I owe $15,000 in tithing, Can I pay it elsewhere?

[priesthoodpower]

It sounds like the OP has a lot of animosity toward the LDS church, whether he is on his way out or half way out the door, what he does with that money he considers tithes is between him and the Lord.

About 5 yrs ago when my wife was in the process of leaving the church she was going through all types of emotions, most of her deep rooted anger toward the church stemmed from information she found online, one of which accuses our prophets and apostles as living lavishly off of the church tithes. She thinks paying tithes to a church is a scam and there are better ways to using that money. So one day we were at a fast food restaurant and at a corner table was a homeless man enjoying a snack. My wife pulled out a $20 bill and gave it to the homeless man. While we were sitting down eating our food my kids were impressed and complimenting my wife for giving to the poor and needy. My wife said something to the extent that "you dont have to be mormon to care for the needy".

After about 30mins while we were finishing up our meal the homeless man (who had left the restaurant) returns and approaches my wife...he hands my wife about six dollars and some change...my wife says "NO,NO,NO thats for you to spend it all"...The homeless man replies.."No, Im an honest man, I just needed money to buy my beer, now here take the change".

 

 

Edited March 16, 2017 by priesthoodpower

[BeccaKirstyn]

3 hours ago, danny1042 said:

Well thank you suzie! Its funny how out of all the "good people here" you are the first to start with a compliment instead of critism. Thanks your your feedback. 

If you're looking for someone to compliment you for your "charitable-like" ideas and thoughts, you won't find much of that here. 

[Suzie]

5 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

It sounds like the OP has a lot of animosity toward the LDS church, whether he is on his way out or half way out the door, what he does with that money he considers tithes is between him and the Lord.

 

 

We learn in psychology that behind anger, there is always hurt. I want to believe if I am hurt, people would try to treat me with kindness.

Quote

About 5 yrs ago when my wife was in the process of leaving the church she was going through all types of emotions, most of her deep rooted anger toward the church stemmed from information she found online, one of which accuses our prophets and apostles as living lavishly off of the church tithes. So one day we were at a fast food restaurant and at a corner table was a homeless man enjoying a snack. My wife pulled out a $20 bill and gave it to the homeless man. While we were sitting down eating our food my kids were impressed and complimenting my wife for giving to the poor and needy. My wife said something to the extent that "you dont have to be mormon to care for the needy".

After about 30mins while we were finishing up our meal the homeless man (who had left the restaurant) returns and approaches my wife...he hands my wife about six dollars and some change...my wife says "NO,NO,NO thats for you to spend it all"...The homeless man replies.."No, Im an honest man, I just needed money to buy my beer, now here take the change".

What is it that you want people to learn from this story? The assumption that the homeless man wasn't truly needy because he got a beer and you feel she just wasted $20? Or the statement that you don't have to be a Mormon to care for the needy? Or something else?

Edited March 16, 2017 by Suzie

[Suzie]

3 hours ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

If you're looking for someone to compliment you for your "charitable-like" ideas and thoughts, you won't find much of that here. 

That's really sad.

[BeccaKirstyn]

Just now, Suzie said:

That's really sad.

You have your opinion, I have mine. I won't compliment behavior that could be done on top of paying 10% in tithing that is asked of us by the Lord. In my opinion, if the OP truly wanted to be "charitable", then there was no reason to come to this forum to ask opinions about not paying tithing, and then expecting to receive complimentary advice from members who have firm beliefs in the commandment of tithing. They could have paid both without the need to come on a forum and talk about it in a nature that seems to exhibit a form of narcissism. 

[Suzie]

3 hours ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

You have your opinion, I have mine. I won't compliment behavior that could be done on top of paying 10% in tithing that is asked of us by the Lord. In my opinion, if the OP truly wanted to be "charitable", then there was no reason to come to this forum to ask opinions about not paying tithing, and then expecting to receive complimentary advice from members who have firm beliefs in the commandment of tithing. They could have paid both without the need to come on a forum and talk about it in a nature that seems to exhibit a form of narcissism. 

No need to explain yourself because as you say, we each have our own opinion. But I admit, as a fellow Latter-Day Saint it saddened me to read your  "If you're looking for someone to compliment you for your "charitable-like" ideas and thoughts, you won't find much of that here".  If no one can see the irony of the statement and the fact that this is an LDS forum then I don't know what to tell you.

All the best.

[BeccaKirstyn]

10 minutes ago, Suzie said:

No need to explain yourself because as you say, we each have our own opinion. But I admit, as a fellow Latter-Day Saint it saddened me to read your  "If you're looking for someone to compliment you for your "charitable-like" ideas and thoughts, you won't find much of that here".  If no one can see the irony of the statement and the fact that this is an LDS forum then I don't know what to tell you.

All the best.

Maybe some explanation is needed.....I put quotations around the word charitable-like because I was referencing his idea of paying his allotted 10% of his income for something other than tithing as not as charitable as it may seem. The idea may seem nice because the words sound pleasant (e.g., organizations that help people who have no water, housing, etc.), but the principle of the matter is simple: we pay 10% of our income to the Lord, and we can donate the rest however we want. If the OP wanted to spend another percentage of his income on other charities and organizations that the Church may not reach, then please do! That's amazing and I commend those who can and are able. But I won't compliment behavior that the OP seems to think is "charitable" when they are putting aside a commandment of the Lord to do so. 

As a Latter-Day Saint, I have a firm belief in the principle of tithing. So I won't compliment behavior or thoughts that go against the principle that I firmly believe in, even if they are in essence "good deeds".

Edited March 16, 2017 by BeccaKirstyn

[estradling75]

26 minutes ago, Suzie said:

 If no one can see the irony of the statement and the fact that this is an LDS forum then I don't know what to tell you.

The irony here is..  this person comes and belittles, attacks, and degrades faithful members of the church while claiming to be one.  And then when the forum members in general do not quietly take it... he casts us as the uncharitable bad guys. 

As if on this site of faithful LDS we should let his highly venomous  attacks on our faith, our church, our leaders, and our membership go uncontested. 

Edited March 16, 2017 by estradling75

[priesthoodpower]

51 minutes ago, Suzie said:

We learn in psychology that behind anger, there is always hurt. I want to believe if I am hurt, people would try to treat me with kindness.

The original post does not come off as someone hurt, he is snarky and obviously has a bone to pick with the church. That is way different from other posters in this forum that clearly state that they are torn, troubled and are seeking comfort. I have my moments too when I post about my frustrations about our church, its more of a venting for me and everyone responds accordingly, I dont expect sympathy.

 

51 minutes ago, Suzie said:

What is it that you want people to learn from this story? The assumption that the homeless man wasn't truly needy because he got a beer and you feel she just wasted $20? Or the statement that you don't have to be a Mormon to care for the needy? Or something else?

 

I admit Im not the best at story telling. At the time my wife was leaving the church she was teaching my kids that tithing was a scam and that if you really want to make a difference with your monetary offerings that one way was to give money directly to a charity or the homeless people. So she does that and the homeless man buys beer. It was quite hilarious when the homeless man told us what he did with the money. My kids were laughing. Similar to the OP, he has money but doesnt trust the churchs tithe system and wants to make a REAL difference by donating directly to a cause. I hope he doesnt have a similar experience to my wife.

[Vort]

On 3/11/2017 at 3:46 PM, cdw3423 said:

I don't mean to sound harsh but that seems like a selfish desire to me.  Even so, it's not hard to see the good the church does with it's money if you look for it.  

 

 

Welcome back, cdw. Haven't seen you around in a long time.

[Vort]

5 hours ago, danny1042 said:

Well thank you suzie! Its funny how out of all the "good people here" you are the first to start with a compliment instead of critism. Thanks your your feedback. 

Wait a minute. You are making a sarcastic judgment against those who responded to you. Weren't you the one all up in arms in your OP (before anyone had even written anything) about people potentially judging you?

Oh, yeah, here it is.

On 3/9/2017 at 3:48 PM, danny1042 said:

Before you even think about judging me, (if you do YOU are the one that needs to repent)

So now I'm just wondering, danny: Who's the one that needs to repent?

[askandanswer]

On 15/03/2017 at 4:52 PM, danny1042 said:

I would love to see it do you remember the name of it? Thanks

This is the best I can come up with. I thought the story had been referred to in a more recent General Conference but the only reference I hae been able to find is the April 1910 Conference Report. However, I strongly believe the story has been re-told many times in more recent times, by authoritative sources. Here is the story, found at http://www.oocities.org/wallygray25/tithing.htm. I think it is directly relevant to your query.

President George Albert Smith: (Following a stake conference he was accompanied home by a friend, and this conversation ensued:)

"'You know, I have heard many things in this conference, but there is only one thing that I do not understand the way you do.'

"I said, 'What is that?'

"'Well,' he said, ' it is about paying tithing.'

(The man then went on to explain how he did it.)

"'If I make ten thousand dollars in a year, I put a thousand dollars in the bank for tithing. I know why it is there. Then when the bishop comes and wants me to make a contribution for the chapel or give him a check for a missionary who is   going away, if I think he needs the money, I give him a check. If a family in the ward is in distress and needs coal or food or clothing or anything else, I write out a check. If I find a boy or a girl who is having difficulty getting through school in the East, I send a check. Little by little I exhaust the thousand dollars, and every dollar of it had gone where I know it has done good. Now, what do you think of that?'

President Grant: "I think you are a very generous man with someone else's property." (And he nearly tipped the car over.)

President Grant continued: "You have not paid any tithing. you have told me what you have done with the Lord's money but you have not told me that you have given anyone a penny of your own. He is the best partner you have in the world. He gives you everything you have, even the air you breathe. He has said you should take one-tenth of what comes to you and give it to the Church as directed by the Lord. You haven't done that; you have taken your best partner's money, and given it away."

(The man repented and latest started paying tithing the correct way." (Conference Report, April 1910, p. 6.)

[yjacket]

8 hours ago, Suzie said:

We learn in psychology that behind anger, there is always hurt. I want to believe if I am hurt, people would try to treat me with kindness.

?? Talk about false teaching.  I guess this is true, but so what?  

Let's see, I'm someone who has pre-marital sex, I get a women pregnant, now I have to support her.  Now I'm angry b/c I'm "hurt" that I have to support the child?

Please give me a break. The world has gone mad with this "feelings" junk.  No, let's identify the real cause of anger-it comes from unrighteous feelings and it's something we can control. We are all prone from time to time to deal with anger, but we are better than the beasts of the field and are put on this earth to learn how to control our feelings.

My children through temper-tantrums,  yes they are angry. I guess in your terminology angry b/c they didn't get what they wanted, b/c they are "hurt".   I've tried it both ways, the way of "oh, I'm so sorry child, that you're hurt, but we just can't do xyz" and "welp, kid I imagine I would feel like you do if I was your age, but the answer is no. Either stop now or go to your room".  Guess which one works the best?

The biggest problem we have in today's society is that we have a bunch of emotionally stunted children running around in adult bodies that don't have control over their emotions and feelings.  

And quite frankly, IMO this is the church's biggest problem.  Not history, not spirituality, not any of that.  It's the reason why so many youth leave, why missionaries can't hack it, etc.  It's b/c they are emotional children in adult bodies, i.e. they haven't been trained and raised properly.

And when children haven't been told no enough times as a child, then they get to be adults and then when someone tells them no-they get all pissed, upset, etc. and become angry and eventually just say well if I can't do xyz-I'll take my ball and go home.

Edited March 16, 2017 by yjacket

[Guest]

If you are angry that you have to support your own child, you're a jerk with a misplaced ego and anger management problems, not someone with hurt feelings.

 

thats not to say Suzie is totally wrong, but some people are simply jerks.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Eowyn

[omegaseamaster75]

21 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Omega-does he have to accept it even if he has doubts? Asking because I'm totally ignorant on the subject. 

In my opinion yes, and this is why:

Contrary to popular belief outward appearances do not show reality.  Driving a nice car, living in a nice house do not equate wealth only the appearance there of.  Barring psychic powers a bishop has no idea what an individual's "increase" is.  HE may suspect that someone who only pays 3k a year in tithing is getting over on him when he sees this individual driving a decent car and paying rent, but he can't really know unless he asks probing questions about the individuals sources of income.  

Example: Johnny owns a S-Corp gross receipts are 750,000/year.  He pays himself a salary of  100k/ year after business expenses there is nothing left over.  Goes to the Bishop pays 10k in tithing and says he is a full tithe payer. Bishop calls him out and asks why is his tithing so little when Johnny just bought a new Porsche for 120K, Eats out at nice restaurants all the time (he knows this because Johnny posts on facebook prolifically), wears a rolex watch,  travels to cool places all the time, and is a member of the local private golf club.  Oh and lives in a nicer house than the bishop even though their take home wage is the same at 100k before tax.

So should the bishop dig into something that is none of his business? the answer is no. The bishop asks the question "are you a full tithe payer" it's a yes or no question.  If you say you are and you're not you are then accountable to the Lord the bishop has fulfilled his responsibility.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2017 by omegaseamaster75

[Guest MormonGator]

17 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

In my opinion yes, and this is why:

Contrary to popular belief outward appearances do not show reality.  Driving a nice car, living in a nice house do not equate wealth only the appearance there of.  

 

 

A really smart guy said the same kind of thing earlier on the thread, you plagiarizing jerk face. 


(totally playing! Love you Omega!) 

[zil]

38 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

If you say you are and you're not you are then accountable to the Lord the bishop has fulfilled his responsibility.

Then why not just have a checkbox in the online tithing payment system wherein you can declare yourself a full tithe payer?  Cuz what you're describing (where the bishop doesn't use discernment, the Spirit, or whatever you want to call it, to decide maybe we need to discuss this further) is the exact same thing (as a checkbox in an online form).

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, zil said:

Then why not just have a checkbox in the online tithing payment system wherein you can declare yourself a full tithe payer?  Cuz what you're describing (where the bishop doesn't use discernment, the Spirit, or whatever you want to call it, to decide maybe we need to discuss this further) is the exact same thing (as a checkbox in an online form).

I feel for both the bishop and the person in this hypothetical scenario we are talking about.

Obviously the bishop has every right to say "Dude, you are driving a Porsche, you live in a house with 8 bedrooms, 6 bathrooms, three pools and a bowling alley. Yet you only pay 4 bucks a month in tithing? Sup with this?" And nine times out of ten, the bishop would be 100% right to use inductive reasoning and question the tithe payer. 

But-(and it's important) 

The bishop might be wrong. I know from experience that looks are deceiving. I have a friend who came from a rich family. In his early twenties he did nothing but smoke weed, chase girls, play video games and...smoke more weed. He drove a nice, current sports car and lived in a condo in the best part of town. All bought for him by family members. If he was a member of the church at the time and wanted to pay tithing, he would pay zero because he wasn't employed. And he'd be a full tithe payer. So you never know. 

[omegaseamaster75]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Then why not just have a checkbox in the online tithing payment system wherein you can declare yourself a full tithe payer?  Cuz what you're describing (where the bishop doesn't use discernment, the Spirit, or whatever you want to call it, to decide maybe we need to discuss this further) is the exact same thing (as a checkbox in an online form).

You take the bishops ability of discernment to far.  How could he possibly know using my example that Johnny's business (which he owes) pays for his sports car, eating out and travel leaving him with much more disposable income. Should he ask to see Johnny's Balance sheet and P&L and a copy of his tax return?  Should he grill Johnny about the 100% business usage that he is claiming for his porsche so he can run it through the company? 

In HB1 it says that ALL members should attending tithing settlement where they review their contributions and verify their accuracy and can then declare themselves full tithe payers or not.  The bishop can discuss the law of tithing, and encourage a generous fast offering, but I couldn't see where it said for the bishop to probe and be nosey or to use his "discernment"

keep in mind that for the temple interview you are asked if you are a full tithe payer.  So if you're not you have to lie 2x......I also think that a temple recommend interview should be a more spiritual environment than the tithing settlement one where discernment MAY come into play.

You may or may not know this, but there is an actual box that gets checked by the bishop. Full, Partial, or non tithe payer.

 

Edited March 16, 2017 by omegaseamaster75

[Vort]

1 hour ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

So should the bishop dig into something that is none of his business? the answer is no.

By definition, it is the bishop's business. This is especially true for endowed members, who have already voluntarily given everything they own and everything they are -- all of "their" time, all of "their" talents, all of "their" money, everything with which they have been blessed -- to the building of the kingdom of God, which is defined as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They have already voluntarily become stewards, not owners, over everything they supposedly own. And guess who the Lord has authorized as the one to check up on their stewardship? That's right: The bishop.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Vort

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

The bishop can discuss the law of tithing, and encourage a generous fast offering, but I couldn't see where it said for the bishop to probe and be nosey or to use his "discernment"

You are kidding. Right? You don't really believe that the bishop is unable to use his gift of discernment unless the handbook specifically allows/instructs him to. This must be some sort of attempt at humor gone wrong.

Edited March 16, 2017 by Vort

[zil]

4 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

You take the bishops ability of discernment to far.

Again, then why not have a checkbox on a form somewhere?  Why do we need a human at all?  (Yes, I know the bishop checks a box, but he does it, not us, again, the question is why have him involved if he's going to act as a robot.)

Please note: I'm not trying to argue that the bishop should or should not accept the answer regardless of a person's apparent standard of living.  I never said the bishop should pry into anyone's finances (this is your assumption because you clearly balk at the idea).  But your prior statements were very cut and dried.  There was no leeway for anything but "yes" or "no", and we're done.  That's a checkbox.  It's not an interview, it doesn't add value to the experience, and could easily be handled by a (self-filled) checkbox.¹

In this reply, you add some leeway.

One of my concerns is the impression this "checkbox robot" idea may give to those who are not familiar with the church and its doctrine - ideas about importance, roles, attitudes.  To me, it's not so cut and dried, and I think it would be nice if no bishop ever acted as a robot (though some do, no doubt).

¹ To me, this is along the same lines as VT District Supervisors who basically act like a call center in India, pestering or capturing data rather than ministering through their calling.

[omegaseamaster75]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

By definition, it is the bishop's business. This is especially true for endowed members, who have already voluntarily given everything they own and everything they are -- all of "their" time, all of "their" talents, all of "their" money, everything with which they have been blessed -- to the building of the kingdom of God, which is defined as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. They have already voluntarily become stewards, not owners, over everything. And guess who the Lord has authorized as the one to check up on their stewardship? That's right: The bishop.

By the strictest definition of what  the bishops stewardship encompassas I agree with you, I guess when the day arrives that the bishops asks to see a copy of my tax return I will have some soul searching to do.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

By the strictest definition of what  the bishops stewardship encompassas I agree with you

Are there nonstrict definitions floating around of what a bishop's stewardship encompasses that say he should never ask any actual probing questions? Perhaps you can point me to the source of such nonstrict definitions. I'm not aware of them. I am aware of my covenants and of the basic doctrines of the Church, and these leave me with little doubt in this issue. If you have other information that comes from a reliable, authorized source, please let me know it.

[omegaseamaster75]

1 minute ago, zil said:

Again, then why not have a checkbox on a form somewhere?  Why do we need a human at all?  (Yes, I know the bishop checks a box, but he does it, not us, again, the question is why have him involved if he's going to act as a robot.)

Please note: I'm not trying to argue that the bishop should or should not accept the answer regardless of a person's apparent standard of living.  I never said the bishop should pry into anyone's finances (this is your assumption because you clearly balk at the idea).  But your prior statements were very cut and dried.  There was no leeway for anything but "yes" or "no", and we're done.  That's a checkbox.  It's not an interview, it doesn't add value to the experience, and could easily be handled by a (self-filled) checkbox.¹

In this reply, you add some leeway.

One of my concerns is the impression this "checkbox robot" idea may give to those who are not familiar with the church and its doctrine - ideas about importance, roles, attitudes.  To me, it's not so cut and dried, and I think it would be nice if no bishop ever acted as a robot (though some do, no doubt).

¹ To me, this is along the same lines as VT District Supervisors who basically act like a call center in India, pestering or capturing data rather than ministering through their calling.

I think we are talking across each other, having been to many pleasant tithing settlements with my bishops current and past I do not think he was just looking to check a box.  Tithing settlement was always an opportunity for the bishop to inquire about the welfare of me and my family.  Most members only sit down with the bishop one on one for tithing settlement and temple recommend interviews so it is a valuable time for the bishop to get to know his flock.  Reviewing your records and ensuring their accuracy should only be one part of tithing settlement IMHO.