This article claims Mitt Romney “underpaid” his tithing because he came close but didn’t quite pay the full 10 percent.
This article was actually pretty fair and generously quotes Church members.
This article says Romney gave the Church part of his “most lucrative business deals.”
I have spent some time explaining to non-members that saying the church “requires” 10 percent tithing is a bit inaccurate. There are people who tithe on gross, there are others who tithe on net. All of us have had times when we haven’t been able to pay any tithing — or have paid very little — but still consider ourselves in good standing. In my case, I usually don’t tithe for the first few months of the calendar year (this is when I am paying off Christmas bills) but make it up later in the year.
Should you deduct any alimony payments you make from your 10 percent? I asked a bishop once and he shrugged and asked me to pray about it. So, in reality, the “requirement” is a matter of my own conscience and personal revelation, not some strict standard determined by a harsh paymaster.
On a positive note, several non-member friends have made positive comments about Mitt’s tithing being generous and a sign of true Christian charity. So, perhaps this media obsession with his tithing has some positive aspects in that it shows that Mitt truly is who he pretends to be, at least when it comes to his personal money and his Church activity.
The whole point of this is opponents of his trying to remind Republican evangelicals that he is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and class warefare participants that he is rich, and put a question mark in Mormon’s minds that he might not be a fully faithful member of the Church. It has nothing to do with tithing or truth.
They are obsessed with it, because they don’t understand it and it’s a foreign concept to most. I realize that tithing is an anciet commandment, but most people don’t do it, and/or churches do not require it. I have often thought the people that stand there in disbelief, do so because they would never pay and have a hard time understanding why others would pay. Jettboy also raises some good points.
I also think its interesting the media always paints it as a “requirement”. While I don’t disagree with that, it’s not like the missionaries just go around saying, “well it’s a requirement you better do it or you can’t join the club.” It’s pretty lazy reporting to not dig into the reasons why he pays tithing, especially since it’s the reporters who are claim to help us know and understand the candidates better by writing about them. And for the cynic it could also serve the purpose of tearing him down a few notches by pointing out that Romney pays tithing because he believes everything on the earth and everything he owns belongs to (“the Mormon”) God in the first place. On second thought, maybe not…
A good link that just popped into my twitter feed, Brother Otterson’s On Faith column in the WaPo for today: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/mormons-and-the-practice-of-tithing/2012/01/25/gIQAvybOQQ_blog.html
Much of the media are pointing out his tithing, and saying that it is just more evidence that he isn’t cheating on taxes. Also, I’ve seen it compared with others. Pres Obama donated just over 1%, while Biden only donated about $360 dollars (like Al Gore, who is worth $110M).
So, we see a man who puts his money where his money is. While all the candidates try and show they are good people who care for others, Mitt’s donating about 16% to all charities shows that he is serious about helping out.
Rameumptom,
I’d like to offer a correction to the claim that President Obama donated 1% of his income to charity. According to this CNNMoney article, in 2010 Both the Obamas and the Romneys donated about 14% of their incomes to charity.
That note on the sidebar about Obama’s donations is misleading, since it stops 6 years ago. Why not give more current information?
http://money.cnn.com/pf/taxes/storysupplement/candidates-tax-returns/?hpt=hp_t1
Are you serious about the 1% remark? You must be getting your news from “faux news”. Here’s a graphic with their tax returns from CNN: http://money.cnn.com/pf/taxes/storysupplement/candidates-tax-returns/?hpt=hp_t2
As you can see, when comparing apples to apples (aka 2010 tax returns), Obama and Mitt both paid 14% to charity. Gingrich only paid 3%.
I have to assume that “obsession” is here defined as “a few mentions in some political media outlets on an issue peripherally related to a mostly irrelevant story anyway”
I often say, if conservatives want to convince me that faith-based charity is a viable substitute for government safety nets, just show me the money. Mitt, to his credit, is doing just that – agreed.
My bad on Pres Obama. I misread the data regarding him. However, it still stands to show that many others have given very little percentage-wise compared to Romney.
Romney seems like a flip-flopping opportunist on the outside, but his tithing record shows that he actually has a core of integrity in his spiritual life.
Romney views secular life and church life differently. Romney shamelessly postures around in his secular life: pro-choice, pro-life, moderate to conservative, tells tall tales about being “converted” to pro-life.
But I guarantee that in Romney’s church life, he’s always said that he is pro-life. He’s always been a full tithe payer, always taken all of his callings seriously. I’m sure he was an inspired stake president, who gave inspired callings, blessings, and council to his flock.
But for Romney, the business and secular is “the world,” and you don’t have to have integrity to get ahead. The ends justify the means. Getting real things done is all that matters. If you have to lie to do it, so be it.
The “world” is an unholy, fallen den of sin. Romney honestly wants to make a difference as president, but to do so, he has to lie to the liberals to get elected, and then lie to the conservatives to get elected. THEN, he can be the effective pragmatist who accomplishes real good in the world.
Christian J, I have always said that if everybody would give 10 percent of their gross or even 10 percent of their net there would not be much of a need for a welfare state. Government could then spend money on its constitutional obligations — defense, the courts, etc — and taxes would be much lower and we would all be happy.
Nate, I would suggest that most people reading this are not much more righteous than Mitt Romney on the lying issue. We all tell little fibs here and there (although we try not to). Mitt Romney is engaged in marketing in the sense that he is marketing himself, and that involves some exaggeration, unfortunately. I would also point out that sometimes a supposed contradiction is not really one, just a different way of saying the same thing. To give one example, Joseph Smith is accused of contradicting himself in his different accounts of the First Vision, but in reality he is telling the same story to different audiences, emphasizing different things at different times. So, he is not lying, just offering different information. Romney and all politicians do some of that. Note: this does not mean Romney has not contradicted himself — he has — but I don’t go for the “Mitt Romney is a lying SOB” school of thought. He is probably more honest than many other politicians, certainly more honest than Gingrich, to throw out one egregious example.
Maybe I’ve simply missed seeing where this has already been brought up in the news, but I keep waiting for the media to bring up how Romney has repeatedly promised in the temple to follow the Law of Consecration (“consecrate your time, talent, and everything to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”). I think Post #3 started going there with “everything he owns belongs to (“the Mormon”) God”… If it hasn’t already been discussed by the media, it may be just a matter of time until the temple ceremony gets thoroughly dissected (in the general election?). The ceremony’s text appears all over the web and I think this promise is particularly concerning.
Me too, Jason T.
Geoff B.,
I’d argue that most of us lie more than Romney does. At least I can’t see another reason why he’d be so bad at it.
Seeing that your “Obama gives almost nothing to charity” comment was wrong, how about deleting the link on the side bar that still makes that claim?
Tim would you prefer Obama only have to charity after he was elected President? 😉
Maybe he was waiting to be proud of his country for the first time before helping others.
Those were just zingers for fun. I’m actually pleased that he became a great example in this regard although as a public servant I’d like to see our political leaders actually not making out like tycoons in and after office.
Tim, Obama did give almost nothing to charity until he decided to run for president. Them’s the facts.
Below is Obama’s charitable giving expressed as percentage of his income for the years 2000 to 2006:
2000: 0.9%
2001: 0.5%
2002: 0.4%
2003: 1.4%
2004: 1.2%
2005: 4.7%
2006: 6.1%
Now he gives more, and good for him, but when he was making more than $200k earlier in his life he gave almost nothing.
http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/10/31/patrick-poole-guest-post-obama-and-biden-refused-to-spread-their-wealth/
Actually, Obama graduated from Harvard Law School in 1991, and it took the Obamas at least 13 years to pay off their law school debt. For the first ten years, in fact, their school loan payments were more than their mortgage. So it shouldn’t be a big surprise that they weren’t really in the best position to donate a large percentage of their income to charity. They did, however, take jobs that helped their community (and thus their country) that didn’t pay as well as other, more lucrative jobs they were eligible for. An article that uses numbers from 2001, when their student loan payments were still higher than their mortgage, and while they were still struggling financially (Obama had yet to publish his books) is misleading.
I wonder about Nate’s comment that Romney views secular life and church life differently. I’m not sure a true believer—that is, someone who believes in the basic precepts of our church, say the Plan of Salvation can view them differently. Our beliefs can be construed as different, but in my case, my views are about being true to myself in the church. Not differently (although certainly different from some “active” Mormons) but in line with what I believe. So, say my pro-choice views, for instance. I believe those views are not so different from my core Mormon beliefs. Swear to God. This is probably a wing-nut opinion, but when I sit in Relief Society and hear the sisters condemn others as sinners for things like abortion, I think they are the sinners and that God realizes they’re out to lunch. So maybe a “true” Mormon can detour without viewing things so very differently. I think so.
As both Obama and Romney were planning on running for President both last time and this time, let’s compare more recent numbers:
“On 2010 income of $1.7 million, President Obama paid 26 percent in taxes and gave $245,000, or 14 percent, to charity…”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/the-generosity-of-the-faithful/2012/01/25/gIQAQQJtSQ_story.html
Not hugely different from Romney, except that Obama paid a much higher percentage of taxes. But that’s only if we’re actually comparing apples to apples…
Tithing is not charity. Maybe in the eyes of the world, but not according to LDS doctrine.
In LDS doctrine, tithing is giving 10% of what the Lord has given us, back to Him. It is not used to feed the poor or support causes that need help. Talks on tithing in conference never appeal to our charity, but to our obedience. They say, “God doesn’t need our tithing, He owns everything already.” Rather, tithing is “fire insurance.” A test of faith. A mark of obedience. Those who don’t pay don’t get a temple recommend, and all the blessings of the Celestial Kingdom that come because of that. We are never asked to be “generous with our tithes.” We are only to be generous with our offerings, on top of tithing.
Mormons should never feel smug or superior because we give more “charity” than others. Tithing is not charity. The only charity Mormons give is on top of tithing, our fast offerings or other contributions, either to the church or outside sources.
People like Obama are much more generous with their charitable offerings than most Mormons, because first of all, Obama never was commanded to pay tithing by a prophet of God, and what he gives, he gives freely, out of goodness of his heart. Mormons give because of commandment, not the goodness of their heart.
Show me a Mormon’s other non-tithing offerings, and that is what I will use to measure how much they stack up to the charitable generosity of non-Mormons.
I just want to say, what I fear most for Romney is what he may become in the process of seeking to be elected. I hope he can maintain the same kind of personal greatness that donates away an inheritance, donates away his governors salary, refuses to be paid for saving the Olympics, etc. For those accusing him of “not working” while his investments accrue wealth, you have to consider the alternative that he didn’t keep trying to build up a massive financial empire like many wealth people do — and I’m not knocking them for it. Indeed, the economy would probably be better if Romney was more engaged in running, funding, turning around businesses, etc.
But at the heart of it all, there is something I admire in the guy for his personal integrity and I think that would be great to see in a leader. Obama also has a certain kind of personal integrity but it’s appeal is dramatically lessened being combined more with a zeal toward power and trying to “win” at political issues. Romney wants to restore America to some idealized form of greatness that he believes in, that I think most Mormons have a gut feeling (yearning) for, even though it’s probably never existed. I really hope in the process, he doesn’t destroy himself by getting entangled in politics. I fear the mere nature of running for the Presidency changes a person.
Annegb, I agree with your comments on the importance of being true to ourselves and the church and not having a “church persona” and a “public persona”. I think the possibility of this divide between the two personas is perhaps what I mean when I fear running for and winning the Presidency may change Romney… will the public persona consume the gospel-oriented one? I hope not.
But in general, I’m confused that you’d be quick to condemn people as sinners, for themselves labeling as sinners a person who chooses destroys a live which is dependent on them. They’re wrong for calling those who destroy dependent, developing lives a “sinner” but it’s ok for others to call them a sinner merely for their choice of words? I guess it’s more a frustration with the unwillingness on their part to just keep their mouth shut…?
Still, I can say I would rather die, suffer abuse, rape, tortue, if it would save the life of a child in the womb. It’s nothing but grandstanding online, I know. But thinking about this subject for more than a few seconds turns my insides out. I realize, this is not a choice in the matter… I’m just saying in the grand scheme of things in my opinion, I think my death, abuse, etc. is preferable in my own view of the “cosmic moral balancing scales of justice” than to have a baby needlessly aborted.
Shifting gears, People used to give up their life to do something as “meaningless” as hold up a flag in a battle… now we cavalierly destroy it in the name of choice and “ownership” of our bodies. It’s strange we can’t culturally value and build-up the image of mother hood (bringing a new life into the world!) to even be on part with that of rallying to a flag in generations past. (Strange analogy I know, I’m just thinking of some of the things people used to sacrifice their lives for, compared to the extent we now go as a society to -avoid- sacrificing)
Sorry to divert into this topic, it’s a very saddening one for me.
Sorry Nate, but that is baloney. Tithing IS a form of charity. Much of our tithing goes towards charitable efforts, including sending poor young men on missions, etc. Yes, we encourage additional offerings, but they are in addition to it.
By itself, Tithing is a terrestrial law, but also a component of the celestial law of consecration.
Charity is the act of performing a good work for another. This can include tithing. Malachi tells us that we must pay our tithes so that the storehouse may be filled. Guess what? In LDS parlance “storehouse” means the bishop’s storehouse, which is directly tied to helping the poor. Tithings are used for emergency programs and other charitable programs.
From the evil wikipedia, we read:
“The LDS Church also spends much of its money collected through tithing on missionary, educational, and other programs which the LDS church considers to be within its mission. Although the families of Mormon missionaries (usually young men ages 19–25 or young women ages 21–25) generally pay US$400 a month for missions,[21] additional general funds of the LDS Church support missionaries unable to pay for their own missions. Additionally, the LDS Church provides a mission office and mission home for each of its 340 missions and pays for television advertising offering free copies of the Book of Mormon, the Bible, and church-produced videos and DVDs. The cost of printing or producing these materials is also covered entirely by the church since they are distributed for free. The LDS Church also owns and subsidizes education at its three universities and LDS Business College. Throughout the world, it also supports Scouting programs for young men.[22] In addition, it supports its Seminary and Institute programs with tithing money.”
So it isn’t quite as you make it sound.
Rame, I suppose that some members could view their tithing as charity, and certainly evil wikipedia can spin it that way, but the church does not refer to tithing as charity, neither in it’s doctrine, nor in it’s admonitions to the saints. You never hear “the church needs your generosity. We need your help! The Lord needs you to give generous tithes.” Rather, it is always, “The Lord doesn’t need the blessings of your tithing, YOU need the blessings of paying tithing” and, “Will a man rob God?” Doctrinally, tithing is always referred to as a duty. Never a voluntary charitable gift. It is only in regard to fast offerings, that appeals are made to charity, “Is this not the fast I have given, to draw out thy soul to the poor?”
I’ve frequently heard in church that the bishop’s storehouse is run, not by tithing, but by fast offerings, and thus, we must give generous fast offerings, because tithing is reserved for temples, missionary work, and other non-welfare allocations.
We do not question where our tithing goes, or how it is used. All we know is that it is vaguely, for building up of the kingdom and establishing Zion. It is a covenant, a sign of obedience, a mark upon the Saints. It has nothing to do with our desire to “help out” or give because we’ve been blessed. Even those who have nothing are expected to give tithing.
Consecration is not charity either. If God demands 100%, you give 100%. If He demands 10%, you give 10%.
In the eyes of the world, all this is considered “charity.” But we know what charity really is: The pure love of Christ. It is to see a need, and freely give of time, money, or anything we have to help out something that needs our help. Charity is defined by the heart, when it unbidden, gives love and substance to another out of it’s goodness.
Tithing is not unbidden. It is demanded of the Lord. It is a fixed amount, no more, no less. Eternal consequences are threatened if it is not followed.
The subject of whether or not tithing is charity is a common topic among Evangelicals, some of whom claim to count offerings to the poor as part of their “tithing.”
This article explains the scriptural difference between the two from an Evangelical perspective. I believe it also perfectly applies to Mormons.
http://einron.hubpages.com/hub/tithesandcharity
Nate,
I understand your distinction. But I think what you’re saying is tithing is pure obedience, whereas charity is pure love, giving freely of time, talents, etc. These principles are not mutually exclusive. Yes, there are two great laws: love God, and love your neighbor, but they are inextricably connected. See Mosiah 2:17. The giving of tithes is not charity per se, but the consequences often involve charity. Can’t I be charitable in my heart while giving tithes, knowing that my sacrifice, my obedience, is resulting in helping others? After all, “charity is defined by the heart.”
Nate, I don’t think you have thought through your number 22 very carefully. According to you logic, a Latter-day Saint who gave 3 percent of his income in fast offerings is more charitable than somebody who gave a full 10 percent tithe and then 2 percent in fast offerings. Do you really think somebody who gives less is more charitable?
Tim, I would refer you to Matthew 6:1-4:
1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
2 Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
I will not be voting for Romney in the caucuses, but we have two very interesting cases here. One man has (presumably) paid tithing his entire adult life and never bragged about it. In fact, nobody knew about his tithing until he was dragged into releasing his tax returns. And then we find he is quite generous with his tithing, but note he never bragged about it. And the other man paid virtually no “alms” at all until he became a more public figure and began thinking about running for president, and all of the sudden he is letting everybody know about how generous he is, and becoming very obvious about his personal charitable giving. These verses appear to be written just for people like him. He is a hypocrite indeed.
Geoff B.,
I refer you to #19. At the time, they were paying more on their student loans than on their mortgage.
And seriously, tithing plus another 5% isn’t all that impressive, especially for someone with Romney’s wealth. Jon Huntsman Sr. donates considerably more. Most ordinary members of the church don’t go around telling people how much they donate, but I know of a couple middle class couples who very quietly donate a far greater percentage than Romney does.
Tim, these points may or may not be relevant, but it is still nevertheless true that Obama gave almost nothing to charity for many years. So did I by the way, until I got a testimony of the importance of helping others by your actions and through giving to charity. Let’s hope Obama has learned that lesson and will continue to give to charity the rest of his life, not just to blow his trumpet so he can be reelected.
“And seriously, tithing plus another 5% isn’t all that impressive”
Whoa! I can’t believe you said that.
“especially for someone with Romney’s wealth”
Huh?
“but I know of a couple middle class couples who very quietly donate a far greater percentage than Romney does”
Good for them! And so this makes you Romney’s judge why?
“Tithing is not charity.”
*slaps forehead*
Geoff,
I do sort of have to agree that we’re in no real position to judge Obama’s charity giving. The theory (that you advance — perhaps as a joke) that he changed when he became president is really no more compelling then the alternative theory being advanced that it was a function of income vs. debt.
Geoff, I do think that someone who gives 10% of tithing plus 2% offerings is less generous than one who gives no tithing and 3% offerings.
Tithing is not about generosity. It’s about faith and obedience. I think it is a sin to consider ourselves generous for having paid a full tithe. Rather, the best we can think of ourselves is that we are not thieves, because we have not robbed Him.
I have a friend who lost the spirit of tithing and decided he would give his 10% to charitable causes of his own choosing, because he thought he could better direct those to worthy sources other than the church, which has plenty of money, and uses it for expensive temples.
My friend is now being generous but disobedient, like Saul, who decided it was better to save the animals for sacrifice than obey the prophet’s command to kill all the animals. Once tithing is seen as being generous, it loses it’s whole purpose. It doesn’t matter what the church does with tithing. It could waste it entirely on outrageously priced Parisian chandeliers for the celestial room, and it’s not our authority to judge.
Tithing is an Old Testament commandment, not a New Testament commandment. It is in the same spirit as sacrifice of animals, which has no practical value, accept as a demonstration of faith. The spirit of painting the blood over your door frame so the destroying angel will pass by.
Nate, just because the Church “says” it the way you think they do, and I’m not convinced they do so in all instances, does not mean it is not charity. That I can deduct it from my taxes as a charitable donation, and the Church does not disagree with me being able to make such a deduction, suggests that they do see it as a form of charitable contribution.
The difference between it and other contributions is that it is required for entrance in temple and to be considered a member in good standing. This has to do with it being a terrestrial law, and the necessity of being at least a terrestrial person in order to hold major callings, and go into the temple.
But it still is a charitable contribution. It benefits the Church, which is considered a charity. It pays for poor people to go on missions. It pays for bishop storehouses. It goes towards lots of charitable things.
Nate,
Can you help me understand the distinction here? Is it not charity because of how it’s used? Is it not charity because it’s a commandment? Is it not charity because we pay it out of obligation?
Nate, I just have to disagree with you strongly on this. Having been in a bishopric, I can tell you that there is simply no guidance from the church or in the handbooks anywhere near what you are claiming. Members are urged to pay 10 percent in tithing and to give generous fast offerings and to pay for other issues (missionary funds, etc) that may come up. Fast offerings are in theory for personal charity, but the reality is that many bishops and branch presidents don’t receive nearly enough in fast offerings and are given money by the stake (which may receive it directly from Salt Lake) for many charitable activities. So, in practice tithing DOES go to charitable activities directly. In addition, there are many charitable activities that are part of a bishop’s budget where funding comes directly from the stake, which is given money by Salt Lake.
So, tithing clearly funds charitable activities, and most members understand this and see it as part of their charitable giving (which is one of the reasons it is tax deductible, btw).
If your point is that people should not see just giving their 10 percent and a modest fast offering as being “good enough” because they are just fulfilling a commandment, then OK, point taken and agreed. But your attempt to completely separate tithing and other charitable giving simply does not work as a practical matter.
I also deduct my tithing from my taxes, and I can see how one would view it in that way, because the funds are used to support causes that other traditional charities also donate to. It is defined by the world in a certain way, and when I am doing worldly things like taxes, that’s how I define it.
But I think there is a danger in viewing it as charity from a theological perspective. If you view tithing as your gift to the church, a voluntary contribution from your own bounty, then you in effect take ownership of the tenth, saying “this was mine, but I’m going to give it to you.” However, the true spirit of tithing is that it was never ours, but was always the Lord’s, and the Lord always claimed it as His, to do with as His authorized servants see fit, however that may be. Tithing is a sign that we have faith and take God at His word. So yes, it is not charity because it was never ours, it is a commandment to return it to the Lord, and from our perspective, it doesn’t matter how the church uses it.
One could save a lot of lives, feed a lot of starving people in Africa with the 10th we give to the church, that it instead spends on plush carpeting and marbled halls. The essence of tithing is not about saving the world, feeding the hungry, or even perfecting the saints or redeeming the dead. While it may do all those things according to the wisdom of the servants of the Lord who distribute it, to the saints, it is merely a commandment, and a sign of a covenant between them and the Lord. It is not up to me to question the use of the money. I don’t give tithing because “it’s for a good cause.” Rather, I return what is rightfully the Lord’s to Him, which He has requested for use by his authorized servants.
Nate, under that same reasoning it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to give charitably, particularly those who have made temple covenants, since everything we have is the Lord’s.
Nate if you answered 35, I think you’d end up providing a textbook example of a distinction without a difference. My feeling is probably close to yours, in that it’s not what you give that represents true charity, but it’s what is in your heart. If we view charity as the pure love of Christ, paying tithing can be an outward sign of that love, but clearly you can also not have that true sense of charity and pay tithing.
But… I think we go a bridge to far if we sample say tithing is not charity, case closed. True, it’s in the heart, but that’s true of fast offerings as well. If I just pay it out of obligation, without feeling a sense of christ-like love and realizing as best as I’m able to the true value of the people’s lives that I’m hoping to bless… well it’s also not charity according to this viewpoint.
You can tell it’s charity if the person is filled with a love toward man and God.
Nate, I want to make it clear that you have put forward a thought-provoking viewpoint that many people disagree with, and that is OK. I don’t think you have made a good case, but you are a valued commenter here, and I appreciate you trying to challenge people on this issue. There are many things we will all learn about true charity over the millennia to come.
Thanks for the defense Geoff. Chris, I agree that tithing can be paid in the spirit of charity, or strictly in the spirit of obedience. That would make a difference in how it is perceived by the giver.
I personally pay tithing in the spirit of obedience to a commandment. I pay fast offerings in the spirit of charity for the less fortunate.
SilverRain, that’s an interesting point, and seems to contradict my case.
However, I would point out that both tithing and consecration are unique, in that we give them, by way of commandment, to God’s authorized priesthood authority. By paying it, we are in effect, recognizing the authority of that priesthood to act in the name of God. Paying tithing is a sign, not of compassion and generosity, but of testimony and faith in an organization we believe hold’s the key’s of God’s kingdom on earth.
But charity is different, because we give, not to the priesthood, but to the “other,” outside the realm of the priesthood. Fast Offerings still fall under “charity” because they are not a requirement or a commandment. Our leaders appeal to our compassion for the “other,” not our obedience to a law.
Consecration as practiced by today’s Saints is not the fullness of the law, and is not true consecration. True consecration is to give all that you have to the church, and the church lends back to you what you need according to the wisdom of the bishop. This law was introduced by Joseph Smith, and included in the endowment. Why is it still in the endowment if it is not practiced in it’s fulness? Possibly because Joseph wanted to prepare us for the day it would be required. Or possibly, as a reminder that all we possess, is in fact the Lords, and we, in our hearts should be ready at any moment to give when asked, or when we see a need within the church.
However we choose to interpret the temple covenant is our own business. But I believe the covenant refers to the fulness of the law of consecration, which we should be ready and willing at any time to surrender to, not in the spirit of charity, but in the spirit of total and complete submission of everything we are and have, to the church.
Nate
Fast offerings and charity are a requirement in the gospel of Jesus Christ if you want to retain a remission of your sins (Mosiah 4) and if you want God to answer your prayers (Alma 34). However they do not rise to the level of being a “test of fellowship”.
err.. “rise to the level” makes it sound like I meant other “tests of fellowship” are more important and on a higher level. That’s not what I intended to convey.
Geoff, you trying to make President Obama’s charitable giving look like a bad thing says more about you than it does about the President.
And I’ll happily keep claiming it on my taxes, but I’ve never understood how me giving money to a rich corporation so they can build expensive temples is considered charity. Personally I only feel like fast offerings really count.
Jjohnsen, I love you man!
Jjohnsen, I still love you, but I would like to make one politically related point. Having been a liberal myself for many years, I know there are several subjects that are very touchy to the liberal way of thinking. One of those things is whole issue of liberals being generous with other people’s money but not so generous with their own money. Liberals know this is a big problem for them and makes them look like hypocrites, so they get very defensive on this issue. Witness the reaction to Pres. Obama’s lack of charity until he started contemplating the presidency, and then all of a sudden he realized people would be watching so he started giving. This is incredibly hypocritical behavior.
There are two reasonable responses to this, which are: 1)”yeah, a lot of politicians are like that, oh well” and 2)”yeah, but now he’s very generous with his money, and perhaps he has learned something that will last the rest of his life.” I don’t think Pres. Obama’s lack of giving is actually that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things (the deficit and Obamacare are two much worse sins), but given this is a thread about tithing, it is worth bringing it up.
Unfortunately, liberals usually launch unreasonable, personal attacks when they have lost the argument, and in this case they have. Obama’s behavior was hypocritical. Get over it. Lots of politicians are hypocritical in many ways. That’s just the way the world is today, unfortunately.
Here’s the latest shocker headline:
Mitt Romney’s family baptized Ann Romney’s atheist father into Mormon church a year AFTER his death
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2093241/Mitt-Romneys-family-baptized-Ann-Romneys-atheist-father-Mormon-church-year-AFTER-death.html
GASP!
By the end of the primaries, the general public will have had half of the missionary lessons. If the Mittster can get the Republican nomination, maybe the mainsream media will eventually get around to all the missionary discussions!
Some journalists have accused the church’s “I am Mormon” campaign as being intended to help Mitt win. I think it’s the other way around: Mitt’s run for the presidency is a giant missionary effort on his part.
Book, I am still not sure whether the Romney candidacy is a good or bad thing for the Church overall. Might be an interesting subject to explore.