Another reason to ask about the Closed Books...

[_charity]

As happy as you - and people who share your worldview of the importance of obedience - are to simply obey and let the chips fall where they may, the fact is that there are other members of the church who do NOT share that particular worldview. It has always been this way, the fact that Heber had to preach like this demonstrates that even in the early days of the church there were some wild-eyed believers who actually thought they had a right to verify revelation BEFORE obeying, and who might just take it upon themselves to think it out, pray to God, and will believe that they don't have to pay tithing when it creates such financial stress on their family and plainly the church doesn't need it.

The fact is that there are already members who make this determination, and that's why full tithe payers are a minority in the overall church membership. So if you think that the church opening their books and demonstrating just how wealthy the church really IS won't increase that number, I think you're very wrong. Now you may privately judge them and conclude they are defying God, they didn't really receive the "Right" revelation, etc etc etc - but your judgment won't change the fact that the numbers who will make the choice to NOT pay tithing would probably increase if the books were open.

Tithing isn't and hasn't ever been a matter of money. It is a matter of faith. So any member who makes a decision to pay or not pay based on whether or not he wants to spend the money himself, or the Church already has enouhg, or whatever, he is in the wrong.

I don't doubt your statement that there are those who do that. But any reason they can give themselves or others, the real reason is a lack of faith and committment.

[_Blixa]

In the above, you appear to assign responsibility to the individual for not listening, denying or committing sin that clouds the light or extinguishes it. I chose the men that I listed intentionally. They are each of them, sufferers of mental illness and/or chronic early childhood abuse. Having said that, I am left to ask you if you think it was within their power to listen, accept or refrain from committing sin?

Yes, it was. Each man tried to cover up his crimes. That denotes conscienceness of guilt.

I'm not sure all of the men on Jersey Girl's list did actively participate in trying to "cover up his crimes."

Manson operatied pretty out in the open at Spahn ranch. Plenty of people knew what kind of thing he had going on there because they visited the place, something Manson encouraged since he was trying on some level to make it in the music industry. I think he has since denied in prison giving any direct murder orders, but this could actually be technically true: any study of "the family" emphasizes Manson's ability to communicate by inference and suggestion.

Dahmer was incredibly lax in his activities and could have been caught well before he was had not police in one crucial instance been blinded by their own homophobia. Many have commented on how reckless he was.

Hitler never attemped any grand cover up of "his crimes" because he never saw them as crimes. One of the most talked about elements of Nazi culture is how carefully the Nazi leadership documented their activities--because they beleived they were right. That's why the staggering footage of the death camps--something "everyone" has seen--exist.

Hussein I know the least about, but here there might be a better claim in that numbers and locations of scores of murdered people were not as carefully recorded as under Hitler. I don't know how much this could be attributed to different policies and "management styles" and how much could be construed as an admission of guilt. It is clear however that like the others Hussein and other Iraqi leaders felt that they were right and part of a just cause. He certainly did not go to his death like a guilty and cowering criminal, either.

[_beastie]

Tithing isn't and hasn't ever been a matter of money. It is a matter of faith. So any member who makes a decision to pay or not pay based on whether or not he wants to spend the money himself, or the Church already has enouhg, or whatever, he is in the wrong.

I don't doubt your statement that there are those who do that. But any reason they can give themselves or others, the real reason is a lack of faith and committment.

As I predicted, you are willing to judge members who would not continue to pay tithing if they were able to see for themselves just how wealthy the church is. Maybe God would be really, really, really mad at them if they stopped paying tithing if the church's books were open and they saw how wealthy the church is, in comparison to how much their own family needed the money. But that doesn't change the fact that it is likely, given the minority of tithe payers to begin with, that those numbers would be reduced if the church were to open their books.

Frankly, given how much the church is run like a business, I would surprised if they haven't carefully weighed that possibility and factored it into their decision in whether or not to open the books.

by the way, do you agree with Heber's statement?

[_harmony]

Tithing isn't and hasn't ever been a matter of money. It is a matter of faith. So any member who makes a decision to pay or not pay based on whether or not he wants to spend the money himself, or the Church already has enouhg, or whatever, he is in the wrong.

I don't doubt your statement that there are those who do that. But any reason they can give themselves or others, the real reason is a lack of faith and committment.

As I predicted, you are willing to judge members who would not continue to pay tithing if they were able to see for themselves just how wealthy the church is. Maybe God would be really, really, really mad at them if they stopped paying tithing if the church's books were open and they saw how wealthy the church is, in comparison to how much their own family needed the money. But that doesn't change the fact that it is likely, given the minority of tithe payers to begin with, that those numbers would be reduced if the church were to open their books.

Frankly, given how much the church is run like a business, I would surprised if they haven't carefully weighed that possibility and factored it into their decision in whether or not to open the books.

by the way, do you agree with Heber's statement?

I've always wondered how a church that says "family first" can take 10% of the poor's money, especially when it's so rich.

[_beastie]

I've always wondered how a church that says "family first" can take 10% of the poor's money, especially when it's so rich.

I've wondered if this attitude developed more fully during the period when the church began to be run by businessmen. Remember in the early days of the church the leader occasionally declared a blanket forgiveness for past tithing due? (I seem to recall BY did that at least once to celebrate some anniversary) I just can't imagine today's leaders making such a decision.

[_charity]

As I predicted, you are willing to judge members who would not continue to pay tithing if they were able to see for themselves just how wealthy the church is. Maybe God would be really, really, really mad at them if they stopped paying tithing if the church's books were open and they saw how wealthy the church is, in comparison to how much their own family needed the money. But that doesn't change the fact that it is likely, given the minority of tithe payers to begin with, that those numbers would be reduced if the church were to open their books.

I already agreed with this. You didn't have to repeat it.

Frankly, given how much the church is run like a business, I would surprised if they haven't carefully weighed that possibility and factored it into their decision in whether or not to open the books.

I don't concede what you charge. But if such a decision is being made on the basis of what effect it would have on members (and not some other reason we don't know about) it could be that a decision was made not to throw up another challenge for wavering members to have to face.

by the way, do you agree with Heber's statement?

Yes. I can't think of anything that a prophet has revealed that I haven't either felt a confirmation of right at the time, or that was worrisome enough for me to study, ponder and pray over. When I heard the news about the priesthood going to all worthy male members, there was no question. I had that confirmed on the spot. The expansion fo the temple building program. Ditto. Two earrings? Not anything to bother with. If I had multiple ear piercings and was worried about it, I would have maybe gone the SPP route.

[_BishopRic]

It is spiritual NOT temporal.

Then I'll write you a "spiritual check."

[_beastie]

If I had multiple ear piercings and was worried about it, I would have maybe gone the SPP route.

I think you ought to reread Heber's statement if you think this is consistent with his statement.

They forget that. Do you not see that I can learn more to be led than I can to lead, if I have the right man to lead me? Brother Brigham is my leader: he is my Prophet, my Seer, and my Revelator; and whatever he says, that is for me to do; and it is not for me to question him one word, nor to question God a minute. Do you not see?

[_charity]

I've always wondered how a church that says "family first" can take 10% of the poor's money, especially when it's so rich.

This is such a bogus argument. You are talking about people who buy their kids iPods and cell phones, and wardrobes that run into the hundreds of dollars. Who live in houses with multiple bathrooms, and think they are really poverty stricken if both their cars are more than 5 years old! Any expressed concern for "the poor" is crocodile tears.

I've wondered if this attitude developed more fully during the period when the church began to be run by businessmen. Remember in the early days of the church the leader occasionally declared a blanket forgiveness for past tithing due? (I seem to recall BY did that at least once to celebrate some anniversary) I just can't imagine today's leaders making such a decision.

This is what happens when a person comes back to full activity. They don't have to make up back tithing. In essence, it is "forgiven." Now, if they come into the bishop's office and tell him they want to go to the teple next week when their kid gets married, and oh, yes, here is my tithing for this week, that won't really wash. There has to be a demonstration of sincerity. I don't have the mantle of a bishop, nor his discernment, but from my less than perfect point of view a person who decides to pay tithing because he wants to go to the temple for a special occasion would not pass the sniff test.

[_harmony]

I've always wondered how a church that says "family first" can take 10% of the poor's money, especially when it's so rich.

This is such a bogus argument. You are talking about people who buy their kids iPods and cell phones, and wardrobes that run into the hundreds of dollars. Who live in houses with multiple bathrooms, and think they are really poverty stricken if both their cars are more than 5 years old! Any expressed concern for "the poor" is crocodile tears.

Wow, charity. 'way to demonstrate you understanding and compassion. Is that your definition of "poor"? You need to get out more. Come to my neighborhood and visit. Come to the school where my daughter teaches. Come to the reservation where I work. Then you'll know "poor" the next time someone says the word.

I've been there, charity. And I know exactly how hard it is to give 10% of my meager income away to the richest institution in my life. Don't patronize me with your notions of middle class poverty. I've lived the real thing.