Tithing shakedown

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, rchorse said:

I must just be a jerk. When I was Bishop and people wanted me to do things on holidays or do tithing on off days for personal reasons, my response was always no.

For a legitimate emergency, I would always drop everything and do whatever I could. But for habitual bad planning or people who thought their convenience was more important than me spending a holiday with my family, the answer was no.

I'm not a big fan of the mentality that the Bishop is at the beck and call of ward members.

My previous bishop wanted to be you. He could never pull it off. Glad you did.  

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I'm also not quite sure what to make of your devotion to the temple, since I have little clue of what goes in there. My guess is what I've been told (covenants, sealings, proxy work, etc.) doesn't quite cover it, because that doesn't really describe ceremony and it isn't really controversial. I don't have an issue with you not disclosing what goes on, and I long ago decided not to look it up because of your beliefs and my respect for them, but it is certainly a unique part of your faith.

The part which is most sacred is connected to a symbolic entering to God's exaltation, and cannot be duplicated because it often is a religious experience induced by a spiritual connection and belief.

Imagine the consecration at mass in the most sacred moment on video- "hoc est enim corpus meum"- vs live, and knowing what you know as a Catholic. THAT is the difference.

If you don't believe something real is happening, it isn't.

Suppose those words were never to be spoken outside, and always in Latin, how would that change it? More special or less?

 Now under the new guidelines the discussion will be very much more  open, but I pray nothing changes with how we speak the words.

And why?

The Rorty video. Appearance and reality are one. Spirit is real. We are materialists, spirit and energy and matter is one. Feelings are real.

 You could read about it all day on the Internet and still not even have a clue.

But if you don't get that and still bifurcate that distinction, you will never really grok it.

That's a postmodern word.

Our metaphysics are postmodern, Catholicism is Aristotelian.

THAT was the real restoration.

 Critics call that the "magical point of view."

They are right. It's wonderful.

Miracles still happen.

 

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Kenngo1969]

23 minutes ago, rchorse said:

I must just be a jerk. When I was Bishop and people wanted me to do things on holidays or do tithing on off days for personal reasons, my response was always no.

For a legitimate emergency, I would always drop everything and do whatever I could. But for habitual bad planning or people who thought their convenience was more important than me spending a holiday with my family, the answer was no.

I'm not a big fan of the mentality that the Bishop is at the beck and call of ward members.

Yeah, a lot of my former bishops are high on my Jerk List.  First people I think of, actually.    

  

[The Nehor]

22 minutes ago, mgy401 said:

To what degree, in the Church, do we view salvation/Zion as a communal effort such that individual noncompliance may threaten the health of the entire endeavor?  Particularly in matters of temple recommend worthiness, where we are under collective obligation to let no “unclean” thing into the temple?

I don’t know where the line should appropriately be drawn.  I certainly don’t want a rat-on-your-neighbor mentality to become pervasive in the Church.  But I don’t think we’re being honest, or consistent, if we simply say that other people’s shortcomings are absolutely never, under any circumstances, any of our business.  After all, even in a secular society we want tax cheats to be caught.  And in this discussion, we consider @Ahab’s potential inappropriate judginess to be very much our own business!

There is a mantle laid on the prophet to keep the temples pure and from what little I have heard about how they do it they take it seriously. Others shortcomings are sometimes "our" business but that is largely limited to those you minister to at most for most members. Some Priesthood and auxiliary leaders know more. Bishops and Stake Presidents carry most of that load and it functions through the church disciplinary/member council system.

If we wanted tax cheats to be caught we would fund the IRS. It is the one government agency that should be a no-brainer to fund. While I am sure there would be diminishing returns as some point every study shows that for every dollar you put into the agency you get more than a dollar in revenue. Last I read the IRS estimated than an eighth of the total owed revenue is never collected. We keep gutting the agency anyways. There is no real general consensus on whether tax cheats should be caught.

It is also not the same. A pattern of compulsion or threat attached to tithing or fast offerings would ruin them, both on an institutional level and an individual one.

[Ahab]

18 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

The part which is most sacred is connected to a symbolic entering to God's exaltation, and cannot be duplicated because it often is a religious experience induced by a spiritual connection and belief.

Imagine the consecration at mass in the most sacred moment on video- "hoc est enim corpus meum"- vs live, and knowing what you know as a Catholic. THAT is the difference.

If you don't believe something real is happening, it isn't.

Suppose those words were never to be spoken outside, and always in Latin, how would that change it? More special or less?

 Now under the new guidelines the discussion will be very much more  open, but I pray nothing changes with how we speak the words.

And why?

The Rorty video. Appearance and reality are one. Spirit is real. We are materialists, spirit and energy and matter is one. Feelings are real.

 You could read about it all day on the Internet and still not even have a clue.

But if you don't get that and still bifurcate that distinction, you will never really grok it.

That's a postmodern word.

Our metaphysics are postmodern, Catholicism is Aristotelian.

THAT was the real restoration.

 Critics call that the "magical point of view."

They are right. It's wonderful.

Miracles still happen.

 

 

imagine a world where each person thought he or she or it was the most perfect person on the planet.  Some think this is that world, but is that how it really is in reality?  Yes or No?  (and no you may not choose both Yes and No because I forbid it.)

[The Nehor]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

imagine a world where each person thought he or she or it was the most perfect person on the planet.

Well, someone has to be right. It might as well be me.

[Paloma]

Two memories come to me when I read this topic ... one from my childhood long before I knew anything about the LDS faith, and another from twenty years ago or so that involves LDS missionaries (and has nothing to do with tithing, but everything to do with finances).

The first memory has to do with how appalled my parents were when the Presbyterian minister of our church took it upon himself to do something that was completely uncharacteristic.  Never before or after had we known of a minister to expect confirmation of the precise tithing of parishioners.   But this fellow had a laser focus on people's annual givings.  He was convinced that my parents were giving the church less than a tenth of our actual means. He confronted my parents about it, and found, upon seeing their yearly income, that we were actually giving considerably more than a tithe.  The fact is that we were an extremely poor family, but my parents had what can only be called 'class', and great money management skills.  We lived simply.  My mother sewed and knitted almost all our clothing.  We 'looked' far more wealthy than we were.  To this day, I remember and feel indignation surrounding that minister's intrusion and wrong assumptions about our family's finances.

The second memory involves a couple of LDS missionaries with whom I was in dialogue about our respective faiths.  At that time I was a pastor with an Anabaptist church.  When these LDS missionaries learned that I was a pastor, they made the assumption that I received a salary (which I did not by my own choice), and spoke quite scathingly about my being a minister who worked for "filthy lucre".  To their credit, they changed their tune once I explained (to their surprise) that I worked full time as a pastor with no financial reimbursement.  But I remember that I felt their disdain before I set the record straight.

I freely acknowledged to these young missionaries that I have no problem with full time ministers working for pay when needed, but explained that I had no need for pay, when my husband was employed and made a sufficient living for us as a family.

Back to the topic here ... I've been really impressed with the way that tithing is often handled in the LDS church, by the accounts of many of you, in terms of its being an honour system.  And that tithing settlement time is often seen as an opportunity to connect with ward members and check on their well being.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, rchorse said:

I must just be a jerk. When I was Bishop and people wanted me to do things on holidays or do tithing on off days for personal reasons, my response was always no.

For a legitimate emergency, I would always drop everything and do whatever I could. But for habitual bad planning or people who thought their convenience was more important than me spending a holiday with my family, the answer was no.

I'm not a big fan of the mentality that the Bishop is at the beck and call of ward members.

That's probably smart.  Bishops need to take care of their mental health and also their families' needs.

[Tacenda]

17 minutes ago, Paloma said:

Two memories come to me when I read this topic ... one from my childhood long before I knew anything about the LDS faith, and another from twenty years ago or so that involves LDS missionaries (and has nothing to do with tithing, but everything to do with finances).

The first memory has to do with how appalled my parents were when the Presbyterian minister of our church took it upon himself to do something that was completely uncharacteristic.  Never before or after had we known of a minister to expect confirmation of the precise tithing of parishioners.   But this fellow had a laser focus on people's annual givings.  He was convinced that my parents were giving the church less than a tenth of our actual means. He confronted my parents about it, and found, upon seeing their yearly income, that we were actually giving considerably more than a tithe.  The fact is that we were an extremely poor family, but my parents had what can only be called 'class', and great money management skills.  We lived simply.  My mother sewed and knitted almost all our clothing.  We 'looked' far more wealthy than we were.  To this day, I remember and feel indignation surrounding that minister's intrusion and wrong assumptions about our family's finances.

The second memory involves a couple of LDS missionaries with whom I was in dialogue about our respective faiths.  At that time I was a pastor with an Anabaptist church.  When these LDS missionaries learned that I was a pastor, they made the assumption that I received a salary (which I did not by my own choice), and spoke quite scathingly about my being a minister who worked for "filthy lucre".  To their credit, they changed their tune once I explained (to their surprise) that I worked full time as a pastor with no financial reimbursement.  But I remember that I felt their disdain before I set the record straight.

I freely acknowledged to these young missionaries that I have no problem with full time ministers working for pay when needed, but explained that I had no need for pay, when my husband was employed and made a sufficient living for us as a family.

Back to the topic here ... I've been really impressed with the way that tithing is often handled in the LDS church, by the accounts of many of you, in terms of its being an honour system.  And that tithing settlement time is often seen as an opportunity to connect with ward members and check on their well being.

I enjoyed the yearly meeting with my little family and the closeness they felt to the bishop during tithing settlement, he always had a large bowl of candy for each of my 5 children to choose their favorite. When older kids, some were only part tithing payers but never faced a stearness or any reaction at all but always a smile and good feeling. We'd come home afterwards to the twinkling Christmas lights and feel the spirit of Christmas. 

[Bob Crockett]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, but they will only get the deposit date on the form thing we give out. If it is a check or something like it is easy to trace. When you bring in thousands in cash from who knows where there is less of a paper trail.

A cash based taxpayer gets the deduction when he hands it in or mails it.  I realize the Church form is different but I follow IRS rules. 

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

A cash based taxpayer gets the deduction when he hands it in or mails it.  I realize the Church form is different but I follow IRS rules. 

I am sure it would have been fine and they could make it work but I wasn't in a position to explain to the guy that it would be fine. Also, not doing tithing that day would have meant the bishop had to carry around thousands of dollars for a week.

[Bob Crockett]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I enjoyed the yearly meeting with my little family and the closeness they felt to the bishop during tithing settlement, he always had a large bowl of candy for each of my 5 children to choose their favorite. When older kids, some were only part tithing payers but never faced a stearness or any reaction at all but always a smile and good feeling. We'd come home afterwards to the twinkling Christmas lights and feel the spirit of Christmas. 

I thoroughly disliked tithing settlement.  I never did it. Then I was called as a bishop.  Shock.  

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A couple of months back I had to visit someone at 1 am and have to walk them through why and how they should turn themselves into the police. I thought I was just going to give a blessing. That was fun.

Fun? Hmmm the old question of literal vs figurative pops up again

Service can be a high, but usually for me, only after the work is done.

But all work is kind of like that, or they would call it "play".

We need more canneries etc.

Now those assignments are a real BLAST. 🥴

 

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I thoroughly disliked tithing settlement.  I never did it. Then I was called as a bishop.  Shock.  

Lol!! I resemble that remark.

It's definitely a "re: Mark" 

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Doctrine 612]

16 hours ago, PacMan said:

I wouldn’t have done that. But he had every right to do so. If you said no, he would have also been entitled to take your temple recommend. 

What would that have solved?

but yesterday I got a phone call from him apologizing, he looked into the matter and found that I was right.

now he wants me to show him how he can do it this way as well, I made an enemy into an friend.

[The Nehor]

57 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I thoroughly disliked tithing settlement.  I never did it. Then I was called as a bishop.  Shock.  

My tithing settlement this year was telling the Bishop to mark me as full as we were walking out of the building.

[The Nehor]

58 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Fun? Hmmm the old question of literal vs figurative pops up again

Service can be a high, but usually for me, only after the work is done.

But all work is kind of like that, or they would call it "play".

We need more canneries etc.

Now those assignments are a real BLAST. 🥴

 

I had no idea what I was walking into so it was disconcerting. I found out later none of my advice was actually done so I guess whatever.

[Bob Crockett]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

My tithing settlement this year was telling the Bishop to mark me as full as we were walking out of the building.

That is the way I do it as well.  I think my bishops for the most part were grateful.

[MrShorty]

Relatively new to this community, so I don't know if it would be preferred to put this here or start a new topic. I have not heard of any "shakedown" incidents in relation to this issue, but I have seen some discussion in response to a recent Jana Reiss (https://religionnews.com/2020/12/23/why-i-stopped-tithing-to-the-lds-church/)article about whether tithing must be paid through the tithing box on the Church's donation slip, or if it is acceptable to pay 10% (or a little more) to any number of other charities and still call yourself a full tithe payer.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Relatively new to this community, so I don't know if it would be preferred to put this here or start a new topic. I have not heard of any "shakedown" incidents in relation to this issue, but I have seen some discussion in response to a recent Jana Reiss (https://religionnews.com/2020/12/23/why-i-stopped-tithing-to-the-lds-church/)article about whether tithing must be paid through the tithing box on the Church's donation slip, or if it is acceptable to pay 10% (or a little more) to any number of other charities and still call yourself a full tithe payer.

The latter is not considered "acceptable". One description called it being generous with someone else's money.

[JustAnAustralian]

26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

My tithing settlement this year was telling the Bishop to mark me as full as we were walking out of the building.

In the past I've done something similar. An overloaded bishop + an easy answer made things much easier for him. 

Of course he still had to go through the entire ward list on the online system and enter in declarations, but at least it meant he had 10 minutes less in interviews.

[MrShorty]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The latter is not considered "acceptable". One description called it being generous with someone else's money.

Correct. If I understand correctly, the specific incident involved Pres. George Albert Smith (during an era when the Church was struggling financially) and someone asked him the same question. I guess part of the question is whether Pres. Smith's answer represents an eternal truth or was it more specific to a time when the Church really needed the money. Now that the Church is on much more solid financial footing, is it as important for members to pay tithing to the Church in the tithing box?

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I had no idea what I was walking into so it was disconcerting. I found out later none of my advice was actually done so I guess whatever.

Welcome to bishopness.

 

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Correct. If I understand correctly, the specific incident involved Pres. George Albert Smith (during an era when the Church was struggling financially) and someone asked him the same question. I guess part of the question is whether Pres. Smith's answer represents an eternal truth or was it more specific to a time when the Church really needed the money. Now that the Church is on much more solid financial footing, is it as important for members to pay tithing to the Church in the tithing box?

Yes.

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Welcome to bishopness.

 

Thankfully that is an experience I am unlikely to have. Single men are only called as bishops in very rare circumstances and I don’t live in an area likely to be in any of those situations.