Stimulus Check

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So the gambler doesn't pay tithing on his winnings (ill-gotten gains), but those Mormons who are members of the clerical staff upstairs in the casino do pay tithing on the paychecks they get from the casino.

I see a difference. 
 

The clerk is receiving payment for services rendered. It is an agreed-upon remuneration, not ill-gotten gain, in my view. No element of chance is involved in the business arrangement between the clerk and the employer. 
 

The gambling winner, on the other hand, has benefitted from a contest in which each party at the outset intends to profit from the loss of another — probably not the casino, but from the collective losses of other customers therein. 
 

Gambling, at its heart, is mean spirited. It is never a win-win arrangement, only win-lose. That’s why I view gambling winnings as ill-gotten gain. 

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, Maureen said:

She wasn't criticizing anyone. Just hoping that people don't suffer by giving away too much when they need it themselves.

M.

As I see it, she was implicitly criticizing the Church for receiving tithing while it holds funds in reserve. You may agree with such criticism, but let’s recognize it for what it is. 

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess they didn't get the memo of the church's holdings, maybe it's down a bit, but not enough that the church needs help. Hopefully they don't suffer and send more than that is asked.

I doubt anyone sent extra. It was more a panic reaction and the bishops contacted all calmed their fears. I have no idea if they heard about the money. I am guessing some of them had but panic is not rational. I am less concerned about this specific incident and more how panicked people will react as this situation develops. I also suspect some believe that the local buildings are funded locally and that tithing would prop up the stake. That is not how it works. Donations go to a central account in Salt Lake and (in the US) are largely paid out of one too.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, rongo said:

Yes for me, because:

a) it's income, pure and simple. It's incoming money. And, it isn't an advance on my tax refund, as some have claimed. It's actually income.

b) I've always preferred being simple and not trying to nickel-and-dime God by rationalizing this or that shouldn't be tithed (that lone piano key Bill Reel plunked away at, before he chose to go garden variety apostate podcaster). Since I have a W2 job (I get a check from The Man), it's always been easy to just pay on the gross and be done with it, without seeing how much I can rationalize paring my "increase" down to avoid my tithing liability. As the lone income for a family of six (and a teacher), I don't pay federal withholding and get a substantial "refund." I pay tithing on the gross amount of that, too. 

c) I will pay on my social security and pension (if they're still around when I turn 70), even though "I've already paid tithing on them." It just seems to me that too many people are trying to find ways not to have to pay tithing on things. 

---

I know some people will recoil in horror at this, but when people genuinely asked for my opinion as their bishop, I told them my counsel was to pay on the gross (assuming they weren't a small business owner, self-employed, farmer, etc. That can be more complicated than a W2 employee). Some here have been adamant that this is completely inappropriate, and that bishops should simply stick their fingers in their ears and say, "That's your own decision, and I can't give any input. La, la, la la . . ." I never felt that way when asked for counsel. 

 

I agree with everything you’ve said here except for paying tithing on a tax refund. I figure that having already paid tithing on my gross pay exempts me from tithing the refund. 
 

I pay tithing on Social Security. I don’t expect to receive back less than I paid into the system during my working life — practically no one does (little known fact). And Social Security is not the same as putting money aside into a personal account. It is insurance — old-age insurance. I don’t hold back money from my tithing for what I pay in car insurance or health insurance. 
 

I pay tithing on my company pension, because it is deferred remuneration from my employer. It is income just as surely as was the wage I received when working. 
 

And when I begin 401 (k) withdrawals, I’ll tithe those as well. Most of the money in that account constitutes as-yet-untithed growth from the investment portfolio. Some of it is from a partial company match of the contributions I made over time. Relatively little of it is money I personally contributed. 

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with everything you’ve said here except for paying tithing on a tax refund. I figure that having already paid tithing on my gross pay exempts me from tithing the refund. 

I can see that, but in my case, it isn't actually a refund, since I pay no federal withholding. It is money from the government, because I have a household of six and don't make a lot. I feel kind of bad taking the "refund," but it is definitely income to us and not getting back what was previously withheld. 

Ditto with the "stimulus," which just arrived today for us. It's going into savings, sans tithing. We're fortunate to have steady income until my new contract begins in late July, so we haven't been hurt by the shutdown (the economy at large sure has, though). 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I see a difference. 
 

The clerk is receiving payment for services rendered. It is an agreed-upon remuneration, not ill-gotten gain, in my view. No element of chance is involved in the business arrangement between the clerk and the employer. 
 

The gambling winner, on the other hand, has benefitted from a contest in which each party at the outset intends to profit from the loss of another — probably not the casino, but from the collective losses of other customers therein. 
 

Gambling, at its heart, is mean spirited. It is never a win-win arrangement, only win-lose. That’s why I view gambling winnings as ill-gotten gain. 

You may be correct, but questions remain:  The LDS Church as an institution should not receive a portion of monies obtained through such questionable means.  So, although the IRS definitely wants its cut of gambling proceeds, and likewise insists that prostitutes pay taxes on their illegal business arrangements, there is no element of chance in the perfectly legal activities of legal brothels in Nevada and various other places.  I doubt the Church would knowingly accept tithing on those activities either.  Again, the question arises, what about the accountants and bookkeepers not directly involved?  What about the security staff, the kitchen staff, administration, etc., of a legal brothel?  Would tithing be acceptable from them?   None are directly involved in an illegal activity.  The only question would be are they too closely involved with an immoral activity?

Should an LDS member of a Russian GRU hit-team pay tithing on his wages?  Should an LDS member of a CIA interrogation team which specializes in waterboarding at black sites pay tithing on his wages?

If we merely adopt your rule that "each party at the outset intends to profit from the loss of another," should we apply that to the cut-throat day traders on Wall Street or on their computes in their own homes?

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, rongo said:

I think there are two types of members. Those who read this and think that, because it says the underlined parts as written, a leader should simply repeat himself like an attorney worried about liability and repeat over and over, "It says in the handbook 'No one is justified in making any other statement than this.'" But what do you think personally? "Let me repeat what it says . . ."

Then, there are those who know this, but also want their bishop's counsel; also want to know what he says and what he thinks. I know that many express here very little esteem for what he might think or have to say as their bishop, but in my experience, most members take that very seriously (which is very humbling, and which is why this must be used carefully). 

It is annoying to these members to have the legal eagle types refuse to give their counsel, even when sought for and asked for. 

It's similar to the two types of LDS teachers when asked about the Church in class. Those who will only ever say, "I can't talk about religion in school," and those who (in my view) diplomatically and appropriately go ahead and answer direct questions asked of them (without getting hijacked or side-tracking the class. Sometimes "Let's talk about this later, if you want to" is all you can do). 

I think people who ask for counsel want to know what their leader thinks (they wouldn't have asked, otherwise). To slavishly and legalistically just act the part of an attorney saying over and over "I have no other comment at this time" is obnoxious. I don't think answering questions about counsel is contra to Church counsel and policy, and I don't think those seeking it think that it is, either. I think it engenders more trust as a leader to be the second type.  

I think there are a lot of different type of members.   

I know that a lot of people want their bishop's counsel.  And there's nothing wrong with wondering what your bishop's opinion is about something.  As I said before, I'm not talking about a bishop sharing his opinion about how he pays tithing.  I don't think that's against the counsel in the handbook.  I'm talking about a bishop who teaches brother so-and-so how brother so-and-so should pay tithing, when that counsel goes further than the handbook explains it should.  

A bishop who teaches someone else that a full tithe must be paid on gross, for example, is teaching his opinion as doctrine and can cause some real damage.  And besides that, it's a missed opportunity for that member to be taught by the bishop how to seek the will of God on the topic, rather than doing the will of the bishop.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You may be correct, but questions remain:  The LDS Church as an institution should not receive a portion of monies obtained through such questionable means.  So, although the IRS definitely wants its cut of gambling proceeds, and likewise insists that prostitutes pay taxes on their illegal business arrangements, there is no element of chance in the perfectly legal activities of legal brothels in Nevada and various other places.  I doubt the Church would knowingly accept tithing on those activities either.  Again, the question arises, what about the accountants and bookkeepers not directly involved?  What about the security staff, the kitchen staff, administration, etc., of a legal brothel?  Would tithing be acceptable from them?   None are directly involved in an illegal activity.  The only question would be are they too closely involved with an immoral activity?

Should an LDS member of a Russian GRU hit-team pay tithing on his wages?  Should an LDS member of a CIA interrogation team which specializes in waterboarding at black sites pay tithing on his wages?

If we merely adopt your rule that "each party at the outset intends to profit from the loss of another," should we apply that to the cut-throat day traders on Wall Street or on their computes in their own homes?

I definitely would come down on the side of their being “too closely involved with an immoral activity” and would flatly disapprove. 
 

I even have heartburn over Church members working directly for gaming establishments, but I wanted to explain why I view their livelihoods as being different from the case of those who win at wagering. 

Edited April 15, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

I can see that, but in my case, it isn't actually a refund, since I pay no federal withholding. It is money from the government, because I have a household of six and don't make a lot. I feel kind of bad taking the "refund," but it is definitely income to us and not getting back what was previously withheld. 

Ditto with the "stimulus," which just arrived today for us. It's going into savings, sans tithing. We're fortunate to have steady income until my new contract begins in late July, so we haven't been hurt by the shutdown (the economy at large sure has, though). 

Ah, I see. Since you’ve had no federal withholding, it is not really a refund at all, but in effect a grant from the government. In that case I think I would tithe it as you are doing. We could view it (and rightly so) as money to which you’re entitled because of your personal/family situation and the essential service you render to society, but we would also view your teacher’s salary in that way, and we agree that should be tithed. 
 

Edited April 15, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I think there are a lot of different type of members.   

I know that a lot of people want their bishop's counsel.  And there's nothing wrong with wondering what your bishop's opinion is about something.  As I said before, I'm not talking about a bishop sharing his opinion about how he pays tithing.  I don't think that's against the counsel in the handbook.  I'm talking about a bishop who teaches brother so-and-so how brother so-and-so should pay tithing, when that counsel goes further than the handbook explains it should.  

A bishop who teaches someone else that a full tithe must be paid on gross, for example, is teaching his opinion as doctrine and can cause some real damage.  And besides that, it's a missed opportunity for that member to be taught by the bishop how to seek the will of God on the topic, rather than doing the will of the bishop.

I think this gets problematic when the member begins entertaining and practicing false doctrine and oddities such as the Rock Waterman scriptural interpretation that Bill Reel has championed in the past, that one need only tithe what is left over after he has bought everything he needs and wants. 
 

I do believe there should be leeway given to bishops and stake presidents to teach, and even call to repentance as warranted, those who quite clearly have lost their way.  If they can’t or won’t do that, they lose much of their pastoral value and effectiveness. 

Edited April 15, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think this gets problematic when the member begins entertaining and practicing false doctrine and oddities such as the Rock Waterman scriptural interpretation that Bill Reel has championed in the past, that one need only tithe what is left over after he has bought everything he needs and wants. 
 

I do believe there should be leeway given to bishops and stake presidents to teach, and even call to repentance as warranted, those who quite clearly have lost their way.  If they can’t or won’t do that, they lose much of their pastoral value and effectiveness. 

How do you square that with the counsel in the handbook?   It doesn’t seem to provide any leeway.

 

[mrmarklin]

I checked no because I'm not going to get a stimulus check.

 

I don't think tithing is indicated, because this is borrowed money you are all getting.

[Scott Lloyd]

51 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How do you square that with the counsel in the handbook?   It doesn’t seem to provide any leeway.

 

I’m saying there should be leeway, whether there is or not. 
 

Reel and his mentors have shown how far off the beam people can get. Maybe the written counsel needs to be revisited. 

Edited April 15, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[mrmarklin]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I guess they didn't get the memo of the church's holdings, maybe it's down a bit, but not enough that the church needs help. Hopefully they don't suffer and send more than that is asked.

If the Church's holdings are anything like mine they're down around 1/3!!!!!  Not just a bit...……………………….

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m saying there should be leeway, whether there is or not. 
 

Reel and his mentors have shown how far off the beam people can get. Maybe the counsel needs to be revisited. 

It could be that this is one topic where leader interpretation isn’t justified because we are meant to have enough rope to hang ourselves, if we choose to. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It could be that this is one topic where leader interpretation isn’t justified because we are meant to have enough rope to hang ourselves, if we choose to. 

Maybe. 
 

But we saw recently how quickly (some would say not quickly enough) Church leadership stepped in when some students, faculty and staff at BYU were not following the spirit of the law with regard to the Honor Code. Were these folks hanging themselves with too much rope?

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe. 
 

But we saw recently how quickly (some would say not quickly enough) Church leadership stepped in when some students, faculty and staff at BYU were not following the spirit of the law with regard to the Honor Code. Were these folks hanging themselves with too much rope?

Two thoughts on that.

1). BYU isn’t the church and 2). Tithing is the only topic that I know of where the church specifically and explicitly states that no one is to interpret the law beyond the quote provided in the handbook.

Given those two things it doesn’t make sense to me to attempt to equate an incident at BYU concerning immorality with the church’s teachings on tithing.  Seems like an apples and oranges situation. 

[Tacenda]

53 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

If the Church's holdings are anything like mine they're down around 1/3!!!!!  Not just a bit...……………………….

Well, I think if people want to donate to their local ward with fast offerings, then the church won't be too strapped for cash.

[Tacenda]

Wait it's a stimulus payment...to stimulate the economy.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I checked no because I'm not going to get a stimulus check.

 

I don't think tithing is indicated, because this is borrowed money you are all getting.

Except you do not have to pay it back so it is not borrowed.

[The Nehor]

Sounds like there were some errors. Talked to a friend originally from Europe who came over and worked in the States for a few years and then went home. Somehow he got a stimulus deposit. Not sure if that was intentional.

[longview]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

I checked no because I'm not going to get a stimulus check.

I don't think tithing is indicated, because this is borrowed money you are all getting.

Except you do not have to pay it back so it is not borrowed.

It is called "Stealing from Future Generations."  

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

Two thoughts on that.

1). BYU isn’t the church and 2). Tithing is the only topic that I know of where the church specifically and explicitly states that no one is to interpret the law beyond the quote provided in the handbook.

Given those two things it doesn’t make sense to me to attempt to equate an incident at BYU concerning immorality with the church’s teachings on tithing.  Seems like an apples and oranges situation. 

Things don’t need to be alike in every respect, or even in most respects, for them to be conceptually similar in some respects. The similarity I see here is this:

 

At BYU, the attempt was made to let people govern themselves according to correct principles. The attempt failed among certain of the students, administrative staff and at least one faculty member. So, very early on, it became necessary to step in and give more explicit direction. 
 

Similarly, for many years it has been the practice with tithing to let people govern themselves according to sound principles. I’m saying that if absurd notions such as that propounded by Reel and others begin to hold sway, it might become necessary to step in with more explicit guidance. 
 

We saw that happen earlier in our history. The people did not manifest a widespread enough inclination to be guided by the principles of the Word of Wisdom, so eventually, it was more explicitly defined as pertaining to worthiness to hold temple recommends, certain callings in the Church, etc. 

Edited April 16, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Maureen]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

As I see it, she was implicitly criticizing the Church for receiving tithing while it holds funds in reserve. You may agree with such criticism, but let’s recognize it for what it is. 

I'm stating flat out that there was no criticism. @Danzo interpreted @Tacenda's comment incorrectly. She wasn't disapproving of someone giving tithing, she was just hoping that they wouldn't give too much, especially if it would cause hardship for the giver.

M.

[bsjkki]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Sounds like there were some errors. Talked to a friend originally from Europe who came over and worked in the States for a few years and then went home. Somehow he got a stimulus deposit. Not sure if that was intentional.

Some dead people got checks too. Speed was prioritized over perfect accuracy. It was all based on 2018 and 2019 returns. For some, if their 2020 income drops and they qualify, they will get their stimulus check when they file their 2020 taxes. 

I know many people who really needed that check today who have been out of work or sick. I know many who have had to take pay reductions. Glad to see they arrived for people today.

This article has some great info. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/04/13/will-you-have-to-pay-back-the-coronavirus-stimulus-check.html?espv=1

Edited April 16, 2020 by bsjkki