- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Looks like Roy and I were typing at the same time. 🙂 Old-Timer wrote:As much as I agree with you in theory, cwald – and as much as I am open to some kind of exemption for the poor (although that would be horrible to try to establish and enforce, from a practical standpoint – since those just outside the line would have an incredibly good argument and I think it would cause HUGE dissension and hard feelings from more people than those who struggle now) . . . (Iow, I don’t want a tithing version of the current tax code.)
There just isn’t any way short of a Law of Consecration approach to implement a tax/tithing system that will make the rich sacrifice like the poor do. Even having a 50% tax/tithing level for the highly rich and a 0% level for the poor isn’t going to alter in any significant way the disparity you describe. It still will be easy for the rich and hard for the poor.
I think the best, fair “tithing” system is the one that speaks to your heart.
Old-Timer wrote:As much as I agree with you in theory, cwald – and as much as I am open to some kind of exemption for the poor (although
that would be horrible to try to establish and enforce, from a practical standpoint– since those just outside the line would have an incredibly good argument and I think it would cause HUGE dissension and hard feelings from more people than those who struggle now) . . . (Iow, I don’t want a tithing version of the current tax code.)…There just isn’t any way short of a Law of Consecration approach to implement a tax/tithing system that will make the rich sacrifice like the poor do. Even having a 50% tax/tithing level for the highly rich and a 0% level for the poor isn’t going to alter in any significant way the disparity you describe. It still will be easy for the rich and hard for the poor.Personally, I don’t think the rich should have to be punished for their good fortune to try to even the score. My objection to the current tithing interpretation is not about lack of equality, I just think it’s extremely unfair to expect single-income families with five or more children to pay 10% of their gross income as tithing but my guess is that it is precisely super-obedient members like this that are some of the most likely ones to pay this much year after year and end up suffering the most as a result of this tradition because such a high percentage of their income is already tied up in covering basic living expenses. I don’t really want to see a complex tithing version of the current tax code either but that doesn’t mean what we have now is really the best alternative the Church has available simply because it sounds so simple and is well-established as an expectation some members go along with. My solution would be something more like this:
2 Corinthians 9:7 wrote:Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so
let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. How could the Church implement a more reasonable and less manipulative system based on honor and goodwill like Paul describes without having to publish a new revelation? Easy, they could simply re-write the lessons to remove any references to “full” tithing and replace “income” with “increase” or “interest” to encourage members to interpret what this means in a personal and relative way. They could even come right out and say that it has been traditionally interpreted as income for many generations but this is not the only possible interpretation and that members are simply encouraged to donate what they feel is a fair amount for them. Another improvement would be to eliminate tithing settlement and encourage members to donate tithing and offerings anonymously either online or through some kind of drop-boxes. Basically, I think how much money people donate for religious reasons should be between them and God along with many other things that the Church currently feels like they need to really intrude into people’s everyday lives about in an overbearing way.
In theory, I agree totally with SD and DA. That is the ideal – and it essentially is what the United Order was supposed to do at the extreme end of the spectrum. (Keep whatever you feel you need to keep, and give everything else to the Church to be re-distributed to those who need.) I know I just over-simplified, but the essence is accurate enough, I think. That attempt failed specifically because, ironically enough, people didn’t think other people were sacrificing enough – that those who sacrificed MORE were upset by those who appeared to be sacrificing LESS, either in total contribution or in percentage. It was the modern equivalent of the poor who pay a full 10% of gross income complaining about those who pay one net – or who pay on “increase” after necessities – or who pay “only” 10% even though they are rich – or anyone else who doesn’t appear to be sacrificing as much. It ended up bringing in far less than a straight tithing base has since it was implemented – and, all other expenditure concerns aside, it was only after the implementation of a “simple tithe” that the LDS Church was able to be stable financially and “build the physical kingdom” without fear of financial insolvency.
I’m not saying tithing is ideal – and I think pretty much every knowledgable member agrees with me about that. However, it’s hard to argue historically that it’s not the best “system” the Church has tried – and it’s easy to see why members believe in it, given it’s emphasis in the Bible (even if it doesn’t function now like then and even if there are complications with that difference in actual function).
Also, on a personal note, I’d much rather have tithing / donations approached the way it’s done in the LDS Church than in many of the Protestant churches whose services I’ve attended over the years. I really, really, really dislike the public pressure and group manipulation I’ve seen in far too many cases.
I was commenting on the comment about flat 10% being a fair system. It’s not, IMO. I have no suggestions for how to improve tithing and make it fair —- only that I don’t think it should be a requirement for exaltation in the gods’ one true church on the earth.
To compare 10% of a single mom with 5 kids making 30 grand, to a married couple making a million, is absolutely ludicrous. IMO. There is no comparison.
So I guess what I am saying, is it is very unfair to make the same requirments for the poor and the rich when it comes to participation in the church and exaltation. It seems to me that we have the quote backasswards. Since we have to “pay to play” and pay for exaltation, it’s actually easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a POOR man to get to heaven, because the rich don’t have to give up the essential and the basic necessities of life to pay their 10% “membership fee.”
Old-Timer wrote:Also, on a personal note, I’d much rather have tithing / donations approached the way it’s done in the LDS Church than in many of the Protestant churches whose services I’ve attended over the years. I really, really, really dislike the public pressure and group manipulation I’ve seen in far too many cases.
I believe that Martin Luther felt that there should be a state church and that it should be financed from tax revenues. How’s that for an alternative?
Old-Timer wrote:In theory, I agree totally with SD and DA. That is the ideal – and it essentially is what the United Order was supposed to do at the extreme end of the spectrum. (Keep whatever you feel you need to keep, and give everything else to the Church to be re-distributed to those who need.)…
That attempt failed specifically because, ironically enough, people didn’t think other people were sacrificing enough– that those who sacrificed MORE were upset by those who appeared to be sacrificing LESS…it was only after the implementation of a “simple tithe” that the LDS Church was able to be stable financially and “build the physical kingdom” without fear of financial insolvency. I’m not saying tithing is ideal – and I think pretty much every knowledgable member agrees with me about that. However, it’s hard to argue historically that it’s not the best “system” the Church has tried…Also, on a personal note,
I’d much rather have tithing / donations approached the way it’s done in the LDS Church than in many of the Protestant churches whose services I’ve attended over the years. I really, really, really dislike the public pressure and group manipulation I’ve seen in far too many cases.Maybe my goodwill suggestion would require some adjustments and if they actually tried this I admit that maybe they could end up having to beg for more money to be able to pay their bills but I still think it would be worth it to alleviate some of the unnecessary hardship many members currently deal with. I have seen and heard about many active members here in Utah that are trying to sell all kinds of MLM products on the side or working multiple jobs because they are apparently so stressed out or obsessed about money and I think tithing is a major factor that contributes to this along with the traditional Mormon ideal of stay-at-home moms with many children to support.
Even though I don’t like the idea of a collection plate like some churches do where everyone will see you donate or not at least it would typically be a much cheaper way to look like a generous and faithful guy compared to LDS tithing. Suppose I go to tithing settlement and hand over several hundred dollars and then declare myself a full-tithe payer in a temple recommend interview. Is that really going to impress the bishop when there are others in the ward paying thousands or tens of thousands of dollars? Not at all, in fact he’d probably suspect this is not a full 10% and wonder what my problem is and why I would even bother to try to “cheat” God.
Many other churches also have full-time paid ministers to support where the LDS Church doesn’t so it doesn’t surprise me if some of them aggressively try to collect money. Also, I’m not convinced the Church really needs to maintain so many buildings this size with so many separate rooms, halls, indoor basketball courts, etc. It looks to me like their current costs are more a function of tradition and how much they want to spend more than case of them absolutely needing to spend anywhere near as much as they do to continue to operate and they still own all kinds of businesses and investments because they are not even close to running out of money any time soon.
Roy posted: Quote:I believe that Martin Luther felt that there should be a state church and that it should be financed from tax revenues. How’s that for an alternative?
I’ve been to Finland where they have a state church. Attendance & participation is very low. The tax revenues collected entitles the members to free Baptisms, Marriages & Funerals. Such a deal!
Mike from Milton.
cwald wrote:I was commenting on the comment about flat 10% being a fair system. It’s not, IMO.
I have no suggestions for how to improve tithing and make it fair —- only that I don’t think it should be a requirement for exaltation in the gods’ one true church on the earth.
To compare 10% of a single mom with 5 kids making 30 grand, to a married couple making a million, is absolutely ludicrous. IMO. There is no comparison.
So I guess what I am saying, is it is very unfair to make the same requirments for the poor and the rich when it comes to participation in the church and exaltation. It seems to me that we have the quote backasswards. Since we have to “pay to play” and pay for exaltation,
it’s actually easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a POOR man to get to heaven, because the rich don’t have to give up the essential and the basic necessities of life to pay their 10% “membership fee.“ That is a powerful observation. Never thought of it like that but I think it is very accurate. In Mormon theology it is the poor that must really sacrifice to obtain celestial rewards, at least as far as the tithing question is concerned. This supports my argument about “paying to play”. I guess the ultimate solution to this for me is to take the tithing question out of temple recommend interviews. It seems that way there is not a requirement to pay for exaltation. Let the church apply whatever other means it wishes to collect the funds; guilt, pleading, public pressure, asking sincerely, whatever works. At least this way tithing is collected on a purely realistic basis and not as a condition of exaltation which was sort of the point of my original OP.
State Sponsored Church?I wouldn’t want a state-sponsored Church — if the government is paying the Church to exist, then it could easily be an instrument for the government. For example, as an extension of the government, social engineering policies may well pollute whatever doctrines the Church holds. Further, doctrines would be decided more based on the common will of the nation than idealism.
Tithing and the Poor, Middle Class and WealthyRegarding my comment earlier that a 10% flat tithing requirement is harder on the poor than the wealthy, a financial clerk friend of
mine told me it’s upper middle class people who don’t pay tithing the most — at least, this was true 10 years ago in the Ward he attended.
The poor were more likely to pay it, he said. I think it’s definitely easier for the really wealthy as they can still have their lifestyle and financial security, while still paying tithing. Also, there is a social “should” that the wealthy should be sharing their wealth to benefit others — so you get the Gates Foundation and social consience efforts from the wealthy that are expected given their huge sums of money. Tithing fits that social requirement pretty well, satisfying the demands of social conscience, and making one worthy at the same time.
For me, what makes tithing hard for me personally is that if I don’t pay it, I can make satisfactory progress toward worthy goals like getting out of debt, knowing that I will be self-sufficient if unemployed for a year or two, and providing enough money for my children to go to college if they want. When I do pay the full 10%, I feel frustrated, because debts don’t go down fast enough, I always feel like I’m working multiple jobs and never getting ahead, and I can’t see any way I will have enough income to retire even at 65 or 70. Plus I have health issues looming, and a chronically ill son — a prudent person looks ahead toward these things and makes plans accordingly.
And last of all, for some reason, I can’t let go of the idea that if I give huge sums of money to an organization like the LDS Church, at some point, they have an obligation to treat me with SOME respect — not the indifference or sense that I’m a cog in the machine like they have done multiple times — as if my sole objective in life is to serve the Church and to consistently put my own needs on the back shelf.
Sure, there is faith — but I have not seen the people in the Church put much credence in that when I have shown great faith and commitment to the gospel in highly uncommon ways. The Church as a whole continues acting as a self-interested temporal organization, which hurt my testimony significantly in the past.
Therefore, when I compare the security I feel from knowing I am self-reliant, to the rebuff I’ve received repeatedly from the Church whenever I’ve needed emotional/calling/mission/adoption support, giving it all to them as their “right” given their role in my salvation, I find it a hard sell.
Empathy for the Poor?Taken with how tight-fisted our last Bishop was with fast offering funds when people came to use for help, I honestly don’t believe there would be much reciprocity on the part of the Church if I ever DID have a valid need. Based on my experience as a Ward leader, our joint counseling sessions with the poor would involve asking them to move to smaller quarters (when they were already paying a reasonable amount of rent where they were), to cutting their cable, getting rid of a cell phone or others things. They were piddly amounts overall, and usually, the poor didn’t take the suggestions, and in some cases where offended.
Also, my family tried a concept twice in the last two years where we spend NOTHING except for basic necessities. I suggest you try it. Go for one solid month where you pay nothing but essential gas, essential food, housing, utilities and your phone. Allow yourself no luxuries — no eating out, no discretionary purchases, no entertainment, no movies, no hobby expenses, no luxury grocery store foods — nothing but your basic essentials.
For two weeks, it was easy — I actually enjoyed the liberation from spending. But then after two weeks it got really hard. And there are people who do that ALL THE TIME due to poor employment. They come to the Church, and the Church asks them to cut their cable…that always bothered me. In our Welfare meetings, one person criticized a woman for spending $50 on getting her hair done.; At the time, I shared in the judgmentalism, but after our month of not spending anything but basic necessities, I realized the pent up demand that gets created when you have no money for anything beyond basic necessities. It’s a real grind. I’ll never criticize anyone for making what appears to be a frivolous purchase like that again.
So, tithing is a hard one right now….this perception that the Church is geared to a one-way flow (from member to Church) more than the other way around is something I will have to deal with if I am ever to be fully active again. Also, I will have to deal with the apparent illogical nature of tithing — that you give your financial security away and leave yourself open to the buffetings of life. It seems that this illogical reasoning applies only at Church.
Quote:it’s actually easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a POOR man to get to heaven, because the rich don’t have to give up the essential and the basic necessities of life to pay their 10% “membership fee.
I tend to agree with you cwald, and Cadence on this point.
The sacrifice is greater for the widow throwing in her mite than for the rich who can give larger amounts but don’t have to feel the sting to their daily lifestyle as much.
The rich seem to be able to give (and 10% of their income is significant), but can still live comfortably and have time to devote to callings and other hobbies, and while this is a blanket statement not entirely true in all circumstances, in general I see those successful or rich individuals who are active are called to high leadership positions because they have the time and means to serve. Obviously, there are many examples that go against that, but I do see that frequently.
cwald wrote:I have no suggestions for how to improve tithing and make it fair…
Ya, that’s the thing, I’m not sure what would be better. Creating a Tax-like Tithing-code would be aweful. Maybe the lesson is, things aren’t fair, so God let’s us work through it to learn from things not being easy or fair in life. But maybe he allows it, because it is one way to support church growth, but in other ways He blesses people regardless of tithing because it is not the most important thing to Him. So if you have the view that you don’t need to go through the church to access God, then it doesn’t matter, even if the Church doesn’t allow you to do somethings, it just means you access God outside of the church realm.
Is it restrictive of exaltation or earthly ordinances? Hmmm…earthly ordinances in some ways, but not exaltation, I don’t think. It does seem bishops and leaders will try to do all to work with families to help work through the things that are unfair or difficult. The problem being, as SD has said, not all bishops are good at it. I don’t think the church will restrict ordinances to those that sincerely do all they can to try. The reality is that sacrifice may be greater for some than others. That’s just life.
Is it any different than the person who has genetically pre-disposition to alcoholism and finds it harder to live the WoW than someone like myself that doesn’t ever feel tempted to drink? Or the person with mental health issues that prevents them from being stable enough to serve in callings in the church? It seems, not much is fair. We just have to find peace with who we are, what we can do, and make do.
SilentDawning wrote:that you give your financial security away and leave yourself open to the buffetings of life.
It seems to me that some people pay tithing for divinely sponsored security, others do not pay tithing in order to seek financial security – both are illusions. I used to think that I am resourceful enough to take care of myself and my family in most situations and for the situations out of my control I pay tithing to call down the blessings of heaven. A way to control the uncontrollable. I now feel that both my faith in tithing = blessings
andmy faith in my ability to handle/weather/overcome whatever life storms come my way were…shall we say…overconfident. In short, there is no circumventing the “buffetings of life.” Given that the feelings of security are a major motivator for paying tithing, also that you no longer feel that security associated with tithing and that you
doget those feelings of security from having a nest egg/emergency fund – I can completely understand where your actions would fall in line with your motivation. SilentDawning wrote:Regarding my comment earlier that a 10% flat tithing requirement is harder on the poor than the wealthy, a financial clerk friend of
mine told me it’s upper middle class people who don’t pay tithing the most — at least, this was true 10 years ago in the Ward he attended.
Though I’m sure there could be many reasons for this, one could be the psychological hurdle of a certain dollar amount. I understand that people tend to walk away from their mortgages when they hit a certain dollar amount “underwater” – not a percentage of the total value of the house but a specific dollar amount. So if we apply this to paying tithing there may come a certain amount of reevaluation as the annual contribution approaches 5k or 10k or 20k (whatever the psychological barrier is) and the individuals reassess the “membership fee.”
So even though tithing may be an easier burden on the wealthy as a percentage, it may be psychologically more difficult as a specific dollar amount.
Roy, good comments. What is your take on this quote from Gospel Principles and how the Church is teaching us about the blessings of tithing:
Quote:The blessings we have been promised are both material and spiritual. If we give willingly, Heavenly Father will help us provide for our daily needs of food, clothes, and shelter. Speaking to Latter-day Saints in the Philippines, President Gordon B. Hinckley said that if people “will accept the gospel and live it, pay their tithes and offerings, even though those be meager, the Lord will keep His ancient promise in their behalf, and they will have rice in their bowls and clothing on their backs and shelter over their heads. I do not see any other solution. They need a power greater than any earthly power to lift them and help them”
(“Inspirational Thoughts,” Ensign, Aug. 1997, 7). Cadence wrote:That is a powerful observation…In Mormon theology it is the poor that must really sacrifice to obtain celestial rewards, at least as far as the tithing question is concerned. This supports my argument about “paying to play”. I guess
the ultimate solution to this for me is to take the tithing question out of temple recommend interviews. It seems that way there is not a requirement to pay for exaltation.Let the church apply whatever other means it wishes to collect the funds; guilt, pleading, public pressure, asking sincerely, whatever works. At least this way tithing is collected on a purely realistic basis and not as a condition of exaltation which was sort of the point of my original OP. My guess is that most Church leaders’ reaction to this idea would be something like this:
Joseph B. Wirthlin wrote:To those who have strayed because of doctrinal concerns, we cannot apologize for the truth. We cannot deny doctrine given to us by the Lord Himself. On this principle we cannot compromise.
It’s hard to imagine what it would take to persuade enough top Church leaders to completely eliminate a temple interview question about something like tithing, the WoW, chastity, or testimony of the restoration because that would basically be like admitting the Church has been wrong all this time which is never supposed to happen in their minds. I guess it is technically possible considering that they were already able to make the changes they did regarding polygamy and the racial priesthood ban but it’s probably a real long shot to hope for any time soon. It seems like the Church’s more common approach to change is a slow process of evolution where sometimes they simply let some teachings like “To the Mothers in Zion” fade away into obscurity without ever officially renouncing them. That’s why I would be happy just to see them eliminate tithing settlement and/or make a few minor tweaks in the tithing lessons and talks (baby steps).
Heber13 wrote:What is your take on this quote from Gospel Principles and how the Church is teaching us about the blessings of tithing:
I have come to a faith where God doesn’t intervene very often in the happenings of mortality (perhaps in order to not thwart such eternal principles as agency, opposition in all things, the refiner’s fire of mortality etc.). This someimes puts me at odds with many explicit and implicit teachings about God’s regular interventions in our lives. (There are even a wealth of quotes from our church leaders to defend the position that God actively engineers the experiences of your life and individualizes your trials for the greatest level of spiritual growth.)
I have had to disentangle myself from the idea that God blesses me more or less based upon my actions (this is separate and apart from the patterns that hard work and dedication will increase the likelihood of success and deals specifically with divine unnatural aide in the form of “If we give willingly, Heavenly Father will help us provide for our daily needs of food, clothes, and shelter.”)
Indulgences get a bad rap because they are viewed as temporary licenses to sin for the wealthy. But what about the young mother that buys an indulgence for and in behalf of her deceased and unbaptized infant in the hopes that doing so will allow the child into heaven? How is that different from the family that pays tithing (among other living requirements) for the hope of material blessings now and eternal blessings in the hereafter? I guess one principle difference was the specificity of the indulgence verses the ambiguity of the tithing blessings. If a mother buys an indulgence for her dead son there is a clear transaction taking place, but with tithing there is just a general promise of ambiguous blessings “both material and spiritual” that makes it difficult to pin down. Exactly how much of my exaltation depends on tithing compliance? Is it weighted heavier than say visiting the sick or daily scripture study? The formula is kept hidden from us.
So yes Heber, I do not agree with the interpretation given in the paragraph you shared.
I do however have a particular fondness for GBH and supported him as a Prophet/Spiritual leader. Let’s see if I can parse his words here:
Quote:if people “will accept the gospel and live it, pay their tithes and offerings, even though those be meager, the Lord will keep His ancient promise in their behalf, and they will have rice in their bowls and clothing on their backs and shelter over their heads. I do not see any other solution. They need a power greater than any earthly power to lift them and help them”
I think the key phrase here is “accept the gospel and live it.” Because the gospel has heavy components of work ethic, family values, thrift, delayed gratification, community cooperation, etc., I do believe that living “the gospel” will trend towards a higher quality of living for those that commit themselves to it (particularly those that have relatively few other resources such as the audience spoken to in the Philippines).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.