Tithing

[Anonymous]

Quote:

How dare you think that because I don’t have money that I don’t have faith?

this is so true!

[Anonymous]

Recently a member of our stake high council spoke in Sacrament. His subject was tithing. He said something which surprised me. I even called him at home and confirmed what he had declared. He stayed that you cannot pay 5% tithing to the LDS church and give the other 5% to a skid-row mission for instance (to feed the poor). He indicated all 10% must go to church and only then you can make additional donations to a public or secular agency. I asked him if he thought Christ would differentiate between the two. He didn’t answer except to say the church must get its percentage first. He closed by thanking me for my question and even called me “good brother.”

[Anonymous]

Poppyseed wrote:

Who says tithing has to be paid with money anyway? If a person doesn’t have cash, they can pay some other way.

And I know that anyone who receives help from the bishop is required to pay it forward by giving a certain number of hours to the bishop’s storehouse, for example.

I don’t think missionaries should hesitate to teach the law of tithing. The law is for the soul, not for the portfolio. If I were poor I might be offended. How dare you think that because I don’t have money that I don’t have faith?

Poppyseed, my main/original point is that I don’t think well intended people should be kept out of the Temple if they truly can’t afford to pay tithing. You’re right, if someone earns no income, they can give in other ways, but if someone has an income, and it gets used up on things that have to be paid, they can’t get a Temple recommend. I don’t care how poor you are, I’ve never implied that should be a reason not to teach the idea to someone. I just think it shouldn’t be so iron clad that it keeps good people away from the temple. Plenty of people put faith in the law of tithing and they get evicted, lose their means of transportation, don’t pay up on their debts and face bankruptcy, etc. Maybe there are blessings waiting in the afterlife, but I don’t think nearly the same sacrifice is required of lots of well to do members WHEN IT COMES TO GETTING A TEMPLE RECOMMEND.

I don’t have any issues with tithing in general; I understand that the Church has to have income to function. But when the Church has a surplus in the billions, and some members that face really difficult financial challenges, the rule shouldn’t keep those well intended members from going to the Temple if they are worthy in all other areas.

[Anonymous]

wordsleuth23 wrote:

Poppyseed wrote:

Who says tithing has to be paid with money anyway? If a person doesn’t have cash, they can pay some other way.

And I know that anyone who receives help from the bishop is required to pay it forward by giving a certain number of hours to the bishop’s storehouse, for example.

I don’t think missionaries should hesitate to teach the law of tithing. The law is for the soul, not for the portfolio. If I were poor I might be offended. How dare you think that because I don’t have money that I don’t have faith?

Poppyseed, my main/original point is that I don’t think well intended people should be kept out of the Temple if they truly can’t afford to pay tithing. You’re right, if someone earns no income, they can give in other ways, but if someone has an income, and it gets used up on things that have to be paid, they can’t get a Temple recommend. I don’t care how poor you are, I’ve never implied that should be a reason not to teach the idea to someone. I just think it shouldn’t be so iron clad that it keeps good people away from the temple. Plenty of people put faith in the law of tithing and they get evicted, lose their means of transportation, don’t pay up on their debts and face bankruptcy, etc. Maybe there are blessings waiting in the afterlife, but I don’t think nearly the same sacrifice is required of lots of well to do members WHEN IT COMES TO GETTING A TEMPLE RECOMMEND.

I don’t have any issues with tithing in general; I understand that the Church has to have income to function. But when the Church has a surplus in the billions, and some members that face really difficult financial challenges, the rule shouldn’t keep those well intended members from going to the Temple if they are worthy in all other areas.

I see what you are saying. Thanks for clarifying. Let me noodle my thoughts out here on this. I don’t think tithing is paid with money. It is paid with faith. And faith is the prereq for the temple. It is the Lord’s house and if you believe that He is setting the standards to enter, then perhaps this is a question for Him. I truly don’t think that church policy keeps people out of the temple. I think people keep themselves out of the temple. If a worthy someone is struggling, I guarantee the bishop will bend over backwards,even financially to help them keep their recommend. There is no need to lose a temple recommend unless someone hardens their heart.

Quote:

Plenty of people put faith in the law of tithing and they get evicted, lose their means of transportation, don’t pay up on their debts and face bankruptcy, etc. Maybe there are blessings waiting in the afterlife,

Yes. Because it rains on the righteous and the wicked all the same. Tithing isn’t to be paid to get blessings. Tithing isn’t a financial insurance policy. God still uses life’s failures to test us and sometimes he lets the consequences of financial choices play out. Even to faithful tithe payers. And also blessings of tithing are not always financial. Gaining access to the temple being one of them.

Quote:

but I don’t think nearly the same sacrifice is required of lots of well to do members WHEN IT COMES TO GETTING A TEMPLE RECOMMEND.

How exactly do you quantify someone’s sacrifice or exercizing of faith? I am sorry but it has been my experience that some very poor people have more wealth in their faith than the properous do in their fat bank accounts.

[Anonymous]

The ideal, imo, is what I already have articulated – that NOBODY is deprived of a temple recommend because of poverty. They pay tithing; the Church feeds them and pays essential bills, if necessary, to make up the difference. That is the way it is supposed to work for the poor.

If that doesn’t happen, it is because local leaders aren’t following what they are told they should do.

That might not help those whose local leaders aren’t “following the program” – but it is important to remember that it isn’t “The LDS Church” that is keeping a poor member from attending the temple; that is happening at the individual level.

I am not aware of anyone who has been denied a temple recommend because of poverty, and I am aware of MANY hundreds of situations where people who were receiving church welfare assistance had temple recommends – who paid tithing and received AT LEAST that amount in assistance from the Church.

Sincere question, wordsleuth: Do you know of members who have been denied a temple recommend solely because they were denied Church welfare assistance and couldn’t pay tithing because they needed to feed their kids or pay their utilities?

[Anonymous]

I like Ray’s take and would like to believe that is how it should be…but I think I also agree with wordsleuth that in practice it is based on the judgment of the bishops.

As it happens (interesting to me since we have been discussing this), my sister-in-law was upset last Sunday. Her story is that they didn’t pay tithing last year. They just made the decision privately last week they needed to start doing better at this. A new bishop has just been called (couple months). Their son just turned 14 and was to be ordained a teacher this last Sunday. The day of the ordination, the new bishop pulls my BIL aside and says that since they haven’t been paying tithing, that the bishop would ordain their son, that my BIL was not worthy to do it. This was not a temple recommend, just a priesthood ordination and certainly at the judgment of the Presiding High Priest in the ward (the bishop)…but it really ruined the family’s experience.

My problem with this is 2 fold:

1- Was the new bishop told by the prior bishop their standing? Is that protocol for leaders to keep a tab on everyone like that?

2- The bishop should not have waited until the day of the ordination to discuss it with my BIL. And why didn’t the bishop visit with them prior to this to discuss this and urge them to live the law so they could prepare to ordain the son?

I didn’t know this happened until after-the-fact, but my reaction in hindsight was that I wish they would have spoken up, delayed the ordaining, and worked it out with the bishop. But they were blind-sided, and induce with guilt, and accepted their bishops direction to have the bishop ordain him.

Do you all think that there is a problem in this example, or is it simply my BIL/SIL get what they deserve for not being faithful?

I think perhaps this is something a new bishop needs to learn how to handle better, but the point is what wordsleuth is saying…the local leadership has a lot of impact on the way it is carried out.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

The day of the ordination, the new bishop pulls my BIL aside and says that since they haven’t been paying tithing, that the bishop would ordain their son, that my BIL was not worthy to do it. This was not a temple recommend, just a priesthood ordination and certainly at the judgment of the Presiding High Priest in the ward (the bishop)…but it really ruined the family’s experience.

My problem with this is 2 fold:

1- Was the new bishop told by the prior bishop their standing? Is that protocol for leaders to keep a tab on everyone like that?

Oh, yes! The new bishop meets with the old bishop, and they talk about the stewardship. Of course the personalities of the two is key in what they discuss.

Heber13 wrote:

2- The bishop should not have waited until the day of the ordination to discuss it with my BIL. And why didn’t the bishop visit with them prior to this to discuss this and urge them to live the law so they could prepare to ordain the son?

You are right, I think. Hopefully it was a ‘new bishop’ error, and not an indication of how he will handle things all the way through — but I wouldn’t bet on it.

Heber13 wrote:

Do you all think that there is a problem in this example, or is it simply my BIL/SIL get what they deserve for not being faithful?

In my view there was a problem, the new bishop was not people sensitive. Perhaps social grace is not a talent he possesses. If so, the entire ward will have challenges as he continues on in his calling. Hopefully they can see his strengths, and choose not to be offended by what the new bishop is not aware of.

Heber13 wrote:

I think perhaps this is something a new bishop needs to learn how to handle better, but the point is what wordsleuth is saying…the local leadership has a lot of impact on the way it is carried out.

Yes, indeed. It can be hard to sustain a bishop that steps on toes, but the health of the ward requires it. Hopefully a counselor can help him understand the problem. Maybe your BIL can discuss the hurt with a counselor?

I know if I were that Bishop I would want to know how I made that couple feel.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I am not aware of anyone who has been denied a temple recommend because of poverty, and I am aware of MANY hundreds of situations where people who were receiving church welfare assistance had temple recommends – who paid tithing and received AT LEAST that amount in assistance from the Church.

Sincere question, wordsleuth: Do you know of members who have been denied a temple recommend solely because they were denied Church welfare assistance and couldn’t pay tithing because they needed to feed their kids or pay their utilities?

Yes Ray, I know a few people personally that have been denied financial assistance, and when forced to choose between not paying bills or tithing, they chose to not pay tithing—no tithing, no TR. That’s a terrible choice to put someone in. We both know that the Church is enormously wealthy, with plenty of room to follow the spirit of the law if they chose to do so. I believe you when you say you are aware of hundreds that have been helped, but as I said earlier, a lot of this ultimately comes down to the Bishop. I believe its quite sad that poor members are put in a position of difficulty that lots of Church members don’t have to face when it comes to attending the Temple. Regardless of stories that end happy, plenty don’t, and that could be avoided if the Church chose to be less letter of the law in some circumstances.

I’m sure this is obvious due to my other posts, but of course I don’t “believe” in the law of tithing. I think it is a practical policy to help fund the Church, nothing more. I don’t think it is evil, but I think it’s strict enforcement for a TR is disturbing. And whether people on this site want to admit it or not, plenty of people put their faith in the safety/protection/blessings/promises of tithing, pay it when it makes no sense to do so, and suffer as a result; argue otherwise all you want, but it happens, and it happens because of the way the Church teaches about tithing. Maybe it’s just rogue Bishops/SP’s/GA’s, but plenty of them teach the blessings of tithing like the blessings are a guarantee, i.e., pay even if you can’t afford to and the Lord will find a way to bless you so things work out. I don’t believe Temples are anything more than a fancy building, so why should I care that people get to go there? I care because of people I know and love that still believe it is a special place to be, and they’ve faced some of the financial issues I’m talking about.

Some people do well financially, some don’t, and putting those that don’t in a situation where they have to give all they have, and then hope for enough assistance in return, seems both pointless and cruel. Why should someone give up their 10% just to get it back from the Church? That sounds like the law of consecration–give all you have, get back what you need. Why not simply make an exception for someone rather they make them dependent on the Church for survival? If they can barely afford to survive, give them that much independence.

[Anonymous]

Wordsleuth23,

There’s a lot of material to address in your post, and I doubt a point-by-point discussion would be fruitful.

Tithing is not a ‘worldly’ or ‘physical’ principle. If you live in this world and care not about rising to the next, then nothing will concerning it will make sense or even ‘feel right’.

“Doubt not, but be believing”. You choose not to. OK. Your comments are the natural result of this.

Having been privy to such things, I would seriously doubt that second-guessing a Bishops decision would help anyone, even myself if I were poor and not being assisted. I have been poor. I have been assisted. I have been refused assistance. My comment is not ignorant, but is informed.

I suppose we differ on this, and I’m ok with that. I hope you can find peace on this point. Not taking offense or ‘hurt’ in behalf of other people is a good way to do that.

Best wishes,

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

wordsleuth23 wrote:

I’m sure this is obvious due to my other posts, but of course I don’t “believe” in the law of tithing. I think it is a practical policy to help fund the Church, nothing more. I don’t think it is evil, but I think it’s strict enforcement for a TR is disturbing. And whether people on this site want to admit it or not, plenty of people put their faith in the safety/protection/blessings/promises of tithing, pay it when it makes no sense to do so, and suffer as a result; argue otherwise all you want, but it happens, and it happens because of the way the Church teaches about tithing. Maybe it’s just rogue Bishops/SP’s/GA’s, but plenty of them teach the blessings of tithing like the blessings are a guarantee, i.e., pay even if you can’t afford to and the Lord will find a way to bless you so things work out.

I am leaning towards your direction on this as well, wordsleuth. I don’t really believe the law of tithing is the biggest priority of things for me in my life. It is not bad, but it is not critical. I believe the church started it and then put added pressures on members during times of financial hardship for the church…so what about financial hardships on my family? Shouldn’t I be responsible to alter my actions when I am in need? The church did it, why can’t I?

I like the part of the StayLDS essay that reads:

Quote:

if you or your family are still attending church, and benefiting therefrom, it seems ethical (to us) that you not become complete freeloaders w/ the church. In that case, if you’re not comfortable giving 10%, consider giving 5%. If you can’t muster 5%, give what you feel the church is worth to you in your life. And if you do drop your tithing to 5% or 1%, we strongly recommend (from experience) that you continue trying to obeying the spirit of the law, and instead divert the other X% to other worthwhile charitable organizations

I don’t want to be a free loader, but I don’t feel paying 2% tithing will be acceptable and the bishop will tell me that. What I would like to do is pay a regular monthly amount that I feel I can honestly afford in my current budget (which is less than 10%), then honestly and aggresively pay down debt and build savings so that I can get my family in a situation where I can be blessed enough to fully pay 10% tithing plus more for Fast Offerings so we can help others. But that is not what the church teaches I should do. I should have the faith to pay the 10% now regardless, and it is a trial for me because I don’t feel the cause is worthwhile enough in the grand scheme of everything I’m dealing with in my life right now.

From my crisis experience, I believe God expects me to make smart decisions and figure things out. He knows I want to live charitably and unselfishly…but financially something has to give in my life right now. That is just real life, and my prior TBM obedience of “just obey it and you’ll be blessed for it” was not supported in my time of crisis, so I have less trust in that program now. I have a strong feeling if I just pay it…I will prolong my financial problems, and if I don’t pay it, the church will move on just fine without my pennies. I know I owe a debt to God for my life and everything I have…I just don’t know that I believe He must be paid in dollars, but more importantly, in my heart and my service to love others. I guess that is the root of it for me…I want to be humble to show God I will love him, but I no longer believe paying the church is really what God most cares about. Like wordsleuth, I believe tithing is just a revenue generator for the church, it has its purpose, but is not the most critical thing in life. But I’m still struggling to figure it out…that’s just where I am right now.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think anyone should obey a commandment that they don’t believe has any validity or use. I think Jesus taught the same thing when he spoke of ‘bad’ gifts not doing anyone any good.

OTOH, Adam obeyed the commandment to sacrifice without having any idea why—- which was not to say that he didn’t think the commandment was invalid or had no use — he just didn’t know what the use was.

We are often the same. Faith IS the first principle of the Gospel.

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

HiJolly wrote:

Wordsleuth23,

…”Doubt not, but be believing”. You choose not to. OK. Your comments are the natural result of this.

I think it might be helpful to point out that most of us here “doubt” some things about the functioning of the church. I don’t think we would be on this forum if we didn’t. I find that each of us have peeled layers off the totally literal, perfect church that we were brought up to believe in. Many here are naturalists, secularists, and even atheists…but continue to believe that the LDS culture may offer some benefits for various reasons.

So I am just saying that (IMHO) any comments regarding the teachings of the church are fair play, and I don’t see the benefit of criticizing another’s take on the possible lack of perfect inspiration/revelation from God regarding the ascribed “commandments.”

But maybe that’s just me….

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

Wordsleuth23,

…”Doubt not, but be believing”. You choose not to. OK. Your comments are the natural result of this.

I think it might be helpful to point out that most of us here “doubt” some things about the functioning of the church. I don’t think we would be on this forum if we didn’t. I find that each of us have peeled layers off the totally literal, perfect church that we were brought up to believe in. Many here are naturalists, secularists, and even atheists…but continue to believe that the LDS culture may offer some benefits for various reasons.

So I am just saying that (IMHO) any comments regarding the teachings of the church are fair play, and I don’t see the benefit of criticizing another’s take on the possible lack of perfect inspiration/revelation from God regarding the ascribed “commandments.”

But maybe that’s just me….

Thanks, Rix. I didn’t see my comment as being critical at all. If it is, then I apologize, as that was not my intention.

What is, is. We choose to believe or disbelieve, we choose to act or not, as we will. I don’t think anyone can deny that we all face essentially unavoidable consequences to those choices, though we can certainly debate concerning how this occurs, or whom is behind it all.

I don’t have problem with doubt, in its proper place and time. I deal with it personally, all the time. At the same time, I never doubt anymore that God (in whatever form) exists. That just where I am. There’s plenty of other things to doubt, including tithing!

DOUBT

The downside:

Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might

win by fearing to attempt.

— William Shakespeare,

Measure for Measure, Act 1

The upside:

“To refuse to doubt, think about or question what you are told

is to miss an opportunity to talk to God”

— Father Leo Booth

The annoying truth:

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and

the intelligent are full of doubt.”

— Bertrand Russell

The uplifting truth:

“Living with ambiguity is a form of intellectual honesty, of

humility. It is only when we admit that we don’t know that we

are receptive to what lessons may be taught. In some strange

way, it also brings an inner peace since we are no longer

fighting reality to maintain our inner fantasies on how things

should be. While I am characterizing it as an intellectual

process, it also has spiritual implications, since only an open

mind is capable of hearing God.”

— Andy Piereder (on Eyring-L)

HiJolly

[Anonymous]

HiJolly wrote:

Rix wrote:

HiJolly wrote:

Wordsleuth23,

…”Doubt not, but be believing”. You choose not to. OK. Your comments are the natural result of this.

I think it might be helpful to point out that most of us here “doubt” some things about the functioning of the church. I don’t think we would be on this forum if we didn’t. I find that each of us have peeled layers off the totally literal, perfect church that we were brought up to believe in. Many here are naturalists, secularists, and even atheists…but continue to believe that the LDS culture may offer some benefits for various reasons.

So I am just saying that (IMHO) any comments regarding the teachings of the church are fair play, and I don’t see the benefit of criticizing another’s take on the possible lack of perfect inspiration/revelation from God regarding the ascribed “commandments.”

But maybe that’s just me….

Thanks, Rix. I didn’t see my comment as being critical at all. If it is, then I apologize, as that was not my intention.

What is, is. We choose to believe or disbelieve, we choose to act or not, as we will. I don’t think anyone can deny that we all face essentially unavoidable consequences to those choices, though we can certainly debate concerning how this occurs, or whom is behind it all.

I don’t have problem with doubt, in its proper place and time. I deal with it personally, all the time. At the same time, I never doubt anymore that God (in whatever form) exists. That just where I am. There’s plenty of other things to doubt, including tithing!

DOUBT

The downside:

Our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might

win by fearing to attempt.

— William Shakespeare,

Measure for Measure, Act 1

The upside:

“To refuse to doubt, think about or question what you are told

is to miss an opportunity to talk to God”

— Father Leo Booth

The annoying truth:

“The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and

the intelligent are full of doubt.”

— Bertrand Russell

The uplifting truth:

“Living with ambiguity is a form of intellectual honesty, of

humility. It is only when we admit that we don’t know that we

are receptive to what lessons may be taught. In some strange

way, it also brings an inner peace since we are no longer

fighting reality to maintain our inner fantasies on how things

should be. While I am characterizing it as an intellectual

process, it also has spiritual implications, since only an open

mind is capable of hearing God.”

— Andy Piereder (on Eyring-L)

HiJolly

No problem, HIJolley. It looks like I misinterpreted your comment. One thing I’ve enjoyed by participating here is the diverse, yet respected beliefs we each have. I do admit that one of the annoying things I find in the church is the attempts by many to mold others to their way of thinking and believing. It’s a natural trait — something many of us learned as missionaries, but today annoys me to no end! Today I migrate to people that believe and live differently than I. Seems I can learn much from them.

I also admit that I don’t personally give much credence to quotes by church leaders or “scripture.” I am fine to view them as one person’s attempt to sell their product to others, and I don’t feel any of them have more “authority” or access to “God’s” truths than I or others. That’s just where I am today.

BUT, I do love the quotes you posted about doubt! Especially the last few!

Thanks!

[Anonymous]

Rix wrote:

No problem, HIJolley. It looks like I misinterpreted your comment. One thing I’ve enjoyed by participating here is the diverse, yet respected beliefs we each have. I do admit that one of the annoying things I find in the church is the attempts by many to mold others to their way of thinking and believing. It’s a natural trait — something many of us learned as missionaries, but today annoys me to no end! Today I migrate to people that believe and live differently than I. Seems I can learn much from them.

Yup. I have followed that path too, and learned much. I still do it to an extent, but have applied myself in other directions lately. Mostly, kinda back to my roots, whilst attempting further “light and knowledge” in odd directions. The ‘road less traveled’, indeed.

Rix wrote:

I also admit that I don’t personally give much credence to quotes by church leaders or “scripture.” I am fine to view them as one person’s attempt to sell their product to others, and I don’t feel any of them have more “authority” or access to “God’s” truths than I or others. That’s just where I am today.

Well, I sort through it and ‘feel’ how much I should give credence, on the fly, if you will. I do that with EVERYTHING, and it can get tiring. I often withdraw from the external inputs and just ponder things for a while, until I feel ready for more. I don’t find the mindset of people “attempt(ing) to sell their product” to be very useful for me, but I expect that it does fit more situations than I like to think. Sometimes I just like to wear the rose-tinted glasses, because I feel like it. 😮

Rix wrote:

BUT, I do love the quotes you posted about doubt! Especially the last few!

Thanks!

Thank you.

HiJolly

[Author]

Posts