Moral obligations of a Church

[Anonymous]

I was reading the post on tithing and self reliance and it got me thinking. Rather than derail the other thread too far afield I thought I better start a new one.

I am thinking about the moral obligations of the church. Would it be a violation of a moral obligation to encourage people to pay tithing over family necessities?

What is the church’s obligations to its members, as major stakeholders and contributors of time, money, and effort? Under the covenant of consecration we commit our members to dedicate all of themselves, their time, energy, and money entirely to the LDS church. What is a member entitled to in return?

What does the church owe the membership in terms of transparency? If it is a moral obligation to ensure that transactions are fairly entered into then when would it be appropriate to make sure people are making fully informed decisions regarding their commitments to the church? If the church has information that it believed would alter people’s decision to commit to the church if they knew – is it morally obligated to disclose this information? How much of business ethics and morality can reasonably apply to the church?

What about financial transparency? What does the church gain from keeping this information secret? I agree that the church would have no legal obligation to reveal these facts but what about a moral obligation?

Does a church have any obligation to use its influence for good? To oppose war? To fight poverty?

Does the church have obligations to communities where it is a major presence/employer? Could this be a justification for the church to fight blight and downtown deterioration is SLC?

The second part of this is in the value equation that the church offers the membership. What should the church offer in terms of programs to increase the value that members receive? Does it have an affirmative responsibility to teach classes in such important things as marriage, parenting, or personal & family finances? What should it offer the members in terms of quality of life support? As an aside, the Seventh Day Adventists have financial planners on staff that are free for members. The thought process is that if the members are financially stable, donations will increase.

Is there any minimum level of value that the church should morally provide in exchange for membership contributions? What are they? How would we asses this value?

Are the sale of indulgences moral? Why or why not? Is there a moral obligation that the church would violate in such a sale?

[Anonymous]

This one is good thinker Roy. I have some fast thoughts, but I am going to give myself time before I commit to it. I will get back to you on it.

[Anonymous]

I’m a little different from mom3. I like to shoot from the hip and feel bad about it afterwards. :silent:

Roy wrote:

What about financial transparency? What does the church gain from keeping this information secret? I agree that the church would have no legal obligation to reveal these facts but what about a moral obligation?

They gain relative silence when compared to an endless torrent of members complaining about how they think the church should spend its money. I suppose it also removes temptations. A family struggling to pay the bills might think twice about cutting that tithing check if they knew that the church was sitting on a billion dollars for instance.

I would say that the worldly, evil corporations are more transparent than the church but that’s only because they are forced to be transparent.

Roy wrote:

I am thinking about the moral obligations of the church. Would it be a violation of a moral obligation to encourage people to pay tithing over family necessities?

There’s no easy answer to this one. If church leaders and family members genuinely have faith in Matthew 6:33 for instance it’s going to be a tough thing to factor into the moral obligation equation.

Roy wrote:

What is the church’s obligations to its members, as major stakeholders and contributors of time, money, and effort? Under the covenant of consecration we commit our members to dedicate all of themselves, their time, energy, and money entirely to the LDS church. What is a member entitled to in return?

Some think it’s a check that only gets cashed in the afterlife. I try to re-frame blessings in terms of lessons that we learn that make us better people now. With that definition of blessings in mind, church becomes an organization that provides me with opportunities to grow as opposed to an organization that I am indebted to. I gain as much or as little as I’m willing to put in.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

IWould it be a violation of a moral obligation to encourage people to pay tithing over family necessities?

I believe it is a violation. For a number of reasons. First, doing so puts the person into a position of servitude toward the church, who can impose demands on the members — often low-grade work that distracts the person from self-improvement and other income enhancing activities. The Bishops often don’t always demand something — let’s be fair. But I’ve seen demands of 20 hours of service a week (our current Bishop gave a letter to that effect to a welfare recipient — I saw it). I’ve seen other bishops expect the members to cut cell phones, and every scrap of entertainment they have ($9/month netflix). It puts the church’s financial interests ahead of individuals’ need.

Also, look at it from a normative ethics perspective. This perspective asks questions about a moral decisions such as “Would you want it on national television? What if everyone did this? Is this fair to the stakeholders involved? For me, the answer is No, or unacceptable to all of these questions, which implies its unethical to expect someone to donate to the church’s operations when they can’t even feed themselves.

Quote:

What is the church’s obligations to its members, as major stakeholders and contributors of time, money, and effort? Under the covenant of consecration we commit our members to dedicate all of themselves, their time, energy, and money entirely to the LDS church. What is a member entitled to in return?

The church would have you believe they owe you nothing, quoting King Benjamin’s Discourse. The discourse says that if we give all we have for the rest of our life, we will be unprofitable servants. Also, in my experience, the Church avoids accountability to its members, and leaders do not take criticism very kindly.

I believe that as a divine organization (as it claims) the church owes its members safety at church, leadership that does no harm, good training for leaders, and strong programs with stable leadership. For me, the church violates this a lot — particularly when it splits wards so they don’t have to invest in additional buildings, or when the Stake takes out good leaders from Wards simply because they want them. This puts huge stress on the members who are sometimes juggling multiple callings. And programs suffer.

Quote:

What does the church owe the membership in terms of transparency? If it is a moral obligation to ensure that transactions are fairly entered into then when would it be appropriate to make sure people are making fully informed decisions regarding their commitments to the church? If the church has information that it believed would alter people’s decision to commit to the church if they knew – is it morally obligated to disclose this information? How much of business ethics and morality can reasonably apply to the church?

I like what Ghandi said — any organization should have only enough funds as it needs to survive, otherwise its not accountable to anyone. It should not have revenue sources that are independent of its membership either. His statement implies that organizations should be accountable to the group they claim to serve. With this comes financial transparency as members need to assess whether the funds are being used consistent with its mission. How can we judge if the church is doing this, and hold them accountable if we don’t know the figures?

Quote:

Does the church have obligations to communities where it is a major presence/employer? Could this be a justification for the church to fight blight and downtown deterioration is SLC?

No, that is the responsibility of the local municipal government and citizens at large. Large corporations do have some responsibility, such as when they build an entire local economy around their operations. However, I’m not sure if the church falls into that category, even in SLC, Someone else could judge that better than I could.

Quote:

The second part of this is in the value equation that the church offers the membership. What should the church offer in terms of programs to increase the value that members receive? Does it have an affirmative responsibility to teach classes in such important things as marriage, parenting, or personal & family finances? What should it offer the members in terms of quality of life support?

First, there should be strong programs. This means maintaining adequate levels of active, committed members to make the Ward programs run effectively. Curb ward splitting, and err on the side of people under-utlized than people over-utilized. They also have an obligation to help people understand the dynamics of a good marriage, and how to pick a good partner — at least at a general level. Given the huge pressure to marry well given the lack of experience people have with their spouses-to-be, and the emphasis on eternal family, members deserve to be trained properly in how to do this, to minimize mistakes. there is good research on this, which could be adapted to the church context. They also have an obligation to make sure services are available in the quantities needed by the local population. I find this is a problem in most parts of the world I have lived.

They also have an obligation to see Wards are funded properly to have a good quality of life at the Ward level. I am personally tired of green jello and carrot potluck dinners. There is so much more that can be done when programs can be adequately funded.

Quote:

Is there any minimum level of value that the church should morally provide in exchange for membership contributions? What are they? How would we asses this value?

There should not be a gap between expectations of a church, and actual satisfaction. This value could be assessed with regular surveys of the membership on issues of program quality, uplifting experiences at Church, the quality of relationships within the Ward, etcetera. I would like to see a factor analysis that identifies the main factors that lead to member satisfaction. meaure that quarterly and them implement measures to improve those satisfaction scores. For being modeled after corporate America, we certainly do miss this — the improvement programs of the church seem to be random shot programs that descend on us with every new leader that takes office.

[Anonymous]

Transparency, no matter how problematic, is crucial. I believe the church does have a moral obligation to disclose the full truth (financially and historically) to its members and investigators. Each of us has the right to choose for ourself (agency), and any material misrepresentation or omission of facts removes a portion of our agency.

[Anonymous]

I saw a poster the other day that said “Determine who you are not allowed to criticize, and you’ll determine who has power over your life” — or similar.

I think they are simply shielding themselves against criticism, and accountability.

[Anonymous]

I think each person has one and only one moral obligation – and, since institutions are comprised of people, the same it true of organizations:

Quote:

Do the best you can to love others and base your actions on that love.

I understand that this obligation is HIGHLY subjective, which means I believe there is NO objective, universal application / manifestation of moral obligation. Even the word “moral” is highly subjective.

For me, it boils down to wanting others to allow me to be obliged to follow my own conscience and do the best I can – so I believe I must allow others that same privilege.

It makes things messier than strict adherence to a mandated obligation, but I’m okay with that.

[Anonymous]

[SD…I went to reply to your thoughts…and instead deleted your post by mistake. I can’t see a way to bring them back. Bummer. I’m sorry. I see Ray responded to you…but I don’t know how to bring your thought back. You can try to repost what you recall if you want…I believe it was mentioning to Ray that at some point, it must by necessity become specified and not left in general.

again…sorry for my mistake.

-Heber13]

[Anonymous]

I agree 100% with everything in your last comment, SD. I really do. I think you are spot on.

I just have learned not to expect or demand more than people are able to give. I absolutely wish, in many cases, people were better than they are (and I include myself in that wish), but I’ve let go of higher expectations. People are people, and people fail to live the ideal – even ideals in which they believe passionately and sincerely. “The Church” (at all levels) isn’t what I want it to be ideally (and in some cases is FAR from my ideal), and I think there are LOTS of things it (with all possible meanings of “it”) could do better to live up to its ideals, but I personally don’t see those things in terms of “moral obligations” – since that puts them in the realm of demands and in the aim of condemnation.

If this post was focused on things I would like to see the Church do better – or things that I think should be higher on its priority list (or lower, as the case might be), my response would be different. However, with the focus on “moral obligation”, I think the heart and soul’s intent is about all that I can feel is obliged.

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

I am thinking about the moral obligations of the church. Would it be a violation of a moral obligation to encourage people to pay tithing over family necessities?

Roy, do you think moral obligations are universal that all people and institutions should adhere to the same code?

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

If this post was focused on things I would like to see the Church do better – or things that I think should be higher on its priority list (or lower, as the case might be), my response would be different. However, with the focus on “moral obligation”, I think the heart and soul’s intent is about all that I can feel is obliged.

I am taking a course in business ethics and therefore know just enough to get me into trouble. Part of the function of discussions of ethics is to put reason and argument to making improvements that otherwise would not change. If the church were producing Books of Mormon with child labor in sweat shops then ethics and moral obligation would be used to put a stop to the practice?

I have been thinking about this quite a bit since I posted. For me it comes back to indulgences. Why are they immoral? Because they encourage members to “sin” in exchange for money. It directly goes against what churches stand for (principled living standards) in exchange for a payment.

So this leads me to ask the question – What is it that churches provide? What is their product? I believe that the overarching product is hope and principled living standards. I believe that the LDS church provides these products very well.

So then once you have a member there are other ethical questions. Is the member entitled to have a say in organizational decisions or to know church finances or history? How should that church ethically treat those that leave the faith? Would it be ethical to require families to disown their apostate family members?

My point is quite academic really. I believe that discussions of this nature could establish what would be a minimum standard of ethics and then paint a picture of some upward ethical possibilities for communal reflection.

At a minimum I believe it would be unethical for my church to sell indulgences, to run sweatshops, to lie (saying something that they know to be untrue). What else would constitute the minimum?

What might constitute the higher ethics or the upward possibilities? Humanitarian missions? Welfare square? The perpetual education fund? Stake service day?

What else could/should be done? Part of ethical discussions is that a person/individual is only obligated to do what they can do. If I see a drowning person and I do not know how to swim, I am not obligated to jump in after them (though I might find an alternative way to help). Are there areas where the church is the best equipped to help resolve a problem?

For this reason I included the idea about fighting downtown blight. Perhaps it is the municipality’s job, but if the municipality does not have the funds and the church does – would it be the ethical thing to help?

What are things that the church can do to benefit its membership, the communities where it is a substantial player, all of humanity?

How much “extra” money would the church need to amass before that alone would become immoral. Before the church would be morally obligated to reinvest those funds back into making the world a better place.

I don’t have answers – but I do believe that such discussions might provide some answers and eventually evoke some change.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Roy wrote:

I am thinking about the moral obligations of the church. Would it be a violation of a moral obligation to encourage people to pay tithing over family necessities?

Roy, do you think moral obligations are universal that all people and institutions should adhere to the same code?

From what I understand there are certain minimum standards that would apply to everybody. If an act crosses this threshhold then it become immoral. One of these is the possibility of Universalization. What would be the effect if everyone where to do the same. If everyone where to steal, kill, & lie the negative consequences would be clear and thus these are immoral actions.

On the other hand if everyone were to respect human life or help others in need or treat others the way that they would want to be treated the positive effects would be visible. No person or institution lives up to ethical ideals, yet they are worth striving for.

[Anonymous]

I understand what you are saying, Roy – and, again, I agree.

Just to repeat:

I believe in the idea that all the law and the prophets hang on love, which is why I believe the moral obligation is to love and act on that love. Things get really messy/tricky, however, when the discussion turns to specific standards to measure/evaluate/validate that concept. I think it’s important to have the conversation and to deal with specifics, but I think it’s just as important to ground the conversation in the heart of the concept: love. Otherwise, we end up with a modern Law of Moses, where we are commanded in all things – and the use of “obligation” points in that direction.

1) I think part of love is attempting to alleviate poverty – even in ways that many LDS members would not approve right now. I think the Book of Mormon is crystal clear on that point – but, again, exactly how to accomplish that isn’t nearly as clear.

2) I think part of civic duty is to contribute to the community and area where you live/exist. Thus, I don’t mind fighting urban blight, especially in the area surrounding one’s headquarters and important buildings.

3) I think indulgences are wrong, and I understand why some people view tithing as an indulgence. I see everything for which tithing is used and value those things, so I don’t see it as an indulgence.

4) I think education is the great equalizer, so I believe organizations of almost all kinds should teach the importance of and contribute toward affordable education.

5) I believe in transparency as a general principle, but I’m totally fine with limited transparency in many things – especially when full transparency would cause massive bickering and endless second-guessing.

6) I believe in financial independence, so I believe organizations should work to be able to weather economic downturns and difficult times.

7) I believe in honesty – but I also believe in creative honesty (telling the truth, but choosing one’s words carefully) and have no problem with not sharing everything with everyone.

I believe in a partnership arrangement where funds and time are shared by members with an organization. If I contribute significant funds to an organization, and if that organization runs a program to help people in financial need, I believe I should have access to that help if I am in financial need. Thus, I am okay with paying tithing and other funds before necessities IF (and only if) I am helped if those contributions cause a real need I can’t meet even with solid budgeting. Likewise, I have NO problem with the organization demanding I live frugally if I am receiving financial help.

9) I believe in the same standards and expectations of all (equality under the law, if you will) – and I think that is one area where the LDS Church has lots of room to improve.

There is more, but that is what comes to mind immediately.

[Anonymous]

I’m not sure if my question fits with this thread or not, but I didn’t see a better thread. I’m wondering if anyone knows or has an opinion about whether tithing money has been used by the World Congress of Families? I’ve heard that maybe it does. I’ve never had issues with tithing at all. This could be a deal breaker.

[Anonymous]

I am positive tithing funds have not been sent there, and it would take solid proof for me to believe it.

[Author]

Posts