Tithing Is Not Optional

[Calm]

If there are consequences to not paying your tithing how can it be optional? .

It depends on what you are attaching to it. Context iow.

If the argument is in the context of membership, it is optional. If it is in the context of certain other things in the Church, including some blessings it is not optional.

This is a legal discussion about exchange of money for specific products. Saying that money is mandatory/required for other products is irrelevant to the current discussion.

One needs to prove that tithing is required to receive the identified promise benefit. If that benefit is full membership in the Church, I don't believe they can prove it. As far as access to the temple, given that we allow for proxy work to be done for those who chose not to attend the temple in their lifetime, thus allowing for the blessings of exaltation even if they didn't pay a dime of tithing when they could have paid millions, I don't see how they could prove exaltation is being held hostage, etc. Attending a temple wedding might have a possibility except people aren't promised they can attend the temple if they pay tithing automatically...don't know about how that or the fact one can be a full tithe payer without paying a dime and actually receiving significant money from the Church plays out in English law.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Wrong

Only a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who is worthy to hold a temple recommend may act as voice in confirming a person a member of the Church, conferring the Melchizedek Priesthood, ordaining a person to an office in that priesthood, or setting apart a person to serve in a Church calling.

[Danzo]

 

 If you are a believing latter-day saint who wants to be exalted, tithing is not optional. 

 

Wrong again.

 

Most people who receive ordinances in the temple have never paid one cent of tithing.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

It depends on how much that person received in increase (which I believe the modern Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints defines as income).  If one receives income, one pays tithing on it; if one receives no income, one has no tithing to pay.

Yet the person we pays no tithing in such a scenario is considered a tithe payer by the church.

[Danzo]

 

Wrong

Only a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who is worthy to hold a temple recommend may act as voice in confirming a person a member of the Church, conferring the Melchizedek Priesthood, ordaining a person to an office in that priesthood, or setting apart a person to serve in a Church calling.

 

 

 

Now you are just being dishonest.

 

Or are you telling me you didn't read the next paragraph?

Edited March 18, 2014 by Danzo

[Calm]

Seeking, As you say, once you decide what outcome you want, things are no longer optional. If one wants to buy a car, it is not optional to pay for it. But it is optional before the decision is made.

The question for me is if the court has any jurisdiction in deciding whether a decision is forced or the person is deceived in making it. If neither, it does not seem to me the court has any jurisdiction. The person has a choice to believe or not and any further requirements are based on the original choice.

Edited March 18, 2014 by calmoriah

[MiserereNobis]

Wrong again.

 

Most people who receive ordinances in the temple have never paid one cent of tithing.  

 

?

 

(unless you are referring to deceased persons, in which case I would say there is a bit sophistry going on, because we are talking about currently living members)

[Danzo]

?

 

(unless you are referring to deceased persons, in which case I would say there is a bit sophistry going on, because we are talking about currently living members)

 

I am talking about deceased persons, however I was responding to the assertion that theologically, tithing is required for exaltation, which clearly it is not. (Since most ordinances are performed for people who didn't pay a cent of tithing to the church.)

[SeekingUnderstanding]

 

 

Now you are just being dishonest.

 

Or are you telling me you didn't read the next paragraph.

 

.

 

Dishonest. Seriously? 

 

 

As guided by the Spirit and the instructions in the next paragraph, bishops and stake presidents have discretion to allow priesthood holders who are not fully temple worthy to perform or participate in some ordinances and blessings. However, presiding officers should not allow such participation if a priesthood holder has unresolved serious sins.

 

A bishop may allow a father who holds the Melchizedek Priesthood to name and bless his children even if the father is not fully temple worthy. Likewise, a bishop may allow a father who is a priest or Melchizedek Priesthood holder to baptize his children or to ordain his sons to offices in the Aaronic Priesthood. A Melchizedek Priesthood holder in similar circumstances may be allowed to stand in the circle for the confirmation of his children, for the conferral of the Melchizedek Priesthood on his sons, or for the setting apart of his wife or children. However, he may not act as voice.

 

Please help me see what portion of that paragraph allows for a man to confirm his child as a member of the church if he is not paying tithing. Perhaps an apology or retraction is in order? I won't hold my breath.

[Calm]

Now you are just being dishonest.

 

Or are you telling me you didn't read the next paragraph.

I believe Seeking was talking about being "voice", not just participating....most people in my experience would understand it that way, the person doing the confirmation is the voice.

"Only a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who is worthy to hold a temple recommend may act as voice in confirming a person a member of the Church, conferring the Melchizedek Priesthood, ordaining a person to an office in that priesthood, or setting apart a person to serve in a Church calling.

As guided by the Spirit and the instructions in the next paragraph, bishops and stake presidents have discretion to allow priesthood holders who are not fully temple worthy to perform or participate in some ordinances and blessings. However, presiding officers should not allow such participation if a priesthood holder has unresolved serious sins.

A Melchizedek Priesthood holder in similar circumstances may be allowed to stand in the circle for the confirmation of his children, for the conferral of the Melchizedek Priesthood on his sons, or for the setting apart of his wife or children. However, he may not act as voice."

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I am talking about deceased persons, however I was responding to the assertion that theologically, tithing is required for exaltation, which clearly it is not. (Since most ordinances are performed for people who didn't pay a cent of tithing to the church.)

The specific assertion was that for a believing latter-day saint. Who's being dishonest here? Are you saying that if a fellow saint came to you and asked if he needed to pay tithing for exaltation you would say no?

[MiserereNobis]

The specific assertion was that for a believing latter-day saint. Who's being dishonest here? Are you saying that if a fellow saint came to you and asked if he needed to pay tithing for exaltation you would say no?

 

The logic that Danzo uses would also apply to ANY LDS church law/commandment.  Someone could live a life of debauchery, sin, murder, etc, etc, and they would still have their temple work done, so Danzo could then say that such laws are not necessary for exaltation.

 

Somehow, I don't believe that the LDS church teaches this, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Paloma]

As you say, once you decide what outcome you want, things are no longer optional. If one wants to buy a car, it is not optional to pay for it. But it is optional before the decision is made.

The question for me is if the court has any jurisdiction in deciding whether a decision is forced or the person is deceived in making it. If neither, it does not seem to me the court has any jurisdiction. The person has a choice to believe or not and any further requirements are based on the original choice.

 

This makes me wonder about the "milk before meat" approach to introducing information about the Mormon church to potential converts (and possibly to new members, as well).

 

While I can't speak to the experience of new members, I can personally vouch for having been told that I should not worry about "deeper" things, but agree to be baptized on first principles alone.

 

While I expect that this approach wouldn't be seen as problematic to many LDS believers, and while I recognize a possible similarity to other churches that may encourage faith in Jesus on the basis of simple trust, I see that  "milk before meat" may be viewed as deceptive when it involves a deliberate approach and a financial commitment.

[Danzo]

The specific assertion was that for a believing latter-day saint. Who's being dishonest here? Are you saying that if a fellow saint came to you and asked if he needed to pay tithing for exaltation you would say no?

Exactly.  

 

The law condemns all of us. we are not saved by the law, but by the atonement of Jesus Christ.

 

You cannot just check things off of  a list to be exalted.  

 

You can't say so and so didn't pay his tithing so they won't be exalted, that is absurd.

 

Being temple worthy is only a requisite to entering the temple, the saving ordinances are performed there for people who would not have been temple worthy so it is not a requirement for those ordinances.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The question for me is if the court has any jurisdiction in deciding whether a decision is forced or the person is deceived in making it. If neither, it does not seem to me the court has any jurisdiction. The person has a choice to believe or not and any further requirements are based on the original choice.

Clearly it should not. This is a huge slippery slope if we allow a court to rule in matters of faith. 

[MiserereNobis]

For all you ex-missionaries, how long would you say was the average time from the first lesson to baptism?

 

In Catholicism, it is usually about a year to go through the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) classes.  It only took me three months, because I had been reading and studying on my own for about 3-4 years before I approached a priest, so I was already pretty knowledgeable.  The priest and I met twice a week for those two months and went through the entire Catechism, so I knew all the milk and the meat (and I had already done considerable research myself).

[Calm]

Seeking,

I would say that the Lord commanded it and we have covenanted to follow his commandments. I would ask him why he felt he should not pay tithing and if he stated he did not believe it was a commandment, that the Church misunderstood, I would point out that by refusing to pay tithing at all (and not just on a different understanding of what tithing meant....I know one person who believed it was increase after all expenses no matter what, even optional ones such as TVs and entertainment and since he put any 'leftovers' back into his company, he saw himself with no increase at that time so he didn't pay tithing...he was a new member, don't know if he kept that belief intact, he paid a lot of fast offerings and was very generous with time and resources so I didn't see it as a selfish issue of avoidance, but based on his theological understanding) would have consequences in attending the temple and some callings, but if he was willing to accept those humbly and continued to seek the Lord's instruction on tithing and truly believed it was the Spirit telling him not to, that if he was wrong and needed to repent that opportunity would be available to him in the next life just as with all the other mistakes and sins we make, no matter how well intentioned. And then he would be able to accept the proxy work done for him. And if he was right, then the rest of us would be in that situation of needing repentance for our misunderstanding and less than perfect listening to the Spirit.

In that discussion would include the tragedy of missing out in the here and now of many wonderful blessings for himself and his family if he was wrong even if they were given to him in the next life as well as the possible consequences for his family if they joined him in error.

I would also point out to him that it was a significantly different understanding than the Brethren had been teaching and stated had been revealed, so he had better be sure it wasn't arrogance or some other vice that was persuading him as given the spirit we cultivate in this life, the things that we treasure as important will be the ones that we will treasure in the next one including preferring oneness with them to a oneness with God, thus there could be a significant risk to exaltation if he was engaging in self deception.

In the end, however the only one that could tell him what he needed to do was God.

That is what I would likely say.

[Danzo]

I believe Seeking was talking about being "voice", not just participating....most people in my experience would understand it that way, the person doing the confirmation is the voice.

"Only a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who is worthy to hold a temple recommend may act as voice in confirming a person a member of the Church, conferring the Melchizedek Priesthood, ordaining a person to an office in that priesthood, or setting apart a person to serve in a Church calling.

As guided by the Spirit and the instructions in the next paragraph, bishops and stake presidents have discretion to allow priesthood holders who are not fully temple worthy to perform or participate in some ordinances and blessings. However, presiding officers should not allow such participation if a priesthood holder has unresolved serious sins.

A Melchizedek Priesthood holder in similar circumstances may be allowed to stand in the circle for the confirmation of his children, for the conferral of the Melchizedek Priesthood on his sons, or for the setting apart of his wife or children. However, he may not act as voice."

 

Having served in the church (as a clerk so I had the knowledge)  I have seen people without recommends perform these ordinances with full knowledge of the bishop.  There is no inquiry into amounts of tithing paid (or whether paid at all)  before performing these ordinances.  It is under the bishop's discretion who gets to perform the ordinances and if they are done under his authority, the ordinances are valid no matter what the worthiness of the individuals performing them are.   

 

However, you are right that a priesthood holder should be worth to perform the ordinances, however whether or not he has paid money doesn't always enter the equation.

 

Other considerations of worthiness are usually of much greater importance.

[Paloma]

For all you ex-missionaries, how long would you say was the average time from the first lesson to baptism?

 

In Catholicism, it is usually about a year to go through the RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults) classes.  It only took me three months, because I had been reading and studying on my own for about 3-4 years before I approached a priest, so I was already pretty knowledgeable.  The priest and I met twice a week for those two months and went through the entire Catechism, so I knew all the milk and the meat (and I had already done considerable research myself).

 

I appreciate this depth of understanding!

 

I've always thought that Jesus' telling us we should "count the cost" encourages the idea that we should understand as fully as possible what we are committing ourselves to in entering a life of faith in him and following him.

[Calm]

The logic that Danzo uses would also apply to ANY LDS church law/commandment.  Someone could live a life of debauchery, sin, murder, etc, etc, and they would still have their temple work done, so Danzo could then say that such laws are not necessary for exaltation.

 

Somehow, I don't believe that the LDS church teaches this, but maybe I'm wrong.

There is a difference in knowingly sinning and doing so unintentionally. Someone who does not believe the Church is correct in its teaching of how tithing should be paid is different than someone who doesn't pay out of selfishness.

There are some Saints who believe it is wrong to make the WoW a temple requirement, that beer is acceptable under its restrictions and other things. They will be judged differently than those who break the WoW because they want to and don't care about any spiritual directions.

The Church teaches people won't be held accountable for following God's laws they are not aware of. In cases where people say they have received a witness that is contrary to what the Church teaches, only God can judge the truth of that and whether or not someone will be held accountable or if there was something out of the person's control impeding true understanding (false teachings of parents and others so embedded as to prevent clear thought, medical conditions inhibiting clear communication with the Spirit, etc).

[Danzo]

Dishonest. Seriously? 

 

 

 

Please help me see what portion of that paragraph allows for a man to confirm his child as a member of the church if he is not paying tithing. Perhaps an apology or retraction is in order? I won't hold my breath.

 

I apologize for questioning your honesty.

 

However, in practice, I have never seen a "pay to play" requirement to perform these ordinances, no one checks to see if you  have contributed before performing these ordinances. 

 

Other aspects of temple worthiness will be much more important in determining worthiness to perform these ordinances.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Danzo

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I apologize for questioning your honesty.

 

However, in practice, I have never seen a "pay to play" requirement to perform these ordinances, no one checks to see if you  have contributed before performing these ordinances. 

They don't check how much you have contributed, they just check for your temple recommend. When my son was baptized I had my Father as one of the witnesses. He was asked for his temple recommend. My father-in-law who does not hold a recommend was not allowed to act as witness. If you bishop allowed someone to confirm a member of the church without a temple recommend, he is not keeping with the guidelines established in the handbook. That said, I wouldn't say he did something wrong, as he was probably following the spirit. That doesn't change the fact however that it is against church policy.

[cdowis]

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?

 

A non-member can contribute to the church, but it is not categorized as "tithing".  For the general church, tithing is a measurement of the faithfulness of the members of a particular unit, a statistical measure.  In order to divide a ward, in order to build a new chapel, one measure for that decision is tithing faithfulness.  So that is the primary reason a donation by a nonmember cannot be counted as tithing.

 

AS a "legal obligation", it is a debt owed to the Lord, not to the church.  The church is the vehicle by which members pay the debt, and it is used for the Lord's kingdom.  

 

Hope that helps.

[Calm]

This makes me wonder about the "milk before meat" approach to introducing information about the Mormon church to potential converts (and possibly to new members, as well).

 

While I can't speak to the experience of new members, I can personally vouch for having been told that I should not worry about "deeper" things, but agree to be baptized on first principles alone.

 

While I expect that this approach wouldn't be seen as problematic to many LDS believers, and while I recognize a possible similarity to other churches that may encourage faith in Jesus on the basis of simple trust, I see that  "milk before meat" may be viewed as deceptive when it involves a deliberate approach and a financial commitment.

I think a lot would depend on what those deeper issues were and if they were related at all to what you would strive to do in preparation to receive salvation and exaltation from God. Those should be shared IMO....anything that may require a change in behaviour. Some things people call "deeper" are not related to being a better Saint or seeking out God, but are more about gaining information or being able to place knowledge in a greater and more accurate context. Such things take time and are worthy pursuits, but should not IMO be reason to delay becoming a member anymore than finding out stories of your spouse's childhood and extended family or certain expectations of what holidays will be like should necessarily delay marriage (some things are significant and may impact the relationship dramatically...those should be discussed, but that can be very difficult to know as often t can be very individual and it may change over time so how to predict?)

[bluebell]

Can you explain this?  If paying tithing is required for the temple, wouldn't paying zero in tithing deprive someone of the full blessings which God has to offer, namely those which come from the temple?

 

No, because you can pay nothing in tithing and still have a temple recommend.

 

If someone has no personal 'increase', there is nothing to pay 10% of.  They can still receive every blessing though, including temple blessings, if they are otherwise worthy of them.