- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I was thinking about this today. Often, principles conflict. Eve’s Dilemna in the Garden of Eden is a case in point — eat the apple and experience mortality and become like God, or abstain from the apply and live forever with no real progression in the garden of Eden. I personally see a conflict like this between self-reliance and paying tithing. One Bishop explained about a family that was having financial struggles. We did a needs analysis and found they were short a few hundred a month after cutting expenses. We figured out a way of getting them into the black by moving closer to their work and getting rid of one car. However, there would be a deficit again if they paid their tithing. I asked the Bishop — so, now what — if they pay their tithing, they will have a loss and not be self-reliant.
He replies “They pay their tithing, and we give them a food order”.
Should this be the way it is? The implicit message is that one should be self-reliant, but only if tithing requirements are met. Tithing trumps self-reliance. Is tithing really a greater law than self-reliance? Isn’t it a general principle that you should make sure your basic needs are met so you are able to share the surplus? Don’t parents put on thir oxygen masks first on the plane, so they are free to then help their children?
How do you resolve this version of Eve’s Dilemna?
Everyone here knows I have no problem with the concept and principle of tithes and offerings – and that I believe it’s the implementation or practice in reality that often gets messed up. Honestly, I like a solution that allows both competing things to be fulfilled. If the food order wouldn’t be supplied, then absolutely I would question payment of tithing. Iow, if the organization won’t cover a real need caused by faithful payment of tithing, then I believe the individual is not “obligated” to continue the payment that is causing the need. Also, fwiw, self-reliance isn’t the ultimate good in this case. Feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, caring for the poor is. If someone is as self-reliant as possible at that moment, and if others then make up the difference out of love for them . . . two goods have been accomplished – more than two, really, but the main two are enough.
I personally won’t do that anymore. I did it and had a bad experience with it. That broke me of believing in tithing first, self-reliance second. I would not pretend to tell anyone else what to do. But I can no longer in good conscience give donations if I was in that kind of situation. I was in it recently because of unemployment in the last couple years. To me, if I am in a negative cash flow situation, to the point where I am no longer self-reliant, then I do not have “increase” from which to pay tithing. If God wants me to pay tithing, he needs to jump start the “increase” first
and I also have NO problem with Brian’s conclusion. It makes perfect sense to me and is totally consistent with a reasonable reading of the meaning of tithing. As an aside, as has been said in other threads, paying online takes any “local judgment” out of the picture, since the local leaders never see the amount paid.
SilentDawning wrote:I was thinking about this today. Often, principles conflict. Eve’s Dilemma in the Garden of Eden is a case in point — eat the apple and experience mortality and become like God, or abstain from the apple and live forever with no real progression in the garden of Eden.
Also to have abstained would have been in compliance with the principle of obedience.
We live in a world of competing principles. (Patience is a virtue vs. the early bird gets the worm) I have given up trying to superimpose a divine structure over the scriptures. They frequently espouse competing and sometimes contradictory principles. (grace vs. works) The LDS church IMO is better than most at building structures and mental constructs. This sometimes causes individuals to be surprised when there are competing principles even within the LDS framework.
One of the things that I have come to see better while on this site is that even among the relatively homogeneous LDS it is OK to have personal variation. You can emphasize one principle or another or both at the same time (either alternating or through some cool arrangement like we tend to see with justice vs. mercy) and still be OK in the Mormon fold. I seek out verses and quotes (and even personal revelation) that help support and define my position and generally ignore ones that detract from it. I’ve always done so instinctively but now I do it with new awareness of and tolerance for other interpretations.
Perhaps the paradox is an important part of the human condition, allowing the life experience to be much more complex, full, and beautiful than just memorizing all the right answers on a test. In short, I guess I am saying that perhaps Heavenly Father isn’t as interested with the answers we come up with as the processes we use to get there.
Brian Johnston wrote:I personally won’t do that anymore. I did it and had a bad experience with it. That broke me of believing in tithing first, self-reliance second. I would not pretend to tell anyone else what to do. But I can no longer in good conscience give donations if I was in that kind of situation. I was in it recently because of unemployment in the last couple years.
To me, if I am in a negative cash flow situation, to the point where I am no longer self-reliant, then I do not have “increase” from which to pay tithing. If God wants me to pay tithing, he needs to jump start the “increase” first
I agree with Brian, and also propose another solution. Let’s go with the interpretation that “increase” or even “income” refers to surplus — as it does in typical accounting circles. Eve’s Dilemna is solved if you interpret it that way. If I have no surplus, then I’m not obligated to pay tithing. I pay for my food, look ruefully at my zero surplus, and then live with self-respect and self-reliance in my humble circumstances. I also live in compliance with the law of tithing. And when I have an increase, or surplus, then I pay tithing on that amount, as a self-reliant person. The principle of tithing, and the principle of self-reliance are both in harmony with each other.
Also, look at this. Let’s say I go with my former Bishop’s interpretation — pay tithing, get a food order. I know first hand there are often strings attached to that Church assistance for the recipient’s self respect. The Bishop would often ask Church welfare recipients for a day’s work — extra work around the chapel and such from people who were on Church assistance — for their “own good”. These were the people he would have me call on first for Bishop’s Storehouse assignments as well.
So, as reward for paying my tithing, I am also tasked with jobs to do around the Church for the food order I received. Now, I know not all Bishops are not like this, and lots of money is given without any strings attached at all, but based on my last Bishop’s policies, the “pay tithing get a food order” actually creates a beholden-ness that I personally would care to avoid. In fact, my self-respect is even in worse shape because I had to go outside my own resources to care for my personal needs.
SilentDawning wrote:…I personally see a conflict like this between self-reliance and paying tithing. One Bishop explained about a family that was having financial struggles. We did a needs analysis and found they were short a few hundred a month after cutting expenses. We figured out a way of getting them into the black by moving closer to their work and getting rid of one car. However, there would be a deficit again if they paid their tithing. I asked the Bishop — so, now what — if they pay their tithing, they will have a loss and not be self-reliant. He replies “They pay their tithing, and we give them a food order”…Should this be the way it is? The implicit message is that one should be self-reliant, but only if tithing requirements are met.
Tithing trumps self-reliance. Is tithing really a greater law than self-reliance?Isn’t it a general principle that you should make sure your basic needs are met so you are able to share the surplus? Don’t parents put on thir oxygen masks first on the plane, so they are free to then help their children?…How do you resolve this version of Eve’s Dilemna? There are also scriptures that directly contradict the Church’s current interpretation of tithing in my opinion:
Quote:1 Timothy 5:8:“But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Quote:2 Corinthians 9:7:“Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.” Interpreting interest/increase as gross or net income just doesn’t add up in the worst cases because the poorest members and single income families are likely to have a higher percentage of their income already tied up in paying for basic living expenses like their rent/mortgage, groceries, etc. So far the Church’s answer seems to be that if members will simply have faith to pay tithing based on gross/net income before paying any other bills then God will step in and bless them and everything will magically work out. It is just not a very practical doctrine the way they are teaching it because assuming God exists he has obviously allowed things much worse than poverty to happen to people regardless of whether they paid tithing or not.
I think the collision of principles is an excellent prompt for additional study and introspection. “Seek ye wisdom out of the best books.” I know that the principle of financial self-reliance is sacrosanct in LDS culture, but it may actually run counter to the Way. The approach of Jesus is to give it all away, find yourself utterly reliant, and discover a new reality. This perversion of the message of Jesus is one of the biggest weaknesses of the LDS religion, and it’s unfortunately hard-coded in Jacob 2:19.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.