NOM

After reading blazerb's thread about tithing, coincidentally I read this article this week that claims that LDS people pay more to the church than other religions but do so with less pressure. I didn't know whether to laugh or get angry.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865 ... l-the.html

Perhaps many like me never felt pressured because it was just built into our lives from the day we started breathing.

But then once we realised that all was not well in Zion, we also realised that although the mafia don't show up on our doorstep every month demanding money for protection, the effect is the same:
Even though we'd be quite happy if we never spent another minute in the temple:
* if we don't pay, we can't see our kids, our siblings, our nieces and nephews, our friends, or our grandkids get married
* we can't participate in the ordinances and rituals that we are told are vital for eternal salvation and could become projects or pariahs among our own friends and family

Tithing is a measuring stick and a divider, especially if you've paid it your whole life and you suddenly stop. People who believe they hold great power over you will notice.

And even though the members of the ward won't know you don't pay tithing, they will sure notice if you don't have a temple recommend for an extended period of time, especially when you used to have one.

At this point it starts to feel like a whole lot of pressure is being applied as tithing and a temple recommend become either the hill you die on or a matter of camouflage. For now I go the camouflage route, albeit at a discounted rate. I do see it as a club membership that my family gets some benefits from. Thinking of it any other way is too painful.

I was thinking many of these thoughts today. We started paying less last year and I nuanced my way through the TR interviews. I would like to stop paying altogether or an amount I could feel good about-contributing to our use of lights/buildings, for example. But my big concern is not being able to be in the temple with my kids so I can’t really see a way out.

It seems to make a perverse sort of sense. As a believer I never felt "pressure" to pay tithing in the same way I never feel pressure to pay taxes. Just the cost of doing business. It was certainly painful sometimes but it was necessary.

Meanwhile when solicitors come around asking for charitable contributions I do feel a little put on the spot. I know some Mormons who invite people to meetings and add "no collection plate!!" as an added incentive to attend.

My very last TR interview the bishop didn't give me a recommend. At this point I didn't really care much but I asked what was the deciding factor. I expressed disbelief in every question regarding god, Jesus and our leaders but was still living the WofW, the law of Chasity, attending meetings etc at the time. The only thing I wasn't doing was pay tithing. His answer was definitive - it was tithing.

For people trying to straddle the line, tithing is absolutely held over their heads.

It could be that Deseret News also picks up its knowledge of other religions from misinformed statements in priesthood meeting. It would be rather uncharitable to categorically state that this article was meant to deceive the faithful. Much kinder to just invoke the computer data entry expression, "garbage in, garbage out".

Here is the real scoop:

1. LDS tithing is necessary to gain entry to the Temple, which is needed for top VIP heaven. Those who don't pay (male) will end up in a lower rent district without genitals or find yourself (female) being a sister-wife in a harem and married to a full-tithe-paying stranger.

2. Other Church's ask for donations that are unrelated to heavenly access, although some of them promise miracle blessings and financial prosperity in the here and now.

LaMachina wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:55 pm Meanwhile when solicitors come around asking for charitable contributions I do feel a little put on the spot. I know some Mormons who invite people to meetings and add "no collection plate!!" as an added incentive to attend.

Something funny from my mission: We brought an investigator to church, who was surprised that there was no collection plate. Beaming, I told him we didn't have one. Ha ha! Take that, you greedy old abominable churches!

Yeah, doublethink is amazing.

I used to feel the pressure and embarrassment of not paying or having a temple recommend. Now I just don't care and if asked tell everyone within earshot that I think the temple thing is just too weird. Many have agreed with me.

I'll probably have to figure out what to do in the next 3 to 4 years as my oldest will be finishing high school in a year. Ill probably determine a time where I go back and get a recommended so I don't miss my own kids weddings. Or I'll push my kids out of the church before that since I've been teaching them to think critically and they already see the bullshit in it. Who knows. The whole thing just makes me sick thinking about it. I've already received pushback from my parents and in-laws about missing the kids weddings. Sheesh that's rough!

It feels like being held hostage by the church just to see your own kids get married in the worst marriage ceremony possible.

Who changed their diapers?
Who taught them to ride a bike?
Who helped them build forts and snicker at farts?
Who made dinner, did laundry, and provided for them?
Who helped with 7th grade math? Went to every baseball game?
Who bandaged their knee? Wiped their tears away?
Who guided, teached, bought clothes, and loved year after year?
Who taught them how to drive a stick? Wash the car, get gas, and change a tire?
Who helped with high school calculus, speeches, and science fair projects?
Who paid for summer vacations, trips with friends, and even college?
I did! I effing did!

Who gets to tell me I can't see their wedding? The dude down the street representing the church??
...and to think someone else gets to tell me I can't be there to see my own kids get married?? F that!
The church just sucks period.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:46 am I used to feel the pressure and embarrassment of not paying or having a temple recommend. Now I just don't care and if asked tell everyone within earshot that I think the temple thing is just too weird. Many have agreed with me.

I'll probably have to figure out what to do in the next 3 to 4 years as my oldest will be finishing high school in a year. Ill probably determine a time where I go back and get a recommended so I don't miss my own kids weddings. Or I'll push my kids out of the church before that since I've been teaching them to think critically and they already see the bullshit in it. Who knows. The whole thing just makes me sick thinking about it. I've already received pushback from my parents and in-laws about missing the kids weddings. Sheesh that's rough!

It feels like being held hostage by the church just to see your own kids get married in the worst marriage ceremony possible.

Who changed their diapers?
Who taught them to ride a bike?
Who helped them build forts and snicker at farts?
Who made dinner, did laundry, and provided for them?
Who helped with 7th grade math? Went to every baseball game?
Who bandaged their knee? Wiped their tears away?
Who guided, teached, bought clothes, and loved year after year?
Who taught them how to drive a stick? Wash the car, get gas, and change a tire?
Who helped with high school calculus, speeches, and science fair projects?
Who paid for summer vacations, trips with friends, and even college?
I did! I effing did!

Who gets to tell me I can't see their wedding? The dude down the street representing the church??
...and to think someone else gets to tell me I can't be there to see my own kids get married?? F that!
The church just sucks period.

Amen. I have zero desire to miss weddings.

In 2015 my sons took the discussions. I remember the tithing one with the missionaries and how they talked about the consequence of not paying tithing was being burned with fire... they said this will with a smile and we all laughed, albeit a little uncomfortably, but then we moved on to all the blessings and "stories" from paying tithing.

I just asked my synical 16 yr old (who hates the church now) and he doesn't remember that part. Maybe it was applied to something else but I'm pretty sure I remember being told anyone who didn't pay tithing would be burned at the second coming and it was said as a joke but they were serious.
Maybe it was being applied to something else and I remember it wrong.

If my sons were still in and I was out- Instead of paying tithing to attend a wedding, I would save that money and offer an all expenses paid wedding, for how ever many people I could afford, to a tropical location or somewhere far from home and try and convince them to get married civil first and temple later. Then I wouldn't care about missing that part. I would say that people do it all the time, that it's not shameful, more family could come, and it didn't matter if the temple marrage came after the civil ceremony and honeymoon. But maybe that's naieve thinking when it comes to Utah Mormons.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 12:46 am I used to feel the pressure and embarrassment of not paying or having a temple recommend. Now I just don't care and if asked tell everyone within earshot that I think the temple thing is just too weird. Many have agreed with me.

I'll probably have to figure out what to do in the next 3 to 4 years as my oldest will be finishing high school in a year. Ill probably determine a time where I go back and get a recommended so I don't miss my own kids weddings. Or I'll push my kids out of the church before that since I've been teaching them to think critically and they already see the bullshit in it. Who knows. The whole thing just makes me sick thinking about it. I've already received pushback from my parents and in-laws about missing the kids weddings. Sheesh that's rough!

It feels like being held hostage by the church just to see your own kids get married in the worst marriage ceremony possible.

Who changed their diapers?
Who taught them to ride a bike?
Who helped them build forts and snicker at farts?
Who made dinner, did laundry, and provided for them?
Who helped with 7th grade math? Went to every baseball game?
Who bandaged their knee? Wiped their tears away?
Who guided, teached, bought clothes, and loved year after year?
Who taught them how to drive a stick? Wash the car, get gas, and change a tire?
Who helped with high school calculus, speeches, and science fair projects?
Who paid for summer vacations, trips with friends, and even college?
I did! I effing did!

Who gets to tell me I can't see their wedding? The dude down the street representing the church??
...and to think someone else gets to tell me I can't be there to see my own kids get married?? F that!
The church just sucks period.

Amen! I haven't paid tithing in years but still attended my daughter's temple wedding. No way this church is going to take that way away from me.

Lithium Sunset wrote: ↑Sun Dec 31, 2017 9:29 am In 2015 my sons took the discussions. I remember the tithing one with the missionaries and how they talked about the consequence of not paying tithing was being burned with fire... they said this will with a smile and we all laughed, albeit a little uncomfortably, but then we moved on to all the blessings and "stories" from paying tithing.

I just asked my synical 16 yr old (who hates the church now) and he doesn't remember that part. Maybe it was applied to something else but I'm pretty sure I remember being told anyone who didn't pay tithing would be burned at the second coming and it was said as a joke but they were serious.
Maybe it was being applied to something else and I remember it wrong.

If my sons were still in and I was out- Instead of paying tithing to attend a wedding, I would save that money and offer an all expenses paid wedding, for how ever many people I could afford, to a tropical location or somewhere far from home and try and convince them to get married civil first and temple later. Then I wouldn't care about missing that part. I would say that people do it all the time, that it's not shameful, more family could come, and it didn't matter if the temple marrage came after the civil ceremony and honeymoon. But maybe that's naieve thinking when it comes to Utah Mormons.

I've heard tithing as fire insurance before many times.

Patrick Mason wrote:Patrick Mason, dean of the School of Arts and Humanities at Claremont Graduate University and a Mormon scholar, said that the findings come as no surprise due to the way the principle of tithing is both taught and encouraged within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, particularly with "the tithe being connected to temple attendance.

"That provides additional incentives for Latter-day Saints to pay tithing, whereas in every other church, synagogue or mosque it’s basically voluntary,” Mason said. “There can be moral suasion, there can be preaching from the pulpit, they can pass around the basket and try to make you feel guilty, but they don’t have any other tools, generally, in order to provide that kind of strong incentive for giving.”

See here, nommies, you've got it all wrong. You make it sound like the church is using some kind of extortion, or like, holding your major family events hostage. No no no no no no. What they have employed is a strong incentive for giving. Have you got that straight now? [/sarcasm]

I had wondered if I should read one of Patrick Mason's books, but now I think I will pass. The producer of such a lovely apologetic spin on gospel extortion is probably just another supplier of blue pills.

As for the appropriate response, LostGirl, I think I will reach for the barf bag.

LaMachina wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 5:55 pm It seems to make a perverse sort of sense. As a believer I never felt "pressure" to pay tithing in the same way I never feel pressure to pay taxes. Just the cost of doing business. It was certainly painful sometimes but it was necessary.

Meanwhile when solicitors come around asking for charitable contributions I do feel a little put on the spot. I know some Mormons who invite people to meetings and add "no collection plate!!" as an added incentive to attend.

My very last TR interview the bishop didn't give me a recommend. At this point I didn't really care much but I asked what was the deciding factor. I expressed disbelief in every question regarding god, Jesus and our leaders but was still living the WofW, the law of Chasity, attending meetings etc at the time. The only thing I wasn't doing was pay tithing. His answer was definitive - it was tithing.

For people trying to straddle the line, tithing is absolutely held over their heads.

1+ I think the tithing requirement for temple admittance seems a little like the indulgences promoted by the Catholic church in the 1500's.

"Less pressure"? Really? "You know, we have this super cool ceremony that will unite you and your family for the eternities, but I'm sorry, we can only do that for you in the temple, and to get in the temple you need a recommend, and to get a recommend YOU HAVE TO PAY YOUR TITHING".

But you know, no pressure. It's just the eternities with your family hanging in the balance, no biggie.

If a parent was going to be left out, the responsible thing would be to have a non-Temple ceremony. The Church doesn't care that these young couples may be starting their life on the wrong foot by wounding their family. The Church wants to be the prime motivator in the couples life. As the third-stage General Authorities frequently say, "the tithing must flow".
.

LostGirl wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:09 pm Perhaps many like me never felt pressured because it was just built into our lives from the day we started breathing.

Exactly. It's like everything else members do in the LDS church: believers don't feel the pressure because it's part of their identity. Because they identify so strongly with the in-group, most of what would normally be external pressure from the in-group is actually internal pressure.

We used to identify strongly with the in-group. When we couldn't maintain that identity, we became out-group, and the pressure became external.

In and of itself, there's usually nothing bad about this form of influence. Family and workplace cultures, for example, are built this way. "This is the way we do things. I'm part of 'we,' so it's the way I do things." It's a great way to work together and to encourage good behavior.

But there are more ingredients that the church uses to make the pressure hard to detect, and sometimes to actually turn it into coercion.

Positivity. Rules tend to take this form: "If you do A then you get B" where A is an action or attitude and B is a reward. Example: "If you have a testimony, live the WoW, obey the LoC, pay an honest tithe, etc., then you can attend the temple."

Stating the inverse "if you don't do A then you don't get B" is rare. Inverses tend to induce external pressure. When do members feel the most external pressure? Speaking for just the men, it's when we talk about home teaching, in which we rarely talk about positive consequences for doing it faithfully.

Here's another fine example of non-positivity:

LostGirl wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 4:09 pm Even though we'd be quite happy if we never spent another minute in the temple:
* if we don't pay, we can't see our kids, our siblings, our nieces and nephews, our friends, or our grandkids get married
* we can't participate in the ordinances and rituals that we are told are vital for eternal salvation and could become projects or pariahs among our own friends and family

See that inversion? "If we don't pay tithing then we can't..." The inverse is what makes the external pressure obvious.

There's nothing bad about this ingredient in and of itself. But there's nothing wrong with stating the inverse, either, because both the positive statement and its inverse are essential to almost any rule. (Without an inverse, a rule can't be used to deny a reward.) So where it goes bad is in always denying the inverse.

If someone were to state the inverse "if we don't pay tithing then we can't..." at church, the typical response would start with "I wouldn't think of it like that" followed by stating the positive. This is more or less expected, because in-group members don't like to think of group pressure as being external. For them, it's not. But never letting the inverse statement stand isn't quite truthful, in that it allows in-group members to forget the whole rule and thus the source of the pressure to follow it. It can also be invalidating to those on the margins.

Codependency. My workplace culture is part of my identity, and I'm fine with that. I'm surrounded by good people who do good things. But this part of my identity doesn't subsume all of the other parts of my identity like my Mormon identity used to. I don't depend on it for approval and my sense of self.

Therefore, at work, I feel free to evaluate the goodness or fitness of the rules. At church, I didn't. At work, I can import great ideas from other places and shop them around. But can you imagine someone suggesting that the church use tithing funds to match fast offerings and other charitable giving? Of course there would be logistical barriers, but I can't even imagine someone bringing it up.

If there's a conflict between my work identity and some other identity, I'm free to decide which is more important to be true to. If that means I have to leave, I get expressions of gratitude and a goodbye party. But if there was a conflict between my Mormon identity and some other identity, Mormon Reuben was supposed to win, period. It's like I had a dysfunctional marriage to the LDS church. I certainly promised more to it than I ever promised to my wife...

This ingredient is just bad. Not even your family identity should override every other identity - it's universally regarded as unhealthy. This is where coercion starts.

Stifling dissent and disagreement. There are many things you just can't say at church without leaders or other members retaliating using shame and social punishment. A lot of the things you can't say have to do with the rules.

All of the things you can't say are deeply tied to Mormon identity, so I think of stifling dissent as partly an outgrowth of codependency. I really don't think any church leaders ever thought to themselves, "Let's hold everyone's social standing and relationships hostage until their thoughts conform." I don't think they're capable of thinking of it that way. They just acted to maintain their in-group identity without thinking much about how marginalized and out-group members would experience their actions, if at all.

"No dissent" has been part of the rules and in-group identity for... over 150 years now, I guess. Ever since Joseph Smith started excommunicating people for opposing his worst ideas, which of course was really the same as opposing God and his church.

This ingredient is very bad. It helps enable every bad behavior by 1) creating the illusion of strong consensus by keeping dissenters quiet, and 2) creating actual moderate consensus by expelling the most vocal dissenters. Members get the impression that everyone agrees that the church is always right.

I can't imagine working for an employer that does this. I would regard my workplace as hostile and toxic. If I cared about it, I would try to fix it. If not, I would find another job as soon as possible and tell my friends and family to avoid that place like the plague.

Tribalism. This "us vs the wicked world" ingredient is bad because it strengthens every other ingredient.

Positivity. Check out this fine example from Elder Oaks of using positivity to hide external pressure:

Converted Latter-day Saints believe that the family proclamation... is the Lord’s reemphasis of the gospel truths we need to sustain us through current challenges to the family.

(The ellipses replace a throwaway historical fact.) The contrapositive, which can be derived directly from this statement, makes the external pressure obvious:

Latter-day Saints who don't believe that the family proclamation is the Lord’s reemphasis of the gospel truths we need to sustain us through current challenges to the family are not converted.

It's obvious now that this talk says "fall in line or there's something wrong with you." Then tribalism strengthens the consequences of not falling in line. Elder Oaks front-loads the talk with "us vs the wicked world" language. Not only are you a bad Mormon if you don't believe him, he strongly implies that you're actually part of the wicked world: someone to not only be pitied, but possibly feared.

Also, you can't complain about being pre-judged as being Terrestrial or Telestial. No dissent.

Codependency. Tribalism motivates your Mormon identity subsuming all others. If you're not all-in then you're part of the wicked world, because you can be only in or out. If you're out, you don't get to become like God.

Stifling dissent and disagreement. With tribalism,

• Disagreement makes you influenced by the wicked world instead of merely being a little different or not quite one of the in-group.
• Dissent puts you squarely in the wicked world instead of merely being part of the out-group.
• Expulsion discredits you entirely, removing your ideas from discourse instead of removing just you.

With tribalism, the consequences of disagreement and dissent are so severe - including, as Mormons suppose, losing exaltation - that few all-in Mormons dare to approach either.

Holy cow, this ended up being a novel. Even so, I've missed some key ingredients like top-down authority and black-and-white thinking. Sorry for the length...

Reuben everything you said resonates so much right now.

LostGirl wrote: ↑Mon Jan 01, 2018 3:26 pm Reuben everything you said resonates so much right now.

I'm glad you found it helpful in some way.

For a while now, I've been looking for explanations for why I only felt pressure after I stopped believing, and why I felt that it crossed over into manipulation. Most believers deny that it exists, or devalue and blame members who perceive it. Many ex-Mormons account for it by imagining church leaders as moustache-twirling villains or senile old men. I just can't accept any of these explanations. They're too simple to account for the facts, and are uncharitable and unfair.

These ideas have been tumbling around in my head for some time now. Thanks for letting me dump them into your thread.

This thread is really interesting. Reuben, that was an epic post, I usually skim something that long, but it was too good.

I saw others talk about this, but tithing is a literal protection racket. It is extortion. They coerce you to give them your money holding hostage priceless family events, your standing in the community, and a believer's greatest prize of exaltation.

If you are indoctrinated (I was) you feel good about it, sentiments like these reinforce it: "God only asks for 10% back", "Money isn't important anyway", "The money is going to the best cause, the only 100% perfect cause, and I am glad I can contribute", "The benefits of paying tithing heavily outweigh the cost". But ultimately it is a complicated psychological issue like you all have said.

I remember when I joined the workforce making around the median income and reflecting on paying so much more tithing than ever before. It wasn't difficult to pay, it was automatic. I was proud of that. It stayed automatic even after I realized I didn't really believe in mormon God, but before I let myself think about it. But once I embraced my new beliefs I payed tithing once, and I couldn't after that. I would pull up the website to pay and I couldn't bring myself to do it. It wasn't even about the money, it was about being true to myself. Now it is also about the money.

That limbo period between realization I didn't believe in mormon God and embracing my new beliefs is interesting. I realized I was no longer really part of the in-group. But with a TBM wife and kids to indoctrinate, parents, siblings, friends, in-laws, and professional associates there was still great pressure to identify with the in-group, and as long as I didn't think too much about it the cost of tithing and acting TBM was lower than the alternatives I was aware of. At that point it still didn't feel like extortion, that came from thinking about it.