Latest news with #ChurchOfJesusChrist
Telegraph
17-05-2025
- General
- Telegraph
‘My aunt gives 10pc of her benefits to the Mormon Church. It's not right'
If you have a conundrum that you want answered in a future column, email: moralmoney@ All our letters are genuine, but writers are anonymous. Dear Sam, I would welcome your views on the following. My 92-year-old aunt is in receipt of attendance allowance, which she uses to pay carers who help her with things that she is either unable to do herself, or needs help with. She is also a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) so, therefore, pays tithes. The LDS Church teaches that tithing is 10pc of one's annual income. It is left to each member to determine what constitutes 'income'. If a Mormon does not pay their tithes, they cannot get a recommend. If they cannot get a recommend, they cannot go to the temple. If they cannot go to the temple, they cannot go to the celestial kingdom – hence they receive damnation in the next life. Obviously, the worry of this cannot be understated. I feel that giving 10pc of attendance allowance to the LDS is wrong. Taxpayers are contributing, albeit unknowingly, to the Mormon Church. Also, people needing this allowance should receive the whole 100pc. I assume 10pc of other benefits are also tithed to the LDS by Mormons. Presumably there are no 'rules' that cover something like this? Thank you, – Anon Dear reader, This is a dilemma rooted not only in money but also in morality, religion, public policy and personal autonomy. And, as with most moral money matters, there's no one right answer – only a careful balancing of principles, perspectives and practicalities. Let's begin with what attendance allowance is meant for. This is a non-means-tested benefit provided by the Government to help older people with personal care needs remain independent. It is awarded based on the severity of a person's condition – not their income – and there are no restrictions on how the money must be spent. Unlike other support payments that are earmarked for rent or childcare, this benefit is, intentionally, left open to individual interpretation, precisely because everyone's needs – and values – are different. Your aunt is using this money for its intended purpose: to support her daily care needs. The fact that she is also choosing to give a portion of it to her church reflects her personal values and religious convictions. This is not fraud or misuse – it is, in the eyes of the law, a legitimate exercise of her financial autonomy. You are clearly concerned that the taxpayer is, indirectly, subsidising the LDS Church, commonly known as the Mormon Church. While that may sit uncomfortably with many, the same argument could be made about any religious or charitable giving made by benefit recipients. Should someone on jobseeker's allowance be barred from donating to a food bank or their parish church? Should a state pensioner be told they cannot give money to their synagogue or mosque? As long as the benefits are being received legally and used voluntarily, the state refrains from dictating how they are spent – even if others might find those choices questionable. What makes this situation more emotionally charged is your aunt's religious belief that failing to tithe may jeopardise her place in the afterlife. That belief system may seem coercive or even unfair to some, but it is nonetheless real to her. If she sees tithing as a spiritual obligation, then forbidding her from doing so – even if well-intentioned – could cause her great distress and a feeling of estrangement from her faith. Your moral unease is valid. It's uncomfortable to see money given for care being tithed when there are clearly real-world costs – carers, supplies, safety – that it could also cover. But moral judgement in this context quickly runs up against the rock of religious freedom. Your aunt is not being manipulated or misled – she is making a conscious, faith-driven choice. You may feel strongly that she should prioritise her physical needs, but she may believe – equally strongly – that her spiritual wellbeing is paramount. If you are close enough to your aunt, you might consider talking to her gently about whether she's still able to afford the help she needs and if she has considered adjusting the amount she tithes. Not because she's doing something wrong, but because circumstances sometimes require us to re-balance our priorities. She may not even realise the pressure it is putting on her ability to meet her care needs. A quiet, caring conversation may help her arrive at her own conclusion, perhaps with the support of her local congregation, who might also wish to ensure that she is not giving beyond her means. You're also right that this issue is unlikely to be covered by any formal rules. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) does not typically assess what benefit recipients give to religious institutions, and there is no legal mechanism to prevent such donations. The lack of restriction, however, is not necessarily an oversight – it is a recognition of autonomy, even when that autonomy leads to decisions that some would disagree with. Ultimately, this is a reminder of how intertwined money, belief and care can become in old age. Your aunt is not breaking any laws, nor is she neglecting her care. She is choosing to live her values. That may not sit comfortably with everyone, but it is her right, and perhaps her comfort, in what may be the final chapter of her life. Yours sincerely, – Sam
Daily Mail
16-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
State with 'clean' image faces unexpectedly severe addiction problem
A surprising US state is battling a crippling addiction crisis —but it's not fueled by alcohol, drugs, or fast food. In Utah, the substance of choice for hundreds of thousands of residents is soda. And not just the occasional can — many drink it in astonishing quantities. YouTuber Tyler Oliveira decided to investigate the effect that the sugary drinks are having on the population and what inspired the craze. In his film, one man named Steve Kinyon (Pictured) admits sometimes he guzzles more than 5 gallons of diet soda a day and he spends $300 a week on soda alone. Steve, a father-of-two with over 66,000 Instagram followers on his food-centric account, says even his young sons — ages four and two — love soda. His wife, Kephren, is 'concerned' about the habit. Tyler explains that the state's large Mormon population plays a central role. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are typically forbidden from drinking alcohol and hot caffeinated drinks like coffee or tea. But soda, especially cold caffeinated soda, falls into a gray area — one that many Utahns have embraced enthusiastically. Enter 'Dirty Sodas,' a wildly popular beverage trend in the state. These are essentially soda-based mocktails, with concoctions made using base sodas like Dr Pepper, Sprite, or Coca-Cola, spiked with flavored syrups, purées, creams, and fruit. 'These are basically cocktails without the alcohol,' one woman explains in Oliveira's documentary. A popular pick at the soda drive-thru chain Swig is the Mojito Mama, a tropical mix of lemonade, coconut purée, coconut cream, mint, and fresh lime. A 44oz cup can pack more than 600 calories — comparable to a fast food meal. But while many in the community view their vice as much safer than drugs or alcohol, copious amounts of soda has its risks. Obesity, diabetes , increased blood pressure, and kidney disease are just some of the hazards. Meanwhile, caffeine in caffeinated soda drinks can cause anxiety, increased heart rate and higher blood pressure. Along with the health impact of drinking so much soda, there is also a financial repercussion. 'If he started going into debt for this, it would be divorce,' Kephren says in one scene, as Steve is seen unloading a haul of soda from the trunk of his car. When Oliveira visits several soda drive-thrus across Utah one morning, he finds long lines and loyal customers who say they rely on their daily fix. One woman reveals her boss drinks two 44oz sodas every day. Another says her workplace caters to the habit with built-in 'soda breaks.' She tells Tyler outside a drive-thru in the largely Mormon city of Provo: '[Soda is] literally people's entire world. 'I'm [working] at an office right over here. We shut down twice a day so that everybody can go get their dirty sodas.' Meanwhile, one man likens soda culture in Utah to coffee culture in other parts of the world, but he highlights that soda culture is even more unique as it is 'much more customizable'. 'There's nothing else like it,' he says. But while it may feel like a harmless cultural quirk, the habit could be taking years off people's lives. A University of Michigan study found that just two sugar-sweetened beverages per day could cost someone 24 minutes of life expectancy. Over time, that adds up. If someone starts drinking soda at age five and continues for 50 years, they could lose nearly a year off their life — about 304 days. According to a report from the National Center for Health Statistics, roughly half of Americans over the age of two drink two sugary beverages a day on average. The health risks are well documented: added sugars are linked to obesity, certain cancers, chronic kidney disease, and heart disease. And even artificial sweeteners may carry similar risks. Commenting on the University of Michigan findings, food safety expert Dr Darin Detwiler previously told 'This study reinforces that making small, consistent changes in beverage habits may add years to life expectancy and improve overall health.' He added: 'Taking this study literally, a healthy 20-year-old person — whose life expectancy may be 79 years — who starts drinking two sodas a day may, according to the study, lose three to four years of life due to the impacts of those drinks.' Still, Dr Detwiler emphasized that the study's findings are 'observational not scientific,' meaning they don't prove a direct cause-and-effect relationship. Even so, he urges the public to take the results seriously. 'Cutting out soda or reducing consumption might extend life expectancy,' he said. 'But one thing that is for sure, is that removing these sugary drinks will definitely improve your quality of life, including reducing risks of heart disease, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses.' He also points to better weight management and overall health as benefits of quitting soda, using a vivid analogy: 'Think of soft drink consumption as driving a car without regular maintenance. 'While it doesn't guarantee a breakdown, over time the likelihood of a serious problem increases—especially if combined with other unhealthy habits.' Dr. Detwiler added that the findings could support new public health messaging: 'Perhaps this study could support public awareness campaigns about risks. I could also see this as a driving force behind policies to reduce soft drink availability in schools and workplaces.' For now, Utah's Dirty Soda craze shows no signs of slowing down. But with new health warnings and rising awareness of the long-term costs, the state's sugar-fueled habits may soon be put to the test.
