LittleWyvern

I have never said that we should accept all answers, but instead that we should accept all answers that aren't contradictory. I'm getting the feeling that you aren't attempting to understand what I have to say, and instead trying to trick me into saying something. Regardless, I'm saying that there may be different ways of defining income that all may be right so long as they don't contradict the commandment of paying tithing. Doing mental gymnastics to get out of paying tithing at all obviously contradicts the commandment. The example that I'm trying to get at is that interpretations such as "gross pay," "net pay," or "10% of whatever my personal finance says is my income" are fine because they don't contradict the commandment of tithing. God lets us work out the details, but I don't believe He lets us change the commandments themselves. Again, if you understood what I'm trying to say you'd realize these questions are illogical. The line as I understand it is between the abstractions (or, as some call it, the interface) and the implementation. The commandments taught by God are not up for debate, but the ways we follow these commandments can certainly be a topic of discussion. If you feel I am spreading lies or confusing people with anything I say, please, mention them explicitly instead of just tilting your head and mouthing "look over there!"

I'm So Meta, Even This Acronym

This is completely and utterly ridiculous. Let me go back to something I said earlier to explain why: Pay attention to that word implement, because I'm going to explain the difference a commandment and its implementation. We all know the common refrain from our parents: "clean your room!" I'm going to liken that to a commandment. With that commandment we may be given specific guidelines, such as "leave nothing on the floor" and "put your toys in that shelf," but not everything is specified. Many things are left up to the child's personal preference, such as the order he or she cleans things in the room or the order of the toys on the shelf. This is by design: having to specify everything would be tedious and would suddenly become worthless once one little thing (such as a new toy) changes. Thus, the child must decide some things on their own. Now repeat this thought exercise to ten children in ten different houses. Each child may decide to clean their room in their own way, but as long as their room is clean and the guidelines are followed, no one child is cleaning their room the "right" way. They are free to implement the commandment as they please, so far as they follow the commandment. This is what I mean by implement. Continuing my example, your statement is like saying a child can decide not to clean their room and still say he or she is following the commandment because not everything was exactly specified, which makes absolutely no sense. Not paying tithing ever obviously violates the commandment of paying tithing, and as God is just, He would not conflict Himself like this. However, we are given the commandment of paying 10 percent of "our income" and are left to determine how we should calculate "income." That is what I think needs to be decided between us and the Lord: the concretions. Some commandments, like tithing or cleaning our room, contain some abstractions which we are to decide how to implement based on prayer, study, and personal revelation so far as they do not violate the abstractions themselves. Different people may have their own implementations, and that's perfectly fine: no one person is "right" as far as they are still following the commandment.

God does not spell out every little detail of exactly how He wants us to follow His commandments. God does this, I think, to help us grow. Sometimes, we have to think, study, pray, and ask for personal revelation. The answer we get may be different than an answer someone else may get, but I think going through the process of studying and praying is the point here, and the process of becoming proficient in these things is why it helps us grow and progress in the first place. Sure, it can be used to justify bad behavior as many have been quick to mention, but more often than not I think it means someone is trying to come to know something for themselves about how they should implement some Gospel teaching, and that's generally a good thing.

Now imagine the same scenario in a country where religious people were a small minority (say, 10% or so) and you've discovered why I don't like free discrimination: it simply lets the majority discriminate against the minority while leaving the minority with little to no recourse (hint: the discovery involves understanding the weakness of your "I can just go somewhere else" assumption).

Well, sure, I understand that this project will stimulate the profits of real estate managers and high-end clothing retailers, but the thing I don't understand is why the Church wants to be in this business anyway. I'm not opposed to them being in this business, but it seems slightly out of character, if nothing else.

Ok, then I think--

It's certainly a major investment in the economic and social well-being of real estate agents. Before you pounce on me for this, I'm not against this development, I just don't understand the rationale behind it.

Yeah, but this is neither food nor a rope.

Some pay gross, some pay net, but I pay 10% of "hey personal finance program, what was my income for this month?" Whatever category that happens to be, I don't know. If I try doing anything more complicated than this I end up more confused than anything.

I read an article in a sociology class that argued that the younger generation is postponing marriage because marriage is becoming less common. Thus, marriage is becoming less "something everybody does" and more a prestigious accomplishment, so young adults increasingly think marriage is something you have to build up to over time. I'm sure I'm massively oversimplifying the paper, so I'll try to find the reference to it.

Uh... cool?

Hm. My first thought is that perhaps the Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden and the Tree of Life in Lehi's Vision are meant to be two different trees both literally and metaphorically, but I really haven't thought of this before

I probably already said this in the last thread you mentioned BJU (I can't keep track of all the instances of that), but assuming the theoretical test of a tax-exempt organization is whether or not it supports the public good and/or provides a public service, I think churches pass that test far more easily than schools do. So, BYU might have lost its tax-exempt status, but I have a hard time believing the Church itself would. We'll never know the answer to this question, of course.

This seems kinda silly. Our church is a tax-exempt organization because it falls under the category of a charitable organization. Charitable organizations are tax-exempt in many countries as it is believed (in general) that such organizations provide a public good or support public services. In the US, for instance, religious organizations are explicitly listed in the tax code in regard to tax-exempt organizations. There isn't any flying under the radar or bucking the system involved here. That being said, though, I highly doubt that the Church's tax-exempt status is in any danger unless massive changes (like removing charitable organizations from the list of tax-exempt organizations) are made to the tax code.

I don't think that question is nearly as important as "How can we keep our eternal marriages strong regardless what the world thinks of marriage?"

Well now I'm just confused. I was trying to reinforce your idea that calling someone racist over being outraged by this commercial is nonsensical (and suggested more accurate terms for the specific kind of outrage which were clearly never intended to apply generally to a person), but now we're talking about labeling loops somehow and my brain can't handle it. Never mind.

I was clearly speaking in a general sense only. Please reread the following before dishonestly accusing me of labeling people:

Racist isn't even the right term for it. Maybe it's language-ist? Xenophobic and nationalist might also fit depending on the reason why someone is outraged by the commercial.

Well, Handbook 2 does say this: Which seems to rule out any use of the ward directory for commercial purposes. EDIT: I'd talk to your bishop if you're concerned that your personal information is being used in this way.

You should probably ask your doctor.

Well, certainly the arrival of smartphones has its own unique problems and threats (although the threats of smartphones are very similar to the Internet, laptops, and pay-per-view digital television). I didn't mean to say the anticipated dangers of each new technology is the same, but that we make the same sort of cost/benefit analysis each time. When it comes to something as rapidly changing as phone technology, a cost/benefit analysis you did just a few months ago may already be based on incorrect assumptions. I think with smartphones in particular the "how does smartphone use for children outweigh the risks?" question is still in the process of being answered. Smartphones are still such a novel concept that one could argue that we still don't have a proper framework to even ask the right kinds of questions (for instance, can the question be solved by technology, or can we only depend on the maturity of the user?). There's a lot of technology and innovative software still being developed that are trying to either answer questions or provide frameworks, and so that question is going to have different answers for different age groups and different times. Now, please don't take this to mean that I'm arguing for or against giving pre-teens cellphones. I personally think the technology is still too undeveloped for that. What I am arguing for is a more investigative and open approach to technology in general. With regards to technology, we can't just use the same answers we used 5-10 years ago and stop at that. The questions or the entire framework behind those answers has probably changed. I think we run the risk of missing out on the good that can come from technology when we do that. I think that, ideally, rules about technology should be made with the knowledge of the capabilities and unsolved questions about the technology in mind and with open conversation between parent and child. Of course, I study computer science, so take my comments with as large a grain of salt as you find necessary.