- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
FWIW I don’t think any starving Africans’ tithing is actually used to fund BYU, temples, etc., unless you consider it an equal small percentage of each tithing dollar goes to each of the things tithing pays for. The US and Canada actually subsidize the rest of the world, particularly South America, Africa and the Pacific islands in terms of tithing taken in vs. amounts spent there. Of course none of us have those numbers to look at, and I think that’s part of the reason – some people might look at what we expend in other places and say “WTF?” (Fetch, that is). I do believe our buildings could be a little more plain, including our temples (I used to be amazed that members could criticize and a certain other church for their beautiful old cathedrals with their gold trimmings and art work and turn around and do the same thing.) A case in point with tithing and poorer countries: missionaries. The vast majority of missionaries from SA and Africa are paying nowhere near the $400/mo we pay and most of that does not come from others in their wards either. Most comes from the mission fund (partly subsidized by the $400 payers) and tithing. I’m actually less OK with that than subsidizing BYU but I think the intent is very much the same. Having said that, I am a huge proponent of the Perpetual Education Fund – but that is money donated specifically for that purpose and repaid. DarkJedi wrote:
FWIW I don’t think any starving Africans’ tithing is actually used to fund BYU, temples, etc., unless you consider it an equal small percentage of each tithing dollar goes to each of the things tithing pays for. The US and Canada actually subsidize the rest of the world, particularly South America, Africa and the Pacific islands in terms of tithing taken in vs. amounts spent there. Of course none of us have those numbers to look at, and I think that’s part of the reason – some people might look at what we expend in other places and say “WTF?” (Fetch, that is). I do believe our buildings could be a little more plain, including our temples (I used to be amazed that members could criticize and a certain other church for their beautiful old cathedrals with their gold trimmings and art work and turn around and do the same thing.) A case in point with tithing and poorer countries: missionaries. The vast majority of missionaries from SA and Africa are paying nowhere near the $400/mo we pay and most of that does not come from others in their wards either. Most comes from the mission fund (partly subsidized by the $400 payers) and tithing. I’m actually less OK with that than subsidizing BYU but I think the intent is very much the same. Having said that, I am a huge proponent of the Perpetual Education Fund – but that is money donated specifically for that purpose and repaid.
I agree. Tithing in the Church is very… “communist”, for lack of a better word. Everyone contributes according to their work, and everyone recieves according to their need. The African/SA Branches recieve a lot more than they give. I am a big fan of the Church’s perpetual education fund. I even saw in my own mission, that the Church went to extreme lengths to help those missionaries from impoverished countries gain acceptance into one of the BYUs. Theoretically, the Church could divert the funds from their universities to further helping the poor; but supporting the BYUs definitely provide a massive benifit both to the Church and its members. The tithing the Church recieves from BYU graduates heavily outweighs the cost of providing cheap tuition, and in turn greatly increases our capacity to help the African membership.
I never took issue with it like my sister did because I pretty much saw it like that. I just thought her perspective was interesting. hawkgrrrl wrote:
Ray hit the nail on the head. Unlike other conservative religions, which is a contrast to our credit, we really do value higher education for our people. Even for women, whether the church has realistic expectations for what you can do with a degree you’ve never used or not.
There are aspects of BYU I don’t like – how they deal with gays and rape – and some of their LDS studies but overall it is a positive thing and a credit to the church in my view.
The Jews have put a premium on education and it has served them well in some respects despite their persecution, the Church of Scotland put free/cheap schools in every town centuries before many other countries, and as a result tiny Scotland produced a long list of major inventors and engineers.
SilentDawning wrote:
I was wondering if anyone knows the motivations of the church to provide such low cost tuition to our young adults and adults who need to upgrade their education…I heard GBH indicate they were not going to expand the university system because it is so expensive— this was in conference or in a priesthood meeting years ago. So cost is a big concern for the church, and consistent with my past dealings with them…GBH did mention in conference that the church is a proponent of education because it “increases members’ capacity to serve in the Church”. There is also the safe haven of providing a place where members can send their children to avoid the drinking, sex and wild oats associated with secular university life…Any more comments on why the church displays such commitment?I think you already answered your own question and it really isn’t much more complicated than that. Sure, Church leaders will give some lip service to the importance of education, intelligence, etc. but even if they are completely serious that still wouldn’t mean that there is any real need for BYU to exist for that reason alone because they could just as easily continue to preach these ideals but then just let LDS students go to some of the other existing schools instead. Think about it, if regular high schools are good enough for most Mormons at this point then why aren’t regular colleges and universities already good enough as well? Obviously many other schools already are good enough for many LDS students nowadays but what BYU provides above and beyond basic education is essentially a relatively controlled environment where LDS students will typically feel constant pressure to go along with the Church’s expected standards and beliefs.
In fact, BYU goes even further than general LDS standards with the strict rules about no beards allowed, no caffeinated soda, strict honor code enforcement, etc. Basically it looks like it is mostly about trying to retain young adults at all costs through strict enforced discipline (a la boot camp) at an age in life when so many end up falling away from the Church and what they don’t want to happen beyond all the drinking and sex that go on at other schools is simply things like LDS students dating non-Mormons or less active members, being converted to atheism as soon as they take a Philosophy class, Biology 101, etc. So that’s why I think Church leaders are content to spend so much money on BYU mostly because they want to maintain what they see as a “safer” spiritual environment separate from the supposedly evil and scary outside world.
Saying everyone could just go to another college or university overlooks the issues of cost and debt. It also overlooks the issue of education for millions of members in areas where higher education is not available readily, if at all. I agree, DA, with most of the rest of your comment, but the Church is trying HARD to make education affordable to its members, worldwide – and that ought to be applauded, even if there are other secondary (or co-primary) reasons, as well.
I do remember Pres. Hinckley making the point that not all members would be able to attend a church school. I’m not sure if that was before the announcement of BYU-I or at the same time. His point was that for those who could not, for whatever reason (not being admitted, cost, etc.) Institute was a viable alternative. We have a major university nearby that does have a YSA ward and an Institute taught by senior missionaries (there are activities, separate from the ward activities, associated with the institute as well). While certainly not the same as Provo or Rexburg, it is also not devoid of YSA spiritual enrichment (with no beard rules to boot). I will note that cost is not the reason students choose this school over BYU, it is much more expensive than BYU – but it is also a very prestigious institution.
I was raised rural poor. The only reason I did not attend BYU was that I was accepted into a highly selective school with fully need-based financial aid. In essence, I got a full-ride scholarship except for the standard federal student loans. Without that sort of academic opportunity, I would have attended BYU for three reasons – two of which were all about cost: 1) My fiancé (wife now) attended, with a half-tuition academic scholarship and a half-tuition scholarship through her father being employed there; 2) I would have received at least a full-tuition scholarship; 3) It seemed, at the time, to be a good option, since both of our families lived in Utah County. (In hindsight, I am grateful for the personal growth we both experienced living 3,000 miles from home in order for me to attend college.)
My wife and I had quite a few friends whose only option, financially, was a school in Utah – since almost all the other schools have to compete, to a degree, with BYU’s price structure. (Westminster in SLC is different.) Overall, the price of higher education in Utah is the lowest in the nation – and the LDS Church is 100% responsible for that.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.