My Latest Word of Wisdom Experience

[_moinmoin]

I know many active people right now who don't pay a dime in tithing and they maintain recommends. And they aren't bashful about the fact. They would openly engage BP/stake president in debate about the definition of tithing if need be, but they never even get pressed on the matter. "Are you a full tithe payer?" Yes. Rubber stamp. And I know for fact that BP/stake president are specifically instructed to NOT engage in such debates. If they are asked for their "opinion" on what it means to tithe they'll give you their opinion, but that's all it is. In the end they will go along with whatever answer they are given. That's my experience at least.

I'm trying to picture what this would look like with me as a bishop. I have had people declare full, and they haven't paid anything all year, so I've pointed that out and asked them to explain how they consider themselves to be full tithe payers if they haven't paid anything and they work at XYZ. They always have admitted that they aren't full tithe payers at that point.

Ultimately, if someone insists on declaring themselves full, but clearly aren't, the bishop can declare partial or non for them. I wouldn't get into an argument with them over it, but I would let them know that I disagree with them (and why), and that I am declaring them partial or non. But, I haven't had any Bill Reel activists who wanted to argue about how their personal definition enables them to not pay anything (or anything close to 10%, even under a "net" definition).

[_SteelHead]

The only interpretation of tithing truly given by the church is interest. If I was making money, but my net worth had not increased over a year, I would consider myself a full tithe payer having paid 0. In the end it is the individual who determines this as per the chbi. Bishops over rulling an individual's declaration smacks of ecclesiastical over reach / abuse.

Back tithing seems an over reach, and betrays the concept of repentance and reveals the true interest of the church, being your money.

[Guest]

[_Maureen]

...Does anyone have a solid answer to this?

This is not an officially answer but this is typical of how I have heard some members explain their understanding of "tea" with the WofW.

https://www.thoughtco.com/are-mormons-a ... ea-2159615

M.

[_moinmoin]

Interesting, I have a few comments/questions. Before getting there though I'd like to hear what your approach would be in the context of the OP. Say you had been present at the restaurant and witnessed Kevin's MIL drinking tea. Would you have called her into your office about it and threatened her recommend and upcoming wedding?

Well, in the OP, Kevin's mother-in-law took a sip of his but then asked what kind of tea it was and then chose water instead. So, this scenario is a non-issue as far as temple worthiness. If, instead, I observed a member drinking tea, I would start by simply meeting with her and politely and diplomatically asking her what her understanding of the WoW as relates to tea is --- and go from there. Often, it's a matter of ignorance (real or feigned), and then simply teach the standard and obtain a commitment to keep this part of it. The only issue would be if there is disagreement and refusal.

Or let's consider a different scenario. What if there was an active member of your ward who was known to have a brewery at home? Perhaps you saw his or her hipster posts on Facebook about the health benefits of fermentation.

This one is easier. A brewery in the home, and insistence that the perceived health benefits of beer (coupled possibly with justifications about pre-Heber J. Grant WoW observance)? The modern/current standard and expectation of the WoW as relates to alcohol is clear and unambiguous --- and the member knows it. Arguing and refusing on this point would indicate not being temple worthy. Cancel the recommend!

Or perhaps you heard gossip within the ward about this family. What would you do? Anything? If your response is that you'd make an inquiry of them to determine where they stand on the WOW, my next question is what would you do if they believed themselves to be fully in keeping with the WOW regardless of how you personally interpret it?

See above. I would make an inquiry and see what their responses and demeanor are, and act accordingly. Ultimately, if a member justifies his non-compliance on grounds that he believes he is keeping the WoW, but is clearly not in compliance with the current modern standard, then it doesn't matter what he thinks (genuine or feigned). Serving as the gatekeeper to the temple is one of the roles of a bishop --- the common judge in Israel. It's set up now so that recommends can be cancelled instantly and electronically.

I've never, personally, had someone dig in and argue about it, though.

[_fetchface]

This one is easier. A brewery in the home, and insistence that the perceived health benefits of beer (coupled possibly with justifications about pre-Heber J. Grant WoW observance)? The modern/current standard and expectation of the WoW as relates to alcohol is clear and unambiguous --- and the member knows it. Arguing and refusing on this point would indicate not being temple worthy. Cancel the recommend!

This is really interesting to me. I mean, D&C 89 couldn't be much clearer that beer is allowed. Yet God apparently changed his mind about this. We have no idea when or where or why God did that, but we somehow know it happened because a current leader couldn't possibly be wrong about something.

I mean, I am a resigned non-believer but if I were by some miracle to return to the church I would have no trouble drinking beer and telling the bishop I obey the word of wisdom. The current leaders have done a completely inadequate job of supporting or even explaining their position. The canonized scripture is clear, the later "clarifications" are anything but.

This is one of the things that bothered me the most when I was a believer; not being able to answer basic questions about where the requirements come from or how they are generated. I spent hours in the institute library as a horny college student trying to figure out how I could know oral sex was off-limits and found surprisingly many books that addressed the question without answering it.

I don't expect that the brethren will ever clarify how they know that beer is against God's will, just like they will never clarify why they are against gay marriage. "It's what I was raised to believe" just sounds too lame coming from the mouth of a prophet, seer, and revelator.

[_Fence Sitter]

I'm trying to picture what this would look like with me as a bishop. I have had people declare full, and they haven't paid anything all year, so I've pointed that out and asked them to explain how they consider themselves to be full tithe payers if they haven't paid anything and they work at XYZ. They always have admitted that they aren't full tithe payers at that point.

Ultimately, if someone insists on declaring themselves full, but clearly aren't, the bishop can declare partial or non for them. I wouldn't get into an argument with them over it, but I would let them know that I disagree with them (and why), and that I am declaring them partial or non. But, I haven't had any Bill Reel activists who wanted to argue about how their personal definition enables them to not pay anything (or anything close to 10%, even under a "net" definition).

Not that I have any intention of ever activating, but let's say for some reason I wanted to go to the temple (like to attend a wedding) and I decided to activate for that. Also let's say that in that same time I was having financial difficulties such that my net was in the red. I would look back at you and firmly reply that I have no "interest" this year on which to pay my tithing and am therefore a full tithe payer.

It is not just a question of gross vs net on a paycheck, it is a question of annual interest.

Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.

If I have no annual interest, I owe no tithing.

[_moinmoin]

This is really interesting to me. I mean, D&C 89 couldn't be much clearer that beer is allowed. Yet God apparently changed his mind about this. We have no idea when or where or why God did that, but we somehow know it happened because a current leader couldn't possibly be wrong about something.

I mean, I am a resigned non-believer but if I were by some miracle to return to the church I would have no trouble drinking beer and telling the bishop I obey the word of wisdom.

While you would have no trouble telling him you obey the WoW, you would also have no expectation that he would accept that knowing that you drink beer. Part and parcel of being an active member in good standing is acceptance and submission to priesthood keys. That first generation Mormons drank alcohol in spite of D&C 89 has no bearing, because subsequent key-holders authoritatively interpreted/added additional restrictions.

You voted with your feet, and that's your prerogative. How many people are there who stay in the Church and really try to make something like this fly, though? "Well, I think beer is okay, and the Church is wrong on this. Give me my recommend!"

[_moinmoin]

Not that I have any intention of ever activating, but let's say for some reason I wanted to go to the temple (like to attend a wedding) and I decided to activate for that. Also let's say that in that same time I was having financial difficulties such that my net was in the red. I would look back at you and firmly reply that I have no "interest" this year on which to pay my tithing and am therefore a full tithe payer.

It is not just a question of gross vs net on a paycheck, it is a question of annual interest.

If I have no annual interest, I owe no tithing.

The Church's authoritative interpretation of this is that "interest" = "income." Some members calculate net income, others calculate gross income. I don't know of anyone, other than Bill Reel-types, who really try to insist with a straight face, that they are only supposed to pay on their interest (like savings account or investment interest).

Even if your gross or net is "in the red," you still had gross and net income. Where this might get complicated would be if someone were self-employed or fungibility of funds kicks in. But most people get a paycheck from "the man," and have definite income, even if their debts and spending exceed this income.

[_Fence Sitter]

The Church's authoritative interpretation of this is that "interest" = "income." Some members calculate net income, others calculate gross income. I don't know of anyone, other than Bill Reel-types, who really try to insist with a straight face, that they are only supposed to pay on their interest (like savings account or investment interest).

Even if your gross or net is "in the red," you still had gross and net income. Where this might get complicated would be if someone were self-employed or fungibility of funds kicks in. But most people get a paycheck from "the man," and have definite income, even if their debts and spending exceed this income.

Friendly CFR here Moinmoin. Where can I find this authoritative interpretation?