Applied mormonism: tithing vs. debt elimination

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

Ask, and ye shall receive:

1. Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

2. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

[Hamba Tuhan]

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.

Scenario: Bob's in deep debt to Sam. I know I have the ability to help Bob out of his trouble and to comfort him and give him security and true friendship in the process. Is it selfish of me to want Bob to turn to me for help instead of trying to fix things up with Sam on his own?

'So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee.'

[LDS Truthseeker]

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

That's just shuffling around of the buckets. Obviously all the money the church ORIGINALLY received is from tithing/donations. So whatever 'investment fund' that the checks are being written from, was ultimately funded by tithing dollars at some point.

[LDS Truthseeker]

Scenario: Bob's in deep debt to Sam. I know I have the ability to help Bob out of his trouble and to comfort him and give him security and true friendship in the process. Is it selfish of me to want Bob to turn to me for help instead of trying to fix things up with Sam on his own?

'So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee.'

But the church won't necessarily help Bob, nor should they have to. Bob should be responsible enough to handle his own finances. He should think enough about Sam to pay him first if Bob legitimately and legally owes him money.

[Zakuska]

That's just shuffling around of the buckets. Obviously all the money the church ORIGINALLY received is from tithing/donations. So whatever 'investment fund' that the checks are being written from, was ultimately funded by tithing dollars at some point.

Jesus is all over Intrest payments!

Matt 25

14

[FutureTwitBlog]

This came up in high priest lesson this past week. The class was divided. Here's the scenario:

Bill & Sally are in debt, and want to follow the counsel of the LDS prophets to get out of debt. However, they are in a bit of a bind. You see, Bill & Sally have a monthly budget that looks like this:

Income: $1200

Expenses (assume they are modest and can't be reduced): $1000

Tithing: $120

Debt payment: $120

Monthly balance: ($40)

The question is this: Are Bill & Sally justified in using their tithing to pay off their debt, until that debt has been eliminated? Please, no solutions like, "Pray about it", or "Bill/Sally can get a better paying job", or, "They should do <some financial trick>"... Let stick to the core issue - Will God understand if Bill & Sally use tithing money to pay debt?

H.

I think that the simplest answer, for me at least, is to remember why God gives us commandments. IMHO, God gives us commandments to help US to be better people. He is already a good person and has already received his glory and honor. He doesn't need our money, or obedience, or anything else from us to improve his power and character. Rather, we need to give those things to improve us.

With this in mind, I think the couple should study their decision out, pray about it, and make a united decision. I also think they should ask themselves questions like: 1) How did we get this far into debt in the first place? 2) What is a full and honest tithe (is it on net or gross)? 3) Should we make up the back tithing later? 4) Can we cut expenses or increase income for the future? and many more questions. With this scenario, as with all others, there is always some mitigating factors that make each situation unique.

[LDSToronto]

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.

I appreciate your experience; however, receiving welfare assistance is not contingent on past, present, or future tithe paying. Any bishop who administers welfare in such a way is doing it wrong. From the current Handbook 1:

Providing welfare assistance should not be based on the activity level or worthiness of those who need it. Using the welfare principles outlined in this handbook, the bishop administers assistance to all members in need. He encourages less-active members who receive assistance to improve their spiritual well-being by attending church, praying, reading the scriptures, and increasing their activity in the Church.

In some situations, providing welfare assistance may be contingent on members fulfilling simple assignments from the bishop, such as doing assigned work, looking for a job, and eliminating unnecessary expenses. However, some members who are widowed, orphaned, elderly, or disabled may be unable to fulfill assignments. The bishop provides compassionate care to these members based on their situations and capabilities.

[SilverKnight]

That's just shuffling around of the buckets. Obviously all the money the church ORIGINALLY received is from tithing/donations. So whatever 'investment fund' that the checks are being written from, was ultimately funded by tithing dollars at some point.

Wrong again.

The Church began with extensive land holdings in Utah and the Southwest which they bartered from indians, or were simply uninhabited homestead.

These initial landholdings later burgeoned into a massive agricultural industry. The railroad coming through Promontory, along with mining from church-owned land, resulted in even more revenue and assets.

Tithing paid for none of this.

Most of the church's for-profit ventures came from previous investments that were ultimately grandfathered in from the pioneer era. If Brigham would have kept going, and declared the California coast, "This is the place," the LDS would likely be the wealthiest church on earth right now.

It pays to be the initial landowner of massive parcels of prime American real estate.

[Avatar4321]

Where did he make that promise? For that matter, where has God ever made financial blessing a general outcome of obedience to a commandment? Because if he has made general financial promises, I will be doubly obedient to that law upon which those blessings are predicated.

H.

"And again, verily I say unto you, concerning your debts

[bluebell]

That's just shuffling around of the buckets. Obviously all the money the church ORIGINALLY received is from tithing/donations. So whatever 'investment fund' that the checks are being written from, was ultimately funded by tithing dollars at some point.

Yeah, that's the same thing.

I mean, you're dad is really married to his sister, right? Since everyone ORIGINALLY came from the same gene pool. Makes perfect sense.

[toon]

The benefit, in my mind, outweighs the missed blessings that temporary suspension of tithing payments will bring. Could they just not pay, miss out on a few blessings, and then start paying later? You know, repent?

In all likelihood, they would be fine. They could certainly get back on track after six months and become eventually become full tithe payers. They may miss out on some temporal blessings, but they may not. If they can truly pay off the debt in full and then resume paying tithes, there will likely be no problem in the long run and it may indeed be the best decision.

But things happen, and they may for some reason not pay off the debt in full. They may find that they like the extra income and that it's difficult to resume paying tithing. They may find that find in a few years that they've adjusted their standard of living and that they're still not able (or perhaps not willing) to pay tithing, and more important, that they're no longer temple worthy. They may then drift in and out of Church activity. They may end up with a financial house in order but miss out on all kinds of spiritual blessings.

So it's a gamble. In all likelihood, they would be fine. But they might not.

I can say this from personal experience. I've done close to the same thing -- stopped paying tithing because I couldn't pay the other pressing bills. It helped out in the short run. But I also found it very, very difficult to get back on track, even after I had significantly increased my income.

[Hamba Tuhan]

But the church won't necessarily help Bob, nor should they have to.

I'm not talking about the Church; I'm talking about the Lord. If He's real and His promises are real, there's only one way to find out: 'Prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of Hosts....' The Lord gave us tithing, amongst other reasons, as a means of establishing His reality and His trustworthiness. This is the major blessing the hypothetical couple from the OP would be omitting. Of course they might be fine following Toronto's advice, but they may well miss out on some important firsthand knowledge in the process. There's a clear and logical reason why faith without works is dead or, at the very least, starts to die.

[awesome0]

"And again, verily I say unto you, concerning your debts

[Analytics]

Wrong again.

The Church began with extensive land holdings in Utah and the Southwest which they bartered from indians...

But where did it get the original beads (or whatever), that it traded for the land?

or were simply uninhabited homestead.

It's odd to think of a church as homesteading.

[LDSToronto]

"And again, verily I say unto you, concerning your debts

[Jeff K.]

I think people are overlooking some key points.

The early church existed as a quasi government/quasi business entity, so it worked on a profit basis and in turn took care of its members along those same lines. Much of the early church also ran on credit, getting cash from those heading to the gold fields when possible, and paying off that credit. There are a number of other aspects involved including townships being established and negotiating with the local tribes for rights with a share in production (wheat from crops or some cattle). Cooperatives that subsidized and influenced industry as well as retail were also investment vehicles that grew substantially, especially after the intercontinental railroad came to the fore.

Given the expanded role of the church in that time, one could argue relative to size, the church is much smaller in the lives of its members now than it was then.

It certainly wasn't all tithing or even a substantial part of it.

The church now has investments that cover some of the other costs involved, and to attempt to go back to original settlers and say "see its tithing" shows just how ridiculous you can be when you throw common sense and history out of the window and simply want to complain.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yeah, that's the same thing.

I mean, you're dad is really married to his sister, right? Since everyone ORIGINALLY came from the same gene pool. Makes perfect sense.

I knew there was some very good reasons I like this board still.

[LDS Truthseeker]

Wrong again.

The Church began with extensive land holdings in Utah and the Southwest which they bartered from indians, or were simply uninhabited homestead.

These initial landholdings later burgeoned into a massive agricultural industry. The railroad coming through Promontory, along with mining from church-owned land, resulted in even more revenue and assets.

Tithing paid for none of this.

Most of the church's for-profit ventures came from previous investments that were ultimately grandfathered in from the pioneer era. If Brigham would have kept going, and declared the California coast, "This is the place," the LDS would likely be the wealthiest church on earth right now.

It pays to be the initial landowner of massive parcels of prime American real estate.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that. There are enough true-believing members that have acknowledged to me that the money ultimately most likely came from tithing that I don't have to try to convince one of the lone hold-outs of that. When the church opens its books, then you can make that claim but until then it seems a lot more plausible that the funds came from donations past instead of 'bartered' from indians. Even with the bartering, what was bartered? It must have been something whether land, good, cattle, whatever donated to the church back then by its members.

Of course maybe some of it came from the the money and goods taken from the bodies of the Fancher party that were slaughtered in the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[SilverKnight]

Yeah, keep telling yourself that.

Maybe if I adopted a more open-minded screen name like 'Truthseeker' I might be less self-deluded.

There are enough true-believing members that have acknowledged to me that the money ultimately most likely came from tithing that I don't have to try to convince one of the lone hold-outs of that.

When the church opens its books, then you can make that claim but until then it seems a lot more plausible that the funds came from donations past instead of 'bartered' from indians. Even with the bartering, what was bartered? It must have been something whether land, good, cattle, whatever donated to the church back then by its members.

I am telling you how the LDS church's for profit business interests started and how they evolved. You can fact check it all you like against the economic history of Utah.

However if you'd rather whine about the SLC mall because you are in the temper-tantrum phase of your apostasy, then please continue your ignorant ranting and keep saying things like, this:

Of course maybe some of it came from the the money and goods taken from the bodies of the Fancher party that were slaughtered in the Mountain Meadows Massacre?

[Bsix]

Some seem to think that all sins are of equal magnitude.

In this case, it is suggested that a couple in debt should commit a second sin (not paying tithing) in order to avoid the consequences of a second sin. The logic being that they can repent of the second sin later.

Using that logic, would these scenarios be acceptable?

[Calm]

That's just shuffling around of the buckets. Obviously all the money the church ORIGINALLY received is from tithing/donations. So whatever 'investment fund' that the checks are being written from, was ultimately funded by tithing dollars at some point.

The bank loans you $100,000 to get a business started, 10 years down the line the business has reached a value of 1 million dollars and the bank shows up and explains they expect you to give them $1,000,000 because obviously all the money your business originally received was from their loan, even though you paid off the loan under their original terms.

You opening up your wallet or protesting?

[LDS Truthseeker]

The bank loans you $100,000 to get a business started, 10 years down the line the business has reached a value of 1 million dollars and the bank shows up and explains they expect you to give them $1,000,000 because obviously all the money your business originally received was from their loan, even though you paid off the loan under their original terms.

You opening up your wallet or protesting?

Protest - if it was a loan. But perhaps the church situation is a little more like stock. In a sense, as churchmembers, we are all more like shareholders I think.

[LDS Truthseeker]

Maybe if I adopted a more open-minded screen name like 'Truthseeker' I might be less self-deluded.

I am telling you how the LDS church's for profit business interests started and how they evolved. You can fact check it all you like against the economic history of Utah.

However if you'd rather whine about the SLC mall because you are in the temper-tantrum phase of your apostasy, then please continue your ignorant ranting and keep saying things like, this:

OK, how about a truce? We both agree to not say things we can't prove without stating it's just our opinion.

Now, let's get back to the meaning of my post before all the unpleasantness began. My point is that I don't personally believe that God gave specific revelation to the prophet(s) to build a mall. I think it was a business decision, perhaps done to beautify the city. I'm not saying it was a bad decision or anything. I just don't think God told the prophet in a definitive way that they should build a mall. I think God pretty much lets the brethren run the church the way they want. Do you think God specifically commanded the leaders of the church to build a mall or was it more of their idea?

[CV75]

It's called having a discussion, a la 'discussion board'.

Oops--that's right--thanks for the reminder. I tend to think out loud in regular conversations, so when I have a chance to think through what I commit to writing I don't tend to approach it as a discussion anymore. The non-verbal cue are also helpful to me in real life discussion.

So does this mean, say (and I'm just innocently pulling this example out of the air at random), that an on-line discussion is as much an imitation of real live conversation as the Santa Claus story is an imitation of good people doing good things for children? LOL

[Nemesis]

Don't feed the trolls!

Nemesis