17-05-2025
‘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
