Danzo

I wish people would not automatically assume "native Traditions" and "native culture" is somehow something that is good and not identifying as "Native American" is bad. "Native Culture" isn't always a good thing. I personally know many "Native" Americans (Including my wife) who do not want many of the cultural traditions of her "culture" passed down to our children. I remember talking to one of my friends from school who was telling me how much he struggled to get off the reservation and how much better his life was once he was able to leave. "native" does not always equal good. Getting off the reservation is not always a bad thing. Also, many who leave or want their children to leave do so out of their own free will and not because others forced it on them.

I think the situation, as he described it, shows he is trying to follow the counsel of "love they enemies". Doing good things only for someone you like . . well even the heathens do that. Takes a special commitment to love people who are your (perceived) enemies

I don't think you know very many attorneys

You would report the money as income in the year you received the tithing "Refund" The same way you would report a refund of any money you had taken a deduction for. Its called the tax benefit doctrine. You could (if the refund was large enough) pay a higher rate on the refund than the benefit you got from deducting it in the first place.

We used to do this often in the student ward I attended (1996-1998). I haven't seen it happen since then. On Christmas we often have most of the meeting singing but not in a fast and testimony still open mike format.

A very bad idea without an attorney present. Law enforcement, like fire, is a useful tool but also very dangerous. I speak from my personal experience, as well as my experience with people who are wrongly accused. It would appear that you have a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature law enforcement when it comes to criminal investigations. The following video (by a law school professor to law school students) might be instructive. The power dynamic on these investigation highly favors those who know the law and highly goes against those who don't know the law. A lot of people are rightly fearful of law enforcement, especially marginalized groups. I am glad you have never been the subject of a mistaken child abuse investigation. I hope you never have to experience this. I also hope that your experience with law enforcement is always positive and you never have to worry about these things. We are not all as fortunate.

I think you and I are looking at the issue from completely different points of view. Talking to police officers (or people acting as law enforcement officers) is always a bad idea. Always! Any attorney who suggests that someone talk to an investigating officer (or someone acting as one) without an attorney is probably risking being disbarred. Talking to the police (or someone acting as one) is the dumbest thing one can do if there is any risk that one might be part of the investigation. It can never help you and can really harm you. This isn't controversial in the legal world. Anything you say can be used against you. Nothing you say can be used to help you. Nothing! This is evidence 101. (Federal rules of evidence 801 if one wants to look it up) I have seen it over and over again. I am dealing with a case in court right now where talking to law enforcement may cost my client an extra $200,000.00. This is why you don't talk to investigators of any kind. This is why you go through an attorney. It doesn't matter whether the person calls themselves a police officer or a social worker or just a mandatory reporter. Communicating with law enforcement without an attorney present is a bad idea. People come to me all the time to talk about the legality of the things they are doing. They pay me to do it. Because what they tell me is privileged. because of this, they can talk to me freely and frankly. Often before the conversation starts the client askes if it is safe to talk to me. If I told them I was forced to report what they told me, the conversation would immediately stop. Because their conversation with me is protected, they can tell me the whole story. Often, I tell them that what they are doing is against the law. Then we come up with a plan to change their behavior start following the law. Sometimes we even decide to disclose the behavior to the government, but often what happens is that we correct the behavior. Almost always the client is more compliant with the law after meeting with me than before meeting with me. These conversations, even though they are protected actually increase compliance with the law, but they wouldn't happen without having these conversations protected by the law. Conversations can't happen if in the background you know that the person you are talking to is required by law to report what you tell them to the authorities. It doesn't matter whether the person actually reports the conversation or not. The perception is the reality here. If the perception is that you are going to be reported for your you say, you just aren't going to say it.

I think it is also helpful to remember that we are judged by the law that we are given. Not everyone has been given the same law and we are going to be judged by how we do with what we have. In the case of my mother in law, what happened was something that was, in fact, good for the circumstances and culture she lived in. Marriage in her culture wasn't the same thing as marriage in our culture. In her culture marriage was more about creating and binding families together. They weren't just married and sent off to live on their own as one might expect in our culture, both husband and wife continued living with the husband's parents and were part of the larger family. Marriage wasn't about romance or choice and consent (these things were arranged, even for older couples). We can't always judge people by our own culture and cultural expectations.

Back to my original post in this thread. In my brother's ward the relief society president is a teacher who is a mandatory reporter in the state she lives in. She sees her self as being deputized by the state and feels that visiting members of a certain ethnic group in her ward (their ward is responsible for member if this ethnic group in their area) would require that she might be forced by the law to be a police officer instead of a minister. Members of this ethnic group have practices that are somewhat strange to us in the US (including child marriage, living together in large extended families, and experiencing general poverty) The Relief society president, as well as the bishop and elders quorum, and members of this ethnic group feel that visiting these families would require that she would run the risk of having to be a police officer instead of being a minister. Therefore the Relief Society President isn't allowed to visit these people. All of this comes from the mandatory reporting laws in her state. The mandatory reporting laws are impeding help rather than promoting help, at least in this situation.

Isn't it the context that makes any decision good or bad? If the decision improves the situation than it is a good decision. If it makes the situation worse, its a bad decision. The decision wasn't fundamentally bad if it led to a better outcome for all involved. The same can be said for any marriage. Some marriages, even those involving adults are bad decisions because they make ones situation worse. In the case of my mother in law, it happened in another country without all of the safety nets we have here today. With her, the marriage was the safety net available to her. She didn't have the option to go on welfare. She went from a home of neglect and abuse to a loving family. She moved into her husband's family's home and her new mother and father in law became essentially her mother and father and finished raising her. I know in our culture marriage is just about sex (isn't everything in our culture about sex?), but in the indigenous culture that my mother in law comes from, marriage is about creating and extending families and families are the primary means of economic security, as well as physical safety. Everyone involved, even with 60 years hindsight sees their marriage as a good thing, with a good outcome, and better than any alternative available at the time. and not as something fundamentally wrong.

The problem is that calling the police often doesn't make things better, it can make things worse. Our government has never really done a good job at taking care of children in their custody. A few years ago I worked a bit with a woman in our ward who was prostituting her children for drugs. The police were called. The children were taken away and then . . . guess what happened? The children were brought back when the woman showed remorse and guess what happened? Same thing. wash. rinse. repeat. People in our ward wanted to take the children in to take care of them but just didn't have the heart to do it only to return then children back to the mother, who according to state has a special right to them.

I provided an example of something good that came from a child marriage. Really good. Sealed in the Temple good (when they joined the church later in life). Still Good (marriage is still strong).

The issue isn't whether marriage at 14 is a good thing or a bad thing. There are certainly better options than marrying at 14, and we certainly should be supporting those. The issue is that many of those options weren't available (for many different reasons) at the time and marriage might have been the best option available at that time. The issue is whether calling the cops is going to make things better.

I think this conversation provides a great example on why mandatory reporting laws are bad. Because certain practices are viewed by certain people as being evil, they feel that when something like this happens, they must call the police. Punish must happen (that is all the law really does, doesn't it)? Punishment. Jail. Someone must pay. Break up the family. These are the tools that the state uses when someone reports "abuse". Surely you can understand why someone would be hesitant to talk to a "mandatory reporter" You really know nothing about the circumstances of my mother and father in law's marriage, yet you have no problem condemning what for them produced much happiness and joy (lots of struggling as well). In their circumstances the marriage was better (Especially for my mother in law) than the alternative. The marriage took her out of a circumstance of deprivation and neglect.

thanks for taking one for the team.

One of my big problems with mandatory reporting is that it highly encourages (forces, if you read the letter of the law) people to use only one solution when they suspect abuse, call the cops! I personally have experienced the disruption, fear and helplessness when someone used that approach on us 35 years ago. It produced a trauma that resonates with our family to this day. to have the cops raid the home, physically assault our mother take away a family member was not a very happy experience. And this was over a what everyone later (after very traumatic experiences) admitted was a misunderstanding. All because someone felt obligated to "Call the cops" Currently I am married to someone who grew up very poor. At age thirteen, her parents sent her to the US to work in the fields (Call the Cops!) and live with her sister in a house full of people (Call the Cops!). They were very poor (Call the Cops!). My mother in law was married at age 14(call the cops!) in an arranged marriage (Call the Cops!). to someone she is still happily married to 60 years later. Fortunately, My wife joined the church when she was thirteen, and instead of calling the cops various church members reached out to her and helped her. She has a least three non biological "mothers" that helped take care of her, helped her get the what she needed both physically, emotionally and spiritually. I shudder to think what could have happened if these people felt obligated to call the cops as mandatory reporters instead of providing help that was needed. She could have ended up in some group home or worse.

The difference between a mandatory reporter and an non mandatory reporter is that the non mandatory reporter reports out of genuine concern for the child and does it because they feel it is the best course of action. The mandatory reporter may report out of fear and out of what is best for the reporter (avoiding loss of job or going to jail) even when the mandatory reporter might not feel reporting is the best course of action. Also, not everyone is able to receive or benefit from help by the state. Mandatory reporting can take people away from help they are willing to receive by preventing people from seeking help. Sometimes people need to be lead to a place where they can receive help from the state.

The ward covers a certain ethnic minority population. Often people in these minority communities live off of far less money and resources than is normal. Also their customs regarding marriage age and child rearing arrangements as well as when children work and how much work children is different than our culture norms. This creates a legitimate fear of having child protective services called and disrupting the family and culture. These children often do need help, but the very fact that someone is a mandatory reporter cuts these children off from the help they need. Mandatory reporting laws are more so that we feel good about ourselves than about getting people the help they need and that they are able to receive. Real help is very circumstance based and often subject to nuance. It is my experience that child protective services often interferes where it shouldn't and doesn't interfere where it should. It often is more of the problem than the solution. Based on several news articles over the past few years, in my state calling Child Protectives Services might introduce children to more abuse than they experience in their current situation.

I think mandatory reporting often makes the situation worse. I was talking to my brother the other day (EQ President of his ward) and he was relating to me how the relief society president (A teacher I think) wasn't allowed to visit certain members of the ward because she is a mandatory reporter.

You have a different client base than I do. My clients run from 4 figure incomes to 7 figure incomes. Many are eligible for Earned income credit, Some even are eligible for the full 50% retirement savings credit. Others pay a large Net investment income tax. A small minority of my clients are members of the church.

I think it would be difficult to conduct such a study. Paying tithing, like many commandments rarely happens in isolation. A person may join the church, stops smoking, stops drinking, stops partying, takes a self reliance course, joins a close knit social organization, pays tithing and then becomes better off financially. Which of these changes caused the person to be better off financially? Paying tithing is a sign of ones devotion to a higher principle, which can lead to blessings, not a cause of those blessings. As noted in a recent conference talk God isn't some sort of cosmic vending machine.

I have observed people getting out of poverty, who are members of the church. While I don't know the tithing status of all of these people, paying tithing does seem to make a big difference. The people the come to mind, that I have extensive experience with are people who were indigenous Americans born in Mexico, substance farmers who grew up with very little cash. No high school education. Very little pre high school education. They have been blessed (current assets in the 6 figures and one in the 7 figures) all indigenous, all born into poverty, all without education, all immigrants. The ones remaining in Mexico have also benefited from the the prosperity.

Interestingly I run a tax practice and I see amounts given to charity from a wide range of individuals from a wide range of incomes. I live in a state that has a very low standard deduction so I see amounts contributed to charity for a wide range of incomes, even when it doesn't make any difference for federal taxes, it often will make a difference for state taxes. One thing I have found out is income doesn't equal wealth or financial security. I see people who earn in the mid to high six figures who consider themselves poor (indeed often their expenses exceed their incomes) and people who are fairly comfortable even below 50K in income. On the whole, the people who pay significant amounts of charity are better off than those who don't. You would think that having an extra 10 percent hanging around would put a crimp in ones budget. and on paper it does. I never recommend people pay more to charity to increase there wealth. It doesn't work out on paper. However, I find that people who pay a lot to charity tend to be better off. More comfortable with the income they have, less worried about finances and better able to save and do other things. There is something about consistently contributing to the greater good that seems to help people live better, more balanced lives.

As someone who is aware of how much people pay in charitable donations, I also have observed that people who pay tithing (in or out of the church) avoid poverty.

Using the tax benefit doctrine, the correct way would be to report any return of tithing previously deducted as miscellaneous income on schedule 1 of the 1040. Its the same reason why you need to report any state income tax refund previously deducted.