Free Republic

Sitting “Congress Critters” elected President:

Kennedy (D), Senator, elected President in 1960.

Harding (R), Senator elected Prsident in 1920.

Garfield (R), Representative, elected President in 1880.

I’m sure there are more, but I didn’t bother to go back further.

I realize that there’s no such thing as a perfect candidate. At the current time, all I can do is weed out the ones that I have multiple significant issues with (e.g. Romney), and let the rest fight for my support.

Bachmann is my current favorite, although Cain, Santorum, Paul, and Perry also look good. If the election were held today, I would vote for any of them with no regrets. I would have a far harder time voting for Romney, Huntsman, or Gingrich.

I love Palin, and I would vote for her if she got the nom, but I think the MSM has managed to taint her name over the last 3 years. Sorry, Sarah, you’re a phenomenal kingmaker, but I don’t think you can win the election. Even as a runningmate, I fear you’d drag the ticket down.

If you're six-eight and covered in feces, you're gonna stand out in a crowd.

More like the crowd is gonna stand away from you!

One other point: in my church (and I suspect the majority of biblical Christian churches), the offerings are counted and logged (nowadays in a secure computer system) by a select group of deacons, elected by the congregation. No paid clergy or staff has any knowledge of how much any congregant gives, dollarwise or percentagewise.

Think about it: if someone is paid from the pot that they’re asking you to give to, that’s a clear conflict of interest (by the way, our staff salaries are also determined by member vote, not a bureaucrat in SLC).

This also means that the clergical staff can’t “play favorites” because of giving when it comes to counseling and other spiritual duties. How would you feel if your clergyman gave preference to the family who routinely gave 20%? Does that seem like a reflection of the dictum that we are all equal before God? Your bishop has the option of playing that game (and apparently *does* so, for those who don’t tithe “enough”), but my pastor is freed from that possibility.

You do know that if you don't have a receipt from the charity, that the IRS can deny your charitable deduction on your income taxes, right?

I give because I feel led to, because it makes my heart feel good to help, and because it's the right thing to do. Not because of a tax deduction. As I've mentioned, I've known a few friends who give anonymously (the fact -- but not the amount -- was brought up during a prayer group discussion on the topic of tithing and giving), and one reason they do so is because they don't want to feel like they were manipulated by anyone, not even the IRS, into giving.

Maybe you're looking too hard.

Maybe you're not looking hard enough.

So really, how do you rationalize away Matthew 6:2-4? If your left hand shouldn't know how much your right is giving, why should your bishop?

I understand the biblical principle of tithing. I also understand the spiritual aspect, as described in the Malachi verse you cited.

Show me one biblical passage which indicates that the tithe is to be enforced by guilt-tripping from the clergy.

You can't. This is a Mormon doctrine (actually the LDS implementation of the D&C passage, which doesn't even specify that earthly punishment is to be doled out), not a biblical principal. All other churches teach that tithing is a private matter between each person and God, and leave it to the congregant's prayers and conscience to lead them. Most sincere believers are willing to give without strongarm tactics, which is why non-Mormon churches/synagogues/etc survive. But at least now we know why the Mormon cult has $50B cash in the bank: Mafia tactics.

I'll say it again: a Mormon politician is steeped in the mindset that "charity" is compulsory and "giving" is involuntary. That is totally anathema to fiscal conservatism...but completely consistent with Mormon politicians like Harry Reid and RINO Romney.

Thank you for the replies. Per Old Student, I did some more digging and determined that submission of a W-2 is not a standard requirement -- but neither is it unprecedented. Several Mormons and former Mormons online have stated that their bishop requested to view their proof of income.

I'm still disturbed by the "Tithing Settlement" process, by which each person (or family) must come before the bishop, be shown the tithing records, and state whether their tithing is truly a "full tithe" (10%). I know of no other church that puts this kind of direct pressure on its congregants to tithe; every other church considers tithing not only voluntary, but private (I know many people who tithe anonymously, under the principle of Matthew 6:2-4, which would not be possible in your system). Tithing is between the congregant and the Lord, and shouldn't be subject to clergical guilt-trip.

But even more disturbing is the fact that Mormon tithing is enforced to the extent that those who don't tithe will have their temple recommend revoked, which is not only publicly humiliating, but according to Mormon doctrine can have eternal consequences:

And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.

And I say unto you, if my people observe not this law, to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion unto me, that my statutes and my judgments may be kept thereon, that it may be most holy, behold, verily I say unto you, it shall not be a land of Zion unto you.D&C 119:4-6

This is as egregious as the Catholic sale of indulgences in the middle ages. Mafia "protection" rackets dream of having such leverage!

In short, I maintain that Mormon tithing is not voluntary, but is performed under duress of punishment both on earth and heaven. I further maintain my position that no one from such an environment should be trusted to any claim of fiscal conservatism.

There’s an issue with the LDS church that I’m surprised that no fiscal conservatives have brought up. In most churches, titheing/giving is voluntary; that’s the typical American definition of “charity”.

But in the LDS church, giving isn’t voluntary. In fact, from my understanding (and Reaganaut can probably confirm this), if you want to rise to any level in the LDS church, you must not only have a steady job, you must submit a copy of your W-2, and your titheing is monitored to ensure that you are giving your expected level.

What does that have to do with fiscal conservatism? Everything! A Mormon is steeped in the mindset that charity isn’t voluntary, it’s compulsory. Consider that in the context of someone in the position to determine whether to raise your taxes, and how those taxes are spent, and you’ll realize that a devout Mormon can *never* be a limited-government fiscal conservative. Never.