DiscussMormonism.com

Can someone who is a member but whose spouse is not, go to the temple if they do not pay tithing because it would harm the marriage to donate so much money to an organization in which the spouse does not support?

Does anyone know the policy on this?

Thanks for any help,

~dancer~

truth dancer wrote:Can someone who is a member but whose spouse is not, go to the temple if they do not pay tithing because it would harm the marriage to donate so much money to an organization in which the spouse does not support?

Does anyone know the policy on this?

Thanks for any help,

~dancer~

If only one spouse is a member, then that person would only have to pay tithing on his/her individual income. So, if the spouse is female, and is a stay at home Mom, she is not earning any income to be tithed. If she is the only member, she would be considered a full tithe payor.

In either case, the only question that is asked in the temple recommend interview is "Do you pay a full tithe?"

If that person can honestly answer yes to that question, they will be able to receive a temple recommend (provided they answer all of the other questions correctly).

I didn't pay a dime of tithe this year. My wife went to tithing settlement and gave a couple hundred bucks - and declared herself a full tithe payer.

No one from the church is going to 'audit' you, so if you say you're a full tithe payer, you're good to go.

Hi Liz...



If only one spouse is a member, then that person would only have to pay tithing on his/her individual income.

What if both partners combine their money as family money?

So, if the spouse is female, and is a stay at home Mom, she is not earning any income to be tithed.

I have serious issues with this.

If only one spouse is making the money it becomes joint money... or family money. The idea that a stay at home mom is not considered a holder of the money makes me crazy!

This would assume that if the husband is the breadwinner then he should pay tithing on all of the money as if it were his regardless of the fact that his wife doesn't support donating money to the organization.

Ohhh so don't like this.

If she is the only member, she would be considered a full tithe payor.

Why? Because she is worth nothing? And the money isn't hers? Don't like it.

In either case, the only question that is asked in the temple recommend interview is "Do you pay a full tithe?"

Not always. I understand this is what is supposed to happen.

If that person can honestly answer yes to that question, they will be able to receive a temple recommend (provided they answer all of the other questions correctly).

I don't think it is that simple. If a couple considers their money jointly, and if the non-member spouse does not agree to pay money to the church, then the member would be not be a full tithe payer. Should the member not get a TRI?

This idea of splitting up the money by percentage or who brings in what or which partner is entitled to what money is very strange to me.

~dancer~

What if both partners combine their money as family money?

It doesn't matter how the partners see it; what matters is how the church sees it. And they see it as Liz said. SAHM's earn no paycheck, so owe no tithing, so they get a free ride to the temple if they declare themselves full tithe payers.

So, if the spouse is female, and is a stay at home Mom, she is not earning any income to be tithed.

If she is the only member, she would be considered a full tithe payor.

Why? Because she is worth nothing? And the money isn't hers? Don't like it.

Not because she is worth nothing, but because society says she doesn't earn any money if she doesn't have a paycheck in her name. No one's saying she is worth nothing. What the church is saying is that if she has no paycheck in her name, she owes no tithing. (I'm not seeing this as a bad thing, myself)

I don't think it is that simple. If a couple considers their money jointly, and if the non-member spouse does not agree to pay money to the church, then the member would be not be a full tithe payer. Should the member not get a TRI?

This idea of splitting up the money by percentage or who brings in what or which partner is entitled to what money is very strange to me.

It has nothing to do with percentages, and everything to do with whose name is on the paycheck. Just as a SAHM owes no income taxes, because she has no income, she owes no tithing either. Nothing keeps her from donating to the church, should she want to though.

The reason I have issues with this idea of a SAHM not being a holder of the money as an equal partner is that is assumes the money earned by the husband is "his" money.

But my issue is not that a SAHM with a non-member husband gets to go to the temple... (I'm for anyone going to the temple who wishes too).

It is with inequality and the fact that a SAHM who is a non-member is required to give 10% of their family money so her husband can go to the temple because the church views it as "his" money. SHE has to pay whether she supports the church or not so her husband can get his TRI.

In other words, if the money is family money both partners should agree on how the money is spent. But the church seems to be of the mind that the money is the breadwinner's.

It seems like, in the church, it is not family money... it is the man's money. (In the case of a SAHM).

Or there is some sort of formula where they split the money and each can do with it as they wish... (which may work for some people). My issue is the church "making" this be the way money is dealt with.

Does that make sense?

But.. I could be wrong. I'm wondering if there is a policy or anything in the CHI about the protocol.

~dancer~

truth dancer wrote:The reason I have issues with this idea of a SAHM not being a holder of the money as an equal partner is that is assumes the money earned by the husband is "his" money.

But my issue is not that a SAHM with a non-member husband gets to go to the temple... (I'm for anyone going to the temple who wishes too).

It is with inequality and the fact that a SAHM who is a non-member is required to give 10% of their family money so her husband can go to the temple because the church views it as "his" money. SHE has to pay whether she supports the church or not so her husband can get his TRI.

In other words, if the money is family money both partners should agree on how the money is spent. But the church seems to be of the mind that the money is the breadwinner's.

It seems like, in the church, it is not family money... it is the man's money. (In the case of a SAHM).

Or there is some sort of formula where they split the money and each can do with it as they wish... (which may work for some people). My issue is the church "making" this be the way money is dealt with.

Does that make sense?

But.. I could be wrong. I'm wondering if there is a policy or anything in the CHI about the protocol.

~dancer~

No, the policy as stated here is correct, from what I've been told. As a patriarchal church, surely you don't think they would actually see a monetary worth attached to motherhood, do you? That would require vision and revelation, something we're remarkably unable to observe, for the most part.

This sounds like a family issue to me. If the non-member SAHM objects to LDS hubby paying tithing so he can attend the temple, that's probably something they're going to have to negociate. Chalk it up to another one of those things part-member marriages have to traverse.

I just did tithing settlement. I see nothing in church policy that says SAHMs are considered differently than working fathers in this regard. The policy as I remember it was that people can declare full tithe status if they would have paid on a full income had they been able to. I saw absolutely nothing saying that females were regarded differently or that somehow the breadwinner is responsible or any of that other stuff you guys are complaining about.

But why not ask Rollo? I'm sure he has a quote from the official CHI book somewhere.

Hey Asbestos man...

Thanks... so perhaps if the non-believing spouse does not agree to have their money go to the church the believing spouse can still get a TRI even if she/he does not actually pay tithing.

I hope this is the case.

:-)

~dancer~

truth dancer wrote:Hey Asbestos man...

Thanks... so perhaps if the non-believing spouse does not agree to have their money go to the church the believing spouse can still get a TRI even if she/he does not actually pay tithing.

I hope this is the case.

:-)

~dancer~

I doubt that your wish will happen, TD. If there's money coming into the home, and the member is one making the money, then the church is very likely going to expect tithing to be paid on that income in order for the member to get his TRI. I'd be very surprised if that was not the case.