Finally! TBMs starting to understand the angst of tithing

[_cwald]

BCSpace had this to say over at MDDB about the BSA...

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59951-bsa-delays-decision-friends-of-scouting-impact/

I plan on withholding my donation until the matter is settled. There's too much of a possibility that part of the reason why the decision was delayed was so as not to interrupt the cash flow and cash flow is one way to control an organization. If not settled to my satisfaction, then I will forgo all future donations. The Church staying with the Scouting program will not necessarily help to alleviate my concerns.

So, I was criticized on the MDDB board for questioning tithing being spent on programs that went against my ethics and morals. Wade Englund told me that "it is the church's tithing, not mine" and that it was "none of my business how the church spends IT'S tithing money."

I actually agree with BCspace, and using his logic, it is clear that BCspace would support all LDS members withholding tithing payments until the church addresses the issues and they get "settled to my (their) satisfaction."

Yes?

Perhaps, now that the BSA, one of the backbone youth programs in the church, may have a policy that they disagree with, the TBM orthodox might start to understand the concern that so many have about tithing revenue and start to address the issues? Perhaps...financial transparency...to begin with.

[_Sethbag]

The obvious retort is that God commands tithing, but does not command donations to the Boy Scouts.

On the other hand, BCSpace takes one tentative step toward apostasy when he claims that even if the LDS church sticks with the Boy Scouts, it will not alleviate his concerns (and, implicitly, his donations will remain curtailed). Do the church's actions not represent the will of the Lord in the matter?

If the Boy Scouts are good enough for Jesus, or his chosen viceroy on Earth, what does it say that they aren't good enough for BCSpace?

[_Tobin]

I doubt it is apostasy to demand accountability as far as how tithing is used and spent. I think a man of God that represent himself as such and ask for funds for the Lord's work should at the very least be as honest and transparent as other worldly organizations like charities. I have no problem donating to a worthy cause financially, with my time, and with my effort - but such demands need to be a good cause and have clear objectives that are not hidden. Until the LDS Church reforms itself to such an extent, I will withhold funds and not donate to the general fund of the Church. I will contine to give as much as I can to other organizations and worthy causes in the Church itself however.

[_bcspace]

Title fail. I said nothing about tithing.

If the Boy Scouts are good enough for Jesus, or his chosen viceroy on Earth, what does it say that they aren't good enough for BCSpace?

My son will not be denied participation in the YM/Scouting program of the Church if I don't contribute to FoS which has always been voluntary.

On the other hand, BCSpace takes one tentative step toward apostasy when he claims that even if the LDS church sticks with the Boy Scouts, it will not alleviate his concerns (and, implicitly, his donations will remain curtailed). Do the church's actions not represent the will of the Lord in the matter?

An excellent question. I have never agreed with everything the Church does and have never hidden my disagreement from any of you or the Church. For example, in the past, I have been vociferously opposed to the Church's stand on MX missile basing in Utah, nuclear waste in Utah, as well as some scouting issues dealing with smaller wards making for smaller troops and patrols. Feel free to add this to the list if it comes about.

Do I believe that all the Church does is directly from the hand and mouth of God? Of course not. That would in opposition to doctrine such as, for example, "it is not meet that I should command in all things".

I actually agree with BCspace, and using his logic, it is clear that BCspace would support all LDS members withholding tithing payments until the church addresses the issues and they get "settled to my (their) satisfaction."

Yes?

No. I trust the Church in it's finances. I do not necessarily have the same trust in the BSA because they are not necessarily driven by LDS doctrine. But of course I have always understand angst against tithing. You're going to have it if you don't believe the doctrine. That is why I have always recommended one leave the Church if one doesn't believe the doctrine.

[_sock puppet]

Do I believe that all the Church does is directly from the hand and mouth of God? Of course not. That would in opposition to doctrine such as, for example, "it is not meet that I should command in all things".

Oh, so why do those posers in SLC that claim that what they say is from God, without clearly differentiating what they claim is and own up to everything else as originating with themselves?

Two reasons. One is then the infallibility of what they claim "God" told them would get blown apart when the things attributed to "God" fail. This 'speaking as men' get-out-of-jail-free card works better with the benefit of hindsight--only pull that card as to what later proves to have been wrong to begin with. That is, it would be like pulling back the curtain on the great and powerful Oz.

Second is that it means that they couldn't really tell people what to do and they'd follow it. After all, without being able to pull the card after the proof was already in the pudding about what they got wrong, they'd be frozen into saying nothing was from "God".

So, they would get shut up out of fear of being proven the frauds they are.

Isn't it marvelous? Isn't it wonderful?

I have always recommended one leave the Church if one doesn't believe the doctrine.

If only the Church had a clear set of doctrine. It's a moving target. Frauds work better that way.

[_bcspace]

Isn't it marvelous? Isn't it wonderful?

What's to fear? The doctrine is found in the official publications. On top of that, there have been no major changes to doctrine since even before the Manifesto. Looks like they're sticking to it rather than excusing themselves via plausible deny-ability.

If only the Church had a clear set of doctrine. It's a moving target. Frauds work better that way.

I notice you don't provide any examples. The doctrine on homosexuality certainly hasn't changed. Even if the Church allowed gays into scouts and scout leadership, where is the change in doctrine?

[_Bazooka]

Do I believe that all the Church does is directly from the hand and mouth of God? Of course not. That would in opposition to doctrine such as, for example, "it is not meet that I should command in all things".

Which begs the question "How do you know what Church decisions God has/has not had His hand in?"

[_bcspace]

Which begs the question "How do you know what Church decisions God has/has not had His hand in?"

God's hand is in all things. That is doctrine. There is no conflict because there is agency.

[_Morley]

Here, BC says that he believes that God's hand is not in all things:

Do I believe that all the Church does is directly from the hand and mouth of God? Of course not. That would in opposition to doctrine such as, for example, "it is not meet that I should command in all things".

And a few posts farther down, the same fellow maintains that:

God's hand is in all things. That is doctrine. There is no conflict because there is agency.

[_Morley]

On top of that, there have been no major changes to doctrine since even before the Manifesto.

1978?
Polygamy < monogamy?
white and delightsome?
principal decedents of the American?
Lectures on Faith?
et cetera?