Tithing Is Not Optional

[Grudunza]

This: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/12/are-we-paying-too-much-tithing.html

 

And this: http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/lds-tithing-in-a-word/

 

I believe God to be just and loving and his expectations fair, and therefore paying tithing on net is the correct method, and that being after all relevant and reasonable family expenses.  If you want to pay on gross, before expenses, go for it, but net is the only thing that makes sense to me in terms of balancing all situations.  Consider a family where their income is $50,000 and have one child and both husband and wife are healthy, compared to a family where they make $50,000, have 6 kids, two of which are special needs, and the mother has health issues that require extra doctors and medication.  Both families might be making ends meet (the second just barely, probably), but does it really make any sense for the second family to pay the same amount of tithing as the first, and not to account for the additional food, medicine, clothing, gas, etc., required to maintain their family's needs?  I agree with the article that it's been irresponsible of some of our leaders to encourage people to pay tithing before their rent and food and so forth.  If your life requires rent and food, which most people's do, those are necessary living expenses, and if paying for that reduces your available funds to zero, then you shouldn't pay any tithing... and you should still be considered a full and faithful tithe payer.  10% of 0 is $0.  It's not a question of your faithfulness or blessings you expect to get... that is following the law of tithing and being a good steward over your family's needs and finances.  You will be blessed for that, regardless.  However, if you have $200 left over after all's said and done, you should definitely tithe the $20 from that before shopping for a new XBox.

 

"Interest" was originally intended to mean "surplus," and "income" is still meant to account for your necessary living expenses.  What you're left with after your family's reasonable needs and expenses is your net income (i.e. surplus).  If you want to know specifically what the Church considers to be necessary living expenses, check this out: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2014/02/bare-necessities-how-to-calculate-what.html

 

But ultimately, per the last official statement from 1970: "We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly."

Edited April 13, 2014 by Grudunza

[Kenngo1969]

... "Interest" was originally intended to mean "surplus," and "income" is still meant to account for your necessary living expenses.  What you're left with after your family's reasonable needs and expenses is your net income (i.e. surplus).  If you want to know specifically what the Church considers to be necessary living expenses, check this out: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2014/02/bare-necessities-how-to-calculate-what.html

 

But ultimately, per the last official statement from 1970: "We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly."

Is the "Pure Mormonism" site an official organ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

[Grudunza]

Is the "Pure Mormonism" site an official organ of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

Does that matter in terms of discussion about the issue?  Have you read the articles?  Is there validity to the ideas presented or not? 

 

I think the best point of the 1970 declaration about tithing (the last official word we have on it) is what I quoted before, that "every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly."  We don't need the "official organ of the Church" to interpret everything for us.  If you think you should pay on gross income, without expenses considered, that's fine.  I can respect your choice, though I disagree with it.  And that's your business, anyway.

 

But inasmuch as we are here discussing the specifics of this issue and sharing ideas, I present those articles and my own arguments in favor of tithing on net (with expenses accounted for) as being the best interpretation based on the doctrine in D&C and from a sense of fairness and balance and reason (which I ascribe as qualities of our God).

[Kenngo1969]

Does that matter in terms of discussion about the issue?  Have you read the articles?  Is there validity to the ideas presented or not? 

 

I think the best point of the 1970 declaration about tithing (the last official word we have on it) is what I quoted before, that "every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly."  We don't need the "official organ of the Church" to interpret everything for us.  If you think you should pay on gross income, without expenses considered, that's fine.  I can respect your choice, though I disagree with it.  And that's your business, anyway.

 

But inasmuch as we are here discussing the specifics of this issue and sharing ideas, I present those articles and my own arguments in favor of tithing on net (with expenses accounted for) as being the best interpretation based on the doctrine in D&C and from a sense of fairness and balance and reason (which I ascribe as qualities of our God).

OK.  You are correct in several of your assertions.  As is the case with everyone, what you pay is between you and the Lord, and what they pay is between them and the Lord.  Perhaps it's simply my perception, but you do, however, seem a trifle defensive in attempting to set forth your position on the matter.  I do wonder why you seem to feel that's necessary.  To each, his or her own (I'm keenly aware that you'll disagree; that's fine), but the Brethren consistently have taught over the years that, rather than money, it takes faith to pay tithing.  I do wonder how much faith can be developed and exercised by paying tithing on any post-expense income (if, indeed, there is any left).  Yes, maybe the Brethren (not to mention we members ) overdo it with stories of, "I found just enough change in my sofa cushions after paying my tithing for the month to afford a hamburger from the local burger joint ..."  I wish you well.

 

P.S.: And yes, where one gets one's doctrine regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its teachings does matter, in my book, but again, to each, his own.

 

P.P.S.: And in light of Isaiah 55:8-9 and numerous other scriptures, I would be careful how much reason you attribute to God.  After all, some might say that no reasonable God or no reasonable Church or no reasonable Church leader would conclude, e.g., that gay intimacy or gay marriage is contrary to God's plan for His Children.   

Edited April 14, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Grudunza]

Kenngo, sure, the last post was defensive, but if any harshness or unfriendliness was read into that, that was certainly not my intention. In general, I'm really trying to be more assertive than defensive... a "this is what I think, so here ya go" kind of thing.

I feel as though the real aspect of faith pertaining to tithing is that you adhere to the law, as you interpret it, and not on the resulting dollar amount. We are promised that if we pay our tithing faithfully (which can be demonstrated to mean 10% of net, after expenses), we will be blessed and have our needs taken care of, one way or another (although I'm not sure that part is even scriptural), but I don't believe there is any promise to receive more blessings per dollar. It does put some accountability on us to say, well, was that a reasonable expense for my family or more of a "nice to have" kind of thing. We should not nickel and dime when it comes to tithing. But it also, as the article intimates, puts more of an onus on us to be more charitable outside of what we are legitimately expected to pay in tithing. I believe that's where our creative extra expenditures do more good and have more of a faithful purpose. Our tithing should more than cover the administrative costs of the Church. Let the faithful generosity of our hearts provide more for fast offerings, humanitarian aid and personal charitable contributions.

When I say reason, I'm in mind of the example given earlier of the two families earning the same amount, but who have very different circumstances that should dictate different tithing amounts. The balance of justice and mercy doesn't favor paying on gross, as that would seem to demonstrate (since neither justice or mercy are served by that). If there are reasonable equations or arguments for other subjects, then I do believe that God is mindful of them, also, and like with this case, it is up to us to some extent where we feel He specifically comes down on a particular issue, weighing scripture, prophetic insight and personal revelation.

FWIW, the Pure Mormonism site does seem to have a bit of an axe to grind with the Church about this and other subjects. I don't share that attitude, but I do find a lot of wisdom in the specific arguments and many good points made among the articles.

[Kenngo1969]

Grudunza,

 

A reasonable person can hold all of the positions you assert, as evidenced by the fact that you assertedly hold them.  Fair enough.    If a person can go to tithing settlement at the end of the year, look his Bishop in the eye, and say he paid a full tithe (as well as answering the Temple Recommend questions honestly), that's all that matters.  And while I don't think one either demonstrates or develops a great deal of faith by paying tithing after expenses, we'll have to agree to disagree about that.  I think the correct course is for one to pay a full, pre-expense tithe of 10 percent and, if he cannot meet necessary expenses, to go to his Bishop and request assistance.  There is at least one Bishop on the Board (I'm not sure if he's still serving) who would disagree with me about that, and that's what's so great about the Wild, Wacky World of Cyber-Mormonism: If you want three opinions about something Church-related, all you have to do is ask two individual Mormons.

 

I return to a point I made earlier in the thread. If one cannot live the (forgive me! ) non-Pure-Mormonism version of the Law of Tithing, it does raise a question in my mind how that person is going to live the Law of Consecration: while, in the absence of an "official, hard-and-fast" pronouncement to the contrary, one who adheres to the Pure Mormonism version of the Law of Tithing may be able, truthfully and in good conscience, to say he lives the Law of Tithing, the same approach won't work with the Law of Consecration; he won't be able to stand before a servant of the Lord [if not the Lord Himself, during the Millennium] and, enumerating his possessions, say, "This is mine, this is mine, and that's mine, but I'm happy to 'consecrate' what's left over."  There may be a tenable debate about how Tithing works, but there will be no such debate about the Law of Consecration.

Edited April 14, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Grudunza]

But the Law of Consecration and Law of Tithing are different things, and why presume that one who comes to their personal conclusion that the "leftover" method of tithing is the correct way of adhering to the Lord's expectations would not willingly adhere to the Law of Consecration if asked to?

I'm not saying this is what you meant, but if you are assuming cheapness or unwillingness to fully give what The Lord asks by those who are "leftovers" (how about that as a term for those type of tithe payers?), then I would call that being judgemental without knowing the hearts of those people. And you might be right in some cases, but per the 1970 tithing statement, it's not our business to make any assumptions or judgements about how other people decide to tithe. It could probably be assumed or gossiped that some who pay on gross are puffed up to do so, especially when they proudly declare it. But it wouldn't be right to assume that or judge that as a standard for all "grossers," or any grossers, really, because it's none of our business to know that or presume that.

[Kenngo1969]

OK.  "Post-expense" tithe payers ...  There!  Happy?  I think it's important to make a distinction here: I'm not sitting in judgment of anyone else here because (1) I lack the keys to do so, and (2) I don't have any personal knowledge of anyone's situation (e.g., whether they are "post-expense" tithe payers, whether they pay on gross, whether they pay on net, and so on).  And, as I said before, if someone, regardless of how he interprets the Law of Tithing, can look his bishop in the eye at tithing settlement and declare himself to be a full tithe payer, that's all that matters.  However, having said that, simply because I do not sit in judgment of individuals does not mean I cannot sit in judgment of practices, even if what the people who engage in those practices do as a result is between them and their Bishop (and, by extension, between them and the Lord).  You may not like that distinction; you may think it is a distinction without a difference; you may think I'm wrong (you wouldn't be the first; trust me! )  But yes, I stand by what I said: although, in the end (as always) it's between that other person and the Lord, I do wonder (again, speaking generally and not of any specific case or cases) how easy someone who lives the "Pure Mormonism" Law of Tithing will find it to live the Law of Consecration.  I seriously doubt I'll ever have to judge any individual, specific cases, and we can all thank God for that , but I do wonder.

 

When it comes to the application of principle to real, live, flesh-and-blood human beings other than myself, it's true that I don't work for the Acme Judgment Company .  But that doesn't mean that, therefore, I may never judge between two principles (e.g., the "Pure Mormonism" Law of Tithing versus other interpretations of the Law of Tithing), nor that I'm bound to remain silent when I do so judge.  The same permission to opine freely applies to anyone else: Vive Le Difference!  (This is a discussion board, after all! )

Edited April 15, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[ksfisher]

But ultimately, per the last official statement from 1970: "We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly."

 

You are leaving out part of the 1970 letter:

 

"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."

 

You seem to be accepting the part of the letter that you agree with and rejecting what conflicts with your own agenda.

Edited April 15, 2014 by ksfisher

[Grudunza]

You are leaving out part of the 1970 letter:

"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."

You seem to be accepting the part of the letter that you agree with and rejecting what conflicts with your own agenda.

How does the rest of that conflict with my "agenda"? "Interest" and "income" were both understood to account for expenses back in the 1800's, and can still be interpreted as such. Read the linked articles for back up on that.

[ksfisher]

How does the rest of that conflict with my "agenda"? "Interest" and "income" were both understood to account for expenses back in the 1800's, and can still be interpreted as such. Read the linked articles for back up on that.

 

Income has a different interpretation today as it did in 1970 when the First Presidency issued that statement.  Your agenda seems to be to lead people away what the church and it's leaders are teaching today.

[Grudunza]

Income has a different interpretation today as it did in 1970 when the First Presidency issued that statement.  Your agenda seems to be to lead people away what the church and it's leaders are teaching today.

 

The 1970 statement *is* still the official word of the Church today pertaining to tithing.  That statement ultimately put it in our hearts and minds to determine what is appropriate, and not our leaders to decide for us.  But that statement makes a direct quote of the increase/interest aspect of D&C 119, which clearly intended for "increase" and "interest" and "income" to mean surplus.  Read the articles I linked above, which give thorough background on the words and history related to tithing.  Yes, words have different interpretations over time, but the law of tithing and the purpose of it has not been changed by any official revelation or doctrine.  And given some measure of confusion and contradiction among other sources since 1830, we need to consider the meaning based on when the revelation was given.  That points to an interpretation of net surplus, which to me, also seems most fair and balanced to the different needs of the families of God's children.  We are always free and may feel encouraged to pay more than that, but we are not expected or required to in order to faithfully follow that law.

 

By your reasoning, because there are different definitions of "income" now, we should assume that everyone who was described as being "gay" back in the 1920's was a homosexual, and not merely happy.  That would be absurd, of course, but that's what you would get by adapting and giving preference to our modern interpretations of the word over its meaning and intent at the time.  At the time the law of tithing was given, the meaning was understood to be net surplus.  There is ample evidence of that, as the linked articles demonstrate.  Our last official word on tithing refers directly to that revelation and says that we can be justified to interpret tithing that way, if that is the decision we feel is best.  You can also be justified to interpret it a different way, if you feel that is how you are led.  We don't need to conflict on this, and you certainly don't need to accuse me of having an agenda to lead people away from the church by merely arguing in favor of my interpretation.

[nephi007]

That's been one of the hardest things for me maintaining my membership is this whole tithing thing. I never thought about it until this "Tom Phillips" case came about and it got me thinking that in a way he is right... you have to pay tithing to go to the temple, in other words you must pay tithing to be sealed to your family for eternity and be exhalted, you have to pay tithing to see family and friends get married, etc. I've had a real problem with it lately, I've always been strong in my faith but lately I've had the thought process, "you have to pay worldy cash in order to get to heaven"

 

It doesn't seem like it should be that way, you should be given callings and responsibilities and privileges (such as getting a temple recommend) based on your works and how you treat people and how righteous you are.

[JLHPROF]

That's been one of the hardest things for me maintaining my membership is this whole tithing thing. I never thought about it until this "Tom Phillips" case came about and it got me thinking that in a way he is right... you have to pay tithing to go to the temple, in other words you must pay tithing to be sealed to your family for eternity and be exhalted, you have to pay tithing to see family and friends get married, etc. I've had a real problem with it lately, I've always been strong in my faith but lately I've had the thought process, "you have to pay worldy cash in order to get to heaven"

 

It doesn't seem like it should be that way, you should be given callings and responsibilities and privileges (such as getting a temple recommend) based on your works and how you treat people and how righteous you are.

 

I don't think of it as paying for a blessing.  I think of it as offering sacrifice.  In all the history of the gospel man has been required to offer sacrifice of something in order to receive the blessings of heaven.

 

Cain & Abel were required to sacrifice of their possessions (flocks/fields) upon the altar.  The High Priest didn't get the presence of God in the Holy of Holies until the sacrifice was offered.  Brigham Young originally made doing your part towards building the temple (sacrificing time/talents) one of the first requirements to receive ordinances.

If all that is currently required to receive the blessings of the temple is a measly 10% of worldly wealth that seems like a bargain to me.

 

Why should we think to get blessings for free?

 

In fact, when we finally return to consecration the 6th Lecture on Faith might start coming into play again:

"Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has, for the truth's sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice, because he seeks to do his will, he does know most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice & offering, & that he has not nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life."

Edited April 17, 2014 by JLHPROF

[nephi007]

I don't think of it as paying for a blessing.  I think of it as offering sacrifice.  In all the history of the gospel man has been required to offer sacrifice of something in order to receive the blessings of heaven.

 

Cain & Abel were required to sacrifice of their possessions (flocks/fields) upon the altar.  The High Priest didn't get the presence of God in the Holy of Holies until the sacrifice was offered.  Brigham Young originally made doing your part towards building the temple (sacrificing time/talents) one of the first requirements to receive ordinances.

If all that is currently required to receive the blessings of the temple is a measly 10% of worldly wealth that seems like a bargain to me.

 

Why should we think to get blessings for free?

 

In fact, when we finally return to consecration the 6th Lecture on Faith might start coming into play again:

"Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has, for the truth's sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice, because he seeks to do his will, he does know most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice & offering, & that he has not nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life."

 

That's true, one should definitely work for blessings, but you have to admit, physically helping to build a holy structure is a far cry from just simply giving 10% of your income, whether it's 2,000 or 20,000 a month. But I know that a lot of wealthy members are a bit uncomfortable with giving 10%, I'm 44 and my wife and I have been members our whole lives, my parents and her parents have been members their whole lives too, but I remember when I was around 16 or 17, before my parents got divorced one of the things they would fight about was tithing, my dad pulled in just over 100K a year (in 1985) and wanted to do other things with his money and my mom was pissed cause he stopped paying his tithing. After they got divorced my dad left the church almost immediately for "intellectual" and "logical" reasons and saying the LDS church is just a corporation or whatever. My mom ended up leaving the church too a couple years after my youngest brother moved out, her reason was that she realized that because of the church she couldn't do anything, her and my dad got married when she was 19 and he was 21 after his mission she had me just over a year after they were married so she took care of kids (5 of them, I'm the oldest) the whole marriage instead of learning a job skill and kind of had a mid-life crisis.... her reasons were that she thought the church is "mysogynistic and androcentric" but ya she had kids to raise and my dad was gone after the divorce, of course we would still spend weekends with him and summers and stuff, their divorce was definitely one of the less ugly ones, my dad payed like 4 or 5 times the child support that was listed in their divorce agreement by the arbitrator (they were civil enough to do it privately, not in public court) so we could still uphold our lifestyle while my mom worked as a receptionist for a doctor. Then the most unexpected thing happened, 3 years after she left the church her and my dad remarried. 

[Tacenda]

Good for you to have your parents back together Nephi007!

[Garden Girl]

Thanks, TSS. I just needed to talk the hubby into it, and wanted back up. I hate the lying to get out of the temple gatherings, be it weddings or birthday traditions. And the feeling we'll be struck down with something for not paying.

 

Tacenda...

 

You aren't going to be struck down... but you are missing out on the blessings of attending the temple... of course I do understand that your current situation is that you wouldn't be attending the temple anyway.  Why attend if you are not commited in your belief or faith... To me that would be like mocking God, and you certainly don't want to do that...

 

GG

[Kenngo1969]

Nephi007,

 

I don't wish to seem self-righteous or judgmental.  If that's what comes across despite my best efforts to avoid it, please chalk it up to the imperfections and limitations of this particular medium.  I don't ask any of these questions because you owe me (or any other anonymous Internet poster) answers or explanations.  I simply ask them to provide a potential springboard for thought and introspection: (1) Is there anything you have (other than your will) that the Lord didn't give you first?  (2) Given what God has promised the faithful, is there anything you wouldn't or shouldn't give to see those promises fulfilled?  (3) Who do you believe asks us to pay Tithes and Offerings — one or more Church leaders, or the Lord? (4) Do you believe Church leaders don't take being entrusted with those resources seriously enough? (If so, you might want to reread Elder Bednar's address from October 2013 General Conference).

 

My $0.02, actual value much less.  

 

Correction:  Off on the year of Elder Bednar's address ... (Time flies! )

Edited April 17, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

Tacenda...

You aren't going to be struck down... but you are missing out on the blessings of attending the temple... of course I do understand that your current situation is that you wouldn't be attending the temple anyway. Why attend if you are not commited in your belief or faith... To me that would be like mocking God, and you certainly don't want to do that...

GG

I'm in between a rock and a hard place, you could say. I don't want to hurt my in laws and especially my MIL. She is beyond faithful, she could darn near get translated, she's that faithful. But you're right I would be mocking the LDS God. I don't know what would be worse for her to hear, that we don't have the testimony we had, or we don't pay tithing. She really does think it's fire protection, I believe. But the time is coming when the gig will be up. The family is huge on my husband's side, there will have been 4 temple weddings of nieces and nephews, this year alone, and coming up with excuses as to why we haven't attended, is wearing thin.

[JLHPROF]

That's true, one should definitely work for blessings, but you have to admit, physically helping to build a holy structure is a far cry from just simply giving 10% of your income, whether it's 2,000 or 20,000 a month. But I know that a lot of wealthy members are a bit uncomfortable with giving 10%,

 

My Dad always taught me "Never have more money than you are willing to walk away from."

I don't put a lot of stock in material things.

 

Matt 19:16-22

 

¹⁶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

¹⁷ And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

¹⁸ He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,

¹⁹ Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

²⁰ The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

²¹ Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

²² But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

[Kenngo1969]

... But the time is coming when the gig will be up. The family is huge on my husband's side, there will have been 4 temple weddings of nieces and nephews, this year alone, and coming up with excuses as to why we haven't attended, is wearing thin.

This isn't meant to be a reflection on anyone else: I'm simply saying how I might respond if I were in a similar situation. Sooner or later (preferably sooner than later), I'd have to decide whether continuing to live what I had essentially concluded is a lie simply in order to make others happy would be worth what I would have to give up in the process.  Sure, they may be disappointed by my choices; they might wish that I had (or that I would) make a different choice.  But in the end they're responsible for their happiness and fulfillment, and I'm responsible for mine.  Doing something simply for the sake of making others happy couldn't be worth it for long.  Having said all of that, like any other reasonable member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with a reasonably well-functioning brain, do I have questions? Sure, I have questions, but I lack the hubris necessary to conclude that, surely, God would do things much differently ... if only He were sensible enough to see things my way!  Questions are inevitable, but doubt and faith both are optional. Questions notwithstanding, I cannot bring myself to reject the bounteous harvest of good fruit that the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ has borne in my life.  I live the Gospel (albeit perhaps haltingly, perhaps in fits and starts because of my natural man) because it fills my soul, not because my parents or my family or my friends would be disappointed if I were not to do so.  Your mileage may vary.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

Sweet Kenngo, I agree with you. Would it be alright to ride on a few coat tails before a decision is made, since this church is as much a culture as it is a church? And like I heard said the other day, one might need to stick with the choices one makes in the first place and have faith that it was the correct one. I'm not there yet, but it's a thought.

[Kenngo1969]

Sweet Kenngo, I agree with you. Would it be alright to ride on a few coat tails before a decision is made, since this church is as much a culture as it is a church? And like I heard said the other day, one might need to stick with the choices one makes in the first place and have faith that it was the correct one. I'm not there yet, but it's a thought.

Awww!    If I understand what you're saying correctly, you wish to follow the formula outlined in Alma 32 and nourish the seeds you have planted in order to see if they will germinate and bear good fruit, is that right?  If that is so, then I would suggest, humbly, that you go "all in" and do everything possible to nurture your faith, while not simultaneously attempting to (as Elder Holland put it so memorably) "stuff a turkey through the beak" by nurturing your doubts, at the same time?

 

I wish you well.  While I have disagreed with you, pointedly and sometimes vehemently at times, I hope you realize that I've never done so out of malice and I've that always had your best interests at heart.

 

P.S.:  And I might suggest that taking inventory of the good fruit the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ has borne in your life is a good place to start, both for Tacenda and for nephi007.

Edited April 17, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[Kenngo1969]

Tacenda...

 

You aren't going to be struck down... but you are missing out on the blessings of attending the temple... of course I do understand that your current situation is that you wouldn't be attending the temple anyway.  Why attend if you are not commited in your belief or faith... To me that would be like mocking God, and you certainly don't want to do that...

 

GG

I would suggest that there may well be a wide spectrum of "belief/faith" that is permissible in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in which someone may still be found to be in good enough standing to attend the Temple?  (e.g., "Lord, I believe; help Thou mine unbelief"; and "If ye can do no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you" ...)  In any event, Tacenda, I don't think "hiding" from your Bishop (if that is what you are doing ...  if that shoe fits, wear it; if not, don't) is a good idea.  If you want to believe (even if you're not sure whether you actually do), the Lord, through your Bishop, can help you progress to a more advanced place on that path.  Don't forget the interaction Elder Holland described with the teenager he mentioned in his address, whom he "hugged the stuffing" out of.  (I could be wrong, but I doubt that young man's lack of an absolutely sure testimony has kept him out of the Temple.)  I suspect, given the chance to do the same to Tacenda, that Elder Holland would, indeed, do so.

[Tacenda]

Ahhh, what have I gone and done? Did I commit to something? And I was having such a great time. Thanks for the pep talk Kenngo, funny thing is that's what the 1st counselor said, for me to jump all in, way back when. Now to convince the hubby to pay tithing. Not sure if I can be all in yet, but thanks for the confidence.