a “voluntary donation” of protection money which he explains this way: 

Let me explain something to you, Mr. Smac. Protection money is a debt which everyone owes to Mr. Corleone for his use of the things that Mr. Corleone allows him to have. It is a debt just as literally as the grocery bill, or a light bill, or any other duly incurred obligation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Corleone, to whom one owes protection money, is in a position of a preferred creditor. If there is not enough to pay all creditors, he should be paid first….

Protection money is not a mere freewill offering. And although Mr. Corleone does not enforce it as we enforce debts in our society by foreclosing the mortgage or turning off the water or the lights, a penalty for nonpayment is always exacted.

In fact, Mr. Corleone is coming here soon, and he isn’t as nice as I am. Mr. Corleone himself said, “Today is a day of sacrifice and a day to pay protection money. I’m coming to you soon, and when I do, I am going to burn down the businesses of everyone who hasn’t paid. I ain’t gunna to spare nobody who is behind in their payments. After I burn down your businesses only ashes will be left.” 

So you see, Mr. Smac, protection money is, in a very real sense, a form of fire insurance.

If somebody came to you with that message, would that be a threat? Coercion? 

Compare and contrast to this First Presidency Message. Here are some relevant highlights.

Quote

From this scripture it is apparent that tithing is a debt which everyone owes to the Lord for his use of the things that the Lord has made and given to him to use. It is a debt just as literally as the grocery bill, or a light bill, or any other duly incurred obligation. As a matter of fact, the Lord, to whom one owes tithing, is in a position of a preferred creditor. If there is not enough to pay all creditors, he should be paid first….

As an acknowledgment and in return for his bounty, the Lord requires us to return to him as tithing 10 percent of our interest annually. In the law of the gospel, tithing is, then, as has already been said, a legal obligation. It is not a mere freewill offering. And although the Lord does not enforce it as we enforce debts in our society by foreclosing the mortgage or turning off the water or the lights, a penalty for nonpayment is always exacted….

“Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming.
“For after today cometh the burning … for verily I say, tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon.
“Wherefore, if ye believe me, ye will labor while it is called today.” (D&C 64:23–25.)

So you see, my young brethren and sisters, tithing is, in a very real sense, a form of fire insurance—insurance against burning, both in this life and in the life to come.

 

So if you want to walk back your comment about liking Analytic's comparison of Don Corleone to Jesus Christ, I'm all ears.

But if you still "like" Analytic's comparison of Don Corleone to Jesus Christ, then that's on you.

-Smac

Edited May 24, 2018 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

You compared Jesus Christ to a mafia thug.  I find that problematic.  I'm not sure that makes it "personal."

Right here:

You were referring to Analytic's comments here:

Are you seriously suggesting that you don't know who "Mr. Corleone" is?  What "protection" rackets are?

-Smac

No I didn't. I don't see any comparison to Jesus. In fact I don't see Jesus mentioned at all.

Please retract your false claim, provide a reference in which I actually compared Jesus to the mafia ( which you won't find), or apologize. All would be acceptable. I'm done talking with you until then.

[hope_for_things]

48 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If they did publish it, they would be criticized even more for NOT spending where every critic decided the funds should go instead.

Yes it would be a more honest answer but the fact is that whatever they do would be seen as "wrong" anyway.

They have nothing to gain by publishing the info and just more criticism if they do. 

Yes, if people have access to facts they are going to act differently than if they are in the dark about something.  Those actions may include criticism of the way that church leaders manage the funds, it may also include people changing how they donate to the church.  These would all be natural and expected consequences for increasing transparency.  

Some will see things as wrong, others won't, that's life.  The benefactors of this change are the individuals.  Institutional interests often are opposed to the interests of individuals.  We need to have common sense regulations, not too much, not too little, to balance the interests of individuals and institutions.  

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Exiled said:

I know it doesn't bother people here that the church won't disclose what it has.

It doesn’t bother me that lots of originazations don’t disclose what they have. 

 

Quote

It just seems odd that the church won't disclose its finances at least to the members who support it.

I work at a private, for-profit company. The owners of our company are not required to and chose not to disclose the company’s finances. Does that seem odd to you as well? 

 

Quote

Why [won't the church disclose its finances]? My guess is that at this point it doesn't want members to know that it doesn't really need the contributions is gets, that the expenses it has are small compared to the revenue it gets. Some would probably stop contributing and pay their other bills first.

So your hypothesis is essentially that the church is already too big to fail financially, but it refuses to let anyone know that because (presumably) they are so greedy and evil that they just can’t help but try to get every penny they can out of people. Sure, that is totally plausible…

/searches for sarcasm emote

 

Quote

As far as politics go, a 501(c)(4) organization like Drug Safe Utah doesn't have to disclose its donors. Is the church behind the lawsuit to stop the marijuana initiative using Drug Safe Utah as a cover? I guess we won't know because no disclosure is required by either. 

If you have a problem with reporting requirements applicable to 501(c)(4) organizations, take it up with your congressman. That doesn’t have anything to do with the church. 

As for churches, the law expressly allows them to participate in certain political activities, operating within certain constraints. If you think a church is violating the law, well, there are mechanisms for reporting them. The IRS can then investigate and determine whether or not the law has, in fact, been broken.

 

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking with the first question. I have some level of trust with the church and its leaders. I think they are good men doing their best to help the organization grow and do good things. I trust the general motives.

Yes, greater financial reporting would help me trust them more. It wouldn't be a silver bullet to rebuilding trust as there have been many ways in which trust has been lost, but it would be a good start. It is something that is totally within their capability to do. They could be transparent if they desired to be. The fact that they aren't is just another reason to distrust them. Again, for me, refusing to disclose implies to me that they don't feel any accountability to the membership. That attitude is harmful and I'd like to see it changed.

With the first question, I'm asking whether your level of trust is where you would expect it to be for the Church of Jesus Christ. You said you have some level of trust (the leaders' general effort and motives)--is it where you expect it should be? It ties into the last question (what do you think is the most important area of trust to resolve?). Since It seems you trust in some areas but not others, this is more the "silver bullet" question. Maybe another way of looking at it is, why do you want to trust them more?

Hopefully not a tangent: I read a book recently "The Power of Everyday Missionaries" where the author discusses the concept that God leads people seeking the truth to those members and wards He trusts. It caused me to consider that He will trust me once I trust Him first--kind of the other side of the coin, "We love him, because he first loved us." ( 1 John 4:19).

Edited May 24, 2018 by CV75

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

No I didn't. I don't see any comparison to Jesus.

I provided the link.  You referenced Analytic's comments comparing a Don Corleone to Jesus Christ and protection rackets to tithing.  He was quite clear about it.  

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

In fact I don't see Jesus mentioned at all.

Look again.  Analytics wrote up a vignette about a shakedown by a mafia thug acting on behalf of Don Corleone, then he said "Compare and contrast to this First Presidency Message."

Protection Racket = Tithing

Mafia Thug speaking on behalf of Don Corleone = The First Presidency 

Don Corleone = Jesus Christ

HappyJackWagon = "I like the analogy used earlier about paying protection money."

Res ipsa loquitur, dude.  

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Please retract your false claim,

You ratified Analytic's comparison between Don Corleone and Jesus Christ.  You said: "I like the analogy used earlier about paying protection money."

If you want to walk that back, I'd understand (I hope you do, actually).  

8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

provide a reference in which I actually compared Jesus to the mafia ( which you won't find), or apologize. All would be acceptable. I'm done talking with you until then.

See above.  And also here.

-Smac

[Analytics]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

[I had said: It is like being told I owe money to somebody who claims to be a preferred creditor, even though I never entered into a contract promising to pay. And it's like that creditor threatening a penalty for non-payment that consists of burning, both in this life and in the life to come. In fact it is not like that. It is that. Precisely.]

It is nothing like that.  The creditor is acting unlawfully and wrongfully and with malicious motives.  God is not.

In what I had said, the creditor is he Lord. Not metaphorically. I wasn't making a metaphor or a simile. I was paraphrasing what Marion G. Romney taught in "The Blessings of an Honest Tithe." So if you agree that this behavior is unlawful, wrong and malicious if the creditor is not God, why would it be right if the creditor is God? That is a sincere question.

For the record, let's compare and contrast what I said to what is taught by Marion G. Romney in a New Era article that is on lds.org.

Analytics: It is like being told I owe money to somebody who claims to be a preferred creditor even though I never entered into a contract promising to pay.

Romney: From this scripture it is apparent that tithing is a debt which everyone owes to the Lord for his use of the things that the Lord has made and given to him to use. It is a debt just as literally as the grocery bill, or a light bill, or any other duly incurred obligation. As a matter of fact, the Lord, to whom one owes tithing, is in a position of a preferred creditor.

Analytics: And it's like that creditor threatening a penalty for non-payment that consists of burning, both in this life and in the life to come.

Romney: a penalty for nonpayment is always exacted....“Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming. For after today cometh the burning … for verily I say, tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon...” (D&C 64:23–25.)...So you see, my young brethren and sisters, tithing is, in a very real sense, a form of fire insurance—insurance against burning, both in this life and in the life to come.

[Tacenda]

36 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Maybe your right and I don't understand any more. I just can't wrap my head around joyfully giving and the amount of trust needed to do so when there is little disclosure. I guess I forgot how it was.

I don't even need disclosure to know that the church isn't following their own scripture in D&C 119. And so many other things, but I don't want to rehash my arguments over and over again in how the church spends the money. I guess if the country ever needs a loan they can go to the church, that's one good thing. But the other is that they can do more as far as the four fold mission goes in our church's statement.