Daisy99

Paying Tithing As A Married Couple

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, ephedra said:

...and the leaders are not allowed to challenge anyone's declaration of a full tithe.

Heh.  You just haven't been exposed to enough hairbrained tithing claims yet.

I know a guy who did it this way: He would convert all his income into gold coins.  Into these gold coins, actually:

image.jpeg.2df967abdb3a4f49f9f323550fd44762.jpeg

See what it says there on the bottom?  "50 dollars"?

So, he'd convert his $50k US dollars, into 30 or so gold coins, each saying they were worth fifty dollars.  Fifty times thirty is $1500, so he'd pay his $150 US dollar tithing bill on his $50k income/increase, and walk away whistling.  

His bishop loves the heck out of the guy, but yeah, come temple recommend time, you could say there was some leader-challenging of the member's declaration going on, in that dood did not get his temple recommend.  Because he wasn't a full tithe payer.  Even though he said he was.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Heh.  You just haven't been exposed to enough hairbrained tithing claims yet.

I know a guy who did it this way: He would convert all his income into gold coins.  Into these gold coins, actually:

image.jpeg.2df967abdb3a4f49f9f323550fd44762.jpeg

See what it says there on the bottom?  "50 dollars"?

So, he'd convert his $50k US dollars, into 30 or so gold coins, each saying they were worth fifty dollars.  Fifty times thirty is $1500, so he'd pay his $150 US dollar tithing bill on his $50k income/increase, and walk away whistling.  

His bishop loves the heck out of the guy, but yeah, come temple recommend time, you could say there was some leader-challenging of the member's declaration going on, in that dood did not get his temple recommend.  Because he wasn't a full tithe payer.  Even though he said he was.

That's such a great idea. We all know how much God approves of people trying to legally twist his laws in a knot. If only there was a scripture about Corban that explained his thoughts on the matter. Oh well😁.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

That's such a great idea. We all know how much God approves of people trying to legally twist his laws in a knot. If only there was a scripture about Corban that explained his thoughts on the matter. Oh well😁.

Well that guy is an idiot for bragging to the bishop or whoever about that. However his scam or whatever was discovered, yea that is obviously easy to scrutinize. That is a whole lot different than just a difference in opinion of what income is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, ephedra said:

Well that guy is an idiot for bragging to the bishop or whoever about that. However his scam or whatever was discovered, yea that is obviously easy to scrutinize. That is a whole lot different than just a difference in opinion of what income is. 

I agree, my comment was solely focused on what @NeuroTypical posted, and the gentleman he was talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, ephedra said:

Well that guy is an idiot for bragging to the bishop or whoever about that. However his scam or whatever was discovered, yea that is obviously easy to scrutinize. That is a whole lot different than just a difference in opinion of what income is. 

So, "the leaders are not allowed to challenge anyone's declaration of a full tithe", unless someone is an "idiot" trying to run a "scam or whatever", because that is "different than just a difference in opinion of what income is".

Do I understand your position on things, @ephedra?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, "the leaders are not allowed to challenge anyone's declaration of a full tithe", unless someone is an "idiot" trying to run a "scam or whatever", because that is "different than just a difference in opinion of what income is".

Do I understand your position on things, @ephedra?

Here is the first pres definition of tithing:

 

“The simplest statement we know of is the statement of the Lord himself, namely, that the members of the Church should pay ‘one tenth of all their interest annually,’ which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this.” (First Presidency letter, 19 March 1970.) [3]

 

pretty much states right there no one is justified in making any other statement. The tells me your bishop, so, area auth etc do not have the authority to tell you how to define your income so by default they also are in no position to determine if your tithe is a full one or not. 

yea that is what I am saying. If I go to tithing settlement and declare a full tithe, I am under zero obligation to prove it. No one is unless I suppose I am peacocking around church telling everyone how I am scamming on tithing.

Edited by ephedra
On my phone...typo city

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ephedra said:

“The simplest statement we know of is the statement of the Lord himself, namely, that the members of the Church should pay ‘one tenth of all their interest annually,’ which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this.” (First Presidency letter, 19 March 1970.) [3]

 

pretty much states right there no one is justified in making any other statement. The tells me your bishop, so, area auth etc do not have the authority to tell you how to define your income so by default they also are in no position to determine if your tithe is a full one or not. 

This is incorrect on its face. If I'm the CEO of a publicly traded company with an announced salary of $650,000 per year plus incentives, and I tell my bishop that I consider my "income" to be only the money generated by my sale of household items on Craigslist so here's my $50 tithing for last year, guess what? The bishop won't accept that. There certainly are what might be considered "edge cases", and even cases where someone is taking an extreme position to avoid tithing, where the bishop might feel compelled to allow the person enough rope to hang himself. But the injunction to allow people to define what they consider "income" does not supersede the bishop's position as a judge in Israel, nor does it mean the bishop is somehow obligated to accept whatever inane or absurd anti-tithing justification any given temple recommend seeker might vomit up.

tl;dr—Your final sentence quoted above is simply wrong.

1 hour ago, ephedra said:

yea that is what I am saying. If I go to tithing settlement and declare a full tithe, I am under zero obligation to prove it. No one is unless I suppose I am peacocking around church telling everyone how I am scamming on tithing.

Nope. This is incorrect, if you're trying to suggest that the bishop has to hand over a temple recommend based on your personal say-so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Vort said:

This is incorrect on its face. If I'm the CEO of a publicly traded company with an announced salary of $650,000 per year plus incentives, and I tell my bishop that I consider my "income" to be only the money generated by my sale of household items on Craigslist so here's my $50 tithing for last year, guess what? The bishop won't accept that. There certainly are what might be considered "edge cases", and even cases where someone is taking an extreme position to avoid tithing, where the bishop might feel compelled to allow the person enough rope to hang himself. But the injunction to allow people to define what they consider "income" does not supersede the bishop's position as a judge in Israel, nor does it mean the bishop is somehow obligated to accept whatever inane or absurd anti-tithing justification any given temple recommend seeker might vomit up.

Lets be real here. We are discussing how people determine what their income or interest is and I think you will agree there are as many methods used  as there are brands of root beer.  The stories we never hear are like the completely unrealistic one you made up.

tl;dr—Your final sentence quoted above is simply wrong.

Nope. This is incorrect, if you're trying to suggest that the bishop has to hand over a temple recommend based on your personal say-so.

Strawman- I never made any such statement or even mentioned a temple recommend. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, ephedra said:

Lets be real here. We are discussing how people determine what their income or interest is and I think you will agree there are as many methods used  as there are brands of root beer.  The stories we never hear are like the completely unrealistic one you made up.

On the contrary, I have heard many stories from bishop friends and relatives about people trying to justify themselves in paying little or no tithing—for example, unearned income isn't "increase". People treat tithing as if it's a tax and look for "loopholes". There are no loopholes.

48 minutes ago, ephedra said:

Strawman- I never made any such statement or even mentioned a temple recommend. 

It's not a straw man argument. The point is that your claim, "No one is [under obligation to prove their tithing status] unless I suppose I am peacocking around church telling everyone how I am scamming on tithing", is not true. Bishops are not obligated to accept every member's tithing status declaration at face value. They are allowed to use intelligence, common sense, and the promptings of the Spirit. Sounds like cheating, I know, but there you have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 4:39 PM, NeuroTypical said:

Heh.  You just haven't been exposed to enough hairbrained tithing claims yet.

I know a guy who did it this way: He would convert all his income into gold coins.  Into these gold coins, actually:

image.jpeg.2df967abdb3a4f49f9f323550fd44762.jpeg

See what it says there on the bottom?  "50 dollars"?

So, he'd convert his $50k US dollars, into 30 or so gold coins, each saying they were worth fifty dollars.  Fifty times thirty is $1500, so he'd pay his $150 US dollar tithing bill on his $50k income/increase, and walk away whistling.  

His bishop loves the heck out of the guy, but yeah, come temple recommend time, you could say there was some leader-challenging of the member's declaration going on, in that dood did not get his temple recommend.  Because he wasn't a full tithe payer.  Even though he said he was.

Luckily I have never had to deal with something like this. 

It sounds rather odd, what did he do with those coins.  I'm not sure that a lot of stores would accept them as is (though some would) and utilizing them as such would be difficult without a devalue to the actual stated amount (of $50).

On the otherhand if he paid tithing on that, I'd think that would be acceptable.  OF COURSE...if he converted it back from Gold to paper money or otherwise and that caused him to have further 'increase' than he'd once again probably should tithe on that increase as well in order to be considered a full tithe payer.

Hence, unless he was paying with those coins (and stores that accepted them I would imagine would go with the 50 dollar value, even if the coin itself is worth more) at some point he'd probably want to trade them in.  If he is living on more than $1500 a year, more than likely he traded them back in or exchanged them for a higher amount which meant he had further increase, which also means he should have paid tithing on that increase.

Just some thoughts with that, not that it is what happened.

Normally, unless the spirit prompts otherwise, I think most Bishops will accept what one states in regards to whether members are full tithe payers or not.  Currently, those who have gone to extremes (asking for tax forms, and other such nonsense) have been talked to seriously by higher leadership in instances where higher leadership has found out that Bishops are doing such things and, as far as I know (never dealt with this instance myself either), changed how they did things in that manner. 

If the spirit prompts one in a certain way, it is NOT a bad thing to make sure that it is telling one correctly.  There have been tales (and once again, luckily something I've never dealt with) of Bishops making a guess at something and being completely and totally wrong on the issue.

Even if one knows 100% that someone is not telling the truth (I HAVE dealt with this one) in an interview, the situation still needs to be approached with caution and as the spirit guides as things may not be absolutely as black and white as one thinks.

Normally, if one says they are a full tithe payer...that's the end of it.  There is not much to gain by saying that one is or is not a full tithe payer except that the Bishop can then know whether they are a full tithe payer and check that box.  If one desires to go to the temple and thus is claiming to be a full tithe payer on that basis when they are not actually a full tithe payer, they may not comprehend exactly what the temple is for or why one would go to the temple.  Other than that, I do not see what one gains by lying in this regard of whether they are, or are not a full tithe payer. 

It is not something that we broadcast for the entire world to hear.  It is normally not something most people will even know about their neighbor.  There is no enforcement arm to enforce the paying of tithing.  It's not like there is a church IRS to go out and demand payment or some such thing as that.

 

Edited by JohnsonJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the surplus system. I receive an income and pay out the necessities of life. I then pay tithing on the remaining surplus. Of course, I don't know how much I really need until I live life. To date I have paid $0 tithing but stipulate in my will that 10% of my estate is to go to the Church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I use the surplus system. I receive an income and pay out the necessities of life. I then pay tithing on the remaining surplus. Of course, I don't know how much I really need until I live life. To date I have paid $0 tithing but stipulate in my will that 10% of my estate is to go to the Church.

That will be your estate after inheritance, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2019 at 5:54 PM, ephedra said:

leaders are not allowed to challenge anyone's declaration of a full tithe.

I'm actually going to defend this statement.  During tithing settlement, if a member declares they are a full tithe payer, the bishop, technically, is supposed to record their response.  In other words, the bishop isn't supposed to challenge that declaration*.

This doesn't hold true at temple recommend interview time.  At that point, I will agree that the bishop should not be challenging the exact declaration of tithing status, but the heart an motivations of the member paying the tithing.  If the member has come up with some formula to minimize their tithes paid for selfish reasons, then it is pretty clear that they aren't even living the Law of Tithing, which is a lesser form of the Law of Consecration. The bishop has every right to refuse the temple recommend for that cause.  If the member feels the bishop is overstepping their bounds or acting unfairly, an appeal to the stake president is allowed.

 

* Normally...but he can

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zil's formula for calculating tithes and offerings:

Quote

Luke 6:38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

(Hopefully God doesn't punish me for thieving his formula.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Determination/definition of income would be an interesting thread. I do not believe the ten percent portion of tithing is ever really an issue with someone, but the determination of income/interest is with some. I never really considered it an issue until I ended up with family /church history in my possession and did some reading. I have had my eyes opened to some interesting stuff. Every bit of it spoken or written by LDS leadership and it contradicts itself all over the place. Like the essays, it brings information to light that challenges the teachings we have received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now