Tithing settlement

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am curious why you didn’t ask the wife alone first about it if you figured the husband would lie.   Or at least suggest she discuss it with her husband before coming in and say you would like to talk to just the two of them without the kids first. 

Because then one or both blame the Bishop for turning them against each other.

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because then one or both blame the Bishop for turning them against each other.

And how does that not happen anyway when the wife feels exposed like a fool by the Bishop?  What would you suggest?

Why the need to ambush anyway?  Why not inform both what you want to talk about.  If the husband lies, that is on him.

Edited November 8, 2021 by Calm

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am curious why you didn’t ask the wife alone first about it if you figured the husband would lie.   Or at least suggest she discuss it with her husband before coming in and say you would like to talk to just the two of them without the kids first. 

I don't think Rongo was worried, before the meeting, that the husband would lie.  I think that worry came after he realized what the husband had been doing (when the husband finally confessed during that interview) and that he was thinking it was good that he hadn't called him in on his own because he might have continued to be less than honest.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

And how does that not happen anyway when the wife feels exposed like a fool by the Bishop?  What would you suggest?

Why the need to ambush anyway?  Why not inform both what you want to talk about.  If the husband lies, that is on him.

I don't see the problem with the bishop calling in the couple to talk about the issue but I do think this whole culture of secrecy that the church has around getting called in to see the bishop or the stake president (normally for a calling) without being able to know the reason is dumb.

Why not give people a heads up so they can consider it before being put on the spot?

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I don't think Rongo was worried, before the meeting, that the husband would lie.  I think that worry came after he realized what the husband had been doing (when the husband finally confessed during that interview) and that he was thinking it was good that he hadn't called him in on his own because he might have continued to be less than honest.

It depends on whether the “couldn’t think” came before or after the meeting, I guess.  I read it as happening before, that he wanted the wife there to prevent the husband from lying.  But perhaps he was doing a “what if I had…”

Quote

I think she/they felt ambushed, but I couldn't think of a better way to ask about it --- if I met with the husband alone, who knows if what he was telling me was true? 

 

Edited November 8, 2021 by Calm

[Tacenda]

nvmd

Edited November 8, 2021 by Tacenda

[rpn]

I've been emailing the bishop my tithing status when I cannot attend.  Bishops must file an annual tithing status report.   They need members to declare that status so they don't have to guess.  Historically it was also about double checking that all the tithing was recorded properly (probably not needed any more for those who pay online).

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Rain said:

In the US it doesn't need to be signed for tax purposes.  There are other things required, but signature is not one of them.

I'm sure you're correct. But the PDF annual donation statement I get from the church has a signature at the bottom of the "Treasury Services Division Representative". In years past, my bishop signed the statement. I always assumed that this made it official, or at least, prima facie official. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I am curious why you didn’t ask the wife alone first about it if you figured the husband would lie.   Or at least suggest she discuss it with her husband before coming in and say you would like to talk to just the two of them without the kids first. 

It was something I felt strongly I needed both to be there for --- simultaneously. Not that I figured he would lie (or she), but something felt wrong. I wanted to address it completely outside of tithing settlement (it was October, I think, before they started tithing settlement in October). 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

It was something I felt strongly I needed both to be there for --- simultaneously. Not that I figured he would lie (or she), but something felt wrong. I wanted to address it completely outside of tithing settlement (it was October, I think, before they started tithing settlement in October). 

Thanks for explaining. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Because then one or both blame the Bishop for turning them against each other.

That is one good reason to have both spouses there, if possible. 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And how does that not happen anyway when the wife feels exposed like a fool by the Bishop?  What would you suggest?

Why the need to ambush anyway?  Why not inform both what you want to talk about.  If the husband lies, that is on him.

It wasn't an ambush. I didn't know what I was going to be told. As a practical thing, I think it's better to have the whole discussion in the office in that meeting, rather than say over the phone "I'm concerned that you might not be paying tithing, and want to visit both of you. Are you available on Thursday?" That's much worse, in my view. I don't think there is a way to "inform both what you want to talk about" ahead of time in this instance. 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't think Rongo was worried, before the meeting, that the husband would lie.  I think that worry came after he realized what the husband had been doing (when the husband finally confessed during that interview) and that he was thinking it was good that he hadn't called him in on his own because he might have continued to be less than honest.

I didn't have any expectations going into it, and I certainly had no reason to think anyone was lying. It was just something we needed to discuss and, if there was a valid explanation, for them to explain. It was . . . not good, though, when he awkwardly had to explain that he had been withholding tithing from both of them, without her knowing. You're very correct that having the spouse there makes it much more difficult to come up with a "self-preservation" lie. He really had no choice but to come clean (not that it was planned that way --- I just felt strongly that I needed to talk to both of them together). 

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I don't see the problem with the bishop calling in the couple to talk about the issue but I do think this whole culture of secrecy that the church has around getting called in to see the bishop or the stake president (normally for a calling) without being able to know the reason is dumb.

Why not give people a heads up so they can consider it before being put on the spot?

Again, I don't think in this particular case (or others. Imagine, "I have concerns and am considering recommending you for disciplinary action. Can we talk?") that there is a good way to "give people a heads up so they can consider it before being put on the spot." I truly believe that the starting assumption is a presumption of innocence, so the point initially is to talk about what's going on --- and not put them back on their heels on the defensive. 

For some things, I think the best thing is to simply set up a meeting without telling people what it's for. For others, I think that often, it's perfectly fine to say, "I'd like to talk to you and your wife about a calling.")

One advantage I had is that I didn't use an executive secretary. I made my own calls, and people called or texted me back directly. I think that made it easier on many people (no middle man), and it was actually easier on me because I knew my schedule and neither of us needed to play the waiting game of secretary-getting-a-hold-of-bishop or bishop-getting-back. I was able to meet with people very last minute because of this, and it was sorely needed sometimes. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

I'd like to talk to you and your wife about a calling.

Couldn’t you also say “I would like to talk to you about tithing”? And if pushed, say some records are incomplete and I want to be sure I have the correct info.

It is easy to play armchair quarterback and I may be unrealistic in my ideas.

Edited November 9, 2021 by Calm

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

Couldn’t you also say “I would like to take to you about tithing”? And if pushed, say some records are incomplete and I want to be sure I have the correct info.

It is easy to play armchair quarterback and I may be unrealistic in my ideas.

I'm armchair quarterbacking this right now, and thinking of he/she responding on the phone, "What records are incomplete? What information are you missing?" and then getting into it on the phone --- without the other spouse. Or refusing to get into it on the phone, which fans the flames of speculation and worry. 

I do get that it's nerve-wracking to have a pending meeting hanging over one's head, even if one doesn't have any skeletons and it's probably just for a calling. 

The king "ambush" (I don't really think of it that way, but totally unexpected) was when I was called a second time as a bishop. It was only a year and a half after my release and in the same stake. We had no idea it was coming, and it was an emergency First Presidency approval via phone --- very hasty in how it moved. But, that was a unique situation. We figured it would be for a stake auxiliary calling of some sort, and he asked if he could meet with us after the rebaptism of a member of our former ward. I definitely don't think he should have given me any hint or inkling of what it was about over the phone. 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't work outside of the home and make no money but I'm the one who pays tithing, and it's paid in my name since that's who I'm signed in as when I pay online.  My husband would have no idea if I didn't pay it or didn't pay a full tithe until the end of the year either.  It's kind of crazy that guy went to tithing settlement without coming clean to his wife first, since it was likely to come out in the meeting!

I do wish that a husband and wife could pay under both their names together, though I understand why that probably isn't possible accounting wise.  And I know it doesn't really matter.  I just hate to see either name with a zero under amount of tithing paid when it was the work, faith, and action of both partners that constituted a full tithe.

Of course you can! At least, before people started paying online it was done all the time. I dealt with that as finance clerk, and personally. Back before all the turmoil and changes happened in my life, I always put both my wife's and my tithing into one envelope with both our names on the slip. We didn't itemize who owed what. And at the end of the year, the donation statement had both our names on it. 

If you're doing it online, however, it's going to go in attributed to the individual payor. But if you pay via envelope, you can do it in both names on the single slip. 

Unless something has changed in the meantime.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don't see the problem with the bishop calling in the couple to talk about the issue but I do think this whole culture of secrecy that the church has around getting called in to see the bishop or the stake president (normally for a calling) without being able to know the reason is dumb.

Why not give people a heads up so they can consider it before being put on the spot?

I don't know about anyone else who has ever extended a calling, but I've felt prompted, while talking to the person, to not extend a calling.  If the person knew that the meeting was about a calling they might have gone away hurt.

I've also had the same thing happen with a release.  As a bishopric we'd decided to release a Sunday school teacher.  But as I was talking to the person before bringing up the release I felt prompted not to do so.  As we talked further the reason became apparent.

 

[bluebell]

21 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't know about anyone else who has ever extended a calling, but I've felt prompted, while talking to the person, to not extend a calling.  If the person knew that the meeting was about a calling they might have gone away hurt.

I've also had the same thing happen with a release.  As a bishopric we'd decided to release a Sunday school teacher.  But as I was talking to the person before bringing up the release I felt prompted not to do so.  As we talked further the reason became apparent.

 

Good points.  Can I ask, what did you tell the person the reason was for asking them to come in?  (the one who you were going to extend a calling to but didn't).

Edited November 8, 2021 by bluebell

[kimpearson]

In my opinion tithing is a holdover tradition from another time.  What do I mean?  I grew up in a farming community is Southeast Idaho with a million (literally thousands as both sides were original pioneers) relatives spread across Southeast Idaho and all of Utah.  This was the Church up through the 60's.  All most every person I knew paid their tithing at tithing settlement.  It was the natural end to the farm year and a slow time when farmers and ranchers had the time to figure their profits.  Every family member who was a business owner did the same thing.  Many of those who had jobs as employee's almost always had some land or animals or some other kind of side business.  They also waited until year end.  This was the great depression generation and making monthly or weekly payments was viewed as frivolous.  There was no general church budget allocations.  Ward raised their own money separate from tithing to pay for ward expenses.  It was just the mind set of most members that you paid your tithing at tithing settlement.  All of the current apostles and first presidency grew up in that era.  If there is one thing about the Church, it takes forever to change certain traditions that serve no real purpose.

Any bishop has pretty much total access to ward members offerings 24/7 through the internet portal.  If a bishop had true concerns about a members tithing status, he could see that long before tithing settlement.  All your member information and your family membership information is available to you online.  It could be set up for you to indicate your tithing status online.  But as many have opined, there is this nostalgic feeling for enough members, that the tradition continues.  My experience is that many of the younger generation are just emailing or texting their tithing status to the bishop.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, kimpearson said:

my opinion tithing is a holdover tradition from another time. 

Tithing or tithing settlement?

[rongo]

6 hours ago, kimpearson said:

 All of the current apostles and first presidency grew up in that era. 

Very interesting observation about farming communities and tithing settlement.  I think you're on to something with tithing settlement today being a nostalgic holdover from that era and area.

I'm not sure where exactly in SE Idaho you're from, but I grew up in Weston until I was 10. We were sandwiched between Clifton (Harold B. Lee) and Whitney (Ezra Taft Benson). Serge Benson was in our ward. It was "prophet country." 

[ksfisher]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

Good points.  Can I ask, what did you tell the person the reason was for asking them to come in?  (the one who you were going to extend a calling to but didn't).

It was a while ago.  I don't recall.  It was someone that I'd spoken to enough previously that a "check in" visit wouldn't be out of the question.

[Scott Lloyd]

On 11/8/2021 at 7:34 AM, bluebell said:

I've never been issued a ward challenge at tithing settlement in the five states that I have lived in so I can't speak to that.  I do think that the bishop does use the time to see how people are doing, generally speaking.

I don't like doing them either, just because they are annoying.  Having to stay after church or go back on a Sunday, still in sunday dress, to see the bishop for ten minutes and say "yes we are full tithe payers" is kind of annoying.  I do it because I'm asked to and no other reason.

This article in on the church's website and explains why we are asked to do tithing settlement.

Last year (and we are continuing the practice this year), our bishop offered the option of attending tithing settlement “virtually,” using an internet connection at home. There were no “sign-up sheets” taped to the door of the clerk’s office as in years past. Rather, ward members were encouraged to approach a bishopric member to make an appointment. Also, bishopric members approached some ward members to offer tithing settlement appointments. A Google Docs file was shared among the bishopric and clerks so we could keep track in real time of appointments that had been made and kept. 
 

My task as an assistant ward clerk is to pull a report of donations and give it to each tithing settlement attendee prior to the appointment. For those with a “virtual” appointment, I have been emailing them a PDF of their report. 

The above has worked well enough, though I wish I could say it has brought about an increase in tithing settlement attendance; it hasn’t that I can see. The fraction of our membership who come to tithing settlement is still way too small. I think it’s an imposition on a bishop to oblige him to guess at one’s tithing status because one neglects or refuses to make a tithing settlement appointment. 
 

Edited November 9, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Last year (and we are continuing the practice this year), our bishop offered the option of attending tithing settlement “virtually,” using an internet connection at home. There were no “sign-up sheets” taped to the door of the clerk’s office as in years past. Rather, ward members were encouraged to approach a bishopric member to make an appointment. Also, bishopric members approached some ward members to offer tithing settlement appointments. A Google Docs file was shared among the bishopric and clerks so we could in keep track in real time of appointments that had been made and kept. 
 

My task as an assistant ward clerk is to pull a report of donations and give it to each tithing settlement attendee prior to the appointment. For those with a “virtual” appointment, I have been emailing them a PDF of their report. 

The above has worked well enough, though I wish I could say it has brought about an increase in tithing settlement attendance; it hasn’t that I can see. The fraction of our membership who come to tithing settlement is still way too small. I think it’s an imposition on a bishop to oblige him to guess at one’s tithing status because one neglects or refuses to make a tithing settlement appointment. 
 

Our ward is doing something similar.  The appointments are kept on a google doc sheet and one of the clerks emails the person an invitation to the event so they have an email reminder of when their appointment is.  Our bishop also offered zoom options.  It's a testament to how much many of us hate zoom that so many people are still choosing to do the in-person option, including my family.

We don't get reports of our tithing anymore though.  We are asked to look it up ourselves on line and told that we will be provided with a paper copy only if we request one.  I'm sure no one is more happy when tithing settlement is over than the bishop and those who have to help with the process.

[The Nehor]

13 hours ago, kimpearson said:

Any bishop has pretty much total access to ward members offerings 24/7 through the internet portal.  If a bishop had true concerns about a members tithing status, he could see that long before tithing settlement.

While this is true in my experience Bishops probably don’t look through donations to check on people who stop paying. I have access to that information and I only checked once at the Bishop’s request to get information about someone being considered for a calling. I thought about offering to monitor who was paying for abnormalities to report on once a month in Bishopric but decided I wasn’t really comfortable doing it. While the intention would be to help someone who may have lost a job or had a faith crisis it is kind of creepy.

While the Bishop does have access to that information odds are he is completely ignorant about it. Most likely the first time he would have concerns based on abnormalities in tithing payment (absent a spiritual prompting) is when he does Tithing Settlement with the person or has to check off their status if they did not attend.

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Our ward is doing something similar.  The appointments are kept on a google doc sheet and one of the clerks emails the person an invitation to the event so they have an email reminder of when their appointment is.  Our bishop also offered zoom options.  It's a testament to how much many of us hate zoom that so many people are still choosing to do the in-person option, including my family.

We don't get reports of our tithing anymore though.  We are asked to look it up ourselves on line and told that we will be provided with a paper copy only if we request one.  I'm sure no one is more happy when tithing settlement is over than the bishop and those who have to help with the process.

It is easier than it used to be before the data was all easily recorded online. I remember as a ward clerk in the early 2000s trying to distribute paper copies of everything. Ugh!

The thing I am still driven nuts by is the person who brings all their donations in cash at Tithing Settlement day. Usually the donations from the day are already processed and it is almost always the last week and they worriedly ask if it will be processed in time because they need it to be for tax purposes so we get to do it again and I hate having that much cash in one place. There is a person like this in every ward I have been a clerk in.

[Rain]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Last year (and we are continuing the practice this year), our bishop offered the option of attending tithing settlement “virtually,” using an internet connection at home. There were no “sign-up sheets” taped to the door of the clerk’s office as in years past. Rather, ward members were encouraged to approach a bishopric member to make an appointment. Also, bishopric members approached some ward members to offer tithing settlement appointments. A Google Docs file was shared among the bishopric and clerks so we could keep track in real time of appointments that had been made and kept. 
 

My task as an assistant ward clerk is to pull a report of donations and give it to each tithing settlement attendee prior to the appointment. For those with a “virtual” appointment, I have been emailing them a PDF of their report. 

The above has worked well enough, though I wish I could say it has brought about an increase in tithing settlement attendance; it hasn’t that I can see. The fraction of our membership who come to tithing settlement is still way too small. I think it’s an imposition on a bishop to oblige him to guess at one’s tithing status because one neglects or refuses to make a tithing settlement appointment. 
 

After all of the discussion on both threads I decided that I couldn't find a good enough reason to come in.  No imposition to either the bishop or executive secretary as I emailed them that we weren't coming in and our status.