- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The Church’s official position is that determining what constitutes a full tithing is up to each individual member. So, figure out what makes sense to you and pay that amount. Answer, “Yes.” If anyone questions you about how you calculate it, tell them you contribute 10% of your increase, exactly as the Chruch says you should. If they press further, tell them that you are following the Prophet when it comes to paying tithing. If they ask how much you make and how much you pay, tell them it’s none of their business – in a polite tone and with a smile.
If you choose to pay something, consider paying online directly to the Church, if you don’t mind making payments online.
If I understand right the bishop is making you back pay from when you didn’t? If so that’s nuts. Everyone else here has given great advice and I’ll reinforce it. Your SP was the one with the most correct interpretation. From this post and your other ones it sounds like your bishop is a hard believer in the letter of the law and following it to exactness. Which again is nuts. I also agree that I don’t think disability is for tithing. Remember to hold your ground when asked and just say yes.
TataniaAvalon wrote:If I understand right the bishop is making you back pay from when you didn’t? If so that’s nuts. Everyone else here has given great advice and I’ll reinforce it. Your SP was the one with the most correct interpretation. From this post and your other ones it sounds like your bishop is a hard believer in the letter of the law and following it to exactness. Which again is nuts.
I also agree that I don’t think disability is for tithing. Remember to hold your ground when asked and just say yes.
Sadly im not the only person he’s made back pay and that person to is on disability. But I will say this he is very generous also, he recently paid for household items and a car for the other disabled person I just referred to.Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Old-Timer wrote:The Church’s official position is that determining what constitutes a full tithing is up to each individual member. So, figure out what makes sense to you and pay that amount.
Answer, “Yes.” If anyone questions you about how you calculate it, tell them you contribute 10% of your increase, exactly as the Chruch says you should. If they press further, tell them that you are following the Prophet when it comes to paying tithing. If they ask how much you make and how much you pay, tell them it’s none of their business – in a polite tone and with a smile.
If you choose to pay something, consider paying online directly to the Church, if you don’t mind making payments online.
I pay online at the moment I would just feel more comfortable making a prayful and spiritual decision to tithe out of my want each fortnight and not obligation. Going forward I think that is exactly what I will do and when questioned by my bishop I will just stand my ground and say yes.Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Heber13 wrote:10% of your increase. First define what you feel right about what is your increase, then choose to pay 10% of it or choose not to. If not, just skip the tithing settlement or declare partial. If he starts to probe or want to help you live it differently, you just tell him you aren’t ready right now. Your bishop knows there are many people in the ward that can’t live it right now and aren’t.
It gets a bit stressful thinking about talking about it. Whichever you decide to do, tell yourself you are a good person regardless of this one thing. You’re on a journey and there will be some things right now that you accept you can’t do. you can’t do all things. D&C 50:40-41. God loves you as you are.
I think I just found my new favorite scripture. Thank you so much! This is getting printed and placed on my wall as encouragement when I feel discouraged. Thank you again!!!Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
The Church’s official position does NOT include back tithing. Period. We don’t require converts to do it. Bishops should not require it of any member.
That may be the official position, Ray, but somelocal leaders do seem to require members to pay “back tithing” as a requisite for temple worthiness. I’ve had close relatives report they were told this by their bishops, and in a similar situation, I’ve been in priesthood council meetings where stake leaders reinforced that members who had not been paying tithing needed to do so for at least six months before they could get a recommend. I thought this seemed odd. Paying for six months prior to getting a temple recommend isn’t unreasonable, since tithing currently is part of the interview questions. Paying back tithing for six months is different. I know some local leaders ask for back tithing, but it doesn’t make it right. Knowing the official standard is important, and back tithing isn’t part of it.
Requiring a member to pay tithing for a variable amount of time before they can obtain a recommend is what leaders are supposed to do insteadof asking someone to pay back tithing. The goal is to ensure that a member is living the principle and since asking for back tithing is inappropriate the next best thing that shows intent is to ask a member to pay tithing for a while before they are issued a recommend. I believe the duration of time a member is asked to pay tithing before they can get a recommend is entirely up to the discretion of the bishop/stake president. It could be 3 months, 6 months, whatever they decide. What’s the process for confronting a local leader that is wrong about back tithing? I’m sure if you brought it up with the leader they’d likely side with themselves. Is there a policy that can be pointed to? Do you go to your stake president? What if they hold the same opinion? The area authority?
Right or wrong I also have this notion that once you go over someone’s head there’s this tension that is created.
This is why I’m all for answering with a simple “yes” or “no” and not getting into the minutiae. If I feel comfortable with the lord I’m not going to invite a third party into the mix to potentially screw things up.
I have asked this question before with no response. So, I’ll ask again: Quote:I’m not an expert on tithing. Is a disability payment considered income or increase?
Is it taxable?
Tithing on a disability payment seems wrong. There has to be someone that knows the inner workings that can answer this question.
As a church, we seem to be clear on many points of doctrine & policy or know where to get a definition.
Maybe the final analysis is: it’s left to each of us to determine the basis of what is considered income or increase.
If that’s true, then it should be left to each of us to determine the basis of what a tithe is.
I was scouring the handbook earlier today for a statement on “back” tithing, came up empty, but I did see something that addressed your question. Quote:Handbook 1
Section 14.4.1 Tithing
Who Should Pay Tithing
All members who have income should pay tithing, with the following exceptions:
1. Members who are entirely dependent on Church welfare assistance.
2. Full-time missionaries. (However, missionaries should pay tithing on personal income beyond the amount they receive for their support.)
If mission presidents have income that should be tithed, they generally pay tithing in the ward where their membership records are located (see 13.6.5). However, if they are serving outside their own country and their membership records are in the ward where they are residing, they generally contribute their tithing directly to the Church headquarters.
I don’t see a mention for people on disability or unemployment. That said, it’s unclear to me whether that issue is addressed elsewhere. The wiggle room being whether disability and unemployment are considered “income” which is all this particular entry in the handbook is addressing.
I think disability and unemployment would be in the same spirit of someone “entirely dependent on Church welfare assistance.” I’d also lump social security in there as well but I’m of the “surplus” mindset, i.e. if you are entirely dependent on
anymonies to meet your needs then those monies aren’t “surplus” and aren’t tithed. My definition. The rhetoric on tithing from leaders used to be “for those who have means,” or in other words, you are only tithed if you have money left over after your family’s needs are met. That comports with everything fair and loving and “yoke is light” that I feel from the God of my understanding. Paying on surplus also is in tune with many of the other teachings our church puts forth; family first, multiply and replenish the Earth, get food storage, stay out of debt, give charitably, etc. Paying on gross creates an imbalance between families of different sizes, is not an equal burden between different income levels, is not standard across different nationalities and tax rates, and has the potential to create debt in some cases. I’ve shared some examples of that here before (one example below), but the bottom line to me is that gross payment is not in harmony with church teachings, with scriptures, and with a fair and loving God. By all means, someone can pay using the gross method if they want to and *if they can really afford to,* but they shouldn’t expect any greater blessings for that, or teach that as the standard.
A person has a fixed income of $2,000 per month, and legitimate living expenses of $1,900 per month.
If they pay tithing on gross ($200), they are now $100 in debt somewhere, or possibly shorting a landlord or bill collector, or forced to borrow from family (which can strain relationships), or will need to accept a handout from the church in some way. Regardless, they have *nothing* left over; no extra money for savings, for food storage, for giving to charity, for having fun wholesome recreation, etc. It’s easy for this pattern to become burdensome, not just for the person themselves, but for those who have to continually support this person. And where is the real hope for this person to ever be able to climb out of that?
Or… they can pay tithing on their surplus ($10). Now, they are living responsibly within their means, are not incurring any debt or strain or disfavor from anyone, and have $90 left over to put some money into savings, to invest with, to give something to charity, to go on a date, to buy some food storage, etc. The church does not need to support this person, and can use those resources for people whose income is lower than their expenses, or who have no income, or who have a medical emergency, or to put into a community service project.
Which method seems more in tune with the bigger picture of the kind of life and fiscal responsibility and accountability we would prefer to encourage among our members? I realize this is one particular example, but just by the fact that this scenario does exist for some, it invalidates the idea that paying on gross could be the standard.
Grudunza wrote:The rhetoric on tithing from leaders used to be “for those who have means,” or in other words, you are only tithed if you have money left over after your family’s needs are met. That comports with everything fair and loving and “yoke is light” that I feel from the God of my understanding. Paying on surplus also is in tune with many of the other teachings our church puts forth; family first, multiply and replenish the Earth, get food storage, stay out of debt, give charitably, etc. Paying on gross creates an imbalance between families of different sizes, is not an equal burden between different income levels, is not standard across different nationalities and tax rates, and has the potential to create debt in some cases. I’ve shared some examples of that here before (one example below), but the bottom line to me is that gross payment is not in harmony with church teachings, with scriptures, and with a fair and loving God. By all means, someone can pay using the gross method if they want to and *if they can really afford to,* but they shouldn’t expect any greater blessings for that, or teach that as the standard.
A person has a fixed income of $2,000 per month, and legitimate living expenses of $1,900 per month.
If they pay tithing on gross ($200), they are now $100 in debt somewhere, or possibly shorting a landlord or bill collector, or forced to borrow from family (which can strain relationships), or will need to accept a handout from the church in some way. Regardless, they have *nothing* left over; no extra money for savings, for food storage, for giving to charity, for having fun wholesome recreation, etc. It’s easy for this pattern to become burdensome, not just for the person themselves, but for those who have to continually support this person. And where is the real hope for this person to ever be able to climb out of that?
Or… they can pay tithing on their surplus ($10). Now, they are living responsibly within their means, are not incurring any debt or strain or disfavor from anyone, and have $90 left over to put some money into savings, to invest with, to give something to charity, to go on a date, to buy some food storage, etc. The church does not need to support this person, and can use those resources for people whose income is lower than their expenses, or who have no income, or who have a medical emergency, or to put into a community service project.
Which method seems more in tune with the bigger picture of the kind of life and fiscal responsibility and accountability we would prefer to encourage among our members? I realize this is one particular example, but just by the fact that this scenario does exist for some, it invalidates the idea that paying on gross could be the standard.
That is exactly my thoughts too and for the very same reason as you’ve just mentioned in your senario. That was also why I was comfortable before the lord paying tithing on my surplus but now because my bishop demanded gross after ‘checking my reccords’ I am in debt and unable to support the missionaries. I used to give them food, and have them for dinner several times a week but now I can barely support myself.What I don’t understand is why tithing is a prerequisite for a temple reccommend anyway? It is not a sin to not pay tithing, god does not need our money but we do need salvation so why are we forced to into debt for the temple?
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
Grudunza wrote:A person has a fixed income of $2,000 per month, and legitimate living expenses of $1,900 per month.
If they pay tithing on gross ($200), they are now $100 in debt somewhere, or possibly shorting a landlord or bill collector, or forced to borrow from family (which can strain relationships), or will need to accept a handout from the church in some way. Regardless, they have *nothing* left over; no extra money for savings, for food storage, for giving to charity, for having fun wholesome recreation, etc. It’s easy for this pattern to become burdensome, not just for the person themselves, but for those who have to continually support this person. And where is the real hope for this person to ever be able to climb out of that?
Or… they can pay tithing on their surplus ($10). Now, they are living responsibly within their means, are not incurring any debt or strain or disfavor from anyone, and have $90 left over to put some money into savings, to invest with, to give something to charity, to go on a date, to buy some food storage, etc. The church does not need to support this person, and can use those resources for people whose income is lower than their expenses, or who have no income, or who have a medical emergency, or to put into a community service project.
Which method seems more in tune with the bigger picture of the kind of life and fiscal responsibility and accountability we would prefer to encourage among our members? I realize this is one particular example, but just by the fact that this scenario does exist for some, it invalidates the idea that paying on gross could be the standard.
I view tithing as primarily the method used to fund church operations. If everyone pays on gross and the church receives enough to stay in the black, than that works. If everyone pays on net and the church stays in the black, then that works too. Right now we seem to have a situation where many pay no tithing, some pay on net, and some pay on gross. I do not know what it would mean for church finances if those that currently pay on gross were to switch to net. If it caused the church finances to go into the red then I would expect to see some serious emphasis placed on paying tithing on gross. There is nothing wrong with that. The church needs to pay its bills just like everybody else.
In Grudunza’s example I believe that church headquarters would be fine with either scenario (on an individual basis). In the first scenario, I imagine that if tithing was set apart first there may be some other elastic expense that could be trimmed to make it fit OR (as Grudunza states) the church may then need to supplement this person in some way. In the second scenario, I imagine that the church is also fine with it (on an individual basis) as long as the church can continue to meet it’s financial obligations. $190 per month is not going to make much of a difference to the church. The person is practicing the principle of tithing, is active in the church, and has access to the temple – win-win situation.
dingobex wrote:What I don’t understand is why tithing is a prerequisite for a temple recommend anyway? It is not a sin to not pay tithing, god does not need our money but we do need salvation so why are we forced to into debt for the temple?
I believe this is because it creates a major incentive for people to pay. If enough people were paying tithing and the church was financially solvent before this requirement then I imagine it would not have been implemented. The church has not always been wealthy. It has flirted with bankruptcy more than once.
I like the quote above which says tithing is 10% of your “interest” which is a pretty ambiguous statement. If you check Gospel principles I think they used some selective editing or quoting to make it sound like more than it has to be — which is the amount your conscience tells you it is. What should you do going forward? Now that you’ve told your Bishop, you are bound by his directives, I think. You could followup with your Stake president for clarification, but he might support the Bishop with some qualifying statements, or placing the Bishop’s authority above his own opinion. If you don’t get a satisfactory answer from the SP you’ll have some decisions to make — whether to do what your Bishop asks (he will expect you to obey him if the SP supports his authority in the Ward), or whether to sit this one out until your Bishop changes over and not pay.
I have learned that the less you tell the priesthood leaders the better off you are. One Bishop told me he “doesn’t know incomes” which to me, was admission that he’s at the mercy of the consciences of his membership.
My personal opinion is that self-reliance comes ahead of tithing. If you have to pay the church tithing and then go on Church welfare to make ends meet, your priorities are upside down. (Not that you are planning a welfare request, I am not implying that).
Good luck — remember — happiness is the object and design of our existence, so ask yourself, what would make me happiest?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.