Mormon tithing

[dianaiad]

Diana ~ (Not intending to criticize but) you left out Social Security taxes ~ those are the ones that everyone pays. The flat tax would eliminate that tax also. That would really help the poor, most of whom no longer pay income taxes.

Back to the topic ~ one of the things that hasn’t been discussed here is the original purpose for tithing. It was to pay for many of the things that have now been taken over by the government. In a sense, some taxes could be considered a substitute for a portion of the tithe. The difference is that tithing is voluntary while taxes are not. Many churches choose not to recognize this, for a variety of reasons.

Interesting.

On one hand we have criticism because the church says “pay your tithing, and if as a result you have major problems, we will help you with your mortgage, or bills, or food…have faith.”

On the other hand, we have people who say that they won’t go ‘on the dole’ no matter what.

And then here you are, noting that a flat tax would remove social security (which it wouldn’t…social security is not a part of the income tax, but is a completely separate system.) as if that were a BAD thing. The upshot seems to be that a church that asks for voluntary tithes, and takes care of it’s own when they need it, is something of a heinous situation, but that it’s perfectly OK for the government to take your money will you/nil you, and only give it back to you if you are poor enough to need it–at least until you are seventy or so.

I don’t get it. The whole thing is senseless. Which is better here: choosing yourself where your money goes, or having it taken from you without your permission? Which is better; knowing that if you get into major trouble financially that those who know you and who have promised to help you–and who have been the recipients of YOUR help through the years–will see you through, or depending upon a nameless, faceless bureaucracy that makes you walk through metal detectors and acquire a BA in useless paperwork–as well as an entrenched sense of ‘victimhood’ and entitlement–that is as difficult to get out of as it is to get into?

In fact, the whole thing is dizzy making.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Interesting.

On one hand we have criticism because the church says “pay your tithing, and if as a result you have major problems, we will help you with your mortgage, or bills, or food…have faith.”

On the other hand, we have people who say that they won’t go ‘on the dole’ no matter what.

And then here you are, noting that a flat tax would remove social security (which it wouldn’t…social security is not a part of the income tax, but is a completely separate system.) as if that were a BAD thing. The upshot seems to be that a church that asks for voluntary tithes, and takes care of it’s own when they need it, is something of a heinous situation, but that it’s perfectly OK for the government to take your money will you/nil you, and only give it back to you if you are poor enough to need it–at least until you are seventy or so.

I don’t get it. The whole thing is senseless. Which is better here: choosing yourself where your money goes, or having it taken from you without your permission? Which is better; knowing that if you get into major trouble financially that those who know you and who have promised to help you–and who have been the recipients of YOUR help through the years–will see you through, or depending upon a nameless, faceless bureaucracy that makes you walk through metal detectors and acquire a BA in useless paperwork–as well as an entrenched sense of ‘victimhood’ and entitlement–that is as difficult to get out of as it is to get into?

In fact, the whole thing is dizzy making.

Diana, I worked in the tax system for over 40 years and as a result I actually do know something about it.

While I know that Social Security is a different tax from income tax (although, procedurally, it is collected by the same agency that collects the income tax) it is also true that the proponents of the “flat tax” generally include the elimination of social security taxes as part of their system. Their flat tax model provides for the support of all government programs via the flat tax.

As for the rest, I’m not sure where the idea that this was some sort of criticism came from. There was no criticism intended nor implied. The origins and original purpose of tithing was the only point I was making. I was neither attempting to attack the concept of tithing nor was I attempting to support the concept of taxation to support the general welfare of our citizens. If there’s any sort of attack taking place within this thread, kindly leave me out if it as I am not part of any such thing.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, I worked in the tax system for over 40 years and as a result I actually do know something about it.

While I know that Social Security is a different tax from income tax (although, procedurally, it is collected by the same agency that collects the income tax) it is also true that the proponents of the “flat tax” generally include the elimination of social security taxes as part of their system. Their flat tax model provides for the support of all government programs via the flat tax.

As for the rest, I’m not sure where the idea that this was some sort of criticism came from. There was no criticism intended nor implied. The origins and original purpose of tithing was the only point I was making. I was neither attempting to attack the concept of tithing nor was I attempting to support the concept of taxation to support the general welfare of our citizens. If there’s any sort of attack taking place within this thread, kindly leave me out if it as I am not part of any such thing.

Actually, my befuddlement wasn’t about you, specifically, but rather about the thread as a whole. It doesn’t matter much what is said, someone will come up with a slam against it.

The various criticisms I mentioned come from several people…different ones.

 

[MelanieAnne]

It doesn’t matter much what is said, someone will come up with a slam against it.

Perhaps. A colossal waste of time though, isn’t it?

I’m beginning to think that many posters (present company excluded of course ) come to this forum for the purpose of fighting/arguing ~ to fight/argue just for the sake of fighting/arguing ~ for no productive purpose whatsoever. Not a very good use of the time and resources God gave us is it?

Some posters are even rather overt about it ~ continually inserting themselves into threads and yet sometimes even almost bragging about their refusal to even consider other points of view/opposing facts/etc. Why bother? I guess it’s one of those mysteries of life.

 

[dianaiad]

Perhaps. A colossal waste of time though, isn’t it?

I’m beginning to think that many posters (present company excluded of course ) come to this forum for the purpose of fighting/arguing ~ to fight/argue just for the sake of fighting/arguing ~ for no productive purpose whatsoever. Not a very good use of the time and resources God gave us is it?

Some posters are even rather overt about it ~ continually inserting themselves into threads and yet sometimes even almost bragging about their refusal to even consider other points of view/opposing facts/etc. Why bother? I guess it’s one of those mysteries of life.

Do I take this at face value, or is there some irony going on here?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Do I take this at face value, or is there some irony going on here?

I guess you’ll figure that out for yourself.

 

[dianaiad]

I guess you’ll figure that out for yourself.

Well then, I’ll choose to take it at face value and say that public forums are public; that is, open to those who wish to participate. Public forums that are specifically formed for the discussion of a specific topic (for instance, oh, non-Catholic Religions) can be assumed to be open to members of religions not Catholic.

To drill it down, threads on such a forum that are specifically about a specific topic, (for instance, oh, “Mormon tithing”) would seem to invite Mormons who pay tithing to contribute. Otherwise it becomes nothing more than a self congratulatory gossip session at a particularly nasty water cooler session. I know that you wouldn’t want to see that.

As well, when the participants of a debate come in, it very seldom happens that the PARTICIPANTS change their minds. the mind-changing would be on the part of the reader. Have you ever been in one of these sessions where the posters ever actually changed their minds about the subject under discussion?

I mean, I have, once or twice, but then I’ve been arguing about stuff on usenet and other debate forums for something like fifteen years, and on more restricted venues longer than that.

It is rather obvious that people come to these things, not to explore new ideas, but to hone their swords.

As for me, the threads that actually change my perceptions are those threads I do NOT participate in, and I’ll bet that the same can be said of most people.

Diana

 

[MelanieAnne]

Diana, you may be right. I don’t look at the forum as a place to “sharpen my sword” but I suppose some people do. I see the forum as a place to learn something as well as a place where I can contribute if I can. I view “fighting just to fight” as pointless ~ and I feel that way regardless of the situation ~ internet or otherwise. But I suppose some folks find that sort of thing entertaining.

There are also folks that clearly have an agenda despite the fact that this forum has not been organized for that purpose. I just find it odd that people would spend so much time, and many clearly do, engaging in the same argument over and over, in one thread after another, often asking the same questions even though they have no intention of listening to the answers and will even occasionally admit to it. You’d think that such folks, most of them at least nominally Christian, would have something more productive to do with their time. Guess not.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, you may be right. I don’t look at the forum as a place to “sharpen my sword” but I suppose some people do. I see the forum as a place to learn something as well as a place where I can contribute if I can. I view “fighting just to fight” as pointless ~ and I feel that way regardless of the situation ~ internet or otherwise. But I suppose some folks find that sort of thing entertaining.

There are also folks that clearly have an agenda despite the fact that this forum has not been organized for that purpose. I just find it odd that people would spend so much time, and many clearly do, engaging in the same argument over and over, in one thread after another, often asking the same questions even though they have no intention of listening to the answers and will even occasionally admit to it. You’d think that such folks, most of them at least nominally Christian, would have something more productive to do with their time. Guess not.

Yes. a great many people have agendas. Less HERE than in other places, but it is still true here. The folks in CAF are more polite about it.

Very few people enter into a debate/argument in order to get information for themselves. They enter into one because: a. they have something to say, and b. they don’t like what someone else has to say and want to correct it, c. they like what someone else has written and want to expand or agree (those are generally ver short posts) or d.they just want to stir up the ants.

Everybody is aiming at the reader who does not participate, except “D” and nobody likes trolls.

Ah, well…it’s also great for typing practice and for organizing one’s own thoughts and beliefs, though I doubt many would actually admit that last bit.