Please help us get to the temple!

[amandaandchris]

My husband and I have been trying to go to the temple to be sealed. My bishop said that because I paid 4 months of tithing at once and we didnt pay atleast 4 payments consecutively (seperately), we can't have a temple reccomend. He says we have to pay 6 months of consecutive tithing before we can go to the temple. Please help! I can't find ANY information on this ANYWHERE!! We are full tithe payers!

[Quin]

I'm neither a bishop, nor in leadership... So I don't know the exact guidelines given.

That said... In my very limited experience... That sounds pretty normal.

In talks over at RS & w friends there seem to be 2 groups.

First has a long history of tithing (monthly, quarterly, annually, whatever) that miss a period, and catch up, an no worries.

Second group is either new OR has a long history of not tithing, so the bishop wants to see a consistent commitment honored for a period of time before issuing a recommend.

Clearly, I don't know if you're in either (or neither) group.

Nor am making a judgement as to whether what he's doing is right or not (since I don't know).

Others here will know more & better!

Q

[notquiteperfect]

I'm not a bishop either but if it were me I'd pay some every week for 6 weeks (or longer).  That would show commitment, consistency and indicate habit.  It would also demonstrate your eagerness.  All the best!

[estradling75]

Your bishop has the authority to enforce the standards of worthiness to enter the temple.

 

Asking you to pay tithing consistently for six months seems to be well with in the bishop's calling on this matter.

 

If you and your spouse wish to get to the temple I would encourage you to follow your bishop's council

[applepansy]

Talk to your bishop.  He is the only one who can decide if paying all at once is ok.  I agree with Beefche, obey your Bishop.  There is a reason we're asked to pay tithing on a regular basis.  It forms a habit.  

[Dravin]

OP, I think I  need some clarification, I'm not sure if:

 

1) You paid 4 consecutive months of tithing in a lump sum and your Bishop told you he wants you to have 6 months of consecutive tithing under your belt before you go to the temple.

 

2) You paid 4 non-consecutive months of tithing in a lump sum and your Bishop told you he wants you to have 6 months of consecutive tithing under your belt before you go to the temple.

 

3) You paid 4 consecutive months of tithing in a lump sum and your Bishop told you he wants you to make 6 separate, presumably monthly and consecutive, payments before you go to the temple.

 

4) You paid 4 non-consecutive months of tithing in a lump sum and your Bishop told you he wants you to make 6 separate, presumably monthly and consecutive, payments 

 

5) Something else.

[notquiteperfect]

Dravin brought up some good points which prompted me to reread the op --- which I misread - oops!  Anyway, I'm sure the bishop isn't trying to make getting to the temple harder than it needs to be but there are good reasons for doing things a certain way.

[amandaandchris]

OP, I think I  need some clarification, I'm not sure if:

 

1) You paid 4 consecutive months of tithing in a lump sum and your Bishop told you he wants you to have 6 months of consecutive tithing under your belt before you go to the temple.

 

2) You paid 4 non-consecutive months of tithing in a lump sum and your Bishop told you he wants you to have 6 months of consecutive tithing under your belt before you go to the temple.

 

3) You paid 4 consecutive months of tithing in a lump sum and your Bishop told you he wants you to make 6 separate, presumably monthly and consecutive, payments before you go to the temple.

 

4) You paid 4 non-consecutive months of tithing in a lump sum and your Bishop told you he wants you to make 6 separate, presumably monthly and consecutive, payments 

 

5) Something else.

#3. 

He told us in January that we have to be current in our tithing for 6 months. He didn't say that it had to be consecutively monthly payments. But I took him our 4 months of tithing, in separate enverlopes, and he said it doesn't count. We have faithfully pulled tithing out of every paycheck. We just hadn't brought it to the church.  Told us we have to wait another 6 months.

[MarginOfError]

#3. 

He told us in January that we have to be current in our tithing for 6 months. He didn't say that it had to be consecutively monthly payments. But I took him our 4 months of tithing, in separate enverlopes, and he said it doesn't count. We have faithfully pulled tithing out of every paycheck. We just hadn't brought it to the church.  Told us we have to wait another 6 months.

 

This would be a good time to get your stake president involved.  The requirement for a temple recommend is that you be a full tithe payer.  I can understand your bishop wanting to establish that you are in a pattern of paying your tithing.  But his stipulation that you make a payment every month and remember to bring it every month is a bit overboard.  Especially if you had turned in four separate envelopes that you hadn't remembered to bring in until recently.

 

Try to be courteous and respectful of his intent, but I have no reservations in saying that he's pushed this too far.  

[The Folk Prophet]

The Stake President will almost certainly support the Bishop.

 

As others have said, a request for a commitment like this is within the bishop's purview. He could not suggest that one was not a full tithe payer based on this. But he can expect a certain behavior as an indication of commitment as his role as judge in Israel. Take it as a learning experience and an indication of how very, very serious temple covenants are.

[Leah]

The way this is written is confusing. 

 

It sounds like the bishop is looking for (minimally) a 6 month patter of paying tithing.  Yet you refer to having paid four months' worth of tithing.  If that's the case, 4 months is not 6 months no matter whether it's separate payments or lump.  And January to April is not six months. 

 

Could he be concerned (given something in your history), that you may just be coming up with a one-time sum in order to get your recommends to get sealed, but then will revert back to your old patterns once the sealing has been accomplished?  Nothing personal, but these kinds of behaviors do happen.

 

Perhaps he's looking for more than just a dollar amount satisfied.

[NeuroTypical]

My bishop said that ... we can't have a temple reccomend. [...] Please help! I can't find ANY information on this ANYWHERE!! 

I think you answered your own question.  Your Bishop is the one who gave you the information.  He is laying out a roadmap to the temple, and you are still on the road.  So complete the journey and get your recommends, and then go to the temple.

 

Are you looking for information that will prove your bishop wrong and make him give you a recommend?  One of the other conditions to meet before going, is supporting and sustaining your church leaders.  Do you do that?

[MarginOfError]

The way this is written is confusing. 

 

It sounds like the bishop is looking for (minimally) a 6 month patter of paying tithing.  Yet you refer to having paid four months' worth of tithing.  If that's the case, 4 months is not 6 months no matter whether it's separate payments or lump.  And January to April is not six months. 

 

Could he be concerned (given something in your history), that you may just be coming up with a one-time sum in order to get your recommends to get sealed, but then will revert back to your old patterns once the sealing has been accomplished?  Nothing personal, but these kinds of behaviors do happen.

 

Perhaps he's looking for more than just a dollar amount satisfied.

 

The issue at hand is that, although they have paid four months of tithing, they did it all on one day, and so their bishop is claiming that the clock is reset.  They now need to make monthly payments for the next 5 months before he will qualify them for a temple recommend.

 

amandaandchris aren't disputing that they need to pay six months of tithing.  The disagreement is occurring because, by their reckoning, having paid four months of tithing already means they should only need to pay two more months of tithing as per their original understanding of the instruction given by the bishop.  The bishop, on the other hand, is claiming that because they have only paid tithing on one day for a four month period, that they have only just begun their commitment to paying tithing.

 

While I agree that the bishop has the privilege of asking for a commitment of six months of tithing to demonstrate a commitment to paying tithing, I adamantly disagree that it is within his stewardship to dictate the schedule on which those payments must be made.  

 

(I have known multiple people who write a single tithing check per year.  When they file their taxes they write the appropriate check, submit it to the ward, and don't worry about it again until the next year.  Among these people have been bishops and stake presidents)

[MarginOfError]

Are you looking for information that will prove your bishop wrong and make him give you a recommend?  One of the other conditions to meet before going, is supporting and sustaining your church leaders.  Do you do that?

 

I don't believe that sustaining my bishop requires me to succumb to his will when he's being a bone head.  In fact, I believe that sustaining him would require that I do my best to help him see that he's being a bone head so that he can be a better bishop.

[The Folk Prophet]

While I agree that the bishop has the privilege of asking for a commitment of six months of tithing to demonstrate a commitment to paying tithing, I adamantly disagree that it is within his stewardship to dictate the schedule on which those payments must be made. 

 

But it is the bishop's call to make, regardless of other's points of view on it, and railing against the bishop will do no good for them, even if you are right.

 

I don't believe that sustaining my bishop requires me to succumb to his will when he's being a bone head.  In fact, I believe that sustaining him would require that I do my best to help him see that he's being a bone head so that he can be a better bishop.

 

Humility and submission are always better for our spirituality than frustration, anger, and a general kicking-against-the-pricks. Whereas there are times when it is appropriate to call a bishop on a bone-headed something or other, it would require a great deal of care and humility to do so, not to mention a high level of spiritual maturity. In this particular case there are a few things that I think would contend against doing so. First, timing of temple attendance is not really important. A wait of another six months will in no way hurt them, and the choice of humility and dedication will be for their good, even if the bishop is being a bone-head. Secondly, even if the OP completely agrees that the bishop is being a bone-head, they may be entirely mistaken. We are getting one perspective -- theirs -- and it may not be entirely accurate, laden with lack of understanding, or general bias. We simply cannot see the overall picture, so a recommendation to go back and fight against the bishop seems fairly irresponsible -- particularly in light of the fact that nothing will come of it except further frustration and hurt feelings.

 

Frankly it's just not that big of a deal. Bring a check to the bishop monthly for 6 months and go to the temple. Pretty simple thing, really. It cannot possibly hurt for them to follow the bishop's counsel on this, whereas it could very much hurt for them to fight against it, even internally.

[Just_A_Guy]

Why do you want to be sealed, amandaandchris?

[Guest]

I don't believe that sustaining my bishop requires me to succumb to his will when he's being a bone head.  In fact, I believe that sustaining him would require that I do my best to help him see that he's being a bone head so that he can be a better bishop.

 

 

 

 

This would only come into play if prior to January, they have been consistent tithe payers (regardless of how it is paid - from daily to lump sums given at indeterminate occurences).  The issue is not that they paid or how they paid.  The issue is that the bishop has not discerned a tithe-paying habit.  And that is not being a bonehead.

 

So, simply, we do not know the OP nor the bishop and cannot, therefore, determine why the bishop said what he said.

[MarginOfError]

But it is the bishop's call to make, regardless of other's points of view on it, and railing against the bishop will do no good for them, even if you are right.

 

 

Humility and submission are always better for our spirituality than frustration, anger, and a general kicking-against-the-pricks. Whereas there are times when it is appropriate to call a bishop on a bone-headed something or other, it would require a great deal of care and humility to do so, not to mention a high level of spiritual maturity. In this particular case there are a few things that I think would contend against doing so. First, timing of temple attendance is not really important. A wait of another six months will in no way hurt them, and the choice of humility and dedication will be for their good, even if the bishop is being a bone-head. Secondly, even if the OP completely agrees that the bishop is being a bone-head, they may be entirely mistaken. We are getting one perspective -- theirs -- and it may not be entirely accurate, laden with lack of understanding, or general bias. We simply cannot see the overall picture, so a recommendation to go back and fight against the bishop seems fairly irresponsible -- particularly in light of the fact that nothing will come of it except further frustration and hurt feelings.

 

Frankly it's just not that big of a deal. Bring a check to the bishop monthly for 6 months and go to the temple. Pretty simple thing, really. It cannot possibly hurt for them to follow the bishop's counsel on this, whereas it could very much hurt for them to fight against it, even internally.

It's also a very simple thing to recognize that a couple that has put together a tithing envelope for each of the past 4 months but forgotten to submit it while they were at church is really making four separate payments and showing a pattern of paying their tithing.

 

The problem with your "it isn't a big deal" argument is that it cuts both ways.  It isn't a big deal, and it wasn't a big deal until the bishop made it a big deal.  And my recommendation to appeal to the stake president is certainly an appropriate and measured response.  Getting the stake president involved and explaining, "we don't understand why our four months of tithing are only being considered one payment simply because we forgot to bring the envelopes to church with us." Is the next appropriate thing to do when the bishop and the members can't resolve the issue.  That is part of the stake president's calling and hardly qualifies as "railing against the bishop."

 

Also, I have to disagree that just because we only get one side of the story means that we have to advising to get the stake president involved is irresponsible.  Afterall, the first thing the stake president should do when he gets that call is get a full understanding of both side of the story.  Something that we are not in a position to do.  Saying, "we don't know all the details of the other side of the story so you should just do what the bishop says," sounds fairly ludicrous.

 

Lastly, "it isn't a big deal" is a terrible justification.  It isn't a big deal to you.  But to amanda and chris, it is a big deal.  Whether or not you agree with them shouldn't determine whether or not you validate their feelings.  And it's a little disingenuous to tell them not to make this into a big deal when it was the bishop who turned this into a big deal. (how's that for two sides to the story?)

[MarginOfError]

This would only come into play if prior to January, they have been consistent tithe payers (regardless of how it is paid - from daily to lump sums given at indeterminate occurences).  The issue is not that they paid or how they paid.  The issue is that the bishop has not discerned a tithe-paying habit.  And that is not being a bonehead.

 

So, simply, we do not know the OP nor the bishop and cannot, therefore, determine why the bishop said what he said.

 

By amandaandchris's own account, they have been establishing a habit of paying tithing.  The bishop's perspective appears to be that difficulty to remember the tithing envelope on your way to church qualifies as failing to establish a habit of paying tithing.  I would be a little more sympathetic to the bishop's point of view if there had been one single payment cobbled after he reminded them that they hadn't yet submitted any tithing, but that isn't what they claim happened.  I'm inclined to believe that they are being truthful about the events as they happened.

 

(that isn't to imply I don't believe the bishop.  I actually to believe the bishop is being sincere, but his sincerity is, to me, misguided)

[The Folk Prophet]

Lastly, "it isn't a big deal" is a terrible justification.  It isn't a big deal to you.  But to amanda and chris, it is a big deal.  Whether or not you agree with them shouldn't determine whether or not you validate their feelings.  And it's a little disingenuous to tell them not to make this into a big deal when it was the bishop who turned this into a big deal. (how's that for two sides to the story?)

 

Whether it is or is not a big deal to me, you, the bishop, or them, is not the point at all. The point is that it is not a big deal in the eternal scheme of things.

[Just_A_Guy]

You know, when critics assert that Mormons have to "buy their way" into the temple, I usually respond that faithful payment of tithes is merely one index--among many--of a larger personal and spiritual commitment; and that it is the underlying commitment--not the money--that makes one worthy to enter into the temple.

 

Are you sure that your bishop's concerns are solely about the tithing?  Because it does seem very peculiar for him to get hung up on that one particular issue.  Could there have been a misunderstanding somewhere along the line?

[mnn727]

6 months, you are lucky. To me a Full tithe payer is one that pays for an entire year.

 

Are you actually looking for the Blessings of going to the Temple, or do you just want to claim you have a Temple Marriage?  something to think about.

 

All I know is what I read on your post here, I don't know you or your circumstances but it appears to me you have not yet caught the Spirit of the Temple and what it actually stands for, and perhaps that's what the Bishop is seeing also.. 

[Guest]

By amandaandchris's own account, they have been establishing a habit of paying tithing.  The bishop's perspective appears to be that difficulty to remember the tithing envelope on your way to church qualifies as failing to establish a habit of paying tithing.  I would be a little more sympathetic to the bishop's point of view if there had been one single payment cobbled after he reminded them that they hadn't yet submitted any tithing, but that isn't what they claim happened.  I'm inclined to believe that they are being truthful about the events as they happened.

 

(that isn't to imply I don't believe the bishop.  I actually to believe the bishop is being sincere, but his sincerity is, to me, misguided)

 

 

No, it only said they are full-tithe payers since January.  It did not say they were full tithe payers prior to January.  Therefore, as a bishop, he would have nothing to go by except that there are 4 tithing envelopes in one payment.  A bishop will not be able to discern (or at least, I wouldn't), if the tithe-paying habit has been developed... because, turning in the payment is part of tithing... which means, when they forgot 3 times to turn it in, the habit is still a problem.

[notquiteperfect]

... First, timing of temple attendance is not really important. A wait of another six months will in no way hurt them, and the choice of humility and dedication will be for their good, even if the bishop is being a bone-head....

 

Frankly it's just not that big of a deal. Bring a check to the bishop monthly for 6 months and go to the temple. Pretty simple thing, really. It cannot possibly hurt for them to follow the bishop's counsel on this, whereas it could very much hurt for them to fight against it, even internally.

Actually, sometimes timing is a factor.  My parents got married civilly and got pregnant pretty quick.  They were urged by their leaders to get sealed in the temple sooner rather than later so my sister would be born in the covenant.  (not saying this is the case but sometimes an extra 6 months makes a difference)

[The Folk Prophet]

Actually, sometimes timing is a factor.  My parents got married civilly and got pregnant pretty quick.  They were urged by their leaders to get sealed in the temple sooner rather than later so my sister would be born in the covenant.  (not saying this is the case but sometimes an extra 6 months makes a difference)

 

In the eternal scheme of things it would not have made a difference. It would have been slightly more hassle to come in and be sealed. But being born in the covenant has no eternal value over being sealed.

 

It's about perspective. Yes, timing can matter in some ways. But in the eternal perspective, more often then not, it will not, particularly if the timing is not a procrastination. We have been carefully warned to not procrastinate the day of our repentance. Paying faithful tithing for 6 months to go to the temple is clearly not procrastinating the day of their repentance. And if the worse should happen, and somehow they died before being able to go to the temple, they would have the work done for them, they would accept it, and nothing would be held against them for following their bishop's counsel.