- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have no issue with Tithing Settlement for I know that the Law of Tithing is from God . I have been blessed through obedience to this law. EDITED by user. Cwald, Some people just don’t have problems with tithing settlement or tithing. That is actually one strategy to navigate a faith transition — not trying so hard to find problems with things that you don’t have a problem with.
It’s OK to find value in it, or have faith in it.
It would help though if we knew more about you Maverick. It would be great to post an introduction and tell us about yourself and your journey. You picked a good, descriptive user name.
🙂 SilentDawning wrote:I would like to pose the question — why didn’t that last statement which provides personal judgment on the part of the member make it into the CHI and Gospel Principles? That last statement was also quoted in the Church News article that WF quoted here or in another thread, so I believe fully it existed in the original letter. On an issue as important as this, I find it disturbing that the personal judgment portion of the letter was NOT put into the CHI. In fact, I only learned about it after the Internet was a live and well for 10 years, after 27 years in the Church. Personally, I think that is misleading, to leave out that sentence.
I feel the last sentence from the 1970 letter belongs in the CHI and the manuals and everywhere if we are really committed to integrity and “being honest with our fellow man (or woman)” — we are held to this high standard in temple recommend interviews — why can’t the authors of the CHI follow the same standard of reporting, rather than picking and choosing those elements that seem to serve current interests the best? Are we not a Church committed to principles of integrity?
I personally have no problem with it. When I am giving a talk or sharing a principle, I have no problem using quotes that support my thesis and leaving off parts that don’t. After DD’s stillbirth I wrote a long letter to my wife with lots and lots of quotes from scriptures and the Brethren about what happens to babies in the next life. It was very cathartic for me and well received by DW. I deliberately left off all the “as long as you endure to the end” stuff because I didn’t think it was very comforting.
This may sound heretical but here goes – The following is taken from some notes that I wrote while reading Rough Stone Rolling:
Quote:While prophets can be inspired, their human expression of their inspiration is always limited, is never absolutely perfect. Recognizing the pliability of the revealed words, JS freely edited revelations “by the Holy Spirit,” adding new material, splicing one revelation to another, altering the wording, and making other emendations with each new edition. He felt authorized to expand the revelations as his understanding expanded. RSR p. 174, 285
I have taken the same liberty to interpret, define, and selectively highlight certain passages. (I do this principally for my own understanding and not to preach “the Gospel according to Roy”)I do not see the inconsistency with the church selectively quoting from its own document. It’s not like we don’t already do this with church history, tell our story how we want it to be told in a way that is consistent and supportive of our thesis.
Then again I apparently have the unscrupulous Meyers-Briggs personality type, so I am fairly flexible on these types of issues.
maverick wrote:I have no issue with Tithing Settlement for I know that the Law of Tithing is from God . I have been blessed through obedience to this law.
Good for you Maverick. My holiday wish for you is that you continue to see divine blessings in your life. Everyone here has had different life experiences and the resulting perspectives, thank you for sharing yours.
Okay. I think it’s great that people don’t have a problem with tithing. I just think using the “I know…” terminology will not go over well here, but whatever.
Edited by cwald Roy wrote:SilentDawning wrote:I feel the last sentence from the 1970 letter belongs in the CHI and the manuals and everywhere if we are really committed to integrity and “being honest with our fellow man (or woman)” — we are held to this high standard in temple recommend interviews — why can’t the authors of the CHI follow the same standard of reporting, rather than picking and choosing those elements that seem to serve current interests the best? Are we not a Church committed to principles of integrity?
I personally have no problem with it. When I am giving a talk or sharing a principle, I have no problem using quotes that support my thesis and leaving off parts that don’t. After DD’s stillbirth I wrote a long letter to my wife with lots and lots of quotes from scriptures and the Brethren about what happens to babies in the next life. It was very cathartic for me and well received by DW. I deliberately left off all the “as long as you endure to the end” stuff because I didn’t think it was very comforting.
After taking all these PhD courses regarding integrity in research, to leave out key parts of research, select only those findings in the corpus that support your own thesis — tends to sound wrong to me. Therefore,k I tend to look upon this kind of selective quoting as somewhat disturbing. Now, creating reasons to preserve inner peace as Roy did on a highly emotionally disturbing matter, I can see some cognitive justification, particulary on subjects that are not clearly known.
But to selectively quote from recent, verifiable sources on a policy statement — it seems there might be a better way to share the truth.
SD, at the expense of breaking some egg shells here, can I just say, that once I finally had the guts to admit to myself that the LDS church is NOTthe ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHURCH ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. The LDS church is just a pathway, one of many many different pathways, that people can use to find the gods and peace in this life and perhaps the next
Once I admitted that, many of these problems that you and I talk about – just simply faded away.Think about it.
The rest of you StayLDSers can believe whatever you want. I don’t care. This statement that I just made, is what finally is working for me. It’s the only option left for me to deal with the angst, disillusionment, frustration and bitterness. This is the only belief left for me at this time, if I am to have any part in my families lives, and in this tribe.
Found the reference for the 1970 Fp letter cwald wrote:The rest of you StayLDSers can believe whatever you want. I don’t care. This statement that I just made is what finally is working for me.
That’s the kind of confident mustard-seed faith that moves mountains! I’m talking spicy, sassy, sinus-clearing Dijon mustard.
:clap: cwald wrote:SD, at the expense of breaking some egg shells here, can I just say, that once I finally had the guts to admit to myself that the LDS church
is NOTthe ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHURCH ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. The LDS church is just a pathway, one of many many different pathways, that people can use to find the gods and peace in this life and perhaps the next
Once I admitted that, many of these problems that you and I talk about – just simply faded away.Think about it.
The rest of you StayLDSers can believe whatever you want. I don’t care. This statement that I just made, is what finally is working for me. It’s the only option left for me to deal with the angst, disillusionment, frustration and bitterness. This is the only belief left for me at this time, if I am to have any part in my families lives, and in this tribe.
I’m not adverse to this interpretation at all….I have wondered the same thing, and now, approach that question about whether it is the only true Church as “it might be”. I won’t be disappointed if it turns out not to be either. Perhaps you remember my analogy from Ben Franklin’s biography about the men walking in the fog. They think they see clearly around them, but in actuality, they are as much in the fog as the next guy. That’s how I see our Wards when I look around or hear them bear testimony.
I came to rest on this a while ago. I think when I fasted for 3 days and prayed and Churched and read scripture for a whole year as a nonmem, finally getting a kind of revelation I should be baptized, it was because God looked at my life and said “there is diversity of Churches out there, and now SD is praying for guidance — will he thrive in this orgnaization during his life? If not, will it generate some net good for him (and Myself)? ” If so, as the only real option on the table at the time, he guided me into it. Plus I was darned persistent at it.
I leave myself open that
I’m wrong in believing it’s everything it claims to be. I used to think about all the sacrifice and money and self-denial I have found in the LDS Church, and said ‘If it turns out I’m wrong about this, I’m goign to be ticked”. I don’t think I’m going to be ticked anymore, as I’ve come to rest that it might not be the only true Church. But I believe it enough to answer Yes to the TR question about it. We know there are shades of belief.
The mark of a free man is that ever-gnawing uncertainty about whether he is right. I’m not convinced I am right but I think I could be.
Fwiw, as we’ve discussed in many threads in the past, “I know” tends to mean “I’ve found what works for me – what I can accept without question or anxiety – what brings me peace – etc.” I’m cool with that. What I’m not “cool with” is, “Therefore, you MUST know in exactly the same way I do.” If that is said (or even strongly implied), the comment won’t last long here.
Maverick never said the second part, so the comment is cool. (and, maverick, I second Brian’s request for an introduction post. I’d like to know more about you.)
Oh, and back on topic:
I don’t mind tithing settlement, although I’d like to do it by e-mail in the future. (“Hey, Bishop, my tithing status is ____________.”) It’s talks in Sacrament Meeting in December on tithing, when the focus should be on worship and Christ, that get to me. I was sick yesterday, so I missed church – and my wife came home laughing at me and saying it’s probably good I was sick, even though the main speaker’s talk was good, overall. She said he went into great detail about exactly how he knew tithing was a divine commandment, and she said she knew I would be “sad” at the implications for those who have paid tithing faithfully and still needed assistance to make ends meet.
My wife knows me well – and I’m glad she can laugh at me in moments like that.
:thumbup: SilentDawning wrote:After taking all these PhD courses regarding integrity in research, to leave out key parts of research, select only those findings in the corpus that support your own thesis — tends to sound wrong to me. Therefore, I tend to look upon this kind of selective quoting as somewhat disturbing. Now, creating reasons to preserve inner peace as Roy did on a highly emotionally disturbing matter, I can see some cognitive justification, particularly on subjects that are not clearly known.
But to selectively quote from recent, verifiable sources on a policy statement — it seems there might be a better way to share the truth.
It would be wrong to do this in research (I believe it is known as confirmation bias), but for religion and “subjects that are not clearly known” it is perfectly acceptable. In the scriptures it is known as “proof texting” and we do it just as much as anyone else. I actually believe that the seminary scripture mastery program is based upon “proof texting.”
You seem to want a clear answer on policy and the answer is much more grey area than you were led to believe. I believe there are some underlying questions to this policy and the way that it is currently portrayed to the world – 1) How much does God consider a full tithe? 2) If the church is definitive about 10% of gross does that mean that tithe payers of net were not really worthy for temple covenants and made them in vane? 3) If God expects 10% of gross, what about those that lived and died in different eras and lived tithing differently? 4) If the church is more public about the personal interpretation clause will this cause more or less anguish/soul searching for the membership in determining whether they are paying a full tithe? 5) Were this widely known would it make tithing settlement (and the Bishop’s job of determining worthiness) more difficult? 6) Would it provide excuses to people that wanted to keep the money for themselves and remain in good church standing (serve mammon and the Lord)? 7) Would it decrease overall tithing payments?
Would it increase discord, strife, and suspicion among the members as they began wondering how much the other guy pays 9) Would it give some members reason to be puffed up and proud of the more demanding way that they define and live the law of tithing?Ball_of_Confusion wrote:Found the reference for the 1970 Fp letter
http://lds.org/ensign/1974/04/i-have-a- … n?lang=engThis link goes to the “I have a question” section of LDS.org. In addition to quoting the 1970 FP letter, Bishop Victor L. Brown, Presiding Bishop of the Church also states:
Quote:At the close of each year, each member of the Church has the responsibility of attending tithing settlement with his bishop. At this time, each member has the opportunity to declare whether he is a full, part, or non-tithe payer. The payment of tithing is a matter between the individual and the Lord. The bishop is merely the Lord’s servant who receives and accounts for the contribution.
The Lord has promised that he will open the windows of heaven to those who pay their tithes and offerings. We read in Malachi:
“Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
“Ye are cursed with a curse; for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
“Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” (Mal. 3:8–10.)
When one has been completely honest with the Lord, a feeling of peace and tranquility enters his heart and he knows that he is a full tithe payer.
Pay your tithing on the basis on which you wish to be blessed.
It seemed to be quite applicable to the Tithing Settlement topic at hand.
It’s easy to try to read between the lines in that quote, but I like it when I don’t try to read between the lines. Thanks for sharing it.
Roy wrote:You seem to want a clear answer on policy and the answer is much more grey area than you were led to believe.
Not at all — I simply wanted to know the actual wording given by the leaders. “Tell me the truth — don’t just pick and choose those phrases you like”. That was what I wanted. I’m very comfortable with less than definitive answers, and that’s why the “personal clock” clause that has been LEFT OUT of most Church publications in recent years also disturbs me.
You gave reasons why they might have resorted to “selective First Presidency letter clause loss”… perhaps these are valid questions, perhaps not. It doesnt’ change the fact that the mode of dealing with these problems/concerns is somewhat misleading. Where much is given much is required. When you claim to be ethical or even acting on the highest principles of morality, you are held to a high standard. I feel that high standard was not applied in the reporting of the meaning of a full-tithe as originally conceived by the First Presidency.
Perhaps they should have come out with a revision to the letter, which superces this one if they didn’t like the member behavior that ensued by giving members license to decide what a full tithe means? With justification for the change? Would that not show more integrity?
The method they actualluy used reminds me of Amazon’s “bury the information” technique. If they have a book whose price has fallen to $0.01, they advertise the normal used price as higher than the actual low price offered. They can’t price fix, so they list the $0.01 paperback book in an “Other formats” table you have to expand to see. In short, they bury the low price so it’s hard to find, rather than openly advertising it. I feel there is some of this in the stripping away of the FP letter, leaving a potentially more stringent-than-originally-intended meaning for all to see in the easy-to-find publications.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.