Sacrificing Principle for Profit?

“To what degree should the principle of ‘respect for life” be extended to bird and animal creations? What do the scriptures, Joseph Smith, and other early Church leaders teach about the grand design and purposes of God’s non-human creations? Does having “dominion” over the kingdom of creatures mean we are their predators and exploiters or does it suggest a “stewardship” relationship in which we become their caretakers in order to help them “fulfill the full measure of their creation?” If the scriptures teach, “woe be unto man that sheddeth blood or wasteth flesh and have no need,” and “the blood of every beast will I require at your hands,” what rationale could be used to explain Church-owned, revenue-generating enterprises such as Deseret Land and Livestock and the Westlake Hunting Preserve? Do these operations constitute sacrificing principle for profit?”

I recently learned about the two Church-owned and sanctioned hunting preserves mentioned above and was stunned by what amounts to be the killing of animals for profit by the LDS Church.

Trading Polygamy for Statehood?

Was the Church wimping out in 1890 – did it trade a true principle for statehood?  The Mormon Heretic takes a look at the situation the LDS Church was faced with:

I’d like to get into some of these details leading up to the Manifesto.  (This is a shorter version–more details are found here.)  I talked about the Manifesto previously in the context of whether the prophet would ever lead the church astray.  It should be noted that the church had been fighting federal anti-polygamy legislation for nearly 30 years, so I think it should be noted that the Manifesto banning polygamy in 1890 was not a spur-of-the-moment quick capitulation.  I’ll be taking my quotes from 2 books: Forgotten Kingdom by David Bigler, and Great Basin Kingdom, by Leonard Arrington.It was during the administration of Abraham Lincoln that the first federal anti-polygamy legislation passed Congress, but Lincoln wanted to ignore the issue.  With the outbreak of the Civil War, Lincoln’s first priority was slavery.  In 1862, Lincoln signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which (from Wikipedia)

banned plural marriage and limited church and non-profit ownership in any territory of the United States to $50,000.^[1] The act targeted the Mormon church ownership in the Utah territory. The measure had no funds allocated for enforcement, and President Lincoln chose not enforce this law; instead Lincoln gave Brigham Young tacit permission to ignore the Morrill Act in exchange for not becoming involved with the Civil War.^[2] General Patrick Edward Connor, commanding officer of the federal forces garrisoned at Fort Douglas, Utah beginning in 1862 was explicitly instructed not to confront the Mormons over this or any other issue.

Tithing, Charity & the Poor

Having heard that if tithing is left out of the equation then Utah is the least charitable state, I thought this letter to the Salt Lake Tribune made an interesting point -

LDS relief efforts – Public Forum Letter – 10/07/2009

Peggy Fletcher Stack’s story “This mission’s focus: save lives, not souls” ( Tribune , Oct. 3) reports that since 1985, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has “provided $1.1 billion in cash and goods to 167 countries.”

Let’s take a closer look at these numbers: $1.1 billion divided by 24 years comes out to an average of $45.8 million per year. By the LDS Church’s own numbers, it had approximately 6.2 million members in 1985 and 13.6 million in 2008, for an average membership of 9.9 million members over the last 24 years. Therefore, the church has donated, on average, $4.63 per member per year to its relief efforts.

Instead of being proud of this accomplishment, Latter-day Saints should be ashamed.

Michael Mirabile, West Jordan

My thoughts -

By way of contrast – in 1993 the average American gave $880 that year (2.1% of average income – which included religious donations).  If we look just at charitable giving a group like the Lutherans still give 6.7 times as much as Latter-day Saints on average.  That certainly does seem like it would have King Benjamin turning in his grave.

It is hard to say what the figure of $1.1 billion includes, as the Church reported much lower humanitarian aid expenditures of $30.7 million in total from 1984 to 1997 (Mormon America, p. 128), so the larger figure may include its own welfare program for its own members.  Interestingly, the smaller Salvation Army gives that much every single year.

Even at $1 billion some claim that the LDS Church may have given is less than 1% of its presumed income during that time period.  Thats less than Walmart, Ford or UPS.  Its almost a  quarter of what Avon, the cosmetics company gives.

It is noticable that a study shows that the poor (under $10k p.y.) pay more to charity than the rich (twice as much as those on $50k).  See http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarecharity.htm

As for where the tithing goes – see http://mormoninquiry.typepad.com/mormon_inquiry/2004/10/lds_revenues_an.html

The way I read the scriptures it seems that the majority of the tithe was intended for the poor.  (However, the LDS Church in England used only 0.214% of the tithing towards that purpose)

At least a third was set aside specifically for that:

At the end of every third year you shall bring out all the tithe of your produce in that year, and shall deposit it in your town. And the Levite, because he has no portion or inheritance among you, and the alien, the orphan and the widow who are in your town, shall come and eat and be satisfied, in order that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do (Deuteronomy 14:28-29)

See http://davidagrant.blogspot.com/2008/09/malachi-3.html & http://www.relationaltithe.com/

& http://www.geocities.com/hotsprings/3658/tithing.html for some other interesting info

& http://www.mormonthink.com/tithing.htm which gives a (somewhat antagonistic) overview of some LDS tithing issues & here is a very negative appraisal – http://www.salamandersociety.com/foyer/budget/

See previous posts on these subjects here and here.

Who are the Real Heretics?

An interesting book review from Andrew Ainsworth:

David W. Bercot, a Texas attorney and Evangelical Christian, embarked on a quest to discover what Christians believed and practiced before the Nicene Creed. What he learned caused him to seriously re-evaluate his beliefs, to eventually change his religious affiliation, and to present his findings and analysis in his book Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up. Although the book represents a critique of mainstream Evangelical Christianity in light of the teachings of the Early Church Fathers, Bercot’s analysis has surprising and thought-provoking application to Mormonism as well. While some may see Will the Real Heretics Stand Up as evidence that Joseph Smith successfully restored many Early Christian doctrines and practices, others may see the overlap between Early Christians and Mormons as the predictable result of Mormonism’s historical connection to the Campbellite Restorationist movement.

Bercot was raised as a Jehovah’s Witness but left over differences about Biblical interpretation, and subsequently became an Evangelical Christian. However, he had doubts about some Evangelical doctrines as well, such as the idea of eternal security (once saved, always saved), and remained convinced the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ belief in pacifism was correct.

Based on the fact that the pre-Nicene Church Fathers were the closest in time and place to the Apostles, Bercot reasoned that present-day disputes over scriptural interpretation could similarly be resolved by examining the writings of the pre-Nicene Church Fathers to determine how they interpreted and applied scripture. (These pre-Nicene Church fathers lived anywhere between 50 and 325 A.D.) Bercot’s legal training taught him to seek out the primary sources containing the writings of the pre-Nicene Church Fathers, rather than relying on modern treatises that often present sixth or seventh-hand accounts of what the Early Christians supposedly believed and practiced.

Birth Control

Mormon Matters took on the question of whether Mormon childbearing was “Too Much of a Good Thing”.  It quoted from Church Presidents, such as those below, who discouraged the practice of birth control:

Joseph F. Smith, prophet (1916). In answer to your communication in which you ask me for my views on the issue of “birth control, or the limiting of the number of children in a family to one or two”… I have this to say: The first great commandment given both to man and beast by the Creator was to ‘multiply and replenish the earth;’ and I have not learned that this commandment was ever repealed. Those who attempt to pervert the ways of the Lord and prevent their offspring from coming into the world in obedience to this great command, are guilty of one of the most heinous crimes in the category. There is no promise for eternal salvation and exaltation for such as they, for by their acts they prove their unworthiness for exaltation and unfitness for a kingdom where the crowning glory is the continuation of the family union and eternal increase…”

Julie Beck, general RS president (2008). Mothers who know desire to bear children. Whereas in many cultures in the world children are “becoming less valued,” in the culture of the gospel we still believe in having children. Prophets, seers, and revelators who were sustained at this conference have declared that “God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force.” President Ezra Taft Benson taught that young couples should not postpone having children and that “in the eternal perspective, children—not possessions, not position, not prestige—are our greatest jewels.”  Faithful daughters of God desire children.

The Flute & Justice

I couldn’t help but laugh at some of the comments made in response to a question on By Common Consent’s Different models of justice :

I recently listened to a podcast featuring Amartya Sen, a Nobel prize winning economist and philosopher. (If you want to hear it, here it is.) He has a new book about justice, in which he argues that a universal or idealized concept of justice should not be our goal: rather, we should focus on the obvious injustices and eliminate them.

The interviewer mentioned a parable Sen uses in his book that I found intriguing. I will paraphrase:

Imagine a flute. Three children each have a claim on the flute.

The first child should have the flute because she can play it well, and the others cannot.

The second child should have the flute because he has no other toys with which to play, and the others do have toys.

The third child should have the flute because she made it.

Of course, the purpose of the parable is to show the competing definitions of justice. But I wonder: according to contemporary Mormon Christianity, who should get the flute?

The Church or the Gospel?

Mormon Matters asked the interesting question – “Do we let the Church get in the way of the Gospel?” -

Any church is like an orange: it has sweet, juicy, nourishing fruit (i.e., truths that help people live better lives); and it has a tough, bitter peel that protects the fruit and holds it together (i.e. an organizational structure, prescribed forms of worship, and claims to divine authority). Were it not for its protective institutional peel, a church’s nourishing spiritual teacThe hings would become damaged and lost; were it not for its fruitful truths, a church’s institutional peel would be hollow and purposeless.

For me, the sweet, juicy, nourishing fruit of Christianity is best exemplified by the timeless truths for daily living that we read in the Sermon on the Mount: be generous, help people because you love them, don’t be a religious “show off”, don’t get angry with people or insult them, worry about improving yourself instead of pointing out others’ faults, be a doer and not just a hearer of Christ’s word, etc. Meditating on these thoughts and truths feeds my soul.

Establishing a Gift-Based Society

The Anarchist Mormon makes a suggestion that may seem radical to modern Mormon readers, but which wouldn’t seem out of place in Joseph or Brigham’s day:

UNITED EFFORTS

A United Effort:

• is the organization of individual Latter-day Saints into a mutual beneficial society (a gift society)
• is based upon voluntarily giving, sharing, co-operation, free agency, common consent and variety
• is not based upon the Babylonian principles of buying and selling, that everything has a price, the profit-motive, selfishness, the spirit of competition, force and homogenization
• has as its purpose: to advance the cause of, and prepare the way for the establishment of, Zion, and to reduce or eliminate the influences of, and ties to, Babylon, performed via their own free agency and not by way of commandment through the proper priesthood channels

GIFT SOCIETIES

A Gift Society:

• is one in which every member seeks the interest of the members of the Society
• is one in which members donate time, labor (services), ideas, resources and money to other members of the Society
• has the express purpose of providing for the NEEDS of the individual members of the Society by making them all independent from Babylonian suppliers, self-sufficient producers and engaged in actively developing their talents as opposed to slaving away their lives in meaningless mundane tasks working for Babylon, so that a surplus may eventually be generated by every member of the Society
• may operate on the principle of open-ended monetary loans, meaning that they are gifts with the expectation of paying them back, if possible, so that the Society may reuse the funds for further gifting, but without any time limits, contracts or requirements
• may operate on the principle of donations of surplus or may have a preferred minimum donation, as each Society decides
• may have a decentralized treasury in which each member keeps their funds until a group donation is authorized by the Society

Just & Preventative War Theories

Connor’s Conundrums shares with us this study of what the Book of Mormon does and doesn’t teach about preventative war theory:

The doctrine of preventive war implies fighting your enemy on your terms, before they (may or may not) fight you on theirs. It is an extension of the idea that “the best defense is a good offense,” and requires a massive network of surveillance and spies to supply the necessary and credible intelligence upon which such operations can be successfully based. It is the pursuit of an alleged enemy to prevent a possible (though not imminent, as is the case with pre-emptive war) future attack.

This doctrine has, in recent decades, come to replace America’s adherence to its opposite, the Just War Theory. This theory of war holds that military action must meet certain moral criteria, such as being in true defense, being initiated by and waged under the proper authority, and being used as a true last resort after all diplomatic and other efforts have failed. The aggression of initiating an attack without meeting the aforementioned criteria is rejected, even when masked in the cloak of pseudo-defense.

There are plenty of statements from modern leaders rejecting preventive war. Two examples will suffice for illustration purposes. President Dwight D. Eisenhower once remarked that he “wouldn’t even listen to anyone seriously that came in and talked about such a thing,” also commenting that “there are all sorts of reasons, moral and political and everything else, against this theory, but it is so completely unthinkable in today’s conditions…” (source). Similarly, in a letter to the US Treasury in 1941, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints wrote that “…we do not believe that aggression should be carried on in the name and under the false cloak of defense. We therefore look with sorrowing eyes at the present use to which a great part of the funds being raised by taxes and by borrowing is being put… We believe that our real threat comes from within and not from without…” (via Quoty).

Recent opposition to this war theory aside, it is beneficial for truth-seekers to explore the Book of Mormon for examples and patterns that have modern-day application. After all, President Hinckley said of this book that “in its descriptions of the problems of today’s society, it is as current as the morning newspaper and much more definitive, inspired, and inspiring concerning the solutions of those problems” (source).

The Missing Mormon Men

Beliefnet’s Dave Banak comments on the Mormon Gender Gap -

From a Washington Times article “Marriage as a Mormon value“

According to [the] Pew [Forum], Mormons have one of the most lopsided gender ratios of any religion: 44 percent men and 56 percent women.

You can’t argue with the gender gap — that’s what the data is. The question is why such a disproportional gender gap emerges in the LDS Church. [And let's just take it for granted it's not because the researchers just forgot to factor in all those absent 19-to-21-year-old men off serving missions.]

One set of possible explanations centers on the men. It could be that the high-and-getting-higher expectations focused on young LDS men drives some of them away. It could be that the LDS cultural focus on family and responsibility and work is unappealing to the slacker male twenty-somethings we’re hearing so much about these days. It could be that the current feelings-based approach to LDS worship just doens’t work for some LDS guys. And just where have all these missing LDS men gone?