quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, clearly the solution is to be thoroughly snide and insulting. That'll show'm!
And before you take offense at that remark, Orincoro, keep in mind this is coming from someone who, on this topic, thoroughly agrees with you.
Since when was I interested in being nice to people who are deluding themselves? I'm glad you agree, you go ahead and treat people in serious denial as if they are thinking rationally. I'm trying not to do that these days, for personal reasons as much as general moral ones.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The various flavors of determinism, boiled down, say that what I do is beyond my willful control.
I wouldn't put it that way. Rather, I would say that your willful control is a product of circumstances, but it is indeed the cause of what you do. That your willful control must be somehow independent of your circumstances and preconditions seems like an unnecessary complication.
quote:It was inevitable, therefore I cannot be fairly judged for it.
This, for example, does not logically follow.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
General authorities, or the church presidency and general leadership, do have quite a bit of prominence in the church. Once they are called to those positions they have for the most part served many years already as leaders in their local congregations and regions. Yes, there is the opportunity for self-aggrandizement in being a church leader. There will be a whole spectrum of opinions on that even inside the church. Personally, the general authorities I have met have all been quite humble and down to earth. I have considered many times how different they are from politicians, many world leaders, and even leaders of other churches that I have seen on the news or heard speak. They are there to serve the church members and did not apply for or angle for the positions, but accepted them when asked. As a person in a minor leadership position in my own congregation, let me tell you that I did not push to have this position and will be glad to be rid of the responsibility when released.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Orincoro, could you clarify what you meant by this statement?
quote:
And the church leaders, I'm sorry to take this as an absolute given, enjoy a higher status in the church than those who are not leadership.
Ok, we have a little bit of willful dull-headedness going on.
Let's take the literal approach first:
OAD:
quote: status |ˈstātəs; ˈstatəs| noun 1 the relative social, professional, or other standing of someone or something : an improvement in the status of women. • high rank or social standing : those who enjoy wealth and status. • the official classification given to a person, country, or organization, determining their rights or responsibilities : the duchy had been elevated to the status of a principality.
Pay attention to the second and third definitions, along with the first. All are concerned with standing and position, the second two with official position or recognized ranking.
So, to be in *leadership*
quote: leadership |ˈlēdərˌ sh ip| noun
• the state or position of being a leader : the leadership of the party.
One must have a certain higher than average *position.* This is referred to very commonly as that person's *status*.
Leadership position = higher status QED.
This is not a qualitative argument, you are wrong.
Now, to the more subjective point, your argument that being a leader in the LDS church doesn't confer special status on people, I say Hooey. That statement, as Rakeesh points out, flies in the face of American and world history, and of the facts of the matter, which clearly show an underprivileged social class being denied something which is considered sacred and which confers on its members a higher status, as I have clearly proven.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QB]I know I'm trying to do a dance that is making me look silly. I don't agree with my church in regards to denying black's the priesthood. What I don't believe is that everybody in the church up until 1978 every time they thought about blacks at best poo poo'd them and at worst utterly hated them. [QB]
Look, it's not that it makes you look silly, because a lot of people have silly beliefs. What you are making yourself look like is a liar. I don't see why, either, because you seem perfectly willing to admit that you disagree with your church on things, and yet you bend to the breaking point to preserve the fiction that your church has never been wrong.
For instance, your church was *wrong* on prop 8, and you're sitting there wondering how to figure out how they are right! They're not right! I think the difficulty here is in you knowing this, but having the devil's own time admitting that to yourself.
You act as if either every single individual in the church had to be a foaming at the mouth racist, or the church did everything it did with perfect and soundly moral reasoning. No! The church existed in a backward time in which its leadership was influenced by racist ideas that they were not *forced* to change until the civil rights movement was over, and they were about to begin facing serious political challenges if they *didn't* change. You denying that these things happened, and denying at least the internal logic of that inference is insulting, because you're too smart not to know which way the wind blows. You know the truth in what I've said. It's not absolute, because just like society at large, the Mormons had been evolving through the civil rights era as well, but don't be naive, please. I have never believed that people do things against their own will. That means the church *did* want to change, but *why* did it want to change? It couldn't have been one reason- certainly many of its members wanted fairness and to abolish racist policies because it was the right thing, but others surely feared the consequences of not changing, and so went along with an empty heart. That is the way it was in America in general in those days, and your church was not different. It was not any one thing, but the one thing it most certainly was not, was innocent.
This is a problem, and not my problem, that you think me calling the church racist, or saying that there was resentment and racism in the church means that I think every member of the church was a dyed in the wool racist until 1978. That's not possible. But you're viewing your church from the inside, where everybody is supposed to believe the same things, and everything they believe is supposed to have always been right. I'm not so burdened. What I do believe is that by remaining members of the church until 1978, all its members, black and white, who tithed to and volunteered for the church with knowledge of this racist, segregationist policy, tacitly supported racism. Just as you today tacitly support homophobia and oppose civil rights. What do your beliefs mean, exactly, if your actions contradict them? If you disagree with your church, why do you support it still? It is doing wrong. I would argue that this in itself is enough to taint someone, even through inaction. I was, for instance, completely understanding of one of my uncles, who is gay, refusing to speak to one of my cousins, who converted to Mormonism. That cousin agrees to financially and morally support segregation. If more Mormons spoke up for what they truly believed, like Christians claim they are supposed to do, then perhaps we would live in a better country.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samprimary, I am curious at to what you think those problems are.
Orincoro, I think that what you say is true in practice. However, you are failing to take into account the Christian ideal that turns power and leadership relationships on its head. Those who would be great must be servants of all, the last shall be first. Those are, sadly, not often carried out in practice, but to understand what BlackBlade is saying, you need to bear in mind that that ideal exists.
quote:The various flavors of determinism, boiled down, say that what I do is beyond my willful control.
I wouldn't put it that way. Rather, I would say that your willful control is a product of circumstances, but it is indeed the cause of what you do. That your willful control must be somehow independent of your circumstances and preconditions seems like an unnecessary complication.
Why? Why couldn't my will also be part of the equation? (Which is, if I understand it correctly, more or less what compatabilism is)
quote:
quote:It was inevitable, therefore I cannot be fairly judged for it.
This, for example, does not logically follow.
If my actions were inevitable, I had no choice in the matter. My genetics and my history controlled my actions, I had no more choice or free will than a programmed robot. How then could I be blamed or held responsible for my actions?
Granted, I may be wrong. I may be looking at it the same inaccurate way that many religionists look at atheists and agnostics and wonder how in the world they can live, be cheerful, be ethical without a religious framework. Maybe there's a breakthrough in perception I haven't hit yet.
But determinism bugs me. Partly it's what I see as the abrogation of personal responsibility and the denial of will as a factor. Partly it's the arrogance of it, the suggestion that we can figure you out, bucko, as soon as we map out all your influences.
But mostly it's the uselessness of it.
As I said, I think we must act as if we have free will, even if we don't, to function as a society. But it's a moot point. Even if it's true that our actions are completely determined by outside factors, we can't ever know all of those factors. Some may be beyond our perception. My word choice here might have been oh-so-subtly altered by a tachyon hitting my brain at just the right angle.
If determinism is true but humans cannot perceive all the elements that come together to form a decision, from our point of view it would still be free will. There would always be a wild card, an unpredictability arising from factors we couldn't detect, couldn't predict. And at that point, there's little use in determinism.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Samprimary, I am curious at to what you think those problems are.
It's not really a problem for you, since you more or less adapt Catholicism to fit what you think it should be. But the Church itself is almost (if not entirely) guaranteed to disagree with the notion of a panentheistic universe. I would bet money that it is kmbootist, not catholic.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For instance, your church was *wrong* on prop 8, and you're sitting there wondering how to figure out how they are right! They're not right! I think the difficulty here is in you knowing this, but having the devil's own time admitting that to yourself.
No, that's not it. Like I said I did not think I was wrong to oppose Prop 8, but I wanted to understand why members of my church, especially the leadership were just as sure they were right.
quote:You act as if either every single individual in the church had to be a foaming at the mouth racist, or the church did everything it did with perfect and soundly moral reasoning.
No I'm not. I said "Poo Poo'ed at best, utterly hated at worst" I think that was it.
I haven't had a chance to look this up but I can't imagine the church would face serious legal challenges for not permitting black's to hold the priesthood. Private organizations can exclude and include however they choose.
quote:...where everybody is supposed to believe the same things, and everything they believe is supposed to have always been right.
That's not it either. I have no problem excepting that members of my church and leadership get it wrong. But when the prophet of the church stands up and says in the name of God they know a principle to be true, that's a very very different ball game than the prophet getting on Larry King and saying he doesn't think members should drink caffeinated cola. To you it might seem more similar than different but to *me* they are world's apart theologically speaking.
quote:If you disagree with your church, why do you support it still? It is doing wrong. I would argue that this in itself is enough to taint someone, even through inaction. I was, for instance, completely understanding of one of my uncles, who is gay, refusing to speak to one of my cousins, who converted to Mormonism. That cousin agrees to financially and morally support segregation. If more Mormons spoke up for what they truly believed, like Christians claim they are supposed to do, then perhaps we would live in a better country.
I'm sorry to say but your uncle is being immature and churlish based on what you've said. I can support my church because I still believe it is God's established church here on earth, and that it is his will I belong to it and serve within it. There has never been a church here on earth where God takes away the handling of its affairs out of the hands of the membership. We as people have to learn how to create and run organizations under God's supervision. It means we make mistakes as well as triumph. The entire point of mortality is to comprehend what it means to be human, and how we as humans can accomplish our potential. Learning to work with other human beings, as well as comprehending God are part and parsel to the whole reason of existance.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why? Why couldn't my will also be part of the equation?
Well, where does your "will" come from? What produces it? When your "will" decides you'd prefer chocolate to vanilla today, is it doing so because circumstances have produced a preference for chocolate or because there is some isolated, essential "you"-ness that, all else being held equal, felt like chocolate?
quote:If my actions were inevitable, I had no choice in the matter.
Why do you think so? After all, the very concept of "you" as an individual entity, a single coherent will, is a social and personal construct -- and as you've noted, both society and our internal context pretend free will exists for a variety of reasons. If we're essentially imagining that we're entities, any possibility of "choice" exists within that same imagined context; the idea that we "chose" to do something may have no real, universal meaning, but it's recognized by our internal context in the same way that our perception of self is recognized.
quote:How then could I be blamed or held responsible for my actions?
As you point out, we need to pretend that individuals -- and thus individual "wills" -- exist, even if they don't, so we can function as a society.
quote:And at that point, there's little use in determinism.
What do you believe is the "use" of a belief in "free will?" How would you behave differently if you didn't believe you had it?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You just mentioned the "use" of a belief in free will, above: "both society and our internal context pretend free will exists for a variety of reasons."
If the acceptance of determinism also requires the acceptance of a shared social lie regarding free will, why bother accepting determinism at all? Of what use is determinism?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Those are, sadly, not often carried out in practice, but to understand what BlackBlade is saying, you need to bear in mind that that ideal exists.
I'm not speaking to the ideal, because as you say, it doesn't really happen in practice. I don't treat religious groups as if their religion and everything they believe about themselves carries a shred of truth *just* because they believe it to be so.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:For instance, your church was *wrong* on prop 8, and you're sitting there wondering how to figure out how they are right! They're not right! I think the difficulty here is in you knowing this, but having the devil's own time admitting that to yourself.
No, that's not it. Like I said I did not think I was wrong to oppose Prop 8, but I wanted to understand why members of my church, especially the leadership were just as sure they were right.
I can't converse with you if you aren't clear on what you yourself have said. This is not what you said, you said you wanted to know "how they were right."
Now, I'm sorry, you need to be a little more clear on what you mean there- because you're riding a thin line between saying "they are wrong," and asking "how can they be right, afterall."
You can go on and tell me I'm wrong about everything if you are going to disown what and how you speak as soon as you say something I disagree with.
quote: I haven't had a chance to look this up but I can't imagine the church would face serious legal challenges for not permitting black's to hold the priesthood.
I said "political" challenges. As in, challenging situations of hte political nature.
quote:I'm sorry to say but your uncle is being immature and churlish based on what you've said.
My uncle is a shrewd politician and a sophisticated human being. How much are members of the church expected to tithe? 10%? And how much money did the Mormon church spend passing prop 8 in California? A billion dollars, give or take?
It's a very real and very immediate moral problem for Mormons. For your own sanity, you can divorce yourself from it, but you are not in the right. My uncle expected much more conscientiousness from my cousin, who is a supporter of civil rights. It is an insult to him and to all homosexuals to tithe to a church that actively opposes their civil rights. That's my way of seeing, just so you know. I think my "understanding" in this particular situation would be got naught. Mormons *should* be shamed for and should be ashamed of what their church is doing, and if they give money to that church, doubly so.
quote: e as people have to learn how to create and run organizations under God's supervision. It means we make mistakes as well as triumph. The entire point of mortality is to comprehend what it means to be human, and how we as humans can accomplish our potential.
I would encourage you to realize that potential by announcing to your church that you will not tithe until they stop opposing equal civil rights, and encourage your friends and family to do the same. That's how you triumph. What are you doing? Agonizing personally? People's lives are ruined every year because they are denied civil marriage rights in this country. It's a travesty. Do something about it.
posted
I understand him. I'm trying to convince him he's wrong. Why are there only your two options? They suck.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't hit everything you've written Orincoro just now,
quote:My uncle is a shrewd politician and a sophisticated human being. How much are members of the church expected to tithe? 10%? And how much money did the Mormon church spend passing prop 8 in California? A billion dollars, give or take?
I haven't seen the total figures, but I did see the church's budgetary report where they indicated not a single dollar of tithing money was spent on prop 8. It all came from the church's other commercial enterprises.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: So? The church had money to spend on prop 8 because people tithe to the church.
That makes no sense to me. You might as well argue that because I bought a VW some guy used his salary to swindle an old woman.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm glad you agree, you go ahead and treat people in serious denial as if they are thinking rationally.
It's pretty strange for someone espousing rationality to present such a false dichotomy, Orincoro.
quote:I understand him. I'm trying to convince him he's wrong. Why are there only your two options? They suck.
Particularly when you reject false dichotomies later, though from my angle, kmbboots's false dichotomy looks quite a bit more true than yours does.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's saying that the church has developed commercial enterprise because people tithe to the church. The whole "no no, we didn't spend the tithing money on proposition 8, just the other money" is meaningless insofar as it's all part of the church's available funds anyway, and the root of most all of the church's financial returns is the product of tithed cash.
It's no different than if the church took its first year of tithed cash, invested it in the stock market, got a decent return back, and then spent the return on prop 8. Suddenly it's not tithed cash, it's something separate from that as 'commercial cash?'
It comes off as more than a little absurd to divorce that from the fact that it all comes from tithe to begin with, realistically.
it's a handy smokescreen, though. The church has X dollars in total revenue from one year, both from tithe and from tithe-purchased commercial projects. They can spend Y dollars from out of X and as long as Y does not exceed the total dollar amount from commercial return they can just claim that it was arbitrarily from the commercial pile.
posted
I don't actually know what percentage of church holdings can be attributed to a root in tithing, and how much can be attributed to the donations and business of some of its wealthier members over the years. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the amount due ultimately to tithing is quite a great bit lot above zero, but it made me consider it.
Anyway, my church's stance on support for Prop 8 has seemed pretty...well, craven to me. "It's not from tithing," seems to me to be something of a cop-out, a way to dodge potential trouble, in the sense that church leadership and member opinion certainly appears to support Prop 8 overall, but a careful line needs to be toed not to make that support too 'official'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: He's saying that the church has developed commercial enterprise because people tithe to the church. The whole "no no, we didn't spend the tithing money on proposition 8, just the other money" is meaningless insofar as it's all part of the church's available funds anyway, and the root of most all of the church's financial returns is the product of tithed cash.
It's no different than if the church took its first year of tithed cash, invested it in the stock market, got a decent return back, and then spent the return on prop 8. Suddenly it's not tithed cash, it's something separate from that as 'commercial cash?'
It comes off as more than a little absurd to divorce that from the fact that it all comes from tithe to begin with, realistically.
it's a handy smokescreen, though. The church has X dollars in total revenue from one year, both from tithe and from tithe-purchased commercial projects. They can spend Y dollars from out of X and as long as Y does not exceed the total dollar amount from commercial return they can just claim that it was arbitrarily from the commercial pile.
Convenient!
Could at least attempt to not give my church the most base motives possible when you discuss what it has done historically? I don't believe either of us are aware of how the church got setup commercially. You can't assume they used tithing funds as a base investment. For all you know individual members used their own capital to start these businesses and then donated them to the church.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For all you know individual members used their own capital to start these businesses and then donated them to the church.
How is that significantly different from tithed money? It's just a different way to launder the same cash so it looks clean if you don't look very hard.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: For all you know individual members used their own capital to start these businesses and then donated them to the church.
The church started them. It says as much in its own story. It then continued (and continues) to expand business operations using tithe money. Even though the church now conceals its financial records even from its own members, it would be impossible for it to have funded many of its commercial developments over the years solely from commercial return.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I haven't seen the total figures, but I did see the church's budgetary report where they indicated not a single dollar of tithing money was spent on prop 8. It all came from the church's other commercial enterprises.
That isn't a distinction I find particularly valuable. Tithing money went into those investments, did it not?
quote: That makes no sense to me. You might as well argue that because I bought a VW some guy used his salary to swindle an old woman.
No. That would be if anybody were arguing you are responsible for how church officials spend their salaries. We're talking about the organization. You give me 1 million dollars today and I buy a house. Tomorrow I sell the house for one million dollars and buy cocaine. Your money bought the cocaine, but I can say I payed for it through the sale of the house. Tithing money built and maintains the fortune of the Mormon church, and any commercial profits the church makes are done with that seed money. The church could even *lose* more money than it makes, but because the money they spend comes from a different fund than the one the tithes go into, they could still say they were paying for it through commercial investments. The distinction is meaningless. It is especially meaningless to you, because you are paying money into an organization which is using its money to fund things. *Which* money, inasmuch as the money is actually different (likely not much), is not part of the equation you ought to be concerned with.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You can't assume they used tithing funds as a base investment. For all you know individual members used their own capital to start these businesses and then donated them to the church.
I'm sorry, I think you see a distinction where one is not particularly useful. Donations and tithing amount to the same things. If the church only uses the money or capital (in the form of businesses and their revenues) donated to them by certain people to fund certain things, that doesn't change anything in regard to your relationship with the church, and what your money is doing.
You fund the church through tithes. The church runs on your money. The church does things with other piles of money that did not come from you. You caused this to happen by funding it. The fact that the church may keep these piles of cash in different accounts is not important.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I'm collecting money to start an orphanage and a dog fighting ring, would you be more inclined to donate to the cause if I promised that your particular money would go to the orphanage?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: If I'm collecting money to start an orphanage and a dog fighting ring, would you be more inclined to donate to the cause if I promised that your particular money would go to the orphanage?
unless all of the money you are collecting is collected specifically for one cause OR the other, then your money is effectively part of what funds the dog fighting ring, since if you are building both, then money allocated solely to 'orphanage' frees up general funds for either/or that can go to the dog fighting ring.
so, morally, you would have to understand that you're contributing to a dogfighting ring even if your money is taken 'for the orphanage.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: If I'm collecting money to start an orphanage and a dog fighting ring, would you be more inclined to donate to the cause if I promised that your particular money would go to the orphanage?
Yes, this is exactly why Catholic Relief Services is such an effective place to donate your money if you are interested in helping those in need but not interested in supporting say priest marital bans. If I had reasonable assurance that the peace wing of the PLO was not using any funds to fund it's militant wing, I'd send them money.
Samp: I'm not interested in continuing. The church's auditory office works independently of the general authorities of the church. But who cares, it's just another curtain right?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pray tell Orincoro what are they doing with all that money if not to glut themselves?
edit: I want to delete this post but it was up long enough that I don't think it's fair. I don't think I wish to continue conversing I'm not feeling anything positive when I see this thread has new responses. In fact, all I feel is hope that most of the comments are directed at other people. I might continue to follow the thread, I'll try to refrain from ever jumping back in, as I feel that isn't fair either. But I respectfully decline to continue discussing this topic at this time.
It really does bug me that a poster can say in effect, "yeah Mormons, LOL!" out of nowhere and a whole slew of, "yeah, lol rofl!" follows with the inevitable (started by me this time), "Why are you all lolling? That's not how it is." culminating in the, "The hell it isn't, if you think that imma lol at you and lol at everything your dumb church is."
quote:The church started them. It says as much in its own story. It then continued (and continues) to expand business operations using tithe money. Even though the church now conceals its financial records even from its own members, it would be impossible for it to have funded many of its commercial developments over the years solely from commercial return.
What are you talking about?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:If the acceptance of determinism also requires the acceptance of a shared social lie regarding free will, why bother accepting determinism at all? Of what use is determinism?
If determinism more correctly describes the universe, I submit that it is inherently of use. Philosophical arguments aside, though, we've already seen neurologists start to work out exactly how thoughts and memories and decisions are formed in the brain; while I don't think we'll ever be able to be aware of and perfectly recreate every condition that might produce a given "choice," I have no difficulty imagining that, perhaps even within our lifetimes, we'll learn the correct buttons to push to make someone "happy," or even "satisfied" with a given decision.
More broadly, though, it's worth noting that you have had an emotional reaction to the idea that you might not have free will. Clearly that concept has value to you. The question becomes, then, whether that value is independent of the truth of the assertion.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Could at least attempt to not give my church the most base motives possible when you discuss what it has done historically?"
Well, it would be easier not to assign base motives to the church if it were not CURRENTLY involved in a great evil.
That said, my point was pretty simple. If the church did not have tithing money coming in, it would not have been able to spend the amount it did on hurting people.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Since then I have been trying to get you to ask questions that actually recognize my understanding of God. It is like you are asking me to imagine water without hydrogen atoms but with something just like hydrogen atoms. BUt God is even more fundamental to the universe than hydrogen is to water.
I agree with you in part - I think there is a religious (or spiritual) element to the universe that is inherent to existence. I think you can't truly have a universe like what we concieve of as a universe without that religious component to it.
However, I'd frame the question this way: Is it impossible to imagine that religious element not being a diety? What if it were something like an Oversoul that did not have an intelligence or will behind it, and acted more akin to a force of nature? Does it have to be God in the Christian sense in order to concieve of a universe?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
First, as Tom said, if something is true, there's some value to recognize it as truth regardless of how happy it makes you. That said, in general, I think most people are better off believing in free will, and the level of abstract reasoning required for people to accept determinism AND responsibility for their own actions is more trouble than its worth for the average person.
What's important, though is for people in authority (in particular with respect to making/enforcing laws, although all forms of authority apply), to recognize that it is merely a socially accepted illusion (or if not an illusion, at least a great exaggeration). Laws should not punish nor reward people for the sake of punishing and rewarding their free-will-actions. Laws should exist for the purpose of producing the maximum impact on people's deterministic decision making process.
From a free-will "fairness" perspective, one might conclude that "an eye for an eye" is a viable form of justice. But if, in practice, such a philosophy merely produces more anger and violence rather than actual discouraging people from stabbing each other's eyes out, then its not a good philosophy. Thinking in terms of determinism helps us to step back and look at problems in terms of what will actually help, rather than what seems fair.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Given the documented ability that large religious organizations in general have for raising money to fund campaigns, initiatives, etc, SEPARATE from the offerings they receive during services...
Paul, I don't think your argument is very well-considered.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes? And where does the money necessary to create that network for collecting money to fund campaigns, initiatives, etc. come from? From a foundation created by tithing.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Remember that we're talking about large organizations with a hierarchical structure already-- not grass-roots campaigns that are just starting up.
The network is already there. Volunteers exist right now. It's easy to overlook, but lots of these people do what they do without pay-- in fact, many of them will give money on the spot, in addition to manning the phone banks, hanging out signs, writing letters, canvassing neighborhoods, etc.
You keep saying tithing is what allows these efforts to exist. Do you have any proof? We've at least got an official statement from the LDS church stating that no tithing money was used in the efforts to pass prop 8; what can you show that demonstrates that's not true? Can you show that without tithing, the LDS church wouldn't have the fiscal power to pull this off?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Remember that we're talking about large organizations with a hierarchical structure already"
That was initially built upon tithing. And its commercial interests were built upon tithing. WHat makes you think that, without historical tithing, your church would have any money at all?
"We've at least got an official statement from the LDS church stating that no tithing money was used in the efforts to pass prop 8; what can you show that demonstrates that's not true?"
That its a statement made by the mormon church on the issue of gay marriage? Seriously.
Also, church takes in ~1/2 billion year from non-tithing. Tithing is about 9 times that.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... It really does bug me that a poster can say in effect, "yeah Mormons, LOL!" out of nowhere and a whole slew of, "yeah, lol rofl!" follows with the inevitable (started by me this time), "Why are you all lolling? That's not how it is." culminating in the, "The hell it isn't, if you think that imma lol at you and lol at everything your dumb church is."
*shrug* Meh, you could substitute Obama, China, global warming, bailouts, taxes, the Christian god, or any number of contentious subjects for Mormons.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Jeff Flint, a principal political consultant for the Yes on 8 campaign, says virtually all its volunteers and donors had religious ties, and were involved "either because they were encouraged by religious leaders or because of their own beliefs."
He estimates that members of the Mormon church – from California and elsewhere – contributed "at least 40 percent" of the $40 million raised by the campaign.
According to your link, the LDS church's non-tithing funds are about $600 million per year. According to the source above (assuming I'm reading it right) LDS funding for Prop 8 activities were between $10 million and $15 million.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong? I couldn't find anywhere that put the effort at supporting Prop 8 above $600 million.
quote:"We've at least got an official statement from the LDS church stating that no tithing money was used in the efforts to pass prop 8; what can you show that demonstrates that's not true?"
That its a statement made by the mormon church on the issue of gay marriage? Seriously.
Aha. If that's how you feel, then consider my above comments directed toward everyone else. You, Paul, needn't consider them at all. Your mind is made up, apparently. You are certain.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Samp: I'm not interested in continuing. The church's auditory office works independently of the general authorities of the church. But who cares, it's just another curtain right?
Well, considering that the church keeps its finances secret even from its own members, then ironically the answer to your question is: yes. It is.
You are upset about the ideas being thrown around but they all stem from a pretty simple proposition that's been explained in multiple ways now: claiming that no tithing money was used in the proposition 8 campaign isn't an excuse nor does it make the mormon church's political financing of the prop 8 campaign any 'better,' because realistically it doesn't mean anything.
The mormon church isn't throwing out that statement just as a piece of financial trivia. It's a statement they assert as a legitimization of the use of their financial power in an effort to revoke gay marriage. It doesn't work because it could just as easily be moral laundering, and the church's financial empire was borne on the backs of tithing anyway. That's all. That's the long and short of it.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:The church started them. It says as much in its own story. It then continued (and continues) to expand business operations using tithe money. Even though the church now conceals its financial records even from its own members, it would be impossible for it to have funded many of its commercial developments over the years solely from commercial return.
What are you talking about?
The history of the mormon church as a business operation, of course.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I understand correctly, Samp, you're talking about the individual congregations as businesses.
That's NOT what BB is talking about. He seems to be talking about secular businesses that the Church owns, or has stock in.
quote:The mormon church isn't throwing out that statement just as a piece of financial trivia. It's a statement they assert as a legitimization of the use of their financial power in an effort to revoke gay marriage. It doesn't work because it could just as easily be moral laundering, and the church's financial empire was borne on the backs of tithing anyway. That's all. That's the long and short of it.
Assuming that the statement you're talking here is "No tithing was used to support prop 8," I think your point has been disproved by the articles I linked to above.
I wonder if your definition of tithing is different from the Mormon concept. Can you explain what you mean when you use the word "tithing?"
EDIT: I'll actually go first to show goodwill:
When I pay tithing, I take a little form that's outside the bishop's office. There are a bunch of spaces to fill in.
There is a line for 'Tithing.' In that line, assuming I'm paying honestly, I fill out a number that equals to 10% of my bi-weekly paycheck. (Let's not get into net vs. gross...)
There are other lines on the tithing slip: under the word Offerings, I can fill in amounts for the Mission Fund, Building Fund, Supplies and Materials, Fast Offering, Welfare, or Other.
NOW-- of all those things, only one of them counts as Tithing. That'd be the amount on the line labeled "Tithing." If I gave $5000, and only $50 of it was marked on the Tithing line, then within the definition embraced by Mormonism I only paid $50 to tithing. I gave $4950 in Offerings, which are kept separate from tithing (I know this is tracked, because members receive a statement each year of how much they paid in tithing, and how much they gave in offerings.)
[ July 23, 2010, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying "no tithing was used to support" proposition 8 is such a completely meaningless statement on the part of the lds. I could be a church that runs a business on the side, take the budget appropriation for employee salary and donate it to the proposition 8 campaign, then pay the employe salaries with an infusion of tithe money. Then exclaim 'gosh, its not like we medddled in politics with tithe money'!
It is no different. It is all church money. This should not be that hard to figure out.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If I understand correctly, Samp, you're talking about the individual congregations as businesses.
What! No. I am talking about the businesses that the church controls. Commercial enterprises and the like.
quote:Assuming that the statement you're talking here is "No tithing was used to support prop 8," I think your point has been disproved by the articles I linked to above.
Sigh. I don't think you understand my point. I guess I have to start over.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Saying "no tithing was used to support" proposition 8 is such a completely meaningless statement on the part of the lds. I could be a church that runs a business on the side, take the budget appropriation for employee salary and donate it to the proposition 8 campaign, then pay the employe salaries with an infusion of tithe money. Then exclaim 'gosh, its not like we medddled in politics with tithe money'!
It is no different. It is all church money. This should not be that hard to figure out.
There. Here. You get it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Philosophical arguments aside, though, we've already seen neurologists start to work out exactly how thoughts and memories and decisions are formed in the brain; while I don't think we'll ever be able to be aware of and perfectly recreate every condition that might produce a given "choice," I have no difficulty imagining that, perhaps even within our lifetimes, we'll learn the correct buttons to push to make someone "happy," or even "satisfied" with a given decision.
