Tuesday, December 9, 2014

When Tithing Settlement Goes Horribly Wrong

Previously: Not Quite The Same

In the October general conference following the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, members were newly encouraged to give their all for the completion of the Nauvoo temple.  In order for the temple to be finished in time before the Saint's planned departure for the Rocky Mountains, members would have to newly commit to paying their tithes, whether in substance, in labor, or both.

During the previous three years under Joseph Smith, the great sense of urgency among the people had been to see their dead ancestors receive the saving ordinance of baptism. To this end, there was a frenzy of such baptisms performed regularly in the waters of the nearby Mississippi river. When members couldn't think of any more dead ancestors, they set to baptizing each other on behalf of dead celebrities such as Christopher Columbus and George Washington.*
*Often more than once, as documented here.

But now John Taylor, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, felt that all other endeavors, including these baptisms, should be put on hold for the time being, because "the first thing we have got to do is build the temple."  According to the scribe who wrote down Taylor's words,
"He said further, in relation to the baptisms for the dead, that it would be better for the saints to go on and build the Temple before we urge our baptisms too much. There are cases which require being attended to, and there are provisions made for them; but as a general thing he would advise them not to be in too great a hurry. He said one of the clerks had asked whether any should be baptized who had not paid their tithing; it is our duty to pay our tithing...and a man who has not paid his tithing is unfit to be baptized for his dead." (History of the Church, Volume 7, pg 293)
In recent years Taylor's words have been taken completely out of context.  That excerpt is taught today as though Taylor meant that a person behind on his tithes should be prohibited from entering the temple. But the temple was not yet finished, and baptisms in those days had never been performed in any temple. No, Taylor was merely expressing his opinion that any person during that time of great urgency who refused to assist in getting the temple finished, probably wasn't fit to stand in for a proxy baptism down at the river. 

Many today also invoke John Taylor's name because they presume he was president of the Church at the time he spoke those words, which in their minds means he must certainly have been speaking for the Lord, rather than merely expressing an opinion. And so today that offhand remark has somehow attained the status of doctrine in the minds of many modern latter-day Saints.

I don't disagree with what John Taylor said. It would be difficult to understand why anyone in those days would refuse to pay his tithes toward completion of the temple when the necessity of completing it was such an urgent priority.  But I suppose someone must have felt he could slough it off and that it was more important to continue with baptisms, or Taylor's clerk probably wouldn't have asked for his opinion on the matter.

But although I agree with John Taylor's opinion, his opinion is not doctrine. And until fairly recently, Taylor's opinion was rarely used to justify keeping a believing latter-day Saint from entering the House of the Lord.

I bring this up because once again we find ourselves in the month of December, the traditional time of ward tithing settlement, and Taylor's quotation is often trotted out not only to encourage members to be current with their payments, but also as a gentle reminder that they could risk losing their temple recommends if they fall behind.

As I demonstrated in a previous post, tithing settlement today is a bit of an anachronism, not really necessary for most members to take part in. Although the Lord set up tithing as an annual payment, most members keep current monthly. Still, for farmers and others whose increase is not calculated until after the harvest, bishops have traditionally set aside a couple of days to "settle up."  During most of my lifetime in the church, there would be an announcement in Sacrament meeting to the effect that a sheet of paper would be on the door of the bishop's office, and anyone needing to meet with the bishop for tithing settlement could just sign up.

In recent years (and I'm not sure exactly when this started) tithing settlement somehow became mandatory. Members of the bishopric would corner you in the foyer or call you at home to make sure you had an appointment to show up.  People who felt they had escaped attention have written me to report the bishop coming to their home and sitting at their kitchen table to discuss their personal finances. Rather than a convenience extended to those few members requiring it, tithing settlement has become a year-end "fatherly visit" with the bishop so he can make sure you pass muster.

And for those who hold temple recommends, John Taylor's words are often invoked to remind them their recommend can be revoked any old time the bishop feels like pulling it.

It's A Recommend, Not A Rewards Card
I would probably agree with John Taylor even if he said someone who didn't pay tithing probably shouldn't be attending the temple, but let's remember that he did not say anything of the sort.  My personal opinion? I'm not sure someone who has the means to contribute to the maintenance of Church facilities, yet consistently refuses to do his part in support of those facilities, has any inherent right to demand use of them.  Still that's my opinion, and I note that the Lord does not share my opinion, having made it clear instead that all are welcome into our churches, and all who are worthy should not be barred from His holy house. (And by "worthy" I mean devoted to Christ, not "worthy" as defined by the Corporate Handbook of Instruction, or the whim of anyone with a title attached to his name.)

What I am particularly not keen on is the current practice of granting or withholding access to the temple over the heads of some members as though it were a reward or a punishment. 

Believe it or not, members didn't used to be grilled and interrogated with a set list of questions in order to be found "worthy" to enter the temple. There was a time when your bishop knew you well enough to know your heart and was able to judge your devotion to Christ. The people at the temple didn't know you from Adam, however, so your bishop would give you a written "recommend" to show at the door, so called because it said to the staff at the temple, "I know this guy. I recommend him." And in you went.

Alas, Church headquarters no longer trusts your bishop is qualified to be a judge in Israel, capable of spiritual discernment, so these days he is required, pursuant to the Corporate Handbook of Instruction, to ask you several questions. Most of those questions are pretty softball; any believing latter-day Saint would have no problem answering them. But there are two in particular that can get you barred from the House of the Lord even when the Lord Himself would probably like to have you there.  I'll paraphrase those questions:

1.  Are your Corporate Dues paid up in full?
2.  Are you willing to swear an oath of loyalty to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve?

You may think the way I've worded those questions is an unfair exaggeration, but I can give you a long list of names of faithful members who would tell you that's pretty much what it comes down to.

Let's set aside question two for now, and concentrate on the failure to comply with the first obligation, the obligation of tithing.  Every one of the people I refer to on that list I keep believes wholeheartedly in the law of tithing.  They wouldn't begin to think about not continuing to pay their tithes. They have just decided not to entrust those sacred tithes to the corporate Church for the time being, that's all.

And I can't argue with their reasons. Chief among those reasons is that those currently in control of the Church's purse strings have, since 1959, consistently disobeyed God's clear commandment that all monies taken from the treasury must be approved by the membership at large. (D&C 26:2 and 104:71; see also see here, along with my previous post, Lake Wobegon Mormons for an in-depth discussion.)

Such flagrant disobedience to God would suggest that the leaders have broken their part of any covenant regarding tithing, thereby nullifying any obligation members might have to disburse their tithes directly to the Corporation of the President. Why? Because, without so much as a revelation from God instructing it,  the LDS Church was reorganized in 1923 with the specific purpose of evading any obligation the president of the Church may have had to obey some of the commandments of Jesus Christ.  Here is how the corporate charter now reads:
"The object of this corporation shall be to acquire, hold and dispose of such real and personal property as may be conveyed to or acquired by said corporation for the benefit of the members ...this corporation shall have power, without any authority or authorization from the members of said Church or religious society, to grant, sell, convey, rent, mortgage, exchange, or otherwise dispose of any part or all of such property." (Emphasis mine.)
Now, I want to make a couple of points perfectly clear. First, I would not presume to advise anyone reading this that they should not tender their tithing directly to their local bishop. Certain persons associated with Church headquarters in Salt Lake City get kind of itchy when they suspect anyone might be hampering the flow of funds into Church headquarters, as I learned immediately after I published this information.

The last thing I want is to get on anyone's bad side.  So let me make this clear: if you feel inspired to pay your tithes into the coffers of the Church, by all means continue to do so. I think you should.  All I'm doing here is reporting on what others have chosen to do to fulfill their obligation to the Lord. I ain't takin' sides.

But I will happily mention some of the reasons a growing number of Saints are getting fed up with the status quo. And when I say a growing number, I'm talking about an estimate of a couple of thousand, conservatively. I'll tell you where I got those numbers at some later date.

I'm not talking here about inactives. The Church claims 15 million members. Of those, only about 4.5 million could be considered active in the church. The remaining 10 million or so, it can be safely assumed, are not what we might call full tithe payers, so let's forget about them for now.  I'm interested in reporting on those who want to pay tithing, who continue to pay tithing, but who, in the past couple of years or so, have felt strongly inspired to pay their tithes somewhere other than directly into the bank account of the Corporation of the President, which is where all LDS Church tithing funds are deposited now. So let's talk about the why.

Hungering For Zion
I grew up being told that tithing doesn't count if you pay it anywhere other than directly to the Church. That's what I was taught.  But I'm not real sure there's any truth to it. I think tithes and offerings count most when you give them where they are needed most.  So this growing number of faithful Saints are asking the question, "why hasn't the Church been leading us toward Zion? Isn't that largely the purpose of the church in the first place, to lead us to Zion?"

Why, they wonder, do we seem to be heading at such a frantic pace in the opposite direction?

Most of us believed if we would only "stay in the boat and hold on," and follow the directions of our leaders, those leaders would lead us to Zion. Russell Ballard said as much in the last session of conference.  But Elder Ballard was teaching us falsehoods, among them that when the leaders of the Church speak, it is the same as if the Lord himself was speaking. Had we been paying attention to our scriptures all these years, we would have realized that Zion is not a church, and that "staying in the boat" and depending upon someone else to lead us back home to God sounds suspiciously similar to the scheme proposed by Lucifer in the pre-existence.

In his recent blog post, Anonymous Bishop reminds us what Zion is supposed to look like:
To establish Zion we must become of one heart and one mind, dwell in righteousness, and have no poor among us. (Moses 7:18)
But many active and faithful tithing paying members have concerns about what the church has been and is doing with their tithing.  More importantly, many are wondering if the church’s expenditures are getting the world any closer to establishing Zion....Some wonder why the church is so focused on buildings, real estate development, farm ownership, and marketing when its true goal should be to build a Zion people?  Are meetinghouses and Temples and TV ads truly that important in this effort?  Could you imagine what could be done if the church used its tremendous tithing fund (instead of just the fast offering fund) to assist the poor in the church and around the world?  What effect might this have in bringing souls unto Christ and to the establishment of Zion?
On his blog, the bishop shows a photo of a video Billboard the Church is leasing in Times Square, which is costing the Church millions of dollars. The question that immediately comes to mind is "how many converts can we expect to get as a return on those millions?"

I'll venture a guess: very few. But those who authorized that expenditure had to know that converting anyone to the gospel of Christ was not the reason our tithes are being spent in that particular venue. The reason for the expenditure is the same as any other such advertisement by any other major corporation: to enhance our image and increase our visibility.  Just as with the Church's latest fiasco, the recent box office bomb Meet the Mormons, no one really cares about our image except us.  Virtually no non-members were motivated to fork over money for tickets to see Meet the Mormons in theaters. The few who did show up, an estimated 64-75 thousand, already happened to be Mormons and had, oddly enough, already met scads of other Mormons before showing up to that movie.

I don't know how things went where you live, but here in California attendance was sparse on opening weekend (when box office numbers are tallied by the trades); it did well the following Monday for family night, then immediately dropped like a stone. I was actually embarrassed to read that the Church held a "premiere" opening for the film, complete with press, a smattering of VIPs, and a collection of what passes these days for LDS celebrities. 

We are spending desperate amounts of money because we desperately want the world to understand we're just regular folk. That was the objective of the recent "I'm A Mormon" video campaign, which featured a disparate collection of Mormons who actually didn't seem to be anything like the rest of us, other than having in common membership in the same church.  At least the people in that campaign were rather ordinary in their extra-ordinariness. The people in the movie Meet the Mormons were so not like any other Mormon I've ever met, it made me wonder what the filmmakers had in mind by profiling them.  They were featured because they lived lives of singular accomplishment.  So was it the purpose of that movie to show the rest of us how utterly mundane and uninspiring our lives were in comparison to theirs? As if I wasn't already depressed enough, Jeffrey Holland. Thanks for bringing the funk.

One thing I thought was curious about Meet the Mormons was that it profiled a Mormon wife and  mother who also happened to be a female kick boxer.  Is this what the Prince of Peace would have us celebrate -a woman whose chosen vocation requires her to beat the living snot out of her non-member opponents?

Besides, doesn't celebrating a woman who fights for sport contradict the counsel of one of our own late apostles?
"Unfortunately, we see some poor role models of womanhood in today's society. We see women boxers and wrestlers as we flip through the television channels trying to find something uplifting. I believe the women of our time need to be strong, but not in that sense. In my opinion, these activities demean the nobility of womanhood." (Apostle James E. Faust, April 2000 general conference)
Well, James Faust has been dead seven years now, so we can ignore him, right? Aren't we constantly reminded that only the living oracles have any clue what they're talking about? So relax. It was living prophets and apostles who promoted this movie featuring a scrappy dame as somehow representing "the nobility of Mormon womanhood." James E. Faust can just talk to the hand.
The apostle Paul would make a pretty good coach: "She should cover her head." (1 Cor 11:6 NIV)
Anyway, I've got news for the marketing geniuses at Church headquarters: most people have already met a Mormon or two sometime in their lives. So why would they want to pay good money down at the Cineplex to see an infomercial about six unusually accomplished members of our faith? Most people already know we're "just like them" and they still don't like us.

So why throw buckets more of the member's hard-earned tithing on a movie that doesn't even touch on what it is we Mormons believe in? Again the answer: To enhance our image and increase public visibility. We are busy marketing the Church as if it were a product, one we want people to have a positive impression of.  Those in Church management throwing ideas at the wall aren't even thinking in terms of religious belief, but in hopes of developing the Church as a recognizable brand. That's why Church spending today is not controlled on a spiritual level, but by the corporate mindset.  You believe Jesus Christ is still guiding this Church? Then why don't we rely on Him instead of enlisting outside firms and focus groups to help us plot our next strategy?

There is more than a little truth to what blogger Will Carter observed: "The Church, whether by precept or example, actually steers people away from coming to Christ."

What we ought to be doing is start behaving more like our namesake and learn to emulate Him.  If our leaders would stop trying to think up more and more rules they want us to follow, and focus instead on the Golden Rule, we might begin to get some positive attention from the outside world that wouldn't have to be paid for with bribes.

Meet The Mormons In The Marketing Department
I was on the phone today with a friend who is a former bishop, just recently released. (You'd be surprised how many bishops -mostly former, but some currently serving- have contacted me to lament about what they see happening to the church they love.) My friend wanted to talk about the new banner ad the Church paid $400,000 to place at the top of the page when folks log in to YouTube. (That's just the cost of placing the ad; that number doesn't include production costs.) It's a nice, two and a half minute mini-movie that reminds us that Jesus is the gift of Christmas. There's certainly nothing wrong with it. I like it, and so did he. Very moving.

But, the bishop asked, to what end did they spend that money? What was the motivation for spending the people's tithes on a film that doesn't really say anything new? Does the Church think the public is unaware of the true meaning of Christmas? What is unique about that message? In other words, what purpose does it serve other than to remind people (as many others are already doing) that this is the season we celebrate the birth of Christ? Will it serve to convert anyone to Christ who isn't already converted? I don't think so. Will it serve to convert anyone to our church who isn't already converted? I highly doubt it.

As I write this, so far the movie has received over two million hits, and I'm glad it has. I hope it gets millions more. So you may wonder why I and the bishop remain dubious.  Why so cynical? Did we fail to see the message of this ad?

We're not cynical, and we didn't fail to see the message.  We just wonder what the leaders who green lit that $400,000 expenditure expected to accomplish with it, especially in light of what they could have done with that money that might have actually pleased Jesus by accomplishing His purposes.

Did they hope to engender good feelings? Then mission accomplished! Did the ad engender good feelings toward Mormons? Perhaps, but not likely. At least, I don't think it will change anyone's mind about us one way or the other.  There's nothing really unique about the message, after all. The view that Jesus is the gift, that His birth is the reason we celebrate Christmas, is a belief shared by all of Christendom.

After the ad is over the viewer is asked to click a box if they'd like a visit from the missionaries.

Yeah. Good luck with that.

Aside from the fact that most people surfing YouTube can't wait to skip past any ads, the thing the bishop reminded me of was this: if the video is good enough, it will go viral on its own. After all, it already had hundreds of thousands of showings from missionaries and enthusiastic members without ever being on YouTube's front page.  So what does it say when the church has to pay nearly half a million dollars to nudge it further in hopes it will gather more buzz? If you think my bishop friend and I are cynical, what do you think the reaction is among the public at large?  As the bishop aptly summarized the problem, "the Church spends millions of dollars creating mediocre crap, then they spend millions more advertising the hell out of it."

(That's right. I heard an actual bishop use the words "hell" and "crap.")

Here's a similar Christmas message that's already gone viral. And it didn't cost any tithing funds to get it there:

This incessant promoting of ourselves is not part of the mission of the church. As another Mormon blogger aptly put it, "public relations is not a priesthood responsibility."  Yet here's the thing this bishop and I both agree on: under certain conditions, neither of us would have any problem with the Church shoveling millions of dollars of surplus funds on marketing and advertising, whether it's this Christmas tribute on YouTube, the "I'm a Mormon" campaign, or that infomercial disguised as a documentary recently released in theaters as if it were an actual feature film.

No, what bothers us is that the Church hierarchy did not first earmark sufficient tithes toward the purposes God intended them for. Once the tithing is spent for God's purposes, we couldn't care less how much leftover funds they put toward marketing the institution itself.   But here's the disparity: Tithes are estimated to bring in something in the neighborhood of 5-7 BILLION dollars a year, and the leaders spend almost none of that in the only way it counts: to alleviate the suffering of those who are truly hurting. Instead, they concentrate their efforts into marketing The Brand.
For instance, did you know?
• About 120,000 active LDS children suffer from chronic malnutrition.
• 10% of malnourished children die
• The remaining 90% suffer lifelong cognitive and physical defects that severely reduce their earning potential as adults
• This leads to a cycle, in which their own children will be malnourished as well.
• $50 can provide nutritional supplements for one child for a year
Those four and a half million members who faithfully pay their tithing? Most of them probably think their money is being used to at least help alleviate the suffering of their fellow Mormons around the world. But it isn't. Too much of it is spent on promoting the idea that Mormons are groovy.

All 120,000 of those hungry Mormon kids could be helped for a year on only $6 million.  Yet the LDS Church, that same corporate behemoth that sank THREE BILLION DOLLARS into a high-end shopping center in Salt Lake City, doesn't provide assistance that could nourish its own member children living in poverty. That responsibility instead has been assumed by a group of concerned latter-day Saints who have formed a charity called the Liahona Children's Foundation, and they go around begging the rest of us to please do something to assist our own.  Maybe the Church(TM) can't alleviate world hunger, but is it too much to expect someone at Church headquarters to re-funnel some of those advertising dollars in the direction Jesus Christ would have them spent?

For heaven's sake! These are Mormon kids going without, many of whose brains will be irreversibly stunted for life because of the effects of malnourishment on their bodies; children who happen to belong to a church that used to be known for taking care of its own. 

Maybe now you can see why literally thousands of faithful latter-day Saints are saying "enough!" to the corporate fraud and financial abuse, and are diverting their tithing funds where they feel the Lord wants them. 

Have you even heard of the Liahona Children's Foundation? Well, maybe that's because they don't have any money to waste on feel-good marketing campaigns trying to convince the world how unique they are (while at the same time of course being noticeably normal). The Liahona Children's Foundation instead depends upon the generosity of fellow Mormons like you and me, and they neither waste money promoting themselves, nor do they practice priestcraft like certain people I could name.[1]

100% of the donations to Liahona go toward programs to feed and educate the children. All overhead costs are funded privately and managed with volunteer support.   Maybe you'll consider pitching in.

Because that's how tithing money should be spent.
[1]"Priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion” (2 Nephi 26:29) "You keep your eyes riveted on the prophet and the twelve apostles. We will not lead you astray. We cannot. So keep your eyes riveted on the leadership of the Church. (Russell Ballard speaking at BYU in 1996)  

More and more good latter-day Saints are baffled when they learn how much tithing money is squandered on pet projects that promote admiration for Mormons as a people, instead of promoting the gospel of Christ.  Some are looking at what's going on in Salt Lake City and asking "What in the world are they thinking?"

Denver Snuffer recently offered an explanation for the current marketing strategy. Here's an excerpt:
"The LDS church is not the same today as it was 10, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. The Church makes decisions using models based on business and political theories. This is ill-fitted for a religious movement. The result is that changes are made hastily and without careful consideration given to doctrine or how abandoning doctrine affects members.
"The LDS church sells the product "Mormonism" to a target market of the unconverted or non-members. Their present customer base (members) have been put through jarring changes...Despite these dramatic changes, the institution has largely managed to keep their loyal customer base. This gives the leadership confidence that the greatest part of their customer base is secure and will never leave. Therefore, their adaptation is tailored to their target market. This includes a demographic who are in large part...noticeably lacking in the ability to think critically. This is the future Mormon consumer or target audience.
"To make this work, the church pares down its teachings, and reassures the loyal customer base that the radical changes are okay because the church cannot lead its customers into error or apostasy. There are two important tenets that have superseded all others: the church is led by a "prophet" and the leaders "cannot lead you astray." These MUST emerge as the primary themes. Any dedicated study of doctrine and history shows the church is riddled with contradictions, mistakes, missteps, changing and untrue claims regarding history and non-scriptural dogma. This is excused and rationalized by the propounding of the two mandatory teachings of a "prophet" who "cannot lead you astray."
There is more to this analysis on Denver's post titled Patience and Faith.

The Natives Are Getting Restless
If you want to see some stirrings of discontent, look no further than the comment section at Anonymous Bishop's blog. Within hours of that post going up, over a hundred comments appeared, most of them from members testifying of the blessings they are already seeing from directing their tithes toward palliating pain and suffering. There's also a lot of dissatisfaction in the ranks, and regret from many that they didn't see the light sooner. Here is just one sample of the stories I found there:
"My parents recently served a mission in a third-world country. I am sad to report that in trying to get people qualified to go to the temple, they regularly told people that it was more important to pay their tithing than to FEED THEIR CHILDREN. I wonder what these poor parents with starving children would say if they discovered that the sacred funds they donated to the church, in good faith, would be used to buy the front page of YouTube, or to buy a billboard in Times Square, or to make an extravagant movie — about Mormons?"
Or how about this one, an echo of the Church the way it used to be:
"I can remember in leadership training – probably 40 years ago, maybe more – that helping those in need at that time was a primary obligation. We were told that, should fast offering funds run out, those in need had a claim on the tithing funds of the Church. While a financial clerk during that period, I recall writing a check for over $10,000 for an operation one of the ward members needed – one who had never come to a meeting while I lived in the area. More recently, one of my sons needed assistance with his family (lots of medical and financial challenges) and he related some of his humiliating experiences he had with that. My, how things have changed."
 Here's a blunt assessment:
"I think a corporation that encourages the poor to sacrifice food, heating and warm clothing to help it increase it’s billions of dollars of assets is despicable."
And another:
"When the church spends 3 billion dollars to build a mall in the courtyard of the temple, I think it is pretty safe to say that any input Christ may have had was not taken into account...Maybe He is just letting the watchmen on the tower do as they please while the rest of us daub the wall with untempered mortar (Ezekiel 13). The solution that my wife and I have decided to take is to give our tithing directly to the Lord, and to bypass the middle church entirely.

"We did not arrive at this conclusion easily. I wish that I could be in denial over this, but I cannot. I am now taking full and complete responsibility for my own salvation into my own hands. Now I actually have my own eyes on the lookout for anyone who has less than I (which in my case is not many), and offer them my tithes in the form of gas, groceries, materials, or just plain old cash – whatever in my best judgement they are in need of...

"Because of this decision, I no longer consider myself worthy to enter the temple...I still go to church because I believe in Christ, and because I love the members. But mostly because I love Christ. I am in President Eyring’s ward and have an interview with his son (the Bishop) this Sunday. I guess it will all come to a head then. I think it is unfortunate that I can no longer attend the temple. I was sealed in the temple to my wife, and our children and eternal relationship means everything to me, but if the gatekeepers deem me unworthy, I pray God will understand. All I know is that when I put my tithes into the Lord’s hands directly (and receive tithes from others – God bless their souls), it feels like Zion, and I love it."
And finally, this reader adequately describes the irony of attempting to pay a proper tithe:
"I’ve been pondering and praying about these very issues for the last year. I have been a full-gross-tithe-payer for all of my more than forty years. I customarily send my tithing at the end of each year as a bank wire to church headquarters. However, this year, I’ve been deeply troubled as to how to act. Many months ago, when I read that verse from the JST Genesis that you quote, my eyes were opened, and I was deeply convinced that tithing is primarily about the poor. Only when the poor have been well-taken care of should we look to other priorities.
"My question to the Lord was, how should I act on that knowledge? I am not in a position of authority or influence. And how can just one person make any difference? Then, one evening in September, as I was washing the dishes, my answer filled my mind and heart, and I knew just what to do. I waited several months to make certain that my answer was sure, for the sake of my wife and family, given the possible consequences.
"Just two days ago, I signed up for tithing settlement. Next Sunday, I’ll hand over my check to the bishop. But instead of checking the “tithing” box on the donation slip, I’ll check “fast offering”. My entire tithing donation for this year will therefore go to the poor and needy. I will still formally declare myself as a full-tithe payer, as I truly believe I am and will still be before the Lord.
"I will be completely open with the bishop about what I’m doing, and why. The bishop (and possibly stake president) will then need to decide whether to take away my temple recommend as a result. Will I be deemed unworthy to attend the temple if I prioritize assisting the poor and needy over building, maintaining, and proselyting? Can I continue to hold my calling which requires a current temple recommend? It will be an uncomfortable decision no matter which way it goes. Do you judge worthiness by the church handbook or by Matthew 25:40?

"My sad observation: if I pay Zero dollars to the tithing fund, I’m not worthy to enter the temple. But if I pay Zero dollars to the fast offering fund, I’m good to go."
What Alma Had To Repent Of 
A few years back, I was reading in the book of Mosiah, chapter 18 when I stopped for a moment on verse one where we are told "Alma repented of his sins and iniquities."  Now, normally I would skate right over those words, not realizing we are being told something very specific here about Alma's past sins. But this time I was intrigued that Mosiah would specify sins AND iniquities.

It goes without saying Alma had much to repent of.  After all, he had been a high priest in the court of King Noah, as guilty as the others of lording it over the people of the church and living off their substance for his own comfort.

I had never looked up the meaning of the word "iniquity" before. I saw it everywhere in the scriptures, but simply assumed it was a synonym for "wickedness."  Chances are so did you. But notice how often we see the word used in conjunction with other sins, such as "sins and iniquity" or "iniquity and abominations."

As it turns out, iniquity has a very specific meaning.  It's a sin, alright, but iniquity is mainly the result of an especially egregious type of sin, a sin that can only be committed by those in high places. Iniquity is defined as "lacking equity" or "inequitable due to injustice." In a sense, it has to do with people being unequal.

But don't misunderstand: this has nothing to do with not being equal in the way most of us are to some extent by nature. You may be my superior in abilities like sports, or learning, or even in earnings, and in that sense we are not equal. And everyone is fine with that. Everybody's different. 

Iniquity, on the other hand, results when one group benefits at the expense of others under their control. The relationship between them is unjust. It is not in balance. It is lacking in equity before GodAnd all as a result of the assumption that one party is just a little bit superior, a little bit more worthy, a little more entitled than the other.

A curious earmark of iniquity, and one reason it is difficult even to recognize once it has been in place for a sufficient time, is that those who find themselves in the inferior position in the relationship often don't tend to question the arrangement. They just think of it as "the way things are."  In a previous post, Lake Wobegon Mormons, I pointed to the example of the class distinctions in the British Isles, which had been in place for centuries, and how the people of the lower classes unquestioningly accepted the right of the privileged class to rule over them. Class distinctions required members of the working class to be ever obsequious to those who ranked above them.  An English footman or scullery maid might find themselves bowing and scraping to a member of the superior class on the street, even when not in that person's employ.  God made some men superior to others -that was just the way things were. It was the lower classes in England who were converted to the LDS Church by apostles Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, and others, and who made up the bulk of the saints who followed those apostles to the Rocky Mountains. They were accustomed to being deferential to authority, as are their descendants to this day.

An extreme example of iniquity could be found in antebellum America, where most slaves, born into that life, never even thought to question the propriety of the practice. To both master and servant, it was the unquestioned natural order; one ordained by God. Even generations after slavery was abolished in America, iniquity remained, as black parents taught their children the importance of "knowing your place."

Alma and his cohorts in the court of King Noah were living pretty high on the hog at the expense of the humble people they ruled over, and the people seemed to accept it, however begrudgingly. It took a certain old man with an amazing amount of chutzpah to even challenge this natural order, and when he did, the entire court turned on him for his appalling lack of deference. The priest class had been taking the substance of the people for themselves for a very long time. They justified it because, in their minds, they were using the substance for the benefit of the Church.  It was not difficult for them to justify their entitlement to a portion of the tithes for themselves, even an unusually large portion, because of the selfless service they believed they were performing on behalf of the people.

Those leaders managed to live in relative comfort, even if some of the people supporting them had to struggle to pay their tithes.  The Book of Mormon warns us repeatedly to be on the lookout for the sin of iniquity in our own day. Crack open your concordance and you'll find 216 separate instances in the Book of Mormon where that warning is given, and dozens more in the Doctrine & Covenants.

Yet for years I overlooked that word's meaning. As it happens, one of the primary messages of the Book of Mormon is that the sin of Iniquity would be the great sin of the Church in our day, and that we must be ever watchful when we see it taking root among us. Nephi saw into our day and delivers a very harsh assessment:
"Because of pride, and because of false teachers, and false doctrine, their churches have become corrupted, and their churches are lifted up; because of pride they are puffed up. They rob the poor because of their fine sanctuaries; they rob the poor because of their fine clothing; and they persecute the meek and the poor in heart, because in their pride they are puffed up." (2 Nephi 28:12-13)
The leaders of my Church today are exempt from paying tithes. Yes, that's right. As often as they harangue the rest of us to get our tithing money in on time, they don't have to pay any themselves.  And that isn't because the Lord issued a revelation declaring the priest class exempt from the law.  What happened was that a mere seven months after our founding prophet's body was in the grave, the twelve apostles took a vote among themselves and decided they were too important to have to pay in like everybody else.

Every now and then I'll read about someone who has left the church who says, "the best part of quitting the church is I just voted myself a ten percent raise!"

The Quorum of the Twelve voted themselves that same raise, and they didn't even have to quit.

Today the general authorities of the Church live very comfortably off the tithes of the Saints.  They have fine homes and sanctuaries, they wear expensive suits, and they are chauffeured around in new cars that are traded in every year for even newer ones.  They receive an impressive salary which they prefer to call "a modest stipend," and they are each provided the use of bottomless credit cards for which there is no oversight (what toady in Church accounting is going to audit their use?)

They enjoy all these perks of office and more because they have literally robbed the poor to obtain them. You think I'm exaggerating? There was a time when it was understood in this church that widows, the disabled, and the destitute were exempt from tithing. That was frequently taught from the pulpit by apostles such as Orson Pratt and James Talmage.

Not any longer, as evidenced by this April 2005 conference talk titled "Tithing-A Commandment Even For The Destitute."  You may be interested to know that the general authority who gave this talk made his personal fortune founding the Franklin-Covey Leadership Seminars, and likely hasn't a clue what it means to be truly destitute. He also does not provide within that talk any doctrinal statement from the Lord to support his thesis.

I couldn't help thinking of Nephi's words about "robbing the poor" as I read this instruction given to the poorest of the poor in the December 2012 Ensign magazine:
“If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing."
Here's a more accurate way of reading that counsel:
“If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing, for your tithes help to ensure that the water and electricity in the homes of the general authorities continues to flow unabated. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing, for your tithes are required to pay the costs of the exceptionally nice homes the general authorities have been given to live in, as well as for their vacation homes in Utah's resort areas. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing, because your tithing ensures that the general authorities and their children will never have to worry about where their next meal is coming from."
Our beloved general authorities also enjoy perks of office that border on the silly. While you and I are expected to walk from our cars to the temple, the elite of the Church get the privilege of being transported underground from the Church office building to the temple on electric vehicles through a short tunnel that leads to an entrance in the basement of the temple. Now, it may seem petty for me to bring this up, until you recall that there are people in this church who don't have the use of their legs at all, and who earn very little money; yet those valiant members struggle to pay tithing so the privileged class can use those tithes to hire drivers and have little electric carts shuttle them fifty yards to the temple.

At least apostle Tom Perry has refused to take advantage of this privilege, if only for the sake of his pride. "I'm a former Marine," he told a friend of mine, "That'll be the day when I have to ride a golf cart to the temple."

Well, let's not quibble here. Let's just accept that these men are too important to make it to the temple under their own power.

Apparently, they're also too important to join with the rest of us in prayer:



Welcome To The Remnant

A handful of fellow bloggers and I have been in talks about holding a family reunion of sorts to be held in Colorado in May for those kindred spirits who have resolved to start putting Christ and His gospel first in our lives. Already over 200 people have confirmed plans to meet with us there, and if you share any of the sentiments presented on this blog, I would hope you might wish to come too.

Sadly, already there are some wild rumors and assumptions about what we hope to accomplish, which I suppose is to be expected.  So to answer the main question, what we hope to accomplish is simply this: We'd like to get together with other devout latter-day Saints and meet one another and make friends.

The event will be very loosely structured, and no, it is not an attempt to "start a new church" or found some kind of commune or establish Zion then and there. There will be no leaders at this event. I'm not even sure you could even call this thing an "event."  If you were to get together for potluck dinner with a group of friends, you wouldn't expect any one person to emerge as the "leader" at the table, would you?  You would simply enjoy one another's company unhindered by any preconceived expectations. 

So think of this retreat as simply a family reunion for family members who have not yet met one another. And the best part: it's free! There should be no admission charge to hang out with friends.  More details will be forthcoming in January on Bret Corbridge's blog, 77 Truths.  In the meantime, in an attempt to quell some of the silly rumors already circulating, Adrian Larsen recently posted some clarifications about our little shindig, which I will repeat here:
1. So are you trying to start a new church or group or something?
No. This event is not designed to start any organization or association. It is just an open invitation to whoever is interested in joining together for instruction, worship, and fellowship.

2. Are you trying to start Zion?
No. Only the Lord can bring again Zion. The purpose of this retreat is merely for those interested to join together for a weekend of worship, learning, and camaraderie. Principles concerning Zion will no doubt be taught and discussed, but nobody is laying out a city plat, making assignments, setting up rules, or anything else along those lines. Zion must begin in each individual's heart, not with a gathering or group.
3. Who, or what, is the Remnant? 
In the context of this retreat, the Remnant refers to those who believe in, and want to preserve and continue the restoration started by Joseph Smith. All who share this common desire are welcome.

4. Are we rushing things, rushing the pass, or otherwise doing things in haste?
I'm not inclined to think so. This retreat is much like any other educational opportunity we all might engage in—like Education Week, or a weekend training seminar, or, dare I say, General Conference (only without teleprompters). I'm not aware of any efforts to do anything other than learn and worship, nor of any efforts to change anything currently happening within or without the LDS church. If I felt otherwise, I would not be publicizing this event.

5. Why gather together just to fail again? Won't the Lord gather His people when the time is right?
This is not a "gathering" like a permanent community, tent city, or relocation. Rather, it is a "gathering" like when all the relatives come for Thanksgiving and leave two days later. Nobody is staying.

Many smaller groups all over the U.S. are doing this same sort of gathering each week for worship, study and fellowship. This is an opportunity for the smaller groups to get to know one another.

6. Why this location? 
The location was chosen by Bret Corbridge because he finds it enjoyable and sacred. Having never been there myself, I'm looking forward to visiting the Mesa.

7. So who is speaking? 
Bret informs me the speaker list will not be announced in advance. This is specifically so that people who are coming to the retreat will come because they feel the Lord directs them to come—not because they are a fan of any particular speaker.

8. Is Bret trying to be a strongman? 
No, Bret is only doing the work to organize the retreat. He will not even be speaking at this event. He is not seeking to be any kind of leader.

9. So should I go? 
Well that really depends on whether the Lord is directing you to go. There's no reason you should attend this event unless the Lord directs you to.

10. Should I bring my kids?
Great question. I'm told Bret and others are working to find a way to accommodate children at events that will otherwise be more geared toward teens and adults. Got any suggestions how to make that work?
Since Adrian created this FAQ, we have heard from a nice young couple who are working on organizing and supervising activities for younger children, and perhaps even something geared toward teens.  Children will be shown how to fish and make pottery while the adults are otherwise occupied, so I'm excited at how this thing is coming together.

I'm told the Colorado location is a five hour drive from Salt Lake City, so you may want to contact Bret about local motels well in advance.  Efforts will be made by some local Saints to take some of you in, and there will be plenty of room to pitch a tent for those who enjoy camping.  Here again is the flyer containing all pertinent information so far:

As I said, although the dates are set, more details will be provided in January. Meanwhile, for additional information and updates, keep checking here, here, here, and here.

Related Posts:

Of Alms And Offerings

Bring Ye All The Tithes Into The Stores

City Creek: How Did We Come To This?

Lake Wobegon Mormons

Are We Paying Too Much Tithing?

How To Calculate What You Owe In Tithing

Not Quite The Same

Here's a podcast interview with Liahona Children's Foundation co-founder Robert Rees

A Note About Commenting: I again remind those who wish to comment that posting only as "Anonymous" is no longer permitted. You do not have to use your real name, but if you insist on choosing "Anonymous" from the drop-down menu, you must invent a username and place that either at the top or bottom of your comment so that readers can tell you apart from the many others who for some reason keep choosing to post under the anonymous option.   If you have a Google registration, use that one, otherwise it's best if you check the box that says "Name/URL", place your preferred username in in the "name" box, and ignore the box that asks for a URL. That way you can still remain anonymous if you so wish, but then other readers have a handle to address you with when responding. Comments missing any kind of identifying moniker are at risk of being deleted. I'm very strict about this because too many people posting as "anonymous" has resulted in chaos in the past.


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 242 of 242
Jared Livesey said...

Anon 2,

Which of Rock's specific claims do you take issue with that he did not document?

Also, what constitutes an authoritative view, in your opinion?

Unknown said...

Anon 2
"Once the United Nations took its action and President Bush took his stand, we were behind our leader," President Monson said, noting that Congress also ratified the U.N. action. "That's all that was needed."-Thomas Monson on the gulf war 1991

I personally find this statement, void, un-authoritative and of no force in my opinion. The reason being that it is nothing more than the opinion of a man. Never mind the "office" he held at the time. So Rock has an opinion along with all of the brethren.

What makes a statement authoritative, vs. just an opinion, in your opinion?

LDS Anarchist said...

Anyone who wants to read the essay that I wrote about the coins, just drop me an email request and I'll send it to you. Send your email to:


Gary Hunt said...

Anon 2,

In your comments you have used the following logical fallacies:

1. Ad Hominem
2. Appeal to Ridicule
3. Composition
4. False Alternative
5. Hasty Generalization
6. Red Herring
7. Straw Man
8. what Carl Sagan referred to as "weaselly language".

You should go back and read Rock's other posts and the documentation he provides. Then maybe you would be qualified to create actual arguments against what Rock says. Until then do not waste our time.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

ME? Authoritative?

That'll be the day.

Like I said, Anon 2, you must be new here.

As far as "refuting the general authorities," the only examples that come to mind when I might have done so have been when I've pointed out instances where general authorities have baldly contradicted the revealed word of God, or changed established doctrines by introducing new teachings of their own absent divine revelation.

An example of the latter would be Jeffrey Holland's blatant disregard for the teachings of James Talmage and Orson Pratt in a conference talk Holland gave on tithing. In that talk, Holland purported to be quoting Talmage's dissertation on tithing, but somehow managed to leave out entire portions of Talmage's message that would have stood in contrast to the falsehoods Holland was now introducing.

That talk of Holland's is blatantly dishonest, and I have no problem calling him out on it, just as I had no problem challenging Dallin Oaks on his declaration that "it's wrong to criticize the leaders even when the criticism is true."

And yes, I did link to the source here in the original post so that you can see for yourself how deliberately disingenuous Jeffrey Holland was in selectively quoting Talmage in order to create a false narrative.

So far, you have spoken only in generalizations when accusing me of "trying to refute what the general authorities have said using poor scholarship." If you would kindly point out specifics where I have taught false doctrine or written something you know to be incorrect, I would hope you would point them out to me so that I can make the necessary corrections.

Regular readers here know that I don't wish to teach falsehoods, and will correct any mistakes as soon as they are pointed out to me.

I welcome your input in that regard.

Gaybob Spongebath said...

How much you wanna bet we never hear from Anon 2 ever again?

That's what happens every time Rock or anyone else here demands a critic get specific and point out precisely where Rock was in error.

Remember Matt from November? He started out by saying, "I can't believe so many of you support the false doctrine that this blogger posts."

He posted several more comments containing more empty accusations, but when Rock finally asked him to give a specific example of something undoctrinal he found here, Matt skedaddled, never to be heard from again.

I'm still waiting for Matt to answer Tammy's gentle question:

"Matt, I'm just a bystander reader but I was curious about your communication with Rock about the apostles and prophet having seen Christ. Would you direct me to where you know that from? I myself haven't ever heard any of them proclaim that. And I would think that would be important to Christ to have witnesses of him testify of him. Thank you. "

Could it be Matt did the research and discovered there simply aren't any statements by the current apostles bearing testimony of having direct communication with Christ?

Must have made the poor guy's head explode.

Robin hood said...

Happy new year to you and yours.
You state in your message to Anon2 that you "correct any mistakes as soon as they are pointed out to me".
In my experience Rock, that is not entirely true. I pointed out to you a few months ago that your claim that an Area Seventy is a general authority is wrong. I followed that up in an email to you detailing conclusive evidence that your position was mistaken.
To date, there has been no acknowledgement or correction.
Just sayin.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Robin Hood,
There still seems to be some difference of opinion over that matter which has still not been unresolved, and you'll recall I pointed that out in our email conversation.

My bishop informs me that the Area Seventy who ordered my stake president to investigate me for possible Church discipline is a member of the 8th or 9th Quorum of the Seventy (he could not recall which), on a par, he assured me, with the First and Second quorums, who are headquartered in Salt Lake City.

I was told that area Seventies are assigned to oversee various geographic areas within the Church, just as are the Seventies operating out of Salt Lake City. (I actually had not even been aware that there were more than two quorums of Seventy until my bishop informed me that indeed, there were eight or nine separate quorums operating globally.)

Further, Hans Mattson, former Area Seventy from Sweden, confirmed to me in private correspondence that there is no difference in rank between the quorums, that "a Seventy is a Seventy" and that they all operate under direction of the Quorum of the Twelve.

If there remains a controversy in this matter between us, it is over your refusal to accept Mattson's statement as having validity because you consider him to be an apostate. I differed with you in that opinion, pointing out that Mattson had not apostatized, but merely resign his office. The reasons given for resigning have been outlined in the five part interview with Brother Mattson which I directed you to. (Others may wish to access those interviews below):


I find no evidence in that interview that Elder Mattson has apostatized from the religion, only that his supervising authorities failed to sustain him in his calling by providing the materials they promised that would have enabled him to fulfill his calling. But even if he had apostatized, that would have no bearing on his statement to me as to the duties and responsibilities of an Area Seventy, unless he had some reason to lie about what those duties and responsibilities entailed.

What you provided me with was a disagreement, not a correction. I mailed Salt Lake for further clarification, but have not received a response; so for now I accept Mattson's assessment (and that of my bishop) that in areas where a Seventy exercises authority over geographic stakes, "s Seventy is a Seventy," operating under the direct control of the Twelve, because in addition to not having been officially refuted, this job description appears to be supported by our scriptures and long tradition.

If and when I receive official confirmation to my satisfaction that an Area Seventy differs substantially from any other Seventy, and that he does not take his orders from members of the Twelve, I will make that correction on my blog. What we have right now, you and me, is a disagreement between two members as to what defines a Seventy. That disagreement does not qualify in my mind as something warranting correction. But as I said earlier, I am open to having my mind changed upon receipt of further evidence.

Robin Hood said...

I emailed you some time back regarding this. Maybe you missed it.
I often get letters from Church HQ which are addressed as follows:
"To all General Authorities, Area Presidents, Mission Presidents, Area Seventy's, Stake Presidents, Bishops, Branch Presidents".

You'll note that Area Seventy's are listed as separate from general authorities. The fact that they are members of a seventy's quorum (3rd +) is not relevant. Area Seventy's serve locally, for a fixed term (usually 5 years) and maintain regular day jobs just like a bishop or an EQP etc. At the end of their tenure they are released and take up regular callings in the church.
I suppose the nearest old-school calling to an area seventy would be a regional representative. Remember them? They weren't GA's either.
Come on Rock! Just put it right.

Robin Hood said...

In the interests of complete accuracy, I have dug out the latest letter from the First Presidency.
It is addressed as follows:

"To: General Authorities; Area Seventies; Stake, Mission, District Presidents, Bishops and Branch Presidents".

It doesn't mention Area Presidents like I said in my previous post, and when I think about it so it shouldn't, as Area Presidents are GA's. Area seventies are not GA's and are therefore listed separately.

I don't want to get into a big debate about this Rock, I was simply drawing attention to your statement that you always issue a correction when you're wrong about something you have said.

Jared Livesey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jared Livesey said...

Dear Robin Hood,

Rock is in harmony with the Encyclopedia of Mormonism.

General Authorities
See this page in the original 1992 publication.
Author: Gardner, Marvin K.
General Authorities are men called to serve at the highest levels of leadership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As general priesthood officers of the Church, they have Churchwide rather than local stewardship and may receive assignments anywhere in the world. In order of precedence, the General Authorities include the First Presidency, Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, quorums of the seventy, and Presiding Bishopric (see Organization).

This usage is not incompatible with the letter salutations you refer to.

Anonymous said...

Gaybob Spongebath,

I hate to disappoint you by returning, but if you need specifics, the first two paragraphs of this blog entry, and, for that matter, the very first paragraph of Rock's book make unsubstantiated claims. I have been told that I need to go back and read Rock's other writings to obtain the information that should have been footnoted. I consider this to be poor scholarship, and instead of addressing scholarship issues, people, like Gary Hunt attack the messenger.

You're right, I probably won't return here because from what I have seen people here are not interested in honesty, but in protecting Rock. I could dig up many instances where Rock has been intellectually lazy, but why should I? His pieces do not pass scholarly rigor and may be fine for the pedestrian crowd that buys into poorly documented hit pieces hook, line, and sinker, but not me.

It is unfortunate that you folks don't turn the microscope on the person that is making bold claims, but I suppose that since he provides you with ammunition against a system you have already discarded, it adds up. Gary Hunt, for example: you might start by condemning all the other people that have employed "logical fallacies" instead of singling out those that oppose Rock.

Anon 2

Jared Livesey said...

Let's examine the first two paragraphs.

In the October general conference following the murders of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, members were newly encouraged to give their all for the completion of the Nauvoo temple. In order for the temple to be finished in time before the Saint's planned departure for the Rocky Mountains, members would have to newly commit to paying their tithes, whether in substance, in labor, or both.

I don't personally have access to the General Conference proceedings, but these claims are in harmony with what I have been taught concerning Church history, and, in any event, are completely uncontroversial in my view. Indeed, George Q. Cannon indicated that the Nauvoo temple was never completed. Details concerning the history of the Nauvoo temple are available in Passing the Heavenly Gift, even if Rock doesn't give them to his readers here.

During the previous three years under Joseph Smith, the great sense of urgency among the people had been to see their dead ancestors receive the saving ordinance of baptism. To this end, there was a frenzy of such baptisms performed regularly in the waters of the nearby Mississippi river. When members couldn't think of any more dead ancestors, they set to baptizing each other on behalf of dead celebrities such as Christopher Columbus and George Washington.

The second seems more than adequately substantiated in this post.

Jared Livesey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jared Livesey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jared Livesey said...

In any event, Anon 2, if you don't bother to read all Rock's written, then it seems your quibbling about Rock's lack of "scholarship" in this post, though Rock nowhere claims to be a scholar, is inappropriate and irrelevant.

What's scholarship anyways except men quoting men ad nauseam?

Isn't truth the objective, rather than citation count?

Robin Hood said...

I'm afraid you are wrong. It is only the first 2 quorums of seventy who are considered "general" authorities; meaning their authority is general throughout the church. Area Seventy's are not members of these quorums and their authority is limited geographically; they are therefore local leaders. They serve under the Area President (who is a GA and, though serving in an area for a time, has other duties [and keys] also). I have a very close personal friend who is an area seventy. When he was called I congratulated him on being called as a GA but he corrected me and said that an area seventy is not considered a general authority. He may be a seventy (until the late '80's there were Seventy's serving in most wards), but that is it.

A good example of this is the recent reorganisation of our stake. This was carried out by a GA (member of the First Quorum of Seventy on an apostolic assignment), and he was accompanied by an area seventy who helped with the interviews etc. The decision and setting apart etc was, however, carried out by the GA.

The problem Rock has is that he took the word of a known apostate, Hans Mattsson, and used it in his book without checking the information out properly, so he's stuck with it now.
While I enjoyed Rock's book very much, his poor research in this matter cast a shadow, for me at least, over the remainder of his well written and very readable book. I couldn't quite trust what I was reading - not because I couldn't trust Rock, but because there was, to my mind, a very large question mark over his research.

Jared Livesey said...

Robin Hood,

I said: "Rock is in harmony with the Encyclopedia of Mormonism."

You said: "Log, I'm afraid you are wrong."

I say: On its face, my claim - that Rock is in harmony with the Encyclopedia of Mormonism - is correct. I even quoted the Encyclopedia of Mormonism to that effect - "[T]he General Authorities include the ... quorums of the seventy...." You have not acknowledged, nor responded appropriately, to the citation.

You may wish to argue that the EoM is incorrect, but then your fight is not with Rock, nor is it with me, but is with BYU.

Jared Livesey said...


Robin Hood, do I understand you correctly - are you saying that for you, Rock's being insufficiently rank-conscious in your eyes diminishes his credibility?

Puts me in mind of this quote from Nibley.

As it is, a General Authority recently told me that he found more snobbery and rank-consciousness among the religious faculty of the BYU than anywhere else in the Church. If a very, very little learning can have that effect on devoted brethren, what would it have done among the real brethren? - cite

Well, I'm getting an idea.

Gaybob Spongebath said...

Anon 2, what are you doing back here?

You just cost me a two dollar bet.

BK said...

I have always noticed that people who don't want to accept and deal with truth that people like Rock are sharing, try to change the subject to trivialities, like footnotes, documentation or the rank of some person or opinion.

I don't care if something comes from an Angel or from the devil himself, I deal with whether it's true or not, not who said it or what their position may be.

No one trumps Christ's supposed words in the New Testament, yet we even have to prove those words to be true before believing them, by living them to see if they really do bring happiness, peace & liberty or not.

And to call someone 'apostate' should be clarified, 'apostate' from what? The Gospel of Jesus Christ or apostate from the LDS Church? For they are 2 very different and opposite things. No one can be faithful to both. We are either apostate to the LDS Church or to Christ.

Robin Hood said...

No, you do not understand me correctly. Not even close.

Perhaps I could remind you. Some months ago Rock said that he had been interviewed by his SP following a nudge/complaint from an Area Seventy (AS). His stance was that this was out of order as the AS was a GA. I pointed out that an AS is not a GA but is a local leader and that therefore no rules had been broken.
Rock then asked a known apostate, Hans Mattsson, who is a former AS in Europe, for the low-down on whether an AS is a GA. Mattsson said it was and Rock, without any further research, published this as a fact in his book. In truth this information suited him because chapter 1 would have been quite flimsy without it.

After I read this I contacted Rock by email to point out that this was wrong and evidenced my claim. The evidence I gave him easily trumped "I asked Hans Mattsson" and was fairly conclusive.
However, Rock remained publicly silent on this issue.

I left it there and forgot about it until I read his statement on this blog that he corrects "any mistakes as soon as they are pointed out" to him. I simply pointed out that this statement was not entirely accurate.

So, you see, this is really nothing to do with hierarchy in the church at all.

Log, have you ever thought of renaming yourself "stick"? It's just that you seem to get hold of the wrong end of it so often :)

Jared Livesey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jared Livesey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jared Livesey said...

I pointed out that an AS is not a GA but is a local leader and that therefore no rules had been broken.

The Encyclopedia of Mormonism says a member of any of the quorums of the seventy is a GA.

I left it there and forgot about it until I read his statement on this blog that he corrects "any mistakes as soon as they are pointed out" to him. I simply pointed out that this statement was not entirely accurate.

Isn't it necessary to first substantiate Rock made an error and then crow about his hypocrisy? Because if I, who don't give two defecations about the actual matter under discussion - truly, I don't care - could so easily find out that Rock was apparently in harmony with the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, and therefore appears to be correct in his assertion, whether his source for the information was an "apostate" former AS or not, well, then your crowing about his hypocrisy seems premature.

Robin Hood said...

I just can't be bothered to debate this issue with you. You seem determined to argue about something other than what I said. Oh well, never mind. The words "swine" and "pearls" come forcefully to mind.
In answer to your latest post, I refer you to my previous comments.
Happy new year.

Robin Hood said...

Oops.... in my haste I forgot to link to the authoritative statement on the issue I raised with Rock.

You'll see about half way through the third paragraph it clearly states:
"Members of the First and Second Quorums of the Seventy are considered General Authorities, meaning they have authority to serve anywhere in the church. Members of the remaining quorums are called Area Seventies, and their authority is limited to the area where they serve."

I'm surprised neither you, nor apparently Rock, thought to get the information from the most authoritative source available. It took literally two clicks!

Anyway, like I said... happy new year.

Gary Hunt said...

Anon 2,

1. If you had taken the time to look up and read the reference which Rock gave,(History of the Church, Volume 7, pg 293), you would seed that it substantiates what he said in the first two paragraphs. Who's demonstrating "poor scholarship" and is being "intellectually lazy"?

2. You said..."I consider this to be poor scholarship, and instead of addressing scholarship issues, people, like Gary Hunt attack the messenger." If you go back and read what I said, you will see that I "attacked" the message not the messenger. There is a big difference. In good argumentation, challenging another persons argument, especially when they are using logical fallacies, is standard procedure. Attacking the person instead of their argument would be considered an ad hominem attack, which is not good argumentation. Again, I did not do that to you.

3. For the record I do " turn the microscope on" Rock and other's making claims on this blog. Just ask Log, BK, and Robin Hood. There are others. Quite frankly I do not care if you disagree with Rock. I do care when a person uses logical fallacies to try and argue their position. I realize that all of us unintentionally use logical fallacies at times. I catch myself doing it at times. However, when a person is aware of logical fallacies and intentionally uses them to deceive others into following their position, they are being intellectually dishonest.

4. You used a number of logical fallacies in your last comments(January 1, 2015 at 10:18 AM). I will not list them and will leave that for others to figure out. I promise I will not pick on you anymore.

Jared Livesey said...

Hi Bishop Robin Hood,

Congratulations on your find. However, my claim - that Rock is in harmony with the Encyclopedia of Mormonism - is still correct, despite the Church's sliding definition of seventy and your subsequent crowing.

That's the magic of making limited, specific, and substantiated claims.


Robin Hood said...

That's right, it was your claim.

I, on the other hand, was addressing Rock's claim, not yours.

Jared Livesey said...

Bishop Robin Hood,

With statements like "Log, I'm afraid you are wrong," it was very, even exceedingly, difficult to tell that you were addressing Rock's claims and not my own.

Forgive my poor reading comprehension.

Robin Hood said...


Anonymous said...

Gary Hunt,

I don't consider you to be picking on me, I consider you to be selective about who you call out.

There are sentence citations, paragraphical citations, and bibliographical citations. The first two paragraphs of this blog had no citations. The third paragraph did have a citation attached to it. I was looking for clarification from the first two paragraphs, and not the third. It was improperly cited. But this is splitting hairs. Look at the opening paragraph of Rock's book (page 6) and he starts out with a huge, unsubstantiated claim. I haven't really dug too deeply into this blog or the book, but if I did, I am confident that I could compile a lengthy list of poor scholarship.

I don't care if you think I use logical fallacies or not. The pages of this bog and comment section are full of them. Like I said, you zero in on those you want to call on the carpet (out of nowhere it seems).

Anyway, lets not forget the issue here...poor scholarship. Rock's claim that he is correct unless someone can show him otherwise (point out his mistakes) is a major logical fallacy. (Burden of proof).

Anon 2

Alan Rock Waterman said...

It always seems to be the case that when circumstances prevent me from monitoring this blog on a daily basis, I tend to miss out on some of the most stimulating debates.

I am sorry to see the conversation between Robin Hood and Log border on the acidic, because I consider both of them personal friends. I have engaged in offline discussions with both Log and Robin Hood on many occasions, and though sometimes we disagree, more often we find common ground.

Well, I guess I'm expected to weigh in on this controversy, since I started this thing. But if I'm going to give the response the attention it deserves, I'll have to beg off until later because I simply don't have the time today.

I'm even tempted to just turn my response into a full-on blog post, because it touches on areas I believe many readers are interested in. So stay tuned, and I'll be back within a day or two, either in this space or as a new post.

Robin Hood said...

"When the cat's away......"

Underdog2 said...

It's Dec 2017. Just read this post for the first time. Thank you, Rock.

This year for tithing settlement my family and I (including still some kids in the house) had a group meeting with the bishop.

I personally declared myself a full tithe payer but I explained to the bishop that I'm paying anonymously so not even the stake knows what my donations are.

The bishop had told me earlier in the year that bishops and stake presidents are chosen from a pool of candidates who are top tithe payers. He said essentially that if you're not paying enough, you exclude yourself from consideration.

I told him, in our family TS meeting, politely that policy was offensive to me and I didn't want to feel like I was buying a position in the church, so therefore I had been contributing anonymously.

I told him I realize that nixed any chance of me being called as the next bishop, which would have been in the next 6 months. (The stake president, a friend of 12 years, has been telling me (inappropriately) for several years, "Get ready, you're next," as if he was trying to get my loyalty or something.)

The bishop didn't argue with me. Or even act surprised at my stance of anonymous payments.

This practice allows me to help the poor out directly as I see fit and not have to feel judged by people in my ward or stake who are looking at my reduced "numbers" on their reports.

I sense the church is on the verge of collapse in next 10-20 years.

Alan Rock Waterman said...

Underdog2, That's a pretty blatant admission that they're aspiring to leadership. Good for you for holding your own.

Dave P. said...

Never forget that the "church" in its current form is a corporation. The "leaders" chosen are those who are most blindly obedient and have the capability to bring in the most money. Note the complete absence of God being involved in the calling.

Unknown said...


Pure Mormonism Blogger said: I couldn't help thinking of Nephi's words on robbing the poor when I read: “If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing.<<

Our Holy Father in Heaven does not effect his purposes by abuse, neglect, or crimes against "the least of these". Christ the Lord Omnipotent attend.

As a child, I had a single parent, a vulnerable adult struggling to make ends meet, who was assailed by these demands. She submitted to such demands as described in your quote of the December Ensign, 2012. Consequently, we went hungry, and were without electricity or heat in our own home because tithing was paid first, and not enough remained to pay the bills, repair the car, or otherwise remain financially stable. It destabilized our lives in the short and long-term. It eventually resulted in the loss of a vehicle used as the primary means of transportation to work by a single parent which resulted in the loss of a job. It ultimately led to the loss of our home, homelessness with which the church did not assist. There would not have been such destabilization had there not been abusive demands to pay tithing when there was no means to do so, or demands to neglect self or the care of children in order to place money in the control of counterfeiters who use the name of Christ and the Church to misappropriate the earnings and property of others.

During the same period, locals in counterfeit leadership were pushing polygamy. I had child rapists at the door to advance underage relations, proposing to hide criminal sexual behavior behind false claims of religious purpose. This was not in the dark, distant, or ignorant past. It was the 20th Century United States, in the 1970s when all the laws of the land in our country prohibited such crimes against women and children and they knew it beyond any shadow of a doubt as they do now. Causing destabilization of vulnerable adults, and sending out predators to carry out predatory sexual behavior is not of God.

Notably, locals including the Hatchs and the state agricultural instructor in how to grow a garden in your own back yard were busy teaching iniquity, that women were not equal to men and should be subjugated, that they should not have equal rights, as well as teaching polygamy.

When my mother declined to participate in criminal acts, removed me from the predators' reach, and directed these fakes and criminals to leave, they mischaracterized her as mentally ill. Blame the victim is their victimization pattern. I've never forgotten those counterfeiters or their attempted crimes or insults. While I uphold and sustain the true church, (not false gods, false doctrines, false prophets), and I honor God and serve my fellow beings with what means I have, I give tithing directly to those in need.

When accounting, I account for my tenth or more in a legal statement, and sign my name under the statement "given as to Christ". I do not give to thieves who unjustly enrich themselves while failing or refusing to care for the poor and needy. Where I am aware the needs of the poor have not been met, I do not donate to building, missionary, or any other church fund where we are overbuilt, overpaid, and in excess of our needs. (Continued in Part II)

Unknown said...


Pure Mormonism Blogger said: >> I couldn't help thinking of Nephi's words on robbing the poor when I read: “If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing.<<

An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God does not need our monuments. God doesn't care if we gather or pray in a tent or a palace. We do not need to spend millions or billions on anything until everyone has a home to call their own, means of transportation, sufficient food, clothing, education, and health care, in other words until everyone has the basic necessities of life, and a reasonable and equitable standard of living. The Proclamation on the Family states, "those who abuse spouse or offspring will stand accountable." All parents are obligated to provide for, love, and care for family as their FIRST priority before God.

Sister Adrian Yearsley
St George, Utah 2018

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 242 of 242   Newer› Newest»