Tithings and Blessings -- Cause Effect Relationship

[_truth dancer]

Hi Ray... :-)

That's a choice some bishops may offer, TD.

Exactly. To suggest that this doesn't happen in the LDS church is inaccurate. I think it is more the norm than letting folks get a TR without paying tithing, don't you?

I don't think it's an unreasonable choice to give, if they had only fallen behind in tithing. Someone who has been on alcoholic binges isn't likely to get into the temple two weeks after going dry.

I totally understand the policy/practice of making people either pay back tithing or pay for six months prior to going to the temple.

I can also understand why some folks think this is really paying to go to the temple... ya know? A believer could honestly say that they couldn't go to the temple unless they paid, $5,000 (or whatever). One check and they are good to go.

~dancer~

[_Ray A]

Exactly. To suggest that this doesn't happen in the LDS church is inaccurate. I think it is more the norm than letting folks get a TR without paying tithing, don't you?

TD, I think there is a difference between offering a choice, and forcing someone to do this, as if it's "Church policy". In my three years as a bishop I never encountered this situation, of someone paying back tithes for quick entry into the temple, or asking them to do so, but some bishops apparently have offered that choice. There were occasions where I allowed members to get a TR after a short period of resuming tithing, like two months or so, but on the proviso they continued to pay tithing. There are no hard and fast, binding rules here, as has been suggested. These decisions are mostly left to the discretion of bishops, and stake presidents don't nose in and question a bishop's decisions unless it's an obvious case of a wrong or questionable decision, which could be discovered when the member is interviewed by a member of the stake presidency. The stake presidency do not usually check up on tithing status through contribution records when interviewing for a TR. The bishop does. Also, If I recall correctly, only first time temple goers need stake presidency clearance, but my memory could be hazy here; it could be that first timers have to be interviewed by the stake president. (Maybe there are other bishops/former bishops on the board, like Bob, who can clarify this.)

I totally understand the policy/practice of making people either pay back tithing or pay for six months prior to going to the temple.

I can also understand why some folks think this is really paying to go to the temple... ya know? A believer could honestly say that they couldn't go to the temple unless they paid, $5,000 (or whatever). One check and they are good to go.

~dancer~

I don't see a problem with that either. What if they wanted entry to the temple for a marriage of a son or daughter, and they only had to make up lost tithing? (No moral transgressions involved.) Would you allow them entry on that basis, or tell them they had to wait six months and miss out on the temple marriage? If tithing is a "debt", and the debt has been paid off, then it's like any other paid off debt. It may seem to some like "one check and they are good to go", but that's provided they also meet the other requirements. People fall behind in tithing for many reasons, and a work payout, or some other bonus, could rectify any "unintended" debt.

[Analytics]

Oh, and don't forget the whole fire insurance wacko teachings. Of all the LDS teachings, this is one of the weirdest. Who comes up with this crap??

It's a spin on D&C 64:10 "He that is tithed shall not be burned at Him coming". However, in context this scripture did not refer to tithing as we know it because that didn't happen until D&C 119. In fact, if members read the section heading to D&C 119, they would realize this.

On the other hand, many general authorities have quoted this verse in the context of paying tithing. I suppose the Lord could have intended that scripture for more than one meaning. Actually, I hear Paul reinterpreted a few scriptures in the Old Testament this way too.

[_asbestosman]

I worked very hard to get where I am. Now, I'm supposed to roll over and thank God for my brains and body so that I could work hard?

Well, that's what the Bible seems to say:

For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it? (1 Cor. 4:7)

[_skippy the dead]

<snip>
Erm I have been in the temple many times without paying tithes.

<snip>
Once again I did not pay tithes and went to the temple many times. I was also working at the time.

I'm going to assume that based on your age, you have not been to the temple to receive your endowments. If I recall correctly from my youth, the emphasis on being current on tithing is not the same for the unendowed going to the temple to perform baptisms as it is for full temple recommend holders. Perhaps someone with more recent experience on both sides could provide confirmation or correction?

[_Imwashingmypirate]

I am 19 and no I have not yet recieved my endownments. Tell me, will I be judged for knowing what happens in the endownment before I have had my endownment?

[_charity]

I am 19 and no I have not yet recieved my endownments. Tell me, will I be judged for knowing what happens in the endownment before I have had my endownment?

You might now the words and a description of the ceremony, but you don't "know" it until you are there for the right reasons. God knows your intent.

[_Yoda]

Now, the Catholic Church believe any baptism works. Anyone who is baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost is baptized. Of course, they would prefer that a Catholic does the baptism. But that isn't a strict requirement. So I am okay.

This is actually not correct. The Catholics recognize any Trinitarian Christian baptism. (i.e. "I baptize you in the name of the Father, son, and Holy Spirit.") Since Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians have a different view of the Trinity (in the case of Mormons, we believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be three separate personages), the Catholic Church does not recognize our baptism. If you were converting to Catholicism, you would have to be baptized within the Catholic Church since you are Mormon. Your baptism would not be recognized.

Here is an online reference for more information:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_baptisms ... _recognize

Growing up in a Catholic community as a Mormon, this is something I am very familiar with. ;)

[_skippy the dead]

Now, the Catholic Church believe any baptism works. Anyone who is baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost is baptized. Of course, they would prefer that a Catholic does the baptism. But that isn't a strict requirement. So I am okay.

This is actually not correct. The Catholics recognize any Trinitarian Christian baptism. (I.e. "I baptize you in the name of the Father, son, and Holy Spirit.") Since Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians have a different view of the Trinity (in the case of Mormons, we believe the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be three separate personages), the Catholic Church does not recognize our baptism. If you were converting to Catholicism, you would have to be baptized within the Catholic Church since you are Mormon. Your baptism would not be recognized.

Here is an online reference for more information:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_baptisms ... _recognize

Growing up in a Catholic community as a Mormon, this is something I am very familiar with. ;)

I suppose the reasonable way to cover one's bases then would be to just get baptized by each religion, and hope for the best!

[_the road to hana]

Now, the Catholic Church believe any baptism works. Anyone who is baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Ghost is baptized. Of course, they would prefer that a Catholic does the baptism. But that isn't a strict requirement. So I am okay.

I don't think that's true. Catholics don't accept LDS baptism as valid.

But they accept others doing ordinances in extreme circumstances. If you are with a mother who has just given birth, and there is no one around, no priest, etc. and the baby is going to die almost immediatley. You, yourself, can baptize the infant so it will not go Old Testament hell. Which puts them in an ambiguous position for denying other baptisms.

I think a Catholic would probably say you are mischaracterizing their faith, but as long as that doesn't bother you, no harm, no foul. Just don't get bent out of shape when someone mischaracterizes LDS doctrine or practice.

Last I checked, Catholics don't believe unbaptized babies will "go to hell." They also wouldn't say that the example of a mother baptizing her child in case of emergency is the same as a Mormon baptism.

But, since you are now the arbitrer of the intent of other faiths, we'll rely on your superior judgment. In case you want to actually rely on and respect what other churches believe and practice, you might want to check your facts before you post.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/MORMBAP1.HTM

The Protestants are so all over the place, there isn't any one consistent doctrine. But if I do need to be baptized, I have been. And if I don't need to be, then I am still okay.

Last I checked, there were also several Protestant religions that don't accept Mormon baptism as valid. So that doesn't help you.

I refuse to have to check with every one of the over 1700 Christians denominations for each one's rules. If they can't get it together, that's their fault.

Should we say the same about the several hundred restoration churches? If they can't get it together about plural marriage/the Doctrine and Covenants/correct succession/the Book of Mormon, that's their fault?

The Presbyterian, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), Methodist and Episcopalian churches have all declared Mormon baptisms to be invalid. It doesn't require that much time in research to determine that.

If the Mormons are right, then I have been baptized by authority. I'm okay.

If the Catholics don't accept your LDS baptism as valid, and many of the Protestant religions don't either, then you're only really covered if LDS baptism is valid and correct.

Already covered above.

Appears to me like you're covered by a lot fewer religions than you thought, and that's a big never mind in your view. Sounds like you're screwed.