Nelson in Africa

[Anonymous]

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900016023/dowry-is-not-the-lords-way-in-kenya-lds-president-nelson-says-tithing-breaks-poverty-cycle.html” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900016023/dowry-is-not-the-lords-way-in-kenya-lds-president-nelson-says-tithing-breaks-poverty-cycle.html

I have trouble with this on multiple levels. It may have just struck me wrong or at a bad time, and honestly it is more in line with what I had expected from RMN. But this bugs me.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“We preach tithing to the poor people of the world because the poor people of the world have had cycles of poverty, generation after generation,” he said. “That same poverty continues from one generation to another, until people pay their tithing.”

I can see how the principle of tithing can help people learn to do more with less and learn the differences between wants and needs but if you’re already poor I’d imagine that life is constantly teaching you those lessons.

I could also see the principle of tithing helping lift a people out of poverty if the collected tithing is going back into the community. Evaporation is a necessary part of the water cycle but it has got to rain. If it’s only evaporate, evaporate, evaporate, then it’s not sustainable.

With the closed books there’s no way of knowing but I think that’s a big if with the church. In wealthier nations the tithing dollars go up and a minuscule fraction of the money comes back to the community. I imagine in poorer nations that ratio is reversed, more money comes in than goes up, but when I refer to the collected tithing going back to the community I don’t mean paying for a meeting house. A meeting house doesn’t make a big difference in people’s day to day quality of life.

I guess I’m thinking more about how fast offerings are supposed to work, how they could lift a community out of poverty, but he didn’t say fast offerings.

Quote:

Many Africans began saving money and planning their travel more than a month ago to attend what was billed here as a special devotional.

I admire their dedication. That said, this line in the article really stood out from the surrounding text.

[Anonymous]

I’m not going to water this down: Nelson is teaching BS and I am apalled. Tithing does not break the cycle of poverty and the only reason you might think it does is a result of confirmation bias. When you really get down to the nitty gritty, the faith-promoting stories are either riddled with magical thinking (i.e. making connections that don’t exist) or are more the exception than the rule. People go bankrupt over tithing. People starve and go barefoot over tithing. Tithing is not a silver bullet.

Rant over.

[Anonymous]

Nelson is preaching the prosperity gospel – almost the definition of it. Just like the televangelists, “Send me your money and God will bless you.”

[Anonymous]

I think that sort of preaching is disgusting and it is scripturally condemned. It is the essence of the Order of Nehors in the BoM.

[Anonymous]

I am not going to disagree with your general sentiment, but I will push back a bit.

nibbler wrote:

With the closed books there’s no way of knowing but I think that’s a big if with the church. In wealthier nations the tithing dollars go up and a minuscule fraction of the money comes back to the community. I imagine in poorer nations that ratio is reversed, more money comes in than goes up, but when I refer to the collected tithing going back to the community I don’t mean paying for a meeting house. A meeting house doesn’t make a big difference in people’s day to day quality of life.

I 100% agree that it stinks that the financial books are generally closed, but some countries require the books be open. I think I saw reports that the church is sending/spending more money in the UK than they are bringing in.

And I do think in some places a nice durable building can help build a good community.

But even if you believe in temples, doesn’t it make sense to make 10 smaller temples at $1M each rather than one $10M temple? It will give much more access to poor people that can have a real hard time traveling long distances, but will not be the same showcase building that says, “look how great our church is!”

But I 100% agree that the first thing the president of the church goes to Africa and says is, “gimme money” is a good thing.

[Anonymous]

I apologize for the post and run, I had just read it and it bugged me enough I had to post but didn’t have time to expound. I still don’t have tons of time but you all have hit most of it. Prosperity gospel, Mormon magic, begging for money, all of it. And I also disagree with the whole dowry thing – but it’s not my culture, it’s theirs. I don’t believe it’s our place to try to change that culture.

Quote:

He added that if he’d had to pay for his wife, “I would have missed five children, because only with my last five was I out of debt.”

Hmm. I thought one of our teachings was to stay out of debt (it’s actually in my patriarchal blessing). And he’s at least an upper middle class guy in debt – what are these poor people supposed to do? (I know, pay tithing.)

I’m waiting for Curt to stop by and give his perspective so I can at least see the possibility of something positive here.

[Anonymous]

Dowry – I do think this is something that the Church should try to change among Church members. It’s a common practice in parts of our world for higher-wealth men to force lower-wealth families to provide a usually-much-younger daughter for marriage. RMN isn’t trying to change the practice in Africa, he’s trying to change the practice among LDS members in Africa. If Church efforts someday contribute to the demise of caste systems and dowries, that’s OK by me.

Tithing – I am totally opposed to the teaching that says pay your tithing even if you can’t afford it. I think it’s irresponsible. I was particularly disturbed by an article this decade in the Ensign:

Quote:

If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. — Ensign, December, 2012

Poverty Cycle – Having said the above, I think it’s actually somewhat novel to think of tithing as a tool for breaking out of the poverty cycle/poverty culture. Sociologists who are a lot smarter than me have asserted that in this poverty cycle and culture there is a “learned helplessness” and a prioritization completely unlike that existing in the middle-class. For example, according to those who study this, people living in poverty are much more likely to spend their even more precious resources on cigs and alcohol or on luxuries they simply can’t afford, such as big-screen TVs and video games. Ruby Payne in “A Framework for Understanding Poverty” explained that even time is treated differently by people in poverty, with little or no planning for the future. Or as a friend of mine in the 80’s once said, “Middle-class people plant flowers” (the implication being that middle class people will work for something today that has a payoff in the future). I think from RMN’s perspective this message makes sense. He’s basically saying that they should re-prioritize to align with God, and after all, Jesus himself is recorded as teaching in the Sermon on the Mount that our priority should be toward the Kingdom of God. In RMN’s view, of course, this is all very clear. I’m not completely sure he’s wrong. If the poverty cycle boils down to a combination of opportunity and prioritization, then something like tithing could at least mix up entrenched values and systems. But please don’t confuse me as espousing the idea of paying even if you can’t afford to.

[Anonymous]

Here’s what I think:

One of the biggest contributors of poverty is preference of the clan over preference to society. Hence, in third world communities, you give the best jobs to your family members, and not the most qualified applicants. If you can benefit your family at the cost of the community, you do it. If a young man wishes to join a family, he must contribute a sizable dowry to that family. I agree with President Nelson, that eliminating the dowry tradition will bring greater prosperity to the African nations.

One of the other biggest contributors to poverty, is the belief in divine providence. While America is very religious as a whole, we were founded upon the ideals of Protestantism and Calvinism. God does not often intervene, and so we cannot depend on Him to improve our lot in life. We must work hard, and be cunning and smart. A Utopian Zion can be built here on earth; we don’t have to wait til the next life to be blessed.

If we can course correct third world countries on these two issues, I think they’ll become some of the most flourishing nations in the world. Tithing does require the sacrifice of the clan for the benefit of the community. It gets them in the right mindset, which is a powerful thing. On the other hand, I understand the disgust many of us have, to asking the poorest of the poor to donate 10% of their income to the Church; Not to mention, coming from a GA is among the .007% richest people in the world. But I think the Church invests more in the poorer nations than they ever receive in tithing. While I’m against the preaching of the prosperity gospel, I don’t think RMN is entirely wrong in the benefits it will bring.

[Anonymous]

If tithing collected in an African country is spent and redistributed within that country, it would be better.

Africa has had a serious problem with self-reliance. Colonialism has led to many problems, as have wars and corrupt governments. I also see onerous bank loans and a lot of charity work as sides of the same coin. One pulls money out of the country and the other makes people dependent on outside help.

I also think the LDS should encourage doctors, engineers etc to STAY in Africa. One of the other legacies of colonialism is developed countries stealing Africa’s educated people.

[Anonymous]

I knew the other shoe would drop. This is the man I was expecting. I refuse to say more.

[Anonymous]

LookingHard wrote:

I 100% agree that it stinks that the financial books are generally closed, but some countries require the books be open. I think I saw reports that the church is sending/spending more money in the UK than they are bringing in.

I can get pretty cynical on this subject. Some countries do require that the church be fiscally open but not enough countries require this for it to make a difference. The church is large enough to where they can employ clever accounting to make the portion that they are required to be open about tell any story they’d like to tell. Canada requires open books? Well we’ll just make the whole of Canada’s contributions go towards BYU, it’s hard to be critical about expenses that go towards higher education (even if they are subsidizing education in a different country ). This frees up contributions from countries where they are not required to be open to use however they’d like. They can put whatever face they’d like to put on the numbers.

That said, I imagine most countries cost they church far more than what the bring in.

LookingHard wrote:

But even if you believe in temples, doesn’t it make sense to make 10 smaller temples at $1M each rather than one $10M temple? It will give much more access to poor people that can have a real hard time traveling long distances, but will not be the same showcase building that says, “look how great our church is!”

What’s more important, the temples or the ordinances? Once upon a time in church history we performed what are now temple only ordinances but outside of the temple. Our buildings see relatively little use. We could leverage our existing buildings to do those ordinances. Dedicate a stake center or a portion of a stake center for one week per quarter to perform ordinances. We could have 1000 ‘temples’ overnight.

But this is all assuming that money is tight. Why not make ten $10M temples when you’re rolling in money? I mean, look at how much the costs of the Provo City Center temple, the City Creek Center, temple in Rome, etc. projects cost. Churches that are hurting for capital don’t do those sorts of things. Or it could be an appearances thing.

But building 10 temples that cost $1M each spread all over does do one important thing – create jobs. There is that.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Nibbler wrote – Our buildings see relatively little use. We could leverage our existing buildings to do those ordinances. Dedicate a stake center or a portion of a stake center for one week per quarter to perform ordinances. We could have 1000 ‘temples’ overnight.

I have been on that bandwagon for years. Struggling families could eat, live and function. Less stories of starving your children, walking for miles to save gas money for the temple travel fund.

If we can make Stake Centers “Holy Ground” for temple dedications, why not have quarterly Temple Weekends or Weeks. Then you wouldn’t have to spend all the extra money or wait for the building.

[Anonymous]

DarkJedi wrote:

I’m waiting for Curt to stop by and give his perspective so I can at least see the possibility of something positive here.

Way to put the pressure on Curt!

Curt – You can not say anything at all (which would be saying something).

[Anonymous]

mom3 wrote:

I knew the other shoe would drop. This is the man I was expecting. I refuse to say more.

I suppose I feel that much improvement would be done if many adopted the Mormon cultural focus on family. The priesthood role and having men lead their families spiritually would also be an improvement.

As some others have said the practice of tithing and ending the dowry could logically improve the lot of many. I thought I heard something about dowrys significantly delaying marriages which in turn results in breaches of chastity – both things the church would want to avoid.

I vote to give President Nelson a pass on this one.

[Author]

Posts