Applied mormonism: tithing vs. debt elimination

[Analytics]

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?

[Jeff K.]

There are many reasons one cannot pay back a debt. Disasters can strike a family, unemployment, these things keep a family from meeting an obligation since the financial environment has changed and makes it impossible for them to do so. So would one say such a thing separates them from the Lord? ie it is a sin? No. So I reject the analogy of sin along those lines.

The idea that there is a divine mandate to pay tithing first has a certain vengeful God-of-the-Old-Testament feel to it. It comes across as Jehovah demanding his money: if you pay he

[rockslider]

Are there some sins that are worse than others?

If an individual is paying tithe and not paying a creditor is that being honest in all their dealings? Is this not a form of stealing from the creditor? If you have done this unto the least of these, you have done it unto me.

[Analytics]

What you feel is irrelevant to the reality of the situation. If you don't think the Atonement is all that important, then your feelings of paying God first, making God the first debtee that you accomodate makes sense to you. I can appreciate the fact that some, many in fact find the atonement something they don't quite understand or perhaps don't appreciate. So I am sure analytics you would presume the question "What has God really done for me that I should pay Him any money?" Really what has God done for you analytics that you feel you should make Him a priority in your life? It seems your argument is that God hasn't done anything to put Him in a position of being worshipped (what you call sychophantism) or being a servant of God.

Do we have your position stated accurately or am I missing something else that God hasn't done for you?

That isn

[Jeff K.]

Some sins are worse than others that is true.

Renegotiating debt because of circumstances that are beyond your control is not a sin, nor is it theft from a creditor. Creditors and people in general understand this. Declaring bankruptcy for example is not a sin. You have less money to pay, and your tithing also drops to a lower level. Imagine if debt were contingent on the amount of money you made rather than the purchase. So you see there are two very different approaches to very different creditors.

[awesome0]

Some sins are worse than others that is true.

Renegotiating debt because of circumstances that are beyond your control is not a sin, nor is it theft from a creditor. Creditors and people in general understand this. Declaring bankruptcy for example is not a sin. You have less money to pay, and your tithing also drops to a lower level. Imagine if debt were contingent on the amount of money you made rather than the purchase. So you see there are two very different approaches to very different creditors.

I don't agree. Bankruptcy is argued to be a sin, or a product of sin in the following ways.

1. You consumed beyond your means (lack of gratitude, etc.)

2. You are not keep promises (to debtors) you made

3. Questions in TR

a. Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man

b. Are you a full tithe payer

Many here are focused on b. a is valid too.

Lastly, if you don't pay your debtors, they will garnish your wages, at which point are things (food, rent, tithing) will have to be paid afterwards, and may required changes in your budget.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 05 January 2011 - 08:09 AM, said:

What you feel is irrelevant to the reality of the situation. If you don't think the Atonement is all that important, then your feelings of paying God first, making God the first debtee that you accomodate makes sense to you. I can appreciate the fact that some, many in fact find the atonement something they don't quite understand or perhaps don't appreciate. So I am sure analytics you would presume the question "What has God really done for me that I should pay Him any money?" Really what has God done for you analytics that you feel you should make Him a priority in your life? It seems your argument is that God hasn't done anything to put Him in a position of being worshipped (what you call sychophantism) or being a servant of God.

Do we have your position stated accurately or am I missing something else that God hasn't done for you?

That isn

[Jeff K.]

I don't agree. Bankruptcy is argued to be a sin, or a product of sin in the following ways.

1. You consumed beyond your means (lack of gratitude, etc.)

2. You are not keep promises (to debtors) you made

3. Questions in TR

a. Are you honest in your dealings with your fellow man

b. Are you a full tithe payer

Many here are focused on b. a is valid too.

Lastly, if you don't pay your debtors, they will garnish your wages, at which point are things (food, rent, tithing) will have to be paid afterwards, and may required changes in your budget.

You presume that bankruptcy is because you consumed beyond your means. I agree if you were a spendthrift and then walk away from your debt that you commit a sin. But most of the bankrupcies I have been involved with (I handled mergers and acquisitions which included some firms that fell into bankruptcy) had nothing to do with overspending, sometimes funds for retrofitting weren't available, sometimes disasters struck the factory and it could not recovery, sometimes a court case went against a patent and so they could not recoup their huge investments on a product. On individuals I have seen an illness take out the bread winner and the family could not meet the obligations in place (that they easily could have otherwise), and so on..... I know of too many bankruptcies that occur for valid and legitimate reasons that require people to renegotiate their debt.

You can be an honest man and still not meet your obligations to others, not because you spent too much money, but often because there is no money available due to factors outside your control.

[Analytics]

Am I wrong to see those very implications in your post? If so how?

Yes, you are wrong.

What Benjamin Franklin said isn't an agnostic/deist ethic: it is a Christian ethic that is found throughout the New Testament

[Jeff K.]

hat Benjamin Franklin said isn't an agnostic/deist ethic: it is a Christian ethic that is found throughout the New Testament

[ElfLord]

Don't feed the trolls!

Nemesis

No fair... I'm starving!!!

[Senator]

Can one rightly reason that he will pledge complete financial loyalty to the church, with the understanding that the church pledges complete financial loyalty to the individual in return?

But from what I understand, there are limits to how long/much the church will offer financial asstistance. Some Bishops are offering to pay one's mortgage for so long. Thus we are having otherwise full tithe payers losing their homes. Something doesn't seem right.

[Analytics]

And this applies to creditors?

Jesus did in fact say "inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these." That appears to be an explicit reference to creditors, does it not?

Do you then propose we neglect God and then go and pay Exxon which will of course "balance the books"? After all wouldn't Exxon, if you owe them money, be the equivalent of ensuring we remain in God's good graces?

That isn't my posistion at all. I don't believe that we can't "balance the books" with God by paying Exxon. I also don't believe that we can do so by paying 10% of our income to a church. Not even 100%. But I do believe that paying what you owe your fellow man is a priority

[SilverKnight]

Can one rightly reason that he will pledge complete financial loyalty to the church, with the understanding that the church pledges complete financial loyalty to the individual in return?

Tithing is never 'complete financial loyalty' - it's merely 10% of your increase, however you choose to define that.

Nor it is some sort of financial contract between a person and the church - it's a commandment, with nothing expected in return.

If I lose my job in the future, and the church offers to pay my mortgage, then that is quite charitable and generous of them - but I would still rather lose my home than see another even worse-off family go hungry.

So I do not view tithing as some insurance policy to cash in as soon as times get tough.

It's my understanding that when I write a tithing check, it goes toward helping less fortunate members, and 'building the kingdom' of God - not put in a sheltered fund for me to redeem when I feel I need it.

That said, I am an advocate of postponing paying tithing to tackle burdensome debt first - if that is the only way to get out of it.

Tithing is a commandment that, like all others, should be subject to reason, nuance and common sense.

If not paying tithing for a time genuinely means the difference between self-sufficiency and bankruptcy, then for heaven's sake stop paying, put the extra 10% towards your debts and get your house in order.

But from what I understand, there are limits to how long/much the church will offer financial asstistance. Some Bishops are offering to pay one's mortgage for so long. Thus we are having otherwise full tithe payers losing their homes. Something doesn't seem right.

I am often amazed at the generosity of the church towards poor and struggling families, and the patience of my bishop toward perpetually jobless members.

But at the end of the day the church is not an insurance company, nor should it be considered a source of unemployment benefits.

[Analytics]

Latter-day Saints are counseled to pay their tithing and to stay out of debt. The question of this thread is which counsel takes precedence when the math doesn

[ELF1024]

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.

In my experience with the Law of Tithing, my wife and I tend to find more money or at least make much better use of the funds we have, when we pay our tithing. The money just seems to go farther.

I, for one, say have faith, pay the tithing, and the debt will take care of itself as long as you are striving to pay it down.

(I have a years worth of debt, and no food... guess I got it backwards)

[mnn727]

So, even if they can't service their debt, they should pay their tithing?

And the correct answer is: yes pay tithing and make a once a month appointment with the Bishop for help -- ie food orders or payment of a bill that would offset their loss.

[Jeanne]

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

I don't think anyone really knows what the tithing money goes to.

[SilverKnight]

I don't think anyone really knows what the tithing money goes to.

I do.

Much of it goes into Thomas S Monson's personal treasure vault.

On occasion it is the privilege of The Prophet to swim in the money.

[ELF1024]

I do.

Much of it goes into Thomas S Monson's personal treasure vault.

On occasion it is the privilege of The Prophet to swim in the money.

I think your confusing President Monson with either Scrooge McDuck, or Darth Benedict... maybe both.

[bluebell]

I don't think anyone really knows what the tithing money goes to.

Unless a person believes the prophet of the church is flat out lying, we know that none of it is going towards that mall.

[Pahoran]

The way I see it, going into debt in the first place was an unfortunate decision--not necessarily a "sin". The sin is the decision not to fulfill your contractual obligation to pay back the debt.

The idea that there is a divine mandate to pay tithing first has a certain vengeful God-of-the-Old-Testament feel to it.

To you, of course it does; everything that the Church encourages us to do is guaranteed to elicit a hostile feeling from you. But to any plausibly faithful Latter-day Saint -- such as the hypothetical Bill and Sally -- it has a comforting God-of-the-New-Testament feel to it. As in, Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.

I'm pointing this out so that you might actually understand how believing Latter-day Saints view such things.

It comes across as Jehovah demanding his money: if you pay he

[Mike!]

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?

I can't say what God will "understand." But it seems reasonable to me that if Bill and Sally pay an honest and full tithing, and they still come up short, and all other "stones have been turned," the Bishop will write them a check out of the fast offerings account to help them each month. Is it unreasonable to anticipate that God would bless them in a variety of ways for their faithfulness?

[Bsix]

I for one love the law of tithing. I don't feel manipulated, forced, or coerced into paying it. I feel it is a privilage to offer my tithes to the Lord in support his Church and Kingdom.

Six

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 05 January 2011 - 09:25 AM, said:

And this applies to creditors?

Jesus did in fact say "inasmuch as ye do it unto the least of these." That appears to be an explicit reference to creditors, does it not?

You raise a contextually false statement, equating creditors with those in need. The least of these referred to those without, not the money changers in the temple.

Jeff K., on 05 January 2011 - 09:25 AM, said:

Do you then propose we neglect God and then go and pay Exxon which will of course "balance the books"? After all wouldn't Exxon, if you owe them money, be the equivalent of ensuring we remain in God's good graces?

That isn't my posistion at all. I don't believe that we can't "balance the books" with God by paying Exxon. I also don't believe that we can do so by paying 10% of our income to a church. Not even 100%. But I do believe that paying what you owe your fellow man is a priority