Tithing and Temples Part 5

Unprepared to engage Mormon missionaries when they knock on your door? Perhaps the sign, Mormonism Research Ministry has been dedicated to equipping the body of Christ with answers regarding the Christian faith in a manner that expresses gentleness and respect. And now, your host for today's Viewpoint on Mormonism.

Hoping you're having a very pleasant Friday. Welcome to this edition of Viewpoint on Mormonism. I'm your host, Bill McKeever, founder and director of Mormonism Research Ministry.

With me today is Eric Johnson, my colleague at MRM. Today we wrap up our look at an article that was published on March 26, 2018 in the Salt Lake Tribune newspaper. It was an article written by Peggy Fletcher Stack titled, Does tithing requirement for entry into LDS temples amount to Mormons buying their way into heaven? I have to admit, Eric, this is a fascinating article and I thought Peggy Fletcher Stack brought out a lot of interesting points, even different viewpoints such as what we brought out yesterday between D. Michael Quinn, who is a former Mormon historian, and Sam Brunson, who teaches tax and business at Loyola University. They don't seem to agree on what would happen if the Mormon Church was to abandon the mandatory 10% tithe in order to go to the temple.

Brunson seems to think it wouldn't have a big effect. I tend to agree, and I think you tend to agree with D. Michael Quinn, that revenue into the Mormon Church would plummet if they were to take away this requirement. I would think especially in third world countries where you have a very poor populace, a very poor membership, it seems to be human nature that if you could get something you really want badly for less or even nothing, that you would tend to give nothing if possible. So I think Quinn is probably more correct, but in this article, Peggy Fletcher Stack, she has a subheading, From Giving All to Giving a Tenth, and she's referring to the United Order, and she talks about that.

What does Peggy Fletcher Stack have to say about that? Mormonism has never separated economics from eternal truths. Fiscal realities go hand in hand with spiritual needs. Not long after the faith's birth in 1830, LDS founder Joseph Smith asked believers to share all they had for the common good, taking only what was necessary to live.

Known as the United Order, it remains part of the church's scriptural canon. It was a time of communitarian experiments, and the fledgling church was all in, caring for armies of new converts who arrived with little more than the clothes on their back. She uses some words that I found interesting when she talks about a time of communitarian experiments.

Experiments? Is that really what the United Order was supposed to be understood as? Now, we know it was a failure, and she admits this in the next paragraph that we're going to talk about, but if you were to go to lds.org and go to their Guide to the Scriptures section, and under United Order, this is what it says, see also consecrate, law of consecration. This is what it says, an organization through which the saints in the early days of the restored church sought to live the law of consecration, individuals shared property, goods, and profits, receiving these things according to their wants and needs. Now this sounds more to us as socialism, pure and simple. Socialism. Now, I've heard Mormons, when they hear that S-word, they cringe.

They don't want it to be equated with socialism, and I'm sure that even Glenn Beck, being the conservative he is, does not want this equated with socialism. But it certainly looks like it when you examine carefully what was required in the United Order. When it says, for instance, in Doctrine and Covenants, section 70, verse 14, and I am reading from this page, from Guide to the Scriptures, under United Order, and this is found on lds.org, an official website of the church. It says, in your temporal things, you shall be equal, and then cites D&C 7014. Then it says, the saints were to be organized to be equal in all things. Then it cites Doctrine and Covenants 78, verses three through 11, as well as Doctrine and Covenants, section 82, 17 through 20. And then it says, the Lord gave unto the United Order a revelation and a commandment. Doctrine and Covenants 92, verse one.

So here's what we read on lds.org. The saints were supposed to be equal in their property and in what they own. It says the saints were to be organized to be equal in all things. And this is still found in the Doctrine and Covenants. And then it says, the Lord gave unto the United Order a revelation and a commandment. So this is a revelation and a commandment.

Now Peggy Fletcher Stack describes it as an experiment. It didn't seem to be thought of as a mere experiment when it was being practiced in the early years of the church. But if you look under the Law of Consecration, it says, all that believed had all things in common.

And what does it cite? Acts 2, 44 and 45. There's the New Testament passage that they often cite to justify this practice. Well, here's the difference, folks. What they did in Acts chapter 2, verses 44 to 45, was not done because it was compulsory.

They did it because they wanted to do it. It was not a commandment. And I think that's missed on whoever is putting the verses here to justify this teaching on LDS.org. And again, I'm in the Guide to the Scriptures. Now I'm looking at Consecrate, the Law of Consecration, which if you go to United Order, it tells you to look at.

And that's what I'm doing. They had all things common among them. Therefore, they were not rich and poor, citing the Book of Mormon, 4th Nephi 1 through 3. And it says also in Doctrine and Covenants, section 49, verse 20, this is what it says on Guide to the Scriptures, the Law of Consecration.

One man should not possess more than another. Is that what's being practiced in the church today? No, the Mormon Church does not practice the United Order. They do not practice the Law of Consecration. And as Peggy Fletcher Stack admits in the next paragraph, ultimately, the faithful failed at living this higher law.

They failed at it. And here's the question that I have, because it admits this when it talks about in section 119, it admits it was a failure. When it gives you the subheading to Doctrine and Covenants 119, this is what it says.

And you can find this on LDS.org. It says, the Lord had previously given to the church the Law of Consecration and Stewardship of Property, which members, chiefly the Lord, the leading elders, entered into by a covenant that was to be everlasting. Because of failure on the part of many to abide by this covenant, the Lord withdrew it for a time and gave instead the law of tithing to the whole church.

Now, wait a minute. The Lord withdrew it for a time? It's still withdrawn, even to today. The Mormon Church still institutes what it calls the law of tithing to the whole church. But as Peggy Fletcher Stack acknowledges, and as the introduction to section 119 in the Doctrine and Covenants, the church is admitting that it was a failure. Does it seem odd to you, Eric, that the God of Mormonism would not have seen this to be an eventual failure?

That's a really good point. The idea that God even set this up in the first place when it really wasn't going to be possible. But this is what God supposedly says, this is what the Lord says, February 9, 1831, and this is found today. You can go to the LDS scripture, D&C 42, verses 29 through 32.

I just want to read these because I think they're pretty powerful. This is what the Lord says, If thou lovest me, thou shalt serve me and keep all my commandments. And behold, thou wilt remember the poor and consecrate of thy properties for their support, that which thou hast to impart unto them with a covenant and a deed which cannot be broken. And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me, and they shall be laid before the bishop of the church and his counselors, two of the elders or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose. And it shall come to pass that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he hath received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church. Agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family. According to this passage, Bill, this is something that God intended if you were going to keep his commandments and it was not meant to be broken.

Well when you have on the LDS.org website, under United Order, where it says, My people are not united according to the union required by the celestial kingdom, and then it refers to Doctrine and Covenants section 105, one through three. If this was required by the celestial kingdom, in other words, necessary to practice if you hope to receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom, why was it rescinded? Now, we learn from what you've read and what other places say, from what Peggy Fletcher Stacks says, that the faithful failed at living this higher law.

My question is, well, why did they fail? Doesn't First Nephi 3.7 in the Book of Mormon tell us, And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father, I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded. For I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them, that they may accomplish the thing which he commanded them. It seems like God originally would have given him a commandment they should be able to keep, but yet God has to rescind this higher law and go for second best, or plan B, and that would be, in 1838, the law of tithing, which the Mormon Church still has to this day.

It just seems odd to me that the God of Mormonism doesn't seem to have the foresight to know that such a command would fail. It would ultimately fail. People normally don't want to be equal with everyone else in this regard. This is why all these people that are fighting for socialism crack me up. I don't think they would really like it if they have anything to begin with.

If you don't have anything to begin with, receiving something from someone else sounds like a pretty good deal. But as Margaret Thatcher says, socialism only works until the people who have the money no longer have the money. Then it doesn't work anymore. That's why I think this didn't happen the way it was supposed to happen.

But was it really an experiment? That's not what we read in the Doctrine and Covenants. It was a revelation. And when it says in D&C 70, verse 14, in your temporal things, you shall be equal. And when they also cite on this page for United Order and your guide to the scriptures, in D&C 78.3-11, the saints were to be organized to be equal in all things. One thing for sure, folks, the Mormon Church is not like that today. Not at all like that today. So whatever God had intended back in the early years of the church, it obviously failed.

And I would say probably failed for good reason. But why would God institute that in the first place, if he is an all-knowing God who could see down the road that something like this was going to fail, and the Mormon Church would then have to opt for what I call Plan B, the Law of Tithing. Thank you for listening. If you would like more information regarding Mormonism Research Ministry, we encourage you to visit our website at www.mrm.org, where you can request our free newsletter, Mormonism Researched. We hope you will join us again as we look at another viewpoint on Mormonism.