smac97 Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: Coercion exists when someone threatens to inflict negative consequences. No, it doesn't. You are stretching the term to absurd and unreasonable lengths. Quote So leaders can coerce individuals to pay tithing with the threat of losing a temple recommend. But they can't compel individuals to pay tithing. Compulsion and the absence of meaningful choice are core components of "coercion." Both are lacking in terms of the Church teaching its members to tithe. Quote 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. You are well beyond the teachings of the LDS Church here. "Threatening eternal damnation if they don't pay" is a profoundly unreasonable and dishonest characterization of our beliefs. For pete's sake, we believe that even the most wicked and evil that humanity has ever seen (excepting Sons of Perdition) will inherit the Telestial Kingdom, the glory of which "surpasses all understanding" (D&C 76:89). The rhetoric being used here has teetered from overblown and ridiculous to profoundly misleading and dishonest. Quote Telling a kid not to touch the hot stove because it will burn them is not coercion. And telling a person to obey the commandments because disobeying them will bring adverse consequences is not coercion. Quote Telling the kid that if he uses the stove YOU will burn him, is a threat and therefore coercion. And that threat is unlawful and unjust and wrong. And it leaves the child with no meaningful choice. It's compulsory, and hence coercive. In contrast, the Church's teachings on tithing leave plenty of room for meaningful choice, as evidenced by the fact that plenty of Mormons choose not to tithe. So it's not compulsory in any meaningful, reasonable sense, and hence it is not "coercive" in any meaningful, reasonable sense. Quote I don't believe God engages in pay-to-play religion. I don't believe that using derisive, insulting terminology is helpful or constructive. We're not Calvinists. We've never bought into TULIP and all that comes with it. Meanwhile, we have these and many other scriptures: "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) I would not demean or insult God by characterizing His commandments to His children to live righteously and obey Him to be "pay-to-play religion." I would hope you would reconsider such derogatory stuff. Quote 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. This is becoming further and further departed from an honest and fair representation of the LDS Church's teachings, and is becoming a less and less serious discussion. Jesus Christ is like Don Corleone, the Presiding High Priest is like a mafia thug, and tithing is like shaking down store owners in a protection racket. You "like" this analogy. Jesus Christ is like a kidnapper (per Analytics). Jesus Christ is like a torturer (per Analytics). Jesus Christ is "a lot worse" than all of the above. So says Analytics, the author of the Jesus-as-Mafia-Don analogy which you "like." Your characterization of the LDS Church and its teachings is increasingly irrational and hateful and false. I originally intended to participate in a discussion about the reasonable use of the word "coercion." I never thought it would devolve into such nastiness. -Smac Edited May 24, 2018 by smac97 1
Exiled Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 16 minutes ago, Amulek said: It doesn’t bother me that lots of originazations don’t disclose what they have. 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? 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 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. Churches should be different and should disclose their finances. You think that isn't a problem because you obviously trust your church leaders. I guess I've been away for so long that I forgot how it is and simply can't understand the blind trust.
Analytics Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 (edited) I apologize for comparing Jesus Christ to a mafia don. I really wasn't trying to be offensive. I was trying to make a point. I'll rework the analogy so that I'm comparing Jesus Christ to a loving father, instead. The point isn't to be offensive. It's to illustrate why some of the church's teachings seem an awfully lot like coercion to some people. Say you are growing up and your loving father informs you that you owe him some of your income for the rest of your life. He explains it this way. Son, you owe me 10% of your income for the rest of your life. As an acknowledgement and in return for the wonderful life that I have given you, you owe me this money. 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, I am in a position of a preferred creditor. If there is not enough to pay all creditors, I should be paid first. This is not a mere freewill offering. I will not enforce it as society enforces debts by foreclosing the mortgage or turning off the water or the lights. However, a penalty for nonpayment will always exacted. Remember, my beloved son. it is called today until your big brother comes, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for you to pay me the money you owe me. And if you make these payments, you won't be burned when your big brother comes to town. For after today cometh the burning, for verily I say, if you aren't a good son and don't pay this money you owe me, when your big brother comes back to town he will burn you up. So you see, my beloved son, paying me this money you owe me is, in a very real sense, a form of fire insurance. If a loving father told his son that, would that be a threat? Coercion? Edited May 24, 2018 by Analytics
Amulek Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 I don't really want to wade into the coercion debate, but one thing that seems to be lacking from all of the analogies being bandied about is that, within the LDS paradigm, we all signed up for this program before we came to earth. If you freely consent to be bound by a set of rules (like a contract) it isn't coercion whenever somebody reminds you what will happen if you violate the rules. 2
Analytics Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, Amulek said: I don't really want to wade into the coercion debate, but one thing that seems to be lacking from all of the analogies being bandied about is that, within the LDS paradigm, we all signed up for this program before we came to earth. If you freely consent to be bound by a set of rules (like a contract) it isn't coercion whenever somebody reminds you what will happen if you violate the rules. That is a fair point. If, after I'm dead and Jesus is burning me up as he promised he would, I hope he shows me the contract first so it becomes clear that I agreed to this penalty for not complying with the terms of the agreement.
smac97 Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Analytics said: Quote [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. When you start a sentence with "It is like...", that's generally construed as introducing a simile. Quote I was paraphrasing what Marion G. Romney taught in "The Blessings of an Honest Tithe." "Paraphrase" = "a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in another form, as for clearness; rewording." Pres. Romney was speaking metaphorically ("As a matter of fact, the Lord, to whom one owes tithing, is in a position of a preferred creditor..."). "Preferred creditor" is legal term (Pres. Romney studied law at the UofU). It's application here is manifestly metaphorical. Quote 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. Because Don Corleone is a criminal. Because Don Corleone is acting outside of the law. Because Don Corleone is engaging in wicked conduct. In contrast, God asks those who have covenanted with him to . . . keep their covenants. Those covenants include the Law of Tithing. You analogy is predicated on a lack of contract ("even though I never entered into a contract promising to pay..."), which applies to Don Corleone (no contract) but not to Jesus Christ (covenant relationship). If you want to pursue the contract analogy further, we could put it this way: "John and Mary enter into a contract in which John agrees to do X and Mary agrees to do Y. After having entered into this agreement, however, Mary publicly accuses John of coercing her to do Y, even though she voluntarily entered into the contract to do just that. John responds 'Well, if you don't do Y, then your not entitled to X.' Mary responds by further publicly slandering and defaming John. Mary publicly compares John to a mafia don attempting to shake her down. She also compares him to a kidnapper, and a torturer, and even declares that John is 'a lot worse' than all of these. She persists in declaring that the contract she voluntarily entered into is 'coercive,' but also that she's nevertheless still entitled to receive X regardless of her failure to adhere to the contract by doing Y, and that John is a horrible, depraved person for expecting her to honor her contractual obligations." Thanks, -Smac Edited May 24, 2018 by smac97
Analytics Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 23 minutes ago, smac97 said: In contrast, the Church's teachings on tithing leave plenty of room for meaningful choice, as evidenced by the fact that plenty of Mormons choose not to tithe. So it's not compulsory in any meaningful, reasonable sense... The language in the scriptures I have repeatedly quoted is clearly, plainly, and unequivocally coercive. When people choose not to tithe, it's like choosing not to pay fire insurance when your loving father promised to burn you if you don't pay. Either you don't really believe the threat, or you hope to catch up on your payments later, or something deep inside you is intrinsically opposed to complying with such threats, or you are otherwise just taking your chances. But it doesn't mean the threat wasn't made. Granted, the teachings of the church are self-contradictory and one needs to be creative in order to harmonize them. But it's fascinating to watch how you refuse to acknowledge the clear threat made in D&C 64 even exists.
bluebell Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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 get that, but you having been arguing that the church does that kind of threats and coercion. I'm asking, where has the church done that? Where has it done something that can reasonable described as "if you touch the stove I will burn you"? Quote 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. Even if the organization believes that it's actually God who is asking for the donations and setting consequences of not being willing to sacrifice money for His kingdom? And no, it's not accurate. It's an uncharitable interpretation that completely ignores a sincere belief that such an organization is doing exactly what God has commanded. The church teaches that God has declared if you want to be saved you have to be willing to sacrifice all things, including money, to put Him first. Your interpretation is not an accurate reflection of that belief. Quote 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. Thousands of people go to the temple every year that have paid $0 dollars in tithing. It's not what is paid, but a willingness to obey that commandment, that matters. How is requiring a willingness to obey God's commandments before covenanting with Him coercive? Quote You would find a church that doesn't ask for money to be suspect? That's strange. God NEEDS our money, right? Absolutely. Think about it. Christianity is all about giving up the things in this world to seek for the things of a better. Any church that teaches that God requires us to give up everything but money, one of the hardest things to give up, is not led by God. Quote 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. That's one example of why the Methodist church does not have the fullness of the Gospel of Christ. Church is not about the invitation to obey God without any spiritual consequences if you don't want to. Any church that teaches that, any church that teaches a gospel of Christ that does not require sacrifice, has gone off the track somewhere. Quote 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. But that can be said of any of God's commandments. Obeying the commandment not to commit adultery out of love of God and spouse is great. Obeying it out of fear of eternal consequences, not as great. But so what? That has no bearing at all on whether or not God requires us to obey that commandment. That some people obey for the wrong reasons does not mean the commandment itself isn't of God. It just means that some people don't get it yet. Hopefully they'll get there. 3
Analytics Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 8 minutes ago, smac97 said: In contrast, God asks those who have covenanted with him to . . . keep their covenants. Those covenants include the Law of Tithing. You analogy is predicated on a lack of contract ("even though I never entered into a contract promising to pay..."), which applies to Don Corleone (no contract) but not to Jesus Christ (covenant relationship). That's an interesting point. In context, when Romney says, "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," the scripture in reference is talking about Jesus' people. So it's just that group who he means by "everyone." So maybe it is like a contract? When Jesus comes back to burn the wicked as he promised he would (see D&C 64:23–25), it isn't just the luke-warm Mormons who didn't fulfil their contractual obligations that will be burned. He will burn all of Babylon, too. Is it a valid contract when somebody says, "I am going to burn you if you don't enter into this contract with me and faithfully fulfil all of its terms?" That seems coercive in its own right.
bluebell Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 1 hour ago, Analytics said: 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. It's not that i and others ignore it, it's just that we don't take that ensign article out of context and assume it gives a full and complete outline of the gospel of Christ, eternal law, and the Atonement. It seems that a lot of the people who do share your interpretation of Christ have less understanding of the gospel than those who don't. 1
smac97 Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 37 minutes ago, Exiled said: Churches should be different and should disclose their finances. You think that isn't a problem because you obviously trust your church leaders. I think it's more than that. It's also a matter of respecting boundaries and stewardship. At the end of the day, the disposition of tithes is not within our stewardship. It's a gift. A sacrifice. Moreover, I think observant Latter-day Saints trust our Church leaders because they are trustworthy, and because they appear to be very good stewards of the Church's finances. Have you read D. Michael Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth and Corporate Power (discussed at some length here)? Have you observed how General Authorities live? They have access to billions of dollars, yet they all live fairly modest (though comfortable) lifestyles. There are no mansions, or fleets of cars, or yachts, or private jets, or other demonstrations of opulence and affluence. Consider this Trib article (about Quinn's book). Some excerpts: Quote Some Mormons — and plenty of others — were appalled to witness their church build a $1.5 billion mall in downtown Salt Lake City and hear their prophet proclaim, “Let’s go shopping.” Isn’t religion, they argued, supposed to be about feeding the hungry and clothing the poor? How is selling Tiffany jewelry, Nordstrom cocktail dresses and luxury condos any part of a Christian faith? Such critics, though, fail to understand Mormonism, says historian D. Michael Quinn. The American-born movement has always seen its mission as serving both the spiritual and physical needs of its people. It doesn’t distinguish between the two. “It’s as spiritual [for Latter-day Saints] to give alms to the poor,” Quinn told Bloomberg Businessweek in 2012, “... as it is to make a million dollars.” On that last score, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been wildly successful, says Quinn, author of the newly published “Mormon Hierarchy: Wealth & Corporate Power.” The church, launched in 1830 in upstate New York with six members, counts nearly 16 million members worldwide — and untold billions in assets. ... Quinn estimates — and estimating is about the best even a top-notch researcher can do — the church took in about $33 billion in tithing in 2010, based on a model of projected growth rates that followed a consistent pattern starting in the 1950s. It earns another $15 billion annually, he says, in returns on its profit-making investments. (The Bloomberg Businessweek piece from five years ago cited an investigation pegging the LDS Church’s worth at $40 billion.) No matter the precise bottom line, these figures represent an astonishing accomplishment, Quinn says. “It is an American success story without parallel,” the longtime historian says in an interview. “No institution, no church, no business, no nonprofit organization in America has had this kind of history.” And despite this "success story" our critics regularly pillory the Church regarding its finances. But if the Church's finances were being handled poorly, I suspect the critics would complain about that, too. Darned if we do, darned if we don't. The faultfinders are going to succeed in their endeavors regardless of what the Church does. Quote Yet LDS general authorities — from the most senior apostle to the lowest-ranking Seventy — all receive the same yearly “living allowance”: $120,000. Though the church has enormous wealth, he {Quinn} says, none of the leaders is getting rich off it. ... {Quinn} says the LDS Church’s financial trajectory, as well as the self-sacrificing actions of its hierarchy, is “an enormously faith-promoting story.” If everyday Mormons could grasp “the larger picture,” he says, they would “breathe a sigh of relief and see the church is not a profit-making business.” Quinn’s tome does not reveal any hidden slush funds, untoward personal spending or malfeasance at the highest levels, Wimmer says, but it offers insights through the arc of history the professor has never before recognized. “I felt by the end I knew where the church is today,” Wimmer says, “and how it got there.” Like Quinn, the economist was impressed by the skilled leadership of men who brought their financial wizardry to their religious assignments. “If you compare the 1930s, when the church was in real financial straits, to the 21st century,” Wimmer says, “you can see the church now has incredible resources at its command.” For instance, the price tag for building temples and new chapels used to be borne by local members. Now the Salt Lake City headquarters picks up the tab. “If someone had told my parents or grandparents that the church would take over all building expenses,” Wimmer says, “they wouldn’t have believed it.” It now subsidizes the cost of Mormon missions and provides far more humanitarian aid than it ever was able to do earlier, he says. “And that is due, in large part, to the financial ability and experience of the leadership.” Just last month, LDS Charities provided an additional $11 million in relief to eight famine-stricken nations in Africa and the Middle East. The Church's leadership is doing a great job of handling the Church's finances. Add to that the faithfulness of many of the Saints and their ongoing support of the Church (including financial support, and also the untold amounts of ongoing, unremunerated volunteerism in the Church). Add to that the blessings which I believe accrue from God and relate to the obedience of the Saints to revelatory principles. Taken in the aggregate, the Church has enough money to provide for its members and to substantially contribute to humanitarian aid efforts as well. Quote At the same time, Mormon authorities did not act like corporate giants, enriching themselves on profits. Through the years, they paid themselves less than what others in their employ made, Quinn says. Today, that is sometimes barely half as much as some of the church’s skilled bureaucrats. CEOs of other top nonprofits, including Harvard, Yale and the United Way, make almost 10 times as much, he says. “It was truly humbling to see these men who preside over an institution making tens of billions of dollars turning [the funds] back to the benefit of the rank and file.” That fulfills what Mormon leader Brigham Young, known as the “Lion of the Lord,” said in 1875. At that time, Joseph Smith’s successor and his apostles signed a document, decrying America’s approach to unregulated capitalism, including the “growth of wealth in the hands of a comparatively few individuals.” The country’s “priceless legacy,” they wrote, was “endangered by the monstrous power which this accumulation of wealth gives to a few individuals and a few powerful corporations.” By pocketing such relatively small salaries and using church assets to serve the members, Quinn says, Mormon leaders have “maintained the spirit of that attitude.” ... LDS author, researcher and blogger Jana Riess hasn’t read Quinn’s book, but was intrigued by his positive view of Mormon leaders and their handling of money for the global faith. “If the church was in dire financial trouble as recently as the 1950s, that means there are still people in the hierarchy who remember that,” Riess reasons. “I tend to think the generation gap that exists in the church [apostles with an average age of 76] as always negative. But having institutional memory — at least among a few — can be very helpful.” The Cincinnati-based writer is also impressed with Quinn’s description of LDS leadership as a “form of service,” she says. “They are clearly not in it to get rich.” I think this is objectively and factually correct. The leaders of the Church live fairly modest lifestyles. They have access to literally billions of dollars. They are in positions of authority which could allow them to allocate substantial portions of those funds to themselves. And yet . . . they are not doing this. Those who have the access and means to misappropriate the Church's funds are not doing so. I think this is a tribute to A) the generalized honesty and decency of those who are in these positions of power, and B) the well-monitored and well-demonstrated financial oversight and management in the Church. Can you appreciate why observant Latter-day Saints may feel justified in reposing quite a bit of trust in the leaders of the Church? 37 minutes ago, Exiled said: I guess I've been away for so long that I forgot how it is and simply can't understand the blind trust. I could see that. Perhaps someday you'll not view us the way you do now. I hope so. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Analytics said: The language in the scriptures I have repeatedly quoted is clearly, plainly, and unequivocally coercive. And yet plenty of Mormons do not tithe. Hence they are not "compelled." And if they are not "compelled," they are not "coerced." Mormons have a choice to pay tithes or not. Some do, some don't. The choice is there. And because the choice is there, and because that choice results in some people not paying tithes, there is no "coercion." Quote When people choose not to tithe, it's like choosing not to pay fire insurance when your loving father promised to burn you if you don't pay. Again, with the profanity. I'm sorry, but I won't continue. I had thought you were sincere when you apologized for comparing Jesus Christ to a mafia don, and in saying that you were not "trying to be offensive." And yet here we are with another snide and profane characterization of Jesus Christ as "your loving father [who] promised to burn you if you don't pay." I would hope some modicum of basic respect for our beliefs would imbue your remarks. I was in error. -Smac Edited May 24, 2018 by smac97
Analytics Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: Again, with the profanity. I'm sorry, but I won't continue. I don't think it is profane to give an example of a loving father acting in a Christlike manner. Its only intention is to explore what being Christlike is really like.
Gray Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: And yet plenty of Mormons do not tithe. Hence they are not "compelled." And if they are not "compelled," they are not "coerced." Mormons have a choice to pay tithes or not. Some do, some don't. The choice is there. And because the choice is there, and because that choice results in some people not paying tithes, there is no "coercion." Again, with the profanity. I'm sorry, but I won't continue. I had thought you were sincere when you apologized for comparing Jesus Christ to a mafia don, and in saying that you were not "trying to be offensive." And yet here we are with another snide and profane characterization of Jesus Christ as "your loving father [who] promised to burn you if you don't pay." I would hope some modicum of basic respect for our beliefs would imbue your remarks. I was in error. -Smac Do you believe then that God won't burn people who refuse to pay tithing?
Analytics Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 (edited) 50 minutes ago, smac97 said: I would hope some modicum of basic respect for our beliefs would imbue your remarks. I was in error. -Smac I have a modicum of respect for some of your beliefs, holy envy for others, and something in between for still others. The belief that Jesus will burn non-tithe payers with the wicked isn't on that continuum. I believe the threat that Jesus will burn non-tithe payers with the wicked is coercive. I hope you can have a modicum of respect for that belief of mine. Edited May 24, 2018 by Analytics
SteveO Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 1 hour 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 pay tithing "joyfully". I pay it grudgingly. I go to church every Sunday and spend three hours there grudgingly. I fast and pay fast offerings grudgingly. I'm at a point in my life where I do these things not because I want to, but because I believe with my whole heart the church is true, and so I do them strictly out of obedience. I hope one day I grow up and can get to that point where I do it happily--but its not right now. I should have lost my testimony when I was in the army. I should have left the church. I should have become an angry and hostile ex Mormon. But I didn't. It always bothered me when I saw people I knew, and people my wife knew lose their testimonies and leave the church--and yet I was able to keep going. It definitely wasn't because I wanted to keep believing, and I definitely had no problem living the "non-Mormon" lifestyle in the military. I believe I was able to get through all those bad times with my testimony intact because I continued to pay my tithing. I never felt good about the idea of stopping my tithing payments. I had always paid it since I had my first job in high school, and the idea of not paying it anymore--even though it made total sense--just made me feel sick. I really felt like I was stealing or robbing from God. And it felt like I would be throwing out the last good thing about myself. So I kept paying, through all the years of on and off again inactivity, the doubts and despair, I always paid it. It was no surprise then when I saw this quote from Joseph F Smith not too long ago: "I have said, and I will repeat it here, that a man or woman who will always pay his or her tithing will never apostatize. It does not make any difference how small or how large it may be; it is a law of the Lord; it is a source of revenue for the Church; it is God’s requirement, and He has said that those who will not observe it are not worthy of an inheritance in Zion. No man will ever apostatize so long as he will pay his tithing. It is reasonable. Why? Because as long as he has faith to pay his tithing he has faith in the Church and in the principles of the Gospel, and there is some good in him, and there is some light in him. As long as he will do this the tempter will not overcome him and will not lead him astray" That's why I pay tithing. And its been the greatest blessing and gift in my life to be still hanging on to the church after all this time. I never found a check or cash in my couch cushions (I must be doing it wrong) but the blessings that I don't have room for have come in the form of my continued tithe paying, church attendance, and temple marriage. My life now if enough evidence that the principle is true, and I don't care how the church uses my money. I pay it because I believe its true. And I think that's also enough for most members. With or without the "transparency". 2
smac97 Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Gray said: Do you believe then that God won't burn people who refuse to pay tithing? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I believe that Jesus Christ ascended to heaven with a glorified, resurrected body. I believe that Jesus Christ will return to the earth one day. I believe that the earth will be cleansed as part of the Second Coming. From the Gospel Principles manual: Quote What Will Jesus Do When He Comes Again? For teachers: Consider assigning each class member or family member one of the five numbered items in this chapter. Ask each person to work individually, studying his or her assigned item, including the scripture passages. Then invite everyone to discuss what they have learned. When Jesus Christ comes again to the earth, He will do the following things: He will cleanse the earth. When Jesus comes again, He will come in power and great glory. At that time the wicked will be destroyed. All things that are corrupt will be burned, and the earth will be cleansed by fire (see D&C 101:24–25). He will judge His people. When Jesus comes again, He will judge the nations and will divide the righteous from the wicked (see Matthew 25:31–46; see also chapter 46 in this book). John the Revelator wrote about this judgment: “I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, … and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” The wicked he saw “lived not again until the thousand years were finished” (Revelation 20:4–5; see also D&C 88:95–98). He will usher in the Millennium. The Millennium is the thousand-year period when Jesus will reign on the earth. The righteous will be caught up to meet Jesus at His coming (see D&C 88:96). His coming will begin the millennial reign. (See chapter 45 in this book.) President Brigham Young said: Quote “In the Millennium, when the Kingdom of God is established on the earth in power, glory and perfection, and the reign of wickedness that has so long prevailed is subdued, the Saints of God will have the privilege of building their temples, and of entering into them, becoming, as it were, pillars in the temples of God [see Revelation 3:12], and they will officiate for their dead. Then we will see our friends come up, and perhaps some that we have been acquainted with here. … And we will have revelations to know our forefathers clear back to Father Adam and Mother Eve, and we will enter into the temples of God and officiate for them. Then [children] will be sealed to [parents] until the chain is made perfect back to Adam, so that there will be a perfect chain of Priesthood from Adam to the winding-up scene” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young [1997], 333–34). He will complete the First Resurrection. Those who have obtained the privilege of coming forth in the resurrection of the just will rise from their graves. They will be caught up to meet the Savior as He comes down from heaven. (See D&C 88:97–98.) After Jesus Christ rose from the dead, other righteous people who had died were also resurrected. They appeared in Jerusalem and also on the American continent. (See Matthew 27:52–53; 3 Nephi 23:9–10.) This was the beginning of the First Resurrection. Some people have been resurrected since then. Those who already have been resurrected and those who will be resurrected at the time of His coming will all inherit the glory of the celestial kingdom (see D&C 76:50–70). After the resurrection of those who will inherit celestial glory, another group will be resurrected: those who will receive a terrestrial glory. When all these people have been resurrected, the First Resurrection will be completed. The wicked who are living at the time of the Second Coming of the Lord will be destroyed in the flesh. They, along with the wicked who are already dead, will have to wait until the last resurrection. All of the remaining dead will rise to meet God. They will either inherit the telestial kingdom or be cast into outer darkness with Satan (see D&C 76:32–33, 81–112). He will take His rightful place as King of heaven and earth.When Jesus comes, He will establish His government on the earth. The Church will become part of that kingdom. He will rule all the people of the earth in peace for 1,000 years. When Jesus Christ first came to the earth, He did not come in glory. He was born in a lowly stable and laid in a manger of hay. He did not come with great armies as the Jews had expected of their Savior. Instead, He came saying, “Love your enemies, … do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you” (Matthew 5:44). He was rejected and crucified. But He will not be rejected at His Second Coming, “for every ear shall hear it, and every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall confess” that Jesus is the Christ (D&C 88:104). He will be greeted as “Lord of lords, and King of kings” (Revelation 17:14). He will be called “Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). ... Additional Scriptures John 14:2–3; Matthew 26:64 (Jesus to prepare a place and come again) Malachi 3:2–3; 4:1; D&C 64:23–24 (earth to be burned) D&C 133:41–51 (wicked to be destroyed) I believe that God will judge all of us according to our obedience, according to our works, according to our faith. The particularized concern/grievance being presented here appears to be based almost entirely on D&C 64:23-24: Quote 23 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. 24 For after today cometh the burning—this is speaking after the manner of the Lord—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. I don't think God has tithing as a litmus test. It's one imperative among several. Primus inter pares is faith. But faith necessarily requires repentance, and saving ordinances, and keeping the commandments (one of which is tithing). I've never been particularly concerned about the mode of my departure from this earth. As long as I am on the Lord's side, it doesn't matter. I can't really meaningfully speak for the "they that do wickedly shall be as stubble," or the "and I will burn them up, for I am the Lord of Hosts; and I will not spare any that remain in Babylon." I don't know how the Lord will work such things out. However this works out, though, it will be perfectly just and fair. Moreover, however this works out, it sort of missed the point. We all die in one way or another. What really matters is the Day of Judgment. On that day, we will be accountable to God for what we have done, and not done. A lot of this seems to come down to us presuming to judge God, to find fault with Him, to accuse Him of being unjust or wicked or arbitrary or evil (hence the comparisons of Him to a mafia don, a kidnapper, a torturer, and so on). I think these characterizations are wrong. I think this sort of assessment of God is blinkered and profoundly inaccurate. I think this presumption arises from pride and arrogance on our part, and not from any informed or inspired contemplation and study of these things. I believe God is perfect and just and kind. And patient. He lets us do all sorts of bad things to each other and to ourselves. But He also sends us prophets and apostles to try to persuade us to stop doing those things, and to instead treat each other with kindness and love, and to pursue a course in life that leads to happiness. But some - and in the end many - will not choose otherwise. And these alternative choosings will increase in wickedness and depravity until there is a fulfillment of D&C 101: Quote 9 Verily I say unto you, notwithstanding their sins, my bowels are filled with compassion towards them. I will not utterly cast them off; and in the day of wrath I will remember mercy. 10 I have sworn, and the decree hath gone forth by a former commandment which I have given unto you, that I would let fall the sword of mine indignation in behalf of my people; and even as I have said, it shall come to pass. 11 Mine indignation is soon to be poured out without measure upon all nations; and this will I do when the cup of their iniquity is full. 12 And in that day all who are found upon the watch-tower, or in other words, all mine Israel, shall be saved. In other words, it sounds like the world will be in a pretty bad state at the Second Coming. Thanks, -Smac Edited May 24, 2018 by smac97
stemelbow Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 4 hours ago, smac97 said: So a movie theater owner says "If you want to see the movie, please buy a ticket," he is "threatening" the patron. If a parent says to his child "If you want dessert, then eat your vegetables," he is "threatening" his child. If a John encourages his friend Jim to start saving money for retirement, John is "threatening" Jim. And so on. No, it's not. No, it's not. Coercion means "to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition." "Especially without regard for individual desire or volition." The LDS Church does not use force or intimidation. And the "authority" is purely religious in nature, and is necessarily and materially constrained and limited. See D&C 134:10: The only thing the Church does - and can do - is limit or withdraw fellowship. But since that fellowship is entirely mutual, since the association is entirely voluntary, then the "authority" used by the Church here cannot reasonably be characterized as "coercive." No. The issue here is the gross distortion of the word "coercion." The issue here is comparing Jesus Christ to a mafia thug. Which presumptuousness can be utterly and totally disregarded by the individual. Association with the Church is voluntary. Fellowship in the Church is voluntary. Obedience to the precepts taught by the Church is voluntary. The Church simply lacks any power to coerce. No, it's not. Comparing Jesus Christ to a mafia thug is more than "silly." I'm not the one comparing Jesus Christ to a mafia thug. I'm not the one bearing false witness and making absurd accusations against the LDS Church. -Smac Mafia thug? Oh my, Smac. yOU are taking this to ridiculous levels. I haven't said anything about Jesus at all. Yes coercion does mean "the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal..to compel a person to act against his or her will". If you don't think the Church doesn't teach people that one who doesn't pay tithing will suffer eternally then you may have a point. But sadly, I think it's clear the Church does teach there will be eternal negative consequences for the person who doesn't pay his or her tithing. Many members and now ex members have felt compelled to pay their tithing against their own will under the threat that they will be eternally penalized if they do not. Your movie analogy doesn't fit in the least.
smac97 Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 Just now, stemelbow said: Mafia thug? Oh my, Smac. yOU are taking this to ridiculous levels. Well, no, I'm not. Analytics has acknowledged and apologized for this ("I apologize for comparing Jesus Christ to a mafia don."). I didn't make the ridiculous comparisons in my posts. I was responding and objecting to them. Just now, stemelbow said: Yes coercion does mean "the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal..to compel a person to act against his or her will". "Compel" being the operative word there. Since there are plenty of Mormons who don't pay tithing (or a full tithe), they obviously aren't being "compelled." Hence they are not being "coerced." Just now, stemelbow said: If you don't think the Church doesn't teach people that one who doesn't pay tithing will suffer eternally then you may have a point. CFR, please. Chapter and verse for the Church's teaching "that one who doesn't pay tithing will suffer eternally." Just now, stemelbow said: But sadly, I think it's clear the Church does teach there will be eternal negative consequences for the person who doesn't pay his or her tithing. Yes, "eternal negative consequences" can arise from disobedience. God will judge such things. The Church is not making this stuff up out of thin air. Just now, stemelbow said: Many members and now ex members have felt compelled to pay their tithing against their own will under the threat that they will be eternally penalized if they do not. And yet . . . plenty of members of the Church do not pay tithing. Hence they were not compelled. Hence they were not coerced. Let's not infantalize ourselves. I accept the teachings of the Church. I am not "compelled" to do so, nor is anyone else. I choose. Just now, stemelbow said: Your movie analogy doesn't fit in the least. Your because-I-say-so disagreement with my analogy doesn't mean much. Thanks, -Smac 1
stemelbow Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 6 minutes ago, smac97 said: Well, no, I'm not. Analytics has acknowledged and apologized for this ("I apologize for comparing Jesus Christ to a mafia don."). I didn't make the ridiculous comparisons in my posts. I was responding and objecting to them. "Compel" being the operative word there. Since there are plenty of Mormons who don't pay tithing (or a full tithe), they obviously aren't being "compelled." Hence they are not being "coerced." CFR, please. Chapter and verse for the Church's teaching "that one who doesn't pay tithing will suffer eternally." Yes, "eternal negative consequences" can arise from disobedience. God will judge such things. The Church is not making this stuff up out of thin air. And yet . . . plenty of members of the Church do not pay tithing. Hence they were not compelled. Hence they were not coerced. Let's not infantalize ourselves. I accept the teachings of the Church. I am not "compelled" to do so, nor is anyone else. I choose. Your because-I-say-so disagreement with my analogy doesn't mean much. Thanks, -Smac This sounds like you are spread too thin. I don't know why you are stuck conflating me with Analytics. Yes, one can choose to believe the gospel as the Church has it. But that hardly deals with the threat offered to try and get people to pay their tithing. I'm not sure why you now are stuck on the word compel. TO me this makes very little sense and its usually at that point it's a good idea to leave the conversation as is. It doesn't appear you are operating with reason. I assume that because you keep taking this in an absurd direction. I'm very glad you dropped the ridiculous movie ticket analogy.
smac97 Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: This sounds like you are spread too thin. I don't know why you are stuck conflating me with Analytics. I'm not conflating. I'm addressing several interrelated arguments at once. 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Yes, one can choose to believe the gospel as the Church has it. But that hardly deals with the threat offered to try and get people to pay their tithing. The "threat" comes from God. That's a question of belief. You can choose to believe that, or not. But that ability to choose rather negates the suggestion that we have no choice (an essential element of "coercion"). The "threat" is not "coercive" in any reasonable, meaningful sense. There are plenty of Mormons who choose to not pay tithing. Therefore, they have a choice. Therefore, they are not being compelled. Therefore, they are not being coerced. 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I'm not sure why you now are stuck on the word compel. Compulsion and lack of choice are essential components of "coercion." 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: TO me this makes very little sense and its usually at that point it's a good idea to leave the conversation as is. It doesn't appear you are operating with reason. I assume that because you keep taking this in an absurd direction. I'm very glad you dropped the ridiculous movie ticket analogy. I didn't drop it. -Smac
smac97 Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, Analytics said: Quote 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. Jesus Christ? Yes, He has that ability. The Church? No, it has no ability to "burn you p in this life and in the life to come." Again, D&C 134:10: Quote We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship. What I said: "So too is the notion of 'coercion' where the Church has no ability to coerce...." Thanks, -Smac Edited May 24, 2018 by smac97 1
Analytics Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 (edited) As an example of what coercion is and isn't, a few years ago David Letterman had a string of extramarital affairs with staffers. Somebody found out about it and blackmailed him for two million dollars. Did this constitute coercion? According to Smac's reasoning (and I am not comparing the blackmailer to Jesus, btw), this was not coercion because Letterman had a choice. He had the choice of paying the two million or not. According to Smac's reasoning, the fact that he didn't pay and instead contacted his lawyer and defanged the whole thing by confessing it on national TV proves that it wasn't coercion at all. I don't buy this line of reasoning for a second. You always have a choice. Choice doesn't imply lack of coercion. If it did coercion wouldn't be a thing. We always have a choice. Edited May 24, 2018 by Analytics
Thinking Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 19 hours ago, Maidservant said: If I thought the Church was truly misusing the funds (not merely held an honest disagreement about some details of priority), I wouldn't be a part of the Church at all. This is an interesting statement since (unless you are an accountant for the Church) the only information given to the membership is a statement in GC from the auditing department. Quote Based upon audits performed, Church Auditing is of the opinion that, in all material respects, contributions received, expenditures made, and assets of the Church for the year 2017 have been recorded and administered in accordance with approved Church budgets, policies, and accounting practices. The Church follows the practices taught to its members of living within a budget, avoiding debt, and saving against a time of need.
smac97 Posted May 24, 2018 Posted May 24, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Analytics said: As an example of what coercion is and isn't, a few years ago David Letterman had a string of extramarital affairs with staffers. Somebody found out about it and blackmailed him for two million dollars. Did this constitute coercion? According to Smac's reasoning (and I am not comparing the blackmailer to Jesus, btw), this was not coercion because Letterman had a choice. Well, no. He had a sophie's choice. A conundrum. He could choose A) a really bad thing (have his extramarital affairs outed), or B) another really bad thing (pay $2 million). Under the law, a contract is construed as unconscionable (and hence unenforceable) if it "is so grossly unreasonable as to be [unenforceable according to its literal terms] because of an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties [procedural unconscionability] together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party [substantive unconscionability]" (Lawrence v Graubard Miller, 11 N.Y.3d 588, 595 [2008]). So . . . A) Letterman was not in a contractual relationship with his blackmailer (unlike members of the Church, who are in a covenant relationship with God), B) the blackmailer was acting unlawfully and with malicious motives and had no legal or moral right to seek money from David Letterman (unlike God, whom we have covenanted to obey), C) the blackmailer did not give Letterman a "meaningful choice" (he could choose one of two bad options), where as God does give us a "meaningful choice" (obey Him and receive blessings, or not), and D) plenty of Mormons choose to disobey and not pay tithing, thus negating the notion that they are being "coerced" (since coercion involves a lack of a meaningful choice). There are probably more differences here, but these were just the ones off the top of my head. Quote He had the choice of paying the two million or not. He had to choose between two bad options. That is not what God is offering. Quote According to Smac's reasoning, the fact that he didn't pay and instead contacted his lawyer and defanged the whole thing by confessing it on national TV proves that it wasn't coercion at all. Nope. See above. Quote I don't buy this line of reasoning for a second. You always have a choice. No, not always. See above. A choice that is not "meaningful" or that is illusory is no choice at all. A person attacked by a thug who holds a knife to her throat and tells her he'll kill her if she resists can't be said to have a "choice" in that situation. She can either A) resist and have have her throat slit, or B) she can be robbed. Are you really going to insist that persons in such circumstances "always have a choice?" Have you ever seen the movie "Sophie's Choice?" From UrbanDictionary.com: Quote From the novel and film of the same name, an impossibly difficult choice, especially when forced onto someone. The choice is between two unbearable options, and it's essentially a no-win situation. "Sophie's Choice" is centered on a scene in Auschwitz where Sophie has just arrived with her ten-year old son and her seven-year old daughter and a sadistic doctor, presumably Doctor Mengele, tells her that she can only bring one of her children; one will be allowed to live while the other is to be killed. As a mother, Sophie adores both of her children and can't make this agonizing choice... until several soldiers force her and she hastily gives her daughter to them, sobbing as they take her little girl away. See also Dilemma, Rock and a Hard Place, and Scylla and Charybdis. Sophie really didn't have a choice. She was forced to choose between which of her children was to be killed. That's unfair. Unjust. Unconscionable. It was not a real choice. It was not a meaningful choice. In contrast, we are discussing a religious belief about tithing. Latter-day Saints have voluntarily entered into a covenant (contractual) relationship with God. We can choose to love and obey Him, and He blesses us. Or we can choose to not love Him and disobey Him, in which case blessings are lessened, or withheld, or withdrawn, or we are punished, or some combination of these. But the point here is that the Plan of Salvation gives us a real and meaningful choice. We can choose obedience and the blessings that flow from it, or disobedience and the consequences of that. Quote Choice doesn't imply lack of coercion. Yes, it does. "Coerce" means "to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition." LDS doctrine is shot through with the concept of agency. The ability to choose. The right to choose. Quote If it did coercion wouldn't be a thing. We always have a choice. Unless, of course, we don't have a choice, or the choice is not meaningful. But neither of those things applies to the discussion about tithing, since we do have a choice about that. Thanks, -Smac Edited May 24, 2018 by smac97
Recommended Posts