What recourse do you have?

[_guy sajer]

Do I write a letter? If so, to whom?
Do I explain to my bishop that I will still donate 10% of my earnings, but to a charity of my choosing, thereby fulfilling the spirit of the commandment? Or, even 2% to the church and 8% to a charity of my choosing. After all, the church does need money to operate.
Would it help if I explained that I had prayed diligently about it and had received personal revelation that paying 10% to another organization is ok in God's eyes? Could I explain that to my bishop and SP? Would they ok my TR if I tried that?

Dude, I think you're confusing the church with some other organization that gives a damn what their members think.

Schmo, ol' man, you've hit the nail on the head.

The truth is that the Mormon Corporation gives not a whit what its members think, feel, desire, etc. WE exist to serve IT; it does not exist to serve us.

[_charity]

Hi Scottie...

First, one can send a check directly to SLC and bypass the bishop. One does not need to disclose to the bishop how much money was spent so you could earmark the money for something like the PEF, or to fast offerings. The TR tithing question is a yes or no question and you can honestly answer yes without further disclosure.

In other words, so long as you are paying ten percent to the church, it counts and you can answer yes in the TRI. If I recall correctly there is no specific rule about the ten percent being required to actually go to a certain fund.

This is incorrect. Money donated to other funds is NOT tithing. It is a charitable donation. There is a specific fund when you fill out the little slip. It says TITHING. Then there are other areas, fast offering, missionary and "other." But tithing is tithing.

If a person sends their check direclty to Salt Lake City with an ear mark for humanitarian, etc. he is not paying tihting. Now, if he goes to a temple recommend interview and says he is, he is lying, and he will have a twinge of conscience that will tell him he is. Which is not a good thing on a temple recommend interview. Oh, he may get the recommend, go to the temple, but he is lying and he knows it and nothing good comes from lying to the Lord.

Now... here is the bigger question.

If after much prayer and fasting, your personal inspiration and message from the HG confirms your belief that tithing money is spent inappropriately what do you do?

Members at times suggest that you do not really have to follow the prophet because everyone is entitled to their own inspiration, but would it be better to follow the prophet going against YOUR personal inspiration? Or would your personal confirmation from the HG be the higher truth?

~dancer~

As a stake primary president I was at a stake executive meeting one time when they were considering a bishop's request to extend a calling to a member of the high council. The bishop needed a Scoutmaster, and he had asked the stake president to release this indivdual from the high council to take the ward calling. The stake president refused. The bishop had come back and said that when he prayed about a list of names for that calling, again he had the distinct feeling that this individual would be the best scoutmaster. The stake president refused again and the bishop questioned this decision, since he had inspiration that the man would be the best person from the list. So how could he be mistaken?

The stake president instructed him, and the rest of us, that the mistake was in putting the name on the list. Of course, that individual would be the best scoutmaster of the men considered. But that was not where he was supposed to be at that time, and so they were going to have to get a man who would successfully fulfil the calling, even though he might not be the best possible person for the job.

Maybe imported wood was not the best decision. (Not that I am saying it wasn't.) But that was made by someone who had the authority to do so. Maybe the Spirit would confirm, yes, this was not the best decision if you asked the question. But the problem is, the question should not have been asked in the first place. We are each given our stewardships. We have the responsibility and accountability in that area. We don't have the responsibility for someone else's stewardship.

[_guy sajer]

That's exactly what I'm saying. This person HAS been humbled and realized that giving it to the church is the wrong thing to do, in that they spend it inappropriately and have no accountability for anything. How much more godly insight and humility does someone need?

Did you mean that tongue in cheek?

"they spend it iannpropriately" by whose definition? "His" very humbled opinioin? He doesn't know what is spent where. He sees one temple and makes a global decision? I think his decision is made on very little information and a very high opinion of his own smarts.

"no accountability?" Accountability to him? And who died and made him God? That is exactly who they are accountable to, God. Not this one high and mighty person.

I see no godly insight or humility in this person's attitude.

But of course, you must have meant this tongue in cheek. Surely you did.

Charity, you are the text-book example of what people mean when they refer to humans as "sheep."

Do your lips ever get chapped kissing the Brethrens' arse?

[_charity]

Charity, you are the text-book example of what people mean when they refer to humans as "sheep."

As long as Jesus is my shepherd, that is fine with me.

[_krose]

It didn't help that he was secretly committing adultery, however.

Funny how it always comes back to sin on the member's part, doesn't it?

And thus we come full circle yet again.

I wonder why believers who blame a person's sinning for loss of testimony don't consider that it might be the other way around? Isn't it more likely that the testimony was lost, which allowed a green light for the 'sinful' behavior? Just a thought.

[_truth dancer]

This is incorrect. Money donated to other funds is NOT tithing. It is a charitable donation. There is a specific fund when you fill out the little slip. It says TITHING. Then there are other areas, fast offering, missionary and "other." But tithing is tithing.

If a person sends their check directly to Salt Lake City with an ear mark for humanitarian, etc. he is not paying tihting. Now, if he goes to a temple recommend interview and says he is, he is lying, and he will have a twinge of conscience that will tell him he is. Which is not a good thing on a temple recommend interview. Oh, he may get the recommend, go to the temple, but he is lying and he knows it and nothing good comes from lying to the Lord.

Where is it written that the form must be specifically checked "tithing" to qualify as giving 10% of one's increase to the church? Are you suggesting that one will be denied a TR if they tell the bishop they give ten percent to the church to help the poor?

Official rule?

I'm open to learning here.

I know a few TR holding believers who do this very thing and they feel totally comfortable with it.

If a person received personal inspiration (as I believe was in at least one case), to give their money to the church to help the needy, are you suggesting they should follow the rule rather than their inspiration?

~dancer~

[_guy sajer]

Charity, you are the text-book example of what people mean when they refer to humans as "sheep."

As long as Jesus is my shepherd, that is fine with me.

One mythological God is as good as another. The end result is the same.

[_truth dancer]

As a stake primary president I was at a stake executive meeting one time when they were considering a bishop's request to extend a calling to a member of the high council. The bishop needed a Scoutmaster, and he had asked the stake president to release this indivdual from the high council to take the ward calling. The stake president refused. The bishop had come back and said that when he prayed about a list of names for that calling, again he had the distinct feeling that this individual would be the best scoutmaster. The stake president refused again and the bishop questioned this decision, since he had inspiration that the man would be the best person from the list. So how could he be mistaken?

The stake president instructed him, and the rest of us, that the mistake was in putting the name on the list. Of course, that individual would be the best scoutmaster of the men considered. But that was not where he was supposed to be at that time, and so they were going to have to get a man who would successfully fulfil the calling, even though he might not be the best possible person for the job.

Maybe imported wood was not the best decision. (Not that I am saying it wasn't.) But that was made by someone who had the authority to do so. Maybe the Spirit would confirm, yes, this was not the best decision if you asked the question. But the problem is, the question should not have been asked in the first place. We are each given our stewardships. We have the responsibility and accountability in that area. We don't have the responsibility for someone else's stewardship.

I'm not sure what this has to do with my questions.

Do you think a person's inspiration is fallible?

Do you think leaders are fallible?

Might leaders at times be wrong?

Is it better to follow one's own personal inspiration even when it conflicts with the leaders, OR follow the leaders even when one's personal inspiration/revelation is in conflict with leaders.

~dancer~

[_Pokatator]

First, one can send a check directly to SLC and bypass the bishop. One does not need to disclose to the bishop how much money was spent so you could earmark the money for something like the PEF, or to fast offerings. The TR tithing question is a yes or no question and you can honestly answer yes without further disclosure.

In other words, so long as you are paying ten percent to the church, it counts and you can answer yes in the TRI. If I recall correctly there is no specific rule about the ten percent being required to actually go to a certain fund.

If the church runs this like the United Way, which I know is fact, the scenario would go basically like the following. Someone donates to the UW and they can designate where the monies go. Someone can deny a charity such as Red Cross any of their donation. But at the end of the campaign the money is divided into the predesignated slices of the pie. The UW can claim that they did not give any of the donors money to the Red Cross but the Red Cross gets its full designation out of other donors donations that did not make any designations for their funds. In other words the Red Cross gets all the money that was predesignated for them, they lose nothing.

I believe that the church would handle those earmarked funds in the same manner. No slice of the budget pie would but shorted by any earmark.

[_charity]

I wonder why believers who blame a person's sinning for loss of testimony don't consider that it might be the other way around? Isn't it more likely that the testimony was lost, which allowed a green light for the 'sinful' behavior? Just a thought.

It would be my opinion that both can occur.

Where is it written that the form must be specifically checked "tithing" to qualify as giving 10% of one's increase to the church? Are you suggesting that one will be denied a TR if they tell the bishop they give ten percent to the church to help the poor?

Official rule?

I'm open to learning here.

I know a few TR holding believers who do this very thing and they feel totally comfortable with it.

It is my understanding that there is a "rule" for this reason. Tithing is a commandment of God and for a reason. We are giving the 10% back as a demonstration of our gratitude for all that God has given us. No strings. If we attach strings, then we aren't following the commandment. What people feel comfortable with is not always the test of a truth.

If a person received personal inspiration (as I believe was in at least one case), to give their money to the church to help the needy, are you suggesting they should follow the rule rather than their inspiration?

I would ask why they would think they should attach strings if they believe the Church to be the kingdom of God on earth.

Do you think a person's inspiration is fallible?

It can be.

Do you think leaders are fallible? [/quote]

Might leaders at times be wrong?

Yes.

Is it better to follow one's own personal inspiration even when it conflicts with the leaders, OR follow the leaders even when one's personal inspiration/revelation is in conflict with leaders.

If a person feels they have inspiration/revelation which is in conflict with the leaders, they have a bigger problem than the original question. They should get to work and figure out what is going on with them.

If the church runs this like the United Way, which I know is fact, the scenario would go basically like the following. Someone donates to the UW and they can designate where the monies go. Someone can deny a charity such as Red Cross any of their donation. But at the end of the campaign the money is divided into the predesignated slices of the pie. The UW can claim that they did not give any of the donors money to the Red Cross but the Red Cross gets its full designation out of other donors donations that did not make any designations for their funds. In other words the Red Cross gets all the money that was predesignated for them, they lose nothing.

I believe that the church would handle those earmarked funds in the same manner. No slice of the budget pie would but shorted by any earmark.

It isn't the shortage of funds in a specific category that is the question. It is the member's willingnes to comply with the laws of God. It would be the same as a missionary saying he would serve, but only if he was called to a specific country.


_________________