- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
mackay11 wrote:
The church also encourages members to reduce tithing accordingly. So instead of paying £10 per £100, you pay £8 per £100, knowing the £2 will be paid by the government out of your own tax bill.
Does anybody else find this stange? UK members only pay 8% tithing if they do it through the HMRC?
I had a members while I was bishop whose employer would match dollar for dollar his charitable contribution up to 5% of his salary. So he would pay his 10%, and I’d get a check in the mail from the company for another 5%. He would joke that he could just pay 5% tithing, and the church would still get their 10%, but he never took it beyond a joke. Next time I see him, I’ll have to tell him the church would have approved his 5% as full tithe!
No, I don’t find it strange. If I lived there, I would appreciate it – as I’m sure mackay11 does. If anything, I think it weakens the plaintiffs’ claims, since it is obvious that the Church is doing what it can to REDUCE the burden on its members through legal methods. Since the central claim is defrauding members for financial gain, reducing what members are asked to contribute is evidence against that claim – and, if the Church actively encourages 8%, it’s hard to argue that they are greedily trying to maximize profit at the expense of the members. This policy shows the exact opposite intent.
I think the plaintiffs have created an argument for the Church’s lawyers, if it ever gets to trial – which I still don’t think it will. If I was involved in the suit, I wouldn’t have touched this with a ten-foot pole. It might sound sensational, if the only intent is to cause public anger, but, if that is the case, it only bolsters my belief that they don’t care about the validity of the suit – which, again, means they are alleging fraud by perpetuating it.
It’s either that or fundamental ignorance and myopia.
I think the case has merit when one looks at it from a neutral perspective and not as just another anti mormon attack. In fact, the claims and arguments are similar to the discussions we have on this very website. I think most here will, and have agreed, the church has been of fraudulent and unethical practices. It is time to stop blaming the members and local leaders for the church instituinal mistakes.
I’m not saying i would have done this or that I agree with it. I merely saying, I think Tom Phillips has a case, and I think it will force the church to reform sooner, rather than later.
Here is the entire statement, which, after all the vitriol said about Tom Phillips, needs to be posted out of fairness that individual.
Bold is mine for easier reference.
Quote:JOINT STATEMENT concerning summonses served on Thomas Spencer Monson
This present case is Tom Phillips’ initiative. However, we were invited by him last December to submit to the District Judge letters outlining our own situations. Perhaps, in view of the many ideas which have been flying about since the news of the summonses broke, we could first state what this legal action, in our view, is NOT about:
It is NOT an attack on ordinary faithful Mormons.We have been long enough in those ranks to understand their outlook, and their need to believe in something to which they are committing their lives, and we also know only too well the pain of discovering, before we were ready to, the harsh realities of Mormon history. It is NOT per se an attack on Mormonism as a belief system.We believe that as long as people are first made aware of all of the relevant historical facts which ought to inform their decision making, it becomes solely their choice and their business if they wish to hand over their money, time and efforts to the LDS church. When comprehensive disclosure becomes the normal practice, we will find no fault. We accept that some will choose to believe whatever they will, despite mountains of contrary evidence, and that is their inalienable right. NOR, as far as we are concerned, is this a personal vendetta against Thomas Monson.We do not know him, and he has never met us. Unfortunately, he happens to be the man at this point who occupies the Church President’s office, and so the summonses have been served upon him. On a personal basis we feel compassion for a man of his advanced years, allegedly not in the best of health, who has recently lost his wife. He has been part of our Mormon culture. We always enjoyed seeing him wiggle his ears to entertain the children. It is a rare gift. We feel no personal animosity towards him. This is NOT being done out of anger, but out of concern for the many who otherwise, will perhaps one day feel hurt and betrayed, as we presently do. This action is being taken over what we consider to be unethical and fraudulent practices. Our view is based upon our own experiences, and also those of others within the Mormon community. These practices are approved and implemented by the church hierarchy. Our argument is therefore with that system and whoever is ultimately responsible for implementing such practices.When members of the church are formally taught from childhood that they will only be with their families in the next life if they pay a minimum of 10% of their income to the church, (tithing being a requirement of entering the temple, where the eternal sealing of families occurs), a pattern of lifelong financial sacrifice is established. We have been taught that all hope of remaining with our loved ones in the next life, is contingent upon a lifelong monetary commitment to the church, and we have been led to believe that the keys to this eternal sealing are vested in the President of the church, currently Thomas Monson, who has authority to grant or dissolve such unions. We have been repeatedly instructed by those in church authority that God requires us to pay tithing before attending to any other household expenditure, such as rent, food, fuel or clothing.It follows that those who default on payments, start to fear that they will lose their loved ones in the eternities. In certain cases known to us, defaulting tithe-payers descend into a state of despondency, feeling utterly worthless, sometimes losing the respect and confidence of their family members who depend upon them to be obedient to the law of tithing. In many cases obedience is accomplished only through fear and coercion, and the fear is induced by constant reference to and emphasis upon the LDS scriptures. Yet those scriptures themselves fail the tests of historical authenticity. A growing body of evidence, (not disclosed at present to the average tithe-payer), clearly points to them as being the work of Joseph Smith, and his contemporaries, rather than texts of ancient origin.
We contend that anyone faced with making a demanding financial commitment to the LDS church, deserves first to be presented with the full evidence concerning LDS truth claims, so that they may make up their minds without being misled.In the UK, such onerous financial commitments are usually undertaken with appropriate warnings and additional information, otherwise they are deemed “mis-sold”. We believe that any person seeking to join the LDS church in Britain, and all British members wishing to place their trust in the family sealing powers claimed for the LDS temple, first ought to be told, at the very least, why The Book of Abraham is not accepted by the rest of the world as an authentic translation, and whyThe Book of Mormon has much more in common with a 19th century novel than it has with 1600 year old Native American artefacts; they should also be informed of the real reasons which led to the murder of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, including the shocking details of Joseph Smith’s polygamous and polyandrous extra-marital unions, in the name of God, with women and girls, some as young as 14. If, knowing these details, candidates choose to proceed with their baptisms or temple ordinances, none will later be able to claim, as we now do, that they have been deceived.At present however, that is very much not the situation, for most tithe-paying temple-attending members have little or no idea about the true history of their religion, or the profound lack of evidence supporting many of their tenets. We would like to see the church admit that it has erred grossly for many years in neglecting to address these matters openly and honestly as a matter of routine. We feel it should repent of its failings, apologising for misleading its members in the past, encouraging them in turn to mislead others in their missionary and teaching assignments. We would like to see the church taking steps to educate its members and prospective members fully in accordance with the historical record. We would also like to see full openness and accountability in terms of financial accounting and LDS archival holdings. We would like it to provide sensitive counselling and care for those who lose their faith when they discover the uncomfortable realities. There should be no more labelling of such members as “faithless”, “dissidents” or “apostates” – as though there was something wrong with people having a desire to seek out the truth.Possibly the church leaders could work in combination with those of us who have already trodden this difficult path, so that rehabilitation into the wider world of belief choices would become smoother and less traumatic for spiritual victims of the system. We are also anxious to see the church offer assurances about the position with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs of members and former members who now feel, as we do, that our tithing and other offerings were obtained by the church under false pretenses. For every pound paid to the church by LDS members in the UK who, (following leadership counsel), have availed themselves of Deeds of Covenant and Gift Aid, £0.20 has been added by the British Taxpayer to the church’s bank accounts. The sum paid out by HMRC in this connection must now amount to tens of millions of pounds. It is understood that in most cases the resulting tax rebates made to individuals, were handed over to the church at its request. We seek an assurance from the church therefore, that in the event that at some future time these payments made by HMRC will be deemed to have been fraudulently obtained, the LDS church will offer immunity to those individuals, and ensure that such sums as were rebated will be returned with the due interest to HMRC.
Finally we hope one day to see a more compassionate church, in which those of us who still retain through habit something of a Mormon identity, may find acceptance within the LDS community, no matter what our perceived deficiencies or peculiarities or orientations might be, being valued simply because we place a high value on objective truth. Steve Bloor
Chris Ralph
7th February 2014
cwald, that is almost a direct re-statement of what is said at MormonThink – and I find it disingenuous. They don’t want people to make an informed decision and then join the LDS Church; they want people to look at everything in one specific way and NOT join the LDS Church. Not admitting that simple fact, and I believe it is crystal clear, discredits their entire argument for me. They talk as if they were objective, but they aren’t. There is no way for people to hear everything about a religion’s history before joining. Not even religions with much more extensive preparation than the LDS Church can do that. Every religion sets its own rules for being considered a member, and many of them are even less comprehensive than the LDS Church. I am all for slowing down in many cases before baptizing someone, but who is going to set an objective standard about what needs to be taught and what can be skipped – and how everything is presented? It’s an impossible standard – and they have to be smart enough to know that.
More importantly, this is a charge of fraud for, in practical terms, teaching things that other people don’t believe. That’s not Mormonism; that’s religion.
So, in summary, they want exactly what the Church is doing more and more now. Curtis wrote:cwald, that is almost a direct re-statement of what is said at MormonThink – and I find it disingenuous. They don’t want people to make an informed decision and then join the LDS Church; they want people to look at everything in one specific way and NOT join the LDS Church. Not admitting that simple fact, and I believe it is crystal clear, discredits their entire argument for me.
They talk as if they were objective, but they aren’t. There is no way for people to hear everything about a religion’s history before joining. Not even religions with much more extensive preparation than the LDS Church can do that. Every religion sets its own rules for being considered a member, and many of them are even less comprehensive than the LDS Church. I am all for slowing down in many cases before baptizing someone, but who is going to set an objective standard about what needs to be taught and what can be skipped – and how everything is presented? It’s an impossible standard – and they have to be smart enough to know that.
More importantly, this is a charge of fraud for, in practical terms, teaching things that other people don’t believe. That’s not Mormonism; that’s religion.
True.
And for the record, you are/were absolutely correct about MormonThink being an anti-mormon website. You were correct sir.
But that is not what this case is about. Yes, MT and TP are anti mormon…that is clear now. But that doesn’t mean that what is being said in this statement and this court case is automatically false and frivolous. From my understanding, I think they make logical and valid arguments, and if the church wants to get out from under this kind of criticism, they need to reform and change….and they need to change NOW. Not three decades from now.
I guess my math is screwed up. If they pay £0.20 on the £1 then members would pay 8.33% tithing? £8.33 + £1.66 = £10? Anyway, that was my question as well. Tax rules make my head spin but as I understand it the British government takes that £0.20 from the individual paying the Gift Aid… so in the end you pay 10%, correct? Otherwise a full tithe in England is 8.33% with the other 1.66% being subsidized by the average British taxpayer. Curtis wrote:it is obvious that the Church is doing what it can to REDUCE the burden on its members through legal methods.
And then take a hardline stance (debatable I know) on tithing on gross in the states. Makes it feel like the message is “as long as they get their 10%.”
cwald wrote:Curtis wrote:cwald, that is almost a direct re-statement of what is said at MormonThink – and I find it disingenuous. They don’t want people to make an informed decision and then join the LDS Church; they want people to look at everything in one specific way and NOT join the LDS Church. Not admitting that simple fact, and I believe it is crystal clear, discredits their entire argument for me.
They talk as if they were objective, but they aren’t. There is no way for people to hear everything about a religion’s history before joining. Not even religions with much more extensive preparation than the LDS Church can do that. Every religion sets its own rules for being considered a member, and many of them are even less comprehensive than the LDS Church. I am all for slowing down in many cases before baptizing someone, but who is going to set an objective standard about what needs to be taught and what can be skipped – and how everything is presented? It’s an impossible standard – and they have to be smart enough to know that.
More importantly, this is a charge of fraud for, in practical terms, teaching things that other people don’t believe. That’s not Mormonism; that’s religion.
True.
And for the record, you are/were absolutely correct about MormonThink being an anti-mormon website. You were correct sir.
But that is not what this case is about. Yes, MT and TP are anti mormon…that is clear now. But that doesn’t mean that what is being said in this statement and this court case is automatically false and frivolous. From my understanding, I think they make logical and valid arguments, and if the church wants to get out from under this kind of criticism, they need to reform and change….and they need to change NOW. Not three decades from now.
AAAAAAND, I’m going to beat you to the punch Curtis (or whoever you are today
🙂 ) that the church is changing at rapid pace today making a considerable effort to reform…more now than we’ve ever witnessed in the last 40 years. I contend the reason we are seeing such rapid changes and progress from the church is because they have been guilty of many of the things that Tom Phillips accuses them of being of, and they are trying fix it. Good for the church, but I don’t think we should pretend the church instition is guilt free and hasn’t made these mistakes.Quote:if the church wants to get out from under this kind of criticism, they need to reform and change….and they need to change NOW.
I agree, cwald, and, as you said (good call
nibbler, I know you added “debatable”, but I simply will add that I can’t think of a single statement in General Conference in anywhere close to recent memory telling the membership that tithing must be paid on gross. I know lots of members who don’t pay on gross – and many of them serve or have served in local leadership positions.
Again, I think the Church encouraging 8% in the UK undermines the claim that the bottom line is how much money they can get out of the membership.
Hmmm. Does make you want to pay 8% now doesn’t it? On the claim that the church misrepresents itself then requires that to get tithing dollars in exchange for salvation, I think it’s far-fetched. The seven claims aren’t all directly tied to either Mormonism specifically or aren’t tied to why someone pays tithing. Some of these things aren’t even things I was consistently taught as “gospel truth.” To wit:
1 – The Book of Abraham is a literal translation of Egyptian papyri by Joseph Smith.
I was taught this, but in looking into it the claim is “inspired,” not “literal,” so the church’s official teaching isn’t what people assume. This one is tied to whether or not a person believes the church is true, so I think it’s valid to raise the question, but as I said, it can’t be proven or disproven if it’s “inspired” vs. a “literal translation.”2 – The Book of Mormon was translated from ancient gold plates by Joseph Smith is the most correct book on earth and is an ancient historical record.
Yes, this is taught. No, it can’t be proven or disproven.3 – Native Americans are descended from an Israelite family which left Jerusalem in 600 B.C.
It hasn’t been taught that ALL native Americans are descended from Israelites in my lifetime. Yes, early church members believed that, but limited geography model is what has prevailed since I’ve been alive. So DNA testing can’t definitively rule it out. Even lack of physical proof (steel, horses, etc.) isn’t proof that it didn’t happen. It could have happened elsewhere (e.g. the Malay theory) or in a place not excavated yet. Even if it’s not historical, I got a spiritual testimony of it. I didn’t get REAL proof. Who is to blame for that? The Holy Ghost? Maybe the HG is just not a sound financial advisor.4 – Joseph and Hyrum Smith were killed as martyrs in 1844 because they would not deny their testimony of the Book of Mormon.
Yes, I was taught this, but it’s subjectively true.5 – The Illinois newspaper called the Nauvoo Expositor had to be destroyed because it printed lies about Joseph Smith.
Yes, I was taught this, but it’s partly true even if it’s not the whole truth.6 – There was no death on this planet prior to 6,000 years ago.
If I was ever taught this, it was not in any official capacity. It was clearly considered speculation, and it’s not something credible. I went to school, for crying out loud. Who would believe this? And it has nothing to do with why I pay tithing.7 – All humans alive today are descended from just two people who lived approximately 6,000 years ago.
Again, I went to school. I don’t need church to explain science to me. I don’t pay tithing because of scientific claims that are obvious nonsense. However, the “version” of this I’ve heard is that Adam & Eve may have been – speculation – the first sentient humans or the step in evolution that led to present day. Also has no connection to unique Mormon claims.Not to belabor the point, it’s been done to death, but in my nearly 20 years as a member of the church I never heard oncethat paying on anything other than gross was an acceptable tithe to the lord, not once… until I found this website. It’s preached at the local level, at least in my experience. Sure, the official stance of the church is that it is open to interpretation, between the individual and the lord, but this is not the case where the rubber meets the road. I continue to experience it and I argue the official position of the church whenever it comes up. I’m never on the winning side. Perhaps someone would win a suit based on fraud perpetuated by silence on the matter, simply allowing the teaching of gross at the local level because it is in the church’s best financial interest to remain silent while hard line stances are being preached. That would be a better case for fraud than this.
Sorry to vent like this, emotion is hard to communicate through text, I’m emotionless about the subject and I don’t waste a second thinking about “what if I had paid on net all those years.” I guess I’m just saying that this is another potential area for reform. I wouldn’t even ask for a hard definition, I’d be fine with the church making it more a point to communicate the official position. If the official position is that it is between the individual and the lord period, that the official position allows people to govern themselves, communication from the top down needs to occur to ensure that the blessings of governing oneself are not being trumped by local leadership.
Sheldon – given that tithing funds are tax deductible (in the US) as charitable donations, that’s actually got roughly the same effect as the UK process. So, I guess the 10% / 8% was a moot point. Curtis wrote:I but I still don’t think this lawsuit is a legitimate way to address those mistakes – especially given the 7 points in it.
In what other way would the church ever fully address these things? Even the new essays addressing doctrinal concerns, although a step in the right direction, stop well short of the whole truth. It seems to me that without this kind of external pressure the church would be content to continue to operate in the same way they have for the past 180 or so years, obfuscating and misdirecting people about significant things that WOULD matter to their membership and potential converts.
This lawsuit is going to cause me and my family grief for certain. In a way this new grief is really just an extension to the grief caused by the way the church has misled and manipulated me and others their entire lives. The church is in a hard place, but I think it is of its own making for the way they have handled, or not handled, these things in the past. They could have cleaned this up at anytime, but they chose not too, just like they didn’t fix the racial ban or polygamy until they were forced to by outside pressure. Shouldn’t the “only true and living” church led by the only guy authorized to receive revelation for the entire world be expected to do better?
Quote:In what other way would the church ever fully address these things?
I don’t mean this to be flippant in any way, as I’m sure you know, but every one of the 7 things listed (and more) were receiving attention and being addressed without this sort of action. The internet alone has made that necessary, and there are lots of other ways that these things are coming to the front and forcing attention and correction. I applaud that fact. I want these things to be addressed.
This lawsuit isn’t being done to change the Church’s teachings to things that are consistent with modern understanding; if it was, I wouldn’t react this strongly. It’s being done to harm the Church – and the TP would celebrate if he could figure out a way to eliminate the Church. He believes it’s all a fraud – from beginning to end. He believes the leaderships sits around trying to figure out how to trick the membership into believing things they actually don’t believe and, essentially, extort as much money as possible from them. He believes the leadership are greedy men who don’t believe what they claim to believe. He believes the world would be better off if the LDS Church did not exist. At the very least, TP believes that. Of that, I am convinced.
I am moving into an area of complete and total speculation now, and I understand the danger of this sort of evaluation, but I also believe TP probably was a stereotypical, conservative hardliner while he was a local leader. I think he saw things in black-and-white and preached at or near the extreme lines. I think that perspective was shattered and that he now is the stereotypical opposite of his former position – jumping from the defender extreme to the attacker extreme. I don’t think he’s changed much, if at all; I believe his paradigm has changed.
I don’t believe that is all his fault, since the culture of his formative religious years in the Church tended to move people toward that kind of thinking, but I believe it is his natural, spiritual / intellectual orientation, if you will. I think he is a egomaniac and a zealot who believes what he believes passionately – and who believes that everyone who doesn’t believe as he does is deluded and/or ignorant. I think he is the opposite of Saul / Paul, since I think he went from a Paul-like stance to a Saul-like stance – being an active “missionary” in both situations.
I have admitted previously that my view of him influences my view of his actions, but I would believe the lawsuit is frivolous no matter who presented it, simply in legal terms. Legally, I just don’t see any objective merit in it.
Curtis wrote:They talk as if they were objective, but they aren’t. There is no way for people to hear everything about a religion’s history before joining. Not even religions with much more extensive preparation than the LDS Church can do that. Every religion sets its own rules for being considered a member, and many of them are even less comprehensive than the LDS Church. I am all for slowing down in many cases before baptizing someone, but who is going to set an objective standard about what needs to be taught and what can be skipped – and how everything is presented? It’s an impossible standard – and they have to be smart enough to know that.
Very good argument against the lawsuit. You have summed up why it will not win very well.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.