User talk:Hoquiam72

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Tithing is optional? from Talk:CJC LDS

I must say that paying tithing is definately optional and voluntary in a secular sense. Of course if you believe that the Church represents the body of Christ and is being led by Him through His annointed prophet, then it is hard to see the commmandment of paying tithing as other than "required." But if you don't believe that how could it be seen as required.

Regardless of what I think(OR), in deciding if it is optional/voluntary for the encyclopedic article, we should apply the regular standards here - has someone who is noteworthy said that paying tithing is optional/voluntary. If so we included it as verifiable information and quote to it.

Finally, IMHO, it is totally voluntary since there are NO secular consequences for not paying. (Not being able to attend the temple is a spiritual consequence). There are only three (maybe four) people who know whether or not someone pays a full tithe: The Bishop, the Ward Financial Clerk, the Stake President (and maybe the Stake Financial Clerk). Of all the things that are dealt with in an administrative fashion by the Church - the annual tithing declaration is treated with the upmost in privacy. When I was clerk there were some actively attending (i.e. nearly every week) people who did not declare themselves as full-tithe payers at the end of the year. They were treated the same by everyone in the ward, including the other members of the Bishopric - I am sure most people, if asked, would say that the people in question were full-tithe payers - but it doesn't matter what they think.

Additionally, no one checks up on you - the Bishop asks the member for a declaration and the member then declares and the Bishop records it. There is no audit of your finances, no check to see what 10% of your increase should be and comparing that to how much was paid, etc. How to calculate 10%, whether it is true, etc are all left between the member and the Lord. Of course if the person declares full-tithe on a tithe of $100 for the year and is driving a new BMW the Bishop may ask a few more questions, but when it comes down to it, if the person declares full-tithe then it is a full-tithe regardless of the amount. In fact, people can pay tithing directly to the area office (especially if they are making an in-kind donation such as stock) which the Bishop/Ward Clerk/Stake President never know about - and still declare a full-tithe to the Bishop because it truly is between the member and the Lord - the Bishop doesn't even have to know about the donations. Trödel 18:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this discussion about semantics? Voluntary, Optional and Mandatory can have different meanings to each of us. Consider this. If a person is asked by a missionary 'Will you keep the word of wisdom?' a negative response means no baptism. If a missionary gets a negative to 'Will you pay a full tithe?' once again, no baptism. Even though only approx 35% of members say that they pay a full tithe, all converted members, born in the covenant or not, recognize that paying a full tithe is mandatory for full membership in the church. To argue otherwise is akin to arguing that eating is voluntary and driving the speed limit is voluntary. Sure they are voluntary in theory but one is necessary for survival and the other is required by law. I find phrasing such as members are required to pay a full tithe to enjoy full membership’ to be just as wrong as ‘tithing is voluntary’. Would something like, ‘members agree to pay tithes and offerings and to take upon themselves the name of Christ as part of their baptismal covenants’ suffice? Seriously, I don’t see the NPOV way to phrase this. How is this type of thing treated on the entries of other religions? Hoquiam72 08:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

In my mind this is more than just semantics. This is a free agency issue. We all have the agency to choose what we want to do in this life. However, there are consequences for our choices. To say that tithing is required because you can't attend the temple is confusing to people who are unfamiliar with The Church of Jesus Christ. For example, some will think that they can't attend a weekly worship (some religions call the meetinghouse a temple).

Secondly, you use the example that it is required for baptism. That is true, but again it is a consequence - if you want to be baptised, i.e. make a covenant with God that you will keep his commandments in return for him washing away your sins and accepting you into His church, then you have to make the covenant - to pay tithing, live the word of wisdom, etc. Those are the commandments. All members have sins, such as not paying tithing among many others, and the consequences of those sins vary as far as full fellowhip with the church goes. So, required means what - you can't come to church, you're not welcome at church, you can't take the sacrament, you can't have a calling, ... Those are all much different than saying that you are required to pay tithing. Same with at baptism - you are required to covenant to keep the commandment of tithing - but you don't have to pay 10% of your last year's paychecks, or the paychecks for the last 6 months, or whatever - that is why I object to using reuquired. Trödel 16:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am searching for something between voluntary and required, without the conotations imputed by non-Mormons. Would 'Many members choose to pay thithes and offerings. The paying of tithes is considered a commandment by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.' work?