In priesthood meeting, we had a lesson on Tithing. One of the comments was “Do you want net blessings or gross?” But the story that got the most attention came when the teacher indicated that his first wife left him and wanted nothing to do with the four children. The divorce was finalized on Dec 24. He had a tough decision to make: should he pay tithing, or Christmas presents. He chose Christmas presents. The bishop took away his temple recommend for a few months. He said it was tough to lose his recommend, but it ended up being a lesson on how important tithing is.
Do you think this man made the right choice? Did the bishop make the right choice?
Wheat & Tares 
I think the issue of net vs gross has been flogged to death over the past few years. My spin on that comes down to the scripture in D&C 130 on obedience. It doesn’t say that obedience = blessings. It does say that WHEN you receive a blessing it somehow related to obedience. This to me is one of the biggest fundamental issues with our culture. The thought that more obedience makes God give you stuff you want to me is offensive.
As to the Christmas issue, I’m not sure what taking his temple recommend for a few months is meant to do. You give your kids presents after a disaster of an end to a marriage and you stop a person serving others in the temple..???
they both made the right choices. had he not given his kids any presents, they would have been traumatized for life. had his bishop given him a recommend without paying a full tithe, he would have violated policy. both good men who understand love is conditional on behavior and sometimes you have to sacrifice to proove yourself.
“Sorry, kids. The Church needs this money more than you need presents” seems like a good way to guarantee that his kids grow into disgruntled ex-Mormon adults.
…Although I do think it’s weird that he had his TR revoked over one month of non-payment. Really, there isn’t room for an inch of compassionate leeway in cases like this? And who broached the subject – did the bishop notice that a tithing check was not forthcoming and ask about it (which is a violation of boundaries IMHO) or did the man self-report?
Joni–that was my first question as well.
December is the month of Tithing Settlement. He probably self-reported.
Tithing is one of those red button issues we have in the church. I see a two billion dollar mall go up and I get outraged and discouraged by the leadership. Based on words by Lorenzo Snow, I would think he would say the father was correct in this situation and the bishop was in the wrong.The typical comeback would be the church is built on revelation and current position is that you pay tithing regardless.
This is just sad. When will we begin to follow the Church’s own definition of tithing? Also, when will the Church do more to thwart the creed that “more tithing = more blessings”? From lds.org site:
The First Presidency gave the following definition of tithing: “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” (First Presidency letter, 19 Mar. 1970).
This has been in force pushing 50 years. They don’t define “income” and they will never do that. They leave it purposefully vague. Ten percent of “income” is really whatever you and God decide it is. Wish there would be more training for leaders on this and a greater emphasis to the membership that that is no one accepted way to pay tithing – it all depends on your relationship with God and your living situation. With that realization among all in your story, the man might have kept his recommend.
I do think that it’s interesting that rescinding a TR is a pretty strong disciplinary move. Holding or not holding a TR doesn’t negate any covenants that you have made for yourself in the temple. It only means that you can’t go to the temple for others – which is not a commandment anyway and which many people don’t have the opportunity to do.
So the father in this story doesn’t have the opportunity to participate in saving ordinances to the dead. No offense but… they aren’t getting any deader. I feel like the Lord would be on board with prioritizing your own living children (especially at a difficult time in their lives) over someone’s dead ancestors. In that case, having a TR revoked may seem like a punishment, but it really isn’t.
How would the bishop know he wasn’t paying tithing, unless he told him. Tithing settlement is over by Christmas and I don’t know of any bishop who looks at monthly tithing receipts for each individual in the ward.
Tithing can be paid any time of the year. Tithing settlement is in November & December, but in several wards where it was less than organized, I have seen it extend into early January, too.
Since his divorce was finalized on Christmas Eve, his finances were likely unclear until finalization as well. I think both men could have made better choices. The father likely knew his ex-wife wanted nothing to do with the 4 children, so he could have bought the Christmas presents ahead of time. He could also have requested to do tithing settlement on one of the last days of December – “after all the ink is dry, & there can be no more surprises”. Most bishops would not be pleased, but would “give” if you were obstinate about how you couldn’t be honest about one tenth until you knew what your total was. The info is not sent to SL before the end of Dec, so delay would probably have been wise here.
I don’t know many people who feel the need or have the desire to attend the temple right after their divorce is finalized. Most people need a little time for the raw feelings to heal before they are ready emotionally to attend. Losing a recommend for a few months is not the end of the world. I have no idea why the bishop felt so strongly, but in a divorce, the kids are pretty battered by the end, & I would have put the kids first & bought the presents, too.
If he lived in Australia, the financial year ends 30 June. Lots of time to sort it out!!!!!
Our lesson today was about budgets and staying out of debt. For many people paying tithing keeps them in debt and prevents them from saving.
Every year I’ve had a baby during tithing settlement, I tell the Bishop that I’ve got 10% of my baby’s diapers out in the car. I want to be square and honest and we need to settle up.
And I assure him that no, it’s not net. It’s gross.
Cheers to the guy for having the courage to put his kids first. I’m not going to make a judgement about the bishop – depends on the circumstances maybe.
I think revoking a TR has pretty serious consequences beyond proxy work.
It’s easy to forget that not having a temple recommend also means that you might not be able to attend a family member’s sealing. Although rarely checked, it could also prevent priesthood holders from participating in ordinances for family members. You also can’t buy temple garments without it, which implies that you shouldn’t be wearing them, although I don’t know if that is actually the policy or not. Telling someone they can’t buy underwear is a rather bizarre side effect. You also have politely decline any invitations to participate in ward temple night. Rightly or not, revoking a temple recommend could be seen as a form of shunning.
>which implies that you shouldn’t be wearing them<
I don't know about that. I think a bishop would revoke a TR for not wearing garments, not the other way around.
I believe that the father made the right choice in buying Christmas presents for his kids, rather than paying tithing, and anything he lost as a result of it (social standing; the right to purchase underwear; the ability to do proxy work for dead strangers) is less than what he gained (the trust of his children at a fragile time of their lives). However – the fact that it was apparently the father who shared this story after the fact, with apparent chagrin, tells me that he wishes he had chosen tithing over Christmas presents.
I wonder what the children would think if we were able to ask them.
What would have happened if he was a church employee???
If he was a paid seminary teacher, he would have been fired for the divorce, so he wouldn’t have had any income to pay tithing on in the first place…
As always, keep in mind that we are only hearing one side of the story as far as what the bishop did.
In my family, we pay our tithing by donating appreciated mutual fund shares, which has to go directly to church headquarters and we generally do it once a year.
This year the U.S. stock market has been very volatile, and I waited until April to make that donation. When my husband renewed his temple recommend early in the year, he didn’t think twice about declaring himself a full tithe payer, even though technically we hadn’t paid anything yet for the year.
Like fasting, tithing seems to be more about individual adaptation than letter of the law.
There has to be more to that story. It’s easier for me to pay tithing several months at a time. If I forget or we’re pinched because of other circumstances, I don’t think twice about punting the tithing payment till the next month. Whether it’s a 2-month, 3-month, or 4-month chunk, I know that I will pay the full tithe due, so I consider myself a full tithe-payer. The guy in the story was able to get squared away within a few months, which means he fully intended on making sure his tithing obligation would get paid. Like with Naismith’s family, I would not consider a temporary delay disqualifying someone from being a full tithe-payer.
If I were sitting in the class I’d try to appreciate the spirit in which the story was told (clearly it was a pivotal moment for that man), but it would’ve bugged me as well.
Assuming the guy had been a full tithe payer as evidenced by the fact that he had a temple recommend, it seems rather harsh to take it away under the circumstances. It would seem more reasonable for the bishop to not renew it if he still hadn’t paid tithing going forward.
There is big variation in the church–leadership lottery–as to how guidelines are applied. Some are “letter of the law,” while other leader’s orientation is more “spirit of the law” ie show mercy to the harlot rather than let her be stoned according to custom/law.
Just a comment about this quote: “You also can’t buy temple garments without it,” That’s no longer true. You only have to have been endowed, which will show up with your membership number. Granted most people carry their number on their recommend, but if you don’t have a recommend right now, but still wear garments, you can just bring your number to the center and they can use it to see you’ve been endowed and sell you what you want.
I had assumed the member record number would be used to verify a current recommend. I could be wrong about that.
The membership number confirms that the member has been endowed. Endowed members without a current temple recommend, on formal probation, or even disfellowshiped (HB1 6.9.2) may purchase and are encouraged to continue to wear the garment.
You can buy garments without a TR. By choice, I don’t hold one and have no problem buying garments online.
I stand corrected.