Pay Tithing First To Put God First???

So, I was thinking about tithing a bit this week.  Rather a theoretical commandment for me, at the moment, till I actually start having "increase" again that isn't due to a massive influx of debt. My wife and I have talked about the "pay the Lord first" concept before, but it came up again this week.  I really don't understand the justification of those teaching this position.  It surprises me to see it taught as if it were the "scriptural" way of doing things... often citing references to the Old Testament, and commandments to bring the "first fruits" as offerings.

The reason this bothers me is that all these passages referring to first fruits are most certainly not referring to tithing.  The ancient Israelites were commanded to offer many different sacrifices, for different reasons.  But in an agrarian society, paying tithing using the first fruits is a real impossibility.  Tithe literally means tenth.  It's a percentage.  It cannot be calculated until the total is known.  If I have 100 cows that are pregnant, I'm not commanded to bring the first ten calves and pay them as tithing. Why? What if 10 cows abort? Stillborn calves.  Calves dying shortly after birth.  Twins born. Etc.  My debt to the Lord would change significantly.

So that isn't the case today.  We can, with relative certainty, predict the size of our "harvest" and number our "flocks" without waiting to see for sure.  But that doesn't change the fact that the commandment to tithe had nothing to do with first fruits.  This is a modern conflation of tithes with other offerings.  Now, I know the point people are trying to teach, that we need to place priority on serving the Lord, and on obeying him... but I don't think we can say that just because we do something first we're putting it above him priority wise.  I generally get my homework done before recreating with my wife, but that doesn't mean I think that homework is more important than she is.

Is the Lord angry with those that pay their tithing, before their other bills?  Perhaps not.  But I also can't imagine that he would be the least bit displeased with those who pay their mortgage, car payment, insurance, etc. first, then hope they have enough left for tithing. This isn't a net vs gross issue, which I also find interesting.  It's a chronological first vs last.

Honestly, I imagine it's the reason we even do tithing settlement. So we can pay up once we've been able to calculate our interest from the prior year.  This has got me thinking too, and I've decided that there's really no good reason we have to use the calendar year for our obeying the "anually" part of the commandment.  Why not have our own personal tithing settlement every July, or something.  It seems December is the worst possible time, for a lot of families, by the time they pay for Christmas related expenses, to come up with extra cash they realize they ought to pay as tithing.  Why not do it right after we file taxes, or better yet, receive our tax returns?

So, any thoughts on why we need to pay tithing first, or why December is good time for tithing settlement? Or anything else tithing related, I suppose?

Testimony or Conversion

Visiting my wife's family has caused me to think about things a bit differently. Some background. I grew up in a partially-active family (dad's only been to church a few times in last 15-20 yrs... mainly missionary farewells) in a very Mormon community. My wife grew up in a SUPER-active family in VERY non Mormon community. I've noticed some differences here compared to where I grew up. When my wife talks about friends who joined the church, then stopped coming, they "left the church." For me, that term was reserved for excumunicates and those who had their names removed.

Now, something that's bothered me a bit, is her family's tendency to judge others based on testimony. It's a regular subject of conversation when talking about others. "Does he have a testimony?" etc. I'm not necessarily condemning them here for unrighteous "judging," but rather questioning their measuring stick.

The Gospel vs. Science - Automatic Victory?

So I was listening to a talk on the radio the other day... it had the feel of a BYU devotional or CES fireside. I don't know who the speaker was, but they quoted (I hate when people do this, so I'm trying to track down the quote) Elder Maxwell on the subject of conflicts between science and religion. He said something about how the gospel embraces all truth, and that true science never conflicts with the gospel.

The speaker then went on to point out that our understanding of science is limited, but that the eternal gospel is unlimited. That, for him, when there is a conflict, it doesn't bother him for they will one day be reconciled.

All well and good. But here's my problem with the idea: While it's true that our knowledge of science (both individually, and collectively) is quite limited and imperfect. And it is true that the eternal gospel is limitless and complete and perfect. But, since when did we believe that our understanding of the gospel is complete and perfect? We don't! Continuing revelation is not just about establishing new quorums of Seventy and calling new Apostles. It's about revealing the Christ didn't, in person, actually go to the spirits in Prison, despite the fact that the Bible says he did. It's about eternal damnation not really meaning damnation of an eternal duration, but rather of an Eternal kind (being God's - where one of His chosen names is Eternal).

So revelation has, can, and will continue to change our understanding of the doctrines of the Eternal Gospel. So why, when a conflict arises, is there an automatic victory for the currently held belief in the church? Isn't it just as likely (ok, maybe the odds are not the same. They could be higher or lower) that the prophet will later reveal a change as it is that the scientific evidence will be overturned by newer research?

Giving Your Kids What They Want

It's interesting, as I've been reading Rough Stone Rolling, how my eyes have been opened a little bit as far as parenting goes. Let me explain. I was raised in a family where you were expected to work from a young age. I bought all my own clothes/entertainment (with the exception of some Christmas/Birthday presents) by the time I was in Jr. High. I never once expected my parents to pay for my mission. I knew I'd be paying for college, so I worked hard to get scholarships. I never even thought of asking them to buy me a car. That was my responsibility. I always felt like that was really an ideal way to raise kids, as it taught me and my siblings a great deal of responsibility, taught us to be good with money, to take care of and appreciate our belongings.

But, as I was reading about Joseph's predecessors, it seems that many of them struggled with feelings of complete inadequacy because they failed to provide each of their sons with a house and a farm when they came of age.

So I guess for me the question isn't so much of if it's a good thing to provide such things. I guess I'd always thought that the historical trend was going more the other way, toward giving them more things. But if back in the late 1700's parents were already not just giving their kids these things, but actually feeling bad if they didn't, is the whole "teaching your kids responsibility by not giving them what they want" thing a new idea? Or is my family just weird?

Jesus The Trail Guide

Here's an expanded version of an analogy that popped into my head the other day as my wife and I were discussing the atonement. Hope you like it!

I think that we can think of ourselves as lost in a huge forest (or desert, jungle, or other place where it's difficult to find your way). There are tall trees, beautiful meadows with wildflowers, scary and dark portions with wild and ferocious animals, and all other things that one would expect to find in a forest.. There are deer trails heading every which direction. And for some reason, you are completely lost, not sure how you got here, and having not even a clue as to which way you need to go to get to safety.

Spiritual Diabetic Neuropathy

The last few posts have gotten a bit long, so I'll try and keep this a bit shorter. I was just reviewing my notes from Conference and thought I'd share some thoughts I had from Pres. Eyring's Priesthood talk. He spoke about the responsibility we have to look after others. This struck me because (well, mainly because I'm nerdy) I'd just attended a conference on diabetic neuropathy (see, I told you), which has some interesting parellels. Then, during the talk, he kind of drew them even closer together for me.

After reccounting the story from "Black Hawk Down," he said, "Such a feeling of responsibility for others is at the heart of faithful priesthood service. Our comrades are being wounded in the spiritual conflict around us. So are the people we are called to serve and protect from harm. Spiritual wounds are not easily visible, except with inspired eyes."

So what does this have to do with diabetes? One of the complications of diabetes, long term, is that it causes problems with your nerves, frequently in the hands and feet. When you start to lose sensation in your toes, you can't tell when your shoes are uncumfortable, or if there's a rock in your shoe, or even if you step on a thumb tack. This leads to infection. Also, the nerves that should control your sweat glands die off too, so now you have ultra dry skin, which cracks, and leads to opportunities for infection even without any particular trauma. Even normal feet generally have a relatively poor blood supply, which is how you fight off infections, so this adds up for a perfect storm, leading to a lot of lower limb amputations.

What's the solution? Well, one of the best things you can do for your feet is to examine them twice a day, and stop going around barefoot (ever) once you have lost/poor sensation. However, one of the things they stressed in the conference was the benefit of having someone else to help you. Having you husband/wife check your feet (even if it's every few days) can have a tremendous impact on the health outcomes for patients. The problems are detected early, before they start to take over and kill off a lot of tissue.

Same with the gospel. That's why the Church exists at all (or one reason anyway). Not be be each others master, but to check our feet for us. (Sometimes it's hard to see in some spots)

Pres. Erying said, "Only an authorized judge in Israel is given the power and the responsibility to verify that there is a serious wound, to explore it, and then, under inspiration from God, to prescribe the necessary treatment for healing to begin. Yet you are under covenant to go to a spiritually wounded child of God. You are responsible to be brave enough and bold enough not to turn away."

and, "I would never put off such an impression because I had learned that the wounds of sin are often not felt at first by the one being hurt. Satan seems sometimes to inject something to deaden the spiritual pain while inflicting the wound. Unless something happens soon to begin repentance, the wound can worsen and widen."

That's just the way sin works. Often, we don't feel its effects (peripheral nerve damage happens first). But others around us can notice small changes, if they look. If they don't, and we don't, soon a larger sin enters in, and begins to take over. Once inside, the results can be devastating (even more so with sin than with the loss of a limb)

Sorry, that wasn't so short after all...

Teaching Ideals

Another interesting tidbit that kind of jumped out at me during conference:

The other day I was reading on another blog (I'll post a link if I can find it again) a discussion about the way the church always teaches to the ideal. There was a great deal of fus and debate in the comments, about whether the Church is right or wrong in teaching ideals -- like children have the right to a 2 parent, married in the temple, father working, mother staying at home kind of childhood -- and it was generally taken for granted by everyone that in fact the church does this. The main line of discussion seemed to be whether that was proper or not, whether that neglected those who couldn't meet those standards etc.

During the Priesthood session, Bishop Edgley had this to say:

Bishops, the sisters have a role in this effort. Because of the economy, many mothers are finding it necessary to make budget and other living adjustments. Some are even finding it necessary to leave the home to find work. The Relief Society sisters, with their specially endowed, compassionate hearts, can help. They can help identify the needy. They can teach. They can babysit, console, comfort, and encourage. They can make a difference.

I found this quite refreshing. He was explicitly telling the members of the church how they can help those who find themselves in circumstances that don't permit them to provide the "ideal." Telling the sisters to provide babysitting, so that mothers can work... what an awesome move that would be in the Church. If we can get around this whole idea of judging each other. Sure, it might not be the ideal, but maybe I should do all I can to make it more ideal.

Just a thought. I think it's interesting that sometimes we can get really caught up in arguing about whether something the Church is doing is the best or not... even when sometimes that may not be what they are doing at all.

(Not) Speaking of the Temple

Speaking about the temple is a uniquely strange issue in the church. It is so strange to me that we don't have more open discussions about the temples. As a youth, it is drilled into you to prepare for the temple... but so little is said about what goes on there, aside from marriage. Being an endowed member, I'm fully aware of the covenants that are made therin, covenants not to reveal certain information outside the temple. However, those covenants are quite specific in what is not to be disclosed. Where do we get the notion that they apply, or should anyway, to the entire experience therein? For instance, take this quote from Elder Packer:

A careful reading of the scriptures reveals that the Lord did not tell all things to all people. There were some qualifications set that were prerequisite to receiving sacred information. Temple ceremonies fall within this category.

We do not discuss the temple ordinances outside the temples. It was never intended that knowledge of these temple ceremonies would be limited to a select few who would be obliged to ensure that others never learn of them. It is quite the opposite, in fact. With great effort we urge every soul to qualify and prepare for the temple experience.

He says, "We do not discuss the temple ordinances outisde the temples." Period? Why not? Where does this come from? For sure we discuss temple ordinances outside the temple. We talk about the sealing power, temple marriage, sealing children to parents etc. What about the endowment, and the washing/annointings? When do we ever promise not to discuss these things. A good example from James E. Talmage:

“The ordinances of the endowment embody certain obligations on the part of the individual, such as covenant and promise to observe the law of strict virtue and chastity, to be charitable, benevolent, tolerant and pure; to devote both talent and material means to the spread of truth and the uplifting of the race; to maintain devotion to the cause of truth; and to seek in every way to contribute to the great preparation that the earth may be made ready to receive her King,—the Lord Jesus Christ. With the taking of each covenant and the assuming of each obligation a promised blessing is pronounced, contingent upon the faithful observance of the conditions” (The House of the Lord, rev. ed. [1976], 84).

Here, Elder Talmage wrote specifically about the covenants that we make in the temple. Is there anything wrong with that? I think not. The covenants that we make in the temple are important. I think they are something we need to be prepared to make. That's why, I think, he wrote about them. The covenants of secrecy refer specifically to not revealing the New Name, the signs, tokens, and names of the signs. Other than that, why aren't we free to discuss the rest, to search for understanding together?

One might make the case that the brethren such as Elder Talmage have spoken about certain parts of the temple, because of the value in teaching them to those preparing for the ordinances, but that discussing the rest of the endowment (or initiatory) would be without redeeming merrit, while eliminating a sense of sacredness.

However, I feel that more open discussion would prove incredibly valuable to the endowed members of the church. For example, reading a post at FMH a while back, I came across a rather novel (to me at least) feminist interpretation of the fall and Eve's roll in it. As I read, I noticed that all the scriptural accounts (Genesis, Abraham, and Moses) could easily be interpreted that way, but that in this one particular issue, the endowment differed from all other accounts. Now, it dealt with an issue of chronology, and the endowment and scriptures are not always presented chronologically, but in this case the chronology could be significant. I found this fascinating: A) that the endowment differed here, yet I'd never noticed it or its implications; and B) that I couldn't talk about it to anyone.

Here I may have discovered something that may prove comforting to more feminist members of the church, who struggle with a patriarchal church. But, what is to be done when scripture and the temple diverge? Which takes precedence? Which carries more authority? That's something I've never been taught or heard mentioned in the church. If the endowments chronology is correct, then my new interpretation falls apart. If the Bible and Pearl of Great Price have it correct, however, the interpretation stands. Could I honestly teach this to others if the endowment differs? If not teaching it to help others, why shouldn't I at least be able to discuss it with other endowed members, to get their take on it?

So I guess I'll end with a plea... does anyone know where Elder Packer gets this notion that we "do not discuss the temple ordinances" outside the temple? It's practically ubiquitous in the church, but where does it come from? And why? The sacred need not be secret. Elder Oaks hassaid that "the ordinance of the sacrament makes the sacrament meeting the most sacred and important meeting in the Church," yet it is far from secret. We have lessons on it in Priesthood/Relief Society, in Sunday School, in Primary, in FHE.... everywhere we talk and write and read about it, its significance and symbolism. Doing so has enriched my understanding of the atonement, and of the sacrament. It seems that to leave the temple untouched leaves to much that would be beneficial unsaid.

Does Prostate Cancer Prevention Justify Masturbation?

I came across a post yesterday that got me thinking about masturbation again, and a conversation I've had on another blog.

First off, let me say that this post isn't about whether masturbation is healthy...

The post cites an article that was just published that looked into the the association between masturbation in early adulthood and risk for prostate cancer. Now, the study showed an increased risk of developing prostate cancer early for those who masturbated most frequently in their 20's, but even in their own discussion admit that the high level of hormones leading to the increased risk may well be the reason for the higher levels of sexual activity (masturbation or intercourse). Thus, the high levels of testosterone are causing both the frequent masturbation in the 20's and early onset of prostate cancer.

One thing they showed is that masturbation in later years tends to serve as a protection from cancer, presumably from clearing the prostate of carcinogens by ejaculation. This protective affect has been shown in other studies as well. In the linked study (much larger too: 800 men in the one finding masturbation to increase risk; 29,000 in the one finding it to decrease it), the effect was shown to be true even for younger men (20's).

But as I said, that's not the point. Sure, I believe that medical science has almost completely redeemed masturbation from the disease/insanity/imbecilism-causing activity it used to be seen as. Rather, my question here is: Why do we LDS feel that in the commandments must be temporal in nature. In D&C 29, the Lord tells us that His commandments are all spiritual, not carnal, not temporal.

If masturbation is wrong morally, what does that have to do with the physical. The act could easily be inappropriate morally without having adverse health consequences. But Mormons seem to love the idea that all the commandments have direct temporal reasons for their existence.

It's like having a conversation about the health benefits of drinking a glass of red wine at dinner, or the health benefits that can be derived from drinking tea. Mormons (ok, so that's a blanket statement, and probably shouldn't be, but let's read that as, "many of the Mormons I've come in contact with") tend to think the scientists are wrong, or trying to appease their consciences, etc.

To wrap things up, I'd still recommend the reading of an article called "Historical Development of new masturbation attitudes in Mormon Culture: Silence, secular conformity, counterrevolution, and emerging reform" for a history of Mormon views on the subject. It seems to me that what started out as something that was 'bad' because it caused health problems (according to erroneous medical opinion of the day), came to be called 'bad' morally because of those cultural perceptions (mainly by Elders McConkie and Kimball) and then 'we' tend to try to say that masturbation must still be 'bad' for you in a physical way, because it is 'bad' the way Elders McConkie and Kimball claimed. Seems like some amazingly bad logic to me.

I'm willing to have a discussion about the morality of masturbation, or of drinking wine, etc., but why are we trying to say that science will eventually show a temporal, physical benefit to all the teachings of the church, or that studies that show the opposite must be wrong. Following a commandment doesn't always lead to better health or longer life. If you want to know more about what I think about it, you should read this post. Either masturbation is healthy, or its not; either it's moral, or it's not; those two have no necessary relation, if you ask me.

Mormonism, Masturbation, and growing up Male

First off, I want to apologize... this is going to be a long post.

So... We'll jump right into something. I've been skipping around on a few other mormon blogs recently. I was reading on the culturalhall.com, and which I'm sad to say has shut down (temporarily I hope). Anyway, I ended up there linked from another blog, but found my way to an article called "Confessions of Serial Masturbator/Repenter." A very interesting read.

So, since the site is shut down for comments, I thought I'd put my two cents in here. Fair warning, this may take a while for me to get through everything. But, be patient.

Growing Up

We'll start at the beginning, my beginning. I grew up in a Mormon family... pretty much. We went to church every week. But there was very little religion at home, no FHE, prayers, scripture study, etc. I grew up more or less believing that the church was true, but never really had reason to doubt it either. When I was approaching puberty, my dad lost his job, and had to go back to school. Since we live in a rural area, that meant he was gone during the week, and came to visit on weekends for a few years. That meant dad was no longer coming to church. I'd also reached that age where you start to question things, and, long story short... I pretty much decided over the next few years that there was no such thing as God, and that was ok.