Newordermormon.org

[cougjunkie]

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.

We need more apostates like Flystripper.

[UtahDan]

Despite UtahDan's protests, the gibbon is exactly right. The argument is obscured by the method.

So in the context of a discussion about what your physical presence in a building costs (not what value you receive) what would a good analogy be? In other words if I didn't want to pay 10 percent but wanted to pay my fair share for the cost, maintenance and upkeep of the building, what could I compare that to?

That is never what I did, by the way, but I know people who do. I'm just imagining creek spilling Postum all over himself as he wonders weather I really just compared to church to a gym. It's not what I was doing it all.

[lambdacoug]

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

Why? A per person measure isn't terribly out of place, its used for a lot of measures. The point is that the church can do more, but doesn't. It drops billions in real estate, but only tens of millions to help the needy. That is what is shameful, or should be, for a church that claims to follow the teachings of jesus.

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.

That is nothing more than a petty rationalization. The needy and downtrodden find your house being in order to be irrelevant to their plight.

[cougjunkie]

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.

Cowboy just came in and owned this thread. Adam is a lawyer so it wouldn't surprise me if he lies to his bishop.

[Indy Coug]

Cowboy just came in and owned this thread. Adam is a lawyer so it wouldn't surprise me if he lies to his bishop.

Based on Adam's own rantings and ravings, tithing is the least of his problems when it comes to a TR interview. If he's lying to us then he still has the "honest in your dealings" issue, but that isn't quite as serious because who cares about being honest with a bunch of internet strangers?

[Sullyute]

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.

If it were that simple then we wouldn't be having the discussion we are. First, there are plenty of people who believe the Church to be true and pay tithing, but do not agree with how the funds are spent. Second, how can we know whether or not we agree or disagree with how the funds are spent or invested without some financial disclosure?

[Flystripper]

If it were that simple then we wouldn't be having the discussion we are. First, there are plenty of people who believe the Church to be true and pay tithing, but do not agree with how the funds are spent. Second, how can we know whether or not we agree or disagree with how the funds are spent or invested without some financial disclosure?

Isn't this a discussion for tithe payers then? This discussion has been mostly between nonbelievers and believers. Carry on though, I don't really care about the discussion all that much since I don't pay into the system anymore.

BTW a lack of transparency is a known fact before you pay tithing. If this lack of transparency bothers you significantly, you may wish to donate elsewhere.

EDIT : I can see why stakeholders would want more transparency and that topic is probably a worthwhile discussion for tithepayers to have. I just don't see the point of non-tithepayers joining in that conversation and telling the tithepayers and church what they should be doing with their money when they have no skin in the game. Since I have ironically joined the conversation I will now take my advice and leave it alone.

[DrumNFeather]

Ah yes, 1.3 Billion since 1985...one of the correlated messages used by the exmos/mostos folks.

[Moliere]

Church welfare should also be considered as humanitarian aid.

Not according to atheistcougar...

[Indy Coug]

There's a very easy way for humanitarian aid numbers to go up: put a larger number on the Humanitarian Aid row of your tithing slp. Problem solved.

[lambdacoug]

Ah yes, 1.3 Billion since 1985...one of the correlated messages used by the exmos/mostos folks.

Are you suggesting that this somehow renders the message invalid?

[Indy Coug]

Not according to atheistcougar...

Atheistcougar is obviously blinded by rage. I know exactly how much our humble branch spent each year in welfare. It was a staggering sum of money.

[Pheidippides]

So in the context of a discussion about what your physical presence in a building costs (not what value you receive) what would a good analogy be? In other words if I didn't want to pay 10 percent but wanted to pay my fair share for the cost, maintenance and upkeep of the building, what could I compare that to?

That is never what I did, by the way, but I know people who do. I'm just imagining creek spilling Postum all over himself as he wonders weather I really just compared to church to a gym. It's not what I was doing it all.

If you can't see the myriad problems inherent in your analogy, you are every bit as obtuse as you claim creekster is. I can translate that into cougjunkie if you'd like. Better yet, maybe he will. Admit it was a dumb analogy (or, at a minimum, at least two people with a lot of training in sophistry think it to be a dumb analogy) and try again, maybe.

[Omaha 680]

I know exactly how much our humble branch spent each year in welfare. It was a staggering sum of money.

I hear you. Our clerk was out Sunday so the BP asked me to stay after counting donations because he had some interviews and would likely need some checks. I cut 3 checks for 2 people totalling about $1000. This is one Sunday for one branch with average attendance of maybe 50 people. I know this is from the FO fund, but to exculde it from a discussion of Church aid to the needy seems weird.

[lambdacoug]

Church welfare should also be considered as humanitarian aid.

Not according to atheistcougar...

This is what I actually said re: church welfare and humanitarian aid.

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 large portion of that donation where it is needed the most (not the US).

Welfare counts, but doesn't count for much in 3rd world countries because there is not a lot of welfare that can be provided due to a smaller number of members. In addition, church welfare is primarily used for members, which diminishes its impact, IMO. In my experience, it is also often contingent on tithing, though certainly not always.