Newordermormon.org

[Jacob]

These people don't want to disrupt things at church, so they don't question doctrines, argue, etc at church. But they feel like they need a place to talk things out, express their feelings, join with like minded people, etc. Surely you can see the need for this, right?

So one question would be: do you want these people attending church or would you rather they stay away? And if you would have them attend church, do you see the value they would get from participating in a forum like newordermormon.org?

I agree with the first quoted paragraph. I see the need. But the second paragraph doesn't seem to follow. I doubt it is common that unbelievers are discouraged from attending church. Everyone wants them to continue attending because they believe they will eventually realize that it is all true.

Come on. Correlation doesn't equal causation. I have my issues with the tithing-temple recommend connection, but one has to be an incredibly jaded cynic to believe that the entire active-LDS church membership is complicit in a cash-flow scam.

I agree. Plus, what's the big deal about a temple recommend? If you are a non-believer, which causes you to stop paying tithes, what's your interest in temple attendance? I suppose there are a few marriages during a lifetime one might miss out on.

However even after leaving every last dollar when they pass away to the church as well as quite a bit of land, my mother in law says that she wishes she could do more as she could never repay everything the LDS church has done for her.

I think the majority feel that way.

I seriously doubt it it the majority. I'd say it is a very small minority. First of all, most people don't have much of an estate to pass on. What they do have goes to their children.
Of all the estate plans I've ever prepared for faithful and wealthy members of the church, not one of them wanted to leave their estate to the church. Every one of them left it to their children, with the church as a contingent beneficiary if all of their kids failed to survive the parents. Though I recall a few people making minor contributions to the perpetual education fund.

[Jacob]

I'd rather give my 10% to give the poor and downtrodden more than a good feeling. The church is woefully lacking in humanitarian aid, and its shameful.

This comment surprises me, coming from you.

[cougjunkie]

I agree with the first quoted paragraph. I see the need. But the second paragraph doesn't seem to follow. I doubt it is common that unbelievers are discouraged from attending church. Everyone wants them to continue attending because they believe they will eventually realize that it is all true.


I agree. Plus, what's the big deal about a temple recommend? If you are a non-believer, which causes you to stop paying tithes, what's your interest in temple attendance? I suppose there are a few marriages during a lifetime one might miss out on.



I seriously doubt it it the majority. I'd say it is a very small minority. First of all, most people don't have much of an estate to pass on. What they do have goes to their children.
Of all the estate plans I've ever prepared for faithful and wealthy members of the church, not one of them wanted to leave their estate to the church. Every one of them left it to their children, with the church as a contingent beneficiary if all of their kids failed to survive the parents. Though I recall a few people making minor contributions to the perpetual education fund.

You misread or I did not explain very well. I meant the majority felt like they weren't giving enough back to the church considering what they have received.

[Omaha 680]

I'd rather give my 10% to give the poor and downtrodden more than a good feeling. The church is woefully lacking in humanitarian aid, and its shameful.

Have you shifted the 10% of your income you used to pay for tithing to various other charities and humanitarian organizations of your choice? This isn't an attack. I'm honestly curious.

[lambdacoug]

I'd rather give my 10% to give the poor and downtrodden more than a good feeling. The church is woefully lacking in humanitarian aid, and its shameful.

This comment surprises me, coming from you.

http://lds.org/church/statistics?lang=eng

From that page, since 1985, the church has provided $1.3B in humanitarian aid. In 27 years, the church has donated an average of about $48M every year for humanitarian aid, or less than $5 per member per year.

[lambdacoug]

Have you shifted the 10% of your income you used to pay for tithing to various other charities and humanitarian organizations of your choice? This isn't an attack. I'm honestly curious.

No, but I have donated far more to humanitarian aid than my previous tithing donations would have amounted to in the years since leaving the church.

[Moliere]

I'd rather give my 10% to give the poor and downtrodden more than a good feeling. The church is woefully lacking in humanitarian aid, and its shameful.

Shameful to you but not me. Sure I have a tough time with the CCC and other investments like that but in some sense the church is well positioned for the future of the US, which is likely to be a larger welfare state. There is a declining need for religious humanitarian aid thanks in part to the growing liberal policies that provide for the poor.

And I've also stated it before as well, but the church does a lot more good than people here know. You just conveniently use the church HQ as your stopping point for scoping what constitutes as the church's humanitarian actions. I increase that scope to include ward, YW, YM, Primary, etc. service projects as well as the RS providing emotional, spiritual, temporal relief to those in need. And FTR and IMO, your scoping is wrong and mine is more correct.

[cougjunkie]

http://lds.org/church/statistics?lang=eng

From that page, since 1985, the church has provided $1.3B in humanitarian aid. In 27 years, the church has donated an average of about $48M every year for humanitarian aid, or less than $5 per member per year.

Your numbers are skewed you need to look at it per active family instead of per member. How many members actually pay tithing?

1.3 billion is a big number. That does not even include the welfare numbers within the church. That is just humanitarian aid. Think about that for a minute you need to make sure your house is in order before you help others.

[Moliere]

http://lds.org/church/statistics?lang=eng

From that page, since 1985, the church has provided $1.3B in humanitarian aid. In 27 years, the church has donated an average of about $48M every year for humanitarian aid, or less than $5 per member per year.

Funny how when chruch leaders talk about 14 million members they get criticized for stating the "inflated" membership numbers. But when such a large number suits the critics argument it is used without scrutiny.

Your scoping is also horribly wrong, but I already addressed that in another post.

[lambdacoug]

Shameful to you but not me. Sure I have a tough time with the CCC and other investments like that but in some sense the church is well positioned for the future of the US, which is likely to be a larger welfare state. There is a declining need for religious humanitarian aid thanks in part to the growing liberal policies that provide for the poor.

And I've also stated it before as well, but the church does a lot more good than people here know. You just conveniently use the church HQ as your stopping point for scoping what constitutes as the church's humanitarian actions. I increase that scope to include ward, YW, YM, Primary, etc. service projects as well as the RS providing emotional, spiritual, temporal relief to those in need. And FTR and IMO, your scoping is wrong and mine is more correct.

Fair enough, there is a lot of value to that. However, that aid will not reach the rest of the world. It is localized to communities, the large majority of which are in Utah, ID, AZ, and CA and the rest of the US. IMO, if a religion claims to adhere to christian values and has a global reach, it should do more than $5 per member per year to help the needy and it should do so a loarge portion of that donation where it is needed the most (not the US).

[cowboy]

It is hard to justify the paying of 10% of your income to a corporate entity that you don't think actually speaks for God. Once you stop paying the 10%, you lose your Temple recommend. Once you lose your recommend, you are a second-class member, a project, and all leadership opportunities are lost to you. Unless you are willing to stay in the Church with those limitations, you leave. The vast majority, finding themselves thus ostracized (by their own realizations/choices) do not wish to abide as second class citizens and leave.

It all starts with realizing that the President isn't necessarily a Prophet, pretty soon you don't want to fund massive land purchases in Nebraska or Swarovski Crystal shops in high end shopping centers, and it is a very slippery slope from there to out.

Very few can put the demons back in Pandora's box and very few can be happy in a society that views them as apostate, weak, and/or dangerous.

Once you stop believing that the president is a prophet, then you are already ineligible for a recommend. If you're willing to lie about your belief in the prophet, then why not lie about your tithing and tell the bishop you pay to HQ? Selective honesty in this regard appears to be an attempt to play the martyr and lay the blame at the pet issue of your (or those you speak for) choosing.

[Flystripper]

Have you shifted the 10% of your income you used to pay for tithing to various other charities and humanitarian organizations of your choice? This isn't an attack. I'm honestly curious.

You were not asking me, but I have not. I do give to charity but nowhere near 10%. The amount is probably closer to 5%. Tithing was not the reason I left though, and I don't have any beef with the way that tithes or offerings are administered in the church. Could more be done for humanitarian aide? I don't know. That is for the church and its stakeholders to decide. Why would I bitch about what an organization does or does not do with its money when I am no longer contributing to that organization? If people don't like how the church administers its funds then they shouldn't give money to the church. It is pretty simple really.

[lambdacoug]

Funny how when chruch leaders talk about 14 million members they get criticized for stating the "inflated" membership numbers. But when such a large number suits the critics argument it is used without scrutiny.

Your scoping is also horribly wrong, but I already addressed that in another post.

For the sake of making the math simpler I used the number of 10M members average over the 27 years. That number is wrong, but it was an estimate to make the math easier and within the realm of what the church claims as membership. If you care to cut the number in half of 10M over the 27 years, then it amounts to $10 per member per year. That isn't much better.

[Indy Coug]

Once you stop believing that the president is a prophet, then you are already ineligible for a recommend. If you're willing to lie about your belief in the prophet, then why not lie about your tithing and tell the bishop you pay to HQ? Selective honesty in this regard appears to be an attempt to play the martyr and lay the blame at the pet issue of your (or those you speak for) choosing.

[Indy Coug]

Funny how when chruch leaders talk about 14 million members they get criticized for stating the "inflated" membership numbers. But when such a large number suits the critics argument it is used without scrutiny.

Your scoping is also horribly wrong, but I already addressed that in another post.

Church welfare should also be considered as humanitarian aid.