Tithing & Coercion

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Do you have some examples of church leaders that don't accept an affirmative response to the tithing question in the temple recommend interview? Or that have countermanded the following instruction: "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, Mar. 19, 1970)."

Yes, I know of others who've had leaders question their tithing.  It seems like a pretty obvious possibility, lets say someone doesn't pay any tithing to the institutional church, but instead gives money to other charities and calls that tithing.  The local ward has no records of donations.  This can obviously come up in a tithing settlement or interview.  Sometimes a member may also feel inclined to explain their less orthodox interpretation to their bishop, and that can invite their bishop to use their powers of discretion and judgment accordingly.  

[Ouagadougou]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I have never felt coerced to pay tithing. Nothing is preventing us from giving above and beyond our 10% tithing to whatever charity we choose. It’s absurd to say the Lord only recognizes charitable money paid to the LDS Church. 

I prefer giving to fast offerings and a local homeless ministry because I know exactly where the money goes, and it’s not gobbled up in salaries, advertising, and administrative costs.

If I give 10% of my income to any other cause other than the LDS church, the church will not recognize that money as a honest tithe; the money needs to go to LDS Church in order to be recognized as a "honest tithe." This is what I consider absurd...

[Bernard Gui]

13 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

If I give 10% of my income to any other cause other than the LDS church, the church will not recognize that money as a honest tithe; the money needs to go to LDS Church in order to be recognized as a "honest tithe." This is what I consider absurd...

So, don’t pay tithing to the Church. It’s your choice. The Church has every right to define what a tithe is. It doesn’t prevent you from giving elsewhere. If tithing chafes you but you want to be active in the Church, why not give it all to fast offerings or the humanitarian fund?

My tithing pays for our chapel and all it’s associated costs, educational materials, instruction for my family, temples, social and religious activities and gatherings, music, service, and many other things.....and it helps pay for all those things for people all over the world. I’m happy to contribute.

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, Ouagadougou said:

If I give 10% of my income to any other cause other than the LDS church, the church will not recognize that money as a honest tithe; the money needs to go to LDS Church in order to be recognized as a "honest tithe." This is what I consider absurd...

To tithe is to give a portion of one's increase to the Lord.  In an LDS context, that means giving that portion to the Lord's representative on the earth, namely, the Church.  It's right there in D&C 119:

Quote

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion,
2 For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church.
3 And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.
4 And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

It is the Lord that tithes His people.  See D&C 64:23, 85:3.  It is He who determines who should be the recipient of tithed funds.  And He has designated . . . the bishops of His Church (and the Presiding Bishopric administers the funds generally).

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

To tithe is to give a portion of one's increase to the Lord.  In an LDS context, that means giving that portion to the Lord's representative on the earth, namely, the Church.  It's right there in D&C 119:

It is the Lord that tithes His people.  See D&C 64:23, 85:3.  It is He who determines who should be the recipient of tithed funds.  And He has designated . . . the bishops of His Church (and the Presiding Bishopric administers the funds generally).

Thanks,

-Smac

Increase? I thought it was 10% income. Something that Bill Reel has brought to the table many times. No wonder the church has billions to invest.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Increase? I thought it was 10% income.

See here:

Quote

So what is a tithing? The Lord has given us His definition: “And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever.”² Please note that the tithe is not just any freewill offering, nor is it a 20th or some other fraction of our annual interest or income.

President Howard W. Hunter stated it this way: “The law is simply stated as ‘one-tenth of all their interest.’ Interest means profit, compensation, increase. It is the wage of one employed, the profit from the operation of a business, the increase of one who grows or produces, or the income to a person from any other source. The Lord said it is a standing law ‘forever’ as it has been in the past.”³

...

2. D&C 119:3–4.

3. In Conference Report, Apr. 1964, 35.

And here:

Quote

For Latter-day Saints (Mormons), tithing is a natural and integrated aspect of their religious belief and practice. By the biblical definition, tithing is one-tenth, and Church members interpret this as a tenth of their “increase,” or income, annually. It is paid on the honor system. No one asks to see income statements or pay slips.

Hope this helps.

Quote

Something that Bill Reel has brought to the table many times. No wonder the church has billions to invest.

I'm willing to listen to what Bill Reel has to say, I suppose.  But I place little trust in him.  Way too much of an axe-grinder.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 23, 2018 by smac97

[CV75]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Yes, I know of others who've had leaders question their tithing.  It seems like a pretty obvious possibility, lets say someone doesn't pay any tithing to the institutional church, but instead gives money to other charities and calls that tithing.  The local ward has no records of donations.  This can obviously come up in a tithing settlement or interview.  Sometimes a member may also feel inclined to explain their less orthodox interpretation to their bishop, and that can invite their bishop to use their powers of discretion and judgment accordingly.  

Can you share what the unique situation was for a bishop or stake president to question a member's response to the tithing question? It seems highly irregular, but I still would not use that as an example of coercion.

Of course it's a possibility, but for the most part it's an academic consideration that has been addressed by the instructions given leaders at least since 1970, perhaps in response to a particular concern in an era where in the USA at least folks were easily impressed by new business and employee benefits constructs.

I've had a member, unsolicited, explain to me how he calculated his tithe, counting his household income as a business expense from a concern that had a very small bottom line at the end of the year, and using that profit as "the increase" upon which to base his tithe. He asked me if I thought that was a full tithe. I simply read him the letter I mentioned above and reminded him it was up to him as to whether to declare a full tithe. I don't recall him asking me how I calculated my tithe; not sure how I would have answered him.

Edited October 23, 2018 by CV75

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Can you share what the unique situation was for a bishop or stake president to question a member's response to the tithing question? It seems highly irregular, but I still would not use that as an example of coercion.

Of course it's a possibility, but for the most part it's an academic consideration that has been addressed by the instructions given leaders at least since 1970, perhaps in response to a particular concern in an era where in the USA at least folks were easily impressed by new business and employee benefits constructs.

I've had a member, unsolicited, explain to me how he calculated his tithe, counting his household income as a business expense from a concern that had a very small bottom line at the end of the year, and using that profit as "the increase" upon which to base his tithe. He asked me if I thought that was a full tithe. I simply read him the letter I mentioned above and reminded him it was up to him as to whether to declare a full tithe. I don't recall him asking me how I calculated my tithe; not sure how I would have answered him.

Its not academic when its happening in the lives of real people.  I'm not going to share specifics about people who've shared their experiences with me.  When you interact with people who are navigating Mormonism in an uncorrelated way, you find a lot of odd situations come up depending on the leadership.  Hence the term leadership roulette.  You'll just have to trust me that if someone who isn't paying anything by way of tithing, tells a leader they are a full tithe payer, that this can cause that leader to ask followup questions sometimes.  Seems perfectly natural if you think about it.

Your example of someone calculating tithing based on household income sounds reasonable, but what would you say if someone told you they give their tithing to other charities and not to the CoJCoLDS?  Would you tell them that this isn't acceptable?  

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Increase? I thought it was 10% income. Something that Bill Reel has brought to the table many times. No wonder the church has billions to invest.

Maybe you misunderstand. Increase does not equal income. It is probably less, sometimes far less, than income. Farmers and businessmen, for example.

If one is salaried, it's easier to determine increase, but even that can become complicated.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Its not academic when its happening in the lives of real people.  I'm not going to share specifics about people who've shared their experiences with me.  When you interact with people who are navigating Mormonism in an uncorrelated way, you find a lot of odd situations come up depending on the leadership.  Hence the term leadership roulette.  You'll just have to trust me that if someone who isn't paying anything by way of tithing, tells a leader they are a full tithe payer, that this can cause that leader to ask followup questions sometimes.  Seems perfectly natural if you think about it.

Your example of someone calculating tithing based on household income sounds reasonable, but what would you say if someone told you they give their tithing to other charities and not to the CoJCoLDS?  Would you tell them that this isn't acceptable?  

It is academic when we lack real-life examples, and sharing these specifics anonymously seems safe and appropriate for this conversation. The reason I’m asking is that challenging someone’s reply to the temple recommend question in my mind would 1) require some factual knowledge of the person’s personal affairs; 2) be based upon unfounded suspicion; 3) be prompted by inspiration. I’d like to hear how any of these played out. These are very different situations than the one I provided, which is a conversation soliciting the bishop’s counsel.

I wouldn’t tell anyone their voluntary contributions to charities are unacceptable, in fact I would encourage it and more of it. But it is not tithing. If he wants to call it tithing, or a tithing substitute, fine, but I would remind him that the established Church arrangement is that tithing must be “put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion… that there may be a house built unto me for the salvation of Zion” and that “the duty of the Lord’s clerk [is to keep] a general church record of all things that transpire in Zion.” But this is not the same as questioning his tithing, which you put out there as a fairly common (“I know of others who've had leaders question their tithing.”).

If subsequently this person answered “yes” to the tithing question in a future temple recommend interview, I am not inclined to challenge it, but the interviewee or the Spirit could theoretically direct the conversation another way.

This is why I’m asking you to provide specifics. I’ve accommodated an academic discussion after providing a real-life example; I’m asking you to share your real-lie example(s) to clarify what you mean by leaders questioning people’s tithing. I’m asking you to back up your academic assertion.

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It is academic when we lack real-life examples, and sharing these specifics anonymously seems safe and appropriate for this conversation. The reason I’m asking is that challenging someone’s reply to the temple recommend question in my mind would 1) require some factual knowledge of the person’s personal affairs; 2) be based upon unfounded suspicion; 3) be prompted by inspiration. I’d like to hear how any of these played out. These are very different situations than the one I provided, which is a conversation soliciting the bishop’s counsel.

 

I wouldn’t tell anyone their voluntary contributions to charities are unacceptable, in fact I would encourage it and more of it. But it is not tithing. If he wants to call it tithing, or a tithing substitute, fine, but I would remind him that the established Church arrangement is that tithing must be “put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion… that there may be a house built unto me for the salvation of Zion” and that “the duty of the Lord’s clerk [is to keep] a general church record of all things that transpire in Zion.” But this is not the same as questioning his tithing, which you put out there as a fairly common (“I know of others who've had leaders question their tithing.”).

 

If subsequently this person answered “yes” to the tithing question in a future temple recommend interview, I am not inclined to challenge it, but the interviewee or the Spirit could theoretically direct the conversation another way.

 

This is why I’m asking you to provide specifics. I’ve accommodated an academic discussion after providing a real-life example; I’m asking you to share your real-lie example(s) to clarify what you mean by leaders questioning people’s tithing. I’m asking you to back up your academic assertion.

 

Thanks for the honesty about how you personally would interpret someone donating to other charities.  Its not surprising that you wouldn't consider that tithing as I don't think most orthodox members would consider it tithing.  Some people, myself included, believe that giving money to other organizations will do more good in this world, than giving money to the church.  I also consider a free will offering to God as tithing.  

Thank you for also indirectly answering my question about how you would handle a person who did answer "yes" to paying tithing, when you suspect they may interpret the principle of tithing differently than you do.  I suspect the concept of following the spirit to turn the conversation down any line of inquiry you prefer, is exactly how these conversations have gone away from a strict yes or no answer on the tithing question.  This is also a potentially dangerous line of reasoning for people being interviewed for their sexual purity.  

As for me sharing more specifics from conversations I've had in the past with people that I know, I really don't see how that's relevant at this point.  I think we got to the relevant elements already in this exchange.  Unless you have a specific question to ask, in which case I will try to recall from my memory what I was told, but I may not have an answer.  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

It is academic when we lack real-life examples, and sharing these specifics anonymously seems safe and appropriate for this conversation. The reason I’m asking is that challenging someone’s reply to the temple recommend question in my mind would 1) require some factual knowledge of the person’s personal affairs; 2) be based upon unfounded suspicion; 3) be prompted by inspiration. I’d like to hear how any of these played out. These are very different situations than the one I provided, which is a conversation soliciting the bishop’s counsel.

 

I wouldn’t tell anyone their voluntary contributions to charities are unacceptable, in fact I would encourage it and more of it. But it is not tithing. If he wants to call it tithing, or a tithing substitute, fine, but I would remind him that the established Church arrangement is that tithing must be “put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion… that there may be a house built unto me for the salvation of Zion” and that “the duty of the Lord’s clerk [is to keep] a general church record of all things that transpire in Zion.” But this is not the same as questioning his tithing, which you put out there as a fairly common (“I know of others who've had leaders question their tithing.”).

 

If subsequently this person answered “yes” to the tithing question in a future temple recommend interview, I am not inclined to challenge it, but the interviewee or the Spirit could theoretically direct the conversation another way.

 

This is why I’m asking you to provide specifics. I’ve accommodated an academic discussion after providing a real-life example; I’m asking you to share your real-lie example(s) to clarify what you mean by leaders questioning people’s tithing. I’m asking you to back up your academic assertion.

 

I'll share a couple of specific examples of when I, as bishop, questioned a person's claim as a full tithe payer. I wasn't trying to be a jerk. I was trying to understand because the statement didn't match what I knew about the finances of the families. Still, I would do things differently today.

1- Single mother with 4 children at home. Her husband paid alimony/child support and she had @ $5000 monthly income which I knew from previous interactions providing fast offering assistance. The woman also worked a part time job, off and on. So when she came in for tithing settlement she claimed she was a full tithe payer but I saw a total of $100 tithing donation for the year and no fast offering. $100 didn't mesh with what I knew of her employment finances, nor with what I knew of her support payments. At the time, I would have considered the support payments as a source of income, knowing that her husband was not tithing on the income prior to transferring it to her. So $100 tithing for the year didn't make sense to me so I asked her about it and she explained her reasoning. Everything worked out fine.

2- A couple had paid @$5000 in tithing but I knew they made well over $100K per year. I asked them to describe their tithing process and how they figured it. At that point I had always believed tithing was 10% of income...not increase. They explained the increase model and everything worked out well. I learned something new and appreciated it.

These meetings were conversational and not interrogations. I knew the individuals well. The next year I didn't ask for any explanations because I knew their thinking.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for the honesty about how you personally would interpret someone donating to other charities.  Its not surprising that you wouldn't consider that tithing as I don't think most orthodox members would consider it tithing.  Some people, myself included, believe that giving money to other organizations will do more good in this world, than giving money to the church.  I also consider a free will offering to God as tithing.  

Thank you for also indirectly answering my question about how you would handle a person who did answer "yes" to paying tithing, when you suspect they may interpret the principle of tithing differently than you do.  I suspect the concept of following the spirit to turn the conversation down any line of inquiry you prefer, is exactly how these conversations have gone away from a strict yes or no answer on the tithing question.  This is also a potentially dangerous line of reasoning for people being interviewed for their sexual purity.  

As for me sharing more specifics from conversations I've had in the past with people that I know, I really don't see how that's relevant at this point.  I think we got to the relevant elements already in this exchange.  Unless you have a specific question to ask, in which case I will try to recall from my memory what I was told, but I may not have an answer.  

Your definition of tithing simply doesn’t match the Church’s with respect to the temple recommend interview. I think the Church recognizes that other churches define it differently as well. But I encourage you to keep tithing as you understand it and even increase it.

My comment that the interviewee or the Spirit could direct the conversation another way was theoretical. I have not seen it; have you any examples? Have you had experiences where you thought the Spirit was directing you, but later realized you were simply motivated to abuse another’s trust for your personal satisfaction?

I’m disappointed you are keeping this at an academic level because it gives me no basis to believe your suggestion that it is not atypical for leaders to question people’s responses to the recommend question on tithing. That is of value to me.

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'll share a couple of specific examples of when I, as bishop, questioned a person's claim as a full tithe payer. I wasn't trying to be a jerk. I was trying to understand because the statement didn't match what I knew about the finances of the families. Still, I would do things differently today.

1- Single mother with 4 children at home. Her husband paid alimony/child support and she had @ $5000 monthly income which I knew from previous interactions providing fast offering assistance. The woman also worked a part time job, off and on. So when she came in for tithing settlement she claimed she was a full tithe payer but I saw a total of $100 tithing donation for the year and no fast offering. $100 didn't mesh with what I knew of her employment finances, nor with what I knew of her support payments. At the time, I would have considered the support payments as a source of income, knowing that her husband was not tithing on the income prior to transferring it to her. So $100 tithing for the year didn't make sense to me so I asked her about it and she explained her reasoning. Everything worked out fine.

2- A couple had paid @$5000 in tithing but I knew they made well over $100K per year. I asked them to describe their tithing process and how they figured it. At that point I had always believed tithing was 10% of income...not increase. They explained the increase model and everything worked out well. I learned something new and appreciated it.

These meetings were conversational and not interrogations. I knew the individuals well. The next year I didn't ask for any explanations because I knew their thinking. 

Thank you for doing what @hope_for_things would not. Hopefully we can demonstrate how actual accounts improve the conversation. In this case, you had personal knowledge, or were seeking to improve your knowledge, of the individual’s circumstances. You do not seem to feel you were out of line or being coercive.

These conversations sound like they took place during tithing settlement and not temple recommend interviews. Would you have taken someone’s temple recommend away if they said they were not a full tithe payer, or if you did not change your initial impression after the tithing settlement conversation?

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Your definition of tithing simply doesn’t match the Church’s with respect to the temple recommend interview. I think the Church recognizes that other churches define it differently as well. But I encourage you to keep tithing as you understand it and even increase it.

This is odd considering earlier you quoted the church's statement on the subject, and my definition of tithing doesn't seem to conflict with this statement from the handbook.   So it seems to me that you are applying a different standard based on your cultural interpretation of tithing, rather than strictly following the handbook statement.  

Quote

"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, Mar. 19, 1970)."

 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

My comment that the interviewee or the Spirit could direct the conversation another way was theoretical. I have not seen it; have you any examples? Have you had experiences where you thought the Spirit was directing you, but later realized you were simply motivated to abuse another’s trust for your personal satisfaction?

 

I’m disappointed you are keeping this at an academic level because it gives me no basis to believe your suggestion that it is not atypical for leaders to question people’s responses to the recommend question on tithing. That is of value to me.

Yes, I've heard of many examples of this happening.  Try reading some of the stories that Sam Young collected from hundreds of members who experienced this phenomenon in bishop interviews for starters.  

As for me not wanting to share additional details from anecdotal accounts of people I've interacted with, I have a few reasons.  Firstly these aren't my stories to tell, and secondly my memory isn't perfect and I don't have all the details, its not like I was recording what they shared with me.  Lastly, I don't see how its crucial to the discussion.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'll share a couple of specific examples of when I, as bishop, questioned a person's claim as a full tithe payer. I wasn't trying to be a jerk. I was trying to understand because the statement didn't match what I knew about the finances of the families. Still, I would do things differently today.

1- Single mother with 4 children at home. Her husband paid alimony/child support and she had @ $5000 monthly income which I knew from previous interactions providing fast offering assistance. The woman also worked a part time job, off and on. So when she came in for tithing settlement she claimed she was a full tithe payer but I saw a total of $100 tithing donation for the year and no fast offering. $100 didn't mesh with what I knew of her employment finances, nor with what I knew of her support payments. At the time, I would have considered the support payments as a source of income, knowing that her husband was not tithing on the income prior to transferring it to her. So $100 tithing for the year didn't make sense to me so I asked her about it and she explained her reasoning. Everything worked out fine.

2- A couple had paid @$5000 in tithing but I knew they made well over $100K per year. I asked them to describe their tithing process and how they figured it. At that point I had always believed tithing was 10% of income...not increase. They explained the increase model and everything worked out well. I learned something new and appreciated it.

These meetings were conversational and not interrogations. I knew the individuals well. The next year I didn't ask for any explanations because I knew their thinking.

Thanks for sharing some of these experiences.  Looking back on your time as Bishop, have your feelings about tithing settlement changed? 

I was never a bishop, but I did serve as financial clerk for many years and was very close to the whole process, working in partnership with the bishop.  At the time I felt like this was very important, but today I kind of feel like it is abusive and a loyalty test of sorts.  The only positive that I can think of now is that it gave the Bishop a chance to meet with people and see how they are doing.  But that could be accomplished independently from a tithing settlement in my opinion.  

 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Thank you for doing what @hope_for_things would not. Hopefully we can demonstrate how actual accounts improve the conversation. In this case, you had personal knowledge, or were seeking to improve your knowledge, of the individual’s circumstances. You do not seem to feel you were out of line or being coercive.

 

These conversations sound like they took place during tithing settlement and not temple recommend interviews. Would you have taken someone’s temple recommend away if they said they were not a full tithe payer, or if you did not change your initial impression after the tithing settlement conversation?

 

I sure don't fault HFT for not wanting to give specifics. I respect his choice. I felt comfortable sharing, so I did.

Yes, the situations I described were part of tithing settlement, not TR interviews.

But I held the power in the situation. I wasn't trying to be coercive, but had these discussions happened during a TR interview, I believe they would be. In fact, I think Tithing settlement is also coercive as it is an additional reminder that tithing must be paid, and the church is watching.

If in a TR interview the person told me they weren't a full tithe payer, or claimed they were when I had doubts about that, I would have asked. If I didn't consider them a full tithe payer after their explanation, I wouldn't have given the TR. Right or wrong, that's what I would have done...then.

[HappyJackWagon]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for sharing some of these experiences.  Looking back on your time as Bishop, have your feelings about tithing settlement changed? 

I was never a bishop, but I did serve as financial clerk for many years and was very close to the whole process, working in partnership with the bishop.  At the time I felt like this was very important, but today I kind of feel like it is abusive and a loyalty test of sorts.  The only positive that I can think of now is that it gave the Bishop a chance to meet with people and see how they are doing.  But that could be accomplished independently from a tithing settlement in my opinion.  

 

I totally agree with you. I haven't attended tithing settlement for a few years now, opting instead to text my bishop my declaration. But last year I think I forgot to even text.

In many ways tithing settlement was nice. It was a great chance to chat with people but the actual "settlement" part of it seems quite heavy handed to me now.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

This is odd considering earlier you quoted the church's statement on the subject, and my definition of tithing doesn't seem to conflict with this statement from the handbook.   So it seems to me that you are applying a different standard based on your cultural interpretation of tithing, rather than strictly following the handbook statement.  

Yes, I've heard of many examples of this happening.  Try reading some of the stories that Sam Young collected from hundreds of members who experienced this phenomenon in bishop interviews for starters.  

As for me not wanting to share additional details from anecdotal accounts of people I've interacted with, I have a few reasons.  Firstly these aren't my stories to tell, and secondly my memory isn't perfect and I don't have all the details, its not like I was recording what they shared with me.  Lastly, I don't see how its crucial to the discussion.  

I find that facts, however incompletely recalled, are crucial to credibly supporting one’s position rather than emotional assertion alone. It brings added value to an academic discussion, much as academics can add value to a practical discussion. But to each their own, for sure!

Short-cutting with broad, general references to other sources comes across as not having a firm grasp on one’s position.

I think you have more to learn more from the Handbook, if that is your primary source of information. It also explains that members give what the Church defines as tithing using a completed tithing and offerings form to the bishop or one of his counselors (and only they can receive tithing), not to just anyone or any other organization. This is why members attend tithing settlement, to make sure their contribution records are correct and to declare to the bishop their status as tithe payers under the aforementioned terms. There’s more; maybe your bishop will let you peruse it, but it will take some effort as you’ll have to look in more than just the obvious places.

There are also number of references in the Doctrine and Covenants, if you wish to consult Church scripture as the basis, also explains (more than once) that the “tithing of my people” is administered under the purview of the restored keys for those “who should have their names enrolled with the people of God.”

[CV75]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I sure don't fault HFT for not wanting to give specifics. I respect his choice. I felt comfortable sharing, so I did.

Yes, the situations I described were part of tithing settlement, not TR interviews.

But I held the power in the situation. I wasn't trying to be coercive, but had these discussions happened during a TR interview, I believe they would be. In fact, I think Tithing settlement is also coercive as it is an additional reminder that tithing must be paid, and the church is watching.

If in a TR interview the person told me they weren't a full tithe payer, or claimed they were when I had doubts about that, I would have asked. If I didn't consider them a full tithe payer after their explanation, I wouldn't have given the TR. Right or wrong, that's what I would have done...then.

Now you're getting into academics surmised from what didn't happen, and what did not translate from tithing settlements into the temple recommend interviews. It doesn't seem you recall coercing an individual to pay his tithe; it rather seems you were conscious of making the exchange conversational and not interrogative, and the people you spoke with spoke freely. That is tithing settlement and interviews are approached and administered very differently (see the Handbook about what tithing settlement entails, and how information on tithing status is handled); they are not to be conflated. You evidently haven't faced doubts about people's answers in the temple recommend interview, so you seem to be layering current misgivings over extrapolations of what you didn't see happen.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I find that facts, however incompletely recalled, are crucial to credibly supporting one’s position rather than emotional assertion alone. It brings added value to an academic discussion, much as academics can add value to a practical discussion. But to each their own, for sure!

Short-cutting with broad, general references to other sources comes across as not having a firm grasp on one’s position.

I think you have more to learn more from the Handbook, if that is your primary source of information. It also explains that members give what the Church defines as tithing using a completed tithing and offerings form to the bishop or one of his counselors (and only they can receive tithing), not to just anyone or any other organization. This is why members attend tithing settlement, to make sure their contribution records are correct and to declare to the bishop their status as tithe payers under the aforementioned terms. There’s more; maybe your bishop will let you peruse it, but it will take some effort as you’ll have to look in more than just the obvious places.

There are also number of references in the Doctrine and Covenants, if you wish to consult Church scripture as the basis, also explains (more than once) that the “tithing of my people” is administered under the purview of the restored keys for those “who should have their names enrolled with the people of God.”

Ha, this is amusing. You’re the one that invoked the handbook statement as being the standard to judge by and now you’re moving the goalposts.  

[thatjimguy]

On 10/23/2018 at 6:43 AM, hope_for_things said:

I largely agree that this would work just fine, and that it should be a personal and individual assessment, but unfortunately there are church leaders who wouldn't accept the various different ways people might feel they should pay their tithing.  And these leaders can withhold temple recommends and/or restrict privileges.  

From what I understand, the bishops are not supposed to ask anything but if you were a full tithe payer. 

[CV75]

13 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Ha, this is amusing. You’re the one that invoked the handbook statement as being the standard to judge by and now you’re moving the goalposts.  

I'm happy you are amused. You'll note that I used both the Handbook and scripture in our exchanges. You invoked the Handbook to make your last point and invoked culture in my behalf (which was moving the goalposts so I ignored it). Do you disagree that there in more in the Handbook and scripture that shows the Church tithing standard refers to contributions to the Church treasury through her authorized agents (and not to other organizations)? And that this would be the context for tithing settlement and the temple recommend question? And that it was thus inappropriate to invoke "cultural interpretation" of the Church definition?

You haven't been able to show that the tithing system is coercive (except that you feel it could be), or that you see the difference between a freewill system and a potential individual's abuse of that system. For example, the offerings to the Church are freely given. The tithing standard that is set for settlement declaration and recommend purposes is consented to by virtue of membership. That is the system. You won't give factual examples of individual abuse of that system either (not that it defines the system) which seems to be your major concern, and I haven't seen any others offered in this thread.

Using references to inappropriate questioning about the standard of chastity shows that some individuals can mishandle or abuse the interview system (which isn't coercive either), but the connection between a temple recommend and chastity is not a coercive one, so you can't seem to make that point as well.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 hours ago, CV75 said:

Now you're getting into academics surmised from what didn't happen, and what did not translate from tithing settlements into the temple recommend interviews. It doesn't seem you recall coercing an individual to pay his tithe; it rather seems you were conscious of making the exchange conversational and not interrogative, and the people you spoke with spoke freely. That is tithing settlement and interviews are approached and administered very differently (see the Handbook about what tithing settlement entails, and how information on tithing status is handled); they are not to be conflated. You evidently haven't faced doubts about people's answers in the temple recommend interview, so you seem to be layering current misgivings over extrapolations of what you didn't see happen.

I didn't have to coerce because the system/process already does this.

You don't have enough information to state that I "evidently haven't faced doubts about peoples answers", and you are wrong in that statement.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I didn't have to coerce because the system/process already does this.

You don't have enough information to state that I "evidently haven't faced doubts about peoples answers", and you are wrong in that statement.

See my notes above about system vs. (ab)use of system. The system is that offerings to the Church are freely given and members freely consent to the tithing standard set for settlement declaration and recommend purposes. This does not systematically impose unreasonable expectations upon members (they might do that to themselves), nor does it drive an individual to coerce people to pay tithing. Both abnormalities arise from personal quirks.

You said that "If [not when] ...I had doubts ...I would have asked [not asked]..." At any rate, doubting an answer isn’t an abuse of the system. Do you consider whatever you did with those doubts coercion?