Tithing Is Not Optional

[Thinking]

In response to the fraud case, many are claiming that tithing is optional. I beg to differ.

 

Not only does disobedience influence one’s blessings now, but it also affects one’s future eternal inheritance. Elder Melvin J. Ballard gave this counsel: “Do we not hope and expect to have an inheritance in the celestial kingdom, even upon this earth in its redeemed and sanctified state? [D&C 88:25-26; 130:9] What are the terms under which we may obtain that inheritance? The law of tithing is the law of inheritance. It leads to it. No man may hope or expect to have an inheritance on this celestial globe who has failed to pay his tithing. By the payment of his honest tithing he is establishing a right and a title to this inheritance, and he cannot secure it upon any other terms but by complying with this and other just requirements; and this is one of the very essential things.” Link

 

[Paddy]

What do you mean 'optional'? This quote demonstrates that it is a theological imperative but one still makes the choice to pay and how much.

[Thinking]

Optional is listed as an antonym of imperative here. You were saying?

[halconero]

The fact that there are so many less-active people who are still considered full members should be evidence enough that tithing isn't required to maintain membership.

 

Heck, when I interviewed people to be baptized I didn't ask them if they had payed tithing already. Rather, I asked them if they would be willing to pay it after their baptism and confirmation. This seems like a small distinction, but the fact that someone can be baptized and confirmed without every paying a cent is evidence enough that full membership isn't dependent on tithing.

[Grudunza]

Membership, and ideal full faithful membership may be different things.  I've known people who leave Sacrament meeting to go have a cigarette, and then return.  I highly doubt they have a Temple Recommend, and I might presume that they wouldn't have certain callings or be ordained as Elders, or things like that...  but they are definitely still members and loved and welcomed and treated as such.

 

Also, some people are not tithe payers by virtue of not earning any money to be tithed.  Still members, though, and even faithful/abiding ones in that case.

[Paddy]

Optional is listed as an antonym of imperative here. You were saying?

 

Correct...you pass....

 

I qualified the statement by using the word "theological". From a theological perspective the payment of tithes qualifies a person for inheritance in the celestial kingdom. That's standard theology. However people debating the fraud case are suggesting that payment of tithing affects a person's membership in the church. I beg to differ on that point. As far as I understand the lack of payment of tithes does not affect a person's membership, neither are they subject to church discipline. 

 

So my question to you stands - how do you define "optional"?

[BCSpace]

The fact that there are so many less-active people who are still considered full members should be evidence enough that tithing isn't required to maintain membership.

 

 

Not the question as mere membership, or even holding a temple recommend, is not a ticket to the Celestial Kingdom.

 

Heck, when I interviewed people to be baptized I didn't ask them if they had payed tithing already. Rather, I asked them if they would be willing to pay it after their baptism and confirmation. This seems like a small distinction, but the fact that someone can be baptized and confirmed without every paying a cent is evidence enough that full membership isn't dependent on tithing.

 

As DL and ZL, in the 1980's, the question was 'are you willing' which is present tense.  Hence, that tithing was currently being paid was the standard I used. Continuing payment after baptism was the TR requirement.  Regular Church attendance was another.  Some actually basic knowledge of the gospel was yet another. 

[Brian 2.0]

It is not optional when joining the church, that's for sure. If in the baptismal interview the candidate says, "I choose not to pay tithing, maybe later, but not now" then that person is not going to be baptized. The candidate does not have the "option" to say that and still be allowed to join the church.

You join the church committing to pay 10%. The church doesn't kick you out if you don't make good on that commitment, by they require that commitment to join.

[halconero]

Not the question as mere membership, or even holding a temple recommend, is not a ticket to the Celestial Kingdom.

 

I'm not arguing that point. I agree with you. The current fraud case seems to insinuate that full membership is based on tithing, which it is not. Ordinances may be based on tithing (along with a great many other things), but higher ordinances are not indicative of full membership.

 

As DL and ZL, in the 1980's, the question was 'are you willing' which is present tense.  Hence, that tithing was currently being paid was the standard I used. Continuing payment after baptism was the TR requirement.  Regular Church attendance was another.  Some actually basic knowledge of the gospel was yet another. 

 

The current invitation by missionaries as outlined in Preach My Gospel is to live the law of tithing after baptism.

[halconero]

It is not optional when joining the church, that's for sure. If in the baptismal interview the candidate says, "I choose not to pay tithing, maybe later, but not now" then that person is not going to be baptized. The candidate does not have the "option" to say that and still be allowed to join the church.

You join the church committing to pay 10%. The church doesn't kick you out if you don't make good on that commitment, by they require that commitment to join.

 

There is a big difference between committing to do something and actually doing something. If you asked an investigator if they were obligated to pay tithing before their baptism, the answer would be know. If you asked them if they were obligated to pay after baptism the answer would be different.

[BCSpace]

I'm not arguing that point. I agree with you. The current fraud case seems to insinuate that full membership is based on tithing, which it is not. Ordinances may be based on tithing (along with a great many other things), but higher ordinances are not indicative of full membership.

 

Agreed.

 

 

The current invitation by missionaries as outlined in Preach My Gospel is to live the law of tithing after baptism.

 

I know.

[rodheadlee]

Membership, and ideal full faithful membership may be different things.  I've known people who leave Sacrament meeting to go have a cigarette, and then return.  I highly doubt they have a Temple Recommend, and I might presume that they wouldn't have certain callings or be ordained as Elders, or things like that...  but they are definitely still members and loved and welcomed and treated as such.

 

Also, some people are not tithe payers by virtue of not earning any money to be tithed.  Still members, though, and even faithful/abiding ones in that case.

Not only that but some inactive people actually pay tithing.

[HairBear]

What is the problem with paying tithing in the first place? I don't think anyone who wants to be a member of the LDS Church would be against playing tithing to pay for the building and running costs of Chapels, Temples and MTC's, as well as the costs for the auxiliary programs and events (such as youth Temple trips to do baptisms for the dead, etc). Maybe I'm wrong, and people want to join the Church, benefit from all those things, and not contribute a single penny to it?

 

I doubt that even if every one of the 15+ Million members paid a full tithe there still wouldn't be enough money to run all those facilities. So if you don't want to pay tithing, don't join the Church. But of course that's just my opinion.

[sheilauk]

Of course tithing is optional.  The same way that all the commandments are optional.  I choose to take on the Lord's name at baptism.  I choose to receive my endowment.  I choose to accept a calling.  I choose to take the sacrament.  And so on.  The Church does not make me do any of those things.  What it does is ask me if I'm prepared to take on the responsibility and tells me the consequences of declining.  If I decline, I won't get the blessings of obedience (which may include membership of the Church).  But my agency remains intact.  The Lord sets out his commandments and He is asking if I'm prepared to do something.  If I'm not, then I'm not yet ready to progress and some things may be withheld from me.

 

Freedom of religion means that the Church is free to determine its beliefs, set them out and determine how it will practice them.  The Church is free to determine its own membership and the rules of membership.  What this case is doing is saying that certain beliefs induced the payment of tithing and that those beliefs are false because they appeared to be stated as facts and science appears to contradict them and Pres Monson committed a fraud because he doesn't believe those things and knows they are not true.  It is trying to determine what/how the Church believes and teaches its beliefs - contrary to its freedom of religion.

[jaxenro]

Can they prove that President Monson does not believe the story of the translation of the Book of Mormon? Or that he said or taught anything inconsistent with Church doctrine?

I think if President Mondon was the first President of the Church and not the 16th it would be an easier case to make. Time does have a way of ligitimizing things

[ALarson]

With the current case going on in the UK, I have thought a lot about this question.  

 

I have wondered how the judge is going to evaluate the paying of tithing in the Mormon church and I feel this will be very key to their decision to proceed with a trial or not.

 

Bottom line is that no one is forced to pay tithing.  Everyone has the choice to pay or not to pay.

 

But let's be honest here, we know that if a member is not paying tithing, they are not thought of as fully worthy.  They are on the Bishop's radar and he is going to try to work with them to encourage them to pay tithing so that they will be temple worthy (married or not if they are of the proper age).  Children are taught to pay tithing.  It is a commandment....and so on.

 

So, are we forced? No.

 

But, can we attend the temple, be present for family temple marriages, or be fully worthy if we're not paying tithing? No again.

 

But from a legal standpoint, I would think the the judge will see that it's still voluntary to pay tithing.

[Buzzard]

Can they prove that President Monson does not believe the story of the translation of the Book of Mormon? Or that he said or taught anything inconsistent with Church doctrine?

I think if President Mondon was the first President of the Church and not the 16th it would be an easier case to make. Time does have a way of ligitimizing things

I am of the opinion that this Phillips fellow is counting on a judge to take a secular point of view. What seems consistent and even obvious to us may seem ridiculous to an atheist. So if the judge has a dim view of the Genesis creation account, probably isn't even that familiar with it beyond Adam and Eve and seven days, he or she might want to strike a blow for the triumph of reason and decide that you have to be crazy or devious or both to teach it. Roll of the dice for the apostates, but even if he loses, which he eventually will, he got his 15 minutes of fame.  

[bluebell]

With the current case going on in the UK, I have thought a lot about this question.  

 

I have wondered how the judge is going to evaluate the paying of tithing in the Mormon church and I feel this will be very key to their decision to proceed with a trial or not.

 

Bottom line is that no one is forced to pay tithing.  Everyone has the choice to pay or not to pay.

 

But let's be honest here, we know that if a member is not paying tithing, they are not thought of as fully worthy.  They are on the Bishop's radar and he is going to try to work with them to encourage them to pay tithing so that they will be temple worthy (married or not if they are of the proper age).  Children are taught to pay tithing.  It is a commandment....and so on.

 

So, are we forced? No.

 

But, can we attend the temple, be present for family temple marriages, or be fully worthy if we're not paying tithing? No again.

 

But from a legal standpoint, I would think the the judge will see that it's still voluntary to pay tithing.

 

I agree.

 

Tithing is absolutely optional.  Theologically speaking, there are definite consequences for not paying it and the church teaches those.  But someone can still be a member of the LDS church without paying a dime.

[omni]

I haven't been following the case too closely, can anybody provide a link showing what Philips is actually arguing? If he's claiming someone's membership will be affected if they fail to pay tithing then he's clearly wrong, however if he's arguing one is compelled to pay tithing due to loss of temple privileges and in effect their eternal salvation then I think a case can be made.

[Gray]

For those who think tithing is optional, what would mandatory tithing look like? 

[jaxenro]

Income tax

[bluebell]

For those who think tithing is optional, what would mandatory tithing look like? 

 

In my opinion, mandatory tithing would mean that tithing was a requirement for membership in the church.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Income tax

If you don't pay income tax, your wages are garnished. If you don't pay tithing you burn: https://www.lds.org/new-era/1982/01/the-blessings-of-an-honest-tithe?lang=eng

 

Which is worse?

[MiserereNobis]

In my opinion, mandatory tithing would mean that tithing was a requirement for membership in the church.

 

So then what is a requirement for membership in the church?  If tithing is optional, what is not optional?

 

I was told by Mormon friends a while back, when we were discussing excommunication in our faiths, that an excommunicated member is not allowed to donate to the church (pay tithing), but a non-member is.  For those who would know, is this accurate?

[MiserereNobis]

If you don't pay income tax, your wages are garnished. If you don't pay tithing you burn: https://www.lds.org/new-era/1982/01/the-blessings-of-an-honest-tithe?lang=eng

 

Which is worse?

 

There are some interesting quotes in there that seem to go against the idea that tithing is optional.

 

 

A Legal Obligation to the Lord

From this scripture it is apparent that tithing is a debt which everyone owes to the Lord for his use of the things that the Lord has made and given to him to use. It is a debt just as literally as the grocery bill, or a light bill, or any other duly incurred obligation. As a matter of fact, the Lord, to whom one owes tithing, is in a position of a preferred creditor. If there is not enough to pay all creditors, he should be paid first. Now I am sure you will have a little shock at that, but that is the truth. Other creditors of tithe-payers, however, have no cause to worry, for the Lord always blesses the person who has faith enough to pay his tithing so that his ability to pay his other creditors is not thereby reduced.

 

As an acknowledgment and in return for his bounty, the Lord requires us to return to him as tithing 10 percent of our interest annually. In the law of the gospel, tithing is, then, as has already been said, a legal obligation. It is not a mere freewill offering. And although the Lord does not enforce it as we enforce debts in our society by foreclosing the mortgage or turning off the water or the lights, a penalty for nonpayment is always exacted.

 

A legal debt, an obligation, a requirement, and not a freewill offering.

 

ETA:  I just want to be clear that I think that fraud case in England is wrong and stupid.  I'm not arguing for that.  I'm just trying to understand the LDS view of tithing.

Edited March 18, 2014 by MiserereNobis