quote:

---

everything in the local church must be approved by Salt Lake

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
There might be a difference between structural hierarchy and functional hierarchy.

---

There is. I will say that most everything you do has a definite "chain of command." For instance: if a Nursery teacher wants to do something outside the normal guidelines/purview of the Nursery class, s/he runs it by the Primary Presidency, who consults with the Bishop, and if necessary the Stake Primary Presidency is consulted. For some things, they may choose to consult with the Stake Presidency. Usually it would stop there. In some cases a Bishop would run a plan past the Stake Presidency, who might speak to an Area Authority or a General Authority or the First Presidency (depending on the issue.) It all depends on the import of the issue at hand. Big changes and almost all curricula come from the First Presidency and are distributed church-wide, all at once (sometimes after a pilot program test in certain areas.) All Gospel Doctrine classes all over the world follow the same curriculum each year. Same with Relief Society and Priesthood lessons, and to a slightly lesser extent Primary classes. There are set rules for most situations likely to arise (although Bishops and Stake Presidents are likely to have a fair amount of discretion in making exceptions to many rules on an individual basis.) I'm not sure whether there is MORE "top-down driving"-- but there is at least as much, and there may be more, I just don't know.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Plus there are the Church Handbook of Instructions, which include information for all the various auxiliaries and departments within the church at the stake/district and ward/branch level which covers most situations that can arise. Then add the training material...

In practical terms, it means that the structure of the church and the doctrine being taught in Sri Lanka is the same as it is in Regina, Saskatchewan, or Cincinnati, Ohio, or Japan, or Brazil, or...
 

---

Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
 
Which is what I meant to say.
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Yeah, I know. I was just helping.
 

---

Posted by Hank (Member # 8916) on :
 
I've obviously never been a bishop (since I'm a girl) but I think that the allocation of funds is more top-down. I think that all donations are pooled and then re-distributed according to needs. (Since wards that have members wealthy enough to give a lot of money probably don't need as much given to them).

Doctrinally, we are given lesson manuals that are the same basic doctrine for everyone, but there is room to deviate in how they are presented. If anyone wants to do something really out of the ordinary, then it has to go through the chain of command. For example, my home stake tried to start a ward for young single adults, and the idea went all the way to the First Presidency for approval.
 

---

Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
 
Doctrinally the LDS church is very top-down heavy.

Day-to-day operations, however, are handled on a very local level with quite a degree of autonomy.

Incidentally, the entire leadership fo the church, from local Bishops through the various Authorities up to the President, are non-professional clergy. So even if the church is (doctrinally) heavily top-down, it's not the case that doctrine is being dictated by professional clergy. The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve are made up of educators, lawyers, businessmen, and other professionals who have essentially retired from professional life in order to fulfill their full-time callings within the church.

Just for reference, off the top of my head, here are the individual professions of church leaders that I know:

President Hinckley- Publishing (for the Church)
President Monson (1st Counsellor)- Publishing
President Foust (2nd Counsellor)- Lawyer
President Packer (President of the Quorum of the Twelve)- Educator (high school & LDS institute) and Politician
Elder Perry- Business (Retail)
Elder Nelson- Cardiac Surgeon
Elder Oaks- Judge (Utah Supreme Court)
Elder Ballard- Business (Automobile)
Elder Wirthlin- Business (Wholesale Food)
Elder Scott- Nuclear Engineer
Elder Holland- University President (BYU-Provo)
Elder Eyring- University Professor (Stanford)
Elder Hales- Business Executive
Elder Bednar- University President (BYU-Idaho)
Elder Uctdorf- Commercial Pilot

* I had to cheat and look up Elders Perry, Wirthlin, and Hales
 

---

Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
 
The Singles Ward? Really? (Did it pass?)
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
In all fairness, all organizational changes such as new wards/branches and stakes/districts also go through the approval of the First Presidency.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Tithing is all sent to Salt Lake and redistributed from the top down.

Fast offerings - offerings given specifically to be given out to those who are in need of help - are, I think, handled on a local level. So, any given stake (collection of about 8 congregations) only has as much money to give as they collect from others within the stake.

If there is a greater need for help than a supply, I think there is some flexibility and they can give it out, but then you get talks in sacrament meeting telling everyone to up their fast offerings - our stake is giving out more than we are taking in.
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 

quote:

---

I had thought that LDS was pretty decentralized -- all that priesthood of the believer, heavy layman involvement, and nonprofessional clergy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JennaDean:
*There are a few who are given a stipend or living allowance if they receive callings that require them to give up their full-time job but can't afford to retire yet (such as the highest leaders of the Church who travel most of the time). There are also some people who work for the Church in various functions, such as custodial and landscaping services, running the Church ranches and other businesses, etc. Teachers who work full-time as Church Education System instructors are paid (not just your ordinary Sunday-School teacher, but daily Seminary teachers for the teenagers, and Institute teachers for college-aged people). Of course everyone who works at Church-owned schools such as BYU are paid. So it's not true that NO ONE gets paid. But the local leaders (teachers, youth leaders, organists, bishops, stake presidents, missionaries), area authorities, and probably most of the general authorities receive no compensation.

---

quote:

---

I'll also add that if any individual member were to write to church headquarters with a question/concern/complaint/problem, they'd be reffered back to their local leadership for answers and help, and a copy of the letter would be sent to the local leader (generally the stake president).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

I'll also add that if any individual member were to write to church headquarters with a question/concern/complaint/problem, they'd be reffered back to their local leadership for answers and help, and a copy of the letter would be sent to the local leader (generally the stake president).

---

While this may be generally true (I don't know, but I could easily believe it), I know that it is not universally true.

I know of one case where somebody contacted the headquarters and they just told her the solution (which was "don't worry about it") without referring her to her local leaders.

---

quote:

---

Believe me I've been to my fair share of sunday school lessons where unorthodox ideas were given plenty of floor time.

---

quote:

---

Missionaries are certainly instructed to not write the first presidency but to refer all doctrinal questions to their mission president.

---

quote:

---

So even if the church is (doctrinally) heavily top-down, it's not the case that doctrine is being dictated by professional clergy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Depends on what someone is valuing.

---

Or on how someone defines "dictated," I would bet.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*shrug* I suppose you can always ask. I didn't think it was a terribly polite way to word the question, though. If someone else is willing to talk to someone who is deliberately incredulous, they are welcome.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
"Is the suspicion that theologians are less well-equipped to understand theology, or merely that paying people to be full-time counselors corrupts their understanding of theology"

Among many Latter-day Saints theologians are not well or less equipped. That would be a value-nuetral education. However, there is the idea that theologians are, by their nature, biased toward the educated views of theology and therefore more likely to be dogmatic or too prone to speculations based on worldly standards.

As for the second part, paying people to be full-time concelors is considered a corruption of pure motives. The Scriptures, particularly the Book of Mormon warns about getting gain for gospel teaching. This does beg the question of paid seminary and institute teachers; a discussion that comes up in LDS circles at times.
 

---

Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
The general policy is to refer all questions from the general church population back to local leaders, regardless of whether the person writing is a missionary or not.

This does not make the church leaders insane automatons. They still consider the actual content of the letter, and the reply is generally not a form letter (Dear Sir/Madam . . .).

In some cases, particularly when the letter is regarding the church leader who the letter would be sent to, they might choose another way to handle it.

As for letters being read in general confrence: Often, if you'll notice, the letters that are read in confrence are not of the type that it would make sense to refer back to local leaders. If someone writes President Hinkley and says, "Here's my story, in case you can use it to help other people . . .," or "President Hinkley, please discuss XYZ in confrence, it's more serious a problem than people realize . . .," that's not really the kind of thing where the church offices would say, "Please refer all such future inquiries to your local leaders."

But if someone writes in saying they know where the gold plates are buried or asking what the Urim and Thumim looks like or to ask for specific help with a problem, they're generally reffered back to their local church leadership, and copies of the letter are forwarded to that local leadership.

This has nothing to do with whether the local leadership or the General Authorities know the doctrine better. It has more to do with who knows the person writing the letter better. In other words, who gets to handle the situation is whoever is more capable of helping.

Since that's almost always the people on the local level, that's almost always who questions and policies are reffered to.

It's the same way with mission presidents. Problems aren't reffered back to them so they can quote from a manual. Problems are reffered to them because they know the kid and can work with him more to either answer his question or help him with his problem.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
I do think that there is a difference that should be noted, that docmagik seems to hint at, between authority and doctrine. Mormons do not equate the two as the same thing. Just because you have been given particular leadership authority doesn't mean you are considered an authority on doctrine.

That isn't to say that leadership (such as Prophet and Apostles) doesn't exist that is considered authorities who can explain or receive revelation about doctrine.
 

---

Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
To really understand the church leadership model the way the church sees it, you have to think about some of the things Christ said.

What Christ advocated was that the whoever would be a leader in his church would actually be the servant of everyone they "led." He then illustrated this by washing the feet of all of the apostles.

Traditional leadership models look like a capital A. At the top is a boss, under him are some other bosses. Knowledge, wisdom and guidance flow downwards.

A Christ-centered leadership model looks more like a capitol V. At the bottom is the boss, not ordering all of the other levels around, but offering support and help--acting as a foundation, if you will, for all the other levels.

At the top you have all the members of the general church population--and, most of us would probably argue, all the people of the world. They're actually the reason the entire rest of the structure is there. It's all there to improve the lives of those people.

This doesn't mean they get to make all the decisions, or that they get to ask for things that would take away from the structure's ability to support all the other people it's responsible for. It does mean that the structure is succeeding only inasmuch as its helping them with their problems and facilitating their ability to get what the organization is designed to give them.

In the case of the church, that's peace in this life, and eternal life in the world to come.

And we truly do believe that the boss at the bottom of all of that is Christ himself. The commandments are not arbitrary edicts, but the nuts-and-bolts day-to-day outline for how to get that peace and eternal life, the thing he most wants for us.

And he set the example for all leaders when he, in order to make those possible for those who would follow him, suffered and endured beyond what anyone could suffer.

Church leadership in any position--from the president of the church to a nursery leader--is not about getting people to listen to you. It's about making whatever personal sacrifices are neccesary to help the people you're serving to be able to live the gospel and deal with their own personal problems.
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 
I don't know about anyone else, but I only brought up the "paid and educated" versus "unpaid and uneducated" because there seemed to be an assumption in the first post that if the church was led by lay ministry (meaning unpaid and/or no degree in theology), it meant the church was "decentralized". I simply pointed out that although we do have a lay ministry, it's still centrally led and "top-down". (ETA: Or bottom-up, if you prefer docmagick's way of looking at things. )

I think that for a lay ministry, our leaders are pretty well-trained. There are a LOT of training meetings and materials.

There is some sentiment that unpaid means more "sincere" - or at least being paid has the potential to lead to "teaching people what they want to hear", for profit - but I personally don't believe most paid ministers are doing it for the profit. I don't distrust them just because they're paid. If I distrust any of them, it's for other reasons.

There are certain TV-ministers, though, that I do feel do it for the profit and fame.
 

---

Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
 

quote:

---

Just because you have been given particular leadership authority doesn't mean you are considered an authority on doctrine.

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure I understand why having "non-professionals" at the head of your church -- whether they draw a salary or not -- is considered an asset and not merely a value-neutral fact. Is the suspicion that theologians are less well-equipped to understand theology, or merely that paying people to be full-time counselors corrupts their understanding of theology?

---

quote:

---

There's thus a strain of anti-intellectualism in Mormonism that stems, I think, both from its origins among lay working-class Christians and the infusion of evangelical fundamentalism it got in the 1940s and 1950s.

---

Matt,

If you have a few minutes, could you expand a little on what you're talking about here, particularly in regards to the 'infusion of evangelical fundamentalism.' I've always wondered why some members of the Church (especially older members) seem to hold very fundamentalist attitudes, particularly when discussing politics, and science for example.
 

---

Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
 
BQT - A good book to look at here is Kendall White's _Mormon Neo-Orthodoxy_. (White's version of neo-orthodoxy is really fundamentalism, but he justifies the title by calling it a 'crisis theology,' getting Mormonism through the process of assimilation.) Anyway, in the 1920s, Joseph Fielding Smith was the only really prominant Mormon leader who believed in Biblical inerrancy and was adamantly against evolution; most others, like Talmage, Widtsoe, and BH Roberts, strove to reconcile science and theology, and were more open to reading certain scripture in terms of religious rather than scientific truth. There were a few titanic (and public) disputes among these men in the early 1930s, which the First Presidency responded to by forbidding everybody from talking about it. Sure enough, Roberts agreed not to publish his book _The Truth, the Way, the Life_, which espoused a form of evolution and an earth millions of years old. Widstoe also stopped writing about it, and Talmage and Roberts died soon after.

This left Smith as the most vocal leader who cared about this sort of thing remaining. And unlike Roberts, he published - _Man: His Origin and Destiny_, _Answers to Gospel Questions_, etc - all books in which he advocated a literal reading of Genesis and young earth creationism. His son-in-law, Bruce R. McConkie, advocated similar views in his _Mormon Doctrine_, which he published without the knowledge of the First Presidency (This ticked David O McKay off; he chewed out McConkie).

Now, as I mentioned before, most Mormon leaders have found it more prudent to remain silent about such things; and indeed, the official position of the Church on evolution remains that there is no position. However, since Roberts and Talmage died, the ones who have cared enough to write and publish about it are the ones who have been most sympathetic to fundamentalist viewpoints. The popular success of books like _Mormon Doctrine_ and _Man: His Origin and Destiny_ means that most Mormons have absorbed these viewpoints, assuming they are official doctrine.

Mormonism has also gradually absorbed the social ethos of conservative evangelicalism. Its leadership has, since polygamy, always been culturally conservative, advocating prohibition, opposing the feminist movement, etc, and the sixties shook them up. BYU still does not allow beards, a policy put in place due to fear of hippies.

Until Roe v Wade, however, Utah was a swing state. It overwhelmingly voted for Lyndon Johnson, but has not voted Democratic in a presidential election since. This is, I believe, due to a growing identification of social conservativism with Mormon theology - in part related to its affinity for Mormonism's emphasis on right practice - and an increasing perception within Mormonism that obedience to the leadership means supporting conservative politics. Heber J Grant, president of the Church in the 1930s, publically endorsed Franklin Roosevelt's opponents and prohibition - Utah voted against his wishes both times. In the 1990s, the Church had to send the GA Marlin Jensen to hold a press conference announcing that one could support both the Church and the Democratic party.
 

---

Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
 
Thanks for taking the time to post that Matt. In some ways though, it left me with even more questions I'll have to see if I can find a copy of White's book.
 

---

Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
 
I'm might be the only forum member who can remember that far back, but, David McKay was active in the local Democratic party most of his life, as were most of his councilors. But, like Granpa Andersen used to say, "when he started hanging around with that damned Clark" he became less active. The move to the right in Utah politics, including the "capture" of the state Republican party by the right wing of that party during the late 70's, has been a source of disapointment to many members of the Church.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Yes, please don't think all Mormons are socially conservative, or that we're all Republicans! Nothing could be further from the truth.

Women had the vote in Utah until the U.S. took it away. Then several Mormon women became prominent among suffragists.

The law of consecration is a form of communism. It is a higher law than the law we live now, the law of tithing. We're told by scriptures over and over that having large income differences between us is wrong. If we're not one, we're not his, God said.

As for fundamentalism, we're taught to study and learn as much as we possibly can about everything. Brigham Young said everything true is part of our religion. We're very much in favor of knowledge and learning. The Mormon church is definitely not anti-intellectual, as fundamentalist churches must be. Belief in a young earth, or denial of evolution can really only flourish when people are kept ignorant. We are encouraged to become as educated as possible, so such beliefs, though they may still be held by some members, aren't at all pervasive in our church.

There are many things in Mormon teachings that flatly contradict a conservative political agenda. Please don't confuse Mormons with Republicans. Plenty of us aren't. Thanks!
 

---

Posted by Wonder Dog (Member # 5691) on :
 
Amen, Sister!
 

---

Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
 
Oh, sure, I'm speaking in generalizations. James E. Faust, who is now in the First Presidency, was Democratic leader in the Utah Legislature forty years ago. And despite the rumors to the contrary, Harry Reid is certainly an active Mormon.

However, there are plenty of Mormons - mostly in Utah - who believe that Mormonism and political conservatism necessarily go hand in hand. A one-time leader of the Utah Legislature published an op-ed to that effect in the Salt Lake Tribune a few years ago. Furthermore, I forgot to mention the influence of Ezra Taft Benson, president of the Church in the 1980s, who was a very outspoken right-wing Republican while he was an apostle in the fifties and sixties. He gave speeches condemning socialism as anti-God in that period, and attempted to persuade McKay to allow the founder of the far-right John Birch Society to speak in General Conference. Same rule as before - the last leader who was willing to vocally oppose Benson was Hugh Brown, who died in the mid-sixties. Benson's voice was simply louder, and if that's all Mormons hear from their leaders, many will follow. Thus the Marlin Jensen press conference, I think.

Tatiana, Young's exact quote is: "It [Mormonism] embraces all truth in heaven and on earth, in the earth, under the earth, and in hell, if there be any truth there." Journal of Discourses, 11:212.
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
I was very sad, reading the obituaries in the mainstream press when President Benson died.

For the most part, all they mentioned was his political leanings.

It was even worse when President Hunter died:

"He was less conservative than Benson" was usually the sum total of his obit line.

It seemed so...trite.
 

---

Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
 
PT - to be fair, Benson _was_ unusually political for a post-World War II apostle; it was the issue he himself chose to write on, to speak about, and to lobby for. He believed conservative politics were important enough that he composed books about the topic, he gave Conference addresses railing against communism, and he used his leadership position to push for the Church to support movements like the Birch Society. It's a great part of what made him a significant figure in the development of Mormon history.

Now, granted, his presidency was significant for other reasons as well; he transformed Mormon religious discourse by stressing the Book of Mormon, for example. But to ignore a great part of what he himself believed was his life's work is to do him a retroactive injustice.
 

---

Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
 
I was saddened that the obits referred only to his politics, and only to the effect that "he was very conservative, now he's dead".

I'm not sure how you interpreted that as "He wasn't a conservative/I deny he was!"...but that wasn't what I said at all.

Focusing on exactly one element of a man's life doesn't seem fair at all, no matter how you slice it.

Nor does it explain why President Hunter's obits were even worse. Sure he wasn't the prophet for long, but I think his life could be summed up better than "Not as conservative as that other guy was!"
 

---

Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
 
Tatiana - The law of consecration is most definitely NOT a form of communism.

If you are fimilar with the general concepts behind the LOC and communism, they bear a slight resemblance to each other. Dig deeper, and you will discover the resemblance is very superficial; and unfortunate.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
:points at DSH:

What he said.
 

---

Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
 
I am enjoying this thread and am, for the most part, taking a back seat.

quote:

---

Tatiana - The law of consecration is most definitely NOT a form of communism.

If you are fimilar with the general concepts behind the LOC and communism, they bear a slight resemblance to each other. Dig deeper, and you will discover the resemblance is very superficial; and unfortunate.

---

quote:

---

How optional is tithing if you intend to enter the temple? Isn't it required for entry? I was under the impression that there is both administrative work and enforcement involved.

---

quote:

---

How optional is tithing if you intend to enter the temple? Isn't it required for entry? I was under the impression that there is both administrative work and enforcement involved.

---

quote:

---

To use your student analogy: a student gets caught drinking, so he can no longer play football.

Why isn't that enforcement?

---

It is.

I am just telling you how enforcement sounded to me. You are talking about a punishment for a bad consequence.

How about the student that can never play football because s/he is either not interested or not willing to train? *I am leaving out if s/he is too small because that is something that really can't be helped.*

I guess the standards are being enforced, but there is no type of punishment. When you used the word enforcement, it *sounded* like you were implying the church punishes people. I see no evidence of that--there certainly are enforced standards. You might not see a distinction, but I do.

The temple is a spiritual experience for people. Paying tithing and being obedient is part of the experience.

My personal feeling is that I think it is a sick idea that you have to pay money to an institution to get to Heaven. I felt a little different when I thought the institution represented Heaven and I bought into the obedience to the organization.

We have already discussed this on Hatrack and there have been good responses to my feelings. I disagree with the responses, obviously, but that moves into belief in what is right and wrong.
 

---

Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
In the case of tithing, the "administrative work and enforcement involved" basically just consists of the local ward tracking how much you paid, printing it out at the end of the year, and then handing you a copy of the printout and asking you if that's a full tithe for the year. If you say yes, you're a full tithe payer.

There's nothing along the lines of, say, a reconciliation of your W-2s to your tithing reciepts. It's just you saying yes or no.

Same thing when you're ready to go to the temple. You just get asked, "Are you a full tithe payer?" If you are, you're good to go.

See, the interviews with the bishop to get into the temple are a little different than, say, a college entrance exam.

Imagine a college that wanted to admit everyone who applied. It still had certain entry requiremts, but it had it's heart set on ultimately not turning anybody away.

For such a school, the interview would not consist of a "blockade" designed to keep the bad out. Instead it would serve as a bit of a fact-finding expedition in the interviewer's quest to find out where the applicant stood.

The result of the interview would not be a simple "acceptance" or "rejection." Instead, if there were still areas where the applicant came up short of the requirements, the applicant and the interviewer would spend time working out a plan to help the person being interviewed get to where they'd have all the neccessary steps fulfilled to get into the school.

And then, the interviewer wouldn't just send them on their way, but work together with the applicant to help them fulfill the rest of the requirements.

I don't think anyone would argue this school was all that exclusive.

Ultimately, that's how the Bishops of the church are supposed to see their role doing interviews for temple attendance. Their job is not to keep the unworthy out, so much as it is to help absolutely everyone possible to get in.

They're not gatekeepers so much as ushers.
 

---

Posted by striplingrz (Member # 9770) on :
 
excellent post docmagik
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Indeed. That helped clarify the internal justification for tithing enormously. Thanks!
 

---

Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
 
Very excellent post, docmagik.
 

---

Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
 
Tom, do you mean "internal justification" on the individual's part, or "internal" in the Church?

For me, it's just math ... we can't have buildings, with the electricity, running water, pews, chairs, hymnbooks, scriptures, lesson manuals, etc, without money. The money comes from the members. So I have no problem with the Church asking for money ... it's how this world works. Wanting to be a regular church member without paying tithing would be like wanting to attend a weekly pot-luck dinner without ever bringing a dish.

But I do personally believe tithing is more about faith than about money anyway. God gives us our lives and the world around us, and our talents, that allow us to earn money. God asks us for part of that money back to run the Church, promising in turn to bless us further if we give it - promising that we'll have what we need. If I love Him, I want to do what He asks; and if I trust Him, I believe that I can pay it even if it seems hard at the time, because He's going to make sure I still have what I need. So in that sense it is about faith. (And, incidentally, this is not blind faith. I have seen it work over and over in my life.)

So since it is about love and faith, then it makes perfect sense to me that it would be required to get into the temple. If the temple is where you make further covenants with the Lord, then you need a certain level of love for the Lord and faith in Him in order to be ready to make those covenants. Tithing isn't the only question, of course. There are many questions that lead you to know whether you're really ready for those covenants or not. Tithing is one of them.

Now, if you don't love the Lord enough to give Him what He asks, or if you love Him but don't really trust that He'll take care of you if you give Him back some of your money, then you aren't ready to make further covenants with Him. You aren't ready for the temple.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
To explain even more, paying tithing is actually theologically the lowest denominator of expression of faith from a monetary standpoint. It is the most minimum requirement. To follow the Law of Tithing, as it is called, is only a small step toward following the Law of Consecration - giving everythng to the Lord.

And the Law of Consecration isn't just about giving to the Church. It is about giving to the poor, the needy, the dispossesed, the spiritually downtrodden. You could say that the Sermon on the Mount is partly a sermon about the Law of Censecration; giving your all to improve yourself by improving the World.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Actually I was thinking of the ideal of communism, which is voluntary, for instance communes, which nobody has to join if they don't choose to. I wasn't trying to say that Zion will be run like The Soviet Union was or like China is. I was talking about the intellectual concept of communism, which is the thing the idealogues of the left generally talk and think about. I don't think anyone but Stalin was in favor of his massacres of millions of people, and so on. I was thinking of the idea of "from each according to abilty and to each according to need" which is more or less the way families are run. Inside our families, we hold things in common (such as our houses and furniture) and each contribute in our different ways. The ideal governance of Zion is something like a family, in the same way.

Capitalism doesn't fit in the picture of Zion in any meaningful way whatsoever, for instance. We're to give of our substance to the poor, not hire them to trim our lawns for the lowest wages we can possibly give, as one small example. Capitalism would say we should take full advantage of the marketplace to pay the least we possibly can, and that by maximizing our own interest we're helping society the most. Zion is not like that. In Zion we love each other as close kin, and we want to help each other as much as possible. I remember reading a blog post from Adam Greenwood of Times and Seasons in which he described the sweetness of having your plumber Elders Quorum President come fix your pipes, and bargaining over the price in which you're trying to bargain him up and he's trying to bargain you down. That's what I mean about Zion.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I agree with you about capitalism vs the gospel, Tatiana.

I heard a term somewhere...I think it was on this site, and it referred to 'communitarianism' or 'communalism,' instead of 'communism.'
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Capitalism would say we should take full advantage of the marketplace to pay the least we possibly can, and that by maximizing our own interest we're helping society the most.

---

quote:

---

The other difference is that the LOC is done by free will and communism is imposed.

---

quote:

---

Here is another thing that LOC and Communism have in common : neither work.

---

Nonsense. You're only saying that because it never has.

(in this dispensation)
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 
Samuel Bush: You did not mention the LOC as cited in The Acts of the apostles.
Acts 4:32-35

There were also Catholic missions in the 1600s run by the Jesuits that executed programs VERY similar to the LOC. Portuguese slave traders with their Spanish merchant accomplices prematurely put an end to them.

But like Porter said, just not in this dispensation.
 

---

Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
 
Also, many families work really well. Some of them are big and extended enough to count as communities in their own right. I don't know of any family that isn't run on some form of communism (I don't usually feel any need to make up new words for concepts just because the old words get tainted for some people by history). So that's another instance. Apparently when we all love each other enough, we'll *be* a family, so we'll naturally begin acting like one.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Communism is a word whose ideals kind of started out tainted.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scott R:
Communism is a word whose ideals kind of started out tainted.

---

By that you mean its father and his best friend glutted themselves on the family fortune of the friend's father?
 

---

Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
 
Oops, I forgot about that passage in Acts. Thanks for reminding me.
 

---