Paying to play

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

wayfarer wrote:

Personally, I observe that all the church teaching on CK, TK, or TK is speculative theology, institutionalized fiction. The best comment I heard about the afterlife, if there is one, is “There will be a lot of surprises up there…”. that’s what I believe.

As do I. I would say we are LDS “faithful” exceptions, which is why we are here at StayLDS. If this was said at church, this statement would be deemed as absolutely heretical, perhaps even apostate.

No doubt it would be categorically rejected.

But how can speculation be anything other than fantasy? The taxonomy of heavens has been speculated about for thousands of years, and I will warrant that there are not two versions that are remotely the same. So, pick your fantasy and be done with it, I would say.

I say fantasy in a technical sense, and using the word of course would be highly offensive. But when someone lays out an elaborate structure of unknowable things, and if a Prophet of God, recently, says “I don’t know if we teach X — We really don’t know what the X is like”, then how can a specific structure of the heavens be anything other than fantasy?

But more to the point, I don’t care what the heavens are like, and I would suspect neither do you. Does the structure of the heavens have any practical, normative value to me here and now? Some would say ‘yes’, because if you don’t do all this crap now you won’t qualify for the BIG PRIZE of the HIGHEST DEGREE of the CELESTIAL KINGDOM (shouting, of course). I will fight this norm with all my soul, because there are many more other teachings that proclaim that what you are in the present, and the authenticity with which you love your fellow humans is FAR (shouting again) more important than some specific ordinance.

So, all the ordinances, all the tithing, word of wisdom, obeying your leaders no matter what they say, following the prophet regardless of whether he is spouting opinion that is in direct conflict with scientific proof — all of these things must be subordinate to the REAL gospel. “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

wayfarer wrote:

With respect, your theology is a bit off here, at least in my humble opinion. Exaltation does not come “through Jesus Christ, after all we can do.”

Wayfarer, I agree Exaltation, or Eternal Life, is the over and above salvation or immortality. But it still only comes through the Atonement.

Quote:

Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, everyone will receive this gift (immortality). Eternal life, or exaltation, is to live in God’s presence and to continue as families (see D&C 131:1–4). Like immortality, this gift is made possible through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. However, to inherit eternal life requires our “obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel”

Anyway, I think I agree with what is being said, just emphasizing a different angle to try to convey how I feel about it. Thanks.

I think we agree as well. These discussions help us all to understand principles and be able to articulate our beliefs with greater degree of clarity.

My suggestion is the change the words you say above respecting exaltation. You say ‘It still only comes through the Atonement’. Exaltation is only possible through the atonement, but you must do ‘all you can do’, and it can only happen ‘by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel’, and by ‘enduring to the end’.

And when you get there, what happens? Mandatory Polygamy. More kids upon kids, a third of which will probably tell you to go to hell, or maybe they will. Adminstrative duties managing worlds without end. And you’ll be doing this for-e-ver…

I don’t know. The value proposition of the Terrestial Kingdom is so much more enticing to me when I read what the CK is all about. I’m thinking Billy Joel here…

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

So, all the ordinances, all the tithing, word of wisdom, obeying your leaders no matter what they say, following the prophet regardless of whether he is spouting opinion that is in direct conflict with scientific proof — all of these things must be subordinate to the REAL gospel. “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

Agreed! I particularly like how you said all these things are subordinate to the REAL gospel. Not antithetical to, not contradictory to, or diametrically opposed to, But subordinate to. It reminds me of a quote swimming around in my head, “and all these things are appendages there unto.” (Quote may have been garbled in my head, it is a confusing place )

[Anonymous]

I like Brian’s statement “the sooner you get on your own clock, the happier you’ll be” sums up what we’re saying here. I now see the Church and everything it expects as matter that goes into a seive used for panning for gold. The sieve (sp?)is my mind and life circumstances and conscience. What is left after I run the matter through the filter is what I should do.

Simply accepting hte Church’s way of doing things has HURT ME BADLY. I’ve found depression, unhappy personal circumstsances, burn-out, and even comments from my employer about looking wasted when I was serving too hard and long at one point. I’ve found disillusionment when they don’t live up to their own high standards (which I believed hook line and sinker) and placed myself in danger of violating my own moral code at one point due to such extremism.

No more.

The issue for me is that I have to be strong, unfortunately. You have to shoulder others judging you. When something bad happens to you, people say “See, you aren’t living the gospel the way you should, and look what happened to you”, and you have to sit quietly when people come out with objectionable statements that you know are destructive to you personally — and possibly others.

[Anonymous]

cwald, there was an element of humor in my response, but there also was an intentional “message” in it – a bit of a “Zen slap”, if you will. Let me try to explain:

1) The LDS Church teaches that tithing is required to enter the temple, which, in a very real and practical way, can mean that tithing is required for exaltation.

2) The LDS Chuch teaches that any-freaking-body who ever has lived in the entire history of the planet earth may end up in the Celestial Kingdom and, therefore, be exalted – regardless of whether or not they have paid tithing (or even one penny in religious or charitibale donations) in their entire lives.

3) Thus, tithing is taught as necessary ONLY if someone is a member of the LDS Church in this lifetime – and not for those who weren’t (and there even is the underlying teaching that each of us will be judged according to how well we live what we understand indiivdually, which provides a HUGE disclaimer even for those in the Church, as does the top leadership’s refusal to define exactly what a full tithe means in practical terms).

There is an inherent conflict / opposition in that construct, if you really think about it. It is a paradoxical teaching – and, therefore, it would be easy to dismiss tithing completely as unnecessary in any cosmic way. I don’t do that – for multiple reasons, one of which, like I said in earlier comments, is that I have received adequate benefit from my own payment of tithes over the years (including the acknowledgment of the covenant relationship in providing for my needs more than once while I was unemployed and needed assistance) and one ow which is that I have an adequate (for me, personally) intellectual understanding of the need for tithing.

So, what do I make of the conflict between the two polar opposite stances – neither of which I reject / both of which I understand and accept?

I take it to mean that God doesn’t require tithing to be exalted – unless someone understands tithing and has committed to pay tithing, in whatever form makes the most sense to that person. Likewise, God doesn’t require chastity to be exalted – unless someone understands chastity and has committed to live a chaste life, in whatever form makes the most sense to that person. God doesn’t require abstinance from theft to be exalted – unless someone understands abstinance from theft and has committed not to steal, in whatever form makes the most sense to that person. etc, etc, etc.

The LDS Church, however, as an orgainzation, believes in tithing (and chastity and no stealing) and requires those things in order to state that it believes its members will be exalted – even as it does NOT require those things of those who are not members.

Hence, my Reader’s Digest answer – which I believe is the fullest, most comprehensive yet concise definition:

No – unless you’re a member of the Church (but even then with theological disclaimers).

[Anonymous]

Well, Ray, I would call that a nuanced answer. 🙂

Quote:

1) The LDS Church teaches that tithing is required to enter the temple, which, in a very real and practical way, can mean that tithing is required for exaltation.

2) The LDS Chuch teaches that any-freaking-body who ever has lived in the entire history of the planet earth may end up in the Celestial Kingdom and, therefore, be exalted – regardless of whether or not they have paid tithing (or even one penny in religious or charitibale donations) in their entire lives.

3) Thus, tithing is taught as necessary ONLY if someone is a member of the LDS Church in this lifetime – and not for those who weren’t

I would say that is exactly what the church believes. It’s why they feel they are right, and that they have the right, to tell me that I will “not be okay” in the next life because I’m not a full tithe payer and don’t attend the temple. I had my chance to accept “the gospel”, and blew it.

It’s also why some folks might argue the church is…..

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

wayfarer wrote:

So, all the ordinances, all the tithing, word of wisdom, obeying your leaders no matter what they say, following the prophet regardless of whether he is spouting opinion that is in direct conflict with scientific proof — all of these things must be subordinate to the REAL gospel. “Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

Agreed! I particularly like how you said all these things are subordinate to the REAL gospel. Not antithetical to, not contradictory to, or diametrically opposed to, But subordinate to. It reminds me of a quote swimming around in my head, “and all these things are appendages there unto.” (Quote may have been garbled in my head, it is a confusing place )

Subordinate to and based in. If a principle does not lead to loving god and loving fellow man, then is it reasonable to follow the details of the subordinate principle to the letter?

To the topic of ‘paying to play’. Let’s say I have, at most 10% of my gross income as available for donations. If I define ‘tithing’ in the strictest sense of 10% of gross, then how do I comply with King Benjamin’s scriptural command to give to the poor? My strictness in paying a tithe on gross income, which only pays for church administration and infrastructure, does not enable me to pay for the poor — a far higher commandment. Even moreso, my MOTIVATION for paying 10% on gross is that I want to be sure that I don’t miss the boat on exaltation or I might be burned at the last day. Do you see where I’m going here? My stupid, rigorous compliance with the 10% of gross rubric — which is NOT the commandment — causes me to fall short on what Dieter Uchtdorf calls the ‘weightier matters’, based in scriptures very appropriate to this discussion.

I see the sense in tithing — there is no doubt that if I receive the benefits of the community of saints, I ought to chip in my part to support the infrastructure that makes that community possible. I see the sense in the word of wisdom as “eat and live healthy”, since my body is a tabernacle of the spirit, i should take care of it, using reason and moderation in what I do. I see the sense in giving ear to those who may be inspired, but never to the point of blind obedience. There are even times, when being asked to something, like teach principles I don’t necessarily fully accept as true, I do because by convention, it helps the community along.

But in no case should I do something that takes away from the weightier matters of the law.

Tithing, improperly administered, in my impression, takes away my ability to address these weightier matters, and when it does so, I’m not living the law.

Does that make sense?

[Anonymous]

I agree wholeheartedly WF. When I did my own introspection on this two years ago here, I reached the conclusion that the Lord expects us to look after the poor — and the scriptures are far more blunt about that than tithing. The scriptures are replete with this commandment. If this commandment, which, if ignored, disqualifies us as disciples (so the scriptures go), why do we not have “fast offering settlement” instead of tithing settlement? Why are fast offerings not a requirement for temple attendance, and tithing optional?

I actually considered paying all of my tithing as a fast offering a while ago just to make a point — and feel I was doing it right. People here discouraged it as not the program of the Church, but nonetheless, it makes far more sense to me.

[Anonymous]

cwald wrote:

Quote:

1) The LDS Church teaches that tithing is required to enter the temple, which, in a very real and practical way, can mean that tithing is required for exaltation.

2) The LDS Chuch teaches that any-freaking-body who ever has lived in the entire history of the planet earth may end up in the Celestial Kingdom and, therefore, be exalted – regardless of whether or not they have paid tithing (or even one penny in religious or charitibale donations) in their entire lives.

3) Thus, tithing is taught as necessary ONLY if someone is a member of the LDS Church in this lifetime – and not for those who weren’t

I would say that is exactly what the church believes. It’s why they feel they are right, and that they have the right, to tell me that I will “not be okay” in the next life because I’m not a full tithe payer and don’t attend the temple. I had my chance to accept “the gospel”, and blew it.

It’s also why some folks might argue the church is…..

I still don’t see it as a cult, but I agree that the committed people are the ones who get beat up the most! When you are not committed, no one rails on you. They treat you nice. You get dinner invites. They give you a nice light calling to ease you back in. You finally get a home teacher (if you want one). They don’t call on you at the last minute to move someone on 10 minutes notice. Honestly — I have been on that side of the fence, and I feel that the its the committed people who get treated the worst.

You don’t have PPI’s with demanding priesthood leaders like I have had. (One accused me of moving out of the Ward to get out of the Bishopric when that wasn’t my motive — it was to get into a decent school and a home as we were renting at the time. I expressed some challenges as a HPGL in a PPI, and the SP asked if I enjoy the calling. I said mostly — as I did at the time. He said “Well sometimes people come in here and all they do is gripe about the calling — we just release them” — when I thought I was sharing challenges I was facing for support to my priesthood leader called by inspiration to be my oracle of knowledge). Thsi same person also got demanding about the fact our Bishop chose to be with the youth rather than attend a meeting with the Mission President our SP member hosting. Disapproval was all over his face and demeanor….

Sorry to say….I find you get more kindness and charitable treatment when you are perceived as on the edge than when you are in the taken-for-granted category.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think it is a cult either. I just said that I can see why some might argue that it is “cult-like.”

[Anonymous]

wayfarer wrote:

Tithing, improperly administered, in my impression, takes away my ability to address these weightier matters, and when it does so, I’m not living the law.

Does that make sense?

Yes it does. I believe I said much the same thing in another thread:

Quote:

I believe that having a broken heart and a contrite spirit are requirements of salvation. Tithing payment with the right attitude can contribute to this inward state. Tithing payment with the wrong attitude can become a hindrance to achieving this state. I believe that paying tithing while expecting earthly rewards is the wrong attitude. Do not “miss the mark” in zeal of obedience thumping and quid pro quo promises. The blessings that are so often touted are secondary. It is the ways this behavior might affect your heart and spirit that are the critical factors. Tithing, in this context, becomes a necessary schoolmaster to much nobler principles.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Tithing, improperly administered, in my impression, takes away my ability to address these weightier matters, and when it does so, I’m not living the law.

Does that make sense?

Absolutely – and it’s why I don’t want the Church to come out with one universal method of calculating tithing. I like it the way it is currently – with multiple understandings that aren’t disallowed explicitly.

That’s pretty much my only point, really, when it comes to tithing:

Quote:

If you want to participate in an organization that incurs costs to operate, pay the dues – in whatever way is allowed and makes sense to you.

Most organizations have a set dollar amount; I like that, officially, the LDS Church teaches a principle and lets the members govern themselves – and I’m totally fine if my way of paying (I’ve never paid on gross income in my life.) is different than someone else. I’m being honest and sincere; the other person is being honest and sincere; that’s enough for me.

[Anonymous]

But Ray — I would guess it’s on net then — which is the only really acceptable version I’ve heard. I’m not asking you to answer by the way. But I have to confess, if someone stood up and said they pay on surplus in sacrament meeting they’d be lambasted.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the best thread ever.

You guys have done a great job of illustating the difference between the “Lord’s way” and the corporation’s way.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

I would guess it’s on net then

Yes, that’s how I’ve done it thus far. It’s worked for me, so it’s how I do it. I’m not adverse to figuring it some other way, and if I had a business, I absolutely would factor in necessary expenses first. I would have no problem explaining that calculation method to anyone, in any setting.

Quote:

But I have to confess, if someone stood up and said they pay on surplus in sacrament meeting they’d be lambasted.

Probably by some people (most people in some wards and most leaders), but that’s why I wouldn’t make that announcement in Sac Mtg. :ugeek:

I actually have heard people at church talk about that method, and, while most people probably didn’t agree with it, there was no official reaction of any kind. Obviously, that can be different with different local leaders, but I know a counselor in a Bishopric who figured it that way.

[Author]

Posts