I just got done reading an article from the BBC on how the government of Britain is proposing to handle the whole gay marriage situation. Here is listing of the 4 main things the government want to enshrine in legislation.
"In her statement, Mrs Miller promised a "quadruple lock" to protect religious freedom, involving:
No religious organisation or individual minister being
compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their
premises
Making it unlawful for religious organisations or their
ministers to marry same-sex couples unless their organisation's
governing body has expressly opted in to provisions for doing so
Amending the 2010 Equality Act to ensure no discrimination
claim can be brought against religious organisations or individual
ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple
The legislation explicitly stating that it will be illegal for
the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry same-sex couples
and that Canon Law, which bans same-sex weddings, will continue to apply
Once you read the whole article you will notice that this a rather ingenious way of handling things. They want to make sure that some of the problems that have surfaced in the United States are not problems in Britain. Essentially, so many states including California have pasted legislation to ban gay marriage. They don't want to be forced to do anything, especially, gay marriage with which they don't believe.
One oft sighted example is what has or is happening in Canada. There several churches and recreational facilities have been sued due to the fact they won't lease/rent their location to someone having a gay marriage.
So in Britain they are making it so that no one can sue if a specific religion or organization wants nothing to do with gay marriage. They also want to make it so that those that want to can go full head into the mud can be happy about it.
This keeps religious leadership from having to compromise their principles, and be forced into something they wish no part of.
One major issues that is coming to light in the states is what to do about gay married couples that move out of a state to one that does not recognize their situation. As of right now the majority of states have written into their constitution something against gay marriage. So those that leave Massachusetts and head to one of those 32 states would be plumb out of luck. I guess that is one issue the Supreme Court will have to resolve. They could just push it to the side and leave it alone giving each state their autonomy.
One of the complications of the Prop. 8 situation in California is that the pro-gay group went to a federal judge to get around what was a state issue. This forced the hand to have the supreme court get involved. Is this a state's issue or a federal issue? This could end up being like the whole Slaves issue back 150 years ago. I don't think it would come down to a civil war. We have to many passive people in the country now and really the gays make up say 10-15% of the population max. Would the wishy washy people that passively support gays and their right to marry take up arms to defend them? I don't think so. They'd rather watch some gay on TV and feel good about it. So the more hard core Christians and religious people will win out the day with this. Unfortunately, things can get foisted on us if we are not careful.
So hopefully, the supreme court can do the right thing and see the light provided by the British Government. And especially not follow the example that is being set in Canada.
The majority has to take the higher hand there and firmly put down their foot. And Poo huh to those that cry discrimination. Don't force your point of view on me and I'll not force mine on you.
I only use that title due to the fact that it is so well known and what was used in the recent Bloomberg BusinessWeek article that has caused such a stir. You can read the article in full at the following link - How the Mormons Make Money.
I guess one of the reason there is such a stir is the fact that they continually try and highlight the for-profit businesses that are owned by the Mormon Church (Official name - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints)
As is pointed out in the article and other commentary about the article is that it is very, very hard to talk about and quantify the finances of a religious organization. In the United States and many other countries around the world a religious organization is tax exempt and the contributions make to said organization are also usable as tax deductions depending on how you figure out your taxes. Now there are the typical Religious organization we all know like the Southern Baptists, Roman Catholics, etc. Then you get into the slew of smaller lesser know church and group that in some cases end up in court because they are not deemed to be religious or one reason or another. The majority if not almost all of these entities live off of donations. These can be physical donations of clothing and the like to group like Salvation Army, and monetary donations in the form of Tithing to the more traditional. In some cases you may have a combination of the two which can be fairly standard for those in the LDS Church.
One would assume that most religious groups are not in the business of making money and thus should be given the above mentioned tax break. However, there are some that do appear to be in it for the money or do have some for-profit enterprises and that brings up a whole new animal. Should the for-profit business be taxed and the other parts be exempt? I'd imagine that many would think so until they find out that their church has a for-profit business.
Most churches are a money consuming affair when you look at the face of it. They have a meeting house and need to pay the electrical and water etc to keep things running. They will also eventually replace the roof or other parts of the building. Then you have things like office supplies and church material (Scriptures, manuals, hymnals, publications, etc) that have to be covered as well. You may also have a paid clergy. All this takes money. The property and building don't just magically appear. Nor do the books, and other items that are put into use. This is where tithing comes into play. The members of a religion or church will offer up monies for the sustaining of the church. In a smaller group everything is handled locally. In larger organizations like the LDS Church or Roman Catholics there is a very prominent central church headquarters.
So for the smaller groups you can easily see where the tithing might be utilized - salary, utilities, building maintenance, etc. It is not so easy to see this when dealing with larger religions. Since you also find that many of them run addiction recover and other social outreach programs, seminaries or various schools, as well as having meeting houses spread all over the place and the associated infrastructure to handle these things. It can get quite large depending on the scope and size the church.
Let me mention just a few of the ways that the LDS Church receives funds from local members. Tithing by faithful members, Fast Offerings, and other monetary donations to specific purposes like Temple, Missionary, and/or Perpetual Education Fund.
Now what do I know these funds are being used for?
Tithing the backbone of funds is used mainly for buildings (maintenance, construction, etc) and the running of the unit (i.e manuals, sacrament materials, auxiliary reimbursements, etc.).
Fast offerings are used to handle welfare cases. These funds may be directly allocated to help pay the rent, or utilities for someone that has lost a job. It can also be used as part of the Bishop's Store House which provides food stuff and other basics again to people in need.
If you donate to the missionary fund you be either helping to pay the way for a missionary in the field, printing of Book of Mormons or other literature the church gives away. It might also help to maintain the Missionary training centers around the world as well.
Things like the Perpetual Education fund are special in that they to have a very specific purpose. In this case it is to help make small loans for those in underprivileged areas so they can go to school. Under normal circumstances they would not normally qualify to get a loan for school, or none are available like the system that exists in the US.
Same with Humanitarian donations. These are bundled together and help send aid to those areas that have been hit by natural disaster or other unrest. Per the article the amount of monetary funds just for this area since the mid 1980's is well over 1 billion. That fails to include to amount of human service hours that are provided in many of these areas by local members in places like Joplin Missouri. Great article on this In the Aftermath of the Tornado
Now I know that the LDS Church handles finances a little differently then many others. We do not pass around a plate or collection basket during services. We also don't have a donation box located near the front doors. Our donations are placed in an envelop and include a slip that designated what we are donating to and how much. We retain a carbon copy of the receipt for our records. These envelops can only be handed to 3 individuals in a unit; The Bishop or one of his two counselors. Not even a Stake President can take these monies. The monies are entered into the system (Recorded) by a specially called finance clerk together with a member of the Bishopric. Again, controls are in place with regards to the finances. Both these individuals will take the money down for deposit at the bank. Warning messages are provided when no deposit(s) have been made for over a week. Go to many and you'll get a special visit from Church headquarters.
On a quarterly basis a person comes to audit the finances. This checks to make sure outstanding checks have been resolved and that expenditures and donations have been recorded properly.
Quickest way to get thrown out of the church is to miss appropriate funds.
At the end of the year each family will meet with the Bishop in what is called Tithing Settlement. Here you have the the chance to declare if you are a full tithe payer and also to review the records of what you donated. At that time you can bring up any errors. Once again a checks and balances system. For those of the church you might wonder how someone would know if you really did give 10% of your income. They don't. They take your word for it as you never supply pay stubs or financial reports.
The church works off the principle of the widows mite. It's a huge sacrifice to donate and thus the money must be used wisely.
Also I've heard that if they are going to build a new meeting house they will have all the money lined up upfront before construction. Can confirm or deny this but, it makes sense. This can help keep cost over runs and other issues to a minimum. They also use standardized designs that require only slight modifications to better bit a site. In the past the local unit was required to raise a portion of the funds to build the new meeting house. That was the case of the one where I currently meet. Also back then each family had to pay a portion of the unit's budget. Back in the mid 90's they moved to a standardized budgeting system. No longer would there be an assessment to each family. It is mentioned either in the article or other commentary from desert news (church owned) that they are dedicating a new meeting house some where in the world weekly.
Let's just use a simple example and show how much of the monies received in tithing might be expended on a building.
Let us say we have a typical ward meeting house that will house 2 units. Let us also say for argument sake that the building will run 3 million dollars to build. The property is say going to be 1.5 million since it is expensive here in California. So a rough estimate will be in the neighborhood of 5 million dollars to build and outfit a new meeting house. Think of how much tithing you have to collect just to be able to build that building.
If a typical unit has 400-500 members or about 150 families and a portion of those will be inactive. You say drawing on tithing from about 100 people. If on average these individuals are giving $4,000 annually you come up with in the neighborhood of $800,000 in annual tithing. If that unit or units were in need of that building and you wanted to wait till they had all the money in place you be looking at a good 6-7 years time. Thus the up front costs of building is far greater then the monies being received in a given area. However, with the funds being pooled on a worldwide basis you can then construct new buildings and relive the burden from the local members.
I served in Brazil on my mission and in many areas they had buildings and very few members since was very new there. They would have had to wait years if not decades to get a building if it had to come solely from local funds. They had buildings albeit smaller with new ones or expansions being built as circumstances changed. Also the overall income is far different for members living in Mozambique or Fiji compared to Los Angeles, or a well developed country in Europe. Yes, the cost of living in those areas are also going to be different. You'll spend less on utilities, and other things but, overall things end up being similar.
And that does not include all the buildings being used for religious instruction, or the Temples, and welfare related offices.
So you see there are load of expenses that the church has. There is a large amount of outlay just to keep things functioning.
Let alone the need to building new meeting houses and the continued construction of Temples world wide. Check out the churches list of statistics.
But, outside the use of tithing the bone of contention seems to be with the for-profit businesses the church runs. This was highlighted with the recent completion of the City Creek Shopping Complex in March of 2012. The estimated price tag for this redevelopment was 2 billion. That would be a ton of tithing money to spend if that is what they had done. They say all the money for the project came from non-tithing funds. And the article points out why they even decided to do a project like this. They mention urban blight as the main purpose. The number of jobs created were/are 1,700 for construction and 2,000 permanent per city creek's web site.
Take a week economy and the area around the famed Salt Lake Temple Square going to pot and you see why they would do a project like this. It might make some money but, mainly it was kind of a grand welfare project. They pumped 2 billion into the Utah economy. Sure beats having to fill food orders down the road. Win win in my opinion.
And think why would the church not want to run it own insurance company? There could be many advantages. Any profit would be rolled back into the operation and they could even offer it to other entities.
You have to see the reasoning behind some of the ventures. You have to see the logic, the need, and then you can see why they are in some businesses and not others.
Take the Polynesia Culture Center in Hawaii also mentioned in the article. It is run in conjunction with BYU Hawaii and the students that attend there. Many of the people employed at the center are student from the various areas of Polynesia. They work there to help pay for their schooling. Yes they charge for admission but, if there is any kind of profit it just allows them to improve things at the center or employ more people in the over all operation. Thus more members and in some cases non-members can gain employment and allow them to attend school and become able to be productive in their home cultures/countries when they return home. Another win win over all.
So in the end I'll stay pay my tithing as I need the spiritual blessing and other things that come from being obedient. Also I will not sweat the little things and what is exactly being done in the for-profit businesses of the Church. They provide way more things then one can imagine.
Because they are being wise stewards of the monies received we do the major portion of cleaning a building. However, we learn more respect for said building when we have to clean up that spill we just made.
How many times have you said to yourself - "They just don't get it."?
All to often we find that people just don't understand where we are coming from. You might feel you have almost nothing in common and after a while you feel that is not worth your time to try and get people to see your point of view. And thus it is with our religion.
I've been reading some interesting commentary and articles out there due to the fact that Mitt Romney looks like the "Ordained" republican candidate. What this does is bring the issue of religion especially that of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints many times referred to as Mormons to the front. People want to know what he believes and if that might make a difference in the way he acts as a president. Sometime the minute details are what get people hung up about. They may only be seeing the big picture and not some of the important details.
The following commentary can cut both ways
"But more than that, we — as Mormons — need to avoid judging others who appear quaint and quirky to us.
Those Hindu gods with elephant heads or a dozen legs? They help people rise above the world.
On the surface, such things may appear bizarre.
But they don't look odd to those who go beyond the surface.
Mormons don't like being mocked. We wish people would try harder to see the faith as we do.
And if there's a lesson in that, it may be this.
Mock not if you don't like to be mocked."
As a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints I hate it when people get things wrong. The basic things - Being a cult etc. But, am I giving the benefit of the doubt to those around me. Many times not because I have not gone beyond the surface.
I guess these Jehovah Witnesses we see out on a Saturday spreading the word and want to avoid have gained their conviction or testimony at some point. Who in their right mind would go around a neighborhood all day knocking on doors? That takes conviction.
But, to many of us are so busy we really don't have time to go beyond the surface. That was one of the many challenges I faced as a missionary. Have people that are investigating the church fulfill their commitments. Things like attending church services or reading the Book of Mormon. Just getting beyond that was a major obstacle. And in many cases it was purely that the people in question did not really have the desire to get to the point of going beyond the surface. They had a cursory interest in finding out a little about the church but, not going much further then that.
I think in some cases it was also fear. Fear of what might happen if they really did pray with an open mind and a sincere heart. Just think of it. Would you perform a scientific experiment if you really did not want to find out the result? Experiments are what ones does to get a result. In some cases you suspect things will turn out a certain way and do the experiment to confirm or deny your hypothesis.
The same goes for Pray and digging beyond the surface with religion. You have to perform the experiment (Pray) and then accept the conclusion. It might not be what you expect in the end. And it might not be that super fast all telling, angel visiting, miraculous experience either. Just look at many of the general leadership of the church. They don't go around claiming to have been visited by angels that told them to believe. Mostly they claim to have had a sweet, feeling of comfort and confirmation. NO bells, whistles or hallelujah chorus. Just something simple but, definite.
And in some cases it was not on the first or many even the second time they prayed.
So as the church comes under more scrutiny due to Romney's Nomination we hope that people will go beyond the surface. That they will base their information on facts or information obtained directly from the church and not some ex-member that likely has a grudge or some supposed expert that is not even a member but, just happened to have studied a lot.
On the flip side we should give the benefit of the doubt to those of other faiths as well. Try and see where they are coming from.
We all have our built in prejudices. All based on our background, where we grew up, who we associated with, and the like. At times these "values" maybe a little colored but, not wholly off base. At other times they maybe totally wrong and bordering on down right ignorant or racist.
It's like the fact
"Rev. Jeffress endorses Mitt Romney and shared values". Just a couple of months ago he was saying Romney comes from a "non-christian cult". So now he sees the light? Did he really dig beyond the surface? Or is he more scared of what he feels Obama is and want to throw his weight behind a more "acceptable" candidate? This smells of hypocrisy. I don't think this very genuine. Appears to be more like he's wanting to support the candidate for his party and has to come up with some flimsy things to make it work even though this looks like a back pedal from his stance a few months ago.
That is why I'm glad the church has a stance of political neutrality
This is a good rule of thumb in politics. Find out a bit more about the candidate then what is being provided in the sound bits. Some times you will be shocked at the truth. And also don't keep such a short memory on things promised. My father specified that once a person ran for city council promising to keep large development out of the area. Shortly after he was elected he was doing exactly what he said he would not. Work with a local land owner (the owners of a high end shopping mall etc) to get a 32 story building built near the freeway. Shortly there after term limited were implemented. People were sick of being fed a line and taken for a ride. At least now every 8 years or so you have new blood.
So make and effort to go beyond the surface. And take the plunge if you have not already. Pray and find out if the Book of Mormon is true. You might just want to read it first.
I was recently reading a good article in the Desert news entitled "Mormons, Evangelicals discuss differences" by Joseph Walker.
This article was full of insightful information and in some respects things I had not considered.
I've known for some time that we as Latter-Day Saints are accused of not being "Christian" and that one of our main throw backs or responses is the official name of the church - "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". What I learned in the article is that our view of being "christian" is not the same as what others deem as being "christian".
"To a Mormon, the claim that they are not Christian is confusing," said Dr. David Campbell, an associate professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame and a leading researcher on faith in American life. "They point to the name of Jesus Christ in the church's official name and wonder how they can be considered anything other than Christian."
"When an evangelical Christian says 'Mormons aren't Christians,' what they are really saying is, 'Mormons don't believe the same things I believe about Jesus,'" he said "They are referring to very specific beliefs. But when Mormons say 'Christian,' they're thinking of a religious orientation that has a much broader meaning, that encompasses a lot of different Christian possibilities. So in a sense you have the two sides talking past each other, using the same words to mean different things." Mormons, Evangelicals discuss difference - Deseret News
So I began to realize that it is more then just them being callus or such. They believe in Jesus but they may for example believe that he does not have a body or that Jesus, God the Father, and the Holy Ghost are one. You can argue for days on the topics above. Some seem more logical then others, and some have interesting bible verses to back up one side or the other.
Like for example after Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan he hears the voice of the Father, and the Holy Ghost descends in the form of a dove. So was he speaking to himself out loud? And did he have a portion of himself descend out of the heavens? Neither of these make much sense logically and/or physically but remember when we are dealing with faith we are dealing with - things which are hoped for and not seen; - Ether 12:6
It is because of these sutler differences that some will classify LDS as non-christian and others will accept them as christian in the faith.
One thing that was new to me is the division within Christianity. I did not know there were so many - under the main umbrella you have Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant. Then under the protestant umbrella you have 3 more divisions - mainline Christians (Baptists, Methodists etc), fundamentalists (ultra-conservatives) and then the evangelicals (middle ground guys).
"That's a matter of some debate," Millet said. "Some think we should be a fourth umbrella of Protestant Christianity. Others think we should be a fourth umbrella of Christianity, along with Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants." Mormons, Evangelicals discuss difference - Deseret News
I would kind of lean toward a 4th umbrella alongside the Catholics and protestants. First off since we believe in a corruption of the original church and a falling away we can't join in with the Catholics or eastern orthodox people and since we believe in a restoration we also don't fall under the protestant umbrella. What would we be protesting? The lack of current revelation? The fact that authority was corrupted and/or lost? Or how about that Jesus and God the Father both have bodies of flesh and bones and are distinct beings?
I guess I could see where some would throw us in with the protestants but I'd push for 4th umbrella outside their group.
So back to the over all question brought up in the beginning. Are Mormons "Christians"? I guess that will depend on what your views are as a christian.
"Who has the right to decide whether a man or a woman is Christian?" Millet asked. "Who has the power to gaze into another person's soul and know their deepest desires, their eternal yearnings, the object and source of their faith? Mormons, Evangelicals discuss difference - Deseret News
And I know we are guilty of it in the reverse. My daughter has a hard time excepting others as fellow believers in Christ at school because they have a different view on Jesus. She commonly will state - they don't believe in Jesus. Hard at times to help her realize there are various beliefs and sometimes people just act differently because of it. So we tell her - Unless they state it clearly - "I don't believe in Jesus" then you can't assume anything. And none of this makes them bad people either.
So when some callus person comes round stating junk like "Mormons are not Christians" or things like " they don't deserve 1st amendment protections since they are not Christians" just tell them to do like Jesus would and act like the Christians they claim they are.
