Grunt

Financial Whistleblower

Recommended Posts

I'm not sure what others are doing, but in our area:
1. Stake Presidency still individually meets with Bishops, stake leaders and those needing temple recommends.
2. Bishops still meet individually with ward leaders for PPIs & organization transition needs, members seeking welfare assistance and temple recommendations.
3. Our Stake is currently participating in a survey from the area presidency to assess current and future job security of our members, try to figure out welfare projections.*

*this survey is what prompted my comments yesterday. The church, in our area, is actively preparing/situating itself to be of increased financial/welfare assistance right now.

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I believe that in the last month or two Ensign Peak filed a disclosure indicating around $40-50 billion in stock market holdings, which would mean the rest of the $120-billion holdings would be in real estate or privately-held corporate interests.  If the Church’a stock holdings track the DJIA, then the total “rainy day” holdings might have lost $13-17 billion in value; leaving it with a cool $103-107 billion.

But I agree with you that I don’t expect them to get into the fund for this.  First off, doing so would require to cash out their holdings for less than what they paid for them—never a fun position to be in.  And second, like you, I think there are worse things over the horizon.

 @NeedleinA is right—it sure feels good to look at all the critics from last December and say “yeah, who’s the crazy one NOW?!?”  But we should probably steel ourselves for the likelihood that the Church is not about to appreciably increase its humanitarian spending in any easily visible or publicly quantifiable way—not from its rainy day fund, anyways..  

I imagine if anything, if we hit a recession or depression the Church's aid will look very similar to what happened in the 2008-2012 period.  There were MANY members who lost homes and otherwise during that period.  The Church probably took a hit initially at that time as well due to the recession, but managed their money over the past decade to come out ahead (most likely).  The funds to help members and the funds from Ensign Peak (in my opinion) are TWO different funds generally.  Some of that money may go to humanitarian efforts, but a majority is for another purpose.

My impression of the money and holdings under Ensign Peak is that it is NOT funds utilized for humanitarian efforts typically.  It is utilized for funds that tithing is used for and other financial expenditures of the church. 

IF (and that's a BIG IF) the release from the aggravate party is to be believed (which released some of this information), then the Church uses around 6 Billion of a 7 Billion income to keep up it's properties and other resources.  The rainy day fund therefore would be used to keep that upkeep should anything ever occur to their primary income (the 7 Billion income).  It's not there for humanitarian purposes, it's there to keep the church up and running should anything drastic or bad occur to the Church finances itself.  If the Stock Market had continued climbing and doing as well as it had over the past decade they may have hit the self-sustainability point very soon (or if they only had about half of that in cash reserves, it could be a LOT longer).  With the current hit, even if it was all in interest bearing resources, it could be some time yet until they hit that point.

I believe Joseph F. Smith had a hope that someday the Church would be self-sustaining, meaning that it could sustain itself without any income and any fear that it would lose such income and fall into debt.  They had trouble accomplishing that around the 50s and 60s and reoriented the financial arms in the latter half of the 20th century towards a more workable means to achieve that goal.  I think we are seeing the fruits of that effort as shown by Ensign Peak.

It's still a ways off, but I think the day where the church administration can support it's entire operations without fear of losing it's monetary base will hopefully (as long as the stocks recover in a decent time period) be accomplished perhaps in someone of the individuals here (probably not mine, unless I live another 20 years...which, though I'm in good health, I'm not thinking I'll make that) lifetimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

I believe Joseph F. Smith had a hope that someday the Church would be self-sustaining, meaning that it could sustain itself without any income and any fear that it would lose such income and fall into debt.  

Not only that but he predicted the church would be self-sustaining enough that the members would not be tithed anymore.

That  is interesting when contrasted with the recent WSJ article on the ensign peak find where the fund manager commmented that he felt the church concealed the fund from the members so they would still tithe as seeing the massive wealth might make them change their minds. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Who’s on the Lord’s side? Who?
Now is the time to show."

2 hours ago, mrmarket said:

That  is interesting when contrasted with the recent WSJ article on the ensign peak find where the fund manager commmented that he felt the church concealed the fund from the members so they would still tithe as seeing the massive wealth might make them change their minds.

President Nelson

Quote

Certainly no faithful follower of God would promote any cause even remotely related to religion if rooted in controversy, because contention is not of the Lord.
Surely a stalwart would not lend his or her good name to periodicals, programs, or forums that feature offenders who do sow “discord among brethren.”

3 Nephi 11: 29-30

Quote

“He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me [saith the Lord], but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

“Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.”

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

That  is interesting when contrasted with the recent WSJ article on the ensign peak find where the fund manager commmented that he felt the church concealed the fund from the members so they would still tithe as seeing the massive wealth might make them change their minds.

 

 

What exactly are you trying to say? You bold three portions and follow up with "pres nelson"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, mrmarket said:

What exactly are you trying to say? You bold three portions and follow up with "pres nelson"

None is so blind as him who will not see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mrmarket said:

I need it spelled out.

"For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azhwlnIapLI

 

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2020 at 7:12 PM, NeedleinA said:

Too bad you took such a limited view on what defines a rainy day for the Church. Attempting to boil it down to a Church structure issue, in some kind of selfish business nature of: buildings/tithing/reserves/income vs. expenditures totally missed the point.

The rainy day I was referring to, and illustrated, isn't what the Church structure faces as a rainy day itself but rather the rainy day the members face.
As members face potential unemployment, loss of income, mounting bills, etc. many will inevitably approach the Church for assistance. This spike is already occurring.
As this continues to occur... good thing the Church was prepared for a rainy day. Now they have the ability to help others during their rainy day.

We can look back to the recent past to see what qualifies as a rainy day for the church as it relates to the ensign peak fund. As of the time this was brought to light in the past few months, the fund manager has acknowledged there have been zero expenditures for charitable purposes. During the 08 financial crisis, they did not use it to bail members out of financial hardship in any way. There were two major expenses the fund manager and the church pr folks have acknowledged happened. One was a $1.5Bn bailout to the city creek mall and the other was $600mil to the church insurance company beneficial life.

Perhaps this time around wll be different but there wasnt much help handed out during the last rainey day. I hope there will be help available this time for those who need it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

"Who’s on the Lord’s side? Who?
Now is the time to show."

President Nelson

Quote

Certainly no faithful follower of God would promote any cause even remotely related to religion if rooted in controversy, because contention is not of the Lord.
Surely a stalwart would not lend his or her good name to periodicals, programs, or forums that feature offenders who do sow “discord among brethren

3 Nephi 11: 29-30

 

What...where?

I am completely puzzled by your post.

You post something by President Nelson and then instantly try to disobey his talk?

What...why?

So we have a common point, this is the talk...

The Canker of Contention

Quote

As we dread any disease that undermines the health of the body, so should we deplore contention, which is a corroding canker of the spirit. I appreciate the counsel of Abraham Lincoln, who said:

“Quarrel not at all. No man resolved to make the most of himself can spare time for personal contention. … Better give your path to a dog than be bitten by him.” (Letter to J. M. Cutts, 26 Oct. 1863, in Concise Lincoln Dictionary of Thoughts and Statements, comp. and arr. Ralph B. Winn, New York: New York Philosophical Library, 1959, p. 107.)

There are hidden and implied accusations against a fellow being here.  Trying to counter an anti-Mormon idea (which argue the funds of Ensign Peak would be spent on Church welfare and humanitarian funds) is not something I think is a bad thing to do.  Showing that the funds have a purpose (the same that tithing has traditionally had) instituted by the Lord instead of church welfare and humanitarian efforts is also not a bad thing I think. 

Why would this be a contentious matter than, and why bring contention of this sort into it where indirect attacks on people's characters are done in the same manner that they accused the Lord, or Joseph, or others?

I'm not going to adhere to the normal arena of academic quotation (only 3 paragraphs generally) here as in this issue I do not think President Nelson would mind as this is perhaps a bigger issue today than many think it is, and as such he would rather see us try to adhere to his statements in this thread perhaps...

Quote

To understand why the Lord has commanded us not to “contend one with another,” we must know the true source of contention. A Book of Mormon prophet revealed this important knowledge even before the birth of Christ:

“Satan did stir them up to do iniquity continually; yea, he did go about spreading rumors and contentions upon all the face of the land, that he might harden the hearts of the people against that which was good and against that which should come.” (Hel. 16:22.)

When Christ did come to the Nephites, He confirmed that prophecy:

“He that hath the spirit of contention is not of me [saith the Lord], but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

“Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.” (3 Ne. 11:29–30.)

Now, I am not the poster of the initial reference to this talk. (that's you @NeedleinA ).  It is ironic that the initial posting was done (or at least the appearance was, and even if it was not intended to do so, immediately brought it into this thread in any regards) to do the exact opposite and stir up contention in the thread, of which several posts after followed it.  Instead of being used as a post to calm contention, it was used to accuse others of not following the Lord and bring contention with false accusations and other such nonsense.  Perhaps, ALL of us (and yes, so we can all calm down) should actually read the last part of the talk which states.

Quote

What can we do to combat this canker of contention? What steps may each of us take to supplant the spirit of contention with a spirit of personal peace?

To begin, show compassionate concern for others. Control the tongue, the pen, and the word processor. Whenever tempted to dispute, remember this proverb: “He that is void of wisdom despiseth his neighbour: but a man of understanding holdeth his peace.” (Prov. 11:12; see also Prov. 17:28.)

Bridle the passion to speak or write contentiously for personal gain or glory. The Apostle Paul thus counseled the Philippians, “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” (Philip. 2:3.)

Such high mutual regard would then let us respectfully disagree without being disagreeable.

But the ultimate step lies beyond beginning control of expression. Personal peace is reached when one, in humble submissiveness, truly loves God. Heed carefully this scripture:

“There was no contention in the land, because of the love of God which did dwell in the hearts of the people.” (4 Ne. 1:15; see also 4 Ne. 1:2; italics added.)

Thus, love of God should be our aim. It is the first commandment—the foundation of faith. As we develop love of God and Christ, love of family and neighbor will naturally follow. Then will we eagerly emulate Jesus. He healed. He comforted. He taught, “Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.” (Matt. 5:9; see also 3 Ne. 12:9.)

If your post really was about following the Lord, and ironically the talk you used was about stopping contention, perhaps we should follow the advice given and try to see it from the other's perspective.

In light of that, to explain more fully my viewpoint...

Many anti-Mormons have been spreading the idea in regards to this money and account discussed in this thread that it should be spent on church welfare and humanitarian purposes.  This is a lie they are propagating through the world.  They are deliberately trying to make people misunderstand what tithing was traditionally for, and what it is for today.

Tithing was given to support the Levites and the Priests of the Lord.  It was to support the religious functions in the time of Israel.  Tithing serves the same purpose today. 

The Church has many different funds and areas.  Most of the money used by Ensign Peak is utilized in the course of tithing functions.  It is to help the Church and it's leaders in it's support.  That support is however the Lord calls it, or how the Leaders of the Church find it necessary.  Most of these deal with the administrative and worldly financials of the Church today.  It is NOT spent on Church welfare or humanitarian projects (though they can utilize it in that manner IF they choose, but normally, it is for the sustainment of the Church itself).

I do not want to spread false illusions of what the money is there for nor what it will be spent on.  If they do not spend a single penny on church welfare, it does NOT hurt my testimony.  This is because I know what tithing is to be used for and it is not necessarily for Church welfare.  If they choose to use it that way, that is the Church's choice.  It is not something I'm going to say will be done.  Instead, looking at it objectively and what it has been utilized for normally is a better outlook than trying to give people a false hope that somehow the Church will prevent every member from losing their home, or every member from ever suffering hunger.  The money isn't normally spent that way, and in this life, unfortunately, at times, good and evil falls both on the righteous and the wicked. 

We can have different viewpoints, but I think, but as you posted this talk, perhaps one should at least try to follow it's guidance in this thread?  I can try to as well, but let's not cast aspersions on each other in the shadow of this talk and instead try to find a way to peacefully discuss rather than make accusations.

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry @mrmarket, I'm as big a critic of the Church with respect to their financial management as just about anyone.  But even I have a really hard time getting up in arms about this fund.  My understanding (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) was that this particular fund represented about a third of the Church's real estate assets.  Consequently, the Church is able to self-insure all of its real assets and provide secondary activity insurance for people who participate in church activities*.

Yeah, sure, I'd love to see more money spent on welfare and charity.  But I also have to admit that being completely self insured and self sufficient is just good financial sense.

Compare that to the airline industry of late.  By all reports, the airlines have had their most profitable decade ever. And as a result, are in need of a $50 billion dollar bailout?  How can that be?  Quite simply, our economy is so focused on short term profits, that businesses can't keep cash on hand.  If they have any cash on hand, they immediately pay it out to shareholders as dividends. How much better off would we be right now if the airlines had accumulated enough cash on hand to be able to sustain themselves through six months to a year of a serious economic downturn?  Which organization is more prudent?

Yep, the Church has a massive fund of cash. And despite a massive worldwide economic downturn, it will continue to keep the lights on at church buildings, fund activities, encourage spiritual, social, and temporal development, and do all of those things at the same funding level it has been doing it for the past decade even though hundreds of thousands of its tithe paying members are about to lose their jobs. I expect we will see enormous increases in money spent out of fast offering in the next year, and the Church won't even blink.  

I can list of plenty of criticisms regarding the Church and its finances, but in this particular regard, they really are a model of how more organizations and individuals ought to manage their money.

 

* for instance, our stake and a neighboring stake had a cabin full of girls that went to girls camp and spent a week in a cabin that had a bat living in it.  Almost 50 girls ended up having to receive rabies vaccinations at $3000 per person.  The Church paid for every single one of those girls to receive treatment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

What...where?

I am completely puzzled by your post.

You post something by President Nelson and then instantly try to disobey his talk?

What...why?

So we have a common point, this is the talk...

The Canker of Contention

There are hidden and implied accusations against a fellow being here.  Trying to counter an anti-Mormon idea (which argue the funds of Ensign Peak would be spent on Church welfare and humanitarian funds) is not something I think is a bad thing to do.  Showing that the funds have a purpose (the same that tithing has traditionally had) instituted by the Lord instead of church welfare and humanitarian efforts is also not a bad thing I think. 

Why would this be a contentious matter than, and why bring contention of this sort into it where indirect attacks on people's characters are done in the same manner that they accused the Lord, or Joseph, or others?

I'm not going to adhere to the normal arena of academic quotation (only 3 paragraphs generally) here as in this issue I do not think President Nelson would mind as this is perhaps a bigger issue today than many think it is, and as such he would rather see us try to adhere to his statements in this thread perhaps...

Now, I am not the poster of the initial reference to this talk. (that's you @NeedleinA ).  It is ironic that the initial posting was done (or at least the appearance was, and even if it was not intended to do so, immediately brought it into this thread in any regards) to do the exact opposite and stir up contention in the thread, of which several posts after followed it.  Instead of being used as a post to calm contention, it was used to accuse others of not following the Lord and bring contention with false accusations and other such nonsense.  Perhaps, ALL of us (and yes, so we can all calm down) should actually read the last part of the talk which states.

If your post really was about following the Lord, and ironically the talk you used was about stopping contention, perhaps we should follow the advice given and try to see it from the other's perspective.

In light of that, to explain more fully my viewpoint...

Many anti-Mormons have been spreading the idea in regards to this money and account discussed in this thread that it should be spent on church welfare and humanitarian purposes.  This is a lie they are propagating through the world.  They are deliberately trying to make people misunderstand what tithing was traditionally for, and what it is for today.

Tithing was given to support the Levites and the Priests of the Lord.  It was to support the religious functions in the time of Israel.  Tithing serves the same purpose today. 

The Church has many different funds and areas.  Most of the money used by Ensign Peak is utilized in the course of tithing functions.  It is to help the Church and it's leaders in it's support.  That support is however the Lord calls it, or how the Leaders of the Church find it necessary.  Most of these deal with the administrative and worldly financials of the Church today.  It is NOT spent on Church welfare or humanitarian projects (though they can utilize it in that manner IF they choose, but normally, it is for the sustainment of the Church itself).

I do not want to spread false illusions of what the money is there for nor what it will be spent on.  If they do not spend a single penny on church welfare, it does NOT hurt my testimony.  This is because I know what tithing is to be used for and it is not necessarily for Church welfare.  If they choose to use it that way, that is the Church's choice.  It is not something I'm going to say will be done.  Instead, looking at it objectively and what it has been utilized for normally is a better outlook than trying to give people a false hope that somehow the Church will prevent every member from losing their home, or every member from ever suffering hunger.  The money isn't normally spent that way, and in this life, unfortunately, at times, good and evil falls both on the righteous and the wicked. 

We can have different viewpoints, but I think, but as you posted this talk, perhaps one should at least try to follow it's guidance in this thread?  I can try to as well, but let's not cast aspersions on each other in the shadow of this talk and instead try to find a way to peacefully discuss rather than make accusations.

Another tl;dr post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

I'm sorry @mrmarket, I'm as big a critic of the Church with respect to their financial management as just about anyone.  But even I have a really hard time getting up in arms about this fund.  My understanding (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) was that this particular fund represented about a third of the Church's real estate assets.  Consequently, the Church is able to self-insure all of its real assets and provide secondary activity insurance for people who participate in church activities*.

Yeah, sure, I'd love to see more money spent on welfare and charity.  But I also have to admit that being completely self insured and self sufficient is just good financial sense.

Compare that to the airline industry of late.  By all reports, the airlines have had their most profitable decade ever. And as a result, are in need of a $50 billion dollar bailout?  How can that be?  Quite simply, our economy is so focused on short term profits, that businesses can't keep cash on hand.  If they have any cash on hand, they immediately pay it out to shareholders as dividends. How much better off would we be right now if the airlines had accumulated enough cash on hand to be able to sustain themselves through six months to a year of a serious economic downturn?  Which organization is more prudent?

Yep, the Church has a massive fund of cash. And despite a massive worldwide economic downturn, it will continue to keep the lights on at church buildings, fund activities, encourage spiritual, social, and temporal development, and do all of those things at the same funding level it has been doing it for the past decade even though hundreds of thousands of its tithe paying members are about to lose their jobs. I expect we will see enormous increases in money spent out of fast offering in the next year, and the Church won't even blink.  

I can list of plenty of criticisms regarding the Church and its finances, but in this particular regard, they really are a model of how more organizations and individuals ought to manage their money.

 

* for instance, our stake and a neighboring stake had a cabin full of girls that went to girls camp and spent a week in a cabin that had a bat living in it.  Almost 50 girls ended up having to receive rabies vaccinations at $3000 per person.  The Church paid for every single one of those girls to receive treatment.

Where in my post did I criticize the church? Discussion was ongoing about what constituted a rainy day. I merely provided empirical evidence from the mouth of the fund manager himself as to what it had been used for in the past. I think you are assuming way too much. 
 

if hoping they use it to help someone is being critical then so be it. As the church does not provide transparency as to exactly what the fund is for I dont see how we are not allowed to speculate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mrmarket said:

Not only that but he predicted the church would be self-sustaining enough that the members would not be tithed anymore.

No, he didn’t.

First off, your assertion assumes that Smith was a scriptural illiterate who was unaware that D&C 119:4 describes tithing as “a standing law . . . forever”.

Second, your assertion belies ignorance of church practice in the early 20th century.  Back then Church members paid tithing, but also made additional donations to the building fund, to the ward operating fund, to fast offerings, to the Relief Society bazaar, and a host of other ad hoc funds.

In this context, and after decades of stifling debt, President Smith observed:

Today we owe not a dollar that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot pay at once.  At least we are in a position that we can pay as we go.  We do not have to borrow anymore, and we won’t have to if the Latter-day Saints continue to live their religion and observe this law of tithing.  It is the law of revenue to the church.  Furthermore, I want to say to you, we may not be able to reach it right away, but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God.

In other words:  “Someday we won’t be asking you for donations above and beyond your tithing; tithing receipts will be enough to cover the Church's expenses.”

This hope (or ”prediction”, if you must) was fulfilled when the Local Unit Budget Allowance program was implemented in 1989, which (with very few exceptions) did away with the need for any sort of local fundraising above and beyond tithes and fast offerings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mrmarket said:

Beg all you want, but this is exactly what JAG quoted. What part are you seeing that differs from JAG's analysis?

JAG has by far the stronger argument. Yours can be made only by lifting a quote in isolation and assigning to it the meaning you want. Or is there some other place in that conference report you reference where President Smith clearly states, "Tithing will not be collected any more after X occurs"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here it is spelled out:

Quote

Ye shall know them by their afruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

We identify one another, on this forum, by the fruits we individually produce. Some are here with the sole purpose to uplift. Others, here to learn. Yet others delight in poking fun at the Church at any opportunity. They delight in pulling talking points from ex-mormon twitter feeds or reddit posts. They tout the 'feelings' and 'ideas' of disenfranchised members as factual proof of what the Church did or won't do in the future. They no longer doubt their doubts, but rather relish in sprinkling the seeds of doubt upon others under the guise of being a faithful concerned member.

They choose to no longer have eyes that see or ears that hear the still small voice that would otherwise offer course correction.

Quote

They draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me.

Purveyor of grapes & figs... or delighter in thorns & thistles?

On 10/25/2019 at 11:52 PM, mrmarket said:

Our own church has made this error...

Quote

we (Mormons) have earned the suspicion...

On 3/15/2020 at 3:34 PM, mrmarket said:

the 1st pres failed in delivering adequate instructions...

Public repeated grievances against the Church tell a story, typically that an individual is bitter with an ax to grind. 
Hopefully that was 'spelled out' enough.

 

 

Edited by NeedleinA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Vort said:

Beg all you want, but this is exactly what JAG quoted. What part are you seeing that differs from JAG's analysis?

JAG has by far the stronger argument. Yours can be made only by lifting a quote in isolation and assigning to it the meaning you want. Or is there some other place in that conference report you reference where President Smith clearly states, "Tithing will not be collected any more after X occurs"?

Page 7

Furthermore, I want to say to you, we may not be able to reach it right away, but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God. I want to live to see that day, if the Lord will spare my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mrmarket said:

Page 7

Furthermore, I want to say to you, we may not be able to reach it right away, but we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God. I want to live to see that day, if the Lord will spare my life.

The very quotation above belies your interpretation. "Donations" will not be required "BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE TITHES SUFFICIENT". The fact of sufficient tithes belies the need for donations. Tithing is not done away; rather, tithing becomes sufficient.

Tithing is not a "donation" in the eyes of the Lord. Tithing is the Lord's money, not yours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Vort said:

The very quotation above belies your interpretation. "Donations" will not be required "BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE TITHES SUFFICIENT". The fact of sufficient tithes belies the need for donations. Tithing is not done away; rather, tithing becomes sufficient.

Tithing is not a "donation" in the eyes of the Lord. Tithing is the Lord's money, not yours.

That's how I understood the quote also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Vort said:

The very quotation above belies your interpretation. "Donations" will not be required "BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE TITHES SUFFICIENT". The fact of sufficient tithes belies the need for donations. Tithing is not done away; rather, tithing becomes sufficient.

Tithing is not a "donation" in the eyes of the Lord. Tithing is the Lord's money, not yours.

Take a lude. Seriously you need to yell in caps? Grow up

Edited by mrmarket

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The observance of the law of tithing is voluntary. I can pay my tithing or not, as I choose. It is a matter of choice with me, whether I will do it or not do it; but, feeling as I do, loyal to the Church, loyal to its interests, believing that it is right and just to observe the law of tithing I do observe it—on the same principle that I think it is right for me to observe the law of repentance, and of baptism, for the remission of sins.

—Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 232-233

By this principle (tithing) the loyalty of the people of this Church shall be put to the test. By this principle it shall be known who is for the kingdom of God and who is against it. By this principle it shall be seen whose hearts are set on doing the will of God and keeping his commandments, thereby sanctifying the land of Zion unto God, and who are opposed to this principle and have cut themselves off from the blessings of Zion. There is a great deal of importance connected with this principle, for by it it shall be known whether we are faithful or unfaithful. In this respect it is as essential as faith in God, as repentance of sin, as baptism for the remission of sin, or as the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

. . . . 
The law of tithing is a test by which the people as individuals shall be proved. Any man who fails to observe this principle shall be known as a man who is indifferent to the welfare of Zion, who neglects his duty as a member of the Church, and who does nothing toward the accomplishment of the temporal advancement of the kingdom of God. He contributes nothing, either, toward spreading the gospel to the nations of the earth, and he neglects to do that which would entitle him to receive the blessings and ordinances of the gospel

—Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 225-226

I have said, and I will repeat it here, that a man or woman who will always pay his or her tithing will never apostatize. It does not make any difference how small or how large it may be; it is a law of the Lord; it is a source of revenue for the Church; it is God’s requirement, and He has said that those who will not observe it are not worthy of an inheritance in Zion. No man will ever apostatize so long as he will pay his tithing. It is reasonable. Why? Because as long as he has faith to pay his tithing he has faith in the Church and in the principles of the Gospel, and there is some good in him, and there is some light in him. As long as he will do this the tempter will not overcome him and will not lead him astray.

—Joseph F. Smith, Millennial Star, Oct 25, 1906, 674.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now