- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Given the reports of the Church having a year’s supply of cash on hand to pay its expenses if all incoming funds ceased, I agree with that, Roy. I don’t think we can say for certain either way, given how little is disclosed about its finances, but, based on everything I do know, from one source or another, I do believe it is more financially responsible than other organizations its size or with its resources.
I am not saying that the church doesn’t know where the money is going, like the government or that we give it to those that would do us harm, but when I visit the conference center and think about how much good that money could have done for the saints in Africa or Central America in real everyday terms, I do have to ask are they living within their means. Do we really need that grand of a place for two conferences a year? Why aren’t we building factories or some other kind of business that would employ the people of the world so that they can help themselves. I know that there are regulations and all and that the church doesn’t want to be in the factory business but hopefully you get my point. I don’t think that they are using the money the way Ienvision Christ would. I also think that it is shameful when the church will lay a person off from a part time job and then call that person on a mission for the same type of work. The example that comes to mind is the cleaning staff at some of the temples. I would also like to know how much the top leaders are getting as a stipen and how much they make as board members for all the church owned companies when they claim that there is no paid clergy. 15 years ago I read one of Suze Orman’s book on finance. An area that stuck out at me was her rules of giving. I tried to link it but couldn’t so I will quote it. Quote:Why Do You Give – You give money away as an offering, a true offering to say thank you. Thank you for what you have, and also for what you don’t have. You don’t ever give money away to get money. You give money away to open up your hands, to release that grip on your money, to feel generous. When you feel generous, you feel powerful, and powerfulness will attract money to you.
Quote:How much to you give – Decide on an amount of money that you feel you can give away freely every month. Let your inner voice determine the amount you should make as an offering. True giving comes as an impulse, so the amount need not be cast in stone. All that matters is that the amount be meaningful to you and that it be given with thought, humility, and gratitude.
Quote:When do you give – If you are going to write a check to donate your money, write the check at the beginning of the month and keep it in a special place. Why the beginning of the month? So that the act of giving is not an after thought. By starting your giving at the beginning of every month, you are making yourself and your offering a real priority, an act that will stay with you throughout the month.
Quote:Whom Do I Give It To – I want you to give it to a non profit charity or your house of worship. The purist gift is the one that truly loosens your cramped clutch on money, is a gift to charity. Maybe your slipping cash into a donation box and no one will ever know that you have given it. I have found the most liberating offering of all is one you make to a charity you care deeply about.
I don’t think Jesus is a good example to use in this conversation, frankly, since he was an itinerant preacher who didn’t seem to want to organize a formal religion as part of his ministry. I don’t think he would have gathered any money to give to anyone, if the record we have is accurate to any degree. Seriously, we have no record of him distributing money to the poor who followed him; rather, he taught all of them and healed a few. It was only after he died and his followers organized a formal religion that his message really took off – and, actually, only after the Roman Empire adopted and altered it. Without that, which is a great example of irresponsibility, we wouldn’t even be mentioning Jesus in this discussion. How’s that for irony?
I also think there are HUGE differences between an individual ministry and an organizational mission – and there are pros and cons to both. When compared with Joel Osteen, Jimmy Swaggart and other “individual ministries”, I think the LDS Church is incredibly responsible with its money – and I think the LDS Church has been FAR more responsible with its money than the Catholic Church was throughout most of its history and continuing to this day. (even though the Catholic Church also has done a lot of good through its charitable giving)
I’m not saying it’s perfect in that regard, or even close, but I’ll take it over a lot of other examples I’ve seen over the years as I’ve gotten to look at lots of other churches and how they spend their money.
Old-Timer wrote:I don’t think Jesus is a good example to use in this conversation, frankly, since he was an itinerant preacher who didn’t seem to want to organize a formal religion as part of his ministry. I don’t think he would have gathered any money to give to anyone, if the record we have is accurate to any degree. Seriously, we have no record of him distributing money to the poor who followed him; rather, he taught all of them and healed a few. It was only after he died and his followers organized a formal religion that his message really took off – and, actually, only after the Roman Empire adopted and altered it. Without that, which is a great example of irresponsibility, we wouldn’t even be mentioning Jesus in this discussion.
How’s that for irony?
I also think there are HUGE differences between an individual ministry and an organizational mission – and there are pros and cons to both. When compared with Joel Osteen, Jimmy Swaggart and other “individual ministries”, I think the LDS Church is incredibly responsible with its money – and I think the LDS Church has been FAR more responsible with its money than the Catholic Church was throughout most of its history and continuing to this day. (even though the Catholic Church also has done a lot of good through its charitable giving)
I’m not saying it’s perfect in that regard, or even close, but I’ll take it over a lot of other examples I’ve seen over the years as I’ve gotten to look at lots of other churches and how they spend their money.
Fair enough. Jesus seems not to care about money at all. It helps when you can turn water into wine and make seven fish and two loaves feed thousands, but it does take money to put in a well in the middle of nowhere Africa. I don’t care what other churches do with their money but sense I pay tithing to the LDS church I do care how they use their money. Ray, I do say that in all respect to you.
I understand, church0333. I really do – and it’s cool. A little background and observation to explain why I don’t get upset much about it:
I’ve been responsible for fairly large budgets at various times in my life, so I am willing to cut people slack when I think they are sincerely trying to do the best they can – especially when opponents AND supporters complain about their choices. It really is a no-win situation, in many ways – and since I recognize that, I don’t sweat it as much as I might otherwise.
I also am fine with the LDS Church running both a church and a corporation, even though that makes it much messier in some ways – and I have done enough research to know that the LDS Church gives WAY more in actual humanitarian dollars than any other church of comparable size, not even counting its non-monetary giving in the form of fast offering in-kind assistance and the service mission work of many senior members and couples. Many people who complain use really frustrating, bogus arguments / comparisons, but I’ve done the research.
The worst / best example is the claim that the Methodist Church gives a higher percent of its total donations for humanitarian relief than the LDS Church does from its tithing fund, even though they are roughly the same size. There are SO many holes in that argument that it makes my head spin, but, in reality, the LDS Church gives over 10 times as much in actual monetary aid each year than the Methodist Church does. It takes either a conscious, intentional distortion of the facts or ignorance of simple stat analysis to reach the anti-Mormon conclusion, but I read it repeated by members enough to pull out what little hair I have left.
Again, if I was in charge, I might make different decisions, since I am a different person with different perspectives – but I might not, since I don’t know how much is available and how it is invested. I don’t care enough about total financial transparency to spend time or energy calling for it, since I am certain it would be far more divisive than its lack is now. (I really mean that. It would be a ****storm of the highest order no matter how the Church used the funds, imo.)
Therefore, how the Church uses its money is a matter of faith for me – hope in what I can’t see clearly.
church0333 wrote:Fair enough. Jesus seems not to care about money at all. It helps when you can turn water into wine and make seven fish and two loaves feed thousands, but it does take money to put in a well in the middle of nowhere Africa. I don’t care what other churches do with their money but sense I pay tithing to the LDS church I do care how they use their money. Ray, I do say that in all respect to you.
Some of the funnier parts of the new testament are in the handling of fairly mundane logistics around this newfound idealistic religion called “Christianity”.The saints had created a united order structure, and they sat together at a common table. Some of the widows complained that they weren’t getting enough service at the daily ministration (dinner), and as it turned out, the apostles were waiting on the tables. Perhaps they took too literally the charge that they ought to serve the saints (washing of the feet as an ensample). So they had to appoint seven (the beginning of the seventy) to take charge over this minsitration — this “business”.
It would seem to be, based upon a rough and perhaps interpretive reading of Acts, that the purpose of the tithes is to manage the business of the church. The early saints certainly did not know how to do this well, and made all sorts of mistakes. I don’t think the restored church is going to be any different in this matter — anytime we deal with money, someone is going to be unhappy, i would think. Thus, tithing, literally, is a leap of faith — we hope and trust that the funds are used to the right purpose, but we simply don’t know, and even if we did, we probably wouldn’t agree regardless of how the distribution is made.
Given that i cannot change the church’s transparency, I simply am going to have to have faith — trust — that it’s being handled properly. At the same time, I’m going to ask the church to trust me that I’m paying what I feel right about, and I have no idea if that is net, gross, or whatever — it’s the amount I feel good about. To me, what i give is entirely dictated by my spiritual understanding from within me, and that constitutes a ‘full tithe’, without any regard to what is said in section 119, malachi, or in the 1970 FP letter.
that’s what works for me for now.
This thread has been wonderful in helping me sort out how I feel about tithing. I’m still unsettled about everything church-related, and feeling worn down from all the questions and studying and realizations. So I don’t feel I have a lot of resources to devote to finding a nuanced way of looking at tithing. And whether or not it is right, I also feel a little burned from paying on gross for so many years.
So I’ve (dh & I have) decided to land somewhere between 10% after reasonable expenses and 10% net.
I think because of shear mental/emotional/spiritual exhaustion, I’ve decided to decide for myself, even if that means paying less than “I should.” And I’m not worrying about whether it is enough, because then I get caught in the “give more get more blessings” spiral.
We have many commandments to obey: I stay home with my kids, DH doesn’t work on Sunday (he’s self-employed and could earn a lot on Sunday), we pay fast offerings, we want to stay out of debt, save for a rainy day, have food storage, etc. And paying 10% on
grossisn’t a delineated commandment, so we are going with as much as we feel we should give – probably more than 10% after reasonable expenses, but probably not 10% of net. That said, my views change by the week (or day, or hour) and I’m open to doing something else in the future. But for this year, this is what it will be.
ogie5263 wrote:So I’ve (dh & I have) decided to land somewhere between 10% after reasonable expenses and 10% net.
[snip]
That said, my views change by the week (or day, or hour) and I’m open to doing something else in the future. But for this year, this is what it will be.
I think that this is a wonderful approach. You and your spouse have together decided what you feel comfortable donating to “charitable giving.” What could be wrong with that?
I think you’ve reached a good balance ogie. As the official instruction says… you decide what your “interest/increase” is… then pay 10% on that. ogie5263 wrote:I’m still unsettled about everything church-related, and feeling worn down from all the questions and studying and realizations. So I don’t feel I have a lot of resources to devote to finding a nuanced way of looking at tithing. And whether or not it is right, I also feel a little burned from paying on gross for so many years.
So I’ve (dh & I have) decided to land somewhere between 10% after reasonable expenses and 10% net.
I think because of shear mental/emotional/spiritual exhaustion, I’ve decided to decide for myself, even if that means paying less than “I should.”
I think it is cool that you are able to move beyond “shoulds”.“I’ve decided for myself” … that’s respectable.
I also think there is usually some growth and learning that comes from struggling through these things on what we decide to do. I appreciate the church allows me to declare tithing based on how I believe.
I found and processed this tread in light of some of the more recent tithing settlement threads… since we are approaching that time of year. Quote:2) The current general understanding of most active members and local leadership is that an honest tithe represents 10% of gross.
Quote:2) I wouldn’t say most understand a full tithe to be on gross. It seems that net is widely accepted.
I don’t mean to open the debate, just going on the record that in all my years of being a member I’ve only ever heard 10% of gross. If someone suggests 10% of net they are
quickly and emphaticallyshot down. Over the years I’ve been in several lessons given on tithing and now, after looking back at some of the manuals, I notice that the definition of 10% on gross is never stated yet it is always a part of the lesson. Many of those lessons on tithing even came to a grinding halt to explain how tithing is really10% of gross to someone that had stated that they have been paying on net all this time. Afterwards there’s never any debate. It’s simply gross, and people move on. Now this may be the direct result of the vocal few that wear the mantle of the seasoned member but for all intents and purposes 10% of gross might as well be the official position of the church. There’s no discussion of opposing viewpoints, it’s gross and that’s how it is. Old-Timer wrote:If I never have the money, there is no way in heaven or hell I’m paying tithing on it. That’s not just wrong, imo; it’s stupid – and I don’t care who said it.
Ha. Look at it this way. You paid your tithing on the money you received from your employer. If the government didn’t pay tithing on the money it received from your employer that’s their bad.
Fwiw, nibbler, I’m almost 50 and have lived in quite a few states – and I’ve heard net income tithing discussed and accepted pretty much everywhere I’ve lived. I know there are lots of people who can’t accept it, but there also are lots of members who can. Old-Timer wrote:Fwiw, nibbler, I’m almost 50 and have lived in quite a few states – and I’ve heard net income tithing discussed and accepted pretty much everywhere I’ve lived. I know there are lots of people who can’t accept it, but there also are lots of members who can.
Agreed. Likewise, I know many members who are very comfortable not tithing FICA and retirement contributions with the rationale that they will be tithed upon withdrawal/payment. FWIW, I also know a couple the other way around who believe that because the tithed FICA they don’t owe tithing on social security.
Well given my experience I will simply state that I find that amazing. You really have no idea how much gross has been pushed and net suppressed in this area. I believe that the conclusion brought up in the tread is correct, namely that it is left up to interpretation of the individual. It is nice to not be commanded in all things and allow people to discover for themselves – still it seems like there is a wide disparity in belief on what constitutes a full tithe. Many people aren’t ever going to question what they see as an authoritative statement that favors payment on gross and I’m sure people struggling with the principle of tithing in this area would love to know that there are other areas where paying on net would also be considered a full tithe. Maybe they wouldn’t struggle as much if they paid on net. Maybe if they had been paying gross for several years and then moved to a “net ward” they’d become resentful for having paid on gross all those years and just stop paying altogether. Not saying this is me, but I certainly see the potential. Maybe those people deserve a little direction that a definitive policy would provide.
Maybe I have a new crusade. Not to declare “pay on net” from the rooftops mind you, but just to take a hard line with the 1970 letter and urge people to prayerfully come to their own conclusion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.