It's a compelling, damning article that describes pretty much everything I hate and fear about the Republican party, and describes a degree of the stupidity with which the Democrats have handled them to date. It's a fascinating and cogent analysis from a GOP insider.
I can't say I disagree with a single point of it. He pays equal time to the difference between GOP members as blatantly evil, in that some are actively out to get you, and the ones who simple don't care and let their tactics hit people as collateral damage. And he's certainly not a fan of Obama. I also appreciate and agree with his indictment of the media, whose role in this current political climate is all too often underrated.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Meanwhile, the republicans' latest gambit in the face of the hurricane was to all but literally hold disaster funding hostage.
From the mouth of Eric Cantor himself in the wake of Irene: we'll only fund FEMA when you let us make equivalent cuts are made elsewhere.
Just to remind people where we've been (for long enough to forget, anyway): a multi-year running obstructionism gambit by the minority party.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I remember reading about Cantor's statement when the hurricane was still churning toward the US.
I'm a little surprised they're going to stick with it so steadfastly, if they in fact do. Republicans haven taken two PR hits with this strategy, once in the debt deal, and one with the FAA fiasco. Now they want to try it again with something as emotionally charged as this?
I appreciate having a serious voice at the table talking about fiscal responsibility. I wish that voice had been louder a DECADE ago. But trying to make up for past silence by shouting at the top of your lungs leaves us all deaf or hoarse. Democrats are building a pretty nice stable of issues to campaign on.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm a little surprised they're going to stick with it so steadfastly, if they in fact do.
Well, the article itself explains why they're going to stick rather hard to this sort of program:
quote:John P. Judis sums up the modern GOP this way:
"Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999. If there is an earlier American precedent for today's Republican Party, it is the antebellum Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard, federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from the union over slavery."
A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.
A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic.
To tie it in to recent discussions here, it's why I observed they are committed to sustaining our current broken healthcare system and actively preventing its repair.
In essence, The GOP has become a product of perverse incentives that they have inflicted on themselves: they thrive on dysfunction, as Thomas Frank described it. The Republican party says its own mistakes prove government can't work; since they are rewarded by 'vindication' when the government does not work, they have an incentive to ensure that government does not work, so they keep government from working.
quote:'Remember the $400 hammer? How 'bout that $600 toilet seat?" asks a Conservatives for Patients' Rights TV commercial criticizing President Barack Obama's health-care plan. "Seems when Congress gets involved, things just cost more."
As it happens, I do remember the incident of the $436 hammer, the one that made headlines back in 1984. And while it may "seem" in hazy retrospect as though it showed how "things just cost more" once those silly liberals in Congress get started, what the hammer episode actually illustrated was a very different sort of ripoff. The institution that paid so very much for that hammer was President Ronald Reagan's Pentagon. A private-sector contractor was the party that was pleased to take the Pentagon's money. And it was a liberal Democrat in the House of Representatives, also known as "Congress," who publicized the pricey hardware to the skies.
But so what? Myth is so much more satisfying than history, and with myth the competence of Washington actors from 25 years ago doesn't matter any more. Nor does it matter which arm of the federal colossus did what. Republican or Democrat, White House or Congress, they're all part of a monolithic, undifferentiated "government" that acts according to a money-burning logic all its own.
The myth has been getting a lot of play from conservatives in recent weeks as the debate over health care has heated up. The message, as always, is that government can't do anything right.
Where the conservative mythologists show their hand is when they use their own monumental screw-ups, committed during conservatism's long years in charge of the government, to prove that government in general is a futile proceeding, and that Democratic health-care plans, in particular, can't possibly succeed.
quote:A government that works, some conservatives fear, is dangerous stuff. It gives people ideas. Universal health care isn't just a bad idea for their buddies in the insurance business; it's a gateway drug to broader state involvement in the economy and hence a possible doomsday scenario for conservatism itself. As two fellows of the Ethics and Public Policy Center fretted in the Weekly Standard in May, "health care is the key to public enmeshment in ballooning welfare states, and passage of ObamaCare would deal a heavy blow to the conservative enterprise in American politics."
On the other hand, government fails constantly when conservatives run it because making it work would be, for many of those conservatives, to traduce the very laws of nature. Besides, as we can now see, bungling Katrina recovery or Pentagon procurement pays conservatives huge dividends. It gives them potent ammunition to use when the liberals have returned and are proposing another one of their grand schemes to reform health care.
This is the perverse incentive that is slowly remaking the GOP into the Snafu Party. And in those commercials and those proclamations we should also discern a warning: That even if Democrats manage to set up a solid health-care program, conservatives will do their best, once they have regained power, to drop it down the same chute they did the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Maybe they will appoint a tobacco lobbyist to run the thing. Maybe they will starve it for funds. Or antagonize its work force. And as it collapses they will hand themselves their greatest propaganda victory of all. They will survey the ruins and chide, "You didn't really think government could work, did you?"
Remember this last part. As this insider account shows us again, this is what the party is. This is what they do. This is — despite the whinging of their latest manufactory of self-serving destruction of government systems, the Tea Party — what they are, and how they work. You will see this again and again until they collapse and reform, or until we collapse and reform. And which outcome we get is largely a function of how easily we are led into the bizarre un-logic of people who desperately assert "But you guys, the Democrats are just as bad!"
Because they've been well programmed to be that stage of false equivalence, of course.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Seems the easiest solution would be for Democrats to grow a back bone, and unapologetically fight back.
But I'd really like to come up with a more realistic solution than that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But I'd really like to come up with a more realistic solution than that.
People's political preference is sticky. If you're a liberal or a conservative in your early 20's, you're very, very likely to stay preferenced reliably towards that party throughout your life. The demographics which the Republicans are completely reliant upon to float conservative majorities in most parts of the country have these reliable tendencies.
1. They're very, very old. 2. They often literally desire for America to be a theocracy. 3. They are drawn to the polls by wedge issues en masse as reliable voters. Most recently, because as a group they are comically terrified of gays and gay marriage. 4. They're very, very old. Median ages often in the 65+ range.
Meanwhile, young voters who aren't quite 35 and up (yet) are overwhelmingly liberal in all categories, but young demographics aren't reliable voters. They're actually terrible at voting, and are very difficult to get to the polls. But once they get up into their mid-30's, they begin to vote consistently.
And the wedge issues that the conservatives use to keep the favor of all the old people demographics come off as ridiculously archaic, bigoted, and homophobic to young voters. Being solidly anti gay marriage helps the conservatives keep their candidates desperately floated, but it actively drives off and repulses young voters straight into progressive camps that conservatism vehemently defines itself in opposition to.
Additionally, people's early environments of political exposure are incredibly important to determining their reliable future ideology. Talk radio and newspaper columns and the like aren't that formative environment anymore. It's the internet. And the internet has developed and remained an environment of disdain to conservative ideology, the end result being that conservatives tend to pack and 'bubble' themselves in politically friendly havens, and leave the overall exposure and narrative to progressives. Guess what this tends, much more often than not, to direct in terms of forming young people's ideologies?
Put all this together, and the solution you are looking for tends to seem like "sit back, relax, have a beer, and wait for the old people to die."
Probably important to keep them from trainwrecking the country in the interim, though. Seems to be their eleventh-hour strategy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yeah. I was hoping for something that wouldn't take 20 years though. Or more.
Demographics are on the liberal side, but that's a pretty long arc, and it's not guaranteed.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:1. The GOP cares solely and exclusively about its rich contributors.
This point really cannot be emphasized enough. The behavior of the GOP becomes so transparent once this is understood.
I've wondered in the past why this is not the Democrats' go-to message every single news cycle. It's brought up, sure, but it's not hammered on like it deserves to be. The Democrats need to link the GOP with this concept inseparably in the minds of voters.
On reason this has not happened is because the Democrats are just bad at it (surprise surprise). Remember when Obama got in all kinds of trouble during the '08 election for saying that conservative voters "cling" to guns and religion? He was basically saying the same thing that this author is, but he went about it from the wrong angle. He talked about the voters, rather than the politicians. Obama, loving complexity as much as he does, recognized that the connection between religious wedge issues, low information voting habits, and the GOP's fiscal goals. The unfortunate thing is that he couldn't talk about the latter without mentioning the other two.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Whenever they even whisper a peep about it, the GOP starts shouting "Class warfare, class warfare!" Then Democrats back down.
We've been engaged in class warfare for decades, the only problem is that the rich and the GOP are winning hands down because the Democrats are afraid to get into the ring. They always feel like they have to apologize for being liberal or for defending workers and the poor.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Thanks for the link. It was an interesting read.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I don't identify myself with the GOP and never have, regardless of the tendency of people in my church to be Republican. I agree with the article for the most part--it's my sentiments exactly. However, I found it to be somewhat light on proof in many places and heavy on opinion, with over-the-top touchpoints from the author's own brain at some points in place of actual facts or quotes or even hearsay. I felt I was being herded into a conspiracy theory. I would have liked a more insider look at how a lot of what the author claims is happening is happening. Again, I don't disagree with the author, and I'm not going to defend the GOP here, but I don't see the value of this article as an exposé. Maybe a strong-arm editorial piece.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
At least in this upcoming election, there seems to be a sharp difference of opinion between the two parties over how reasonable the American people are: Democrats, and Obama especially, seem to have a great deal of faith that the voters are reasonable and are going to be able to see through fictitious Republican arguments. And Republicans seem confident that voters will believe the Emperor has no clothes if enough Republicans claim it to be true. Each party has made this bet, and seem to be building their respective strategies on it.
I'm inclined to think reality will win out in the long run. Sarah Palin would be a prime example - she was a rising star for a while, but slowly and surely the public began to figure her out.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
But then palin is just replaced with people more dangerous than her, like Rick Perry. Reality isn't the winner when the sideshow is "improved" into a more practiced government destroyer and political opportunist.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Thank you for the article, I enjoyed reading it.
I'm not religious, so perhaps I have no grounds in talking about it. But it is so beyond perplexing to me that his items number 1 (protecting the wealthy) and number 3 (being the "Christian party") are so regularly grouped together. Sure, the Republicans have anti-homosexuality stances and are against abortion. But the Biblical Christ was so thoroughly anti-wealth and in favor of helping the poor that I don't understand how these clearly and repeatedly stated stances take the backseat to culture war issues. I don't think either party seems to completely embody Christian teachings, but the Democrats can certainly make that claim as much as the Republicans. But they don't.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Democrat is also the party that is pluralistic and more secular in nature. Invoking the teachings of Christ so as to support a policy initiative by nature would make Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Buddhists, etc uncomfortable. Not only that, it makes Christians who don't like mixing religion and politics feel squicky.
The GOP in general does not have a problem with invoking God in the business of government, and so those who don't see it as a problem are more likely to feel comfortable in that party.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
A lot of it also has to do with the rise of prosperity theology.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
This is just my own take as a religious person. The actual gospel espoused by Christ (in a nutshell, "love everyone") is hard to live. You have to overcome a lot of biases and prejudices in order to love everyone.
On the other hand, this particular brand of Christianity (prosperity theology or whatever you want to call it) is appealing because it frees you from having to worry about others. Under this mindset, everyone fends for themselves. You're no longer your brother's keeper or a neighbor to all those you meet. It's appealing because it's easy, and it lets you hang on to your prejudices and judgements about others.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:But the Biblical Christ was so thoroughly anti-wealth and in favor of helping the poor that I don't understand how these clearly and repeatedly stated stances take the backseat to culture war issues.
For a lot of Christians, the main reason to help the poor isn't that the poor need help, its the cultivation of personal virtue. Those Christians tend to feel that government programs that help the poor, deprive people of the opportunity to develop personal virtue by voluntarily helping the poor.
I think those Christians have their priorities screwed up, but understanding that reasoning does help explain why so many Christians oppose government programs to aid the poor.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: This is just my own take as a religious person. The actual gospel espoused by Christ (in a nutshell, "love everyone") is hard to live. You have to overcome a lot of biases and prejudices in order to love everyone.
It is hard. Which is why most don't, and revel in prosperity gospel christianity and do things like have 'everything i needed to know about islam i learned on 9/11' bumper stickers on their cars right next to the Terrorist Hunting Permit.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:But the Biblical Christ was so thoroughly anti-wealth and in favor of helping the poor that I don't understand how these clearly and repeatedly stated stances take the backseat to culture war issues.
For a lot of Christians, the main reason to help the poor isn't that the poor need help, its the cultivation of personal virtue. Those Christians tend to feel that government programs that help the poor, deprive people of the opportunity to develop personal virtue by voluntarily helping the poor.
It seems obvious, but I never thought of it quite in that way.
I had formed the answer in my mind as being something closer to: "systematic relief is an entitlement, while voluntary charity is a gift," meaning that the important distinction was to maintain the help we give the poor is an undeserved gift, and can be used to demean, while an entitlement is seen as deserved, and therefore not demeaning.
But your view also makes sense. I'm sure there's an element of truth in both.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: On the other hand, this particular brand of Christianity (prosperity theology or whatever you want to call it) is appealing because it frees you from having to worry about others. Under this mindset, everyone fends for themselves. You're no longer your brother's keeper or a neighbor to all those you meet. It's appealing because it's easy, and it lets you hang on to your prejudices and judgements about others.
Basically being a Christian, without actually being a Christian?
For all that I balked at my own Catholic education's silly conceptions of sexual morality, the ethical morality of Catholicism is something I ended up internalizing and drawing from in my adult life. The stern rejection of personal enrichment as a source of lifelong satisfaction and righteousness, was, at least in my school, an important lesson- particularly as it was a school full of affluent people.
I don't speak for all Catholic educated people, or all Catholics, but in this particular school, charity was not stressed as an experience in personal enrichment- but rather as an expectation placed on the vital and productive to give that which they could to those who did not have what they needed. The *obligation* aspect of that view was particularly important- it was taught that you do not do good in order to "be" or feel good, but because you are expected to do so.
That kind of lesson wouldn't work for a lot of people, but if taken as part of a curriculum and school mission that stresses the functioning of community, and the role of the individual as a part of the whole, it makes much more sense than appealing to the delights of personal enrichment. There of course *were* lessons about the importance of personal enrichment in academics and the arts- but it was always about how the strength of individual experience helps society to function.
I disliked a lot about my educational experience, but these lessons have proved to be formative for me. So much so that when I later met people who called themselves Christians, and yet who did *not* understand or accept these tenets and actually live by them, I was somewhat aghast. If I can say one positive thing about modern Catholicism, it is that it teaches outward looking just as much as personal spiritual growth. Meeting evangelicals in college who were so *personal* and private and exclusive in their spiritual experience was baffling for me, for a long time. But when I meet fellow catholic educated people, I often get the sense that they also see charity and giving to others of our time and energy as a necessity, and not a personal statement.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:But the Biblical Christ was so thoroughly anti-wealth and in favor of helping the poor that I don't understand how these clearly and repeatedly stated stances take the backseat to culture war issues.
For a lot of Christians, the main reason to help the poor isn't that the poor need help, its the cultivation of personal virtue. Those Christians tend to feel that government programs that help the poor, deprive people of the opportunity to develop personal virtue by voluntarily helping the poor.
It seems obvious, but I never thought of it quite in that way.
I had formed the answer in my mind as being something closer to: "systematic relief is an entitlement, while voluntary charity is a gift," meaning that the important distinction was to maintain the help we give the poor is an undeserved gift, and can be used to demean, while an entitlement is seen as deserved, and therefore not demeaning.
But your view also makes sense. I'm sure there's an element of truth in both.
The fact that you guys genuinely believe you have accurately summarized their views explains a lot.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
So how about you help out by offering your own views instead of being disdainful of everyone else's?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:The fact that you guys genuinely believe you have accurately summarized their views explains a lot.
So does the fact that it is far too easy to find christians who vigorously agree with that summation, and/or act and speak their mind on the subject in such a way to ensure that you know that it's where they stand.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Really, Samp? You think that Christians prefer charity because they can use it to demean people? And it's easy to find people who vigorously agree with this? I'm skeptical.
Or is it the other one you think they agree with? That charity is good because it helps the person giving charity become more virtuous, not because it actually helps the poor. You can find lots of examples of Christians vigorously agreeing with that one, too?
Jon Boy: How about, Christian Conservatives like giving freely to help the poor, but don't believe it is moral to take from people and give to the poor at the point of a gun. Even though giving to the poor itself is a good act.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
There are numerous reasons and motivations to give charitably, and many avenues through which to do it. While I agree that legislating giving kind of takes the charity out of it, that doesn't mean that lots of people won't benefit from it in a positive way. In most stripes of Christianity helping the poor is taught as an essential of the faith. Often that giving is institutionalized to a certain extent, which can take the edge off of the "stepping out of your comfort zone" feel that voluntary, off-the-cuff charitable giving can come with--while at the same time ensuring that certain amounts of charitable giving are maintained. When that giving becomes politicized, however, is when I think it stops having much to do with Christians living their faith and becomes just another lever for gaining power.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Really, Samp? You think that Christians prefer charity because they can use it to demean people?
Do you think that's what Orincoro is saying?
quote: That charity is good because it helps the person giving charity become more virtuous, not because it actually helps the poor.
Do you think that's what Rabbit is saying?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:But the Biblical Christ was so thoroughly anti-wealth and in favor of helping the poor that I don't understand how these clearly and repeatedly stated stances take the backseat to culture war issues.
For a lot of Christians, the main reason to help the poor isn't that the poor need help, its the cultivation of personal virtue. Those Christians tend to feel that government programs that help the poor, deprive people of the opportunity to develop personal virtue by voluntarily helping the poor.
It seems obvious, but I never thought of it quite in that way.
I had formed the answer in my mind as being something closer to: "systematic relief is an entitlement, while voluntary charity is a gift," meaning that the important distinction was to maintain the help we give the poor is an undeserved gift, and can be used to demean, while an entitlement is seen as deserved, and therefore not demeaning.
But your view also makes sense. I'm sure there's an element of truth in both.
The fact that you guys genuinely believe you have accurately summarized their views explains a lot.
Recognized an element of truth, and "accurately summarized their views," are distinctly different positions.
Besides, this is not a summary of views, it is speculation on motivation. I for one don't "genuinely believe" that I have summed up anyone's views here. But evidently you believed that you have summed up mine. How interesting that you would presume to do so. How very interesting that you would do that.
It feels like there has been a rash of this: "you assume you know someone else's thoughts" nonsense counterargument around here lately. No. Drawing conclusions about people, and speculating about their motivations is not inherently wrong. Assumptions are not bad. Blind assumptions are bad. If you draw conclusions and make assumptions with good reason, based on sound evidence and thinking, and are willing to abandon that assumption in the face of compelling evidence against it- there's nothing wrong with assuming.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Really, Samp? You think that Christians prefer charity because they can use it to demean people?
Do you think that's what Orincoro is saying?
quote: That charity is good because it helps the person giving charity become more virtuous, not because it actually helps the poor.
Do you think that's what Rabbit is saying?
What I was trying to point out is that there exists a quality of shame and diminution in Christian charity (despite the best efforts of the writers of the new testament, and if he existed, Jesus). And that shame and diminution are important to the act of charitable giving by Christians. That it is important that this shame and diminution exist. Where an entitlement exists, this shame and diminution may disappear, as the reception of charity, or that which is not seen as strictly deserved, is not accompanied by obeisance to the giving party- as that party is compelled by law to give.
And you can see the results of this kind of impulse, to preserve shame and obeisance, in the ideas of conservatives who want to introduce various stigmas against welfare collection. For instance, demanding that welfare mothers go on birth control, welfare recipients submit to drug tests, not be allowed to buy alcohol or tobacco, or specifically restrict their spending in other ways, pass language tests, should not be allowed to vote, etc. The need for the recipient of charity to observe and to be submissive to the will of the giver is key to that. "Live under my house, and observe my rules," only works when it's *your* house, and not a house you share with the person you are forced to support, because they vote too.
I think Rabbit is saying that the main reason a lot of people give to charity is to feel good about themselves, and that this accounts for the concomitant unwillingness in the same people to support social programs which seek to accomplish the same goals. If you're forced to give, you don't feel good about it. And if you don't feel good about it, then what's the point? Intellectual understanding of the effect social welfare has on society doesn't make these people feel good. The personal adulation of giving, personally, does.
Though this is often dressed up in the canard of public vs. private sector efficiency, that argument rather avoids the fact that public social programs are written into law, and private charity is not. One is an obligation taken on as a group, and the other is not.
[ September 07, 2011, 01:54 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I for one don't "genuinely believe" that I have summed up anyone's views here. But evidently you believed that you have summed up mine. How interesting that you would presume to do so. How very interesting that you would do that.
<_<
Anyway, I'm still amazed at the major contortions of the christians at issue. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, the bible says — but don't dare take this quietly if this obligation dare extend to rendering unto the poors, of course.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:How about, Christian Conservatives like giving freely to help the poor, but don't believe it is moral to take from people and give to the poor at the point of a gun. Even though giving to the poor itself is a good act.
Setting aside the question of whether social-conservative, politically active Christians *do*, as a group, like giving to the poor in this country...it's quite safe to say that the conservative Christians so often at the base of right-wing politics in the US don't. Or if they do, we can only take their word for it.
Because now? When was the last time the right in this country mentioned the poor without talking about how what we're doing for the poor is crippling us as a country, how we need to cut spending on the poor (not so much, y'know, WAR which Christ just lubbed), how the Founding Fathers blah blah blah less taxes!
This in a world where we can look at our peers and see, hey, we *don't* actually pay a hideous amount in taxes (that sort of judgment being entirely relative). You can take umbrage all you like, Dan, but the simple truth is *politically active* conservative Christians, the groups which shore up the GOP's and Tea Party's base, are deeply hypocritical by their own religious teachings.
Prosperity theology, support for international war, and decades now of attacks on social programs are, well, pretty easy ways to tell this is true. The first one in particular. I could've *sworn* Jesus had something to say about the relative worth, in God's eyes, of the rich and poor. Wasn't it that God rewards the virtuous with material wealth, and that it is a sign of God's favor? Yeah, that was it. (Unless he's a Saudi prince with oil money-*that* cash comes from Satan, despite its bein' founded on natural resources).
Dan, they're hypocrites. They just *are*. You've gotta be able to acknowledge that, man. I'm not talking about the kind of conservative Christian you don't see at a political rally for the Tea Party, or who doesn't like Bachmann. I'm talking about the conservative Christians who *do*.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Or is it the other one you think they agree with? That charity is good because it helps the person giving charity become more virtuous, not because it actually helps the poor.
Dan, I think you're misunderstanding virtue ethics here. Yes, giving to charity is good because it helps the person giving to charity become more virtuous. The reason it helps someone become more virtuous is because it helps poor people.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I for one don't "genuinely believe" that I have summed up anyone's views here. But evidently you believed that you have summed up mine. How interesting that you would presume to do so. How very interesting that you would do that.
<_<
Come on, "here," as in: "in the above quoted post." Otherwise, yes, I sum up other people's views all the time. Although, I rarely believe that I can actually capture the nuanced motivations of people I have never met. In general, yes, in the specific, in what a person tells himself and the words he speaks to himself alone, in the dark, in quiet voices no one else can hear, generally no.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:How about, Christian Conservatives like giving freely to help the poor, but don't believe it is moral to take from people and give to the poor at the point of a gun. Even though giving to the poor itself is a good act.
Setting aside the question of whether social-conservative, politically active Christians *do*, as a group, like giving to the poor in this country... it's quite safe to say that the conservative Christians so often at the base of right-wing politics in the US don't. Or if they do, we can only take their word for it.
Because now? When was the last time the right in this country mentioned the poor without talking about how what we're doing for the poor is crippling us as a country, how we need to cut spending on the poor (not so much, y'know, WAR which Christ just lubbed), how the Founding Fathers blah blah blah less taxes!
This in a world where we can look at our peers and see, hey, we *don't* actually pay a hideous amount in taxes (that sort of judgment being entirely relative). You can take umbrage all you like, Dan, but the simple truth is *politically active* conservative Christians, the groups which shore up the GOP's and Tea Party's base, are deeply hypocritical by their own religious teachings.
Prosperity theology, support for international war, and decades now of attacks on social programs are, well, pretty easy ways to tell this is true. The first one in particular. I could've *sworn* Jesus had something to say about the relative worth, in God's eyes, of the rich and poor. Wasn't it that God rewards the virtuous with material wealth, and that it is a sign of God's favor? Yeah, that was it. (Unless he's a Saudi prince with oil money-*that* cash comes from Satan, despite its bein' founded on natural resources).
Dan, they're hypocrites. They just *are*. You've gotta be able to acknowledge that, man. I'm not talking about the kind of conservative Christian you don't see at a political rally for the Tea Party, or who doesn't like Bachmann. I'm talking about the conservative Christians who *do*.
They might very well be hypocrites regarding what the bible actually says. Full disclosure, here: I'm an atheist who was raised Buddhist. I've never read the bible. Cracked it open maybe twice in my life. I'm not able to say whether or not they are staying true to the ethics Christ espoused. I wasn't trying to, either, and I apologize if I gave that impression.
I was responding to what I saw as Rabbit and Orincoro attributing motives to people. Motives that are not borne out by any conservative figures, Christian or not, that I have followed. So, I'm questioning that. Orincoro, I'm sorry if you feel I misrepresented you. To whatever extent you think that your average conservative is fond of charity only insofar as it is a tool to demean the recipients thereof, I think you are wrong. But only that far. Any other opinions you have on the subject, I would have to see before I could accurately tell you that you were wrong.
One more thing, Rakeesh:
quote: it's quite safe to say that the conservative Christians so often at the base of right-wing politics in the US don't. Or if they do, we can only take their word for it.
Where are you getting this, exactly?
The last hard data I saw on charity donations indicated conservatives out-donated liberals by a wide margin. But of course there are several caveats: It didn't break down by religion, for one. And more importantly, that was several years ago, and a brief google search seems to indicate that was the last time it was widely publicized. So I have not seen any data for recent years, and it could very well support your claim. But until I see that, I will confess to being skeptical.
If there's no data per se, then... is this based on rhetoric only? Because again, not supporting federal intervention is not the same thing as not wanting to help the poor. I don't agree that the rhetoric coming out of Tea Parties has been railing against the poor. If anything, I've seen more railing against entitlement programs like Medicaid and Social Security. Except those are divisive issues even among Tea Parties, because of all the old people who planned their retirement around their entitlements.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The last hard data I saw on charity donations indicated conservatives out-donated liberals by a wide margin.
This number flips if you remove their "donations" to their own churches.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'd like to see the numbers, in any case.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Come on, "here," as in: "in the above quoted post."
Don't worry, I'm not calling what you said into issue. That's my way of saying 'yup, suspicious indeed'
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:For a lot of Christians, the main reason to help the poor isn't that the poor need help, its the cultivation of personal virtue. Those Christians tend to feel that government programs that help the poor, deprive people of the opportunity to develop personal virtue by voluntarily helping the poor.
I've never heard someone advocate such a view - for one thing, there's never any shortage of opportunities to help the poor, no matter how much the government provides.
I think a more accurate summary of the common conservative view is that helping the poor by having the government give them stuff isn't really helping them because it teaches them to rely on the government rather than themselves. "Give a man a fish" and all that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The last hard data I saw on charity donations indicated conservatives out-donated liberals by a wide margin.
This number flips if you remove their "donations" to their own churches.
That's both a myth and misleading.
It's a myth because there isn't any data to support it. What data there is, (See Arthur Brooks: Who really cares), indicates that religious people give more of their money to both religious and secular charities. They are also more likely to donate their time and their blood.
It's misleading because many of the leading humanitarian aid organizations in the world are church based. Organizations like "Catholic Relief Services" and "LDS Humanitarian Services" are among the most effective and efficient in the world. They cooperate side by side with secular groups (like the Red Cross and the United Way). Dismissing these donations because they are made to one's "own church" is biased and indefensible.
And putting the word "donations" in quotes, suggest that religious people don't really have a choice, is insulting and condescending. It implies that religious people are some how less capable of making a free choice than non-religious people which is unsupportable BS. Furthermore, it is totally unfair to equate the tithes I pay to some sort of club membership dues. I receive no bill. I'm not kicked out if I don't pay. Currently, I make all my church donations electronically to the central church. No one in my local ward, including, Bishop gets any information about how much I pay. As far as my Bishop knows, my total contributions to the church are zero. That's what his records say. He accepts me at my word when I tell him I'm a full tithe payer. Find me a club that as a matter of policy accepts members word that dues have been paid, even when the records show the opposite. The money I donate to the church is 100% voluntary.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It implies that religious people are some how less capable of making a free choice than non-religious people which is unsupportable BS.
Maybe things work differently for your ward, but I know people that get regular visits from their bishopric about their tardy tithing status on top of the yearly tithing settlement meeting where every member must state their tithing status. As part of that process you get a printout of your contributions for the year. You are also asked if you are a full tithe payer during your interview for a temple recommend. With temple attendance considered a foundational element of one's personal and familial salvation, that's a pretty strong motivation to keep the balance sheet in order.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Maybe things work differently for your ward, but I know people that get regular visits from their bishopric about their tardy tithing status on top of the yearly tithing settlement meeting where every member must state their tithing status.
I have *never* ever seen this done.
This isn't exactly something to brag about, but I have not been to tithing settlement in years, I still pay a full tithing, and at temple recommend interviews I state I am a full tithe payer.
My bishops have never said a word about it, and it never comes up in stake interviews. If a bishop were doing that, I submit they are doing it of their own volition and initiative, or under directions of the stake president or area seventy. But certainly not because they were instructed to do so by the top church leadership, or by their instruction manuals.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
MattP, I have never known a Bishop to visit people about their "tardy tithing status". I don't even know what a "tardy tithing status" would be since tithing isn't due in regular installments.
I can imagine that if someone had been paying tithing regularly for years and suddenly stopped, the Bishop might ask them why (and as often as not this might be to make sure no errors had been made on the part of the church) but that's very different than pursuing every member who isn't paying. There isn't a Bishop on the planet that has enough time to visit every member who isn't making regular contributions to tithing
Every year I get a print out from my ward saying how much I've contributed. For the last many years, that print out has said I contributed nothing. I also get a receipt from church head quarters that details the contributions I made electronically. No one in my ward but me knows what's on that receipt. I did have the ward clerk as me if they'd lost anything since they had no record of contributions from me but that's the only time the question has been raised. When I have my tithing settlement, I tell the Bishop I pay a full tithe -- he believes me. No one ever asks to see my receipts or tax returns to verify if I've paid in full. If I were so inclined, I could pay nothing and keep my temple recommend. There are no balance sheets kept (except perhaps by God).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Not to mention many people pay their tithing annually as their work compensation package necessitates that arrangement. My parents do it, and I don't think anybody has ever questioned it.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I'm a little confused as to why you think that your situation is important, Rabbit. It sounds like you are required to tithe to be in the good graces of your church. That this requirement is not enforced in foolproof manner doesn't render it less of a requirement.
If I found a way to cheat on my income taxes in a way that the government doesn't realize I'm not paying anything, does that mean that taxes are optional?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I've never heard of anyone paying tithing directly to Church headquarters. I wasn't even aware you could pay tithing electronically.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:If I were so inclined, I could pay nothing and keep my temple recommend.
Only if you lied. Just because they don't require bank statements doesn't mean it isn't a requirement.
quote:Furthermore, it is totally unfair to equate the tithes I pay to some sort of club membership dues.
Sure, a good portion of the money goes to genuine charitable deeds. But a good portion also goes to supporting church infrastructure. That is providing a service that you partake of rather than benefiting external parties (charity). Why is it unfair to point that out?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I really would like to see numbers.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I don't even know what a "tardy tithing status" would be since tithing isn't due in regular installments.
I apologize for the imprecision. I just mean that the bishop knows they are not full tithe-payers and has made multiple home visits to discuss their situation. The purpose of his concern is their lack of temple attendance and he wants them to get up to date on their tithe so they can be temple-worthy again.
quote:There are no balance sheets kept (except perhaps by God).
I presume that God's balance sheet is meaningful to the people that pay tithing, so I don't see it as a parenthetical.
When I see "100% voluntary" it suggests to me that there are no discrete benefits to the action nor detriments for refraining from it for the person who is choosing to perform or abstain from that action. In the LDS church you are told that if you don't pay tithing you are not worthy for temple attendance and that you are stealing from God. You are also told that if you pay tithing that you will receive a blessing "that there shall not be room enough to receive it." This is commonly understood to mean that you will not want materially, provided you pay a full tithe. I know this isn't supported doctrinally, but that's really a separate issue when it comes to people's motivations.
Kiva has never suggested to me that insufficient donations constitute theft or that I'm going to get something back for my contribution. OK, well I did get a free t-shirt for getting some friends to sign up, but other than that...
[ September 07, 2011, 01:34 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Sure, a good portion of the money goes to genuine charitable deeds. But a good portion also goes to supporting church infrastructure. That is providing a service that you partake of rather than benefiting external parties (charity). Why is it unfair to point that out?
It's not unfair to point that out. Its unfair to disregard the entire contribution because part of it goes to church infrastructure. Its also unfair to imply it isn't really a voluntary donation.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Interestingly, when I see the phrase "voluntary" I take it to mean "without coercion or manipulation."
I do not think it matters, in terms of deciding whether an action is voluntary or not, what the consequences of that action are (beneficial/detrimental); it's the lead up to taking the action that matters.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Kiva has never suggested to me that insufficient donations constitute theft or that I'm going to get something back for my contribution. OK, well I did get a free t-shirt for getting some friends to sign up, but other than that...
This argument is silly. Frankly, a free t-shirt is a much more direct reward for contributing than anything I've ever gotten from the Mormon church. Every organization that asks for donations does so by appealing to morality. That alone does not make it coercive.
I donate to Kiva and other such organizations for the exact same reasons I donate to the LDS church -- I feel an ethical obligation to do so. I think the same can be said of pretty much everyone who donates to charity. We donate because we think its the moral thing to do. Why we think its the right thing to do is largely irrelevant. Never in my life have I felt coerced into donating to my church.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Frankly, a free t-shirt is a much more direct reward for contributing than anything I've ever gotten from the Mormon church.
Who cares about direct? Isn't being sealed to your family for eternity worth a bit more than a t-shirt? And the t-shirt wasn't tied to donations, it was for missionary work. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Maybe by "direct," she meant tangible.
Being a member of the church has brought me tangible benefits that are more valuable than a t-shirt. For example: I've learned leadership skills and teaching skills that help me be a more valuable employee and manager. Volunteer opportunities help me learn valuable skills and form relationships that improve my ability to get a job. The Church provides a support network that may assist with childcare, home improvement, etc.
Of course-- I think those come from being active in the Church, and may not be directly linked to paying tithing.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Interestingly, when I see the phrase "voluntary" I take it to mean "without coercion or manipulation."
Which do you see as more manipulative, 1. Telling people they are stealing from God if they don't pay their tithing or 2. Pictures of starving children and heart wrenching stories of children who will suffer if you don't contribute?
From my perspective they are both about equal. I wouldn't consider either one unscrupulous manipulation unless the person doing the telling is knowingly lying.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I really would like to see numbers.
I've just spent way too much time trying to find good numbers. Reliable data on this seems hard to find. The following two links are from Christian oriented websites that are presumably not trying to paint a poor picture.
quote:Conducted in 1999, this survey of U.S. pastors finds that most churches spend most money on staff compensation ($118,601 from an average budget of $292,790). This is followed by facilities ($54,194), missions ($45,259), church programs ($24,675), administration and supplies ($17,853), denominational contributions and fees ($11,539) and miscellaneous ($25,430)
Link 2: Says that payroll is on average 42% of the budget, building expenses are over 20%, mission budgets are 15%, church programs 16%.
It's fair to say that the vast majority of money isn't going to charity.
I know many here are LDS but googling shows that the LDS church does not offer public information on this. I did find a welfare service fact sheet, that puts total aid from 1985 to 2009 at $1.212 billion, or an average of $80.8 million a year. Wikipedia says the church has 14 million members. If you assume half of those give to tithing, that's less than $12 per tithing member a year going to humanitarian aid. Since that's such a small amount, there's probably some other arena in which they give. But since they're not providing the information, it's all guess work.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I think they're about equal.
(My response was to MattP's definition of voluntary, by the way.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Maybe by "direct," she meant tangible.
Being a member of the church has brought me tangible benefits that are more valuable than a t-shirt.
By direct, I meant direct: that is proceeding from cause to effect in a clear uninterupted, immediate way. I benefit in many ways from being a member of the church. Some of those are tangible and some may qualify as direct. But I can't think of any way I have benefited directly from the financial contributions I've made.
Being sealed to my husband is a somewhat abstract and distant promise. Its not a reward for paying my tithing. To receive it I must keep all the covenants I have made of which paying tithing is only the tiniest part.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Amanecer:
Those weren't quite the numbers I was looking for. Tom's original assertion:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The last hard data I saw on charity donations indicated conservatives out-donated liberals by a wide margin.
This number flips if you remove their "donations" to their own churches.
...is what I'd like to see data on.
Quick note: tithing money doesn't go to what most people would consider "charitable" causes. The welfare referred to is probably from Offerings, which in the Mormon church are separate.
Your numbers also don't take into account the amount of in-person service given by theists (such as: mowing lawns, raising barns, volunteer child care, meals made, etc).
I will say: we can give more. We, as a community of faith, NEED to be doing and giving more.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The averaged numbers as I've seen them, unadjusted for income (which, frankly, I think is another relevant factor).
Self-identified liberals: $250/yr. in secular charitable giving $500/yr. in church-based giving
Self-identified conservatives: $100/yr in secular charitable giving $1100/yr in church-based giving
This probably varies a lot by income, as it appears from the few individuals whose numbers are publicly available (like the Obamas and Kennedys vs. the Palins and Romneys) that liberals have an upper limit to their church-based giving, meaning that church-based giving among liberals can be assumed to fall as a percentage of total giving as income increases, but that no such limit appears to exist for religious conservatives (whose church-based giving seems to account for 80% of their total giving on a fairly consistent basis). (I couldn't find any non-religious conservatives whose charitable giving was public record.)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Where did you get those numbers?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: I've never heard of anyone paying tithing directly to Church headquarters. I wasn't even aware you could pay tithing electronically.
I know quite a few people who do it. Its the only way you can make in-kind donations of appreciated stocks. A lot of the older people in my last US ward did it this way so they could transfer funds directly from the 401K's. My brother started doing it when he was President of a branch in the Bronx because there was a lot of economic inequality in the branch which made him uncomfortable with having the other branch leaders know how much he made. I started doing it for US tax purposes. Because I live outside the US, my donations to the church aren't fully tax deductible if I make them through my local ward. Its also convenient.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Google. I basically scrolled until it looked like an article I'd read before. Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Those weren't quite the numbers I was looking for
Gotcha. I did do a preliminary look for that data, but couldn't easily find anything I'd consider reliable. Tom, where is your data coming from? [EDIT: Tom could you please provide a link?]
quote:Your numbers also don't take into account the amount of in-person service given by theists (such as: mowing lawns, raising barns, volunteer child care, meals made, etc).
I don't think that's relevant to whether or not contributions to ones' church should be considered charity or not. Before looking at the info, I was inclined to think of it as about 50/50. Now, I think about 20% of money given to churches could reasonably be considered charity.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Google. I basically scrolled until it looked like an article I'd read before.
Perhaps you could link to that article?
Also, I note that even using those fairly pessimistic estimates of money going to churches going to charity purposes, and assuming none of the secular charity parts go to overhead (the overhead of churches is in all that other money, generally), the numbers work out as follows:
250 + .2 * 500 = 350 100 + .2 * 1100 = 320
Which is going to be well within margin of error.
Btw, the reason I say fairly pessimistic is that the numbers are actually really hard to pin down. For instance, churches will often serve as funnels for other charities, where the money is donated to other charities, but collected by the church. People who donate will call it money that went to the church, while the church won't include it in the numbers they make those funds breakdown reports on.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think about 20% of money given to churches could reasonably be considered charity.
It depends what you're calling charity. For example, for many churches a "mission" is tantamount to going to Haiti or somewhere like that and serving meals, helping build homes, and other service. In the LDS church a "mission" is generally considered a proselyting effort. The first would be considered by most folks as "charitable." The second, not so much.
I'd like to see your reasoning on why 20% is a good number to settle on.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I'd like to see your reasoning on why 20% is a good number to settle on.
Based on my Link 1, the average amount going to missions is $45,259. The total budget is $292,790. That's 14.5% (very similar to the 15% in link 2). And as you say, some of that is probably going to proselytizing. It's hard to know what of portion misc. might be charity, but the other items seem primarily like infrastructure expenses, so I thought 20% was a reasonable estimate.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The last hard data I saw on charity donations indicated conservatives out-donated liberals by a wide margin.
This number flips if you remove their "donations" to their own churches.
I thought (and I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong) that Tom used the quotes to indicate that he didn't think tithes to churches ought to be considered donations, but rather (voluntary) fees for service rendered. A little like how Radiohead marketed their last album. The question, I think, is whether one can donate money to oneself.
I'm a little sympathetic to that idea, though I haven't thought about it overly much. I'd be happy to call tithes "contributions." If someone were donating to their church with the express intention of the money going entirely to charity work, it seems like it'd be fair to call that a "donation."
In any case, I think the semantics here illustrate that simply saying "conservatives donate more money than liberals" isn't really useful without a whole lot of qualification.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Are we also going to eliminate parents who donate to their child's school or alumni to their alma mater? Are we going to discount giving to political parties or issues that one supports? Should we not count giving to any organization that the donor himself is associated with, or that benefits the donor in some way indirectly, or that resulted from pressure by the organization to give, or that partially goes towards the organization itself rather than 100% to needy individuals?
That would eliminate the vast majority of charitable giving.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I don't know anything about tithing, as an atheist, but something I do know about being a socialist is that as a tax payer I am happy to pay taxes because I know that my taxes go to support the country and all those who live in it.
In fact, I'm happy to not demand a tax return provided I am making enough money for myself. So I am effectively loaning the government more money than I am supposed to.
Canada and the UK which have quite a lot of money put into things I care about like roads, healthcare, education, vulnerable people, arts and yes, defence of the realm(s). The only thing I wish my taxes were going towards is Space Exploration but I might be contributing to that through ESA, so it's probably okay.
I'm just saying that while I am compelled to pay taxes, I'm also happy to. I don't claim it's a donation, though. I wouldn't say that my money going to the government, while willing, are donations in the same way as a donation I might make to a kid's camp.
I don't think counting charitable donations is a valid way of measuring whatever the heck we are trying to measure (niceness). As a socialist, I want the government to provide basic services and I am willing to pay for them and I'm willing to pay more than I should if I think it's doing good work.
I don't think it's surprising that religious people, who are part of a society where giving is not only expected but enabled by the church, can be measured as giving more. If I'm in church and someone's passing around a basket, it's actually quite easy to donate. The same goes for church-based events where the church organises an event or sends out a request for volunteers. It's harder to do that outside of such a society and-- people being what they are-- thus people donate less.
Finally, the fact that you guys are actually having a pissing contest over "who donates the much" really says it all doesn't it? It doesn't matter, this article that says both your political parties are grievously broken and don't really do much productive governing, no-- what really matters is how much your people paid. That proves that one of your little groups are better people and should get to rule the country. Let's talk about this for another whole page or four, shall we? It's easier than discussing the actual article.
Sorry, that turned nasty quickly.
The UK has massive social problems: class divisions run riot and gum up parliament and society, homes are unaffordable, businesses are replaced by bookies and the educational system is barely struggling along and racism is still rife. But at least it have a news system that actually acts like a fourth estate and constantly keeps everyone on task, and at least there is a healthcare system that sort of functions, and at least the defence budget is balanced with the rest of the budget.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Furthermore, it is totally unfair to equate the tithes I pay to some sort of club membership dues. I receive no bill. I'm not kicked out if I don't pay. Currently, I make all my church donations electronically to the central church. No one in my local ward, including, Bishop gets any information about how much I pay. As far as my Bishop knows, my total contributions to the church are zero. That's what his records say. He accepts me at my word when I tell him I'm a full tithe payer. Find me a club that as a matter of policy accepts members word that dues have been paid, even when the records show the opposite. The money I donate to the church is 100% voluntary.
For myself when I was LDS (and for some other people I know in the small Utah towns where I grew up), donating money to tithing did not feel like it was 100% voluntary. The social costs of NOT paying were severe and often brutal.
As mentioned several times previously in this thread, shame can be, and too often is, the motivation behind people making donations. I have felt it first hand.
The following is anecdotal, my own experience. However, I believe such situations are not uncommon where I am from.
I was 23 years old. My brother called to tell me how excited he was that he had met the woman of his dreams and they were going to be married in 3 months and for me to save the date. They would be married in the the Manti LDS Temple.
A chill ran up my spine. I did not meet all the qualifications necessary for a temple recommend, at least not if I answered every question in the recommend interview honestly. (One requirement is that a person must pay a full tithe to enter the temple.) I was going to miss my brother's wedding.
I nearly capitulated to answering the recommend interview questions dishonestly in order to get a recommend to attend his wedding. The shame I felt by choosing to sit outside the temple during the ceremony was numbing. My grandfather castigated me. My aunt avoided me. Many relatives were upset and concerned. Some people showed compassion toward me as though I were a leper.
In my LDS experience, built into the church are some invidious ways of enforcing adherence, of requiring that you "pay your dues" in order to be accepted by those closest to you. Paying tithing is one requirement for temple worship. Not being able to attend the temple for special occasions betrays to all who know you that something is 'wrong' with your spiritual standing. People become privy to your private spiritual health when you may wish to keep things private. Thus, some people "pay up" not voluntarily, but to avoid negative stigma. The weapon is shame, and the fallout is being "kicked out" of your place in the circle of community, family and friends.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Hang on, Rabbit.
In order to be allowed in the Temple, you have to pay tithes. While you are not 'checked up upon', the only option to not pay and still be accepted into what equates to a powerful society, is to lie to someone who it would be, in your belief, a grievous problem to lie to?
Sounds like you are "required" to pay as much as any church member is required to pay. In fact, I would hazard a guess that most churches don't actually require you to pay anything for entry. You might get frowned at, but I don't think many priests would hold you up at the door if you came to worship without bringing some cash.
Excuse me, but you are required to pay tithes in order to be a full member of the church. If you do not you are not a full member of the church. Therefore, you are required. It is a membership fee.
We assume that you are not having to lie to your church. If you are having ot lie to your church in order to remain a member, something is grievously wrong with that relationship.
Like my paying taxes because I am required to, you may feel quite willing and happy to belong to the church and pay taxes to them. But that does not mean that you are not compelled-- you ARE compelled, you just choose to acquiesce to the compulsion as I choose to acquiese happily to national and local taxes.
Neither of us are required to donate to save puppies. If we do not, we lose nothing. Therefore it is a voluntary donation.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:In my LDS experience, built into the church are some invidious ways of enforcing adherence, of requiring that you "pay your dues" in order to be accepted by those closest to you. Paying tithing is one requirement for temple worship. Not being able to attend the temple for special occasions betrays to all who know you that something is 'wrong' with your spiritual standing. People become privy to your private spiritual health when you may wish to keep things private. Thus, some people "pay up" not voluntarily, but to avoid negative stigma. The weapon is shame, and the fallout is being "kicked out" of your place in the circle of community, family and friends.
This is what I have observed as well. Perhaps it's not as apparent to those who consistently meet this standard how powerful the repercussions of not meeting it can be. Or perhaps individual communities are harsher than others, but it's a dynamic that I've seen multiple times. I know people who are atheists but keep up appearances as active members of the church, including tithe paying, because of the downside of failing to conform within their families and communities.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Finally, the fact that you guys are actually having a pissing contest over "who donates the much" really says it all doesn't it?
I'm not certain that was the only thrust of the argument. I took from the discussion that many conservative Christians feel at peace with their faith and their political party because of a belief in private charity. Exploring how much of that perceived charity is actual charity seems valuable.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Excuse me, but you are required to pay tithes in order to be a full member of the church. If you do not you are not a full member of the church. Therefore, you are required. It is a membership fee.
Perhaps it would be better to call it a Temple fee, as church membership really requires little more than baptism and some light paperwork and actually takes a bit of deliberate effort to undo.
I think calling it a "tiny" part of the requirement for temple attendance is a distraction from the fact that it is still a requirement and one that many people struggle with. ("Necessary, if not sufficient", as it goes) A flat tax is effectively regressive, after all.
If you want to accomplish all that is necessary for exaltation during your life on earth you must contribute 10% of your increase.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:When I see "100% voluntary" it suggests to me that there are no discrete benefits to the action nor detriments for refraining from it for the person who is choosing to perform or abstain from that action. In the LDS church you are told that if you don't pay tithing you are not worthy for temple attendance and that you are stealing from God. You are also told that if you pay tithing that you will receive a blessing "that there shall not be room enough to receive it." This is commonly understood to mean that you will not want materially, provided you pay a full tithe. I know this isn't supported doctrinally, but that's really a separate issue when it comes to people's motivations.
I, for one, regard tithing more selfishly than 100% voluntary. I personally haven't missed the tithing I've paid during my life, but instead feel that I've enjoyed much more in return for contributing it (and no, not just monetary). I pay my tithing for that reason. It's a very personal contract to me. I quite like the arrangement. How my 10% gets used by the church once it leaves my hands isn't important to me. Would I be 10% more wealthy if I didn't pay tithing? Possibly. Do I miss it? Not really. Taking 10% immediately off the top of my income each month has had the very mundane effect of making me a better budgeter and financial planner with the other 90%. It is an ongoing lesson in greed for me as well and has kept me conscious of just how much prosperity I enjoy and what my responsibility therefore is.
The part about stealing from the Lord and not having room enough to receive the blessings is from Malachi in the Old Testament, just in case anybody couldn't place it. It is quoted often in the church in relation to tithing, which is a subject that is talked about fairly frequently. Since I have a proper Mormon perspective about it I haven't interpreted the stealing from God part as a sword hanging over my head, but as a reordering of how we view our income and possessions--as owners or stewards?
quote:In my LDS experience, built into the church are some invidious ways of enforcing adherence, of requiring that you "pay your dues" in order to be accepted by those closest to you. Paying tithing is one requirement for temple worship. Not being able to attend the temple for special occasions betrays to all who know you that something is 'wrong' with your spiritual standing. People become privy to your private spiritual health when you may wish to keep things private. Thus, some people "pay up" not voluntarily, but to avoid negative stigma. The weapon is shame, and the fallout is being "kicked out" of your place in the circle of community, family and friends.
Geez louise. I'm sorry you had to go through all that. It makes me cringe to hear of people being ostracized like that by church members. That's poor treatment and expressly against the purpose of the church. I recognize that it's flat-out crappy for family and friends not able to enter the temple to have to sit out a temple wedding. Inevitably the temple starts seeming like an exclusionary tool, a line that separates the haves from the have nots in the church. No matter how many people get to attend a wedding inside the temple, there are always some very important and loved people who can't attend. I don't know of any really good solution for the feelings that often causes. Coming out of the temple and looking down the nose at those who weren't inside isn't right at all. On the contrary, those people who couldn't be in the ceremony should be helped to feel as included as possible in every other part of the activities.
Whether they (the people who weren't inside the temple) feel loved and wanted or ostracized is partly their choice and based on their understanding of the occasion, I have to say, regardless of how anyone else acts toward them. I have attended many temple marriages (including my own) and for my part at least have tried to be sensitive and loving toward those who weren't able to be in the ceremony. I have still seen a variety of reactions from people who had to outside, from understanding to vitriol later on. As much as I wanted everyone I loved to be able to witness my own marriage ceremony, having it done in the temple was even more important to me. It's a small ceremony regardless--maybe 30 can be there in one of the larger sealing rooms. We had to anguish over who we could invite even among those able to enter the temple.
I know it's a fine line, but the temple isn't meant to separate the good from the bad and keep the riffraff out. It's meant for everyone and open to everyone. Yes, there are things you have to be doing or not doing to be able to enter the temple and some require people to make significant changes in their lives and lifestyles. This discussion about tithing as a qualifier for "full membership" in the church makes me sad. I don't have the debating chops to convince anyone that that's not how it is at all.
ETA: I guess here's an another attempt to explain the difference. The church is for everyone. There are no levels of membership. People who make you feel that there are are sorely mistaken and need to take a hard look at themselves. Membership in the church is the gateway to many other blessings, including those available in the temple. These are personal and obtained at the person's own speed. Being able to enter the temple is up to that person alone. There is no Club.
[ September 07, 2011, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think that it might take not paying tithing and being an "insider" to see it as manipulative. I would be surprised if anyone who wasn't a full tithe payer would view it as not a qualifier for "full membership." Also, in many countries, they have no problems having a public wedding on the same day/week/whatever couple wants as the temple ceremony. Since that policy is country specific, it is hard for me not to view it as intentionally punitive.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Being able to enter the temple is up to that person alone
I can't think of any route by which I could possibly enter the temple given my personal philosophy is in such strong contradiction with core elements of church doctrine and therefore I will likely be unable to attend my children's weddings. I don't feel that it is up to me at all.
quote:Also, in many countries, they have no problems having a public wedding on the same day/week/whatever couple wants as the temple ceremony.
At least in the US the church discourages it and it can be difficult getting access to church facilities to host it. Just a further frustration for the dad that expects to find himself weeping on the temple steps when his first daughter marries inside.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Maybe your daughter will marry outside the church?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Being able to enter the temple is up to that person alone
I can't think of any route by which I could possibly enter the temple given my personal philosophy is in such strong contradiction with core elements of church doctrine and therefore I will likely be unable to attend my children's weddings. I don't feel that it is up to me at all.
Nevertheless. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Maybe your daughter will marry outside the church?
Could be, but all four of them and both sons? I want them to do whatever's going to make them happy.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
AFR: Well said. Thanks.
***
quote:Just a further frustration for the dad that expects to find himself weeping on the temple steps when his first daughter marries inside.
It would be a good idea for the family involved in this situation to hold two ceremonies.
I seem to recall Dallin H. Oaks (one of our apostles) addressing this point directly, and counseling the above.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
ScottR, in the US the policy is no ceremony that could be mistaken for a wedding. Of course, my exchange of rings, included statements of love (not vows), walking down the aisle (we had to get to the front somehow and my husband was already up there and my dad wanted to walk with me) and flower children (kids are cute and should be included in everything). The bishop did however make a point that the wedding was in the temple, not there.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Scholarette, I'm curious as to how your relations and friends not able to attend the temple marriage felt about the ring ceremony you described. Was it good enough? This is purely out of curiosity.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think it was sufficient for them. Our ring ceremony toed the line of acceptability (though my sister was at the time best friends with a Romney who had just got married and basically got anything she wanted past her bishop and so when my bishop raised his eyebrows, I was like, oh, it worked so well at X Romney's wedding and then my bishop ok'd it). But other than the bishop saying this wasn't a wedding, our ring ceremony really was a wedding, so for people not in the temple, they saw a bride walk down an aisle, basically vows, a kiss, etc. I don't think those not at the temple thought they missed out on anything and if they did they never expressed it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
M's grandparents, and my grandparents, and all her uncles and aunts, and all my uncles and aunts, and all our cousins, and our brothers and sisters seemed satisfied with the ceremonies we arranged post-temple. (M and I are second generation Mo's; our extended families are Protestants)
The only person who had a problem with it was an ex-member friend who was offended on everyone else's behalf, and declared that now she knew the church wasn't true to M's little sister, because they wouldn't allow her (M's sister) in the temple.
Then again-- our families don't hang on ceremony anyway.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I know it's a fine line, but the temple isn't meant to separate the good from the bad and keep the riffraff out. It's meant for everyone and open to everyone.
I'm scratching my head at this one.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Finally, the fact that you guys are actually having a pissing contest over "who donates the much" really says it all doesn't it? It doesn't matter, this article that says both your political parties are grievously broken and don't really do much productive governing, no-- what really matters is how much your people pai
No, it clearly makes the argument that one of the parties is driven by nearly pure and total force of corruption and nihilism, and that the other is grievously broken.
One that this article is *NOT* is a plaintive: "both parties are at fault" drivelathon. He's directly addressing and dismissing those arguments as fallacious nonsense that actually serves Republican ends.
If that's what you got from it, you didn't read the whole article- or you failed to pick up on a few of the central points (one of which was that people like you think that casting blame on two sides casts two sides on equally solid, or unsolid ground, when in fact blame is never evenly distributed, and never should be).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Being able to enter the temple is up to that person alone
I can't think of any route by which I could possibly enter the temple given my personal philosophy is in such strong contradiction with core elements of church doctrine and therefore I will likely be unable to attend my children's weddings. I don't feel that it is up to me at all.
Ditto. My Cousin was married in a Mormon temple a few months ago. His entire family, and the entire family of his wife (they are both converts) were not invited. So was it up to all of them whether they went or not?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
The marriage policy is probably the strongest example of how people can feel "coerced" by LDS church policies including the tithing requirement for temple recommends.
It's certainly not the same level of coercion that we get with state taxes, though. It's technically voluntary, even if people feel constrained by social pressure.
And, as advice for robots pointed out, a lot of that more-or-less coercive pressure comes from sub-cultures within the church, or individuals who aren't acting the way they are supposed to.
Anyway my point is I think there's a totally valid distinction between the state collecting taxes to help the poor and a church collecting tithes in order to do similar good works.
Which leads me to believe we should be using the state more.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am just amazed by the idea that there's no coercion involved for the tithing, just because you can say, essentially 'well they're bad bookkeepers, you can get away with it by lying!'
... i .. don't
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Coercion may mean something very different to us.
I think we've had this discussion before on this board.
Would you say that school children are coerced to get good grades?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Would you say that school children are coerced to get good grades?
Sure. Not all of them, but many.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I guess here's an another attempt to explain the difference. The church is for everyone. There are no levels of membership. People who make you feel that there are are sorely mistaken and need to take a hard look at themselves. Membership in the church is the gateway to many other blessings, including those available in the temple. These are personal and obtained at the person's own speed. Being able to enter the temple is up to that person alone. There is no Club.
I really don't see how this follows. I grant that it is how you perceive things-I don't think you're being dishonest or evasive. The thing is, though, Temple recommend is an outward, quasi-public sign of one's status within the church. It's a sign of something of how the Church, as an organization, feels about a given person's status both with themselves and with God.
Even when the intention is not to make levels of membership, it seems clear to me that there are going to be levels of membership, even among the very best of members. I'm reminded of a line from Gandhi to the British, I'm not sure if this is accurate to history or not, which went something like, "It's in the nature of things, gentlemen, even the best of you must humiliate us to control us."
My comparison isn't at all to say that the intent of having a recommend is to humiliate. It's to point out that, even for the very best of Mormons, a temple recommend serves as a dividing line of sorts, with one group of Mormons on one side and another on the other side. Even when those very best of Mormons follow all the best teachings and don't take on airs or reject people on that basis, the line is still there.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: The marriage policy is probably the strongest example of how people can feel "coerced" by LDS church policies including the tithing requirement for temple recommends.
It's certainly not the same level of coercion that we get with state taxes, though. It's technically voluntary, even if people feel constrained by social pressure.
And, as advice for robots pointed out, a lot of that more-or-less coercive pressure comes from sub-cultures within the church, or individuals who aren't acting the way they are supposed to.
Anyway my point is I think there's a totally valid distinction between the state collecting taxes to help the poor and a church collecting tithes in order to do similar good works.
Which leads me to believe we should be using the state more.
I thought the comparison was not between taxes and tithing, but between tithing and a donation to United Way.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Would you say that school children are coerced to get good grades?
Many of them, yes? They're also coerced into eating vegetables and forced into bed at bedtime even if they get whiny and pouty, is this the best comparison?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Hm...I would not say that most children are coerced into getting good grades.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I must say, of the many assertions made in this thread, that is an especially odd one for me Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Which do you see as more manipulative, 1. Telling people they are stealing from God if they don't pay their tithing or 2. Pictures of starving children and heart wrenching stories of children who will suffer if you don't contribute?
Not sure how this fit into the prior conversation, but I want to quickly note that the first is much more manipulative for me. The first is an attempt to leverage fear of eternal consequences to one's soul (vs. an attempt to leverage emotions about something currently (or when the pictures were created rather) happening) and is attacking a personal balance sheet that can only be balanced by one's self (vs. children that may very well be helped by other people contributing to the same charity).
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I swear we've had this exact conversation before...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Deja vu?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yeah-- there were three conversations: one about people feeling coerced to put their names on a list of posters who pledged not to delete threads; one about Mormons coercing people (specifically Jatraqueros) to join the Church; and one other that, although I looked at it, I can't remember what it was about.
(Do a search on 'coerce' with TomDavidson as the user. As is common, TomDavidson is the source of the problem... )
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I guess here's an another attempt to explain the difference. The church is for everyone. There are no levels of membership. People who make you feel that there are are sorely mistaken and need to take a hard look at themselves. Membership in the church is the gateway to many other blessings, including those available in the temple. These are personal and obtained at the person's own speed. Being able to enter the temple is up to that person alone. There is no Club.
I really don't see how this follows. I grant that it is how you perceive things-I don't think you're being dishonest or evasive. The thing is, though, Temple recommend is an outward, quasi-public sign of one's status within the church. It's a sign of something of how the Church, as an organization, feels about a given person's status both with themselves and with God.
Even when the intention is not to make levels of membership, it seems clear to me that there are going to be levels of membership, even among the very best of members. I'm reminded of a line from Gandhi to the British, I'm not sure if this is accurate to history or not, which went something like, "It's in the nature of things, gentlemen, even the best of you must humiliate us to control us."
My comparison isn't at all to say that the intent of having a recommend is to humiliate. It's to point out that, even for the very best of Mormons, a temple recommend serves as a dividing line of sorts, with one group of Mormons on one side and another on the other side. Even when those very best of Mormons follow all the best teachings and don't take on airs or reject people on that basis, the line is still there.
Whether or not someone holds a current temple recommend is actually not made known publicly, although it's not necessarily a secret that the individual is supposed to keep, either. I suppose I could make guesses as to who has one and who doesn't, but that honestly doesn't affect my normal everyday interaction with people in the church. I don't use it as some sort of measuring stick in who I associate with. In Sunday meetings and other times where members of a ward interact, whether they hold a recommend is not a factor. It can become a sore spot--and I freely acknowledge this--at a temple marriage, where not everyone can go in. Again, here, it's up to the individual how they react to that. Bottom line--if the recommend becomes a dividing line between members, it is being perceived and used for the wrong reasons.
Nobody under the age of 18 can hold a recommend that allows them to participate in all ceremonies in the temple. Siblings of the bride who are in good standing with the church but aren't old enough to have a recommend must wait outside the temple as well. That is a distinct division, I guess, and maybe the only one actually recognized in the church. Adult members are all regarded as having the potential to obtain a recommend and enter the temple.
Hmm. There are many people in the world who have written and published a novel. I haven't. That puts me in a different group of people than the novelists, of course, but should I want to put in the time and effort it takes to write and sell a novel, I'd become one of the novelists, too. That's an example full of holes, of course, but it helps to illustrate what the dividing line is.
Another attempt: We require our kids to get their chores and homework done before they can watch TV or play video games that day. When one of our kids takes the initiative and gets her work done quickly, she is able to do what the other kids aren't allowed to yet. The other kids aren't being discriminated against. The privilege isn't closed to anyone, but the kids do have to decide to put in the work before they get to claim it.
Holding a current temple recommend is regarded as a goal for everyone in the church. In fact, one of the former church presidents said that our temple attendance (in which a recommend is required) should be the symbol of our church membership. Inside the church, there is lots of emphasis placed on getting oneself ready to enter the temple. It is a common goal and is regarded as one everyone can achieve. However, at the same time, people aren't generally regarded as "having made it" when they have a current recommend. There's no club of "good" members. Holding a recommend is no guarantee of infallibility. All church members are definitely encouraged to work towards having a temple recommend, even if they live far from a temple and can't attend without great difficulty.
The reason why I said it's up to that person alone is because it's regarded as that person's personal business and responsibility as to when and whether they hold a recommend. It's between you and God, to put it another way. You will not be frog-marched into it. I realize that Matt and others are saying that since they aren't church members and aren't inclined to be, they don't have any choice at all in whether they can attend a temple marriage. That is true. But should they want to enter the temple, it would be up to them alone to make the changes necessary. Nobody is barring the door. That's what I'm saying.
[ September 08, 2011, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Another attempt: We require our kids to get their chores and homework done before they can watch TV or play video games that day. When one of our kids takes the initiative and gets her work done quickly, she is able to do what the other kids aren't allowed to yet. The other kids aren't being discriminated against. The privilege isn't closed to anyone, but the kids do have to decide to put in the work before they get to claim it.
another comparison to children?
man, it's like unintentional psychological revelation day here
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Bottom line--if the recommend becomes a dividing line between members, it is being perceived and used for the wrong reasons.
OK, but if human nature is such that this is something that can't be prevented, then it's an institutional problem. We can't just say "they are doing it wrong" and point to the idealized intent of the institution rather than the practical result. And it's pretty easy to tell who has a temple recommend if one uses garments as a proxy.
quote:Another attempt: We require our kids to get their chores and homework done before they can watch TV or play video games that day. When one of our kids takes the initiative and gets her work done quickly, she is able to do what the other kids aren't allowed to yet. The other kids aren't being discriminated against. The privilege isn't closed to anyone, but the kids do have to decide to put in the work before they get to claim it.
The problem with all of your metaphors is that all of them involve some deliberate effort - things you could compel someone to do by gunpoint or, more realistically, things that can be accomplished through force of will. Temple attendance doesn't only require that you *do* certain things but that you *think* certain things. I think that's incredibly unfair to hold weddings there while dissuading external ceremonies when such ceremonies have become so embedded in our culture. Surely God can abide the presence of a respectful unbeliever even in his most sacred of places. The unbelievers that currently attend through duplicitousness aren't causing any apparent harm.
Out of curiosity - is there a doctrinal basis for the policy on external ceremonies or worthiness standards for temple attendance? (Not participation in ordinances, just observing them).
[ September 08, 2011, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't anticipate Obama's jobs bill to meet with anything by disdain from Republicans. I doubt it will pass with even modifications made to it. It will just be ignored.
The plan is a bit underwhelming, a suped up version of it should have been the stimulus passed in 2008, instead of TARP, but in today's toxic political climate I don't expect the Republicans to take it seriously or try to work with it. They will simply parrot "NO INCREASE IN TAXES!" and then blame Obama as the economy continues to stagnate, or at worse slip into depression.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Matt, are you familiar with D&C 109? I think that has several verses that underpin temple attendance policies.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
On facebook, many of my conservative friends have been posting this: SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT ... If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 yrs. hard labor. If you cross the Afghanistan border illegally, you get shot. Two Americans just got eight years for crossing the Iranian border. If you cross the U. S. border illegally you get a job, a drivers license, food stamps, a place to live, health care, housing & child benefits, education, & a tax free business for 7 yrs ...No wonder we are a country in debt. Re-post if you agree!
Part of me is amazed- are we really looking to Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea for policy decisions? I know liberals who say that the Republicans seem to be trying to make the US into a 3rd world country (abolish labor protections, etc) and while I have in the past thought this is unfair rhetoric on liberals' part, reading crap like that repeatedly by my conservative friends makes me think maybe the republicans really are trying to get us to lose our first world status.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Part of me is amazed- are we really looking to Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea for policy decisions?
You're already overthinking conservative chain-posts and chainmails.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Since OSC still says he's a democrat, I guess this guy can call himself a republican.
I've not known of a case where tithing was the one thing keeping someone out of the temple.
[ September 08, 2011, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: I've not known of a case where tithing was the one thing keeping someone out of the temple.
Funny story; the guy sitting right behind me playing League of Legends is, well, an ex-Mormon because of two issues. 'tithing was the one thing keeping someone out of the temple' is one of them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: On facebook, many of my conservative friends have been posting this: SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT ... If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 yrs. hard labor. If you cross the Afghanistan border illegally, you get shot. Two Americans just got eight years for crossing the Iranian border. If you cross the U. S. border illegally you get a job, a drivers license, food stamps, a place to live, health care, housing & child benefits, education, & a tax free business for 7 yrs ...No wonder we are a country in debt. Re-post if you agree!
Part of me is amazed- are we really looking to Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea for policy decisions? I know liberals who say that the Republicans seem to be trying to make the US into a 3rd world country (abolish labor protections, etc) and while I have in the past thought this is unfair rhetoric on liberals' part, reading crap like that repeatedly by my conservative friends makes me think maybe the republicans really are trying to get us to lose our first world status.
I think the implication is actually: These are third world countries... and they're WAY AHEAD OF US!
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote: OK, but if human nature is such that this is something that can't be prevented, then it's an institutional problem. We can't just say "they are doing it wrong" and point to the idealized intent of the institution rather than the practical result. And it's pretty easy to tell who has a temple recommend if one uses garments as a proxy.
I don't know what else to say. At some point, it's up to the individual to determine how they see it and feel about it. I won't try to idealize it anymore. I've tried explaining how I see it. I definitely have only one perspective. The church does many things according to patterns or ideals, and leaves it up to the people to align themselves in relation to those patterns. Obviously, not everybody will see it the same way and not everybody will be pleased all the time.
quote: The problem with all of your metaphors is that all of them involve some deliberate effort - things you could compel someone to do by gunpoint or, more realistically, things that can be accomplished through force of will.
They could lead to the gunpoint thing, but they don't have to. Don't read too much into my examples. They were intended to illustrate one point only.
quote: Temple attendance doesn't only require that you *do* certain things but that you *think* certain things. I think that's incredibly unfair to hold weddings there while dissuading external ceremonies when such ceremonies have become so embedded in our culture. Surely God can abide the presence of a respectful unbeliever even in his most sacred of places. The unbelievers that currently attend through duplicitousness aren't causing any apparent harm.
I do not know if it is stated church policy to discourage outside ceremonies in the U.S. I certainly don't see any harm in having a separate ring ceremony, like scholarette's, perhaps, that everyone can attend. I can't see the church being willing to sponsor a supplemental ceremony for everyone getting married in the temple, but if the family wants to plan one on their own terms, why not? I'm sure there are opinions all across the spectrum on that one.
As far as allowing non-members into the temple, I believe that is considered doctrine. I don't think the church is afraid that non-member observers wouldn't be respectful. It stems more from doctrine on the temples themselves, set forth in scripture. Their role as a place set apart from the rest of the world is taken very seriously. Only those who have taken the prescribed steps to prepare may enter them, whether to participate in one of the ceremonies or to witness a temple marriage.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: On facebook, many of my conservative friends have been posting this: SO LET ME GET THIS STRAIGHT ... If you cross the North Korean border illegally, you get 12 yrs. hard labor. If you cross the Afghanistan border illegally, you get shot. Two Americans just got eight years for crossing the Iranian border. If you cross the U. S. border illegally you get a job, a drivers license, food stamps, a place to live, health care, housing & child benefits, education, & a tax free business for 7 yrs ...No wonder we are a country in debt. Re-post if you agree!
Part of me is amazed- are we really looking to Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea for policy decisions? I know liberals who say that the Republicans seem to be trying to make the US into a 3rd world country (abolish labor protections, etc) and while I have in the past thought this is unfair rhetoric on liberals' part, reading crap like that repeatedly by my conservative friends makes me think maybe the republicans really are trying to get us to lose our first world status.
IMO, only the most sensational, idiotic, extreme stuff gets passed around in chain emails.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I've not known of a case where tithing was the one thing keeping someone out of the temple.
I have. Not many; because by the time you get to the point where you're ready to go to the temple, you already know about tithing, and you've been deceptive or honest about it's payment.
quote:Surely God can abide the presence of a respectful unbeliever even in his most sacred of places. The unbelievers that currently attend through duplicitousness aren't causing any apparent harm.
God is god-- He can abide quite a bit.
Those folks that enter the temple unworthily ARE doing harm to themselves, the same way that people who take the sacrament unworthily are. (See 3rd Nephi 18:29, 1 Corinthians 11:29) They're being dishonest, at the very least.
Which is not to say that the harm is apparent; but that cognitive dissonance is not a positive thing, I wouldn't think.
quote:Out of curiosity - is there a doctrinal basis for the policy on external ceremonies or worthiness standards for temple attendance? (Not participation in ordinances, just observing them).
I'm not sure about external ceremonies. I think the idea behind the policy might be to make sure that the emphasis is on the sealing work done inside the temple. BUT-- my younger brother and his wife were married in a casino in Vegas, and then got married in the Temple a little while later. The worst discipline he received was me and my older brother ribbing him about having Elvis officiate.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
That's a great article, Scott. Thanks for the link.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:. I think the idea behind the policy might be to make sure that the emphasis is on the sealing work done inside the temple. BUT-- my younger brother and his wife were married in a casino in Vegas, and then got married in the Temple a little while later. The worst discipline he received was me and my older brother ribbing him about having Elvis officiate.
lol
Elder Presley
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
[QUOTE]
As far as allowing non-members into the temple, I believe that is considered doctrine. I don't think the church is afraid that non-member observers wouldn't be respectful. It stems more from doctrine on the temples themselves, set forth in scripture. Their role as a place set apart from the rest of the world is taken very seriously. Only those who have taken the prescribed steps to prepare may enter them, whether to participate in one of the ceremonies or to witness a temple marriage. [QUOTE]
You must understand the perceived intention and the actual effect of this restriction. In the case of marriages, it is made clear to the families of converts that they are not welcome in nor involved with the marriage of their own family members. To me, this is unconscionable and cultish. Sadly I didn't attend my cousin's wedding, nor did I feel particularly inclined to congratulate him or acknowledge his new wife. Why should I? He chose the church over his family in this event, just as they wanted him to.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:ScottR, in the US the policy is no ceremony that could be mistaken for a wedding. Of course, my exchange of rings, included statements of love (not vows), walking down the aisle (we had to get to the front somehow and my husband was already up there and my dad wanted to walk with me) and flower children (kids are cute and should be included in everything). The bishop did however make a point that the wedding was in the temple, not there.
I'm behind here, but just a few notes from my faulty memory:
My understanding of the country by country policy is that some countries do no allow the Temple ceremony to serve as a legal wedding, and thus the Church permits the legal event to occur prior to the sealing. Though I believe there is a time limit as to how long can go between the two of them. If missed (exceptions made for real reasons, i.e. an emergency doesn't cause a problem, just planning the sealing for a few weeks in the future does) then you're back to the US (and other applicable countries) standard. Which is no sealing until a year after the legal wedding (some exceptions may apply, such as if one of you is a convert who was baptized less than a year prior to the legal ceremony).
The 'ring ceremony' is often suggested by the Church (mostly unofficially) for those who have family or close friends who can not attend the Temple but still wish to participate in the joining of the couple. It often takes place in a LDS church and is run by the Bishop. However, it is not an official Church function and there are no rules or requirements for one. The policy is discourage any ceremony or talks that would make it seem as if this function were the actual wedding and thus detract or minimize the sealing that had taken place. There are no repercussions (outside of the possibility of "more righteous" people haranguing you for it) for not involving the Church, the Bishop, or adding in elements like walking down the aisle into it. Exchanging vows is specifically mentioned as something to be avoided so you'd probably catch some flack for doing that but it wouldn't impact your actual standing in the Church.
As to using the Church, it is a very common venue for non-Temple weddings between two members, receptions and ring ceremonies. Some find it a bit tacky, but as with most things as long as you can schedule it the use of the building is free so for the younger couples who can't afford (or whose parents can't) renting out dining halls or other locations it's pretty popular. I'm surprised to hear of difficulties using it: normally people try pretty hard to work around anything marriage related (any of the above listed events) to make sure the couple can have the ceremony/celebration they want. I spent a decent amount of time in a YSA ward with lots of such activities all held in a building that supported 5 wards and thus was pressed for space on a nominal week. All that being said, unless you are sealed in the Temple, there are no restrictions as to where you must be married, or who can perform the ceremony.
For my part my strongest desire is that should I be lucky enough to get married, my fiance will agree to eloping. The complications of a wedding are too dramatic for me in a secular context. Adding in the fact that my family would not be able to attend the sealing is more than enough to make me want to forgo any unnecessary ceremony and just tie the knot half a world away from everyone I know. Plus, despite the plot of Oragsmo, there's no cost for a Temple wedding (no charge anyway) so eloping makes for a lot more money to spend on the honeymoon.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:The bishop did however make a point that the wedding was in the temple, not there.
I wanted to add this is a huge pet peeve of mine. Not that it comes up that often but I've heard it said at a few of the ring ceremonies I've been to and it really bothers me. I don't see why people need to point out that it's not the wedding, or that the sealing was the important part. The whole point of this event is to include those who felt shunned by the sealing, why are we pointing it out to them again!?! Also, I think everyone knew the sealing occurred already and that the couple cared about it, everyone is aware of what's going on, you don't have to inform the masses about this great secret. We're here to celebrate something, not remember when we missed something else!
Should I have such a ceremony, I will inform whoever we ask to run it that any such comments would be highly inappropriate and that if he or she did not feel comfortable not saying them then they should let us know now and we will gladly find someone else. I'm not really sure why everyone uses the Bishop, I guess it just makes a kind of subtle sense. However, I would not feel tied to that concept at all.
Hobbes Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
My cousin's reception, which happened after the wedding in the temple, included an address by somebody or other from the local ward or stake, I don't know who. He managed to offend both families by apparently talking for about 10 minutes about Mormanism and saying that it was the only path to heaven, and that all outsiders weren't going there. This was an event meant for the non-member relatives, you understand. And hosted in my aunt's house, which seemed poor form for the venue.
And apparently to top that, the moment the guests arrived (for some reason I don't understand, apparently ward members they barely knew arrived with dozens of children in tow, never introduced themselves, and left when the food was gone), the children descended on and ate every last morsel of desert foods they had bought, and the mormon guests consumed all the food, so that the family members were not fed, and somebody had to go and buy sandwiches for the relatives. Apparently a goodly number of people showed up completely uninvited- at least to hear my aunt tell it.
I doubt it's a typical stake, though- if it were, you'd hear more god-awful horror stories about Mormon weddings and their receptions. Because this sounded like an unmitigated disaster.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
[EDIT: I misread your post, I thought you were saying the reception in the Temple, the following is in reference to that misunderstanding] [That does sound pretty bad. Though I'm wondering, were you there yourself? Holding receptions in the Temple or on Temple grounds is strictly verboten. Same goes for ring ceremonies, though taking wedding photos around the Temple is ubiquitous and sometimes those things have enough people and organization so as to appear as their own gatherings....]
That being said, I'd certainly believe something like that happened. It's really too bad, I suppose part of the problem is the 'volunteer' status of Bishops. They have little experience and no training in doing this sort of ecclesiastical work and don't necessarily have the tools to say the right thing in these situations nor to help on the planning end. Of course I'd be curious to hear more about some of the strange specifics of this story before I tried assigning blame to anyone in specific.
Hobbes Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I don't know who was at fault, honestly. I think probably it was a case of poor communication all around. My aunt (his aunt as well, not his mother) is bossy but efficient, and he's a quiet retiring sort, and his wife is also rather meek. The aunt also pushed them into having the reception, and at her house, so who knows. I made it sound like it was all the fault of the Mormons, but I think the issue there was poor communication that might not have happened had the wedding been planned as a single event. As it was, the exclusivity of the ceremony meant that people didn't communicate about what the reception would be like.
I consider it 100% plausible that he was not able to properly communicate his expectations to the ward members about the reception, was not properly able to communicate the needs of the reception to our aunt, and was overall ill-prepared to stand up for himself about what he wanted to happen, and though I don't know his wife very well, I rather think the case was the same with her. Basically, two newlyweds who got swept up between the church and the family, so nothing really went well.
Now, if you add to that an inexperienced bishop, and just one or two tasteless families with wild kids, you get a disaster. Not a surprise at all. But it was a shame from what I heard about it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
" In the case of marriages, it is made clear to the families of converts that they are not welcome in nor involved with the marriage of their own family members"
I understand this happens. But such an attitude is definitely not according to Mormon doctrine.
Sorry about your cousin's wedding. It sounds terrible.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Note: it occurs to me that I am defining "marriage" as used by Orincoro as the entire day-- not just the ceremony. We had lots of non-Mormon help and participation in our reception, for example.
[ September 10, 2011, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I don't anticipate Obama's jobs bill to meet with anything by disdain from Republicans. I doubt it will pass with even modifications made to it. It will just be ignored.
The plan is a bit underwhelming, a suped up version of it should have been the stimulus passed in 2008, instead of TARP, but in today's toxic political climate I don't expect the Republicans to take it seriously or try to work with it. They will simply parrot "NO INCREASE IN TAXES!" and then blame Obama as the economy continues to stagnate, or at worse slip into depression.
I'm actually a little suspicious of the GOP reception of the bill. Instead of immediately dismissing it, as McConnell did, Boehner is actually making friendly sounds. Is this a new good cop bad cop ploy they're trying?
Regardless, there's a lot Republicans will like in this bill. The Payroll Tax holiday will be extended, if it's not, it's a tax increase under GOP rules. They define tax increases to include an expiration of a tax cut, so they'd be raising taxes.
They'll like the free trade parts, they'll probably all end up agreeing on patent reform, the GOP will probably go for the infrastructure bank. They might even go for the road construction stuff because the Transportation Bill has been languishing in Congress and needs to be passed anyway. They'll balk at unemployment extensions, but I really don't know how they can justify voting them down without passing something more comprehensive to create jobs.
Dollar for dollar he might not even get half of it, but item for item, he's going to get more than most people think. Lots of economists like the plan, but no one things it will pass.
Part of me kind of questions spending $400 billion to create a million or two million jobs. I think there'd be even more economic activity if we just held a lottery of the unemployed, picked two million people, and evenly divvied up the money. Takes two million people off government assistance, and they'll spend like crazy. They'd each get $200,000. Heck, make it four million people and give them all $100,000. Even if you made it 8 million and gave them all $50,000 that's still higher than the median income level in this country. Unemployment benefits extensions already cost like $100 billion a year, so there's a fourth of the money right there.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Hah. A state lottery of free benefits. I'd like to see the GOP reaction to that one.
First they'd demand that in order to qualify, you would need to be educated. Then it would turn out you would have to have been employed in a high payed job until recently, then it would end up going to the top 1%.
God forbid those Dave Chappelle skits about reparations payments ever come true, and dusty black people start buying truckloads of Newport cigarettes. *THAT* would not be good for the economy for some reason.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess we could make them do something.
California has a revamped version of the old 30s era CCC. They've hired a couple dozen ex-military people to clear and build trails in state parks.
Whatever happened to that type of thing? Let's build a couple of Hoover Dams or something.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't see why people need to point out that it's not the wedding, or that the sealing was the important part.
Well, that's really just how plenty of people get when it comes to exclusive clubs that aren't just a hobby or something. If it's a club that one belongs to as a reward for right behavior, and people don't get in until they behave properly...well, as someone else (I believe it was MattP), that could be described as a fundamental flaw. Because it's going to be very hard to deal with the contradictions here-it's an exclusive thing with lots of emotionally deeply important events happening in it, but members shouldn't feel (much less act) superior to those who cannot get in, but they should also be satisfied/proud/happy/etc. that they're at the level to be admitted, and a sign of that is that not just anyone can stroll in-the group and place is that important, but we mustn't feel or act superior to those who can't get in...
I mean, I don't say that people are being hypocritical or anything like that, or deceptive or anything like that either. But there is a contradiction-at least outwardly. The only way it can be avoided, it seems to me, is if you agree with the initial premise-that there isn't a contradiction, if taught correctly.
quote:Whatever happened to that type of thing? Let's build a couple of Hoover Dams or something.
Godless commie!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I disagree with your statement Rakeesh, because it reads to me like you've an inherent assumption as to why people say these things at ring ceremonies: namely that they feel they, or at least "their club" is superior to those who are not part of it. Basically that these statements are emanating from a feeling of superiority over those who are not Mormon. Though I don't claim to know what drives any one specific person to say anything, I doubt that this is the general case.
My theories are that there are several reasons one might do this, and feeling above non-members is really the least likely.
First they genuinely believe both in the importance of a Temple sealing as well as the existence of danger should the couple lose sight of what the important event of the day was. Thus attempt to refocus or retain focus on the spiritual and eternal nature of the act that had previously taken place and a de-emphasis on the more showy aspects of the following celebrations.
A desire for those who could not attend the sealing to understand its importance and why the couple did choose to be sealed despite the pain it caused to some. The fact that this must be done very carefully and even then is likely to just cause further alienation is either lost on the speaker or they think they can do it right.
A desire to 'share the gospel' (i.e. proselytize) in what the speaker considers an ideal situation. (This theory is upsetting to me, but I have reason to believe it is the cause of some of these incidents).
A lack of clearly defined purpose for a ring ceremony ("if we aren't exchanging vows, what exactly are we doing here") leads speakers to ramble a bit and fall back on explaining an event they understand the purpose of. This I think is pretty legitimate: most people's purpose for a ring ceremony is basically to appease the family members who are angry at them and don't really develop a more involved theme or purpose. So when the officiator or anyone else who speaks tries to talk about the event they're kind of at a loss as to what to say. Not a great excuse for essentially insulting those who the thing is designed to make feel better, but understandable when they have no topic to speak on but are asked to talk about the new couple.
These are just some ideas; fundamentally I reject what I read as a suggestion that these kind of snafus are the result of the speaker feeling superior for being Mormon. Perhaps it's not what you said and I misread, but if so then I guess this is a response to a hypothetical someone else.
Hobbes Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Godless commie!
Someone has to make sure all the widgets are greased when the rest of you get raptured away.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Whatever happened to that type of thing? Let's build a couple of Hoover Dams or something.
Godless commie!
Yeah, see, what you wanna do is claim credit for being the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD by having those things. But also you want to make sure and deride the very notion of EVER doing anything like that again for some reason.
America is GREAT because of all the socialistic things it has done in the past. And we need to keep it GREAT by never doing anything socialistic.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You have to be at least a little impressed.
The mental contortionist act it takes to be proud of your achievements even while being disgusted with how they were achieved is enough to make Cirque du Soleil jealous.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:America is GREAT because of all the socialistic things it has done in the past. And we need to keep it GREAT by never doing anything socialistic.
Though I'm not sure that I'd call it socialist, there is no question that this is an excellent point.
Hobbes Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hobbes,
quote:I disagree with your statement Rakeesh, because it reads to me like you've an inherent assumption as to why people say these things at ring ceremonies: namely that they feel they, or at least "their club" is superior to those who are not part of it. Basically that these statements are emanating from a feeling of superiority over those who are not Mormon. Though I don't claim to know what drives any one specific person to say anything, I doubt that this is the general case.
I wasn't speaking of ring ceremonies, not being very familiar at all with them, but rather the separation between those with a temple recommend and those without, and further still those who aren't Mormons at all. I was trying to address what seem to me to be some pretty tricky mental navigation inherent with an exclusive situation such as that.
Having a recommend is something to be aspired towards, something that is evidence of one's spiritual status (and while it's not public, what I meant by 'quasi-public' is that, over time, it will be known who has one and who doesn't-such as by attendance at ceremonies or lack of attendance). So it's something to be grateful for and be satisfied with-it's not just given to anyone, after all.
But, people with a recommend shouldn't feel superior to those without a recommend. That's fine on paper, but in my experience it's sometimes really, really hard for people to make that distinction. And it's understandable. I'm not just talking about overt smugness-it's pretty easy not to do that. I'm talking about not feeling superior to others because you are right with God*, and they aren't.
quote:First they genuinely believe both in the importance of a Temple sealing as well as the existence of danger should the couple lose sight of what the important event of the day was. Thus attempt to refocus or retain focus on the spiritual and eternal nature of the act that had previously taken place and a de-emphasis on the more showy aspects of the following celebrations.
This all serves to highlight the contradictions I was talking about. It's pretty mcuh as difficult as the fact that Christians are supposed to be humble and peaceful, but not be pridefully humble and peaceful. It's all well and good to say, "Well they're not supposed to do that," but that's easy to say and hard to do. And I don't accept that it's exactly uncommon, either. Why would it be any more uncommon than Christians who are proud of their piety, exactly?
quote:A lack of clearly defined purpose for a ring ceremony ("if we aren't exchanging vows, what exactly are we doing here") leads speakers to ramble a bit and fall back on explaining an event they understand the purpose of. This I think is pretty legitimate: most people's purpose for a ring ceremony is basically to appease the family members who are angry at them and don't really develop a more involved theme or purpose. So when the officiator or anyone else who speaks tries to talk about the event they're kind of at a loss as to what to say. Not a great excuse for essentially insulting those who the thing is designed to make feel better, but understandable when they have no topic to speak on but are asked to talk about the new couple.
Eh, not really to me. I mean, to be honest I don't really get the point of a ceremony designed to make people feel better. Particularly in cases of one member of a family going all-out and getting a recommend and a temple marriage, it's a pretty big step away from the rest of the family, not unlike-though on a different scale-someone leaving a community of Amish (not unlike, because there are some pretty clear things you must do, and things you mustn't do, to have a recommend-it's an exclusive community). If you're going to have a ceremony to 'make them feel better', then that should be its purpose. Not proseltyzing to them, not referring back to the meaning of the big indicator that their family member is walking away from them, and not reminding them of how important the actual, clearly defined ceremony is.
When such things happen, it seems to me a pretty clear sign that a ceremony such as that was never-in that case-more than anything but a get-well card.
quote:These are just some ideas; fundamentally I reject what I read as a suggestion that these kind of snafus are the result of the speaker feeling superior for being Mormon. Perhaps it's not what you said and I misread, but if so then I guess this is a response to a hypothetical someone else.
Overall, I wouldn't say such things are a result of speakers feeling superior for being a recommend-bearing Mormon (though frankly it's hard for me to imagine such thoughts aren't somewhere in the mind of someone who, for example, proseltyzes to a family of non-members at their for-appearances ring ceremony). I think they're a result of the difficulty in threading the needle: it's really good to have a recommend and to do things in the Temple, but don't feel superior about it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Rakeesh, your last post seems to have been largely ghostwritten, and is a covert allegory sympathizing with Hitler.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
From the 9-year-old sister of a childhood friend that was Mormon (I was 12 or so at the time): "We're not better, we're just more specialer." [Looks to brother.] "Right?"
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You have to be at least a little impressed.
The mental contortionist act it takes to be proud of your achievements even while being disgusted with how they were achieved is enough to make Cirque du Soleil jealous.
It's liiiike... bragging about the great gay sex you've had, even though you're a homophobe.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:From the 9-year-old sister of a childhood friend that was Mormon (I was 12 or so at the time): "We're not better, we're just more specialer." [Looks to brother.] "Right?"
Out of the mouths of babes and all that. That is, it seems to me, a pretty natural, straightforward way of looking at things-the way that 9-year-old sister of a friend looked at it. There's more to the teachings than 'I'm a member of the thing we're all supposed to be doing, and you're not, therefore...' but it's tough to teach much less embrace.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I appreciate the response, Rakeesh.
quote:I wasn't speaking of ring ceremonies, not being very familiar at all with them, but rather the separation between those with a temple recommend and those without, and further still those who aren't Mormons at all. I was trying to address what seem to me to be some pretty tricky mental navigation inherent with an exclusive situation such as that.
Ahh, but my statement, to which you were responding there, was entirely about ring ceremonies. Perhaps you were trying to make a broader point, but my issue is that I don't think that broader point (true or untrue) applies to the scenario in question. The scenario being ring ceremonies.
quote:
quote: First they genuinely believe both in the importance of a Temple sealing as well as the existence of danger should the couple lose sight of what the important event of the day was. Thus attempt to refocus or retain focus on the spiritual and eternal nature of the act that had previously taken place and a de-emphasis on the more showy aspects of the following celebrations.
This all serves to highlight the contradictions I was talking about. It's pretty mcuh as difficult as the fact that Christians are supposed to be humble and peaceful, but not be pridefully humble and peaceful. It's all well and good to say, "Well they're not supposed to do that," but that's easy to say and hard to do. And I don't accept that it's exactly uncommon, either. Why would it be any more uncommon than Christians who are proud of their piety, exactly?
I'm afraid I'm not seeing the line between my words and yours; can you help me here?
quote:Eh, not really to me. I mean, to be honest I don't really get the point of a ceremony designed to make people feel better. Particularly in cases of one member of a family going all-out and getting a recommend and a temple marriage, it's a pretty big step away from the rest of the family, not unlike-though on a different scale-someone leaving a community of Amish (not unlike, because there are some pretty clear things you must do, and things you mustn't do, to have a recommend-it's an exclusive community). If you're going to have a ceremony to 'make them feel better', then that should be its purpose. Not proseltyzing to them, not referring back to the meaning of the big indicator that their family member is walking away from them, and not reminding them of how important the actual, clearly defined ceremony is.
Well here I have to tread carefully. The truth is I don't much understand the importance of being at the ceremony, ring, wedding, whatever. Thus I'm really not equipped to understand how the ring ceremony functions as a partial fill-in for those who can not attend the sealing as I appear to be somehow emotionally deficient and just can't quite grasp how one would be offended by missing the event in the first place. The self deprecating language here being genuine, I'm not attempting to minimize the one who do (which make up the vast majority of family and friends) I'm saying I just don't get it.
So with that disclaimer... the hypothetical I had in mind, which I think was reasonable, was this: a couple has some number of family or friends who they know will be hurt by the fact that they can't attend the sealing. They thus decide to hold a ring ceremony to assuage those who have been hurt. They plan out various events at that ceremony but it never occurs to them to develop any kind of theme or purpose beyond the one that forced them there. Thus when they decide to ask their Bishop to speak for a few minutes he finds nothing to discuss in regards to this ceremony and falls back on discussing the sealing. You don't think this is understandable? I'm not saying right, or agreeable, just understandable. I'll side with you if you want to add "unfortunate" or "inappropriate". After all this conversation began with me saying it was a huge pet peeve of mine.
And to be clear, I think this can be avoided. Not just by asking the speaker to steer clear of such subjects, but rather by developing a meaningful theme or purpose for your ceremony. Most good ones I've been to combine it with the reception and have it fulfill the "present the new couple to society" function. But whatever you want, you can make the ceremony about something, make it mean something and thus avoid this problem.
quote:Overall, I wouldn't say such things are a result of speakers feeling superior for being a recommend-bearing Mormon (though frankly it's hard for me to imagine such thoughts aren't somewhere in the mind of someone who, for example, proseltyzes to a family of non-members at their for-appearances ring ceremony). I think they're a result of the difficulty in threading the needle: it's really good to have a recommend and to do things in the Temple, but don't feel superior about it.
To your first point, I would agree it probably is the case in many such scenarios, though I know a few people who I would believe would commit such actions without any feelings or ideas of superiority. However, that's why I added that such things upset me. As to your second, this seems to be the main thesis of your last few posts. My disagreement mostly arose from its application to this specific case, but it's not clear to me what you're saying in general.
Let me try to explain what I'm reading, you can correct my mistakes and then I'll end with what I just don't understand. Your issue here is that the LDS Church, like many other religions or just normal organizations, has created an exclusive set of values and members. The teachings are that these values represent a 'higher' plane of living, and thus the members enjoy, by some definition a higher life than those who have not chosen to so live. The problem then results when trying to interact with those who are not members of the organization as a dichotomy develops when you both treat them as equals and yet hold the belief that your organization and values are superior to what they belong to, or to what morals they are living by.
Is this correct?
My question is, what are you saying about this problem exactly? That is a problem that any organization like this should be aware of and try to deal with? That this scenario is unfix-able and the organization that sets it up is irresponsible and incorrect? I don't understand what you are trying to say about the situation.
Hobbes Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
We did a ring ceremony because we wanted a public declaration of our commitment to each other. The temple, by nature, is not that. We wanted all of our friends and family to know that we loved each other. We wanted our family to know that we were now family to each other- his brother was now my brother, all that. We spent a ridiculous amount of time learning a few lines of our ring ceremony in Cantonese (ok, I spent a huge amount of time, my husband got it pretty quickly but I am tone deaf and have that auditory dyslexia so English is hard enough) so that it would be inclusive to everyone. The bishop knew our purposes, but he was fairly traditional. I remember there was a section on ring ceremonies in the bishop's handbook, but not what it said but at the time, we were led to believe we had to have someone from bishopric there if we did it at ward. The bishop spent a lot of time looking at our decorations in terror, trying to figure out how we were going to have it clean in time for church the next day. We had a pagoda, kites, umbrellas, a fish pond, lanterns, lion dancers, etc. Ok, lion dancers don't make much mess, but they were awesome.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
That sounds excellent Scholarette, I do wish I could've seen it myself!
If you were set on having the event at the Church than the Church did get to proscribe the rules. Technically I think the facilities Bishop would be the one in charge of making decisions originally but they would certainly turn that responsibility over to your own Bishop (if they weren't one in the same). By Church policy it is not required that the Bishop preside, but he is permitted to make that a requirement if he feels it appropriate. Most would simply assume you wanted that anyway so it often just kind of happens.
We're starting to get into areas I'm little fuzzier in but my understanding is that if you had your ceremony in the Chapel then a Bishop or someone he assigns would have to preside. Otherwise two Melchizedek Priesthood holders would have to be present, and the Bishop would have to approve the activities you had planned but no more. That being said, these are (I think, my memory ain't what it used to be ) the minimum requirements as specified by the CHI, if the Bishop feels so impressed he could include more qualifications such as him presiding/conducting.
Long story short, if you want to use the Church (for free, it's not a bad gig) you'd definitely have more restrictions on what was feasible and what you could demand (though you can of course, always ask, most Bishops are perfectly reasonable men). If you go off property you're golden as long you don't, you know, actually break commandments. There aren't actual rules about ring ceremonies as it's your business, and not a spiritual function like the sealing.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: Your issue here is that the LDS Church, like many other religions or just normal organizations, has created an exclusive set of values and members. The teachings are that these values represent a 'higher' plane of living, and thus the members enjoy, by some definition a higher life than those who have not chosen to so live. The problem then results when trying to interact with those who are not members of the organization as a dichotomy develops when you both treat them as equals and yet hold the belief that your organization and values are superior to what they belong to, or to what morals they are living by.
Is this correct?
My question is, what are you saying about this problem exactly? That is a problem that any organization like this should be aware of and try to deal with? That this scenario is unfix-able and the organization that sets it up is irresponsible and incorrect? I don't understand what you are trying to say about the situation.
Hobbes
I think that, for me, the problem is that even though that kind of pride is a very typical human response, it is something that Christians are generally instructed to avoid.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:the problem is that even though that kind of pride is a very typical human response, it is something that Christians are generally instructed to avoid.
Mormons, too. I think that's been stated.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Seemed relevant.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Great link, scholarette. Lots of great comments.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
For once reading the comments didn't make me want to divorce* the human race. What a strange thing.
*No pun intended.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:I think that, for me, the problem is that even though that kind of pride is a very typical human response, it is something that Christians are generally instructed to avoid.
I still don't understand though. Are you saying that the set-up I described (in the part you quoted) is in-itself flawed/evil? Or are you saying that it's something such a group would need to pay attention to and work on? Or something else? I suppose technically I was asking Rakeesh, but I'd be interested in your opinion too.
Hobbes Posted by Uindy (Member # 9743) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Since OSC still says he's a democrat, I guess this guy can call himself a republican.
I've not known of a case where tithing was the one thing keeping someone out of the temple.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
A couple of thoughts on Temple Weddings.
First, The Temple sealing is a very small intimate affairs. Even if all your friends and family are temple worthy Mormons, they won't all be able to attend. Temple sealing rooms will typically accommodate no more than a couple dozen people. In a large LDS family, that's not many so a lot of friends, cousins, aunts and uncles etc aren't going to be invited, no matter how worthy they might be. Mormons tend to invite a very small number of people to the actual wedding ceremony and an enormous crowd to the reception. People who've grown up LDS, expect that they are unlikely to be invited to the wedding ceremony in the temple unless they are very close friends of immediate family. That however is not what anyone but Mormons expect and so it's certain to cause offense to non Mormon friends and family members. Its a problem that is growing as an every growing fraction of the church are converts with close friends and family members outside the church.
Second, It's my understanding that the church policy which requires members in the US to wait one year to be sealed in the temple if they have a wedding ceremony outside the temple was adopted about 70 years ago because it was perceived that big wedding celebrations distracted people from the seriousness and solemnity of the simple temple ceremony. Presuming that is in fact the purpose, it doesn't work. People have large elaborate receptions even if they aren't wedding ceremonies. Even without any parties or celebrations at all, the logistics and emotions of getting married (particularly for people who haven't lived together and had sex prior to the marriage) are a pretty big distraction from the temple ordinance in and of themselves. According to my Mother who frequently works in the bridal room in the temple, a lot of the brides spend more time primping for the wedding photos than they do in the sealing room.
Furthermore, the policy hurts families. 60 to 70 years ago, most members of the church were either multi-generation Mormons, immigrated to an LDS community to be close to a Temple or lived too far from a Temple for inviting family and friends to the Temple ceremony to be an issue. That simply isn't the case any more. An ever increasing number of LDS couples have close friends and family members who have never been associated with the church and the policy forces them to choose between celebrating their marriage with their parents, syblings and closest friends and marrying in the Temple. That's just stupid. The church is supposed to strengthen families not drive a wedge between them. And its absolutely not necessary. The policy only applies in the US. It would be so simple to lift it. Let people have a wedding ceremony outside the temple with all their friends and family and then (perhaps as part of the honeymoon) they can go to the temple and have an intimate sacred Temple sealing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rabbit: How would you address situations where two people get married either on a whim, but don't want the stigma of divorce so they decide to get married in the temple too, or else couples where they have had sex while dating, can't go to the temple, but then decide to have a civil ceremony to formalize their relationship, and now technically are no longer living in sin?
Is there any sort of probationary period, especially in the latter case you feel is warranted?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Excellent points Rabbit. It really does feel the creation of this choice (us or them) is arbitrary. And once more I believe that should such changes be made, fully LDS families would stick to the way it is already. Seems like the only ones impacted would be those no longer forced to choose between the Church and their non-member family and those who desperately want the showy wedding. And how was forcing the latter group into the Temple actually helping if their hearts weren't in it?
BB, I'm not sure I understand your questions. If there was some sort of sin involved then they'd have to work with the Bishop to get their Temple Recommend anyway. He'd (with them and the Stake President if applicable) set the timetable for them to return to, or just go to the Temple. There's a built in delay in those cases already.
Hobbes Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Hobbes: And yet, people do not always want the shame of admitting those sorts of things, to a bishop or stake president. So they go and get married, or move soon after getting married, and it's a new bishop or stake president who doesn't know a thing about their case.
Same thing for those who get married in say Vegas over the weekend, start having sex, and then come back much to the shock of everybody they know, and then indicate they are properly married, they are going to the temple next week to get married for time and all eternity.
On what grounds could a bishop or temple president deny their request for getting married in the temple?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... The policy only applies in the US. It would be so simple to lift it.
Wait, I must have missed this before. How difficult is it for an American couple to simply have a temple wedding in say Canada or Mexico if they wanted more control over who they could invite?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I don't understand Blackblade. Yes, people lie about their sins to avoid shame and end up going to the Temple unrighteously. What does this have to do with allowing weddings outside prior to the sealing? Seems like that would make it better...
Also, if someone is under disciplinary action that is marked on their records until it is taken care of. If they transfer their records the new Bishop is automatically notified. If they do not transfer their records they can not get a Temple Recommend.
quote:Same thing for those who get married in say Vegas over the weekend, start having sex, and then come back much to the shock of everybody they know, and then indicate they are properly married, they are going to the temple next week to get married for time and all eternity.
On what grounds could a bishop or temple president deny their request for getting married in the temple?
Why would he want to (and I assume you mean stake president there, not Temple, am I right)? To get sealed you need to procure a 'living recommend' for that particular event, which is rarely given in haste (well LDS haste, as in, not in a day or two, often just a couple weeks though). If they're worthy, if their living the commandments and it's not longer prohibited to be married civilly and then shortly following sealed, why would a Bishop wish to interfere? And if they aren't doing those things, again the Bishop simply doesn't issue the living recommend.
Hobbes Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
BB- if they are willing to make a temple commitment, why shouldn't they be married in the temple?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Rabbit: How would you address situations where two people get married either on a whim, but don't want the stigma of divorce so they decide to get married in the temple too, or else couples where they have had sex while dating, can't go to the temple, but then decide to have a civil ceremony to formalize their relationship, and now technically are no longer living in sin?
Is there any sort of probationary period, especially in the latter case you feel is warranted?
I don't see this as a serious problem. To be sealed in the Temple, you have to have approval from your Bishop in addition to the normal Temple recommend. I think we can trust the discretion of most Bishops in such cases.
I have a hard time imagining that the first case would be a very common occurance. And when it does happen, if being sealed in the temple helps a couple who married on a whim to commit to making it work -- shouldn't we be encouraging it? At any rate, its better than the alternative where a couple dates for a month, is engaged for a month, marries in the temple and then is divorced within the year. I saw this happen a frightening number of times when I was attending a singles ward. Those couples would have been far far better of getting the quicky Las Vegas wedding.
Besides that, we all ready have a working policy in place for pretty much everywhere outside the US. People who are preparing to be married in the temple, marry in a public legal ceremony and then they have a set period of time(something on the order of a couple weeks) following that when they go to the temple to be sealed. If they don't go in that window, then they have to wait the year. That's all planned and arranged with the Bishops counsel and approval before the wedding. If a couple elopes, they can't come back in that window, get a recommend and go get sealed. They have to wait the year. All I'm suggesting is that the Church should change its US policy to match the policy it has everywhere else in the world.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
That was a great article on FMH-- thanks, scholarette.
Something stood out to me-- in the original poster's question on FMH, she stated something along the lines of how she was afraid that if she expressed to her family the doubts she had about the church, they would be saddened and upset.
I wonder if, at the bottom of a lot of unresolved guilt and doubt and sin, is this symptom: that the people you love and trust will reject you if they just knew how dirty you are. It's vital, in my opinion, to identify sin. It's as vital to embrace the person committing the sin, and show Christ-like compassion and love to them.
Christ did not shrink from the lepers. He did not let them live in leprosy either, those that came to Him-- but he welcomed them and healed them.
I hope that's something I'm showing my own children, and the children I teach at church-- that there is nothing they can do that will shake my love for them.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Keep in mind, those with doubts, don't necessary feel they are sinning or dirty. But they know that their friends and family will view them that way and having everyone around you think you are sinning sucks, even if it is a loving judgement.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm sure that's why many people leave the church.
There is a sense of betrayal, IMO, when a friend or family member decides to cut loose from church activity a bit. I've felt it. You depend on those around you to hold up their end and be buoys for you when you need it. You have your faith in common with them. When they let that go, you realize you can't depend on them in that way anymore. I've felt hurt when that happens--inadvertently. I also feel like suddenly I am being perceived as judging them, even though I haven't changed course but they have. I am going through this right now with some friends of mine. I'm doing my very best to treat them the same as I always have, but they must wonder what I think of them. I can't really help that. It's their choice. It's less we have in common now, and of course all of a sudden I feel I have to be guarded when the subject of church comes up, because there are invisible toes all over the place waiting to be stepped on, I imagine. And it goes on and on. Judgment in these cases isn't always very clean cut. It goes both ways and a new relationship has to be worked out of it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Looks like they're going for a similar tact, cut spending, no new taxes. At least Boehner said that closing loopholes is the "right thing" and not against their pledge of "no raising of taxes". We'll see if they remember saying that in the next few weeks when the compromises are hammered out.
Either way, looks like the Republicans don't want to go big on this, and are going to play defense for now.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's going to be interesting to see what Boehner will do when and if the Super Committee releases a plan with tax increases. If they really "go big," they'll almost have to have some sort of tax increases along with spending cuts.
Then Boehner has to choose between tax increases and massive cuts to defense spending. That will be fun to watch.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: [QUOTE] He chose the church over his family in this event, just as they wanted him to.
Yes, this is what they expect in far too many cases (if not all?).
For example, consider LDS Apostle Dallin H. Oaks' sentiment regarding parents of LGBTQ mormons who follow their children out of the church to adversarial positions.
quote: ELDER OAKS: We surely encourage parents not to blame themselves and we encourage Church members not to blame parents in this circumstance. We should remember that none of us is perfect and none of us has children whose behavior is entirely in accord with exactly what we would have them do in all circumstances.
We feel great compassion for parents whose love and protective instincts for their challenged children have moved them to some positions that are adversary to the Church. *I hope the Lord will be merciful to parents whose love for their children has caused them to get into such traps.
*emphasis added
Lord, have mercy on those who put family first.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Anthonie:
quote:And he said unto another, Follow me. But he said, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
And another also said, Lord, I will follow thee; but let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house.
And Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.
Luke 9 : 59-62.
Yeah, that Jesus was all about family first before God.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
It's all about division! Division.
That's the root of everything we've been discussing: temple attendance, weddings, being "in the club."
Division.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
How does the "If ye are not one, ye are not mine" teaching fit into all this?
(Doctrine and Covenants 38:27?)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yeah, I kinda thought 'merciful' was something of a default position. Interesting how an implied threat can be read in that last remark. I don't say that's what was meant, but I don't think it's much of a stretch to see it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: How does the "If ye are not one, ye are not mine" teaching fit into all this?
(Doctrine and Covenants 38:27?)
Well see we are supposed to simultaneously learn the principle of putting God above ourselves, as well as the principle of belonging to a community. Amazing how Christianity requires mastery of multiple skill sets neh?
----
Rakeesh: I've met Elder Oaks, and I absolutely believe that he feels nothing but compassion for parents who out of a sense of protective love for their children turn against the church. I very much doubt he hopes they end up in hell, but rather God helps the church and those people patch things up. The scriptures are quite clear on how God feels about people departing the church for any reason. Everybody loses.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I've heard Richard G. Scott also has a son that left the church, and that this is the reason he always looks at the camera when he speaks in conference, and talks so much about forgiveness.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I've heard Richard G. Scott also has a son that left the church, and that this is the reason he always looks at the camera when he speaks in conference, and talks so much about forgiveness.
I've read the the latter is being more a function of his trying to speak directly to people, I've never heard anything about a son leaving the church he is trying to address.
That seems like something most people would not disclose to the public.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)