Deciding to Tithe, Converts & Others

[Jamie123]

10 hours ago, dahlia said:

I suspect the people who call the church secretive would question the use of the word "all" in that sentence. No LDS missionary is going to volunteer any information on blood atonement, polygamy, the Book of Abraham controversy, the Danites or the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

But why stop there? Any religious proselitist (is that a word?) will be selective about what they'll tell you. No church's missionaries will tell you all about Joshua's massacre of the population of Jericho, Moses stoning that poor guy to death for collecting firewood on the Sabbath or Anias and Sapphira dropping dead for telling a few little "white lies" about their finances.

No Catholic's going to mention the Spanish Inquisition, and no Protestant's will want to talk about John Calvin burning Michael Servetus outside the gates of Geneva, for the abysmal crime of believing in the Trinity.

No one will ever tell you everything about anything - there's not enough time in the world!

Edited May 6, 2016 by Jamie123

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I suspect the people who call the church secretive would question the use of the word "all" in that sentence.

...

 

No one will ever tell you everything about anything - there's not enough time in the world!

I cant' tell if you're supporting or condemning... something.

[Jamie123]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I cant' tell if you're supporting or condemning... something.

Neither...I'm sitting on the fence as usual! :)

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

I suspect the people who call the church secretive would question the use of the word "all" in that sentence. No LDS missionary is going to volunteer any information on blood atonement, polygamy, the Book of Abraham controversy, the Danites or the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

If they have any choice in the matter, missionaries start by talking about Christ.  Why?  Cause He's the most important thing anyone could talk about!  It would be wrong to put something else first.  

If you do have questions about any of that stuff (which happens frequently), the missionaries can talk to you about that, and even point your to an official series of essays recently put out addressing each of those subjects.  

Nothing is hidden.

 

I was going to say more, but then you already said it perfectly:

1 hour ago, Jamie123 said:

No one will ever tell you everything about anything - there's not enough time in the world!

 

[Jamie123]

10 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I was going to say more, but then you already said it perfectly:

Great minds think alike ;)

[dahlia]

14 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I suspect the people who call the church secretive would question the use of the word "all" in that sentence. No LDS missionary is going to volunteer any information on blood atonement, polygamy, the Book of Abraham controversy, the Danites or the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

But why stop there? Any religious proselitist (is that a word?) will be selective about what they'll tell you. No church's missionaries will tell you all about Joshua's massacre of the population of Jericho, Moses stoning that poor guy to death for collecting firewood on the Sabbath or Anias and Sapphira dropping dead for telling a few little "white lies" about their finances.

No Catholic's going to mention the Spanish Inquisition, and no Protestant's will want to talk about John Calvin burning Michael Servetus outside the gates of Geneva, for the abysmal crime of believing in the Trinity.

No one will ever tell you everything about anything - there's not enough time in the world!

Oh for crying out loud. It's meant to be light hearted.

When I was investigating, I found all the 'difficult' Mormon history on the internet. Some was actually posted by the Church, some by those with an ax to grind, and some info as a part of authoritative history sites. Do I expect the elders to have told me every little thing, no - but it might have been a good thing for some of them to have read that history before they got out in the world and met people who would have no problem telling them about it. 

[LeSellers]

18 minutes ago, dahlia said:

it might have been a good thing for some of them to have read that history before they got out in the world and met people who would have no problem telling them about it. 

I'm not alone in calling this practice (except we don't actually practice it) "inoculation".

Lehi

[Vort]

At the risk of taking too seriously a not-too-seriously-meant post (and from a poster whose contributions I greatly enjoy):

15 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I suspect the people who call the church secretive would question the use of the word "all" in that sentence. No LDS missionary is going to volunteer any information on blood atonement, polygamy, the Book of Abraham controversy, the Danites or the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

But why stop there? Any religious proselitist (is that a word?) will be selective about what they'll tell you. No church's missionaries will tell you all about Joshua's massacre of the population of Jericho, Moses stoning that poor guy to death for collecting firewood on the Sabbath or Anias and Sapphira dropping dead for telling a few little "white lies" about their finances.

Blood atonement: This refers to musings of Brigham Young and others along the general theme that a murderer's blood must be shed so that his sins can be atoned for, and that the murderer himself must (or should) see to this. As a doctrinal matter, it was never practiced, and its status as a "doctrine of the Church" is dubious at best. I would be very surprised if the majority or even a significant minority of missionaries (or Church members generally) even knew about this.

Polygamy: Missionaries will happily "volunteer information" about polygamy if asked, assuming they know anything about it. Since plural marriage is not a Church practice and has not been for over 120 years, there is no reason a missionary should be preaching it to an investigator. This is much ado about nothing, literally.

The Book of Abraham "controversy": The "controversy" is that some people don't believe that the Book of Abraham is authentic. Big freaking deal. The specifics about the papyrus manuscripts and what was used for what are tangential at best and utterly irrelevant at worst.

Danites: Has any topic been more thoroughly overwrought or misrepresented? The Saints tried to protect themselves by many means, and ultimately had to flee for their lives. The "Danite" hysteria, past or present, has never been anything other than an excuse to dismiss or badmouth the Saints of the Nauvoo period.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre: This has as much to do with the Church as the Black Panthers had to do with the US government. Which is to say, nothing. Another and even more bitter example of an excuse to badmouth the Saints, in this case Brigham Young in particular. The event was a horrific tragedy; imputing it to Brigham Young or as part of any sort of Church policy is the work of liars.

Ananias and Sapphira: I am convinced that pretty much everyone who is not Mormon (and many Latter-day Saints, for that matter) badly misunderstand this story. It is crystal clear to me what is going on: Ananias and Sapphira had entered into a sacred covenant to have their goods in common with others in the Church, not unlike the early Saints' attempts at living a "united order". In this "order", Ananias and Sapphira had made a sacred covenant with God to give all they had over to the Church and receive back their allotted portion. Instead, they sold their property (which was no longer theirs at all, but God's) and held some of the price back, thinking they could hookwink Peter and keep a bit of coin on the side. But Peter was not deceived. What is much more important, God was not deceived. Ananias and Sapphira had betrayed their own sacred covenant, one that they had entered into freely and without compulsion -- a covenant that was designed to exalt them. Instead, they suffered the consequences of a broken covenant, the very same consequences we suffer when we break our covenants: Death. In their case, it was immediate physical death; we can only hope that their deaths somehow allowed them to atone for their infamous actions (see Blood Atonement ). In our case, such betrayal causes spiritual (and perhaps physical) death, and we find ourselves in dire need of repentance.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Vort

[Jamie123]

1 hour ago, dahlia said:

Oh for crying out loud. It's meant to be light hearted.

Do I expect the elders to have told me every little thing.. . 

Well exactly - that was pretty much the the point I was trying to make (though not very clearly as it seems) 

Edited May 7, 2016 by Jamie123

[Jamie123]

27 minutes ago, Vort said:

Ananias and Sapphira: I am convinced that pretty much everyone who is not Mormon (and many Latter-day Saints, for that matter) badly misunderstand this story. It is crystal clear to me what is going on: Ananias and Sapphira had entered into a sacred covenant to have their goods in common with others in the Church, not unlike the early Saints' attempts at living a "united order". In this "order", Ananias and Sapphira had made a sacred covenant with God to give all they had over to the Church and receive back their allotted portion. Instead, they sold their property (which was no longer theirs at all, but God's) and held some of the price back, thinking they could hookwink Peter and keep a bit of coin on the side. But Peter was not deceived. What is much more important, God was not deceived. Ananias and Sapphira had betrayed their own sacred covenant, one that they had entered into freely and without compulsion -- a covenant that was designed to exalt them. Instead, they suffered the consequences of a broken covenant, the very same consequences we suffer when we break our covenants: Death. In their case, it was immediate physical death; we can only hope that their deaths somehow allowed them to atone for their infamous actions (see Blood Atonement ). In our case, such betrayal causes spiritual (and perhaps physical) death, and we find ourselves in dire need of repentance.

It's pretty scary though all the same. As a young man (before I grew old and flippant) I used to be terrified by this story. I I used to think "what hope is there for me?" It also made me very angry when people made cheap jokes about it. Maybe I need to get to get the fear of God back into me... . 

[LeSellers]

On 5/7/2016 at 11:03 PM, Jamie123 said:

On 5/7/2016 at 10:25 PM, Vort said:

Ananias and Sapphira: I am convinced that pretty much everyone who is not Mormon (and many Latter-day Saints, for that matter) badly misunderstand this story. It is crystal clear to me what is going on: Ananias and Sapphira had entered into a sacred covenant to have their goods in common with others in the Church, not unlike the early Saints' attempts at living a "united order". In this "order", Ananias and Sapphira had made a sacred covenant with God to give all they had over to the Church and receive back their allotted portion. Instead, they sold their property (which was no longer theirs at all, but God's) and held some of the price back, thinking they could hookwink Peter and keep a bit of coin on the side. But Peter was not deceived. What is much more important, God was not deceived. Ananias and Sapphira had betrayed their own sacred covenant, one that they had entered into freely and without compulsion -- a covenant that was designed to exalt them. Instead, they suffered the consequences of a broken covenant

It's pretty scary though all the same. As a young man (before I grew old and flippant) I used to be terrified by this story.

It is a scary story, and we should all be terrified of it. The problem is this:

On 5/7/2016 at 11:03 PM, Jamie123 said:

I used to think "what hope is there for me?"

It might be helpful to review the account from Acts 4:34~5:11

Quote

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 

3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?  4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.  6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.  8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.  9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.  10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband. 11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

We can see (5:4) that they were under no compulsion, but had entered into a covenant (the Law of Consecration and Stewardship) regarding the property. Then they "agreed together to tempt [test or cheat] the Spirit of the Lord". It was the purposeful attempt to break the covenant that got them killed. (Talk about a hard Temple Recommend interview!!!)

The thing is that God knows we are imperfect and He makes allowances (it's called repentance and the Atonement) for our weaknesses. But willful rebellion, planned disobedience, that's the issue.

The hope there is for you is Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, Repentance, Baptism for the remission of sins, and the Gift of the Holy Ghost — in other words, the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Lehi

 

Edited May 8, 2016 by LeSellers

[thoughts]

The question for any saint who wishes to live with God again is whether he or she can submit his own will fully to God.   Returning to Him 10 percent is merely a way to practice that submission --there are times when He requires much more of us in time and even in resources.    If we are unwilling to faithfully pay tithes, we are going to have real trouble giving our all to Him, as we are individually asked to do.

The protection from burning by tithepaying at the last day isn't some external thing.  It is the protection of committing ourselves to His kingdom, to His way of thinking (to the extent mortals can know that), and to being like Him.

I don't consider my tithing as charity.   I think as we can afford to do so, we should consider giving charitable donations in FO, humanitarian funds,  and secular charities that are reputable and effective, of considerably more.

[dahlia]

Thanks again everyone for the responses. I was able to use some of them, and my own story,  in my lesson and we got a lot of conversation.