I'm beginning to have a tithing problem, only not in the traditional sense

[10THAmendment]

Even as a true believing missionary teaching the principle of tithing always felt very wrong to me. Some of the time these people didn’t even have enough food for themselves. And asking them to pay such a big portion of their almost non-existent income to a multi billion dollar corporation that builds shopping malls just did not ring true. 

Edited November 22, 2019 by 10THAmendment

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

Even as a true believing missionary teaching the principle of tithing always felt very wrong to me. Some of the time these people didn’t even have enough food for themselves. And asking them to pay such a big portion of their almost non-existent income to a multi billion dollar corporation that builds shopping malls just did not ring true. 

The shopping malls and other commercial interests pay for themselves. They are beside the point. 
 

No one has the right to cancel God’s commandments —- especially not Church leaders and not missionaries who are acting as His agents. 
 

Regarding whether the principle is “wrong,” have you considered the story of Elijah and the widow of Zerephath? See the video linked below:

 https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media-library/video/2011-03-071-elijah-and-the-widow-of-zarephath?lang=eng

Edited November 23, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[10THAmendment]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The shopping malls and other commercial interests pay for themselves. They are beside the point. 
 

No one has the right to cancel God’s commandments —- especially not Church leaders and not missionaries who are acting as His agents. 
 

Regarding whether the principle is “wrong,” have you considered the story of Elijah and the widow? 

They are most definitely NOT beside the point. They could use their billions of dollars in income from the private sector to build churches and temples. Not build malls and buy office buildings to rent out. 
 

And where do you think their billions of dollars of stock originally came from? At what point did their stocks purchased with tithing funds no longer be considered tithing related?

Edited November 22, 2019 by 10THAmendment

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

Yes, they do have such income, and they also have the right to share how they feel about tithing.

Are they claiming to be full tithe payers and enjoying the privileges thereof, even though they don’t pay tithing?

[Anonymous Mormon]

1 hour ago, 10THAmendment said:

They are most definitely NOT beside the point. They could use their billions of dollars in income from the private sector to build churches and temples. Not build malls and buy office buildings to rent out. 
 

And where do you think their billions of dollars of stock originally came from? At what point did their stocks purchased with tithing funds no longer be considered tithing related?

That is a really interesting question and I would love to know if anyone has an answer to it.

The church has had business investments in commercial businesses at least since they arrived in SLC (excluding the failed ones started earlier in Nauvoo). If the initial investment in these was made more than 100 years ago, it would not bother me at all that the church continues to make these separate and that they actually make money for the church. If the church was actively using tithing moneys to continually fund the business interests year after year, that is a deeper concern.

Does anyone know if there is a known answer to this? 

[Scott Lloyd]

31 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

That is a really interesting question and I would love to know if anyone has an answer to it.

The church has had business investments in commercial businesses at least since they arrived in SLC (excluding the failed ones started earlier in Nauvoo). If the initial investment in these was made more than 100 years ago, it would not bother me at all that the church continues to make these separate and that they actually make money for the church. If the church was actively using tithing moneys to continually fund the business interests year after year, that is a deeper concern.

Does anyone know if there is a known answer to this? 

It’s not the first time the question has been raised (it seems to be a standard talking point for critics of the Church on this subject), but it has never struck me as worth worrying about. It has always been enough for me to know that the commercial, tax-paying entities are self sustaining. Their existence helps keep the Church stable and robust as it carries forward its mission of blessing mankind. Time was when the Church was tiny, oppressed and vulnerable. I’m glad those days are in the past. 

[10THAmendment]

52 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

That is a really interesting question and I would love to know if anyone has an answer to it.

The church has had business investments in commercial businesses at least since they arrived in SLC (excluding the failed ones started earlier in Nauvoo). If the initial investment in these was made more than 100 years ago, it would not bother me at all that the church continues to make these separate and that they actually make money for the church. If the church was actively using tithing moneys to continually fund the business interests year after year, that is a deeper concern.

Does anyone know if there is a known answer to this? 

There has been no way of knowing ever since the church stopped releasing financial data and started doing everything behind closed doors. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, 10THAmendment said:

There has been no way of knowing ever since the church stopped releasing financial data and started doing everything behind closed doors. 

For profit business have to pay taxes, etc. And tithing being a charitable donation iirc cannot be used for a purpose it is not designated for, such as supporting a for profit business.  So even if some of this is not public knowledge, isn’t it tracked by the government?

Maybe tax people could comment on this?

[Jake Starkey]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are they claiming to be full tithe payers and enjoying the privileges thereof, even though they don’t pay tithing?

Not your business, Scott Lloyd: that's their them and their file leadership who preside over them.

[Kenngo1969]

I'm sure this point has been made in this thread already, but I'll add my voice to the chorus.  If I give money or other resources to the Lord, that money or those resources become His to do with as He sees fit.  If some human agent to whom I have entrusted those resources in the Lord's name misuses them, then it is the Lord's responsibility to deal with that misuse.

As Martin Harris said when he publicly gave Joseph Smith $50, "I give this money to Joseph Smith to do the Lord's work.  No, I give it to the Lord, to do His own work."

Edited November 23, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

19 hours ago, 10THAmendment said:

Even as a true believing missionary teaching the principle of tithing always felt very wrong to me. Some of the time these people didn’t even have enough food for themselves. And asking them to pay such a big portion of their almost non-existent income to a multi billion dollar corporation that builds shopping malls just did not ring true. 

Well, if it felt "wrong" to you ... Q.E.D.?    It's unfortunate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no infrastructure or wherewithal to help those who desire the spiritual blessings of paying a full tithe meet their temporal needs when, otherwise, their ability to do so would fall short.  Oh.  Wait.    Sorry.  My bad.  Carry on!  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

Not your business, Scott Lloyd: that's their them and their file leadership who preside over them.

Not really your business to talk about their choices either, Jake...unless they have given you permission.

If you don't want people to ask questions about someone, best not to mention them at all.

Edited November 23, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If some human agent to whom I have entrusted those resources in the Lord's name misuses them, then it is the Lord's responsibility to deal with that misuse.

Or the people he has appointed stewards over such.

[Jake Starkey]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Not really your business to talk about their choices either, Jake...unless they have given you permission.

If you don't want people to ask questions about someone, best not to mention them at all.

Of course it is my business to defend for the right and moral thing, which is in this case the choices these people made.

Ask all you want, and I will answer.  Always.

[ksfisher]

4 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

Of course it is my business to defend for the right and moral thing, which is in this case the choices these people made.

Ask all you want, and I will answer.  Always.

I think what Calm is saying is that you opened the door for the question Scott asked when you introduced them into the conversation.  And your demurral to answer Scott’s question came across as rather abrupt.  

[Scott Lloyd]

On 11/23/2019 at 5:57 AM, Jake Starkey said:

Not your business, Scott Lloyd: that's their them and their file leadership who preside over them.

I don’t know who your friends are, nor am I interested in criticizing them. 
 

What I <am> doing is evaluating in principle and theory the concept of declaring oneself a full tithe payer when one does not pay tithing consistent with the Church’s definition of the term — especially where one is enjoying the ecclesiastical benefits that flow from paying a full tithing. It strikes me as duplicitous; I don’t approve. 
 

What others have pointed out here is correct: that you yourself opened the door to discussion of such behavior by raising examples of it and <discussing> them on a “discussion board” where <discussion> of matters raised for <discussion> is routinely permitted; nay, encouraged. You thus made it not only my business, but the business of virtually anyone contributing to the discussion board who chooses to discuss it. 

Edited November 24, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Jake Starkey]

Dear Clam, Scott Lloyd, and ksfisher: I have answered appropriately.  This is not your business to judge or question, really.  This is for those who made such decisions to talk with their file leaders.

You have been answered appropriately and openly.

[Calm]

On 11/23/2019 at 11:40 AM, Jake Starkey said:

Of course it is my business to defend for the right and moral thing, which is in this case the choices these people made.

Ask all you want, and I will answer.  Always.

So far all you have shared is they have income, but have chosen not to pay tithing and instead put the funds into donations to the Church in other ways.

Without context, this is useless information for this discussion.  Someone somewhere isn't paying tithing.  Nothing new or informative about that.

Context would be an explanation of why they made that choice.  It would also be helpful to know how their leaders reacted to know, not to make a judgment about their faithfulness, but to learn if leadership accepted their choice as equivalent to tithing or not.  Is this an option for someone wanting to remain in full standing with the Church or will there be social and other costs to it?  And then how they were feeling about their choice, whether it was accomplishing what they desired or had unintended consequences, etc.

Edited November 25, 2019 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

On 11/24/2019 at 7:00 PM, Jake Starkey said:

Dear Clam, Scott Lloyd, and ksfisher: I have answered appropriately.  This is not your business to judge or question, really.  This is for those who made such decisions to talk with their file leaders.

You have been answered appropriately and openly.

Not really. You didn’t answer my question about whether they are claiming to pay tithing even though they are not doing it (in conformity to what the Church defines as tithing vs other kinds of donations). All you’ve done is try to shame me for probing for more information about an account you yourself brought up. 
 

I remind you this is a discussion board. You don’t get to make flat assertions and then try to shut off discussion about them by moralizing when someone poses questions about them. 
 

 

Edited November 26, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Jake Starkey]

Yeah, really.  The question was not clear.  No, they are not claiming to pay tithing.  They are claiming the right to put their 10% where they want.  I get to tell you what these people are saying, as a flat assertion, then discuss why they are doing it.  You are asserting and moralizing they don't have the right to do so.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

They are claiming the right to put their 10% where they want.

One of the beautiful things God has given us in this life is the right to make our own choices.  We can choose to follow God's commands or not, it's our choice.  It is, however, unfortunate, when those who have numbered themselves among the faithful all their lives would decide to use their power to choose later in life to chart a course that takes them away from the covenants they have made.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Jake Starkey said:

Yeah, really.  The question was not clear.  No, they are not claiming to pay tithing.  They are claiming the right to put their 10% where they want.  I get to tell you what these people are saying, as a flat assertion, then discuss why they are doing it.  You are asserting and moralizing they don't have the right to do so.

Of course they have the right to put their money where they want to. That is not at issue here. 
 

What I am wondering — and what you still haven’t answered to my satisfaction — is whether they are claiming the privileges that come to tithe-paying members of the Church and doing it on the pretext that they are giving 10 percent of their income to donation categories other than tithing. By that reasoning, one could give 10 percent of one’s income to the Red Cross instead of paying tithing and then claim entitlement to the privileges that come to Church members who pay tithing. 

Edited November 25, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Jake Starkey]

I am not worrying about your "satisfaction" at all.  I am faithfully telling you what they have told me.  They apparently are saying this is their decision to make and are not worried about what the Bishop or me or you think.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

I am not worrying about your "satisfaction" at all.  I am faithfully telling you what they have told me.  They apparently are saying this is their decision to make and are not worried about what the Bishop or me or you think.

But why did they make the decision?  You haven’t explained that as far as I can remember. 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Jake Starkey said:

They apparently are saying this is their decision to make and are not worried about what the Bishop or me or you think.

The bishop is the Lord's agent for the ward.  I have a strong testimony that the Lord support, sustains, and watches over His bishops.  For that reason I worry about what the bishop thinks and do my best to support and sustain him as well.