Pure Motives for Paying Tithing

[Anonymous]

I had a conversation with someone in my Ward recently. They are having trouble with a local leader. I won’t go into the details, but this TBM is having trouble sustaining this person because he’s lied a few times and everyone knows it. Plus, he’s not well-liked. So, this good, faithful member doesn’t feel he can sustain the leader, and is letting the TR expire rather than have to say “Yes” to the sustaining local leaders question. Doesn’t feel he can report it to the appropriate authority either as this would be complaining about local leaders, which is not consistent with inspired leadership and the need to speak well of leaders.

So, he’s going to let the TR expire. I asked about tithing — would he continue to pay it? The answer was “No” — why pay it if I don’t have a temple recommend?

As I’ve been developing my personal articles of faith, I have been wording a section on tithing, and I’m debating the question about motives for paying tithing. Why do we pay tithing? What is the right motive for paying tithing?

[Anonymous]

For me, the right motive, on one level, is simply to let go. Beyond that, we could probably list “pure motives” at several levels. I’ll give it a first try:

[Anonymous]

Membership fees.

i’d actually be more happy about paying a membership fee than paying “fire insurance” as it is often portrayed.

[Anonymous]

To help others have the kind of amenities I have had (primarily, in this case, meetinghouses, temples, colleges, etc.) – and those things all are really important to me.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

To help others have the kind of amenities I have had (primarily, in this case, meetinghouses, temples, colleges, etc.) – and those things all are really important to me.

Ray, do you believe a person can pay their tithing to organizations other than the Church, and still be right in the eyes of God as far as tithing goes? (Assume holding a TR is incidental to the person; they are not doing it for the TR).

[Anonymous]

The command is to tithe to help others – in essence, to participate in his work and his glory at the most practical level. I believe in the principle and symbolism of tithing, so I believe in tithing.

In the Old Testament, it essentially was the equivalent of our modern fast offerings; now, it primarily funds the physical expansion of the “structural church”. I’m OK with that, as the structural church is important to me and many others. Also, a temple recommend actually is important to me, for lots of simple AND complicated reasons, so I pay tithing to the LDS Church – and I believe my motives are “pure”.

If someone else doesn’t believe in the purposes which tithing accomplishes (if the dictates of their own consciences don’t direct their tithing to the LDS Church), I’m not about to condemn them for directing their tithing elsehwhere in a way that does good and helps others. I believe that certainly fulfills the spirit of the law, even if it doesn’t fulfill the letter of the LDS application.

I absolutely would prefer that someone tithe for a good cause than that they not tithe at all – and I think someone who stops paying a tithe (or making some sort of significant, sacrificial donation) just because they no longer feel like supporting the LDS Church financially probably practiced the program of tithing without ever understanding and embracing and internalizing the principle and symbolism of tithing.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I absolutely would prefer that someone tithe for a good cause than that they not tithe at all – and I think someone who stops paying a tithe (or making some sort of significant, sacrificial donation) just because they no longer feel like supporting the LDS Church financially probably practiced the program of tithing without ever understanding and embracing and internalizing the principle and symbolism of tithing.

I’m having trouble accepting the old line that we do it out of obedience. And I’m having trouble being motivated to pay tithing for the sake of the recommend. This thought hit me like a ton of bricks when the person I referred to in the OP indicated that if he’s not holding a TR, why bother paying tithing.

I’m feeling that intrinsic reasons for paying it is to see that it benefits others in some significant ways. And also, with that, comes a responsibility to believe, with reasonable certainty, that the funds will be used responsibly and relatively transparently.

Although I don’t always like the strings that are attached to our welfare program, I do think our Church Welfare program is a highly efficient program given its partial execution by unpaid ministry. So, I’m thinking of donating it all to the fast offering fund. This would preclude me fom having a TR…..however, I’m starting to feel OK with that idea for the time being. Strange, but true. I think it meets the Spirit of the law admirably. I also think it would be an interesting conversation with a priesthood leader if he ever tries to talk me into having a TR again; not that that is an intrinsic reason, but an interesting bi-product of a decision like this. My TR expired a couple months ago, and I haven’t renewed it because I didn’t know how I felt about it.

I feel much better knowing my funds are going to help the poor, rather than the structural expansion for the time being. And its consistent with the belief I’m forming that tithing is to be paid for the good of others; and its up to me to define what I believe is good.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

…I believe in tithing.

I absolutely would prefer that someone tithe for a good cause than that they not tithe at all – and I think someone who stops paying a tithe (or making some sort of significant, sacrificial donation) just because they no longer feel like supporting the LDS Church financially probably practiced the program of tithing without ever understanding and embracing and internalizing the principle and symbolism of tithing.

Ray, I agree with these sentiments about tithing. Obviously, I don’t have quite the appreciation you do for the “structural church”, but that’s okay too.

SilentDawning wrote:

This would preclude me fom having a TR..

SD, I’m not sure why you feel that way, but I do believe it’s important to act with integrity. I continue to pay a generous tithe that is mostly directed away from the LDS Church. I share your admiration for the LDS welfare program efficiencies and your ambivalence about the strings that are attached. Sometimes LDS people (and people in general) have a hard time with “live and let live” or trusting the motives of others or “letting go and letting God.” The whole point is to get rid of the money, not to “maximize benefit” or to “help” others. So if somebody says he needs his rent paid, and I have 40,000 in savings, if I draw down my retirement fund to pay his rent, the kingdom of heaven is mine. Any time I draw down my retirement fund and give alms, the kingdom of Heaven is mine. That’s how it really works. That’s why, for me, the “structural church” has less value; it’s something that by nature resists being drawn down and given away.

[Anonymous]

Tom Haws wrote:

Old-Timer

This would preclude me fom having a TR..

SD, I’m not sure why you feel that way, but I do believe it’s important to act with integrity.

The reason I feel that way is practical. If I give 10% of my increase as a fast offering, there is nothing left over to pay tithing. So, I can’t answer the question about tithing in the TR interview correctly. Simple as that.

Quote:

Sometimes LDS people (and people in general) have a hard time with “live and let live” or trusting the motives of others or “letting go and letting God.” The whole point is to get rid of the money, not to “maximize benefit” or to “help” others.

I don’t see it this way. Part of my developing philosophy indicates that one must be a “righteous steward” of one’s resources. And that means making sure the money is put to a good use. The same is true of my time. I think latently, I have ALWAYS believed that, and that is one reason I have found it so hard to put my time and money in certain places over the years. Tom, how does getting rid of the money for the sake of getting rid of the money produce happiness? Wouldn’t getting rid of the money for the sake of self-actualization (being a selfless person) AND knowing your funds are being put to a productive use that is meaningful to you accomplish the same thing, but on an even grander scale? (By the way, I ask this question simply to understand your perspective, not to challenge it).

[Anonymous]

I pay tithing because I want to. I don’t know, and probably will never know where the money goes that the Church collects from it’s faithful each year, but I have faith that it is used for good, in one way or another.

“Most New Testament discussion promotes giving and does not mention tithing. 2 Corinthians 9:7 talks about giving cheerfully; 2 Corinthians 8:3 encourages giving what you can afford; 1 Corinthians 16:2 discusses giving weekly (although this is a saved amount for Jerusalem); 1 Timothy 5:18 exhorts supporting the financial needs of Christian workers; Acts 11:29 promotes feeding the hungry wherever they may be; and James 1:27 states that pure religion is to help widows and orphans.” – This according to Wikipedia.

I agree. I believe this is what we do as a Church, with perhaps the exception of giving what you can afford. 10% is just the going rate, and the Church considers tithing a commandment even for the destitute (as I read in an Ensign article).

[Anonymous]

doubtingthomas wrote:

I agree. I believe this is what we do as a Church, with perhaps the exception of giving what you can afford. 10% is just the going rate, and the Church considers tithing a commandment even for the destitute (as I read in an Ensign article).

Do you remember approximately when that article came out? I’d like to read it.

[Anonymous]

The destitute “tithing” amid their destitution is a Biblical concept, personified most notably in the story of the widow’s mite.

The key, imo, is the accompanying admonition that those who are NOT destitute not “grind the faces of the poor” and the idea that those who sacrifice like the widow in that story be supported and helped by those who have excess. Iow, the idea is that tithing is a command for all, but those who exhibit the most faith are those for whom that tithing is a real, practical sacrifice – and that such faith and sacrifice need to be honored and “validated” by the generosity of those for whom it is not such a real, practical sacrifice. In our current “system”, that means that those who can should pay a generous fast offering so that those whose tithing leaves them needing assistance can receive it without shame or guilt of any kind.

I believe in the LDS Church’s institutional stance in this regard. I absolutely LOVE that concept and principle, especially since it values the widow’s mite exactly as the millionaire’s millions and allows the truly destitute to feel like active contributors despite their destitution (which I believe is extremely important) – and I really wish as a people we acted that way to a greater extent than we do. If we really lived that ideal (or even came much closer to it), our world would be a much different place – a true Zion.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

The key, imo, is the accompanying admonition that those who are NOT destitute not “grind the faces of the poor” and the idea that those who sacrifice like the widow in that story be supported and helped by those who are have excess. Iow, the idea is that tithing is a command for all, but those who exhibit the most faith are those for whom that tithing is a real, practical sacrifice – and that such faith and sacrifice need to be honored and “validated” by the generosity of those for whom it is not such a real, practical sacrifice. In our current “system”, that means that those who can should pay a generous fast offering so that those whose tithing leaves them needing assistance can receive it without shame or guilt of any kind.

See, here is where I get hung up. There are two principles at work here. One is the principle of self-reliance. This gets preached constantly whenever we talk about the Church welfare program. However, when there is a value conflict between paying tithing or meeting expenses, tithing trumps self-reliance every time.

In fact, the person who pays tithing, and then comes to the Chuch indicating they need assistance will often be asked to undergo a rather invasive financial needs analysis, financial counseling from their priesthood leaders, etcetera, or cut out even the smallest of comforts (I know this, as I have advocated it to others right alongside my Bishop in the a number of cases). The recipient will likely be expected to do some form of service around the Chapel for the sake of their self-esteem or self-respect, or be expected/ encouraged to work at the storehouse because they are receiving assistance. This is based on my experience with two Bishops as a leader in more than one Ward (and by the way, I have never been on Church assistance, have never asked for it, and hope to always avoid ever being on Church assistance).

I feel, at times, this is an example of organizational interest going a bit too far for my liking. The person who makes the sacrifice for paying their tithing complies with the law of tithing. Then, as a consequence of this, they also have to also give service due to the fast offerings they have received. This doesn’t seem equitable, in my view. It’s a basic principle that you have to look after your basic needs before you can be of much use to others.

I’m not sharing this to sway anyone to my way of thinking. More to see what responses you might have to this. This little conundrum does bother me, however.

[Anonymous]

I agree that the way the concept is implemented too often isn’t ideal – but I still think it’s important for those who wouldn’t be asked to contribute “naturally” be asked to contribute anyway, as long as they then can receive assistance in their need.

The financial sitation analysis is something with which I don’t struggle at all – again, as long as it is done properly as an attempt to help people become more self-reliant. Seriously, I have known situations where people were receiving church assistance without having to budget carefully – situations where the assistance wouldn’t have been needed if the person or family would have made some simple budgetary changes. The financial analysis allowed them to do so – which kept them from taking assistance that could have been given to someone who really needed it.

As is the case with MANY things, there is a huge difference between the ideal and the practice in too many situations – and this is one of those cases.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Tom, how does getting rid of the money for the sake of getting rid of the money produce happiness? Wouldn’t getting rid of the money for the sake of self-actualization (being a selfless person) AND knowing your funds are being put to a productive use that is meaningful to you accomplish the same thing, but on an even grander scale? (By the way, I ask this question simply to understand your perspective, not to challenge it).

Well, I think you are pretty much in agreement with Jesus in what you are driving at in your proposition sentence. Where I see a potential pitfall is in my getting attached to the idea of accomplishing something with money. Jesus clearly said (assuming we have the record straight, and if we even care what he said) that 1) it doesn’t take money (the widow’s mite was the biggest gift), 2) it isn’t about the poor (his rebuke of Judas cranky gripes about the treasure spent on expensive ointment in an alabaster box), 3) if you sell all and give alms you will have eternal riches. My take away is that giving to the poor is commendable mainly because 1) they are very good at making money disappear and 2) it is slightly preferable to burning the money.

Again, the danger is in attachment. Am I attached to my possessions? Am I attached to the “strings” of my giving? Am I attached to “helping”? Am I attached to “results” and “stewardship”?

doubtingthomas wrote:

James 1:27 states that pure religion is to help widows and orphans.”

Not to quibble, DT, but I think it’s significant that James doesn’t say help. IMHO, it’s about ministering/visiting (maybe even “serving”) and not about “helping”. This is easy to be misunderstood, so I’ll say in the same breath that we are condemned when we retain our goods from the widows and orphans.

[Author]

Posts