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

[omegaseamaster75]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

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.

Honestly....I and most will agree that if the bishop starts to audit my personal financials because he doubts I am a full tithe payer he is overstepping the mark.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Honestly....I and most will agree that if the bishop starts to audit my personal financials because he doubts I am a full tithe payer he is overstepping the mark.

Most also agree that God does not have a physical body. Truth is not established by majority vote, or even by common consent.

So do you have any authorized sources for your contentions about the limits of a bishop's stewardship?

[zil]

3 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I think we are talking across each other

Perhaps.  But I expect we still disagree with each other.  I agree with @Vort - my income and property are indeed the bishop's business.  Maybe if I thought my bishop was shifty, I'd be worried about that, but I'm just not.  Honestly, I'm not really worried about anyone (except potential thieves) knowing my financial comings and goings.

2 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Honestly....I and most will agree that if the bishop starts to audit my personal financials because he doubts I am a full tithe payer he is overstepping the mark.

IMO, you're jumping a mile where an inch was implied.  The implication being, "the bishop might choose not to accept a 'yes' answer without further discussion if he feels there are reasons to doubt it"; and your jump being, "the bishop is going to do an audit of all my financial records".  IMO, there's a pretty wide gap between those two ends, and if the "audit" end of the line concerns you, the opposite extreme ("check a box without thinking about it") isn't the appropriate response.

[omegaseamaster75]

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

So do you have any authorized sources for your contentions about the limits of a bishop's stewardship?

Is this for real? Just stop it. I agreed with you about the bishop's stewardship.  The .01% is my natural man being a doubting Thomas.

[omegaseamaster75]

24 minutes ago, zil said:

IMO, you're jumping a mile where an inch was implied.  The implication being, "the bishop might choose not to accept a 'yes' answer without further discussion if he feels there are reasons to doubt it"; and your jump being, "the bishop is going to do an audit of all my financial records".  IMO, there's a pretty wide gap between those two ends, and if the "audit" end of the line concerns you, the opposite extreme ("check a box without thinking about it") isn't the appropriate response.

Maybe, IMHO tithing settlement should be a happy time in which you and your family get to spend some time with the bishop.  As to being a full tithe payer or not IMHO if you declare that you are the bishop should accept that because he has no way of knowing your finances without disclosure of personal information. Yes he has stewardship, Yes if you are endowed you have made serious commitments with regards to the law of consecration. Yes he may feel inclined to "probe" but you're either going to be honest or your not.

Edited March 16, 2017 by omegaseamaster75

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

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.

I agree that enforcement is an issue fraught with complications; but I think a "nonya bidness!" approach goes too far.  I think my bishop's "business" entails anything that pertains to my spiritual and temporal welfare.  I think he's fully within his rights to ask pretty much anything that reasonably falls under that umbrella.  

On the other hand--if he uses that info to revoke my temple recommend; then I may want to take things up with the stake president.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I agree that enforcement is an issue fraught with complications; but I think a "nonya bidness!" approach goes too far.  I think my bishop's "business" entails anything that pertains to my spiritual and temporal welfare.  I think he's fully within his rights to ask pretty much anything that reasonably falls under that umbrella.  

On the other hand--if he uses that info to revoke my temple recommend; then I may want to take things up with the stake president.

I think all of us agree that you have to trust the bishop, 100%. You also have to make his life as easy as possible. Be open with him, etc. 

BUT

He has to trust you too, if for no other reason than because that's how basic human interaction works. No relationship will be successful if it's a one way street. That should be obvious. 

Edited March 16, 2017 by MormonGator

[Guest]

To far, and away! We're off!

[Vort]

31 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I think all of us agree that you have to trust the bishop, 100%. You also have to make his life as easy as possible. Be open with him, etc. 

BUT

He has to trust you too, if for no other reason than because that's how basic human interaction works. No relationship will be successful if it's a one way street. That should be obvious. 

Very true. Going to the example you gave a bit further back, let's examine two possible reactions:

BISHOP: You are showing a total tithing last year of $1,500, which suggests $15,000 of increase. But Brother Smith, you bought a new BMW two months ago, you added a new wing to your house earlier this year, and you took your entire family to Hawaii for three weeks in October. The people I know with $15,000 of increase per year are living on food stamps and struggle to have enough money to afford a telephone or rent a video twice a year. Can you help me understand the apparent discrepancy?

REACTION #1: My finances are private. You are not the tax auditor. I told you I'm a full tithe payer. Now give me my temple recommend and mind your own freaking business.

REACTION #2: Of course, Bishop. As you know, I am on permanent disability, which gives me a very small income. Combined with about $3000 in profits from my investments, that accounts for the totality of my income, which is what I tithed. My father has a lot of money, and he owns "my" house. He's the one who added on the wing -- for my benefit, yes. He also bought me the new car to replace the one I totaled in September, and he took us all to Hawaii. I guess I just picked my father well.

Which of these two reactions strikes you as the most charitable? Which is the most useful? The most likely to promote understanding? Even if you believe (which I don't) that the man has no obligation to explain himself to his bishop when asked, isn't that the way people who want to build Zion would deal with their leaders?

I don't know all the answers. I believe that "trust but verify" is politico-speak for "don't trust". But I cannot find anything amiss when a bishop inquires about an obviously non-standard arrangement of things. That's his duty. And it is our duty to help him in that, to sustain him, including to explain ourselves when asked. That's my belief, anyway.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

Maybe some explanation is needed...

I for one am glad you added the explanation.  When I read your first post, I was thinking, "OK, who is this and what happened to Becca?"  Then I read on and got the gist of what you were saying.  I think I agree.

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

Very true. Going to the example you gave a bit further back, let's examine two possible reactions:

BISHOP: You are showing a total tithing last year of $1,500, which suggests $15,000 of increase. But Brother Smith, you bought a new BMW two months ago, you added a new wing to your house earlier this year, and you took your entire family to Hawaii for three weeks in October. The people I know with $15,000 of increase per year are living on food stamps and struggle to have enough money to afford a telephone or rent a video twice a year. Can you help me understand the apparent discrepancy?

REACTION #1: My finances are private. You are not the tax auditor. I told you I'm a full tithe payer. Now give me my temple recommend and mind your own freaking business.

REACTION #2: Of course, Bishop. As you know, I am on permanent disability, which gives me a very small income. Combined with about $3000 in profits from my investments, that accounts for the totality of my income, which is what I tithed. My father has a lot of money, and he owns "my" house. He's the one who added on the wing -- for my benefit, yes. He also bought me the new car to replace the one I totaled in September, and he took us all to Hawaii. I guess I just picked my father well.

Which of these two reactions strikes you as the most charitable? Which is the most useful? The most likely to promote understanding? Even if you believe (which I don't) that the man has no obligation to explain himself to his bishop when asked, isn't that the way people who want to build Zion would deal with their leaders?

I don't know all the answers. I believe that "trust but verify" is politico-speak for "don't trust". But I cannot find anything amiss when a bishop inquires about an obviously non-standard arrangement of things. That's his duty. And it is our duty to help him in that, to sustain him, including to explain ourselves when asked. That's my belief, anyway.

 I don't think you and I disagree. I'd probably go with reaction 2. 

[zil]

27 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 I don't think you and I disagree. I'd probably go with reaction 2. 

Except it would be more like:

"Well, numbers 3, 7 and 9 decided to get jobs, and so income on the compound has increased significantly...."

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, zil said:

Except it would be more like:

"Well, numbers 3, 7 and 9 decided to get jobs, and so income on the compound has increased significantly...."

I know. We've all got jobs with the exception of :: cough cough :: one person. Start working on your resume young lady. 

[askandanswer]

10 hours ago, MormonGator said:

 young lady. 

I'm guessing your'e not talking about Zil here 

[Backroads]

On 3/10/2017 at 0:02 PM, mordorbund said:

I once printed it onto a bar of soap. That Cake was a lye.

I love you for this. Love, I say.

[Sunday21]

My bishop makes it very clear that he does not know how much tithing I pay. He slides the piece of paper face down across the table and asks, Is this correct? All my bishops in this town have done this but...I did have some of the guys over for dinner with the missionaries and...the guy who totals up the tithing gave a detailed comparison of people's tithing! Yep and compared my contribution to that of others. Yep, life in the hinterland LOL!

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

My bishop makes it very clear that he does not know how much tithing I pay. He slides the piece of paper face down across the table and asks, Is this correct? All my bishops in this town have done this but...I did have some of the guys over for dinner with the missionaries and...the guy who totals up the tithing gave a detailed comparison of people's tithing! Yep and compared my contribution to that of others. Yep, life in the hinterland LOL!

The bishop not looking at your tithing at all is very unusual. The clerk comparing people's tithings is absolutely unacceptable. He should be released immediately, or at the very least be instructed in detail, and most sternly, on how he is obligated to perform his duties.

[Sunday21]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

The bishop not looking at your tithing at all is very unusual. The clerk comparing people's tithings is absolutely unacceptable. He should be released immediately, or at the very least be instructed in detail, and most sternly, on how he is obligated to perform his duties.

Not to worry, he is now the problem of some other stake and a high priest! Low density Mormonism! We are more relaxed up here. When there is no one else to pass the duties onto, you tend to just smile and hope, they work out things for themselves. I moved here from a ward, where the person who handled tithing did not pay thithing themselves and kept trying to pressure me into investing in his business, I assume based on how much tithing I paid!

Edited March 19, 2017 by Sunday21

[jayanna]

I think a sheep would be a vast improvement on me. I wanna be this sheep. Maybe we can take turns...

[Guest]

Pay tithing. I always have prayers answered and find untold blessings when I pay my full tithe. It'll all be worth it in the next life.