You are presenting a false choice and a false picture of things, as is common around these parts, that to follow the Bible means that you must follow how Mormons interpret it -- therefore if the Bible says this or that about tithing (or anything), and you tell the Mormon "no, that is not how it is to be understood", they will accuse you of disagreeing with the Bible.
It's stupid, juvenile, irritating, and I"m not going to get into a protracted argument with you about it.
Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, Whose yoke is sweet and Whose burden is light (Matthew 11:30), calls on us to tithe, yes, but does not make it the necessity that your religion makes it, and in fact speaks against such a "tithe at all costs" mentality, calling upon the Pharisees, for instance, not to place tithing ahead of the weightier matters of the law:
“
Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.” (Matthew 23:23)
What justice or mercy is shown to the poor people of Kenya when they are told (falsely) that they must tithe to get out of poverty? How is this recognizing the place of tithing relative to the other things that should be manifest in the actions of your organization or any such organization that claims to do the work of God? Unless I've missed it, I don't believe that anyone in this thread has condemned the practice of tithing -- only the LDS Church's frankly disgusting way of going about it with the poor in Kenya.
I myself belong to a Church that practices tithing, but in no case do we ever,
ever say the kinds of things that the LDS leaders are apparently saying to the poor in Africa, because it is just wrong to link salvation to donation in this manner that makes the offerings not
true offerings at all. "Do this to get XYZ!" is a very different message -- particularly in the context of the poor in third world countries or other hardships -- than to encourage freely giving. I will tell you this honestly from my own experience: When I stayed in the Coptic monastery in NY, I gave out of what I had budgeted for a hotel (since I did not know what the rules were about having guests stay overnight) in a manner that was commensurate with the costs of housing and feeding me, and then also purchase a large stack of literature from the monastery's press, so as to support them even more. I currently support them on Amazon.com, as well (automatic donations via the AmazonSmile program; I highly recommend this to everybody who wants to donate to a charity and uses Amazon). None of this was ever asked for by anyone in the monastery at any point or in any fashion. I did it because I wanted to do it, not because they told me that by doing it I would get out of poverty (even if they had said it, it clearly didn't actually work out that way; I'm still living on a fixed income) or anything like that. That's simply not a message of Christianity; that is a message of the prosperity gospel which is a
corruption of Christianity by those who want to fleece the poor and desperate.
The widow with the two mites was not lifted out of poverty, but she was lifted up as a saintly example for all of us out of her willingness to give, though her gift itself was small. There is absolutely nothing to object to in this (obviously), but any reading of this story that makes tithing a matter of salvation and necessity rather than willingness is just sick.
I will end with a quote from our father HH St. Cyril of Alexandria, who said the following in his
138th sermon on Gospel according to St. Luke (emphasis added; translation by Roger Pearse slightly modified to change one word that in an American context might be confused for a slur):
And as the very wise Paul says, "God loves a cheerful giver." And that it is right to be compassionate to the brethren, not ungenerous, nor as a matter of necessity, but of love rather without respect of persons, and blameless mutual affection, even the law of old made clear by saying, "And you shall not be grieved in your heart when you give to him: for therefore the Lord your God shall bless you in all your works, in whatsoever you put thereto your hand." As therefore Paul says, "He that gives, (let him do so) with bountifulness: he that holds preeminence with earnestness: he that has compassion, with cheerfulness." For love shown to poverty is not unfruitful, but is a debt that will be largely repaid.
(NB: This sermon was on 21:1-4, wherein the story of the widow and the two mites is found. It is curious to consider how this story, which revolves around a comparison between the charity shown by the poor and that shown by the rich, is interpreted in the actual historic Christian Church, in which HH was the archbishop of the great see of Alexandria, in such a way as to underline the need for unbiased and generous charity extended
to the poor, as you can see above, whereas apparently the LDS organization is focused instead on what the poor ought to be doing with their money, i.e.,
how they ought to give it to the LDS organization. I am tempted to point out the obvious that the one who has just two mites does not need to be lectured on what charity is and how to engage in it, as they likely engage in it one way or another every day and hence understand it much better than some rich American, but HH's words make the point much more eloquently than I ever could.)
