Pure Motives for Paying Tithing

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

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.

So, why, philosophically, are you OK with the principle of self-reliance being subjugated to the law of tithing?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

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”?

The part about giving money to the poor as a good way of getting rid of one’s attachment made me laugh (in a good way) since they are “pretty good at making it disappear”. I think there is something to that.

But, back to your comment — so, it appears to me that you think the ultimate goal of paying tithing is to get rid of setting your heart on having wealth. However, the BoM indicates that we shall have riches if we seek them, and our intent will be to do good with them. So, for me, this implies that it’s OK to have your heart bending toward wealth acquisition, provided the ultimate motive is to bless the lives of others with it — which means not only through the Church, or through fast offerings, but through other means. This also contradicts what you are saying a bit, as it implies that seeking results, or to do good with the funds IS something that is approved by God.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

So, why, philosophically, are you OK with the principle of self-reliance being subjugated to the law of tithing?

Because I believe self-reliance is a secondary goal in this discussion – in that financial self-reliance is critical to being able to aleviate poverty for those who can’t be self-reliant. “Zion” is the ultimate goal – or, “communal self-reliance” is more important than “individual self-reliance”. The poor always will be with us (meaning there always will be those who are not financially self-reliant), so those who are able to contribute to their care should do so – ideally to such an extent and degree that “poverty” vanishes even though “the poor” still exist.

How does that relate to tithing?

To me, in theory, tithing (or any other system that does the same thing, specific amount notwithstanding) is the great equalizer – in that it allows ALL to be active contributors in the community toward the building of the community and in that it provides others an objective motivation (even if they lack it instinctively) to help those who are helping the community.

There are two polarizing positions in this issue (applied to governmental disucssions, as well):

Quote:

1) The Lord helps those who help themselves.

2) The Lord commands us to serve and give to others, regardless of what they do with our assistance – even if it doesn’t “help” them.

BOTH of those positions can be and are justified through our canonized scriptures, but, again in theory, I believe the combination of tithing and fast offerings is a really good way to combine them and manage the paradox in a practical way. I like that we provide assstance also to those who do NOT pay tithing, but I absolutely would encourage those who need assistance to “tithe” what they have and receive assistance to make up what they gave.

King Benjamin’s sermon is astounding to me in multiple ways, but the acknowledgment that “the poor” can be just as proud in their poverty as “the rich” can be in their excess is deeply, deeply profound, imo. Donating in destitute situations and then accepting help from others is a great way to mitigate and eliminate that natural pride of the poor – and I can say that, having been in that situation more times than I wish.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

…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…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?…Why do we pay tithing? What is the right motive for paying tithing?

I continued to pay tithing for a while after my mission even though I didn’t feel temple worthy simply because the way I thought of it was that God had given me everything I had so it wouldn’t hurt to give something back. So I guess the “pure motives” were faith and unselfishness but that didn’t last very long because all the guilt-trips about porn made me discouraged and de-motivated and I started to think that if God wanted to punish me then he already would anyway regardless of whether I paid tithing or not so then I didn’t see the point anymore.

Once I got into the habit of not paying tithing it was hard to seriously think about going back to being a full tithe payer again because I made so much more money and had more bills to pay after I graduated from college and we bought a house, new cars, furniture and appliances, etc. so 10% of gross or net income sounded like a really tough pill to swallow. My wife would ask about getting married in the temple and I always thought maybe next year mostly because I didn’t want to commit to paying tithing just yet. Now I think it just doesn’t make sense or add up for the Church to continue to expect members to sacrifice this much and my guess is that they mostly do this because of the impractical teachings they have inherited not because it ever was such a great idea for anyone involved. I could see maybe giving the Church some money essentially as membership dues or charity but nowhere near 10% of gross income.

[Anonymous]

Ray:

You said a lot above, and I actually printed what you said and reflected on each paragraph, highlighting key ideas to try to internalize them. So, let me restate what I got out of your statements above. Correct me if I’m misrepresenting anything you said. I have posed some further questions, if you have a moment to answer them.

1. It’s more important for the Church to be self-reliant (collective self-reliance) than it is for individuals to be self-reliant (individual self-reliance).

If I’ve portrayed this accurately, why is the Church’s interest in self-reliance more important than individual interests in self-reliance? I’d be interested in the reasons.

2. Asking and requiring all people, whether poor or not, to contribute to the community is a form of equalization.

I’m not clear what you mean by equalization, however. It doesn’t mean wealth equalization, because that logic would suggest the poor should keep their money to promote such equalization. Does it mean status equalization? Meaning, that a poor person has as much status in the organization as a wealthy person because that person has also made a sacrifice for the organization’s aims? I don’t think you mean that either because in our culture, the concept of status isn’t well-accepted. So, if its not wealth or status equalization, then what is being equalized?

3. That putting people in a position where, after paying tithing, they have to go to an outside source for financial help, is a good thing because it mitigates pride. If I have this correct, what kind of pride do you mean?

Also, I want to place a disclaimer here, and trust that you don’t see my point-by-point questions as confrontational or an attempt to win an argument. There will likely come a point when I will see the full-picture of what you are saying and will naturally draw my own conclusions. The discussion will either neutralize some of the beliefs I’ve developed, leave them unchanged, or lead to a hybrid as I consider your answers.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

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.

It was evidently from a talk given in 2005. Link here for the whole talk: http://lds.org/general-conference/2005/04/tithing-a-commandment-even-for-the-destitute?lang=eng or here http://lds.org/ensign/2010/06/small-and-simple-things?lang=eng&noLang=true&path=/ensign/2010/06/small-and-simple-things for the more recent article from June 2010.

[Anonymous]

No problem, SD. I understand.

I will try to be concise – but everyone here knows that’s not easy for me. The following is about an ideal – and the gap between the ideal and the real is what makes this topic so difficult to understand, imo.

1) I believe the ideal is NOT individualism in any form. Theologically, there are SO many examples of this concept within Mormonism.

a) We without them cannot be made perfect (whole, complete, fully developed). That is the foundational statement, perhaps, that underlies the theological basis for the earthly application.

b) Neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

c) “Salvation” can be described as an individual gift of grace, but “exaltation” always is taught as being comprised of more than an individual (or even individuals). The use of the word “sealing” is important, and it’s important to remember that it’s not used EVER to talk about sealing an individual to God; rather, it is used to describe sealing people to each other and those people, as a community / group to God.

b) Zion is a vision of unequal people voluntarily cooperating to remove the excesses of their individual existences in order to create an “equality range” in all ways possible. (That is my own term, made up for this post, but I think it is much more precise and accurate than other ways I’ve heard people talk about Zion.) In practical terms, that means those at the “top” giving up something of their “topness” to raise those at the bottom out of the limitations of their “bottomness”. “Practical Zion” does NOT have to be a group of people who are totally equal in all ways, including financially – even if that is “Ideal Zion”. The first can be achieved, theoretically, in mortality; the second removes the community from mortal constraints and leads to “being lifted up”.

(I believe when the story of the City of Enoch is considered as a grand mythological description of the entirety of mortality and the “exaltation” (lifting up) of a community, all kinds of things suddenly come into focus that are amazing to ponder.)

Those who “have not” cannot demand to be lifted up by the rich if they are not involved in the lifting up of those in the community they can serve, despite their poverty. To be Zion, ALL must lift ALL. There are no “free loaders” in Zion – meaning those who could assist others in some valuable way but don’t.

In theory, all is available to all, so the poor don’t “possess exclusively” their “stuff” (including their money) – just like the rich don’t possess exclusively theirs.

Therefore, if the ideal is to share all with all in such a way that there are no “needs” (or even “wants”) that remain unmet, ALL must be willing to do whatever they can to contribute SOMETHING to the welfare of the community in all possible ways – and it’s really, really, really hard (if not impossible) to do that mortality in an objective way that doesn’t include a percent-based, financial contribution. (Otherwise, it would be easy to argue that a doctor or CEO could contriubte one hour of her time to equal 20 hours of a janitor’s time, for example.)

Thus, in Zion, ALL contribute in ALL ways to the benefit of ALL – to varying degrees, based on their ability. Financially in mortality, however, in order to avoid having to analyze every situation and come up with a donation that is ideal for each individual (and perpetuate much of what killed the United Order attempt in the 1800’s, imo), everyone is assigned a percent of their “income / increase / profit / net worth / whatever” to donate – trusting that those who have excess will make up the difference for those whose contributions place them in a situation where they require assistance from the communal pot.

2) This is a “communal / governmental structure” first and foremost, NOT an individual-focused structure – and it is much closer to the United Order ideal than most people understand, I believe, when considered in theory and not in how it actually gets implemented and in how most members see it played out publicly. (There is much of this that occurs behind-the-scenes, whenever a Bishop or Branch President approaches a wealthy member and asks for an anonymous donation to help with XYZ situation – but, even then, it doesn’t happen as often as the ideal teaches.)

3) So, in summary, we teach individual self-reliance, in theory, as a way to achieve communal self-reliance – and “organizational self-reliance with regard to finances” is a part of that communal self-reliance.

So much for being concise. 😆

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the time and thought you put into this.

Before I go away and think about this for a while (a day, two, or more, whatever), I did ask a third question which you didn’t answer.

Number 3 of my post above asked how putting the poor in a position where if they pay tithing, they have to go to the Bishop for help is good for overcoming pride. I don’t think you answered my the “what kind of pride are you talking about” part. In case you have another spare four hours of your time to answer it ❗ .

I won’t put my disclaimer on this post since it’s on my previous one, but my intent is the same…

[Anonymous]

My favorite definition of pride, at the heart, is:

Quote:

anything that casues someone to feel that they have more intrinsic worth than someone else.

For the rich, that often is their riches. (“I have more because I’m smarter, more educated, more frugal, more righteous . . .” Iow, “I’m better than the poor, because . . .”)

For the poor, that often is their lack of riches. (“I have less because I care more about the important things, am less caught up in unrighteous pursuits of worldly accomplishment, am more willing to spend time with my family and sacrifice financially to do so, more righteous . . .” Iow, “I’m better than the rich, because . . .”)

Pride has NOTHING to do with how much someone has financially, at the most basic level.

Sharing what you have with others can be a way to break down pride, in that it can be a source of humility and letting go of one’s attachment to and self-definition from financial status. Seeing the actual benefits of sharing what you have is a MUCH better antidote than “just giving” for many people, since it fills a basic human need to see the benefits of what we do. However, being able to give without seeing the actual benefits because of faith that the contriubtion actually is helping someone else is the ultimate form, imo.

Tithing does that, in a very real way. We “know” the money is going to help build meetinghouses and temples in areas where we can’t see the actual people who are benefitting (less so now in our internet age, but still in concept) – and even the poorest can feel that sense of accomphishment (the type of pride that Pres. Uchtdorf mentioned is fine to feel) from their giving. It’s important that they feel like a contributing part of the kingdom, per se. (and, thus, much of the crisis of faith over tithing for many people comes from lack of confidence in how tithing dollars are used – either out of a sense that “I know how MY MONEY should be spent (the attachment Tom mentioned),” or not being able to see how it is spent since “faith” in matters like this is hard to accept)

Going to the Bishop for assistance helps break down the type of pride that says, “I’m my own person. I don’t need help. My kids might miss meals and wear clothes with holes in the them, and my wife might go without basic necessities in some cases, but that’s ok because I’m self-reliant and won’t take help from anyone,” – with an implied, “Damnit!!” at the end and a foundation of scorn for those who accept help from others. It often carries scorn for those who would help, and it generally carries scorn for those who accept help. That is pride at its most elemental level.

So, tithing helps provide “good pride” and paying it can lead to getting rid of “bad pride” – including in those situations where people hoard their own money and don’t share because, as King Benjamin said, they justify not sharing by assuming they would if they could. The point is that ALL “can” share and receive from sharing – but that sometimes has to be manufactured temporarily (or even long-term) for some people in some situations in order to accomplish BOTH objectives and not just one of them.

[Anonymous]

OK, as I try to get in touch with why I have such aversion to the whole tithing concept, the desire to NOT EVER have to use Church resources is at the heart of it for me. You Ray, would say that is pride from what you said earlier, I believe.

I’m trying to figure out why, and have concluded that it started during an early experience when I approached my Bishop about serving a mission. A convert of a year, 21 years old, idealistic, young, and naive about business or the ways of the world at all, I asked about serving a mission not knowing any of the implications really. I went to the interview prepared to talk to my leaders about it to see what it involved and what could be done.

The reaction I received was very scarring for me. Possessed of student loans, I learned you had to be debt-free to go. At one point in the initial interview, my Bishop said emphatically there was no way the Church would be paying off my student loans. I was really surprised at the emphatic nature of his comment, and actually, felt REALLY embarrassed that it was implied I was even asking. I felt like a bit of a beggar, rejected for begging when he hadn’t even begged!!! I said “Where did you get the idea I was asking you to pay off my student loans? Did you think I was asking you to do that??”. He replied “No”. Which made me wonder why he even said it in the first place. I felt about two inches tall.

He then said there was no money, the stake had borrowed for previous missionaries to go, some of whom came home early (which I guess made the leaders at the time feel the mission was too easily-gotten to be appreciated). Also, that all missionary donations from the Ward would go to pay off the loans for these missionaries. If I was to leave, it would be entirely on my own purse, and that given the student loans I had (I had a bachelor’s degree at 21 years of age), it didn’t seem possible. He suggested I stay home and get married to my girlfriend. At the time I had an unmarketable bachelor’s degree, parents who were non-supportive of the mission and would not let me live at home to save, and a job that paid minimum wage. Plus a lot of student loans. He felt the situation was just too impassable for me to get the resources to go. I left feeling bewildered about all the faith-promoting stories, power of the priesthood, miracles where God steps in to help turn around situations (not the Church, God). The lack of faith of the leaders really floored me.

I then went to my Stake President, who was newly called to see if there were other alternatives. Well, he was WORSE. I realized he was the source of the problem. A hard-nosed business man, he was very rough about the whole thing. When he said the same thing as my Bishop, I said this seemed a bit against the spirit of missionary work to tell a capable, worthy young man to stay home and get married when SWK had said “every worthy young man should serve a mission”. That commandment seemed not to matter at this point. Their belief was that it was impossible for me to go given the temporal obstacles.

Although I didn’t say it, I was totally floored because I HONESTLY BELIEVED the BoM and its stories of miraculous conversion, miracles, Nephi’s statements that God gives no commandment except a way is prepared etcetera. I was VERY FLOORED that the conversation would not go beyond a flat “No” over resources — when I didn’t even ask the Church to pay anything — I was simply wanting to explore what was involved in serving a mission! While I wasn’t expecting the Church just to outright fund the mission, I was surprised at the rather harsh and emphatic guardianship about Church resources, and how THAT took the forefront. He too had this attitude I was asking to get something for nothing when I was seeking counsel.

There is more to the tale. Short version, I spun my wheels for a year and went further into debt because in spite of pretty good self-discipline, I wasn’t earning enough to pay my expenses. My girlfriend told me to give up, marry her and go back to school. After a year, and some really depressing times, some members let me live in their unheated, uncooled attic for free, and another member showed me how to get a better job (I lacked job search skills). I left a year later on my own funds, completely out of debt given the job this member helped me find and interview successfuly for, and the free living expenses.

However, none of this encouragement came from the leadership who appeared to be preoccupied with the whole finance problem, and couldn’t seem to see past it. At that point, I stopped believing the Church really was an extension of Christ and God. I didn’t believe that a divinely commissionied organization would show such consistent obsession with resources, without even broaching the subject of miracles and encouragement, or even showing me how to leverage that spiritual power. In fact, the attitude that I was looking for a handout, and their assumptions I was tryhing to scrape the Church (sorry for the rough word there) hurt my faith. I ran on a personal belief that I had been told to join the Church, and really, to this day, have not reconciled the behavior of these leaders with the whole divine commission concept.

12 years later, this remained as a rather unpleasant memory, and I finally took the plunge to go to LDS Social Services to adopt a child. This was a huge risk for me given my experience with my SP. I was afraid that there would be more temporally motivated behavior at the expense of melding our values in it, and sure enough, that’s what happened. I won’t go into the details, but suffice to say, we were rejected in the most heartless way. There was no spirituality involved, no faith that things would turn around for myself and my infertile wife. A new director took over and reverse the decisio of the last one, but at that point, I was totally drained from the experience. Ten years later we finally had our own children.

As I’ve sat on Welfare committees, and seen how guarded my last Bishop was with Church resources (both budget and welfare), this has become a deeply entrenched belief I have — that my testimony and commitment is highly at risk when I get within an inch of hte temporal side of the Church. And I think this is why I feel self-reliance should trump tithing — particularly when the organization doesn’t appear to need it.

I therefore never want to be in a position where I have to even think about going to the Church for financial help. Honestly, I would rather have my kids in old clothing, and facing bankruptcy before I will ask for the Church to help me ever again. Now, you would say this is pride, wouldn’t you? Can you see how it’s born out of life experiences, and has been confirmed to me a few times in my life time? That this is the lens through which I see darkly?

Honestly, I wish I could replace the lens — permanently.

[Anonymous]

Had a chance to think this over Ray.

1. I’m having trouble with the “community trumps individuality” concept in resolving the self-reliance vs tithing concept. While the gospel does have some group orientation, it also stresses the importance of individualism. For example, your personal salvation comes before anyone else in the hierarchy of priorities. You have to be spiritually righteous first, before you can have access to priesthood power to help others. Even the United Order article I posted elsewhere seemed to imply that donations are based on surplus — which appears to be what is left over after personal needs are met.

I do agree that community trumps individuality AFTER individual needs are met — that makes total sense for the person who wants to be Christlike.

2. I like the idea of equalization as you’ve described it — that everyone should be encouraged to give something if they hope to enjoy the benefits of the community. We don’t want situations where there is a sense of entitlement without giving, this can be a real drain on leadership, the organization, and I don’t think it’s particularly good for the “taker” as well. However, I do think one can consider the landscape of someone’s life — the extent to which they gave their whole life, the circumstances that led them to the situation they are in right now (what made them destitute) and what feels equitable.

For example, we had a couple who payed tithing all their lives. When they got old and sickly, they needed Church help to maintain a very simple lifestyle. The man, who was present during the needs analysis said “Is there a provision where after paying tithing your entire working life, there comes a point when you don’t have to pay it anymore when you don’t have enough to meet your needs in retirement, and you can’t work anymore?”. I had to say “No”, but I sort of followed and agreed with his reasoning.

3. Regarding putting oneself in a position where you are dependent on the Church, as a measure to overcome pride. I do think that when disaster strikes and you NEED assistance (a situation I never hope to be in), it is best if you can go forward and ask for help for the good of your children and family. However, it seems wrong to voluntarily place yourself in that position as a justification for paying tithing when it shorts your needs and self-reliance.

[Anonymous]

I think another factor in it, SD, is the discretion and situation of leaders in your area. What one bishop or SP faced 20 years ago in one area of the country, won’t always be replicated everywhere. It varies from Bishop to Bishop and place to place.

On my mission, we served in some inner cities where the funds were so scarce, and the needs so high, they turned people away all the time. They had to. (I’m not saying that was your situation, I’m just sharing that one experience). But now the area we live in is a wealthier suburb…our current ward actually has surplus, and I know the bishop has enough to help support a few boys going on missions.

Your situation sounded very painful and harsh, in a few different places and times in your life. But there may still be times when circumstances are different and the church is able to help if you needed it, just because different leaders are given the autonomy to make judgment calls on it.

Even recognizing that, I’d probably feel the same way you do, and be more adverse to asking, but I’d be always alert on if my attitudes are sliding more towards too much pride…and if so, try to keep it balanced with love and humility. It sounds like you’ve done a lot of that balancing in order to keep serving faithfully in the church over all the years you have.

[Anonymous]

PiperAlpha wrote:

I think another factor in it, SD, is the discretion and situation of leaders in your area. What one bishop or SP faced 20 years ago in one area of the country, won’t always be replicated everywhere. It varies from Bishop to Bishop and place to place.

On my mission, we served in some inner cities where the funds were so scarce, and the needs so high, they turned people away all the time. They had to. (I’m not saying that was your situation, I’m just sharing that one experience). But now the area we live in is a wealthier suburb…our current ward actually has surplus, and I know the bishop has enough to help support a few boys going on missions.

What I find odd about this, is that we talk about the fact that we are a community. However, I’ve seen it over and over again, that ultimate responsiblity for being self-reliance as a community gets pushed down to the local level. The GRANULAR local level. For example, in my Ward, we had a fast-offering deficit. Our Bishop was constantly at us to give more in fast offerings, when we were the most impoverished Ward in the stake. I was one of about 10 people that could be relied upon (one of the Same Ten People). I knew that my previous Ward, also in the Stake, was teaming with people who would give at the drop of a hat. Further, at any time we had no more than two families that needed assistance. I found it odd that so much pressure would be placed on us to donate these fast offerings when there were other Wards in the stake that might have helped ease the burden. So, while local resources definitely have a bearing on the capacity of the leaders to be generous, this seems to fly in the face of this great sense of community espoused by Ray above. I even raised this with our HC, citing how drained the local leadership was, and how it would be nice if given the impoverished area in which we were living, there was help from outside the Ward — help I knew was untapped.

He was dead set against that. Didn’t make sense to me, really.

[Anonymous]

He probably didn’t want to ask and appear to be faithless or not upholding his end of the spectrum in a locally poor but globally rich area.

I’m not saying I agree with him, but I’d be willing to bet that was his outlook.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

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?

During most of the twenty-two years after I was endowed but did not go to the temple, I paid my tithing. For me, it’s always been such an easy thing to do, but we’re all different. If I were to decide to let my temple recommend lapse, I wouldn’t stop paying tithing. I would stop living the Word of Wisdom. (I need to start a new thread, I think.) I personally pay tithing because I feel that I have been blessed beyond measure and feel like the least I can do is return 1/10th to my Father in Heaven. I just feel like it’s such a small thing that I would seriously feel selfish if I didn’t pay it. I’m not saying that to come across as self-righteous, because I definitely struggle with other commandments that other people may find as easy to live as I do tithing.

[Author]

Posts