Should Tithing Be Paid Even If Basic Necessities Can't Be Met?

I have been asked multiple times in my life about whether someone should pay tithing if they can't meet the basic needs of their family at the time - and by "basic needs" I mean things like food, utilities, modest housing, etc.  These are people who are living within a careful budget - whose difficulties are not due to ignorance or extravagance.

I have been out of work multiple times in my life and been in a situation where I was in the situation I just described.  Some people have experienced miraculous financial help when they have needed it; I have not - and my experience over decades of my own life and watching others testifies to me that miraculous help is not a matter of someone's level of faith.  I have paid tithing in those situations, but I have received fast offering assistance at the same time.  I have no problem with the advice to pay tithing first if, and only if, the Church then turns around and helps the person / family through fast offerings make the payments they skipped in order to pay tithing. That sort of advice demands a true partnership, in my opinion - at least until circumstances change and help no longer is needed.

If reciprocal help is not being offered in the situations I described above, I believe food and other absolute necessities come first. 

Paying "Back Tithing": Why I Don't Believe in It

I have known of quite a few situations where someone has not paid tithing for a while, for multiple reasons, and then decided to return to paying it.  In one case, an active member thought she had set up an automatic payment process, so she hadn't focused on it for a few months and only realized belatedly that the process had not been activated and, therefore, she actually hadn't made the payments.  There was no way for her to pay the entire amount that would have constituted a full tithe for that period, and she was distraught about it - going so far as to consider giving her Bishop her temple recommend for a period of time.

This friend asked me for my advice, and the following is a summary of what I told her:

1) Honest mistakes are honest mistakes. There is no need whatsoever to "make up" payments that can't be paid.

Think of a convert who is baptized in September. No reasonable person would insist that she pay tithing for the first eight months of the year. You are in the same situation, in principle. If I was your Bishop, there is no way I would tell you that you are "behind in your tithing". Some would; many wouldn't; I absolutely would not.

3) Honest mistakes are not sins and, thus, do not require confession or repentance in the same way that intentional actions do - and there is nothing in our theology that says people are punished by God for honest mistakes. Read our 2nd Article of Faith. It says we are punished only for our own sins - and your situation is not sin in any way I would define that word.

4) Since honest mistakes do not require confession, there is no absolute need to see a Bishop about this situation, unless you feel you need to do so. Now that you are aware of this, it is fine if you start paying tithing again and leave it at that. I can't say that strongly enough. You do not need to "confess" this or speak with your Bishop about it, unless it is important to you that you do so. Realize that if you do talk with him, there is a chance he will take a hardline stance.  Most Bishops will not; yours might.  His reaction is out of your control. 

5) My most personal advice: BREATHE! Take a long, slow, deep breath and use this as a learning experience to understand grace better and feel the power of our construction of the Atonement. You didn't do anything wrong, and you aren't going to be punished by God for an honest mistake.  Even if it had been a conscious decision, there is nothing in our theology or the Church Handbook of Instructions that dictates payment of "back tithing" if you are unable to do so. 

The Widow's Mite: Jesus Did NOT Condemn Tithing

I have heard people say that Jesus condemned the payment of tithing and use the story of the widow's mite as justification for that claim.  On the other hand, I believe it's interesting to look at the story of the widow's mite, since it says something most people completely overlook - and speaks directly, I believe, to the concept of it being the condition of the heart not the amount that matters.

Jesus did NOT condemn the system that accepted the widow's mite, nor did he dismiss or chastise in any way the widow who paid it. He also didn't say she shouldn't have paid it. In fact, he praised her for paying it and condemned the rich man for not paying more. In a very real way, Jesus praised the widow for being willing to live the Law of Consecration, and he chastised the rich man for not being willing to pay tithing (comparing his percent to hers). Jesus didn't condemn tithing or any other payment of a lesser percentage than consecration would require; he framed it as the lesser commitment than the widow's willing contribution. From strictly a conceptual standpoint, that's important to recognize and consider.

I don't care personally how someone else interprets tithing or how they choose to calculate their own tithing. That is between them and God, and I refuse to try to sit in a judgment seat. Ain't happening. However, I also will not condemn or criticize any church for teaching tithing - and for having other areas where contributions can be made.

The principle, in my opinion, is to give as much as possible (money, time, talents, and everything with which God has blessed me) to God - however I define and calculate that gift. To me, buying a house that is much bigger than needed, buying an expensive car when a less expensive one will do just fine, buying high end clothing, etc. is "grinding the faces of the poor" - because the extra money spent on something that is nowhere close to a need keeps me from donating that money, in some way, to help the poor and/or build a community infrastructure that will help all alike.  Such expenditures literally keep me from full participation in the establishment of Zion, even if I pay a full and honest tithing. 

So, while I am completely open to people calculating amounts and arriving at definitions differently, I am opposed to the idea of doing it just to keep more money for themselves - over and above real need, which I also leave up to them to determine. I love the concept and principle of the law of consecration and its modern component parts (tithing, fast offerings, charitable and humanitarian giving, service, etc.), so, even though I won't try to dictate how someone participates in and implements that concept and principle, I believe strongly that everyone should look seriously at how they can try - and be willing to give up wants to provide others' needs.

Some People Who Don't Pay Tithing Can Hold a Temple Recommend

A friend of mine once told me that her Bishop refused to sign a temple recommend for her, since she didn't pay any tithing.  This good sister was married to someone who was not LDS, and she didn't work outside the home; thus, she had no personal income.  She asked me how I felt about her Bishop's decision to refuse her a temple recommend based solely on her non-payment of tithing.  The following is my response to that question: 
-----------------------------
10% of nothing is nothing.

Let me repeat that, mathematically:

0 x .10 = 0

So, someone who has no income and pays no tithing is a full tithe payer. Period. End of discussion. No gray area. 

Seriously, if you have no income, you can answer "Yes" to the tithing question without hesitation. You are a full tithe payer. You don't need to explain anything, but if you are questioned, simply say that 10% of nothing is nothing - so you are a full tithe payer. (The best example of this are youth who don't work, don't pay tithing but still have recommends to do baptisms for the dead in the temple.) 

Furthermore, there is no expectation of any kind of receiving tithing from non-members. Holding one person responsible for the actions of another person in this regard is against the teachings of the Church - even if the spouse is a member. In other words, if a spouse has no income but would pay tithing if an income existed and the other spouse does have an income but refuses to pay tithing, what I said above applies - even if the spouse with an income who refuses to pay tithing is LDS.

As a similar example, even if one spouse is excommunicated, the other spouse can remain a fully active member - and even attend the temple. Things like this are supposed to be evaluated individually.

The particular example of a non-tithe-paying member spouse is not understood by some members and local leaders, but if my wife wasn't working and I didn't pay tithing, she should not be kept from the temple for my non-payment. Period. End of discussion. I believe most members and leaders would agree with me if I had a chance to talk with them about it (and I believe the vast majority of Bishops and Stake Presidents understand it this way) - and I am certain nothing would be said to me by 99% of the local leadership if I discussed it in a Stake Leadership Meeting. It's getting the ones who don't understand to think about it that is the issue in most cases - and having it presented by someone they view as an "authority" of some kind helps, unfortunately.

We Can't Blame the LDS Church (or Other People) for How We View Things

I think our individual perceptions are based as much on our unique personalities and our personal experiences at the local level (wards, branches, stakes AND homes) as by our interaction with / exposure to the global leadership. We see the global leadership twice a year, generally, and we read something one or more of them have written once a month, generally – and that is if we are about as diligent as is “reasonably normal” (which I am not, in this case, frankly). My own “exposure” is with General Conference and whenever someone else quotes somebody in a talk or lesson. So, in “real, practical terms” . . . my impression of how “The Church” operates and affects me is influenced most strongly by my upbringing (whether or not that was in the LDS Church) and my local leaders and congregation. However, we also tend to extrapolate our experiences with local leaders onto the global leadership – and that is “reasonable”, since we don’t interact with them enough to really know them personally.

We forget that, sometimes.

This means how we view tithing, tithing settlement and temple recommend interviews, for example, is going to be comprised, largely, by how we naturally see things and what we experience most directly. If we had an authoritarian, Old Testament / Paul style father, Bishop, Seminary teacher, Stake President, etc., we will tend to view these things much differently than if we had more “teach correct principles”, New Testamnet / John style parents and leaders. If we were taught initially that it was our never-wavering duty to attend every conceivable church-related meeting we are going to react differently to tithing settlement than if we were taught initially that Sacrament Meeting is the only “required” meeting and everything else fits into the “do your best to be involved in whatever you can and still be balanced” category. If we have had Bishops and Stake Presidents who were more “questioning” (intrusive) in their approach, we will see temple recommend interview differently than someone who has had Bishops and Stake Presidents who simply asked the questions and allowed those being interviewed to give the simple “yes/no” answers.

Therefore, I am left to look at how the “official” practice is handled and, to the best of my ability, attempt to follow that practice on an individual basis – in whatever way makes the most sense to me. What that means in terms of tithing, tithing settlement and temple recommend interviews for ME, as an individual, is:

a) Officially, there is no official “one way to figure tithing”. It is left up to me to make that decision, to the best of my ability and conscience. Therefore, I pay on net income, but I have no problem whatsoever with people who pay on “increase”. I also have no problem whatsoever with someone paying their absolutely essential, non-avoidable bills and then paying on what is left – but I do have a problem, personally, if they include credit card debt or a payment on a luxury car or their projected grocery costs or anything else that, imo, moves them away from any reasonable “spirit of the law”. Iow, for me, as long as their heart is in the right place and they aren’t trying to come up with reasons to pay less just to pay less, I’m totally cool with their decision – regardless of what it is.

b) Tithing can be paid locally through the Bishop or directly to the Church. How I pay it is left up to me. Therefore, I pay mine to our Bishop, but I have no problem with those who eliminate the middleman and pay directly to SLC.

c) There is a formal setting called a tithing settlement interview / meeting, but status can be declared without participating in that formal setting. How (or even if) I declare my status is up to me. I don’t mind sitting down formally with a Bishop for tithing settlement – but I have no problem with someone declaring their status in any other way that works for them. One year, for example, we had a brutal time scheduling an official visit, so we ended up telling our Bishop in the hallway after Sacrament Meeting. That was harder for my wife to accept than it was for me, but it didn’t faze our Bishop at all.

d) The official pattern for temple recommend interviews is the asking of specific questions and the answering of those specific questions. How I answer the questions is up to me. Therefore, when I have my temple recommend interview, I answer with nothing more than a simple “yes” or “no” (or, in two cases – honesty and family relationships – with, “I’m trying my best and am not aware of anything that would keep me from attending the temple.”) – not because I’m trying to hide anything, but because I have no desire whatsoever in that setting to get into a discussion about anything. I don’t see the interview as having that purpose, so I don’t go there. I give my answer to each question directly and simply and wait for the next question. I understand intellectually and emotionally why some people want to talk about the questions more, but I don’t think that’s the right time or circumstance – and I think the risk of misunderstanding outweighs the potential positives. Those conversations can be had elsewhere, and I don’t think they are wise or productive in the temple recommend interview – as a general rule. Therefore, I choose to answer as simply as possible.

In all the cases I described above, I believe I’m following BOTH the letter AND the spirit by doing so.

Oh, and if the response is, “That’s fine, but it’s not how the Church works” – my only response possible is, “That’s how it works for me.” It might not work that way for someone else, but that also might be due as much to the difference between that someone else and me as to the differences between our respective leaders. I can’t say in each case, but it’s a very good thought experiment and chance for serious introspection, at the very least.

Even More on Tithing: Pride Has Nothing, Really, to Do with One's Financial Situation

My favorite definition of pride, at the heart, is:

anything that causes someone to feel that they have more intrinsic worth than someone else.

For the rich, that often is their riches. ("I have more because I'm smarter, more educated, more frugal, more righteous . . ." In other words, "I'm better than the poor, because . . .")

For the poor, that often is their lack of riches. ("I have less because I care more about the important things, am less caught up in unrighteous pursuits of worldly accomplishment, am more willing to spend time with my family and sacrifice financially to do so, more righteous . . ." In other words, "I'm better than the rich, because . . .")

Pride has NOTHING to do with how much someone has financially, at the most basic level.

Sharing what you have with others can be a way to break down pride, in that it can be a source of humility and letting go of one's attachment to and self-definition from financial status. Seeing the actual benefits of sharing what you have is a much better antidote than "just giving" for many people, since it fills a basic human need to see the benefits of what we do. However, being able to give without seeing the actual benefits because of faith that the contribution actually is helping someone else is the ultimate form, in my opinion.

Tithing does that, in a very real way. We "know" the money is going to help build meetinghouses and temples in areas where we can't see the actual people who are benefited (less so now in our internet age, but still in concept) - and even the poorest can feel that sense of accomplishment (the type of pride that Pres. Uchtdorf mentioned is fine to feel) from their giving. It's important that they feel like a contributing part of the kingdom. (Thus, much of the crisis of faith over tithing for many people comes from lack of confidence in how tithing dollars are used - either out of a sense that "I know how MY MONEY should be spent," or simply not being able to see how it is spent, since "faith" in matters like this is hard to accept.)

For the poor, going to the Bishop for assistance helps break down the type of pride that says, "I'm my own person. I don't need help. My kids might miss meals and wear clothes with holes in the them, and my wife might go without basic necessities in some cases, but that's fine because I'm self-reliant and won't take help from anyone," - with an implied, "Damn it!!" at the end and a foundation of scorn for those who accept help from others. It often carries scorn for those who would help, and it generally carries scorn for those who accept help. That is pride at its most elemental level.

So, paying tithing helps provide "good pride" and can lead to getting rid of "bad pride" - including in those situations where people hoard their own money and don't share because, as King Benjamin said, they justify not sharing by assuming they would if they could. The point is that ALL "can" share and receive from sharing - but that sometimes has to be manufactured temporarily (or even long-term) for some people in some situations in order to accomplish BOTH objectives and not just one of them.

Sunday School Lesson Recap: Meaning and Purpose of Modern Commandments

I just spent over 30 minutes typing the lesson summary for today, and I lost it somehow when I tried to post it.  Thus, I am writing an outline form summary this time. We talked about each component of the outline below, to various degrees.

The Meaning and Purpose of Modern Commandments, including Things We Often Don't Call Commandments

- Started by repeating that there are things I see as commandments and things that I see as rules built on commandments - and that the key is determining if there is a way to follow a commandment or a rule and be in compliance with the two great commandments to love God, self and others. Used the earring example from Pres. Hinckley's talk (where he said explicitly that he was expressing his own opinion) to show how non-commands can morph into being seen as commands by overzealous members. Referenced the Biblical concept of building hedges about the law. 

- Asked students to help me list commandments we hadn't discussed yet. Limited list to a few we could discuss adequately.  Final list was: Tithing; Word of Wisdom; Church Involvement (combined phrase by me from "Attend Church" and "Callings in Church"); Share the Gospel; Prayer.

1) Tithing

Meaning = "a tenth" (Stressed that there is no official calculation method dictated by the Church - that different members pay on gross, net, "increase", weekly, bi-weekly, monthly, annually, whenever they get money, etc.)

Purpose = from a student: Detachment and humility

Purpose = I added "Fund the Church" (Discussed Old Testament model and modern similarities and differences; discussed exactly what tithing funds and what it doesn't.)

2) Word of Wisdom

Meaning = Read verse 2; discussed "temporal salvation" (related to time; worldly; temporary)

Purpose = From verses 3-4, protecting the weakest saints from evil and designs of conspiring men (Described scene with men conspiring to market products to increase and spread addiction, to make more money, even while knowing the terrible effects on the consumers who buy the addictive products - planning early death, in many cases, specifically to make money. Used example of people who handed out chewing tobacco to elementary students at the county fair in Alabama when we lived there. Those are evil designs, created through real conspiracy.)

3) Church Involvement

Meaning = participating in the Church organization (Stressed that participation to whatever degree is possible is the standard, and that this standard is not definable to anyone except the individual participants. Thus, "properly involved" might be participation in every scheduled meeting or it might be someone who can't leave their house but calls or writes letters or knits presents or smiles at everyone they meet. Also discussed, again, my situation in Missouri when we couldn't attend anything but Sunday meetings and Wednesday activities - and my High Council assignments, due to our financial situation.)

Purpose = Broadening circle of friends to love and accept beyond what is natural (Establishing Zion in a real way, like the orchestra described in Elder Wirthlin's "Concern for the One" - valuing all instruments instead of just the piccolos.)

Purpose = Running the Church organization and not making 20% of the membership do 80% of the work.

4) Share the Gospel

Meaning = Teaching faith in Jesus Christ, repentance, baptism, the gift of the Holy Ghost and enduring to the end. (Discussed the practical and conceptual difference between "sharing the Gospel" and "doing missionary work".)

Purpose = Help people return to God and be like Him.

Purpose = Share what is valuable with others. (Discussed young man in class who will be baptized soon and other young man in class who invited him to come to church and learn about the Gospel and the Church. It was a very touching discussion to have a young man say, sincerely, "I asked him because I care about him," and to have the other young man say, "I am here because I want to be closer to God than I've been in the past.")

Talked about why we don't have more people in our church meetings who are different than we are in obvious ways - about why we tend to share the Gospel with people who are like us and with whom we are comfortable. Asked them to look outside their normal circle of friends when sharing the Gospel.

5) Pray

Meaning = "talking to God" and/or "communicating with God" (Discussed difference and stressed that everyone prays in whatever way they feel they can communicate with God. Shared that I have no problem having a prayer in my heart always - that I try to have and open heart and mind, to send thoughts and feelings heavenward whenever I have them - but that I struggle with formal, kneeling, spoken prayer. I understand the value of both, but the fact that I am praying continually makes it hard for me to break from that to verbalize formal prayers individually.)

More on Tithing: Should the Destitute (or Merely Poor) Pay Tithing?

The destitute "tithing" amid their destitution is a Biblical concept, personified most notably in the story of the widow's mite.

1) I believe the key is the accompanying admonition that those who are NOT destitute not "grind the faces of the poor" and the idea that those who sacrifice like the widow in that story need to be supported and helped by those who have excess. In other words, the idea is that tithing is a command for all, but those who exhibit the most faith are those for whom that tithing is a real, practical sacrifice - and that such faith and sacrifice need to be honored and "validated" by the generosity of those for whom it is not such a real, practical sacrifice. In our current "system", that means that those who can should pay a generous fast offering so that those whose tithing leaves them needing assistance can receive it without shame or guilt of any kind.

I believe in the LDS Church's institutional stance in this regard. I absolutely love that concept and principle, especially since it values the widow's mite exactly as the millionaire's millions and allows the truly destitute to feel like active contributors despite their destitution (which I believe is extremely important) - and I really wish as a people we acted that way to a greater extent than we do. If we really lived that ideal (or even came much closer to it), our world would be a much different place - a true Zion. 

I understand that the way the concept is implemented too often isn't ideal - but I believe it's important for those who wouldn't be asked to contribute "naturally" be asked to contribute anyway, as long as they then can receive assistance in their need.

2) The financial situation analysis that is supposed be used in the LDS Church is something with which I don't struggle at all - again, as long as it is done properly as an attempt to help people become more self-reliant. Seriously, I have known situations where people were receiving church assistance without having to budget carefully - situations where the assistance wouldn't have been needed if the person or family would have made some simple budgetary changes. The financial analysis allowed them to do so - which kept them from taking assistance that could have been given to someone who really needed it. As is the case with MANY things, there is a huge difference between the ideal and the practice in too many situations - and this is one of those cases. 

3) Finally, I believe self-reliance is a secondary goal in this discussion - in that institutional self-reliance is critical to being able to alleviate poverty for those who can't be self-reliant at the individual level. "Zion" is the ultimate goal - or, "communal self-reliance" is more important than "individual self-reliance". The poor always will be with us (meaning there always will be those who are not financially self-reliant), so those who are able to contribute to their care should do so - ideally to such an extent and degree that "poverty" vanishes even though "the poor" still exist.

How does that relate to tithing?

To me, in theory, tithing (or any other system that does the same thing, specific amount notwithstanding) is the great equalizer - in that it allows ALL to be active contributors in the community toward the building of the community and in that it provides others an objective motivation (even if they lack it instinctively) to help those who are helping the community.

There are two polarizing positions in this issue (applied to governmental discussions, as well):

1) The Lord helps those who help themselves.

2) The Lord commands us to serve and give to others, regardless of what they do with our assistance - even if it doesn't "help" them.

Both of those positions can be and are justified through our canonized scriptures, but, again in theory, I believe the combination of tithing and fast offerings is a really good way to combine them and manage the paradox in a practical way. I like that we provide assistance also to those who do not pay tithing, but I absolutely would encourage those who need assistance to "tithe" what they have and receive assistance to make up what they gave.

King Benjamin's sermon is astounding to me in multiple ways, but the acknowledgment that "the poor" can be just as proud in their poverty as "the rich" can be in their excess is deeply, deeply profound. Donating in destitute situations and then accepting help from others is a great way to mitigate and eliminate that natural pride of the poor - and I can say that, having been in that situation more times than I wish.

Internalizing the Principle of Tithing, Regardless of Specific Recipient

I know someone who quit paying tithing when he became inactive in the LDS Church.  As I thought recently about what I wish I would have said to him at the time, I came up with the following: 

--------------------------------------

The command is to tithe to help others - in essence, to participate in his work and his glory at the most practical level. I believe in the principle and symbolism of tithing, so I believe in tithing.

In the Old Testament, tithing essentially was the equivalent of our modern taxes and fast offerings (taking food to the storehouse, for example); now, it primarily funds the physical expansion and maintenance of the "structural church" (including things like college campuses that open up educational opportunities to members at greatly reduced cost). In other words, I'm fine seeing it now as a "religion tax" - especially since I have no automatic aversion to taxes, in and of themselves.  I'm OK with that change in practical effect, as the structural church is important to me and many others - and since we have added fast offerings to replace the OT tithing.

Also, a temple recommend is very important to me, for lots of simple and complicated reasons, so I pay tithing to the LDS Church - and I believe my motives are "pure".

If someone else doesn't believe in the purposes which tithing accomplishes in our own day (if the dictates of their own consciences don't direct their tithing to the LDS Church), I'm not about to condemn them for directing their tithing elsewhere in a way that does good and helps others - or discourage them from paying a tithing to another entity. I believe that certainly fulfills the spirit of the law, even if it doesn't fulfill the letter of the LDS application - and I believe all will be blessed for following the spirit of tithing as they understand it.

I absolutely would prefer that someone tithe for a good cause than that they not tithe at all - and I think someone who stops paying a tithe (or making some sort of significant, sacrificial donation) just because they no longer feel like supporting the LDS Church financially probably "practiced the program" of tithing without ever understanding and embracing and internalizing the principle and symbolism of tithing.

Tithing is Not a Financial Insurance Policy

I don't tie financial reward to the payment of tithing, like paying tithing is some kind of financial insurance policy. I would be a hypocrite if I did. I've lived the extremes - paying tithing and losing a house, paying tithing and getting help from the Church to stay in a house, and paying tithing and keeping a nice house.

I don't doubt some people's experiences with really cool things that helped them pay their bills, but I don't believe it is the default for all tithe payers. The rain falls on the just AND the unjust, and financial hardship hits the tithe-payers AND the non-tithe-payers.  Also, I do believe that those who contribute a significant part of their income to some cause tend to live more within their means - probably because they have to be more conscious of a budget.

I'm not saying there are no significant benefits to paying tithing.  I believe there are great blessings, and I believe in the windows of heaven promise of Malachi.  I just don't pay expecting to receive financial benefits; I pay to help fund the operation of the LDS Church and build the kingdom. 

That's enough for me.  Any other blessings are an unexpected gift. 

I Love the Principle of Tithing, but I Don't View It As "Fire Insurance"

I believe strongly that every single person on the planet should tithe to some organization or cause, somehow - and that everyone who can't afford to tithe should do so anyway and then receive assistance from the communal pot, if that is possible. In other words, I believe in the concept of tithing and fast offerings, and I think everyone should make a conscious choice to donate to the "cause" of their conscience.

My tithing recipient is the LDS Church, and my lifetime payment of tithing and fast offerings has been a big part of my willingness to accept and not feel bad about receiving church assistance when I was unemployed for far too long and had used up all of our savings. I've been on both sides, and I really believe in it.

I believe in the principle, but I believe in it for the earthly benefits - chiefly the ability to detach from the natural (wo)man tendency to see things as "ours", help build the kingdom and truly succor those who need succoring. I don't view it as fire insurance; I think that was a justification to prompt members to start paying it when the Church desperately needed increased funds. I don't have any problem with that, and I don't begrudge that need to tie it to an eternal reward, but I don't like to look at it that way.

I prefer to see it as a way to draw closer to the type of person Jesus was and to bless the greater community in the here and now, rather than as a way to increase my chance for personal reward in an objective, measurable way.

I Don't Think of Tithing As Fire Insurance

I believe strongly that every single person on the planet should tithe to something, somehow - and that every member who can't afford to tithe should do so anyway and then receive assistance from the communal pot. In other words, I believe in the concept of tithing and fast offerings, and I think everyone should make a conscious choice to donate to the "cause" of their conscience. My tithing recipient is the Church, and my lifetime payment of tithing and fast offerings has been a big part of my willingness to accept and not feel bad about receiving church assistance when I was unemployed for far too long and had used up all of our savings. I've been on both sides, and I really believe in it.  

I believe in the principle, but I believe in it for the earthly benefits. I don't view it as fire insurance. I don't begrudge the need to tie it to an eternal reward, but I don't like to look at it that way. I prefer to see it as a way to bless the greater community in the here and now, rather than as a way to increase my chance for an eternal reward.

From the Mouths of Babes

I know a man who is a Bishop. The following is from him:

The most moving moment in a tithing settlement came last year when I asked the children in a family why the Lord asks us to pay tithing. Their response was typical - so that missionary work could be done, so chapels and temples could be built. I then asked, "Why doesn’t the Lord simply tell Pres. Hinckley where all the gold in the world is? Then we could use that to build the temples and do missionary work." One of the young men in the family, an eight-year old, put his hands on his hips, looked at me like "Bishop, you should know better," and said, "Bishop, the reason Heavenly Father asks us to pay tithing is that He is trying to turn us into gold."