December Ensign on tithing

[_Gadianton]

City Creek must really be doing terrible. This is the most aggressive the Church has been in years with their fundraising. They've all but openly retracted Benson's counsel against women working, now, God is blessing women with jobs as long as an incentive to pay. And the target audience, once again, is the poor. Don't you dare, you poor people, cheat the Lord's mall in interest of your own health. It's interesting timing too. I wonder if the brethren held back on this article until after the elections, desperately wanting to get their regressive tax revitalized, but not wanting to risk a reporter finding out about it and hurting Romney?

[_Chap]

Although the statements made in this article are comparable to statements that have been made previously on tithing, I thought it was a little worse since the family in question doesn't "have much to eat." It bothers me that some family could be going hungry because of the church

It must bother you greatly as well that Jesus didn't have any bread or fish for the widow who cast two mites into the treasury; everything she had.

I was always taught that parables as a genre were to be interpreted in terms of ... wait for it! ... their context, and should not be over-generalized in their application.

In this particular case the point is that Jesus is watching rich people contributing large amounts to the Temple fund (and clearly doing so in a way that made everybody see they were doing it):

Luke 21

21 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.

2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.

3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:

4 For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

The point he makes is that a little given by a poor person may mean a lot more in devotion that a lot given by a rich person - who will still have their 'abundance'.

And that's it.

[_harmony]

21 And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.

2 And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.

3 And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all:

4 For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

The point he makes is that a little given by a poor person may mean a lot more in devotion that a lot given by a rich person - who will still have their 'abundance'.

And that's it.

Hmmm... nowadays, the widow would not be allowed to publically give all she has (privately, that's a different deal), because then public opinion would turn on them if they didn't support her all the rest of her days.

[_Tchild]

It must bother you greatly as well that Jesus didn't have any bread or fish for the widow who cast two mites into the treasury; everything she had.

And yet, the church's humanitarian giving maybe equals 2-3% of its total annual income from all sources. Less than many for profit corporations.

Your church doesn't even follow the advice you dispense here in a parable. It doesn't even give back the same percentages its own member's tithe. Sad and pathetic. Shame on your church bcspace.

[_Chap]

Hmmm... nowadays, the widow would not be allowed to publically give all she has (privately, that's a different deal), because then public opinion would turn on them if they didn't support her all the rest of her days.

Could you expand on your point to make it a bit clearer? Have you any examples in mind to illustrate what you mean?

It is not clear to me whether you think that it would or would not be proper to suggest that a person who gave all their money and property to a church should expect to be supported by that church thereafter. I have never heard of that happening in the case of the CoJCoLDS.

[_Equality]

I don't think the piece is really aimed at poor people. It's a way for the church to induce guilt and shame in its largely middle class active membership who read church magazines. By positively portraying poor people going hungry yet paying their tithing the church makes any member who has a job but struggles with tithing feel like an unfaithful loser. It's part of the church's regular program: the systematic psychological torture of its members.

[_Chap]

I don't think the piece is really aimed at poor people. It's a way for the church to induce guilt and shame in its largely middle class active membership who read church magazines. By positively portraying poor people going hungry yet paying their tithing the church makes any member who has a job but struggles with tithing feel like an unfaithful loser. It's part of the church's regular program: the systematic psychological torture of its members.

I'd bet you're right there.

After all, what proportion of tithing income really does come from dirt-poor members who have to go hungry in order to pay? Much of the main money comes from people like the Marriots and the Romneys, many of whom could double what they give without affecting more than the size of their great grand children's trust funds. Guilt those people effectively, and the potential returns are huge.

[_harmony]

It is not clear to me whether you think that it would or would not be proper to suggest that a person who gave all their money and property to a church should expect to be supported by that church thereafter. I have never heard of that happening in the case of the CoJCoLDS.

And you never will.

It's all in the "publically". The church is PR to the max. They would not allow a widow to give her "mite" nowadays; it would be a public relations nightmare.

[_Chap]

It is not clear to me whether you think that it would or would not be proper to suggest that a person who gave all their money and property to a church should expect to be supported by that church thereafter. I have never heard of that happening in the case of the CoJCoLDS.

And you never will.

It's all in the "publically". The church is PR to the max. They would not allow a widow to give her "mite" nowadays; it would be a public relations nightmare.

Gottit. Thanks. I'm sure you are right about the publicity aspect.

But to judge from what I have read here and elsewhere, the church seems to have no problem about accepting large gifts from individuals who may not be acting very wisely in stripping themselves of assets, so long as things are done quietly.

[_RockSlider]

Just went through helping my 85 year old mother-in-law automate her incoming and outgoing money. She is on an 850.00 dollar SS income plus what us kids add to this so she can meet the 1200.00 or so that she requires to stay in the black.

The woman insists of paying 187.00 per month in tithing and the bishop has no problem in taking it.

Sometimes I really hate the church