A sign of the times?

[Mason]

  Vort said:

According to Google, Gregory Dodge is the supervisor of the LDS Church's membership records office.

Or was last time I checked.

  Quote

Are you suggesting that the mere presence of names on a membership record somehow magically produces revenue in the LDS Church? Or are you merely trying hard to be clever in suggesting that the LDS Church keeps names on its records in the hopes of squeezing some tithing money out of them?

The latter. There is nothing clever about it: Keep them on the roles, maybe one day, after years of pestering, they will re-activate and pay up.

Why else do you re-do proxy work in Temples over and over again, other than to keep them operating and the tithes flowing in? Think about that.

  Quote

So you are stating that Tim claims to be a prophet of God?

No, I am stating that Tim is not the first person to use selective exegesis to justify a theological position.

[beefche]

  Mason said:

The latter. There is nothing clever about it: Keep them on the roles, maybe one day, after years of pestering, they will re-activate and pay up.

Why else do you re-do proxy work in Temples over and over again, other than to keep them operating and the tithes flowing in? Think about that.

You made me laugh out loud on that one, Mason. Is that what people really think that Mormons do? Keep records just to keep tabs on people to get their money? What a sad way to view a group of people.

[Vort]

  Mason said:

  Vort said:

According to Google, Gregory Dodge is the supervisor of the LDS Church's membership records office.

Or was last time I checked.

And you expected me to know this -- how?

  Mason said:

  Vort said:

Are you suggesting that the mere presence of names on a membership record somehow magically produces revenue in the LDS Church? Or are you merely trying hard to be clever in suggesting that the LDS Church keeps names on its records in the hopes of squeezing some tithing money out of them?

The latter. There is nothing clever about it:

Agreed.

  Mason said:

Keep them on the roles, maybe one day, after years of pestering, they will re-activate and pay up.

You have not the slightest dim clue what you're talking about. There is no "back tithing".

  Mason said:

Why else do you re-do proxy work in Temples over and over again, other than to keep them operating and the tithes flowing in? Think about that.

Ah, that's right. We're trying to squeeze the last nickel out of dead people. THAT'S why we do temple work!

Yes, the temples are huge revenue generators for the Church. That's why each temple features a large, well-appointed counting room, where all that money coming in gets recorded.

  Mason said:

No, I am stating that Tim is not the first person to use selective exegesis to justify a theological position.

When you or I justify a theological position by selectively glossing scriptures, it's a "selective exegesis. When a prophet of God (e.g. Joseph Smith) does it, it's not "selective exegesis". It's God speaking to man.

[Mason]

  beefche said:

You made me laugh out loud on that one, Mason. Is that what people really think that Mormons do? Keep records just to keep tabs on people to get their money? What a sad way to view a group of people.

Certainly not what the average Mormon has in mind. Critics would probably levy this against the Hierarchy of the Church due to this:

Perhaps the greatest strength of critics is to point out that Mormonism requires Tithing in order to receive God's fullest blessings.

There is also the perception (right or wrong) that Temple work is key to maintaining tithing revenue. Without the Temple, tithing would likely dwindle to that of your average Catholic or Protestant denomination.

It's a cycle: Tithing = Temple = God's choicest blessings.

Basically forcing the truest of believers into paying Tithing whether it is financially sound for them to do so or not.

Next question: How does one increase revenue? Build more temples around the world so those in remote areas who might not have paid a full tithing previously, will now be more likely to do so with a near-proximity edifice.

The problem of a lack of names has been addressed numerous places on this and other LDS forums. It is fairly well known that names are re-used over and over again. Why? Well that's a good question. The critic will point out that if there are no proxies to do, people won't go to the temple. People stop going, people no longer recognize the need to pay tithing to have a recommend for a temple that they don't attend.

This reasoning also resonates with the inflated membership statistics reported every general conference. The LDS church is the only non-Catholic church I know of which reports as members those who haven't attended church in years. Suggesting to the average JOE that the church is growing, fulfilling prophecy, and should therefore be supported by Tithes and offerings regardless of temple attendance.

Is that a just criticism? Guess that depends which side of the fence you stand on.

[Mason]

  Vort said:

And you expected me to know this -- how?

Seems the typical internet Mormon knows more about these kinds of things than the non-internet Mormon.

  Quote

You have not the slightest dim clue what you're talking about. There is no "back tithing".

Are you misconstruing my posts on purpose? I said nothing about back tithing. I suggested that the hope is that once reactivated, they would start paying tithing again.

  Quote

Ah, that's right. We're trying to squeeze the last nickel out of dead people. THAT'S why we do temple work!

Again, not what I was suggesting. Read my last post to beefche.

  Quote

Yes, the temples are huge revenue generators for the Church. That's why each temple features a large, well-appointed counting room, where all that money coming in gets recorded.

Your humorless sarcasm is duly noted.

  Quote

When you or I justify a theological position by selectively glossing scriptures, it's a "selective exegesis. When a prophet of God (e.g. Joseph Smith) does it, it's not "selective exegesis". It's God speaking to man.

Sure it is.

[Vort]

  Mason said:

  Vort said:

When you or I justify a theological position by selectively glossing scriptures, it's a "selective exegesis. When a prophet of God (e.g. Joseph Smith) does it, it's not "selective exegesis". It's God speaking to man.

Sure it is.

Yes, of course it is. You would have to be a fool not to realize that, given the definition of the word "prophet".

But perhaps your implication is that Joseph Smith, and Thomas Monson, were and are not "real prophets". But in that case, you are wasting your time coming here and beating your breast about it. In case you didn't notice, this web site is called "LDS.net", not "antiMormon.net".

Duh.

[Hemidakota]

  Vort said:

Normally, I take only an academic interest in the goings-on of other denominations. Since their "priesthood" has about as much authority as the Great Priesthood of Vort, I welcome them to bestow such "authority" on whoever or whatever they want.

But I admit that I am troubled, and more than a bit entertained, by the news that US Lutherans have voted to ordain practicing homosexuals as clergy. A few of the news story's more entertaining parts:

"This will cause an ever greater loss in members and finances. I can't believe the church I loved and served for 40 years can condone what God condemns," said the Rev. Richard Mahan, pastor at St. Timothy Lutheran Church in Charleston, W.Va. (The name is just too appropriate for the comment!)

ELCA Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson said after the vote he was committed to keeping opponents of the new policy within the ELCA fold.

"I'm pleading with people to stay in there with us in this conversation," Hanson said. ("Please oh please oh please oh please OH PLEASE STAY!! Otherwise we'll lose a significant revenue stream! But of course, we don't think enough of your age-old traditional beliefs to include it in our cafeteria-style, democratically-decided Mind of God beliefs.")

ELCA supporters of its change said failure to ratify it ran just as great a risk of alienating large portions of the membership, particularly those from younger generations. (Because, you see, this isn't about anything as naïve as knowing and conforming to God's will. The point is, people will leave! And they'll take their wallets with them!)

Tim Mumm, a gay man and an assembly delegate from Whitewater, Wis., said the Scripture that guides opponents of the more liberal policy was written by mortals, at a much earlier time, and doesn't reflect what many Christians now believe. "I believe for me to marry a woman would be wrong — even sinful," Mumm said. (Don't you just love Tim's amazing ability to decipher which parts of holy writ aren't really holy after all? You just have to listen to your head! Though he's not specifying which one...I'm quite tempted to agree with him about the sinful unholiness of him marrying a woman, though.)

[Not reading every page] Snow, when reviewing Noah's day, wasn't the last straw for the Godhead when the family was under attack that brought society down? If it was, it will be the last straw for the Americas also....

[Moksha]

  prisonchaplain said:

... but that Christians will be snatched away ...

Snatched away to the rapture by Gypsy Angels who will leave imperfect duplicates in their place. These imperfect duplicates will spend their time awaiting the rapture.

[Kenny]

Ok, some people ought to be fictional writers because if any of this that has been quoted here were true then a book and movie deal is most certainly on the cards.

If the actually desire to know the REAL truth about church policy on tithing, temple work etc exists here then I'm sure any genuine LDS subscribing to this thread will be more than pleased to enlighten any desirable seeker.

[Maxel]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Church did want more tithing paid. After all, more tithing = more temples, money to contribute to various humanitarian efforts worldwide, and a more efficient and expanding welfare system. Plus, paying tithing brings blessings to the individual paying it. Why wouldn't the Church want more tithing paid?

And there's plenty of reasons for wanting to keep inactive members on the books- one being that home teachers doing their jobs can still keep tabs on them. It's the way the Kingdom of God works- seek after the lost sheep (at least until the lost sheep bites the hand of the shepherd and says 'go away, I don't want to be of your flock any more').

[Jamie123]

  Vort said:

Since their "priesthood" has about as much authority as the Great Priesthood of Vort, I welcome them to bestow such "authority" on whoever or whatever they want.

I might actually agree with you there. Though I'm an Anglican, I've always taken the concept of "priesthood" with a pinch of salt. I see the clerical offices (bishop, priest, deacon) as more akin to academic degrees, or to military ranks. The word "priest" actually comes from the Greek word for "elder" in the sense of a senior member of a community. ("President" and "preside" come from the same root.) This need not have anything to do with any divinely bestowed authority.

[FunkyTown]

  Vort said:

Yes, of course it is. You would have to be a fool not to realize that, given the definition of the word "prophet".

But perhaps your implication is that Joseph Smith, and Thomas Monson, were and are not "real prophets". But in that case, you are wasting your time coming here and beating your breast about it. In case you didn't notice, this web site is called "LDS.net", not "antiMormon.net".

Duh.

I disagree, Vort. No books of the Bible were written by prophets.

Except... I dunno... The Books of Moses. Was Moses a prophet? 'Cause if he was, that'd kinda blow my argument out of the water.

And Daniel. I guess he might've been a prophet.

And Isaiah.

NO! Prophets can't write clarifying scripture. It's silly to think they can.

[Mason]

  FunkyTown said:

I disagree, Vort. No books of the Bible were written by prophets.

Few books of the Bible were written by single authors, and none can be shown to be authored by the claimed authors.

Multiple authors of the Mosaic books, at least two different authors of Isaiah, etc.

[Mason]

  Jamie123 said:

I might actually agree with you there. Though I'm an Anglican, I've always taken the concept of "priesthood" with a pinch of salt. I see the clerical offices (bishop, priest, deacon) as more akin to academic degrees, or to military ranks. The word "priest" actually comes from the Greek word for "elder" in the sense of a senior member of a community. ("President" and "preside" come from the same root.) This need not have anything to do with any divinely bestowed authority.

You are spot on with the titles. But the divinely bestowed authority bit, well guess it depends on what you mean by divine authority?

[Mason]

  Vort said:

Yes, of course it is. You would have to be a fool not to realize that, given the definition of the word "prophet".

Prophets are just regular men and women who have agendas just like the rest of humanity.

Edited September 3, 2009 by Mason

[talisyn]

  Mason said:

Prophets are just regular men and women who have agendas just like the rest of humanity.

And they talk to God..and God talks back

[James_Fryman]

  talisyn said:

And they talk to God..and God talks back

Anyone can do that.

[Maxel]

  James_Fryman said:

Anyone can do that.

Anyone can, but few people actually do. Fewer still understand what God is saying to them.

[beefche]

  Maxel said:

Anyone can, but few people actually do. Fewer still understand what God is saying to them.

Agree. And He's not going to tell Maxel something for me.

[ryanh]

  beefche said:

And He's not going to tell Maxel something for me.

Which answers for other people a prophet can receive.

[Mason]

Technically speaking here folks, revelation in it's authentic definition is only revelation to the person who received it. It is hearsay to anyone else, and consequently we are not obligated to believe it.

[Maxel]

  Mason said:

Technically speaking here folks, revelation in it's authentic definition is only revelation to the person who received it. It is hearsay to anyone else, and consequently we are not obligated to believe it.

Err... Okay.

Do you understand the LDS doctrine of prophets (I'm not trying to be condescending; genuinely confused)? Personal revelation given to those not in authority fits the requirement of what you say- but revelation that makes its way to canonization we are most definitely under an obligation to believe, if we have a testimony of the work.

[beefche]

  Mason said:

Technically speaking here folks, revelation in it's authentic definition is only revelation to the person who received it. It is hearsay to anyone else, and consequently we are not obligated to believe it.

So, we have no obligation to believe the prophets? Does that mean I can discount everything in the Bible, BoM, D&C, POGP, Ensign.....

[Mason]

  Maxel said:

Err... Okay.

Do you understand the LDS doctrine of prophets (I'm not trying to be condescending; genuinely confused)? Personal revelation given to those not in authority fits the requirement of what you say- but revelation that makes its way to canonization we are most definitely under an obligation to believe, if we have a testimony of the work.

I do understand the LDS idea of prophets and how they relate to everyone else. I don't believe it personally, but I know where you are coming from.

That last post of mine is my own belief, not meant as an affront to your own. (And it was a borrowed quote from Thomas Paine btw.)

[beefche]

  Mason said:

I do understand the LDS idea of prophets and how they relate to everyone else. I don't believe it personally, but I know where you are coming from.

That last post of mine is my own belief, not meant as an affront to your own. (And it was a borrowed quote from Thomas Paine btw.)

I understand people who do not believe as the LDS do, but I'm assuming you are a Christian (forgive me if I'm wrong on that). As a Christian, do you not believe in the prophets of the Bible? Do you not believe that you are accountable for the teachings of the prophets in the Bible? If so, then I don't understand your earlier statement.