Applied mormonism: tithing vs. debt elimination

[LDSToronto]

I can't believe your class was divided on this. The church makes it very clear that even if you can't pay all your bills, you are instructed to short all your bills and pay the church first. So without a question, the church must be paid before paying down debt!!!

Reference:

From the Church's website is a lesson on tithing to be taught to children and families. It comes from the lesson manual Family Home Evening Resource Book, Lesson Ideas, Tithing, 227

"Point out that you pay tithing first, and then you pay a portion of what you owe on each other bill. Talk about which areas you might be able to cut expenses in so that you can live within your budget. Paying the Lord first ensures his help and blessings in being able to budget the rest of your money successfully."

http://lds.org/hf/library/0,16866,4530-1,00.html?LibraryURL=/Curriculum/home+and+family.htm/family+home+evening+resource+book.htm/lesson+ideas.htm/tithing.htm

LOL, Brilliant! I'm sure the bank won't mind hearing, "Oh, I must pay 10% of my income to my church, but I can only give you a pittance"

H.

[LDS Truthseeker]

That goes to negotiating you debt, and I agree with that. But it does not speak to the idea of dire questions of losing one's home or something along those lines. I agree if your debt is too high, you should pay it on a partial basis in order to get out of debt. The statement speaks only to one scenario where debt negotiation is possible.

So that justifies it? Let's say you own an auto repair shop and you fixed someone's car and when it comes time for your client to pay the bill he says "I can't pay you in full. Oh, I have the money but I'm going to make a voluntary payment to a charitable organization that is worth 100 Billion dollars and doesn't really need my money instead of paying you what I owe you."

How would you feel? And what if you then pass that on to your employees - hey I can't give you all of your paycheck this week, but maybe next month...

This idea of paying the church first, especially when they are not in any danger of not being able to pay their bills, is so absolutely wrong. It can harm your credit, damage your relationship with your vendors, cause you to pay unnecessary interest and late payment penalty fees on the unpaid balance, etc - all for the benefit of paying the church first. Do you really, really think that is right?

[LeSellers]

Lehi, you aren't playing by the rules I set out - no magical financial tricks allowed.

No magic, just mathematics. (And knowing what to do and when to do it.)

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

So that justifies it? Let's say you own an auto repair shop and you fixed someone's car and when it comes time for your client to pay the bill he says "I can't pay you in full. Oh, I have the money but I'm going to make a voluntary payment to a charitable organization that is worth 100 Billion dollars and doesn't really need my money instead of paying you what I owe you."

We would work out a payment schedule. I have done that before with clients. If there is a religious mandate (which is different from charitable payments) I make allowances especially on the consumer end. You would be surprised how much clients appreciate this and how they tend to return to you for business when times are better.

How would you feel? And what if you then pass that on to your employees - hey I can't give you all of your paycheck this week, but maybe next month...

I would not conflate the well being of my employees business with my personal income.

This idea of paying the church first, especially when they are not in any danger of not being able to pay their bills, is so absolutely wrong. It can harm your credit, damage your relationship with your vendors, cause you to pay unnecessary interest and late payment penalty fees on the unpaid balance, etc - all for the benefit of paying the church first. Do you really, really think that is right?

If you are already in a dire situation, it follows your credit is already harmed. And vendors tend to be more understanding to consumers than you realize, they don't want to have to write off debt and are willing to negotiate in order to obtain full payment.

Christ went to Gethsemane and carried out the Atonement, something no one else could have done. Do I really think the person who did more for me than anyone else could have, should be paid first? Yes, without a doubt.

It comes down to what you believe. If you believe the church is simply an administrative arm of a belief system without any real standing before Christ, then your attitude would prevail.

However, if you believe that Christ established His church upon the earth and the prophet and apostles speak for Him upon the earth then my position is the more saleint one.

[LeSellers]

The 'secret' is in the following of the advice.

That's why I am a "coach", not a "planner".

When Charlie Lau coached George Brett in batting, he brought several things to the table. One of the most important was "accountability". When I call one of my clients on Tuesday, what he promised me he'd do by that session, he does, even if not until Monday night.

Lehi

[SilverKnight]

The more I experience it, the more I think Mormonism is like a big game played by 10 year old children. We've all played a complicated game with kids, or as kids, right? You know how it is, the kid explains the rules, you start playing. Suddenly, the kid introduces a new rule that kind of screws up your last move. OK, no problem, you keep playing. Then things don't go right for the kid, so a new rule is introduced that supersedes an existing rule that benefits the kid. So you play, and incite the new superseding rule, but since it benefits you, the kid suddenly renders it invalid with yet another rule. Eventually, you have a game with all kinds of rules canceling other rules out under some conditions, and other rules coming in depending on who the person is using the rule. At some point, the game becomes the rules, and who can outsmart who with their knowledge of, and creation of, rules.

So, when you tell me that 'tithing isn't like missing a home teaching visit', I get the impression that you are introducing a new rule. What I'd like, one day, if for someone to print me up a nice big wallchart of Mormonisms hierarchy of sins, and the conditions under which we can break a rule. I bet it would be a tangled mess.

Really it's not so complex - unless we make it so.

This complexity you are perceiving is the meddling, worrying, posturing and pontificating of neurotic LDS members - not the teachings of the church.

The church formal teaching on the matter is actually very simple: tithe 10% of your increase.

How you define increase and how you pay tithing is entirely up to you, according to your circumstances, your faith, your needs and your budget.

It is no accident that the church teaches purposefully oversimplified principle and lets us work out the details.

We are never going to get a list of itemized tithing deductions from the church. Nor are we going to get copious footnotes on every commandment;when they should be bent, broken or exempted.

Should the hypothetical couple cease paying tithing until their debt is reduced? Perhaps, but that is their decision.

If they feel it would help, they might ask their bishop's opinion on the matter.

In my experience, most bishops very much want to issue temple recommends, and are quite lenient towards those members they perceive are sincere and doing the best they can.

Anyways, I reject the notion that missing a tithing payment is more significant a sin than missing a home teaching visit.

As do I.

A long time ago I stopped calling things that do not injure others 'sins'.

[CV75]

What I am seeking is consistency in argument and exploration of deviation.

From the OP:

1)

[LDSToronto]

From the OP:

1)

[LDS Truthseeker]

Christ went to Gethsemane and carried out the Atonement, something no one else could have done. Do I really think the person who did more for me than anyone else could have, should be paid first? Yes, without a doubt.

It comes down to what you believe. If you believe the church is simply an administrative arm of a belief system without any real standing before Christ, then your attitude would prevail.

However, if you believe that Christ established His church upon the earth and the prophet and apostles speak for Him upon the earth then my position is the more saleint one.

I agree with your last couple of statements. If you truly believe that Christ is the CEO of LDS, Inc. then sure pay him first and let the others who performed the services in good faith expecting to be paid on time, wait as long as necessary. I am more sympathetic to the poor vendors who need the money more. Somehow I think Christ would be the first person to say "pay him first, then pay me" but maybe Jesus is more selfish than that.

[Analytics]

I agree with your last couple of statements. If you truly believe that Christ is the CEO of LDS, Inc. then sure pay him first and let the others who performed the services in good faith expecting to be paid on time, wait as long as necessary. I am more sympathetic to the poor vendors who need the money more. Somehow I think Christ would be the first person to say "pay him first, then pay me" but maybe Jesus is more selfish than that.

It makes me think of the ethic that the best way to serve God is in doing good to your fellow man. Thinking Jesus would be happy with you paying Him rather than your creditors seems akin to thinking he would be happy about you not defending your homeland on the Sabath.

[CV75]

I wasn't using the word 'justified' in the evangelical sense.

So, what does repentance look like, if Bill & Sally do choose to use tithing money to pay debt?

"Justified" in any other sense looks like human rationalization, so any accompanying non-evangelical repentance would also look like human rationalization.

Using the evangelical definitions, the answer is that repentance would naturally be to pay tithe and stay out of debt. The hows, wheres, whens, whys, etc. and how the "Five R's" are carried out are between them and the Lord. You didn't want solutions, but repentance is a solution.

[SilverKnight]

Perhaps the best course would be for all of us to cease paying tithing, give all the money to widows and orphans, and pray that our churches, temples, seminaries, and missions miraculously pay for themselves.

That's what Jesus would do right?

[LDSToronto]

Perhaps the best course would be for all of us to cease paying tithing, give all the money to widows and orphans, and pray that our churches, temples, seminaries, and missions miraculously pay for themselves.

That's what Jesus would do right?

It's the closest thing to the folk-culture saying, "The Lord doesn't need money to run the Church"...

H.

[LDSToronto]

"Justified" in any other sense looks like human rationalization, so any accompanying non-evangelical repentance would also look like human rationalization.

Using the evangelical definitions, the answer is that repentance would naturally be to pay tithe and stay out of debt. The hows, wheres, whens, whys, etc. and how the "Five R's" are carried out are between them and the Lord. You didn't want solutions, but repentance is a solution.

Well, OK, CV75, I suppose then, that we are justified in all things, so long as we repent. Which is kinda been the point all along...

H.

[CV75]

Well, OK, CV75, I suppose then, that we are justified in all things, so long as we repent. Which is kinda been the point all along...

Not to belabor the "all along" part:

First you lay out a simple scenario with two straightforward questions.

Then you add that they benefit more from paying their debt, extend the scenario for six months, and add some

[LDS Truthseeker]

Perhaps the best course would be for all of us to cease paying tithing, give all the money to widows and orphans, and pray that our churches, temples, seminaries, and missions miraculously pay for themselves.

That's what Jesus would do right?

I'm willing to wager that that church would operate comfortably in perpetuity by funding itself off the interest of its enormous existing asset base due to the sacrifices of past Saints, if it chose a course like you suggested.

[SilverKnight]

I'm willing to wager that that church would operate comfortably in perpetuity by funding itself off the interest of its enormous existing asset base due to the sacrifices of past Saints, if it chose a course like you suggested.

I would suggest not making such a wager, as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Cutting off the primary revenue source of any corporate entity (the LDS church included) is the surest way to bankrupt it.

[LDS Truthseeker]

I would suggest not making such a wager, as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Cutting off the primary revenue source of any corporate entity (the LDS church included) is the surest way to bankrupt it.

Obviously it's never going to happen and the results of it happening would just be sheer speculation on our parts unless the church chooses to open its financial books once again. Consider the matter dropped.

[LDSToronto]

Not to belabor the "all along" part:

First you lay out a simple scenario with two straightforward questions.

Then you add that they benefit more from paying their debt, extend the scenario for six months, and add some

[The Mean Farmer]

Here is the tried and true path we have used in the past.

First - Discovery and ammendment of assets and debt. Understand what income, savings, investments, retirement, and other assets there are. Find out the type, nature, and delinquency of all debts. Examine current and future propensity of income to increase/decrease.

Second - liquidate assets that can be liquidated to offset debt. Restructure, consolidate, or eliminate debts from liquidated assets.

Third - Where applicable, cut back on expenditures to "reasonable" levels.

Fourth - Ask family for help.

Fifth - seek government assisitance.

If bill and sue can't do it alone, if their family won't pitch in, the Church is willing to pay a bill or expense to free up enough money to pay down debt.

All of this is possible AS LONG AS THEIR TITHING IS PAID! No questions, no excuses. If the widow has cast in her mite, you can to.

The Church is willing to help people get BACK on their feet, not carry them; and they are quite willing to help out where it is needed, but you MUST BE A FULL TITHE PAYER.

If Bill and Sue would go to their Bishop, lay it all out there, commit to a financial, educational, career, and spiritual plan to get back on top of things then their Bishop will usually be willing to step in where needed and help them accomplish that plan. Thats what Bishops do with people.

I think the plan to not pay your tithing for a period is foolish, selfish, lacks faith on several levels, and shows there is a common misconception as to when church welfare should be asked for and how it is applied.

[LDSToronto]

Here is the tried and true path we have used in the past.

First - Discovery and ammendment of assets and debt. Understand what income, savings, investments, retirement, and other assets there are. Find out the type, nature, and delinquency of all debts. Examine current and future propensity of income to increase/decrease.

Second - liquidate assets that can be liquidated to offset debt. Restructure, consolidate, or eliminate debts from liquidated assets.

Third - Where applicable, cut back on expenditures to "reasonable" levels.

Fourth - Ask family for help.

Fifth - seek government assisitance.

If bill and sue can't do it alone, if their family won't pitch in, the Church is willing to pay a bill or expense to free up enough money to pay down debt.

All of this is possible AS LONG AS THEIR TITHING IS PAID! No questions, no excuses. If the widow has cast in her mite, you can to.

The Church is willing to help people get BACK on their feet, not carry them; and they are quite willing to help out where it is needed, but you MUST BE A FULL TITHE PAYER.

You are correct on all counts, except for the fact that one must be a full tithe payer to be successful with your plan. One need not pay a dime in tithing in order to do any of the stuff you listed above, including receiving welfare assistance from the church.

I think the plan to not pay your tithing for a period is foolish, selfish, lacks faith on several levels, and shows there is a common misconception as to when church welfare should be asked for and how it is applied.

Thanks for your thoughts. I disagree that it's foolish or selfish or that it lacks faith on several levels, but I've laid out my arguments in this and other threads regarding why I disagree, and won't rewrite them here.

H.

[Jeanne]

Well, this is so easy..the Lord has told the Prophet for members to try and get out of debt right? The priesthood holder in the home is in charge of

the welfare of his family right? So..should he add more money to the down town mall instead of doing this??? I believe he is doing a service

to his family and church both by taking care of his financial obligations at home. I am sure he has already "volunteered" to clean the building, has

paid his fast offerings and contributes his talents and time to the church. At what point does the family come first??

Hugs,

Jeanne

[bluebell]

Well, this is so easy..the Lord has told the Prophet for members to try and get out of debt right? The priesthood holder in the home is in charge of

the welfare of his family right? So..should he add more money to the down town mall instead of doing this??? I believe he is doing a service

to his family and church both by taking care of his financial obligations at home. I am sure he has already "volunteered" to clean the building, has

paid his fast offerings and contributes his talents and time to the church. At what point does the family come first??

Hugs,

Jeanne

You are aware that no tithing is going towards the downtown mall in Salt Lake City, right?

[The Mean Farmer]

You are correct on all counts, except for the fact that one must be a full tithe payer to be successful with your plan. One need not pay a dime in tithing in order to do any of the stuff you listed above, including receiving welfare assistance from the church.

Thanks for your thoughts. I disagree that it's foolish or selfish or that it lacks faith on several levels, but I've laid out my arguments in this and other threads regarding why I disagree, and won't rewrite them here.

H.

Perhaps so, but the structure of qualifying for, and remaining eligible for, welfare funds of the church would NORMALLY require the couple in quesiton to become/remain full tithe payers. That is some of the basis that we operated under in my past callings and we found it successful. As we are dealing with humans with differing problems your mileage may vary widely on the application of these principles.

Anyway, If I were King of the Forrest that is how I would handle the situation.

[Zakuska]

The ultimate thing to get the members out of debt would be living the Law of concecration. Then their houses would all be payed off and tax free.