- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Cwald’s comment reminds me of something I read in Ben Franklin’s biography recently. He said that he felt one service he attended was meant to turn the crowd into good Pentacostals rather than good people. I think it was a critical juncture in his decision to transcend religious affiliations. cwald wrote:Being a good mormon is NOT the same thing as being “righteous.”
I must admit that in my faith crisis catalyst, after the floor dropped out, I found myself saying, “I’m not just a good person, I’m a member in full fellowship of God’s restored church, I hold the higher priesthood, I sacrificed 2 years to spread the gospel, I pay 10% of my income as a tithe, I hold an important and time-consuming calling, I made holy marriage covenants at the alter of God- doesn’t any of this mean anything? Does none of this assure me of a charmed life?”
Unfortunately, it seems that there are no paths without pain.
Roy wrote:cwald wrote:Being a good mormon is NOT the same thing as being “righteous.”
I must admit that in my faith crisis catalyst, after the floor dropped out, I found myself saying, “I’m not just a good person, I’m a member in full fellowship of God’s restored church, I hold the higher priesthood, I sacrificed 2 years to spread the gospel, I pay 10% of my income as a tithe, I hold an important and time-consuming calling, I made holy marriage covenants at the alter of God- doesn’t any of this mean anything? Does none of this assure me of a charmed life?”
Unfortunately, it seems that there are no paths without pain.
Let me clarify in case I might be misunderstood. My opinion is that one CAN be a good mormon, and be righteous — just as one can be a good Jew, or Muslim or Catholic and be righteous. AND one might be a good mormon or Catholic or Jew etc, yet not be righteous at all.
Being Mormon with a TR DOES NOT equate to righteousness. Being Mormon without a TR does not equate to unrighteousness either. IMO.
I think the real answer to the title question depends on how each person defines “help” – including both type of help, objective of help and degree of help. Honestly, I’m not sure I can answer that adequately, so, although I said “No” quite unequivocally in my first comment in answer to a very “simple” question, I probably would answer “Probably” AND “No” to the more nuanced, fuller question.
For what that’s worth.
Quote:I think I understand too. People in your ward aren’t paying full tithes and the budget is too short. The bishop was PO’d about having to make bricks without straw, and that’s all there is to that.
🙄 I’m not sure what you’re implying here Hawkgrrl — can you clarify? I simply want to understand the meaning, nothing more. You usually make really good points so I’m curious.
SilentDawning wrote:Quote:I think I understand too. People in your ward aren’t paying full tithes and the budget is too short. The bishop was PO’d about having to make bricks without straw, and that’s all there is to that.
🙄 I’m not sure what you’re implying here Hawkgrrl — can you clarify? I simply want to understand the meaning, nothing more. You usually make really good points so I’m curious.
Budget allocation from the church is based on tithing faithfulness. The fewer the number of full tithe payers the less budget you get. Sometimes even kindly and beloved bishops have had enough.
hawkgrrrl wrote:I agree with Brian J on this one. If God only helps the righteous, then pornographers and drug lords must be really really righteous. OR God just set the whole thing in motion and walked off to do something more interesting.
I guess it all comes down to what qualifies as a blessing. Anyway rain falls on the just and the unjust and sometimes it’s good rain and sometimes not. I’d never assume my recent broken rib was God’s punishment or that the fact that it wasn’t worse was because I’d been good. Stuff happens.
Quote:
Budget allocation from the church is based on tithing faithfulness. The fewer the number of full tithe payers the less budget you get. Sometimes even kindly and beloved bishops have had enough.My understanding is that there is a stake budget, and this budget is divided among the Wards — not on the basis of tithing. Under the old guidelines, all expenses came off a stake account, so technically, there was very little financial autonomy for the Wards. Under the new guidelines, each Ward gets their own account — at least, that is what I’ve been told.
Now, I’ve heard tithing-worthiness is important when planning to build a temple — they won’t do it if people aren’t tithing-worthy, but I’ve never heard it used as a basis for assigning budget money. I’ve heard Sacrament meeting attendance is used for such purposes however.
Does anyone know for sure? Or am I questioning GBSmith’s comment unecessarily?
SilentDawning wrote:Quote:
Budget allocation from the church is based on tithing faithfulness. The fewer the number of full tithe payers the less budget you get. Sometimes even kindly and beloved bishops have had enough.My understanding is that there is a stake budget, and this budget is divided among the Wards — not on the basis of tithing. Under the old guidelines, all expenses came off a stake account, so technically, there was very little financial autonomy for the Wards. Under the new guidelines, each Ward gets their own account — at least, that is what I’ve been told.
Now, I’ve heard tithing-worthiness is important when planning to build a temple — they won’t do it if people aren’t tithing-worthy, but I’ve never heard it used as a basis for assigning budget money. I’ve heard Sacrament meeting attendance is used for such purposes however.
Does anyone know for sure? Or am I questioning GBSmith’s comment unecessarily?
I think it is a great question – and I would like to know the answer as well. How do they determine the budget of the unit and who is making the decisions? And how do they determine where and when to build a temple? How does Full tithe payer, attendance, TR holders etc play into the equation?
cwald wrote:SilentDawning wrote:Quote:
Budget allocation from the church is based on tithing faithfulness. The fewer the number of full tithe payers the less budget you get. Sometimes even kindly and beloved bishops have had enough.My understanding is that there is a stake budget, and this budget is divided among the Wards — not on the basis of tithing. Under the old guidelines, all expenses came off a stake account, so technically, there was very little financial autonomy for the Wards. Under the new guidelines, each Ward gets their own account — at least, that is what I’ve been told.
Now, I’ve heard tithing-worthiness is important when planning to build a temple — they won’t do it if people aren’t tithing-worthy, but I’ve never heard it used as a basis for assigning budget money. I’ve heard Sacrament meeting attendance is used for such purposes however.
Does anyone know for sure? Or am I questioning GBSmith’s comment unecessarily?
I think it is a great question – and I would like to know the answer as well. How do they determine the budget of the unit and who is making the decisions? And how do they determine where and when to build a temple? How does Full tithe payer, attendance, TR holders etc play into the equation?
I seem to recall that budgets are based on attendance at Sacrament meeting. There’s a good reason why that ward clerk is out there counting each week.
I believe attendance also has a bearing on when the church will spring for a building. Some years ago, this was abused by some in my stake when a ward (that already had their own building) was encouraged to attend church in a neighboring unit some 30 miles away, for a certain number of weeks. Once the threshold was passed, everyone went back to where they were supposed to be, and the few that actually belonged ended up with a really nice, new building.
I have to admit, I like what Butters has said. I believe in a relative righteousness paradigm that is both need based and that God “is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” (Hebrew 11:6) Righteousness is impossible without Jesus Christ–the only truly righteous person. Without Christ we cannot be saved. I heard an Institute teacher say that within the Grace versus works paradigm we are better off leaning to the side of Grace. We also have the scripture written by Nephi that essentially states we are saved after all we can do. This is relative to anyone and everyone depending on where we are it in the road to discipleship. If we deem ourselves as righteous then I think we are probably going to be damned, because of some type of “holier than thou” attitude. However, if we deem ourselves as good, or the best that we can be at the moment, then I think most of us out there are righteous. I am grateful God puts adversity in the balance, and give us agency to pick between good, better, and best. Perhaps it is the Spirit that will guide us into the best for us, but without the Spirit perhaps we can only make it to good or better on our own merits. One scenario I would like to propose is that of a poor person who has no shelter, nor food, and does not have sufficient clothing. Is this person prepared to hear the Gospel? I would say no. His/her basic needs are not met. I think we need to take in consideration Manslow’s hierarchy of needs in relationship to our fellowmen. Such a person needs God to bless him for his lack of food, shelter, and clothing before he can be judged entirely on ‘how righteous he/she is.” I think the poor needy and those that have a void in life are the test for the so-called righteous. A so-called “righteous” sister or brother in the church, if truly “in-tune” would bless the lives of those with deficits so they can then live, or embrace the gospel to live a righteous life. A sort of pay-it-forward paradigm would work out well here. If righteousness means “free from sin,” then none of us are righteous. If righteousness means doing good relative to our station in life and abilities, then it is a relative term that cannot be quantified by man alone. Quantifiable is an absurd statement since Christ exercised an infinite atonement. So any negative/deficit would then be swallowed up by an infinite atonement, as long as such an atonement was not rejected.
Personally, I did not feel whole after my divorce. But I don’t think it was entirely on “unrighteousness.” I had a need that needed to be filled. I am mainly talking of companionship and the completeness of a family, which I longed for after an unwanted divorce. To me this was the ideal that I missed and I wanted to feel whole again. I didn’t like being a single parent, nor alone in my journey in life, and wanted to solve my problems. I believe God helped me do so. I perceived this as part of the next step of Manslow’s hierarchy of needs, that falls within the realm of “health and well being.” I did exercise faith through dating different women and using the internet to find Mrs. Right. It was a goal that I committed to and then I felt God guided me in my decision. Am I more righteous for it? No, I would say I feel more blessed and complete, but perhaps now I can affect more righteousness or goodness in the world because my needs are met. Now, I can embark on belonging, the third tier of Manslow’s hierarchy of needs. Once we are at this third tier, I think we are in a better position to bless the lives of others–otherwise, I feel that we are, or ought to be on the receiving end of the righteousness/goodness of others. I feel that I belong in a ward of the Church (not completely), but I do exist and interact on a limited basis with others. I feel I belong more adequately in LDS culture because I am a married man. But, more importantly I belong to a woman who loves me and I love her. But now, I must do more to help others and serve others to be considered righteous. I don’t want to be a leader or an administrator because then I would be tempted to get a “holier than thou complex.” Church leadership positions always made me feel more egocentric than I should be. I feel more blessed to be without such things in life.
I feel like a reformed Mormon Pharisee. Before my divorce, I would check off everything and then compare myself to others as: “I am not good enough,” or “at least I’m not like that!” Sometimes, I wonder why I am even still in the Church, but then again, I think it is because of this one thing: My belief in and faith in Jesus Christ. One of my favorite scriptures is found in Galatians 2:20 and it was actually made into a Christian song recently. I quote: I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live: yet not I, but Christ livith in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (21) I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if the righteousness [my italics] come [italicized in original] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain [my interpretation had atoned in vain]. Because of this I finally understand what it means to take upon myself the name of the Son of God. He had to bear his cross, while I bear mine own through adversity. If I rely on him, I will get to where he wants me to be, which is on his right hand. Essentially, we need to form a symbiotic relationship with the Savior through covenant. In my life as I seek to do the will of the Lord, I am“Upheld by my Righteous omnipotent hand.” LDS Hymns 85 “How Firm a Foundation.”
Does a parent only help their righteous kids? Doesn’t make much sense when asked like that. I suppose the obedient kids listen and follow their parents instructions more, therefore avoid more of life’s pitfalls. I got so tired of hearing about all the blessings you get for pay tithing, going to the temple, reading the B of M, etc. I remember trying to so hard to do everything right so I could have all these blessings. Instead, everything was going wrong in my life. My kids were in constant trouble, my husband left the church and did not get his pay raise or promotion, and the car and washing machine broke down the day after we paid tithing. It was when a 7th Day Adventist pastor handed me a little book called “The 5 Day Plan to know God,” that my spiritual answer came. The booklet talked about how the early Jews were waiting for this Messiah to come and save them from the Romans and their problems. Instead Jesus came and said He came to save them from their sins. That’s not exactly what they wanted to hear. Bingo–I realized I was just like those early Jews living the ‘rules’ to be save from my problems. Doing things for the wrong reasons did not work. Now, I only follow Christ to be redeemed from my sins and that works so much better for me. doug wrote:
I seem to recall that budgets are based on attendance at Sacrament meeting. There’s a good reason why that ward clerk is out there counting each week..I think I was wrong and Doug’s right. I used to be a stake clerk years ago and I think I mixed up how the church determined money for buildings (tithing faithfullness) and budget allocation to wards (attendance).
Ah, yes, I think I’m operating off an old paradigm about the budgets – it is based on sac mtg attendance. But that bishop’s comment does seem driven by people in the ward not paying tithing, and him being fed up with it. I wonder if everyone paid electronically directly to Salt Lake if the bishop would have any information on what was being paid — other than the Tithing Settlement declarations. jamison wrote:…I believe in a relative righteousness paradigm that is both need based and that God “is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” (Hebrew 11:6) Righteousness is impossible without Jesus Christ–the only truly righteous person. Without Christ we cannot be saved….
I appreciate the thought jamison, even though I think your definition of “righteousness” and who will be saved might be a bit narrow, in my opinion. I can’t imagine the Dalia Lama going to hell anytime soon. Just my opinion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.