Anyone reading the FairWiki?

[_Who Knows]

Asbestosman, you keep trying very hard to rationalize away the effects of tithing. But you cannot forget, it's simple math (you of all people should know this). 10% of income is 10% of income. And on an individual and macro scale - that is HUGE!. You can speculate on what people 'would do' if they had an extra 10%, but that's all it is - speculation. The fact of the matter, is that many people are living on LESS money than others - in fact 10% less. And that will have a big effect on bankruptcies - no matter how you slice it.

[_harmony]

Do you really think that if people in Utah made 11.111% more money that there'd really be less bankrupcies in Utah? I don't and I say that's because people live under certain expectations.

Yes, that by paying their tithing, they will somehow be financially blessed and be able to afford all those extras they want but can't afford, even if they didn't pay their tithing.

It's not all about keeping up with the Jonses either. It's about having to live in the nice neighborhood with less crime and good schools. It's about tyring to have a reliable car and taking normal camping trips as well as trips to visit family. Things like this will stretch most people almost no matter how much they make. I think a bigger cause is that many people are underinsured.

This is called living beyond their means. If a family can't afford to live in a nice neighborhood, then don't live in a nice neighborhood. If a family can't afford a reliable car, then don't buy a reliable car... buy a cheap car or ride the bus. If a family can't afford to take camping trips and still take trips to visit family, then don't take camping trips and/or don't take trips to visit family. Living beyond your means means we all pay for you to have your nice neighborhood, your reliable car, your family camping trips, and I, for one, am tired of paying for you to live beyond your means with higher prices, higher interests rates, and higher taxes to cover your shortcomings.

When I was young with my young family, I lived in a dump, drove a beater car that died on the road regularly, and we almost never took family camping trips. Why? Because I couldn't afford cable, cell phones, gas for trips, a nice car, or a big house in a nice neighborhood. Let me repeat: I couldn't afford those things, so I did without those things. Why is this so hard to understand? If a family can't afford those things, then they do without those things. If those things are so important to the family, then both spouses go to work so the family can afford them.

This is not rocket science. This is basic economics.

Does tithing contribute at all? Yes, but I don't think it contributes very much. in my opinion a bigger factor is that families are bigger and start earlier (although Mormons are catching starting to match gentiles in this). I honestly think that if the people I know had 11.111% more money they put most of it into living in a nicer neighborhood with better schools, etc.

And I don't think tithing matters much. There's ways to work around it, the main one being "make it over, wear it out, make it do, or do without".

I have a nice home, satellite tv, cell phones, a nice car, good health insurance, life insurance, and I take vacations because I work so I can have those things. When I didn't work, I didn't have those things. Why should this basic formula be different for some upstart whippersnapper family in Utah, simply because they pay their tithing?

[_asbestosman]

This is called living beyond their means. If a family can't afford to live in a nice neighborhood, then don't live in a nice neighborhood. If a family can't afford a reliable car, then don't buy a reliable car... buy a cheap car or ride the bus. If a family can't afford to take camping trips and still take trips to visit family, then don't take camping trips and/or don't take trips to visit family. Living beyond your means means we all pay for you to have your nice neighborhood, your reliable car, your family camping trips, and I, for one, am tired of paying for you to live beyond your means with higher prices, higher interests rates, and higher taxes to cover your shortcomings.

When I was young with my young family, I lived in a dump, drove a beater car that died on the road regularly, and we almost never took family camping trips. Why? Because I couldn't afford cable, cell phones, gas for trips, a nice car, or a big house in a nice neighborhood. Let me repeat: I couldn't afford those things, so I did without those things. Why is this so hard to understand? If a family can't afford those things, then they do without those things. If those things are so important to the family, then both spouses go to work so the family can afford them.

Woah Nellie! I only have one car and it's the one my wife bought before we got married. I almost always bike or bus to work. No cable and no cellphone (except for the free one my wife has from work). My internet access is generally obtained from free dialup (a work benefit), the library, or other free wireless access points. I currently rent an appartment. The only vacations I go on are Thanksgiving or Christmas to my folks (and expectation I have a hard time turning down), and then a trip to the ocean (I live close to the coast) where basically my mother-in-law pays. I'm also currently in a DINK situation (both of us are engineers) and I still cannot afford a home. But no matter how much reason I try talking with people, everyone EXPECTS me to live in a NICE neighborhood with good schools, etc. I cannot unilaterally overrule my wife. I cannot tell her that the pioneers settled for less. Isn't it selfish of me to settle for less just so I'll have a nice retirement? Look, I am extremely frugal by my nature to the point of being a skinflint. But there's no freaking way I can demand that my family live in a less nice neighborhood just because I want to retire at 65 or want more buffer room in case I get laid off or whatever. No matter how reasonable I think a bigger buffer is, it won't matter. It stinks, but this is a common expectation in our culture and I become the bad guy because I am stingy by society's standards (and even I think I am a bit extreme).

And I don't think tithing matters much. There's ways to work around it, the main one being "make it over, wear it out, make it do, or do without".

I have a nice home, satellite tv, cell phones, a nice car, good health insurance, life insurance, and I take vacations because I work so I can have those things. When I didn't work, I didn't have those things. Why should this basic formula be different for some upstart whippersnapper family in Utah, simply because they pay their tithing?

I agree that it shouldn't. I say those whippersnapper families should buck the system and live in an appartment like I do. They should get rid of their cellphones and high-speed intenet (use cheap dial-up). They should quit with the cable TV and use Blockbuster or the library instead. They should buy a bicycle to save on gas and gym memberships. As you say, there are ways around it, but it will be really hard to change culture to accept it. If it wasn't for the culture, I'd be set. You see, if it wasn't for the culture it'd be easier to find a woman who'd settle for less. Unfortunately expectations are bred into the current generation.

[_Gazelam]

Wow, Harmony and I are in sync on something.

I think the American Idea of poverty compared to the real world are two completely different things.

I remember hearing about a russian propaganda film showing the great depressian and the dust bowl, showing all these people fleeing. The idea was that america was in financial ruin. It had the opposite effect in that the russians saw the americans fleeing in cars. They didn't have those, lol

I remember on my mission going around the average Scottish home, seeing carpet that didn't fit a room, and everyone on the dole. I remember thinking how good we have it back home. America has the fattest poor people in the history of the world. We have no concept of poverty.

[_asbestosman]

Asbestosman, you keep trying very hard to rationalize away the effects of tithing. But you cannot forget, it's simple math (you of all people should know this). 10% of income is 10% of income. And on an individual and macro scale - that is HUGE!. You can speculate on what people 'would do' if they had an extra 10%, but that's all it is - speculation. The fact of the matter, is that many people are living on LESS money than others - in fact 10% less. And that will have a big effect on bankruptcies - no matter how you slice it.

I disagree. If people would lower their standards they could live on 10% less. If that really isn't possible, then they should move somewhere where they can live on 10% less and maybe farm. Yes, it stinks, but there are ways of doing it. Farming seemed to work just fine for our pioneer ancestors. Why not move somewhere where self-maintenance farming is again possible?

Maybe I'm a little too upset right now to see things clearly. I've looking at houses in the Northwest and been chocking at how ridiculously expensive they are. I'd rather live in a tent, but that just won't do for raising a family. Sometimes I hate capitalism. I just hate communism even more.

[_Who Knows]

I disagree. If people would lower their standards they could live on 10% less. If that really isn't possible, then they should move somewhere where they can live on 10% less and maybe farm. Yes, it stinks, but there are ways of doing it. Farming seemed to work just fine for our pioneer ancestors. Why not move somewhere where self-maintenance farming is again possible?

You disagree? You're not making sense. You say "if people would lower their standards they could live on 10% less". Isn't that the same as not lowering standards, but keeping the 10%? The result should be the same either way.

And either way, the 10% has a big impact on bankruptcies. (whether you lower your standards and live on 10% less, or maintain your standards, and keep your 10%).

Like I said, at the end of the day, 10% is 10% - and has a big impact on bankruptcies.

[_asbestosman]

I disagree. If people would lower their standards they could live on 10% less. If that really isn't possible, then they should move somewhere where they can live on 10% less and maybe farm. Yes, it stinks, but there are ways of doing it. Farming seemed to work just fine for our pioneer ancestors. Why not move somewhere where self-maintenance farming is again possible?

You disagree? You're not making sense. You say "if people would lower their standards they could live on 10% less". Isn't that the same as not lowering standards, but keeping the 10%? The result should be the same either way.

And either way, the 10% has a big impact on bankruptcies. (whether you lower your standards and live on 10% less, or maintain your standards, and keep your 10%).

Like I said, at the end of the day, 10% is 10% - and has a big impact on bankruptcies.

OK yes, I can see that logic. My point is simply that tithing is not the main culrprit. There are plenty of alternatives even though they aren't attractive in our materialistic society. People want to blame bankrupcies on tithing, but I don't think that's supportable. If it were from tithing it is this: people who pay tithing may think that God will magically stretch their moeny so that they can afford the same home as a financially responsible person who makes the same amount but doesn't pay tithing. that is indeed ludicrous and goes to that financial seminar thing my wife attended which I mentioned on the previous page.

I think blaming tithing is dangerous. It not only excuses people in their materialism, but more importantly it keeps people from obeying God. They end up placing society's demands above God. Is that really wise? If you really think God is being unreasonable with tithing, then please, count the cost (Luke 14:28-30). Just remember that you can't take it with you.

[_Who Knows]

OK yes, I can see that logic. My point is simply that tithing is not the main culrprit. There are plenty of alternatives even though they aren't attractive in our materialistic society. People want to blame bankrupcies on tithing, but I don't think that's supportable. If it were from tithing it is this: people who pay tithing may think that God will magically stretch their moeny so that they can afford the same home as a financially responsible person who makes the same amount but doesn't pay tithing. that is indeed ludicrous and goes to that financial seminar thing my wife attended which I mentioned on the previous page.

Ok, we're in agreement: If you pay tithing, you should expect to be at a 10% disadvantage to the rest of your peers (neighbors, co-workers, etc.). I'd agree that some who pay tithing probably don't LIVE like that. 2 people making $100k - one pays tithing, the other doesn't - obviously, the tithe-payer should be in a smaller house, older car, etc. That's probably not always the case.

In the end, is tithing the culprit? No. Bad money management is (among other reasons). But the tithe-payer does have 10% less $$, and that can make a huge difference between bankruptcy vs. paying off debts.

I think blaming tithing is dangerous. It not only excuses people in their materialism, but more importantly it keeps people from obeying God. They end up placing society's demands above God. Is that really wise? If you really think God is being unreasonable with tithing, then please, count the cost (Luke 14:28-30). Just remember that you can't take it with you.

That is, IF you think god requires 10%, IF you believe there is a god.

[_Brackite]

The Following is From that FAIRWiki Article:

Fundamentalist "suicide bombing"

It should be remembered too that many sectarian critics use DNA science in a sort of "suicide bombing" attack on the Church.[8] The fundamentalist Christian critics are happy to use DNA as a stick to beat the Book of Mormon, but do not tell their readers that there is much stronger DNA evidence for concepts which fundamentalist Christian readers might not accept, such as:

evolutionary change in species
human descent from other primates
And, despite being inconsistent with DNA data, fundamentalist critics do not call on their congregations to abandon such literalistic Biblical concepts as:

the earth being only 6,000 years old
a Biblical Adam and Eve were the parents of all humanity only 4,000 years before Christ
a world-wide, Noachian flood which exterminated all life except that which was in the Ark, occurred approximately 5,000 years ago
The critics are often hypocritical—they claim the Saints should abandon the Book of Mormon on flimsy, dubious science, and yet do not tell their audience that they should (by the same logic) abandon religious beliefs of their own that have much more DNA evidence against them.

Discussions of this ironic twist are found in:

Daniel C. Peterson, "Editor's Introduction," FARMS Review 15/2 (2003): ix–lxii. off-site PDF link
David G. Stewart, Jr., "DNA and the Book of Mormon," FARMS Review 18/1 (2006): 109–138. off-site PDF link wiki FAIR link

( http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Book_ ... A_evidence )

Doctrine and Covenants Section 77, clearly infers that general mankind has been on the earth for only about a little bit over 6,000 years.
And as, the Flood of Noah goes, the LDS Scriptures clearly imply that the flood of Noah was indeed worldwide. The following is from a Post of mine from the Zion Lighthouse Message Board, demonstrating this from the LDS Scriptures:

I believe that the LDS Scriptures (such as the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price) Point to an Universal Flood of Noah. Here are now some Passages from the LDS Scriptures:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Book of Mormon:

Ether 13:1-2:

[1] And now I, Moroni, proceed to finish my record concerning the destruction of the people of whom I have been writing.

[2] For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pearl of Great Price:

Moses 7:42-43:

42 And Enoch also saw Noah, and his family; that the posterity of all the sons of Noah should be saved with a temporal salvation;
43 Wherefore Enoch saw that Noah built an ark; and that the Lord smiled upon it, and held it in his own hand; but upon the residue of the wicked the floods came and swallowed them up.


Moses 8:17:

17 And the Lord said unto Noah: My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for he shall know that all flesh shall die; yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years; and if men do not repent, I will send in the floods upon them.


Moses 8:24-26:

24 Believe and repent of your sins and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, even as our fathers, and ye shall receive the Holy Ghost, that ye may have all things made manifest; and if ye do not this, the floods will come in upon you; nevertheless they hearkened not.
25 And it repented Noah, and his heart was pained that the Lord had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at the heart.
26 And the Lord said: I will destroy man whom I have created, from the face of the earth, both man and beast, and the creeping things, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth Noah that I have created them, and that I have made them; and he hath called upon me; for they have sought his life.


Moses 8:29-30:

29 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its away upon the earth.
30 And God said unto Noah: The end of all flesh is come before me, for the earth is filled with violence, and behold I will destroy all flesh from off the earth.


Abraham 1:23-24:

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Now let's go back to Ether 13:1-2, in the Book of Mormon: Here is again Ether 13:1-2:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ether 13:1-2:

1 And now I, Moroni, proceed to finish my record concerning the destruction of the people of whom I have been writing.
2 For behold, they rejected all the words of Ether; for he truly told them of all things, from the beginning of man; and that after the waters had receded from off the face of this land it became a choice land above all other lands, a chosen land of the Lord; wherefore the Lord would have that all men should serve him who dwell upon the face thereof;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The word 'receded' in Ether 13:2, is Cross-Referenced in the Foot Note to Genesis 7:19 (7:11-24), and Genesis 8:3, which describes and tells of the story of the Biblical account of the Flood of Noah. Please Check Out this hyperlink: Please Click Here.

This means that Ether 13:1-2, in the Book of Mormon, must be referring to the Biblical account of the Flood of Noah. The LDS Scriptural Passages that I provided and quoted here, Point to an Universal Flood of Noah.


( http://p080.ezboard.com/The-Flood-of-No ... ID=6.topic )

[_beastie]

Most bankruptcies are the result of either an unanticipated significant health crisis and subsequent bill, or divorce. It's living on the edge and the lack of a cushion to protect people from these unexpected costs that result in bankruptcy.

Of course tithing is not the sole culprit, but in trying to explain why Utah has the highest bankruptcy rate, it must be considered a factor.