I think it's messed up

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by Tex

Wow, creekster. Nice.

People donate to causes they believe in. Obviously the church is a cause that active LDS members believe in. They want to support what they believe is the cause of God.

No one forcibly takes tithing from members, just like no one forces them to be chaste, kind, honest, or to follow any other commandment. It's offered, often at great sacrifice, as an exercise of faith.

To call it compulsory and self-serving is quite shallow.

And to take such a strong position that it is voluntray is also quite shallow. There are many who pay because they fear hell-fire or the disgrace of not having a current temple recommend.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

And to take such a strong position that it is voluntray is also quite shallow. There are many who pay because they fear hell-fire or the disgrace of not having a current temple recommend.

Make taxes that volutary and see where that gets us.

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

And to take such a strong position that it is voluntray is also quite shallow. There are many who pay because they fear hell-fire or the disgrace of not having a current temple recommend.

There is also an accountability structure built in where active members are encouraged to meet with an ecclesiastical leader to declare whether they are full-tithe payers. Yes it's all voluntary, but there is a social pressure for a LDS to pay tithing.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

There are many who pay because they fear hell-fire or the disgrace of not having a current temple recommend.

Thank you.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

tooblue, I agree with you, but you do not know exactly where the money is going and what is being done with it.

no need to overstate things to make your point.

If you indeed do know exactly where your tithing was going, can you clue me in as to how I can track mine dollar for dollar?

You're right -- I'm happy to remove the word 'exactly'. An accounting (statement) for every dollar donated is provided to your Bishop and SP each month.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

And to take such a strong position that it is voluntray is also quite shallow. There are many who pay because they fear hell-fire or the disgrace of not having a current temple recommend.

SUre, just like there a lot of people who donate to the World Wildlife Fund to keep their spouse happy. Big deal. If you don't want to give it, you don't have to give it. ANy one of us may think it is a requirement in our own life, and it is, but there is not third party enforcement. Just like Bill Gates thinks he has a moral imperative to give some of his money away. I don't think either of these contributions to our motivations makes the donation necessarily more or less worthy than others.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by YOhio

There is also an accountability structure built in where active members are encouraged to meet with an ecclesiastical leader to declare whether they are full-tithe payers. Yes it's all voluntary, but there is a social pressure for a LDS to pay tithing.

You can be a member in full standing but be prohibited from entering the temple if you are not a full tithe payer. I think membership dues is a pretty fair analogy. Nobody is forcing you to pay your membership, but if you dont pay, you cant come into the clubhouse.

The definition of voluntary seems to be shifting faster than Obama's definitin of rich.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by YOhio

There is also an accountability structure built in where active members are encouraged to meet with an ecclesiastical leader to declare whether they are full-tithe payers. Yes it's all voluntary, but there is a social pressure for a LDS to pay tithing.

Unbless the donor is living in a cave on a deserted island and odanting to himself, there is ALWAYS social pressure to give (and even then he feels pressure to himself). The point here is nto whether mormons or Utahns feels pressure to give, but whether the legitinmacy of these donations should be discounted as compared to ones made by persons of other religious or political persuausions. I think making a believer/non-believer dichotomy is bunk.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

Thank you.

Agreed, but there are many who above and beyond the requested funds, not that you were suggesting otherwise.

But, I'm curious why it is really not charitable to contribute even if the motives are not wholly selfless, and why anybody can excuse Biden, if the information is accurate, for being a selfish son of a bitch, no matter what. He is in the public eye afterall, and I'm not usually considered charitable, but even my non Church charitable contributions make that look like a pittance. And again, I admit I'm selfish and focused often too much upon money.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by creekster

SUre, just like there a lot of people who donate to the World Wildlife Fund to keep their spouse happy. Big deal. If you don't want to give it, you don't have to give it. ANy one of us may think it is a requirement in our own life, and it is, but there is not third party enforcement. Just like Bill Gates thinks he has a moral imperative to give some of his money away. I don't think either of these contributions to our motivations makes the donation necessarily more or less worthy than others.

No it doesn't and it's unkind to suggest otherwise. This lemming will continue to pay regardless of it's worth in the eyes of the ignorant.