- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
At one point DW and I were asked to give a class on financial principles. I am a natural born saver but am not good at keeping records. DW majored in financing and accounting and also likes to spend the money. We framed our discussion with the metaphor of the ant and the grasshopper. It might be easy to say that the ant is wise and the grasshopper is foolish. However such comparisons are not accurate and not helpful (especially in the context of a marriage). As an ant, my value is security. Money represents an eternal variable. It can provide almost anything but only as long as I do not spend it. If I spend it on a boat then that money cannot then be used to buy groceries (even if I later really need groceries). On the other hand, my need for security may have me preparing for a future that may never come. I may miss out on opportunities for experiences with my family when my kids are young and those opportunities may never present themselves again.
As more of a grasshopper, DW finds more value in the experience. She likes to travel and provide opportunities for our children to experience new things. To her, money never spent is money wasted. Incidentally, DW has never had any trouble with the payment of tithes, while this has always been a difficulty for me (even in my TBM days).
DW and I have learned to appreciate and balance each other. A world where we have no savings is just as bad as a world where I sit on a pile of money but never do anything with it. There is room for a better way… a middle way.
About a year ago, DW told me (in response to my asking) that she would consider tithing on net or surplus as a full tithe. I am so very thankful that she is willing to meet me halfway on this issue. She truly brings me balance, softens my rough edges, and makes me a more well rounded person.
Roy wrote:DW and I have learned to appreciate and balance each other. A world where we have no savings is just as bad as a world where I sit on a pile of money but never do anything with it. There is room for a better way… a middle way.
I really like your story about the grasshopper and the ant. There really is a benefit to finding a balance in all things.
I’m more like you, an instinctual saver. For me I didn’t mind dying on a pile of money that I never did anything with. If that pile went on to other people after I die, no regrets, it was never about holding on to money, the pile meant having a safety net, something to put a mind more at ease about a myriad of possible futures. I guess it’s the sort of thing that happens when someone doesn’t spend enough time considering the lilies.
Of course even a pile of money as a safety net isn’t a guarantee. A pile of money can devalue overnight. What good is a pile of money when there’s no food to buy? etc.
There is a balance. It usually takes a lot of time to feel out, at least for me.
When it comes to money, I believe it’s better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Because we can never see the future, it is better to err on the side of having money you never use. Someone is likely to use it after you die — children, your spouse, or the charity to which you decide to donate it. I have often wondered if I should just keep all my tithing in an investment account, and let it grow. When I die, put it in my will to donate it to the church as my tithing because I didn’t need it. That way I meet our eternal need for self-reliance and the commandment of tithing at the same time.
Daeruin wrote:Dave Ramsey is also a Christian and supports paying a religious tithe, although he encourages attaining self reliance first and obviously doesn’t try to define exactly what the tithe means for everyone.
I like that the First Presidency’s final word on tithing is that the exact amount is up to the individual, and that the temple recommend question is a yes-no question.My bishop doesn’t even look at the tithing statements—he just takes your word for it. I would hate for the church to get into the business of trying to make people prove they were paying according to any given formula. I do wish leaders and members both would quit teaching that tithing is on gross when that’s not the First Presidency’s actual position. There have been subsequent prophets, though, who have defined exactly what it means — percentage, I believe, and also how to handle situations when you are an employee, a business owner, etcetera. So, It’s not unanimous.
The other thing that gets me is that in Gospel Principles, they quote all but the last sentence of the FP letter of the early 1970’s that defines what tithing means. That last sentence is essentially that each person needs to work out with the Lord what it means to pay a full tithe.
Interesting that Gospel Principles leaves out that empowering statement…
Daeruin wrote:I do wish leaders and members both would quit teaching that tithing is on gross when that’s not the First Presidency’s actual position.
Coming up in the church I never heard any alternate version of tithing that was deemed acceptable, it was gross or it wasn’t a tithe. At one time the official position of the church was that tithing should be based on gross wages. The following paragraph was an addition that first appeared in the General Church Handbook in 1963.
General Church Handbook; Number 19 1963; page 67 wrote:What Is a Tithe?A tithe is one-tenth of a wage earner’s grossincome; a tithe is one-tenth of a professional man’s income after deducting standard business expenses; a tithe is one-tenth of a farmer’s income after deducting standard business operating expenses. A farmer should not include as standard business operating expense the produce which is used to sustain his family. A tithe is one-tenth of an individual’s interest. All emphasis (italics and bold) as present in the original.
There were significant changes made to the next handbook. With respect to the same question made in the previous handbook:
General Church Handbook; Number 20 1968; page 102 wrote:B. What Tithing IsSee Doctrine and Covenants 119.
We see the familiar language make an appearance in the next handbook:
General Church Handbook; Number 21 1976; page 89 wrote:What tithing isThe First Presidency has stated:
“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.” (See D&C 119.)
So what happens? BPs and SPs come on board or adapt to the new rule explicitly stating gross, the policy stays in place for 5 years, the definition remains nebulous for 8 more years, and it becomes a part of the predominant thought among leaders. Who seriously scours each new handbook to make sure they are up on the latest? What’s more, if there aren’t any statements to repudiate prior policy someone might be even less likely to notice language that has disappeared. I’m sure all the voices of authority that were insistent on tithing on gross were probably brought up in the 60s when payment on gross was an important distinction.
tl;dr;
Payment on gross used to be the policy. Some people get stuck on dated policy.
nibbler wrote:Some people get stuck on dated policy.
That whole post was a good summary, nibbler. I would compare it to how at some point Word of Wisdom things were taught to include caffeinated soda, and then later removed but it stuck around for many. Prevailing interpretations of the day seem to be what most impacts us.
Also, tithing is taught to be one of the things we can show exactness with our offering and obedience…so these elements become importantly to some people so they can be so exact about it.
That’s not a bad thing. I think you can define it how you think and then be exact in that way.
SilentDawning wrote:When it comes to money, I believe it’s better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it. Because we can never see the future, it is better to err on the side of having money you never use.
I certainly do not disagree with you and there are plenty of examples of people that just cannot budget at all.
I have had to work on the following realizations:
1) That in being frugal I am not really making more analytical choices than my more spendthrift colleagues. I am following my nature according to the value (security) that is most important to me – just like they are doing with their nature and values.
2) There are many instances where frugality can be taken to the extreme and can become a vice. It is not infrequent that I am “penny wise but pound foolish”
3) There is much that I could learn about letting go and experiencing the moment. I could never go on cruise because I would be miserable the whole time knowing how much this leisure time is costing me. DW and I therefore compromise on lower cast vacations such as visiting family and/or going camping.
In addition to the difference in approaches between my wife and I, My son saves almost everything and my daughter would spend next weeks allowance if she could. I need to be able to find value in the strengths that these individuals possess and not devalue them for not being more like me. (this is an ongoing struggle and yes, I do worry about how my children will fare once they leave the nest)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.