posted
Pooka, I have to say that your last couple of posts made me a little uncomfortable. I'm going to limit my comments to two points:
1. I don't think you're right about the lay ministry being what evangelicals have a problem with. It's different, but not wildly different, and I don't think it is threatening.
2. You have to be a full tithe payer to go to the temple, and you have to commit to paying tithing to be baptized. I do NOT think it is a commercial transaction - it isn't. It's a commitment to a commandment, and if someone isn't intending on even trying to keep the commandments then the commitment seems a little iffy. Still - no tithing, no baptism or temple. I think calling it a commercial transaction is wrong for both LDS and other denominations.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ministers receive fees and gratuities for weddings. I don't know to what extent it happens for other ordinances (outside of Reform Judaism). You also usually have to pay more than $25 to use the facilities at a "normal" church. ($25 or some other utilities mitigation fee is what Mormons pay the actual church to do a wedding reception.) Also, "commercial" is a word you have introduced to the discussion.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you won't be given access to the temple for a wedding or whatever unless you tithe. From a simplified perspective, it's the difference between having a subscription and paying a one-time fee. If you don't want to be accused of the money thing, you've got no leg to stand on to attack other religions.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I wholeheartedly agree. One wonders, though, at the lack of application to religious thinking. Millions, even billions, of people do good things and lead good lives influenced heavily in part by their religion, which is based exclusively on the internal, the interpretation of voices in one's head and events in one's life.
But it don't get your support. This is the inconsistency I've been waiting to hear more about this whole time...the extent of your answer is that it's not an inconsistency, because religious people believe things about the external world based on the internal...and people believing in love and beauty don't? Doesn't wash with me, at least not until you define those terms as you have.
I think you are confusing moral claims and factual ones. My list of things that people do for love was not intended to argue that love is a good thing. It was intended to argue that love exists. That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I approve; I could have come up with a similar list for hate, or for supporting a sports team. Let me remind you of the original context: I said that a candidate's beliefs should be empirically supported; Irami claimed that this would let out candidates who believed in love and beauty; I am now arguing for why I think a belief in love is empirically supported. That we all think love is quite a good thing is completely irrelevant to this.
Now to how religion affects people's lives: This shows that religious belief exists. It does not show that any gods exist. That's the difference. Let me break it up with two hypothetical candidates:
Candidate A: Love exists. Love is a good thing.
These are two statements. The first is empirically supported, as I have just argued. The second is a moral belief, not a factual one, and I therefore do not demand empirical support for it.
Candidate B: God exists.
This is only one statement, and not empirically supported.
quote:What's your empirical support for the belief that moral axioms don't require empirical support?
I see my original post was a little badly worded, at least when dealing with a lawyer. Try "All statements and beliefs about facts should be empirically supported." This is not itself a statement about facts, hence it does not undermine itself. "God exists", however, is a statement about facts.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My minister at my wedding got a seat at the table (EDIT: at the reception), and I gave an offering to his church (he is now retired, he is a lay person in his church), and that's it. He was the minister of my family's church for 30+ years, and married my parents and baptized me, so that may have been part of it, but he didn't say, he just refused a direct payment, even though the wedding was ~3 hours from his house, each way.
So not all ministers (and probably not all ministers in any given church) charge. Then again, I am most decidedly NOT a member of an evangelical church (at least my particular tradition isn't).
posted
Pooka, ministers traditionally receive an honorarium for weddings. In my experience, it is not a set amount, but rather what the couple wishes to give. Please remember that for ordained ministers in most Protestant denominations this is their job, as well as their calling, and Saturday is usually their one day off a week.
There are no "extra" donations expected for baptisms or confirmation, and I have never heard of a member having to pay to use the facilities at a church. But I have never booked a wedding, either, so perhaps for larger events when the church is not normally open there is a fee for having janitorial staff on hand or something.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this is dicey territory. It isn't just the humans - someone has to pay the light bill.
In any case, I don't think that's a source for contempt of Mormons. I do, think, however, that it sometimes goes the otherway, unfortunately. While I'm a big fan of a lay ministry and tithing, I'm uncomfortable with criticizing other religions for their money structure.
Barring the televangelists using the money to pay for plastic surgery and private jets, of course. However, those are really the egregious exceptions.
quote:I have never heard of a member having to pay to use the facilities at a church
This does exist. There's a church in Dallas that Matt and I visited on a Sunday night one time (Matt's studying religious history - this makes for the occasionally unusual date), and somehow we found out that it cost almost four thousand dollars, even for the members, in a facilities fee to be married in their chapel. That was a little boggling.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: But you won't be given access to the temple for a wedding or whatever unless you tithe. From a simplified perspective, it's the difference between having a subscription and paying a one-time fee. If you don't want to be accused of the money thing, you've got no leg to stand on to attack other religions.
No you shouldn't be given access. I am quite confident that if I did none of those things I could still secure access of the temple and partake in the ordinances, temple worthiness has always been at its core something between the individual and God himself.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black Blade, I'm not sure what your last post said. Do you mean you think you could still go to the temple if you didn't pay tithing?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, Perhaps I've misunderstood previous conversations to this effect, but I was under the impression that if an LDS member did not tithe, they would not be welcome to participate in temple ceremonies. Is that incorrect?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know to what extent people do in churches in general, but I believe additional donations if not outright fees are involved in baptisms, confirmations, weddings, and so forth.
I have never heard of a church charging for a baptism or confirmation, or expecting any additional donation. I find the idea outragous. For weddings there may be building use fees, fees for the organist (although you can choose to provide your own), fees for printing bulletins or various other optional services. To come in and get married by the pastor in front of two witnesses with no "extras" -- no charge.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: This does exist. There's a church in Dallas that Matt and I visited on a Sunday night one time (Matt's studying religious history - this makes for the occasionally unusual date), and somehow we found out that it cost almost four thousand dollars, even for the members, in a facilities fee to be married in their chapel. That was a little boggling.
Good lord. No pun intended. Like I said, I've never tried to reserve a church for a wedding, and I think some sort of fee to cover the wage of the person who comes to unlock it and the heat and lights for when you're there is perfectly reasonable. But four grand? Wow.
Is it a historic/incredibly beautiful chapel, at least?
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was in a brand-new church that looked like the campus of a small liberal arts college and was located in a tony suburb. I figure that the church cost millions to build. To its credit, it was a very beautiful chapel.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if they have a sliding fee scale for members who are less well off. I can't imagine being a member of a church and wanting to get married there, and not be able to afford even a modest wedding at my actual church because the facilities fees were so high.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish I could remember the name of it - I know they have a website. *thinks*
UPDATE: Okay, I found it. There is a price of $4,000 at one point, but that is the highest price and it is for non-members having what is apparently a state wedding. The most common, I would imagine, is for members in the chapel. That's $1200 for the facilities fee.
quote:I wish I had KoM's magical powers of derailment.
They can be yours. All you have to do is say three magic words.
"Hitler was right."
I don't think that would work, actually. Nobody feels like arguing with an idiot who would make such a statement, because it doesn't touch them emotionally. People are quite secure in their belief that Hitler was wrong; it's not a matter for controversy. However, they are not very secure in their religious beliefs; hence any challenge there is immediately met with a vast defensive mobilisation, thread derailment be damned.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I hesitate to say that that's much more reasonable, it is a lot cheaper. And I'm sure any hall that seats 7000 would be on the pricey side to rent. (The $4,000 non-member level.) Oh, and it includes a wedding coordinator, lighting and sound technician. . .
But yeah, I'm sure most people would be using the chapel or the Atrium, for $800, if they have less than 200 people. And an office wedding with just family and no set up is still no charge.
Thanks for finding it! Interesting site to poke around on. Not my cup of tea as a church, but hey.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I am quite confident that if I did none of those things I could still secure access of the temple and partake in the ordinances, temple worthiness has always been at its core something between the individual and God himself.
Well...you can SAY that you pay an honest tithe, even when you don't. It's not like the Stake Pres., or Bishop or whatever is going to check. They take your word for it.
So...yeah. You can lie to them. You can go and partake in the temple ordinances even if you aren't a full tithe payer, or if you sleep around, or if you don't believe in God.
pooka--
I think it far more likely that pastors of other faiths object to Mormonism for the reasons they say they object to it: doctrinal differences. I don't think there is a fear among other Christian congregations that the Mormons are going to steal their meal ticket.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat/MrS: You are not SUPPOSED to, and bishops and stake presidents who issue "reccomends" are charged with making sure they perform good interviews and are sensitive to things that are amiss. But it's not a system devised with the premise, "People guarding the house of God."
You are asked questions, and yes one of them is "Are you a full Tithe payer." If you say yes more often then not that is the end of the question. Mormons have tithing settlement, but whether you turn up for it is your decision, and I have never seen a bishop demand you be there at a given time.
Thus its quite possible to do none of the things that qualify you for temple admittance and yet still attend. The people who work within the temple do not do background checks on entrants, simply having your recommend card is good enough for them.
edit: LOAF, yes that was my point. I was just trying to indicate that you can't literally say that temple admittance is contingent on you paying out monetarily. I'd like to think it's better that God simply knows if you are worthily entering his house.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For reference, we paid $300 to the Church for our wedding. Of the other sacraments I've received, there was no charge for confirmation, first or subsequent communion, baptism, or reconciliation. I doubt there's one for holy orders, and I know there's not one for annointing of the sick.
Out of 7 sacraments, there was a fairly minor (for the area) charge for one, which included the use of a large building, including HVAC, lighting, and the usual facilities expenses, plus a fair amount of written materials, and quite a few manhours of effort. And I know that, had we not been able to afford it, we would have been able to be married without paying it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, the only fuzzy in there it seems to me is what exactly constitutes a full tithing. However, if you are not even trying and know it, I don't think lying in a recommend interview is the same thing as it being okay to go to the temple even if you don't pay tithing.
If you are saying that no one is running your credit card at the door, that's definitely correct. It's fair to say you cannot go to the temple honestly without paying tithing, though.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katharina: Missionaries go to the temple all the time without paying any tithing. If I am unemployed I can still attend the temple as 10% of 0 is still 0. And beyond that you can lie your way in.
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I was trying to pose the point that you don't actually have to pay any money to go to the temple. Faithful members of the church should tither their 10% as it demonstrates their willingness to recognize that all they receive is a gift. People with that mindset are invited to enter the temple.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Yes - I don't like it either. I also think he needs to make some defining, rousing speech about his religion so the press can get PAST it. I haven't read a story about Romney yet that didn't mention his religion. That's inconceivable for the other candidates, and I don't like it.
I'm fine with Romney not being elected because of his politics. I don't want him to be rejected because of his religion.
To be fair, when talking about the Right, whenever I read an article about a candidate, it almost always talks about religion. It's a crucible that Right candidates MUST face, so it's talked about in the media. For Giuliani, it's how his social policies differ almost 180 from church positions. For McCain, it's how he never publicly talks about his faith, and how he publicly shunned the Church seven years ago, and now is trying to cozy up to them. For Romney, it's about him being a Mormon. I certainly think it's there, just maybe not to quite the same degree.
The debate doesn't show up so much on the Left, because voters don't really care as much, it's not something they have to deal with to win a primary, it's something they have to deal with to win a General, which is why come next February, you'll start seeing those same news articles talk about Left candidates and their religious views.
You can't really blame the media, the issue IS important to Right voters, and they are reporting it. What they should be doing, I think, is holding panel discussions amongst church leaders, including Mormons, so people can see the disgagreements, and decide for themselves whether or not those differences can be accepted.
As for not voting in a candidate based on his religious beliefs...hoo boy. I think that the more religious someone is, the more likely they are to not vote for someon based on the candidate's religion. I don't think it's fair to say "I don't want him to be rejected because of his religion." I think it was Scott R I was discussing issues with in another thread, I can't remember the specific topic, but basically it came down to the fact that we disagreed on something, it had something to do with voting for a candidate, and he said that he places his religious beliefs before those of the nation, and votes accordingly. As such, if the religious beliefs of a candidate are antithetical to his own, I'd assume they would be automatically eliminated.
Religion will always be a factor. Chances are I'm always going to be less likely to vote for a highly religious candidate because they'll be opposed to gay marriage (which actually, I think is what Scott and I were discussing in the thread I mentioned). Religion will always matter to people on the Left because it effects the politics of the candidate. It will always matter to the Right, because voting doctrine is important to them. Those are grand generalizations I know, and it doesn't bear out perfectly, but in general that is the way it is.
And I think a Mormon would have a better chance, based on his religion alone, of running on the Democratic ticket than the Republican. If Romney can't make it to the White House, it's the fault of the Christian Right.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tithing is percentage of increase. If you don't have increase, you don't pay anything. If you do have increase and do not pay tithing, then in order to go to the temple you have to lie at some point.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with dkw on this one, in my experience. Of note is that my church there are only two sacraments recognized: baptism and communion. And those, to my knowledge are always free.
posted
In my current church we have a tradition of collecting food for the food pantry and money for the emergency assistance fund on the first Sunday of every month. The tradition has been to put out boxes for the money at the front of the center aisle and people put in their donation when they come forward for communion. I HATE this tradition, because it gives the appearance of paying to receive communion, even though they are not connected except in the timing.
However, to change it would go against the strongest folk doctrine of any church -- "But We've Always Done It That Way!" So I haven't picked that particular fight yet. Next year, maybe.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think that would work, actually. Nobody feels like arguing with an idiot who would make such a statement, because it doesn't touch them emotionally. People are quite secure in their belief that Hitler was wrong; it's not a matter for controversy. However, they are not very secure in their religious beliefs; hence any challenge there is immediately met with a vast defensive mobilisation, thread derailment be damned.
Ever seen a eugenics argument? Ever seen a blog invaded by Steve Sailer toadies?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
you attest that it has lesser derailment value because belief against it is so strong. The inverse is true: the near-universality of position against it creates three polarizing conditions.
1. Nearly everyone's against it. So nearly everyone feels confident to chime in against it. 2. Since nearly everyone's against it, the people who are not against it are obsessive and zealotic and near impervious to counterpoint, and will band together in diehard idealism and entrench themselves in defense of their position. 3. The subject doesn't get debated much, so a bunch of people hop in who wouldn't hop in to subjects that have been sandblasted ad nauseum.
A tenuous #4 may apply where people jump in to say 'raagh, this topic should be locked (etc etc).'
It kind of paints an inverse construct of your supposition that religious arguments are furious for virtue of insecurity of position.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In any case, I don't think that's a source for contempt of Mormons
What sparked this whole issue for me was two things: the last person who told me Mormonism a cult said the principal thing that made it so was tithing. (She was not interested in discussing theology at all.)
When I was working at the synagogue, I was a little shocked to see how much tithing was compared with the synagogue annual dues. It was actually something that sort of shook my faith in the tithing system. Then I came to realize that people make other donations all the time for various reasons, and they make substantial donations at the time of various life events. So it wasn't necessarily the case that I paid more to my church.
I apologize for offending so many people. I guess different cultures have different attitudes about money. I suppose Suze Orman was right that it's more polite to discuss sex than money in American society.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking only for myself, I don't find anything you (or anyone else) has said offensive, but I did want to be completely clear that no one is ever charged to receive a sacrament in any church I have ever heard of.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*thinks* I think tithing is a major committment. I met several people on my mission whose issue was tithing. I know people now whose concern is with tithing in one aspect or another.
It is very possible that in terms of dollar amounts, 10% is more than is expected or advised in other denominations. That's okay. It doesn't change why we pay it in the first place.
(For what it is worth, I think that for every principle out there, there's someone with a concern with it. I met one guy whose concern was repentance - he had a problem with anyone asking him to repent, because he thought it implied he wasn't good enough as he was. Very interesting.)
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kat -- 10% has been advised in both the United Methodist and Lutheran churches I've attended. However, I think it's probably less common than in LDS congregations. No one is ever asked if they are tithing, and there are no consequences if you don't.
Edit for clarity: I think it's less common that people actually do it, not that it's what's advised. I'm pretty sure 10% is considered the baseline for all Christian denominations, after all, that's what a tithe is. But it isn't stressed very often, usually just talked about during the annual stewardship drive, which usually takes place over a month or so in the fall. Most churches I've been a part of stress giving of your time as well as money during that time, too.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"A tithe" means "one tenth", just to "to decimate" means "kill one in ten". Hence the number.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or maybe the other way around. Apparently the standard Babylonian land tax was ten percent, and that's where the number comes from. But the English word 'tithe' does come from an Old English word meaning one-tenth. Yay Wiki!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: (For what it is worth, I think that for every principle out there, there's someone with a concern with it. I met one guy whose concern was repentance - he had a problem with anyone asking him to repent, because he thought it implied he wasn't good enough as he was. Very interesting.)
In a similar vein, I've met people who won't sing "Amazing Grace" because they don't think they should have to call themselves "a wretch."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: (For what it is worth, I think that for every principle out there, there's someone with a concern with it. I met one guy whose concern was repentance - he had a problem with anyone asking him to repent, because he thought it implied he wasn't good enough as he was. Very interesting.)
In a similar vein, I've met people who won't sing "Amazing Grace" because they don't think they should have to call themselves "a wretch."
*Wishes Amazing Grace was in the LDS hymnbook.*
KOM: I always feel awkward using decimate in the context of, "Army A decimated Army B" because I always have to think "Did Army A really kill around 10% of Army B?" People just don't use it in its original context anymore, but my brain wishes we did.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I've heard that, too. It's one of the folk theories for why Amazing Grace isn't in the LDS hymnbook.
Edit: Wow, that's what happens when there's a lasp between writing the post and actually submitting it.
As an utter side note, President Hinkley went to his first movie in a theatre in years when Larry Miller hosted a screening of Amazing Grace.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That makes sense. I think 10% as a number is mentioned in the scriptures somewhere.
Several places, although none is (explicitly) referring to money -- rather to livestock and produce.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Historically LDS tithing was collected in livestock and produce before money became absolute currency. Every once and a while someone still makes payment in that way - perhaps more so in 3erd World Countries.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Historically LDS tithing was collected in livestock and produce before money became absolute currency. Every once and a while someone still makes payment in that way - perhaps more so in 3erd World Countries.
I've still heard of small farmers paying with produce even in the US.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Speaking only for myself, I don't find anything you (or anyone else) has said offensive, but I did want to be completely clear that no one is ever charged to receive a sacrament in any church I have ever heard of.
I was a bit taken back when we were asked to make a donation to the church where my Mother In-Laws funeral was held. It just seemed so tacky to ask for a donation to hold a funeral mass. But I'm sure they would have done it even if we had declined to make a donation.
Actually, the way the whole funeral was handled bothered me quite a bit. She had been a parishener there for over 30 years and had been a eucharistic minister until her final illness. She had requested that a particular priest who she had known well give the mass but we were told that wasn't possible without any explanation. We were barely consulted regarding arangements for the mass. I had prepared a eulogy for her and had the damnedest time even finding out at what point in the mass I was to give it. The priest who delivered the mass mispronounced her name through out. The whole thing just seemed very cold to me in comparison to the traditions in my church where the funeral would be handled largely by closest family and friends with the Bishop other leaders there to provide support to the family.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Oh, and it includes a wedding coordinator, lighting and sound technician. . . 
