Guest post by Chris Robison
Last year I decided I was done waiting for my employer of 13 years to make me happy at work, so I went looking. I landed somewhere I never expected: the betting and gaming arm of a sports company. I grew up in a church that teaches gambling is morally wrong, a get-something-for-nothing vice that a people set apart from the world should avoid entirely, so I almost didn’t apply. But I knew I was good at talking myself out of change, so I set my preconceived notions aside and went for it.
This job has turned out to be amazing for me and one of the best I’ve ever had. And learning more about sports gambling, prediction markets, casinos and how those systems and businesses all work from the inside has been fascinating. And I want to talk about some of the surprising things I’ve observed and learned in this space and relate them to the church, our church experience and how we approach life.
So many people think about gambling in terms of potential financial gain. And this is not too far off from how people engage with the church. Church participation is generally framed around the rewards you receive in this or the next life; whether that be eternal glory, godhood, eternal families, God bestowing vague blessings, etc, there is always some gamble to be made and some gain or win to be had. And church members believe it so much they even stake 10% of their income on it. I’d wager that whether you’re taking a leap of faith in a religious sense with your money, time, membership, etc., or putting your money down on a sports team, you are most likely framing either circumstance as a bet on a particular outcome. I don’t know if anyone has counted, but most General Conference talks seem to attach “blessings” as the reason for doing most things we do. And the pattern runs straight back to scripture. The go-to verse on tithing, Malachi 3:10, reads like a sportsbook promo: “prove me now herewith… if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” Put your money down, and the payout will be more than you can hold. The church opposes gambling because it’s driven by a desire to get something for nothing. Elder Christofferson’s recent talk tries to frame gambling as producing nothing of value and gaining something without work as a moral failing. I’ll talk about that more later. The church’s own scripture on tithing is an invitation to stake something now for a far bigger return later. And even more ironically, our own Book of Mormon scripture (Mosiah 2:21) teaches us that even if we labored all our days, we’d still be unprofitable servants. To me that essentially means that whatever “glory” or reward we get is ultimately because of grace and not because of what we did personally (cue the faith vs works debate). That feels awfully close to “something for nothing.” Pay in faithfully, but the outcome isn’t up to you. That’s not a sports bet. That’s a lottery, also a form of gambling the church opposes by name. I do find it ironic Elder Christofferson highlights the lack of work part as a moral failing of gambling when the church has made obscene amounts of money on its investments. But, I digress.
I would say the biggest difference between “the house” and the church is in how each keeps you at the table. The house relies on incentives: free bets, deposit bonuses, odds boosts, all designed to make the reward look irresistible. And it can get aggressive about it. As I’ll get to later, DraftKings was recently called out for using AI to aim those incentives at the people most likely to lose. But the house doesn’t threaten you if you stop playing. The church uses incentives too, in the form of promised blessings, but it adds threats on top. I’m thinking of D&C 64:23, “he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming,” which has long been interpreted to mean that tithing is fire insurance. Stop paying, or stop believing, and you’re not just missing out on a reward; you’re in danger. The house has to make the offer lovely enough that people reach for it. The church only has to make the alternative frightening enough that people don’t dare let go. And frankly, this should be a concern. If people don’t find what you have to offer lovely enough on its own merits without adding threat right behind it, are you really offering something that valuable?
So why do people really gamble? One of the most fascinating statements I heard early on at this company from leadership that realigned my thinking about what gambling was: “we are in the entertainment industry”. You might read that and think, “well, duh”. But the switch in perspective is really interesting, because people who see gambling for what it really is, tend to engage with it in healthy ways and those that don’t can find themselves endlessly chasing a payoff leading to some very well documented unhealthy behaviors that need help and rehabilitation. Fundamentally, gambling is a form of entertainment meant to enhance your lived experience. And regardless of whether you win or lose, you still go away having had your lived experience enhanced. For sports gambling, placing stake on your favorite team to win or athletes to perform incredible feats enhances your experience of the game regardless of whether or not you win those bets. You go away from that game “energized” by the win or loss because of skin you staked in it. And while I won’t classify the church as entertainment, the parallel holds. Just as many gamblers think the point is the payout, many members would say the purpose of the gospel is salvation, eternal families, etc. Many dedicate their lives chasing after the payoff at the end of the rainbow. The covenant checklist leads to a jackpot. But underneath all the doctrine, policy, ordinances, etc, the purpose of the gospel is to fundamentally enhance one’s life experience. You’re on the “right” team, you know the “right” things to get where you want to go, you feel your money is going somewhere important when you give it and it has tools to frame and address challenges as they come your way. You’re brought to Jesus so that your life is better. I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone that has chosen to follow the gospel who also won’t acknowledge that it enhances their engagement with life in some meaningful way.
And this brings me to something the gambling industry calls responsible gaming. A lot of people love to employ the phrase “the house always wins” as if that is solely a bad thing or if there is something rigged about the system. That could have been true in the past or maybe currently true on illegal platforms, I don’t know. However, legalized sports gambling is very highly regulated. There are many requirements that have to be met in each individual state that allows it. To remain a viable business, yes, over the long haul, the house has to win more than the patrons do. On average, legal sports books aim to hold about 8-12% of the cash that goes through them. And they try to stick to that margin, because if the house wins too much, people go somewhere else. It is a very careful dance they have to play. Players have to win to want to keep coming back, but they can’t win too much. And the books have to make sure they don’t let players that exhibit unhealthy behavior keep playing. Believe it or not, there is recognition by a lot of industry that they orchestrate their own demise when they encourage players to bet money they can’t afford to lose. Some take this more seriously than others. A recent NYT article called out DraftKings for using AI to target the people most likely to lose with betting incentives, while its systems for catching unhealthy gambling had fallen behind. That’s not a good look, and it should be called out. But even with lapses like that, legal sports gambling platforms highlight the risks of addiction, provide free hotlines, and run detection systems aimed at cutting people off when unhealthy choices are being made. Because in the end, gambling platforms should not want customers who spend money meant for food or other life obligations on gambling. And in legal sports gambling systems, some are starting to have policies where if you report/complain that you lost money meant for these other nonnegotiable things in life, they will give you your money back, but then cut you off for life. From inside the industry, I see a great many people that can and do engage with gambling in a healthy way.
Now, I don’t want to dress up gambling platforms as altruistic–they are not. And since I’m guessing my employment with a gambling division adds bias that readers will immediately detect, I just want to say that I’m not naive to harms gambling has caused. I don’t personally gamble. My employer gives me play money to gamble with in our platform (not only is it illegal for me to gamble in Utah, but I cannot in any way use my company’s platform to gamble in any state where it is legal) so I can see how it all works. I’m not good at sports gambling, in fact I’m terrible at it. I’ve tried casinos once in my life and the math just doesn’t work out for me. It just holds no interest for me personally. In my company specifically, I see a commitment to responsible gaming that is encouraging. Legalizing sports gambling has also introduced significant amounts of consumer protections, monitoring systems and regulations that weren’t there before to keep people more safe.
However, the harms can be real and are well documented. One study found bankruptcies rose about 28% in states that legalized online sports betting, with low-income young men hit hardest. And the safeguards that do exist are underused: in Massachusetts, nearly 300,000 bettors took a short “cool off” break in a single year, but fewer than 500 excluded themselves for a year or more. There are other extensively documented harms caused over the years and yes, it is something we have to grapple with. And I would say that some of the platform’s approaches to drawing people in have been immoral. However, I won’t go so far as to say all of gambling is immoral–rather it’s something that just is. A lot of people get enjoyment from it without being harmed by it. And obviously that is not the case for everyone. Bringing this all back to my earlier point–even an industry with real, documented harms is required to show you the odds, offer you limits, and answer to regulators when it falls short. And as uncomfortable as this is for some to hear, the church, which condemns gambling as spiritually destructive, is held to none of that. “Responsible churching” is an area where the LDS church severely lacks. Church hurt is well documented, but the church’s response seems to always default to self-preservation instead of reformation.
Consider two cases. In Bisbee, Arizona, a father confessed to his bishop that he was sexually abusing his daughter. The bishop called the church’s abuse help line, and a lawyer from the church’s law firm advised him not to report it. The abuse went on for about seven more years and spread to a second daughter (AP). The church’s response wasn’t reform. It defended itself in court, and in July 2026 the Arizona Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the bishop’s confidentiality claim shielded him from reporting. The help line still operates, and efforts to close Arizona’s clergy reporting loophole have repeatedly stalled. Or take the Indian Student Placement Program, which placed Native American children in members’ homes, where some say they were sexually abused. The church settled those suits confidentially, with no admission of wrongdoing and no apology, and according to the plaintiffs’ attorney, church policies remain unchanged. In one case, the church even sued a Navajo woman in federal court to enforce a settlement she says she never agreed to.
It’s worth calling out some other examples where church lacks safety:
- Telling people that tithing comes first over any other obligation. In addition, telling people if they can’t make ends meet to still pay and the church will take care of you. This is such bad theology and a recipe for human harm. Especially in light of supposedly recent policy changes that only allow bishops to help up to 3-4 times before stake president approval is required. And then another threshold that needs area authority approval.
- The SEC fined the church for attempting to hide its wealth–generally lack of transparency.
- Putting men in positions of trust despite troubling past behavior. Wade Christofferson, President Christofferson’s brother, was excommunicated in 1996. According to Floodlit, an annotation barring him from callings with access to children was later removed, and only the First Presidency can remove one. In July 2026 he pleaded guilty to federal child enticement charges and admitted abusing two young girls. The church says President Christofferson had no knowledge of or influence over his brother’s membership decisions. Even taking that at face value, the system meant to keep a known risk away from children failed.
- Teaching that your spiritual experiences and answers will only align and agree with the Q15. If they don’t agree, you are in the wrong.
- In relation to targeting people, missionaries will often say they have much more success when focusing on teaching the poor.
- Telling members to stay no matter what. In a recent Scripture Central video, emeritus Seventy Lawrence Corbridge told members that “Darth Vader could be your bishop” and the culture “could be like Alcatraz,” but if the church is true, you stay (Salt Lake Tribune). I can’t imagine a more grotesque approach to church than this. By that logic, a Sith lord who slaughtered children is acceptable as a bishop, but a $10 bet on the Jazz is morally wrong.
I’m sure readers could make that list a lot longer, but I hope that point is made. And what is a person to do when they are harmed in this system—well, nothing. You’re encouraged to just forgive and forget and keep engaging in the harmful system because it is the only path back to God. And if your platform for telling those stories gets too big, you may end up in court. In April 2026, the church sued Mormon Stories. To me, it looks like a trademark case in name only: a way to make the loudest platform for church hurt pay a steep price for telling those stories. There is no regulatory system to keep churches accountable financially or behaviorally. They are given a special pass by the law in the US. It appears the only recourse is departure, which is happening at an increasing rate.
I took this job expecting to find everything the church had warned me about. In some ways I did. Gambling sells a reward you can’t have yet, asks you to stake something real for it, and keeps you at the table with the promise of a payout. What I didn’t expect was how familiar all of it would feel. The church that taught me gambling was a something-for-nothing vice runs on the same deal: pay in now, trust the payout later, and don’t ask too many questions about the odds. The difference is that the house has to answer to someone. It has to show you the odds, offer you limits, and step in when you’re getting hurt, and when it doesn’t, it ends up in the New York Times. The church answers to no one.
And the bar isn’t high. The church could tell members to feed their families before they pay tithing. It could send abuse reports to the police instead of its lawyers. It could open its books to the members who fill them. It could actually seek reparations and the active dismantling of past harmful doctrines instead of remaining silent or reframing them into something else. None of that is radical. Each one is just the church’s version of a safeguard the gambling industry already has. I’m not saying the church is a casino or anything close to it. I’m saying that a people who believe they’re set apart from the world should expect to look a lot less like it.
In the end, it feels like church leaders will forever take potshots at low risk targets. Yet, as we’ve seen over the last two years, will remain completely silent when a prophetic voice is needed the most, because it is just too risky. Or it will quietly reframe past harms as something else to avoid what would most likely have to be a very public repentance process to actually atone for harms it has caused. So as much as it is true that gambling, in one sense has perpetrated a culture of harm, it has also taken steps to be accountable for that in another however imperfect that is. The Church has not done that. And Elder Christofferson’s talk seems to be a talk highlighting a mote in another’s eye, while ignoring the beam in the church’s and his own.
Discussion questions:
- Is tithing a bet? If paying in for promised blessings isn’t a wager, what makes it different?
- The church opposes gambling because it’s a desire to “get something for nothing,” yet it teaches that exaltation comes by grace no matter how much we labor. How do you reconcile those two ideas, or can you?
- Have you ever felt that the church relied more on threats (fire insurance, losing eternal families) than on incentives to keep you engaged? How did that shape your experience?
- What would “responsible churching” look like to you? Which safeguards from the gambling industry, such as limits, transparency, or protection for people raising concerns, would you most want the church to adopt?
- Should churches be held to the same accountability standards as regulated industries? What would be lost or gained if they were?
- I fully realize the comparison here will make some readers bristle. Do you feel the comparison is appropriate and if not, why?
- What are your takeaways from Elder Christofferson’s general conference talk?
I love the parallel you outline here. Church leaders can bag on gambling while being oblivious of the clear way it translates to their institution and conduct. Rules for thee and not for us sort of thing. Thanks for this post!
I was very interested to see the parallel you draw here. Thank you. Church curriculum materials have many years emphasised blessings as a reward, most especially youth materials. My kid complained about it frequently when doing online seminary. They didn’t see it as an appropriate motivator. It was there in most lessons. Along with “if.. then..” and “us.. them..”. Yeah, not a fan of CES.
Pascal’s wager pops up on my Instagram feed regularly, and while it seems to be applicable to any religion I think many LDS subscribe to the idea. The downside risk to not believing seems disproportionate to the small risk in believing. The problem is that even if you believe in a god you have to get his (her? / their ?) identity correct otherwise it’s the same as not believing.
Broadcast today London Hyde Park. Jennifer Kearon’s talk is relevant here. I was quite uncomfortable with the portrayal of surrendering all, and especially the examples given, and the absolute declaration that it always works. Because.. survivor bias or something…
And an assumption of God can be trusted, which is a whole lot harder as a woman Patrick, given church teachings and doctrines…
Omitted the link, not sure how long it will be up: https://www.youtube.com/live/XGV-DZnVHrA?feature=shared
Perhaps the biggest gamble the LDS Church is taking is putting 2/3 of its income into investments like the US Stock Market.
Living the gospel isn’t a crapshoot. If we follow the Savior we will be saved.
Your reflections on employment in the gambling industry are interesting. People need jobs, and if a gambling enterprise pays well and provides benefits, then so be it. But there’s a limit to how sincerely you can defend an industry that results in a not insignificant number of bankruptcies by its customers. People don’t go broke golfing or going to the movies, other entertainment alternatives.
Is contributing to the LDS Church, or any other denomination, a form of gambling? First, one might argue that it’s a charitable contribution (See: Tax Law) and people don’t expect a return from a charitable contribution. So it’s not gambling. But even if you stress the “pay tithing, get salvation” model (which is a gross oversimplification), by that standard lots of what we do is a gamble. Going to college is a gamble, and ends up being a bad financial decision for some. Getting married is a gamble — you put a lot of time and money into it, and your spouse might turn out to be a jerk.
“Responsible churching” is an interesting idea. But we have a Constitution that guarantees freedom of religion, and courts are very leery of infringing it. Insurance companies are regulated. Taxis are regulated. Gambling is regulated. But churches aren’t regulated. The consequences for religion and believers in countries where religion IS regulated are not good at all.
This post was genuinely thought-provoking.
I don’t know that I have anything meaningful to add to the conversation, but I wanted to make sure to thank you for your perspective.
Dave B,
Yes, tax law classifies it as a charitable donation. But, my point was not what tax law classifies it as, but underlying reason people actually do it. And for many that reason is to either not be burned at the last day or because it is required for eternal reward later. Now, that is not to say that aren’t people who are actually giving charitably without thought of reward. I’m sure there are quite a few of those.
For for the first amendment, yes it does give religion a lot of leeway. But at least as SCOTUS has weighed in on it over the years, it is not endless. And while I think the core understanding that gov’t shouldn’t regulate what you can believe or what religions can exist is perfectly fine, I do think that all the other baggage that has come along with that is not fine. In fact, SCOTUS has put limits on the expression of the 1st amendment when it begins infringing on the rights of another. For example, I think the church’s use of RLUIPA is a good example of where religion can use its power to manipulate and threaten local municipals into letting them build temples how and where they want regardless of existing ordinances. I generally thing all religious leaders should be mandatory reporters. The Catholics would fight that as that is against their theology. So while I do think that yes, sure believe anything you want, have your church exist, but I think organized religion right now is having some negative impacts in areas where it would be better if there were regulation, because it’s more about regulating behavior like we do in every other system, but not regulating belief. Taxing obscenely rich churches that hoard land and wealth would also not be a bad thing I think. That doesn’t impose on belief and the expression thereof. I understand it is a fine line. And I understand that some wouldn’t trust gov’t to be that regulating entity. But, I also don’t know that we should be accepting the real human harm coming out of it and accept we can do nothing because of the 1st amendment.
Is tithing a bet? In this post, Faith almost seems synonymous with Uncertainty, but maybe I’m reading too much into it. Years of observation, studying, discussion, logic, pondering, asking questions, questioning, prayer, and palpable experiences with what I believe is a reasonable belief in the reality of the Holy Ghost, have led me to believe in truth claims of the Church. Am I 100% certain of it? Not at all. I can’t be certain the reality I’m living isn’t just a vivid dream I’ve been having either. I’m confident enough to say “I know” I’m not dreaming, and likewise confident enough to say “I know” the Church is true– even more confident in it than a few things that society “knows” and takes for granted. I would echo Dave B that by that standard, many things are gambling. I know why I’m paying tithing, and at much, much more peace with it than I would be gambling.
“Yet it teaches that exaltation comes by grace no matter how much we labor. How do you reconcile those two ideas, or can you?”
Although I don’t think we teach that we can solely earn our way to Heaven, it doesn’t feel like following the teachings of Jesus could be reduced to something for nothing.
As for threats vs. incentives, it’s only in the last two years or so that I’ve seen bloggers, commenters, and one or two friends paint God as one of pure transaction and gain. Honestly, in my near half century of living, and given where I am in my life right now, if I had to reduce Mormonism to one sentence, it would be hard to choose, but I might be inclined to go with “The Ultimate Pay-it-Forward Scenario.” That’s basically what Exaltation is, isn’t it? And frankly, I also understand now more than ever why that kind of Life may not be entirely appealing to everyone, but other forms of Heaven, in their varied degrees, might be more desirable. I get more convinced over time that Heaven isn’t some place we earn (or “risk” in this case), but some place we choose.
“Responsible Churching”—your definitions make a lot of sense initially. Is it fair for us to compare it to the church on a smaller level? I’ve seen local leaders get criticized for the way they handle things at times, with criticizers not knowing that behind the scenes, they’re working for the benefit of so many people whose lives and futures are in jeopardy, potentially more so by more transparency, and so much so that I know some of the criticizers would be appalled with themselves had they had all the information in the right context (which is sometimes impossible).
Could the Church at large be taking a similar path and mindset? I think so. We obviously don’t know everything, but personally, outbidding Bill Gates for farmland with the intent to use it for that very purpose strikes me as responsible churching. No one is going to care about making Sacrament meeting if they’re starving. I wish more churches were this way.
As far as the “prophetic voice” goes, I can’t help but wonder if the push the last couple of decades was for us to be more adept at being “prophets unto ourselves” to such a degree that the [people of the] Church would be enough to collectively act, not just the Church itself. I don’t know that we’re there (me of all people especially), but I could see so much good being done without a clear target for ridicule.
Bristle is a good word. The OP is articulate, thoughtful, and maybe even a little persuasive at times, but it ultimately seems to fall apart on a number of levels. Thank you for taking the time, however.
Chris, thanks for a thought-provoking post.
I want to comment on just one sentence: “But underneath all the doctrine, policy, ordinances, etc., the purpose of the gospel is to fundamentally enhance one’s life experience.”
You mentioned in a comment a few days ago that religion has a significant opportunity for reformation by repositioning itself as a system for existential health. I think one of the problems is that religion has largely traded the question What makes a good life? for What must I do to escape this shitty existence and earn one of pure bliss? Religion, in all its forms, has too often become a cosmic evacuation plan.
But if religion is meant to help us live this life more fully, addressing our spiritual and physical needs and contributing to our individual and collective well-being, then it raises a different question: What happens when we stop believing that moral principles are inherently good and start treating them as a kind of wager on the next life? If we don’t see basic moral principles as the actual building blocks of individual and social harmony, it becomes easier to understand why people who profess to be “righteous” can be so hell-bent on punishing the sinner. If righteousness is primarily about securing a future reward, rather than cultivating the conditions that make life better for everyone now, then punishment can start to matter more than human flourishing.
On tithing, I don’t think the OP is saying it’s literally gambling. It’s about framing. The church itself presents tithing as a stake with a payout (“prove me now… windows of heaven”), and it condemns gambling as something-for-nothing. The church’s own talks are the best evidence for this. How many times have you heard someone call tithing “fire insurance?” I’ve heard it dozens. I’ve also heard many people claim buying insurance is betting against yourself. How about framing tithing as helping the poor and then *actually spending the billions on the poor*. College and marriage are gambles too, but that actually supports the OP I think. Most of life involves risk, so a categorical moral condemnation of one kind of risk-taking deserves a second look.
On regulation, I agree that governments shouldn’t regulate belief, The examples cited are about conduct: whether clergy must report abuse, whether finances are disclosed, whether settlements silence victims. Churches are already subject to tax, securities, and mandatory reporting laws. The SEC fine is an example. The Arizona clergy exemption is a policy choice, not a constitutional requirement. And “responsible churching” doesn’t have to come from the government. Some of the gaming industry’s best safeguards are self-imposed, and that’s the standard the church should meet.
1. No, Tithing is not a bet. The donations go towards buildings, building maintenance, supplies, and other thing that I make use of. The tithing money also go towards things that I don’t make use of. I suspect that I am a surplus when it comes to tithing money – I give more than what I receive. I am okay with that. It’s not a bet.
2. The gaining something from nothing in gambling comes at the cost of another of my fellow mortals, and is largely based on luck (or cheating). Exaltation from grace comes from does not happen due to luck, there’s no way to cheat it, and it doesn’t take from any of my other fellow mortals at all.
3. No, I have never felt that the church has relied more on threats to keep me engaged than other means.
4. Most other Christian churches have a board of trustees who hire the pastor and “control the purse”. Non-responsible churching happens when the charismatic pastor has sufficient sway over the board that he gets them to ignore the accounting and uses the funds to enrich himself. I have not seen any bishop or stake president or any other church leader do that.
5. No. That would make mans rules override God’s rules.
6. The comparison is not appropriate. Gambling relies on luck and can be addicting. The addiction comes from the excitement that moment before you win or lose. There is nothing comparable to a life of clean living free from addiction.
7. I took away that even if you’re one of those people who can treat gambling like entertainment and not become addicted to it, it’s still a sin to engage in it due to precedence for those for whom it will become an addiction.
Mormon tithing is transactional:
1. Tithing can look like a wager because members are asked to give up something tangible—10% of their income—in connection with promises of blessings they cannot independently verify in advance. If the promised return cannot be measured, independently verified, or distinguished from ordinary life circumstances, how are members supposed to evaluate the promise?
2. Grace becomes difficult to distinguish from a conditional reward when Mormons are repeatedly taught that their eternal relationships and ultimate destiny depend on meeting a prescribed set of obligations. The theological distinction may be meaningful, but the lived experience s is absolutely a performance-based system.
3. How freely can someone choose when the perceived cost of saying no is eternal separation from the people they love? This can affect a member’s experience of religious life. What once felt like a voluntary expression of faith may gradually feel like an obligation maintained by anxiety, guilt, or fear of disappointing God and family. Vintage Mormonspeak.
4. An institution’s moral intentions should not exempt it from examining the harm its practices often cause.
5. LD$ Inc. should face strong accountability for financial conduct, safeguarding practices, employment decisions, and treatment of people who report wrongdoing – i.e. whistleblowers. Bottom line: Mormons are not given enough information to evaluate the institution to which they are asked to donate, devote their time, and entrust their families.
6. Religious institutions should be examined just as critically as other powerful institutions when they use hope, fear, financial obligations, and claims of authority to shape people’s decisions.
7. Christofferson describes gambling as a desire to obtain something for nothing and argues that its gains come at other people’s expense. Mormons are encouraged to give partly because they are promised God will reward them, therefore the relationship has a transactional element, even if it is not a conventional wager.
If Mormonism’s promises are true, its intentions are good, and its practices genuinely benefit members, why should transparency, independent accountability, and the freedom to question those practices threaten it?
There used to be a more tangible connection between LDS Tithing and the benefits accrued. Now it seems Tithing is more about affiliation. If you believe in the church and what it does you contribute money to it. This is on the same level as other charities and political action groups. I believe in the cause so I give to the cause.
Gambling has a variety of motives. It can be simply to have skin in the game and when this is done in moderation it is hard to call it morally wrong. But greed and the fear of missing out are factors that create an addiction. And with gambling, the addiction is going to be financially and emotionally costly because gambling is arranged so the “house” always wins.
jader3rd,
Thanks for working through all seven questions. On #1, I think that’s a healthy way to give. If you feel good about where your tithing goes and you’re at peace being a net contributor, that’s a great place to be. It’s much closer to what I meant about the gospel enhancing people’s lives than to the “fire insurance” framing I was critiquing.
On #2, I’ll grant you something: exaltation as you understand it isn’t zero-sum. Nobody has to lose for you to be saved. But I don’t think “my gain comes at someone else’s expense” is what makes something sinful. A job offer, a bidding war on a house, a business winning customers from a competitor: all of those are gains that cost someone else, and no one calls them vice. If anything, a bettor agrees to the terms before playing, which is more consent than the other job applicant ever gave.
The bigger thing I’d push on is luck versus faith. I agree exaltation isn’t luck within your framework. But “not luck” isn’t the same as “known.” A bettor and a believer are both acting now on an outcome they can’t see yet. The difference my post was drawing is that a sportsbook has to publish its odds. The church asks you to accept that its odds are 100% and to stake your money, time, and relationships on that. You may well be right. But it’s faith, not something either of us can verify, and I think that’s worth being honest about when we hold it up against gambling, which we can actually measure.
That’s also why #5 doesn’t quite land for me. Mandatory abuse reporting or financial disclosure would only override God’s rules if we assume the church’s current practices are God’s rules. And our own 12th Article of Faith says we believe in being subject to the law.
On #6 and #7, I’m not trying to make this either/or. Gambling addiction is real and devastating, and I said so in the post. But faith can hurt people too: scrupulosity, shame over never measuring up, people who stayed in harmful situations because they were told the alternative was losing their family forever. Your #7 actually makes the case I’m trying to make. You’re saying an activity can be wrong even for people who handle it fine, because of the people it harms. I’m not asking nearly that much of the church. I’m only asking that it acknowledge the people it does harm and build safeguards for them, the way even the gambling industry is required to.
And I mean this sincerely: I’m glad you’ve never felt pressured or threatened to stay. That’s how it should be. A few people in this thread have described a different experience, and I think both are real.
Jack,
“Living the gospel isn’t a crapshoot. If we follow the Savior we will be saved.”
I appreciate your conviction, but that is still a declaration of faith that must already presuppose/trust in a particular narrative of how we came to be where we are right now. And while following Jesus isn’t a crapshoot, if eventual rewards like “being saved” are the goal, then we are all equally blind as to what that really looks like or if it even exists at all.
Some church leaders and many church members frame tithing as transactional. I suppose that could be framed as a bet. The Pascal’s wager framing of religion generally certainly does. I’ve moved beyond that. Tithing is a spiritual practice that helps me put material things into perspective. In that light, it is not a bet. The church would do well to frame it that way, but there are too many leaders who have bought into magical thinking around tithing and continue to teach that magical thinking to members. It will be with us for some time.
Generally, I am supportive of Christofferson speaking against gambling. I acknowledge that some treat it as entertainment and are able to do so responsibly. I don’t regard participating that way as a moral failing, yet I think religious leaders warning about it is necessary. I also think it was better gambling was not accessible on phones.
What it looked like when I was young,
gambling actually paid a small amount back
with tithing, it was 100% completely gone
So you lost less money with gambling
I liked that Thoreau quote which I will now misapply, ” It makes God to be a moneyed gentleman who scatters a handful of pennies in order to see mankind scramble for them.”
I prefer vending machines. Throw some spare change in and get a candy bar. Sure it’s empty calories, but it tastes good. Although sometimes you have to shake it (and in For All Mankind–negative pressure)
The LDS church has a fraught, sometimes schizophrenic relationship with gambling, just as it does with other sensitive “morality” issues that it rarely wants to talk about directly, where most of it’s pronouncements are laid out quietly and unevenly (like it has done with birth control and abortion over the years). For example, I’m old enough to remember when it was common among some devout LDS families to eschew playing with face cards, for their potential association with gambling. Meanwhile, I knew other LDS families for whom poker was a regular feature of family holiday gatherings. My family was somewhere in between, rejecting the gambling aspects but still being OK with card games generally. Members were all over the map with compliance on this, but certain arbitrary, made up rules are important to certain kinds of Mormons.
The Las Vegas area has a relatively high concentration of Latter-day Saints, and has for many years. It is likely that large numbers of Mormons are employed by the gaming industry there, including adjacent industries like entertainment, hospitality, food service, tourism, etc, that support and enable gambling, and are also supported by it. Even the late Harry Reid was once Nevada’s gaming commissioner prior to getting elected to the U.S. Senate. So a great many Mormons are earning their livelihoods directly or indirectly from gambling, and thus paying tithing on those wages, and seem to have no problem keeping temple recommends (hence the temples in the area). I remember considering that issue as a deep ethical problem as a younger man, but also not being too bothered by it ultimately, having never lived in or near Las Vegas. But I still wondered how the Saints of Las Vegas justified that kind of livelihood, like maybe “gambling is wrong and I don’t gamble myself but it’s OK if other people choose to, and not a problem if my job as a slot machine repair technician is supported by such bad choices” or something like that. I wonder how they are reacting to the Christofferson talk.
But generally I agree with Christofferson about the negative moral, societal and economic impacts of gambling. I think he was really trying to call out the rapid rise of electronic sports betting, along with unregulated prediction markets, which turbocharge the activity, and proliferate it in society. It’s become so normalized that every major sporting event now has at least one of the major betting platforms as a marquee sponsor now. This is a major problem, because gambling is proven to be highly addictive and ruins lives. Not to mention the ability to bet on the most mundane daily events, which makes it ripe for insider corruption, which is already playing out. Perhaps the answer is to legalize, but heavily regulate and tax (similar to alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis in some states) but it’s not clear Christofferson supports such compromise. Again, I largely agree with him, but I don’t think it’s an issue necessarily worthy of a full-throated condemnation over the GC pulpit; there are more pressing moral issues right now that deserve more attention there.
As for tithing as a form of gambling, I disagree. Tithing operates more like a pure extortion racket, where faithful Mormons are manipulated into paying up “or else”. Sure, they promise non-specific “blessings” as a carrot, but they mostly use sticks to encourage compliance, both temporal (no temple access, no important callings for status, no attending family weddings, etc.) and eternal (no VIP Platinum status in heaven, cut off from family forever). Tithing is a harmful regressive tax. Even in the Powerball Lottery, with its infinitesimal odds, anyone who buys a ticket still has a non-zero chance of winning the jackpot (though not much higher than zero). That’s a far better guarantee of any kind of payoff than from paying a lifetime of tithes to the LDS Church (or any church, for that matter). What does God need with my hard-earned money?
chrisdrobison,
From a strictly secular point of view my convictions lead to a win-win situation. It’s kinda like Pascal’s wager–there are benefits to following the teachings of the Savior even if death is the end. But, of course, death isn’t the end–so the benefits are both temporal and eternal–a win-win.
CR – Good post, as usual I agree with some of it and disagree with other parts.
I’ll just say that since I started earning money to pay for my mission as a 16 – 19 year old, I have never done anything for the church for any kind of reward. I’ve done things that I hope benefit my fellow human, that includes family, friends and even those that I don’t know. To do anything of a spiritual nature for some kind of reward is just folly to me and misses the point. I do find that I feel more in tune with the universe when I do things that strengthen me spiritually, and those things always are in direct relationship to helping those around me.
Hedgehog – thanks for the link to Jennifer Kearon’s talk. I did not in any way think she ever said anything about material surrender. I listened to her entire talk and found it uplifting, again, thanks for the link.
Cheers –
I wave my BS Flag anytime someone says tithing is fire insurance. I pay on my increase.
17RRider,
“I have never done anything for the church for any kind of reward. I’ve done things that I hope benefit my fellow human, that includes family, friends and even those that I don’t know”
And this exactly what I think should be the case. I think the problem when talking about “reward” is that it carries all kinds of baggage that I wish we could tease apart better. In the same way that the Greeks supposedly had multiple words to describe what we’ve combined into one word as “love”, I wish we had multiple words to tease apart “reward”. Because, correct me if I’m wrong, but doing things for fellow humans for you is “rewarding” but not in the sense that you get material gain or eternal prizes. It is the kind of “rewarding” that is the internal transformation kind, where you become the embodiment of “good”, not only for yourself but those around. There is a deep and lasting meaning to it. Doing and being good is the reason.
But “reward” is used most often in terms of some externality to be gained or earned. And I find that most of our gospel teaching and engagement is framed around the reception of these vague “blessings” as the reason. And maybe this is a result of capitalist culture we live in–we just aren’t wired to do something for nothing.
Jack Hughes,
This is why I love W&T–such an unexpected combination of thoughts in your post. I do agree with you that the epic rise in gambling/prediction markets has caused a lot of harm especially in light of prediction markets allowing trades on human atrocity or insider trading from politicians on policy/market outcomes. I can’t fault Christofferson for going after this, because yes, it should be called out. But I really wish they’d think more deeply about what “morality” really meant. I find when the church labels something as “immoral” that is really just “something we don’t like”. Sometimes it can also be whatever arbitrary thing the church claims that God says is immoral. It also gives them the excuse to shift something away from being political (where they supposedly claim to be neutral), to something they can now speak on. Yet, I think if we really dug into morality itself, I think the church would find itself mired in the muck of past behaviors and actions it would finally have to confront. So while I don’t begrudge Christofferson calling out gambling as a moral issue, their own moral failings significantly mute the authority with which they have to speak such a message.
As for my employment with this company, from what I can see, they approach gambling with the intention of having healthy human engagement and go out of their way to make sure that is the case. I know that is not the case everywhere. I suppose we’ll see if gambling collapses in public sentiment because of the epic money grab and negative personal outcomes perpetrated by the bad actors. But, I agree, there are way more pressing moral concerns (i.e. rapist and felon in the white house voted in by majority US Mormons) right now than gambling.
chrisdrobison, thanks for replying. I understand that my response to “Should churches be held to the same accountability standards as regulated industries?” comes off a little heavy handed. It could be that my understanding of “same” is incorrect. I like the idea of religious leaders being mandatory reporters. I want churches to pay taxes. There’s a host of other things where I am perfectly okay of making churches comply with a law to operate in society. But it’s possible that “same” is too far for me.
17RRider, It was her use of the stories of the widows in scripture (0f Zarapheth and of the mites) that rather unfortunately introduced that material element, and even worse the depiction of the story of the widow’s mite as a young widow with small children in the picture she described that made it unavoidable.
Chris, I see your questions as emerging out of your need for rationalizing gambling as a legitimate activity. Correct me if I am wrong.
Giving something now while hoping for future good also describes education, marriage, and charitable giving. That alone doesn’t make something a wager.
Tithing is understood as an offering to God, not the purchase of a chance at a payout. Members can approach it transactionally, and that deserves correction – but a distorted motive doesn’t define the practice.
Grace isn’t gambling’s “something for nothing,” either. Receiving a freely offered gift differs morally from seeking winnings funded by others’ losses. Unearned love, forgiveness, and generosity aren’t vices.
People hurt by fear-based religious teaching deserve compassion. Churches also owe people responsible stewardship, safeguards, and meaningful accountability. Those duties arise from the trust placed in them; the gambling analogy isn’t needed to establish them.
President Christofferson’s central challenge is worth considering: What are our choices doing to our character, relationships, and ability to contribute? Enjoying an activity doesn’t settle that question. And while the gospel can enrich our experience, its purpose reaches beyond feeling better to becoming more loving, faithful, and responsible before God.
James,
I appreciate the thoughtful comment. I’m not trying to rationalize gambling. I don’t gamble, and the argument in the post doesn’t need gambling to be legitimate. And as I understand the system better, I guess I don’t begrudge consenting adults their desire to gamble. My arguments work better if gambling is causing harm. That’s the point: even an industry with real, documented harms has to be accountably in a number of ways when it falls short. The church that condemns it from the pulpit is held to none of that. Gambling is the low bar in the comparison that the church is not hitting, not the thing I’m trying to lift up.
I agree that giving now in hope of future good doesn’t by itself make something a wager, and that tithing is meant to be an offering. But the transactional framing isn’t just members distorting the practice. It comes from the pulpit: Malachi 3:10 as the go-to tithing verse, the “fire insurance” reading of D&C 64:23, and conference talks that give blessings as the reason for nearly everything we do. I’m glad you think that deserves correction. That’s part of what I’m asking for. And the leaders would first have to correct themselves in this matter.
On grace, I think your distinction is a fair one. A gift freely given is different from winnings that come out of someone else’s losses, and gambling is a net loss for players once the house takes its cut. But notice that it moves the wrong from “something for nothing” to “at someone else’s expense.” And that second part is not unique to gambling. There are many legitimate things we engage in as humans with zero-sum properties that we don’t weigh-in on morally. So if unearned gifts aren’t vices, then something for nothing isn’t by itself what makes gambling wrong, and that’s the part of Elder Christofferson’s framing I was questioning.
Where I think we agree most is accountability. You’re right that churches owe people safeguards and meaningful accountability because of the trust placed in them, and that the gambling analogy isn’t needed to establish that duty. I wasn’t using it to establish the duty. I was using it to measure the gap. So I’d ask you directly: do you think the church is meeting that standard right now? Bisbee, the placement program settlements, the removed annotation on Wade Christofferson’s record, telling struggling families to pay tithing before their other obligations. That’s the question the post is really about.
I also agree that the gospel’s purpose goes beyond feeling better. When I said it enhances people’s lives, I didn’t mean entertainment. I meant something close to what you described: becoming more loving and responsible in this life, rather than only chasing a payoff at the end of it.
That’s why I think President Christofferson’s question is a good one. What are our choices doing to our character, our relationships, and our ability to contribute? I just think it applies to institutions too.
Nice try at rationalizing. Speaking of parallels, how about this? : “Fundamentally, porngraphy is a form of entertainment meant to enhance your lived experience.”
David,
Not sure what gotcha you’re trying to lob, but your statement about porn is exactly correct. That’s why people look at it.
Chris, this isn’t about a gotcha. Just trying to point out the hypocrisy of the author. Gambling and porn viewing are both clearly sinful behavior. Would he make the same arguments if he found his professional calling working at PornHub?
David,
I agree with you about porn and would never work at a porn company nor seek to excuse it. I don’t, however, find gambling sinful, even though I don’t engage in it. Porn and gambling are entirely different categories of things.
Well, that may be your opinion but it doesn’t align with church doctrine or teachings. Everyone has agency of choice, I suppose.
I pay tithing because I believe n the Church’s doctrine and consider it a commandment. I am grateful for church membership and know that my life has been blessed by belonging. I don’t value money to be of more importance than being happy just because I may now have more money. Money can do a lot of good in many ways, as long as it doesn’t become an obsession to earn or save even more. The Church does do a LOT of good with their funds–this is hard to deny.
I also believe that gambling is fundamentally bad for many of reasons. Some people become addicted to it and think that this time, they will strike it big. I once worked with a man who kept going to Los Vegas each year with a new system, convinced that this time he would strike it big, but each year, he came home broke. Maybe he was a fool, but why tempt fools? They may be losing the very funds that will provide him/her financial security for a life time. Why wouldn’t a church advise against gambling and just give advise to avoid it, because the odds are against winning?
I also think it best not to promise a financial gain from paying tithing. The laws of economics apply equally to those who pay tithing and those who don’t, but blessings are not just measured in dollars. Patrick McKenzie