Post tithing settlement thoughts...

[Moliere]

I'm surprised by how adamantly people are defending the current practice. Nobody is suggesting that the LDS hierarchy do away with the check-and-envelope procedure. All MRD is doing is pointing out that the church should ALSO offer a convenient way to pay online, and that there would be benefits to having such a system in place other than payers' convenience.

But still people insist that the way we're doing it now is the best possible way. Get some vision, people. It's supposed to be a forward-looking organization.

Hey, I'm not saying the current method is the best way, I'm just saying that when MRD thinks "It's so easy, everyone else is doing it" or "it's more cost effective" there are some valid counterpoints. I've already stated that I think the church should and will make on-line payment a reality. If I had to put a timeline on it, I'd say it'll happen in the next decade, which is right on tiem for the church since it is about a decade late on most items

[Mormon Red Death]

You have a very didactic view of this discussion.

We signed up for on-line donation about a month ago. It is the only recurring bill that we were still paying by check.

Didactic huh? In the vein of Muhamad Ali talking with Howard Cosell. I will respond with

I don't know what didactic is, but if its good than I'm it

[Mormon Red Death]

Really? Where did I say any of that? Best possible way? Look at my initial post. It suggested why MRD's reasoning may be incorrect and how some of his assumptions may be flawed. It was also directed at his suggestion (since abandoned, I think) of using paypal.

And what does it mean that it is supposed to be a 'forward looking' organization? Isn't that being corporate in approach, which notion is criticized here all the time?

Sometimes people read what they expect instead of what is written.

So one of cases where it would benefit the members to act like a corporation it decides it wants to act like a mom and pop store.

[creekster]

So one of cases where it would benefit the members to act like a corporation it decides it wants to act like a mom and pop store.

Hyperbolize much?

The point is that the church is criticized for being too corporate (and certainly you would agree, I suspect, that you have seen that here?) and for being too non-corporate.

The Church is a very complex entity. AT the local level people interact with it for many reasons and in many different ways. Issues like donations and callings and home teaching are not simple business decisions; they affect lives in a myriad of ways that are frequently discounted or not even considered in discussions on this site. I would be in favor of changes in some policies and procedures, and this is one of them, but there are many considerations that an organization like a church has to include in its decision making process. It is not like a car loan; it is a personal and spiritual relationship that has many facets and many requirements and spans generations.

[Solon]

Really? Where did I say any of that? Best possible way? Look at my initial post. It suggested why MRD's reasoning may be incorrect and how some of his assumptions may be flawed. It was also directed at his suggestion (since abandoned, I think) of using paypal.

And what does it mean that it is supposed to be a 'forward looking' organization? Isn't that being corporate in approach, which notion is criticized here all the time?

Sometimes people read what they expect instead of what is written.

C'mon. I love you creekster, but you've come across as pretty condescending in this thread. The "people reading what they expect" line is an apt example. Let's leave that junk aside.

As I see it, the real issue isn't the superiority of one system of paying over the other, it's why the church prefers payment to the local unit. Since there's no obvious reason for this in the electronic age, we're reduced to wondering if it's about "making a personal connection"" or a conspiracy "to seem grass-rootsy" or the stubborn reluctance of gerontocrats to change the status quo.

So far, though, several posts seem geared towards pointing out why MRD's ideas wouldn't work. These objections are unconvincing since online donations clearly can work: the majority of charities and businesses are using methods for online payments. The apparent unwillingness of some posters to accept this is, I believe, the root of MRD's angst.

For whatever reasons, the church has decided not to do it. These reasons, whatever they may be, are the real question at hand, not the lack of feasibility. As far as I'm concerned, the feasibility argument is moot.

[Mormon Red Death]

Hyperbolize much?

The point is that the church is criticized for being too corporate (and certainly you would agree, I suspect, that you have seen that here?) and for being too non-corporate.

The Church is a very complex entity. AT the local level people interact with it for many reasons and in many different ways. Issues like donations and callings and home teaching are not simple business decisions; they affect lives in a myriad of ways that are frequently discounted or not even considered in discussions on this site. I would be in favor of changes in some policies and procedures, and this is one of them, but there are many considerations that an organization like a church has to include in its decision making process. It is not like a car loan; it is a personal and spiritual relationship that has many facets and many requirements and spans generations.

Come on man... the point is simple. The church doesn't offer an easy online payment system for the following reasons:

1) the guys in charge are old
2) they want the SP and BP to have control and see who pays tithing.
3) Solon's thought on the appearance of the money staying at the local level
4) They are so cheap that they prefer using free Human labor to spending a little money to make things easier
5) They remember when they were bishops and WFC and it took a long time to record the offerings. "Those guys need to pay their dues"
6) A combination of the above.

[creekster]

C'mon. I love you creekster, but you've come across as pretty condescending in this thread. The "people reading what they expect" line is an apt example. Let's leave that junk aside.

Well you didnt name names but I assumed you were suggesting that I was someone who claimed the current system was the best sytem and yet I never said anythign remotely close to that. So either you meant someone else (unlikely) or you were imputing that position to me based on your assumption. This happens to me a lot here and it gets a little tiresome.

As I see it, the real issue isn't the superiority of one system of paying over the other, it's why the church prefers payment to the local unit. Since there's no obvious reason for this in the electronic age, we're reduced to wondering if it's about "making a personal connection"" or a conspiracy "to seem grass-rootsy" or the stubborn reluctance of gerontocrats to change the status quo.

You are making a lot of assumptions here and you know it. You have no idea (and neither do I) to what degree the church has investigated this possibility. You have no idea what their reasoning is (and neither do I) but I couch my conclusions as speculation whereas you choose not to. Moreover, you discount or ignore other valid and legitmate reasons an orgnization such as the church might have for dealying a web interface for donations.

So far, though, several posts seem geared towards pointing out why MRD's ideas wouldn't work. These objections are unconvincing since online donations clearly can work: the majority of charities and businesses are using methods for online payments. The apparent unwillingness of some posters to accept this is, I believe, the root of MRD's angst.

Who said it wont work? No one said that, as far as I recall. I even use direct payment myself! You think I am arguing that it wont work??? The point is that the need for it may be greatly exaggerated. Furhter, the advanatge for the church my be overstated when copmpared to a secular orgnization, so they lack of such a ssytem is not surprising if those things are true. If the source of MRD's angst is that he thinks I or someone else said it wont work then he needs to read the posts again, as should you.

BTW, I love you too. Really.

[Solon]

Well you didnt name names but I assumed you were suggesting that I was someone who claimed the current system was the best sytem and yet I never said anythign remotely close to that. So either you meant someone else (unlikely) or you were imputing that position to me based on your assumption. This happens to me a lot here and it gets a little tiresome.



You are making a lot of assumptions here and you know it. You have no idea (and neither do I) to what degree the church has investigated this possibility. You have no idea what their reasoning is (and neither do I) but I couch my conclusions as speculation whereas you choose not to. Moreover, you discount or ignore other valid and legitmate reasons an orgnization such as the church might have for dealying a web interface for donations.




Who said it wont work? No one said that, as far as I recall. I even use direct payment myself! You think I am arguing that it wont work??? The point is that the need for it may be greatly exaggerated. Furhter, the advanatge for the church my be overstated when copmpared to a secular orgnization, so they lack of such a ssytem is not surprising if those things are true. If the source of MRD's angst is that he thinks I or someone else said it wont work then he needs to read the posts again, as should you.

BTW, I love you too. Really.

I'm imputing this position to you:

As with most things in the church (or anywhere else for that matter) the process lacks perfection, but I don't think it is that bad.

That's all.

I'm not making any assumptions about the church. I'm looking at what we know: namely, online donation is possible, but not preferred. The rest of this thread is us offering possible reasons for this.

I think the discussion of these possible reasons is interesting.

[creekster]

I'm imputing this position to you: That's all.

I'm not making any assumptions about the church. I'm looking at what we know: namely, online donation is possible, but not preferred. The rest of this thread is us offering possible reasons for this.

I think the discussion of these possible reasons is interesting.

Yes, that is what I said. Not exactly the same as saying it is the best, eh? It was also offered in the context of MRD's assertion that significant time would be saved for clerks and counselors with online payment plans.

[Solon]

Yes, that is what I said. Not exactly the same as saying it is the best, eh? .

You're really busting my balls here. I'm happy you want to get in the last word on who's putting words into whose mouth. I'll let you have it.

However, your time spent poking holes into MRD's assertion that online pay would save time (I don't know if it would or wouldn't), and the pissing contest (with others involved) about who has more experience in church finances might have been better spent explaining why the church prefers people to pay in an envelope, since it's not because the church is incapable of setting up some kind of system.

The best you've given us, so far, is that it creates a personal connection or shames other people into paying too. But you declined to respond to my follow-up observations, perhaps because you agree?

[creekster]

You're really busting my balls here. I'm happy you want to get in the last word on who's putting words into whose mouth. I'll let you have it.

However, your time spent poking holes into MRD's assertion that online pay would save time (I don't know if it would or wouldn't), and the pissing contest (with others involved) about who has more experience in church finances might have been better spent explaining why the church prefers people to pay in an envelope, since it's not because the church is incapable of setting up some kind of system.

The best you've given us, so far, is that it creates a personal connection or shames other people into paying too. But you declined to respond to my follow-up observations, perhaps because you agree?

I responded up above. I said:

As to Solon's comment, I think you are mixing issues. The mode of donation has little to do with whether the person believes the funds are staying locally. I really think it is pretty clearly set out that tithing does not stay locally. Our ward had a fifth Sunday devoted to this a year or two ago. Plus, one of our bishopric members gave a talk on tithing and made this clear a few weeks ago. The connection I spoke of was not meant to fool people into thinking tithing money stays local (although fast offerings do and they would also be in the envelope) but to allow a connection with the church on a personal level. The bishop is the representative of the Church locally. That's all.

Was there some other comment you thought I ignored?

[creekster]

You're really busting my balls here. I'm happy you want to get in the last word on who's putting words into whose mouth. I'll let you have it.

However, your time spent poking holes into MRD's assertion that online pay would save time (I don't know if it would or wouldn't), and the pissing contest (with others involved) about who has more experience in church finances might have been better spent explaining why the church prefers people to pay in an envelope, since it's not because the church is incapable of setting up some kind of system.

The best you've given us, so far, is that it creates a personal connection or shames other people into paying too. But you declined to respond to my follow-up observations, perhaps because you agree?

Also, sorry to be such a PITA about it, but your claim that i said ti was the best system annoyed me (as you could tell). I never claimed such. I never even thought it. In fact, I think an online system is a good diea. But it is not so cut and dired in the context fo the church like it would be for something like a book selling orgnzation. So if you want the last word now, go ahead; at this point probably you, me and MRD are the only ones reading.

[Solon]

your claim that i said ti was the best system annoyed me .

Good hell, man. I never claimed this. I said I was surprised at how strongly people were defending the current practice.

I also said that people were insisting that the current system was the best possible way - with the understanding that other ways were impractical or impossible. This is (to me) obviously not the case since it's clearly possible to do online.

And I never mentioned you specifically. You're not as persecuted as you want to be.

I do love you, though, creekster. you're the glue.

I'm taking a timeout.

[Mormon Red Death]

Also, sorry to be such a PITA about it, but your claim that i said ti was the best system annoyed me (as you could tell). I never claimed such. I never even thought it. In fact, I think an online system is a good diea. But it is not so cut and dired in the context fo the church like it would be for something like a book selling orgnzation. So if you want the last word now, go ahead; at this point probably you, me and MRD are the only ones reading.

I want the last word. I maintain my position that whoever is in charge of the decision to keep the donations the way they are should be ashamed. It pisses me off that other people in the ward can see how much I make a year. It also pisses me off that I can pay my cable bill in 2 seconds and get a year to date print out of what I paid at any time I want but for me to get my end of year statement from the church I have to wait until the WFC prints off all the statments then hands it too me at church. Especially when you consider the othe orgs I give too make it easy for me to donate.

[mUUser]

...
I FEEL LIKE I AM TAKING CRAZY PILLS!!!!

No kidding. What's the downside?

I think I better understand how resistance to change in the church on important matters happens, if no-brainer stuff like this gets pushback. Yikes.