Eve did not lie to God

This year, LDS Gospel Doctrine classes are delving into one of my favorite places... the Old Testament.  I absolutely love this often overlooked and frequently misunderstood portion of the holy scriptures.

One of the first lessons of the year is based on the fall of Adam and Eve.  Many in our class plainly expressed that there are many things about this story that we do not know (which is true).  We do not know the length of time that they lived in the Garden of Eden.  We do not know the size of the garden.  We do not know what the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil looked like.

Of course, there are some things that we do know... some of the most essential elements of the story.  We know that Adam and Eve were naked, and that they were unaware of this fact (Genesis 2:25).  We know that there was a tree with fruit that would somehow give knowledge to those who ate of it (Genesis 3:6).  We know that Satan was present (Genesis 3:1, Moses 4:5-6).  We know that the consequences of Adam and Eve partaking of the fruit involved being cast out of the Garden of Eden, and the introduction of death (Genesis 3:16-24).

There are things that many people infer in the story.  We infer that Adam and Eve were married (Genesis 2:22-24, Mark 10:2-9).  We infer that eating the fruit did bring wisdom to Adam and Eve.  We infer that life was difficult after they were cast out of the Garden of Eden.

The most popular speculations that are made involve Eve.

Some people have suggested that had only Eve resisted the temptations of the devil, that all of humanity might have dwelt in the perpetual paradise originally created by God.  They infer that Eve was the source of pain and toil.  Many modern prophets have refuted this conclusion... and other sources of scripture show that the fall was a necessary step in God's plan of salvation for his children.

Other people, in the spirit of correcting the perceived injustices against our first mother Eve, have suggested that not only should Eve be held blameless, but that she was a mastermind who comprehended that God's plan would require them to gain wisdom, and to have children out of the Garden of Eden.  They suggest that Eve was not tempted by Satan... but that she saw through his ruse into the deeper meaning of partaking of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

This is also bunk.

Satan, who did not go through the process of birth and had memory of premortality, still "knew not the mind of God" (Moses 4:6).  Yet we are supposed to think that Eve, who did not realize that she was unclothed, somehow knew everything perfectly?

I have heard impassioned voices in many wards try to infer that the innocence of our first parents did not mean they were ignorant of the workings of God's plan.  It has been suggested that Eve searched for alternatives to taking of the fruit, thus proving her foresight.  Of course, for members of the LDS church, this would not explain why Adam was ignorant of the reasoning behind sacrifice, or why they only expressed joy in their circumstances after the gospel was revealed to them (Moses 5).

Most importantly, Eve did not lie to God.

God asked for an explanation of Eve's actions, and received from her this simple statement:

"The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat." (Genesis 3:13)

There was no "I partook to fulfill thy plan" or "I partook that mankind might be" or "I partook because there were no other solutions to give us knowledge and allow us to have children."

Here, Eve answered God honestly.  She had been tempted to do something she did not understand, and she did it.

Adam gave a much more complex answer, because there was more complex reasoning behind his action:

"The woman thou gavest me, and commandest that she should remain with me, she gave me of the fruit of the tree and I did eat." (Moses 4:18)

His course of action was motivated by a desire to stay with his wife.  He had a choice between avoiding the fruit, or remaining with Eve, and, thanks to Eve, he chose the latter.

The consequences of the fall of Adam and Eve are profound, and persist even to the present day.  It is central to the plan of God that we be born under the effects of a curse that bars us from the immediate presence of God, and allows us the freedom to choose for ourselves between good and evil.  Eve certainly does not deserve blame... but she does not deserve credit either.

There was only one who knew all of the parties involved in Eden... only one who knew the consequences of every choice... only one who knew what Satan, and Adam, and Eve would do, before they even thought of doing it themselves.  It was the one who planted the garden.  It was the one who created the tree of knowledge of good and evil.  It was the one who engineered the entire plan.

Only God knew.

Much as it is today... people have a tendency to give credit and lay blame where they are not due.  Other people may do harm, but the effects of the most heinous acts are, at their very worst, temporary.  Other people may do good, but at their very best, they are still flawed.  We are not so much smarter than our first parents, and we have difficulty overcoming temptations, mistakes, and problems on our own... but the same one who planted the Garden of Eden also knows of us, and his Holy Son Jesus Christ, who broke the curses of sin and death for Adam and Eve, can crush the obstacles that bar us from fulfilling our divine destiny. 

"...there is none good but one, that is, God..." (Matthew 19:17)

Don't worry about what the New York Times (a former newspaper) says about Thomas S. Monson

"The New York Times (a former newspaper)"

I laughed probably more than I should have when I first heard Andrew Klavan brilliantly describe one of the most powerful institutions of journalism using this moniker... but I appreciated the additional insights he offered as a former journalist and writer regarding bias and narrative driving that naturally occurs in reporting.

Consider this: if you ever come across an article or feature presented by news media about which you have knowledge (whether science, history, or a specific event), it is usually not very difficult to spot problems with the way they present the information, even if the facts they chose to include may be correct.

Unfortunately, even after seeing issues with reports about these issues, we frequently take news media as reliable sources on stories about which we do not have as much knowledge.

Recently, President Thomas S. Monson passed away.  Many people remembered the numerous acts of compassionate service, the frequent and passionate pleas for people to be kinder, or the bold testimony of Jesus he devoutly demonstrated.

Having listened to many of his talks and read many of his teachings, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints are familiar with what kind of person he was.

Enter the New York Times (a former newspaper).

Robert McFadden wrote an obituary regarding the President of the Church for the paper, highlighting what he thought were the most important perspectives on the life of the prophet, which seemed to be that he did not run the church the way the Robert McFadden would have.

Several paragraphs were dedicated to the lamentation that women could not be ordained to the priesthood, or that the church was still opposed to homosexuality.  The greatest positives that could be mustered included the fact that he permitted people to access historical documents that exposed polygamous relationships of early church leaders.

A small paragraph at the bottom concedes that he "embraced humanitarian causes" in connection with other faiths.  There is also a note that he visited widows and wrote personal weekly letters to servicemen while serving as a Bishop.

The name "Jesus Christ" was used only in the context of the name of the church.

I have many friends who have been, understandably, disgusted with this take on President Monson.  Some of them have circulated a petition on change.org (which I will not link), to request that the New York Times apologize or rewrite the obituary to better reflect what kind of man he was.

I believe the reason we say this is because, in spite of the fact we recognize bias and narrative-pushing when they write concerning something on which we are experts, we still irrationally think that the rest of the paper is somehow good for something more than lining a bird cage.

Even if the Times were somehow convinced that they were wrong to ignore the great service and kindness of President Monson, they are still wholly opposed to the faith over which he presided.  A correction or rewrite would be a hollow gesture, and to compel it via signature campaign would change 0 hearts to come closer to the one that President Monson spent his life serving... Jesus.

The Times is not the first mainstream organization to have a beef with a prophet.  Abinadi, Alma, Nephi, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Elijah, Elisha, and many many others have been accused of being judgmental, non-inclusive, and antagonistic.  The records that have endured from the times of these prophets are those written by people who tried to live what they taught. 

So don't worry about what the New York Times says about Thomas S. Monson... care what Thomas S. Monson said about following Jesus.

A Christmas Footnote

One of the most significant changes in human civilization was the metamorphosis of Rome from republic to empire.  These events are filled with drama and intrigue... think of the conquests of Pompeii, the crossing of the Rubicon, the betrayal of Marcus Brutus, the alliance of Mark Antony and Cleopatra, and finally the ascension of Caesar Augustus... the first Roman Emperor.

It is a little ironic that in spite of Caesar's importance, the time when many people are most likely to hear his name is during the Christmas season, in a tale where he was little more than a footnote.  It was written by Luke, and it goes like this:

"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judæa, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn."  (Luke 2:1-7)

Of course, this tradition does not take away importance from Caesar.  His empire lasted for centuries... and even when it was gone, people treated it as though it were still real.  Caesar's dead language can still be found in our science, our medicine, and our law.

That having been said, Caesar is dead, and his empire is no more... whereas the child in Luke's story... Jesus Christ... is alive and well and his kingdom thrives this very day.

The story of Jesus provides an example of prioritizing the things that matter in the context of the things that matter most.

This pattern is not limited to the story of the nativity, but should typify our observance of Christmas.  Careers, performances, programs, purchases, and other busy elements of our lives have real value and sustain many important aspects of this season... but they are little more than a footnote in the context of friends and family, music and prayer, kindness, generosity, and love.

Jesus would later teach this concept best (as he did with everything):

"Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s." (Matthew 22:21)

May it be so for each of us this Christmas.

How NOT to teach from conference talks

For the past several years, teaching in Melchizedek Priesthood quorums and Relief Society in Sunday meetings have focused on the teachings of former presidents of the church.

This coming year, these meetings will focus on the teachings of living prophets and apostles.  This announcement is both exciting and terrifying.

Exciting because members of the church frequently take for granted that we enjoy the counsel of prophets and apostles who are guided by Jesus Christ.  There have been times when only a small family such as that of Noah or of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob enjoyed this type of guidance.  In the days of Moses, or during the reign of the Kings of Judah and Israel, a small nation had access to prophetic guidance.  The current availability of prophets to people around the globe is unprecedented, and frequently overlooked.  Emphasis on these inspired messages in Sunday meetings provides an opportunity for those who attend to receive the servants of God.

Terrifying because many people have sat through "Teachings for our Times" lessons that focused on general conference talks that follow this tired formula:

1. The instructor gets a volunteer to read a paragraph from a talk
2. The instructor tells everyone that they like the paragraph
3. The instructor asks a question that can be answered by "read your scriptures, go to church, pray."
4. The instructor checks the clock, and unless it is at least 5 minutes passed when the class is supposed to end, they begin again at step 1

The new teaching materials for youth and now for Priesthood and Relief Society are titled "Teaching in the Savior's Way," and this focus is intended to do promote that.  Rather than have a structured lesson from a manual, the philosophy is meant to provide opportunity to counsel and instruct based on the needs of the individuals.  This format is intended to promote a more natural expression of truth, faith, and testimony, and less of a canned one-size-fits-all lesson.

This is exactly how Jesus taught.  To some people, he emphasized truths using dramatic comparisons such as the prodigal son and the good Samaritan.  To others, he spoke more abstractly, such as his message to Nicodemus about being born again (John 3), or his teachings about the need to seek the bread of life to those who were hoping Jesus would give them a free meal (John 6).  He spoke with impressive authority in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), and with patience for little children (Mark 10).  He knew how to handle those who were argumentative (Matthew 21:23-45), and those who needed help (Mark 2).

Jesus wanted people to think deeply about eternal truths.  His approach encouraged people to search the scriptures and the words of the prophets, and persuaded people to pray, even though he did not emphasize the use of questions like "what are some ways we can follow the prophets?" or "who has a personal experience about this principle that they would be willing to share?"  Though the words of prophets were fundamental to his message, he demonstrated their importance through application and demonstration rather than a shallow proclamation such as "I like what Isaiah said there."

For those who are assigned to teach in any capacity, I hope that this new focus encourages you to teach as Jesus did.  Let the words of the prophets and the guidance of the Holy Ghost help you to persuade bad men to become good... and good men to become better... "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." (Ephesians 4:13)

The Confederacy was evil... and also good...

The South.  The Confederacy.  Racism.  Slavery.  Evil.

These ideas have been connected for so long, that it seems most people assume they are all synonymous.

Of course, this isn't surprising to hear from social justice "warriors" or the fascists who identify as "antifa," but the extreme alt-right has been happy to contribute to the idea by waving confederate flags and throwing obnoxious nazi salutes as they proclaim utter nonsense about racial superiority.

The more surprising source of hatred for Confederate generals include those on the right.  I was surprised to hear several individuals on the right proclaim the following ideas:

• Confederate soldiers and generals were nothing but traitors, in spite of their service to the United States before and after the civil war
• Even if many whites in the south did not own slaves, southerners were willing to fight and die so that slavery would still exist
• The south was noble in the revolutionary war, evil in the civil war, then noble again in the world wars
• The north represented the pinnacle of morality in the civil war, and their soldiers were willing to fight and die because of their great love of blacks

History books published in New York, Boston, or other northern state all seem to agree that the civil war was a conflict between good and evil, and a great many people (even intelligent people) seem to take the account of the victors as a complete, objective, and unbiased source of truth.

It seems to me that the truth should be more obvious.  Certainly slavery was a terrible sin, and those who engaged in it, supported it, or excused it, were completely wrong.  The politicians who defined the laws of the Confederate States of America were certainly among the morally bankrupt self-serving fools who gifted their opponents in the north with the guise of morality... but to assume that every person in the south or who supported the south was equally guilty is as stupid as saying "everyone who disagrees with my political views is literally Hitler."

In fact, General Lee had a copy of Les Miserables by Victor Hugo given to all his generals, because he believed that it symbolized the Southern cause.  In other words, he did not believe it was to preserve slavery.  Perhaps more than what transpired before and during the war, was the character he demonstrated after the war.  He advocated for the healing of the union, and on one occasion told a woman "Madam, don't bring up your sons to detest the United States government. Recollect that we form one country now. Abandon all these local animosities, and make your sons Americans." 

Lee's letters express his efforts to be humble, obedient, and to adhere to his Christian faith.

Additionally, a southern perspective of the political climate that led to the civil war provides a bit more depth than the northern account of moral piety:

"The ardour, the fury, the stubbornness, the injustice of the abolitionists, provided the same ardour, the same fury, the same stubbornness, and the same injustice among their adversaries.  Did the North appeal to the Bible and to authority of the Scriptures?  The South did likewise.  Did the school of Mr. Sumner, the chief of the abolitionist party, cite acts of cruelty in the slave states?  The partisans of the South recalled to it the condition of the free negroes in the North, where they were treated as a pestilence, absolutely forbidden to ride in a wagon or omnibus, to go into a church, temple, or theatre, or to rest in a cemetery reserved exclusively for the use of the white race.  In Illinois, the foot of a negro could not tread upon the soil of the state.  He exposed himself to be whipped and led back to the frontier.  In other states, if he married a white he was soundly thrashed.  The North forgot too readily, in attacking slavery, that it had long been pariticeps criminis.  Only from the day when a considerable party in the free states believed it would be able to make use of the fact as a powerful lever against its associate, now become its rival - only from that day did it bethink itself to be shocked at the profound immorality."  (The Life and Campaigns of Robert E. Lee, Edward Lee Childe)

The truth in the civil war is no different than the truth today.  There are good and evil elements in every faction, and in every person.  Certainly slavery was a terrible evil that should never have been embraced by any state in America, but it was definitely not the only evil that existed.  It is ironic that those who proclaim the righteousness of their anger against the evils of the American South would espouse the same sort of collectivist bigotry that they believe fueled their anger.  There is faith, kindness, and goodness in the south, contrary to what New York based writers seem to think.

While I can hardly blame anyone for being disgusted at some sheet-wearing clansman waving the Confederate flag (as this race-based collectivist nonsense repulses me), I suggest that they do not have a monopoly on this or other confederate emblems.  For some, it truly does represent racist stupidity and hateful dogma, but for others, it represents fried catfish, collard greens, corn bread, pulled pork, humidity, football, southern hospitality, churches on every corner, and any number of other positive aspects of life in the American south.

Finally, as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I have another perspective of the confederate flag...  My personal heritage does not include a large number of southerners... most of my American ancestors lived in the north.  Many traveled across the plains as pioneers in the mid 1800s, before the civil war.  While they were loyal Americans, and opposed to slavery, they had been neglected by the United States government as they were wrongly driven from their homes in Missouri and in Illinois.  The federal government only took an interest in the Mormons when they believed us to be a threat.  President Buchanan sent an army to occupy the Salt Lake Valley in an unwarranted demonstration of power and control.  Even a thousand miles outside the United States, it seemed our people were not safe from persecution... but suddenly, something happened that drew the army back east...  Something that allowed the pioneers to take root, and to build permanent homes...  That something was a group of men attacking Fort Sumter on April 12th 1861 under the Confederate flag.

While I am not aware of a single Confederate soldier who believed they were fighting so that Mormons would be free to exercise their religion, when I look at the flag of the south, or any number of Confederate monuments, that is what I see.

I make no attempt to excuse the evils that did and do exist in the south... but I would suggest that there was and is goodness there as well... and that perhaps understanding different perspectives might be better at reducing the injustices and ill feelings that judges a person by their geography, heritage, or skin color.

Hating Hate and Hypocrisy

I recently came across an article that condemned the mantra "love the sinner, hate the sin."  There were several compelling reasons behind the main idea.  Here are some of the highlights

• Jesus never said it, instead he said "love thy neighbor as thyself." (Matthew 22:39)
• Loving the sinner has a condescending tone that implies superiority of self over "sinner"
• It is difficult for many people to separate sin from sinner... allowing hatred to fester and spread

Each of these reasons has some legitimacy.

Jesus taught that anger with someone else led to great danger (Matthew 5:21-24).  He personally showed great compassion to individuals that were condemned as sinners (Luke 19:1-10, John 8:1-11).  He frequently preached the importance of mercy, forgiveness, and kindness.

Jesus taught humility.  Consider the account of the prayers of the Pharisee and the Publican in Luke 18:10-14.  The Pharisee prided himself above the Publican because of his greater diligence in keeping the law of Moses.  In spite of this, the humble prayer of the Publican "God be merciful to me a sinner" brought justification to the sinner and not the Pharisee.  As Jesus taught: "For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." (Luke 14:11)

Human nature tends to lead people to do ill.  Undoubtedly, this contributes to Jesus's analogy of the camel going through the eye of a needle (Matthew 19:24), or encouraging his disciples to deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow him (Matthew 16:24).

I certainly do not wish to take away from the value of these ideas.  I do, however, want to point out the problem with this type of thinking.  Consider the following hypothetical dialog:

Person 1: We should stop with the "love the sinner, hate the sin."

Person 2: Why?

Person 1: Jesus never said it, instead he said love thy neighbor.

Person 2: He also said "My house shall be called a house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves" as he threw sinners out of the temple.

Person 1: Yes, but he loved them!

Person 2: But perhaps not their sins?

Person 1: Well, calling people sinners implies superiority.  You should let God judge!

Person 2: So you're saying that calling people sinners is a sin?  And that people who do it are sinners?

Person 1: No!  I'm saying that we're not supposed be hateful!  I'm saying that if you allow hate in your heart for sin, how can you say there is no hate in your heart for those who sin?  We're supposed to love!

Person 2: So it's wrong to hate the idea "love the sinner, hate the sin."  Right?

Person 1: I don't hate it, I just want it to stop.

Person 2: Because it is sin?

Person 1: No, because it's hate!

Person 2: And hate isn't a sin?

Person 1: No, it is...

Person 2: Just a sin that bothers you more than other sins?

Person 1: Well, when you put it like that...

There exists a group of people who pride themselves on their refusal to judge... except for those they feel are judgmental.  They pride themselves on loving their neighbor, unless they believe their neighbor doesn't love other neighbors the right way.  

The hypocrisy of condemning Pharisee-like adherence to a moral code based on behavior because it does not conform to a different Pharisee-like adherence to a moral code based on tolerance should be obvious.  In spite of this, I am still surprised by people who do the equivalent of point their finger at someone and shout "You're judgmental, and that makes you bad!"

Calling for an end to "love the sinner, hate the sin" seems to be a well-meaning plea, but it is misguided.  Though there is great value in loving neighbor as self... the first and great commandment is to love God.  The best way to do this is to keep his commandments.  Jesus was very clear about this in all of his teachings, but perhaps no where more than in his admonition "If ye love me, keep my commandments." (John 14:15)  When an individual has failed to keep a commandment, repentance is necessary.  (Matthew 4:17)  While a person who has sinned is still worthy of love, respect, and mercy, the counsel of Christ to the woman caught in adultery is applicable to all: "...go, and sin no more."

While there may not be any single method that is universally helpful in persuading individuals to make better decisions, and it is true that there are some methods that are counter-productive, there is nothing wrong with seeing sin for what it is.  It is OK to say that murder is wrong.  It is OK to say that a person should honor their marriage vows.  It is OK to say that theft is criminal.  It is even OK to say a person should not be judgmental.  In doing so, it is possible that you are "loving the sinner and hating the sin"... but that is OK too.

Loving the sinner and hating the sin is most beneficial if done introspectively.  This is exactly what Paul was expressing in Romans 7 as he declared "For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I."  (Romans 7:15)  Recognizing the need for improvement... recognizing the seriousness of sinful behavior... this can be good if it leads a person to God.  

Even when done in the context of helping another, it can be useful.  This is what Christ implied with his parables of the lost sheep, the lost coin, and the prodigal son. (Luke 15)  

Certainly there is a degree of hypocrisy that a person acquires when they suggest that other people might need to do better (since the same is true for everyone).  Still, Jesus inspires missionaries, apostles, and prophets to encourage people to change and improve. (Matthew 28:19-20)  As much as some may hate the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin," it is a perfectly appropriate way of thinking about the responsibility of Christians everywhere, not just to love their neighbor, but to understand that both they and their neighbors need Christ.

Taxing churches is wrong... and Christians should try harder to keep it that way.

Tithing is not a new idea.  Abraham gave of his increase to the High Priest Melchizedek. (Genesis 14:20)  Malachi described the refusal to pay tithing as robbing God.  (Malachi 3:8-12)  The law of Moses directed the priests to eat from the offerings of the congregation. (Leviticus 6:26)

In the New Testament, members of the church laid the proceeds from their possessions at the feet of the Apostles.  (Acts 4:34-37)  The practice was important enough that when it was not adhered to in honesty, divine consequences.  (Acts 5:1-11)  Frequently, missionaries and other traveling authorities were asked to travel without "purse or scrip." (Mark 6:8)  In later reports, Christ's Apostles confirmed that they had lacked for nothing in these conditions.  (Luke 22:35)  This could only have been possible because of the contributions of members who desired to help the Kingdom of God according to their faith.

There are numerous examples of people who have been blessed tremendously when they have given of their substance to support the temporal needs of God's priests, prophets, and servants.  The widow of Zarephath who gave to Elijah was blessed with enough food to endure the drought in Israel.  (1 Kings 17)  The Nephites who lived in the Christian utopia after his arrival in America completely alleviated poverty because they gave of themselves.  (4 Nephi 1:1-3)

Unfortunately, Christians (and many who masquerade as Christians) have in many cases abused this time-honored tradition.  

These abuses have not gone unnoticed by secularists.  In a spectacular stunt, John Oliver of HBO's Last Week Tonight created his own church called "Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption." (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com)  In doing so, he demonstrated the ease with which he could obtain donations from supporters, and be free from taxation because these donations were made to a "church."

While the idea was ridiculous, it was sadly not far from the schemes of some "televangelists" who promise their supporters blessings for making contributions to their "churches," when they are actually spending the money on luxurious lifestyles.  Because these contributions are made to churches, they are protected from taxation under the first amendment.

These practices have inspired many secularists to call for the taxation of churches.  The reasoning is that any institution that collects money and operates like a business should be subject to taxing power of the government like any other business.

On the surface, this argument may seem reasonable.  It appeals to the natural sense of fairness that most people embrace by suggesting that all organizations be treated the same.

Of course, the flaw in this thinking is that not all organizations are the same.  This is true even if at times they do similar activities.

A security company that provides armed guards for clients may perform similar activities as a military unit providing security for individuals of national concern, but a security company should not be treated the same as a military unit.  There are special characteristics of a national military force that necessitate treating these organizations differently.  Many of these characteristics are defined by the Constitution and federal law.

Similarly, religion is not the same as opinion.

The Constitution explicitly protects the rights of an individual to practice their religion... and prohibits the government from making laws that would prohibit the free exercise thereof.  (Amendment I)

The right of an individual to support a particular faith, to practice a faith, or to abstain from associations or practices based on their deeply held religious beliefs, is not just a preference... it is protected.  The right of an assembly of individuals is similarly protected.

If a person contributes of their own property to exercise religion, any law that would exact a portion of that contribution diminishes the freedom of that individual to full exercise their faith.  Imagine a tax collector taking one of the widows two mites that she wanted to give to God. (Luke 21:1-4)  Would she then have been giving all she had to God?  No... because of taxation.

Additionally, being a part of an organization does not mean that these liberties dissolve.  A person is not free to exercise their religion unless they are at work, or unless they are in a church, or unless they are in a group.  These rights persist unless there is a compelling case of direct harm.

A society that, using taxes or regulations, takes the contributions of individuals to religious organizations or for religious purposes cannot pretend they guarantee freedom of religion.

That is not to say that religious individuals and organizations do not have a responsibility to society.  The importance of religious liberty is strengthened when religious persons "promote the general welfare" and act to "secure the blessings of liberty" for themselves and their families... which are the declared purposes of the Constitution of the United States.

This may mean ensuring that funds associated with your faith are audited.  It may mean having the good judgment to know that a tear-out page in a magazine that sells prayers for you to get a new car may not be the best way to exercise your faith.  It may mean volunteering to be a part of service activities, so that more than just money is contributed.

It always means following God according to your conscience.

Society (including the secular portions of society) benefits when people regularly persuade one another to do good, and to become better.  Religious liberty (including financial religious liberty) promotes this outcome more effectively than any other freedom.