Tithing, TRI, and part member families...

[_truth dancer]

Hi Jason...

I'm not getting my thoughts across here. Sorry. Let me try again.

Why do you keep focusing on the wife here?

I don't mean to be. My point is the same with either spouse.

It dostorts what I have said. It is the same if the wife makes all the money and the husband does not.

I understand this. My point remains the same. It is assumed that the breadwinner (woman or man) is the sole owner of the money. I don't like this.

It bothers me that you bring this back to a man vs. woman thing. It is not.

I don't think you understand that I am not interested in who is making the money. My concern is that the money is assumed to be the sole property of the one who brings it into the family. Rather than a couple sharing the money, it is considered ONLY the property of the one bringing it into the home. Again, I do not care who it is bringing in the money.

It is just that my guess is most bishops operate under a you earn it you tithe it principle.

Yes... and I think it is horrible that the money is considered to be the sole property of the one who brings in into the home when BOTH partners are working together to raise a family. If one stays home (man or woman) to raise children then they are no longer a partner in the funds brought into the home? I find it sick.

There is nothing malicious or intentional about it at all.

It is sick to consider shared family money as only the breadwinner's. What kind of marriage is this? The woman brings it home and it is hers? Or the man brings it home and it is his? Nonsense.

I agree that household income should be shared and my wife and I do that and I make 15 times annually what she does. What id I decide not to tithe but she wants to? What if i refuse to give 10% of 50% of what I earn? But she gives 10% of what she earns? Should the bishop not consider her a tithe payor? It works both ways you know.

I'm not interested in who it is bringing in money. I believe the couple should decide together how the FAMILY money is spent. However they determine to work it out, it is between them. The church should have nothing to do with it.

So, I assume that if a wife does not work and she believes and the husband does not, that you agree her bishop should expect her to pay 10% on half her husbands income or not consider her a non tithe payor.

NO.... NO... NO! I do not think anyone should be forced to donate money to an organization they do not support!

And, regardless of who is the breadwinner, what sex they are, or anything else, the money should not be considered the sole property of the one bringing it into the family.

Or are you ok if it just applies if the one who earns the money does not tithe on it because the one who does not objects. Can be man or woman here so don't hop on the this is unfair to the wife bit.

OMG.... this has nothing to do with who it is believing or not believing or bringing into the money or staying at home. Please get off this nonsense.

IF (and I think this is nonsense) the church is going to demand that a believing breadwinner pays 10% of her/his income then yes they should demand that a SAHD or a SAHM pay a 10% tithe as well. in my opinion, any money brought into a home by one spouse (women or man) should not be the exclusive property of the one bringing it into the home. It is family money!

Please remember I do not agree with the above scenario at all and find it horribly ridiculous and wrong!

I hope this clears it up!

~dancer~

[_Jason Bourne]

TD,

I got on the wife issue because in the post I responded tooYOU brought up the wife not being worth anything up at least twice. I just wanted to make sure, as I had said in a number of posts, that you understand that it works both ways.

by the way, I agree in pooling money and all that. That is how my wife and I have always done it.

As for how the thousands of bishops deal with this as there is no direct guidanec on this at all, they would fall back on whoever earns it tithes it. Some, as mentioned, would probably still issue a TR if the believer's non believing spuse objected. And of course they do consider the believer who earns no money a tithe payer. It would solve the issue if tithing was dropped as a TR requirement, shich would be a good thing I think.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Jason,

I got on the wife issue because in the post I responded tooYOU brought up the wife not being worth anything up at least twice. I just wanted to make sure, as I had said in a number of posts, that you understand that it works both ways.

I was just using this as an example... of course it would be the same regardless of who it is bringing home the money!

by the way, I agree in pooling money and all that. That is how my wife and I have always done it.

Yay!!!

As for how the thousands of bishops deal with this as there is no direct guidanec on this at all,

Well... this is what I was asking. I didn't know if there was a policy or not. I guess the answer is no.

It would solve the issue if tithing was dropped as a TR requirement, shich would be a good thing I think.

ABSOLUTELY!!! I agree!!!

:-)

~dancer~

[_harmony]

TD, I think you are getting a little wound up about this whole thing.

Jason can't do anything about what SLC says or doesn't say about tithing. None of us can control their policy or lack thereof.

I think in many households, not just LDS ones, the breadwinner is the one who controls the money. In many households, each spouse controls their own money, and pays certain bills out of their own pot. In others, the whole thing is pooled. In others, it's a hodgepodge.

In mine, for example, we pool our salaries, but DH keeps his ambulance checks (about $500 a month) in his own stash, while I throw my mileage checks (about $900 a month) into the pool. I pay all the bills and family expenses from the family pool. I also pull my personal items (monthly pedicures, haircuts) from the pool, while DH pays the tithing and buys his bits and pieces from his own little stash. It's complicated but it works for us.

It's not just LDS homes that the breadwinner controls the money. I can see how a non-believing SAHM spouse would get upset at a believing spouse who pays tithing without consulting her, but I don't think it's sick. I think it's sad that the guy is such an idiot he's throwing money at an organization that is essentially working against his family. Like Jason, I think a TR should not be tied to tithing at all. I think that was a singularly uninspired move made by the FP, and like all our traditions (think the priesthood situation), it's danged hard to get them to break it now. It originally had nothing to do with inspiration and everything to do with fiscal malfesance, but you won't get anyone to admit that now.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Harmony,..

I'm not worried about how couples work it out... my issue is a church that gets involved and decides how the couple "MUST" work it out.

If a couple wants to do whatever they wish it is fine.... it should be up to them. I do not care at all.

I know of an example where the non-member SAHM was required by the church to give up her retirement each month so her husband could be a full tithe payer. (I won't get into the dynamics of the marriage which was very patriarchal).

The issues is more that the church creates a situation where a man or woman has to make this sort of choice; give to the church or respect my partner.

This is what I think is destructive. I think it harms familes and marriages.

What I don't like is the church stepping in and telling how a couple needs to handle it, in order to go to the temple.

But... I was basically wondering if there is a policy or not... Jason said there is not. So be it.

So.. I guess it is the Bishops that make the decision not the church.

I like Jason's suggestion that the church do away with the requirement to pay to go to the temple. :-)

~dancer~

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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

Nothing in the CHI that I know of.

[_harmony]

Hi Harmony,..

I'm not worried about how couples work it out... my issue is a church that gets involved and decides how the couple "MUST" work it out.

If a couple wants to do whatever they wish it is fine.... it should be up to them. I do not care at all.

I know of an example where the non-member SAHM was required by the church to give up her retirement each month so her husband could be a full tithe payer. (I won't get into the dynamics of the marriage which was very patriarchal).

The issues is more that the church creates a situation where a man or woman has to make this sort of choice; give to the church or respect my partner.

This is what I think is destructive. I think it harms familes and marriages.

What I don't like is the church stepping in and telling how a couple needs to handle it, in order to go to the temple.

But... I was basically wondering if there is a policy or not... Jason said there is not. So be it.

So.. I guess it is the Bishops that make the decision not the church.

I like Jason's suggestion that the church do away with the requirement to pay to go to the temple. :-)

~dancer~

The church's demand notwithstanding, it's the husband who makes that decision to obey (or not), not the Brethren. If he has no balls, that's something for the wife to fix, not anyone else.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Harmony...

I totally agree.

The church's demand notwithstanding, it's the husband who makes that decision to obey (or not), not the Brethren. If he has no balls, that's something for the wife to fix, not anyone else.

Yeah, in this circumstances, it was sad that the patriarchal idea was alive and well.

The wife was Catholic, the husband was inactive from the time of his childhood. When the husband decided to get active and get a TRI, after 18 years or so of marriage, the SAHM had no choice in the matter.

He chose obedience to the church over his wife.

~dancer~

[_Maxrep]

And this surprises you why? I don't have much problem imagining this at all. LDS husbands preside in their homes, remember? They're told that every Sunday in priesthood. Preside, preside, preside! It's no stretch to think that an LDS husband would make all the money decisions in the home, if he's the breadwinner, and never even blink. Actually, I'd be very surprised if the LDS husband even bothered to consult his non-member SAHM wife.

It's difficult to read that paragraph and come away with a sense of an equal union.

The idea of allowing the breadwinner to even tithe on 50% of the house hold funds is distasteful, as it still represents one sided spending with a large portion of a couples finances.

Would it be odd to suggest that tithing only be accepted by the church from a couple that can donate in mutual consent?

[_harmony]

And this surprises you why? I don't have much problem imagining this at all. LDS husbands preside in their homes, remember? They're told that every Sunday in priesthood. Preside, preside, preside! It's no stretch to think that an LDS husband would make all the money decisions in the home, if he's the breadwinner, and never even blink. Actually, I'd be very surprised if the LDS husband even bothered to consult his non-member SAHM wife.

It's difficult to read that paragraph and come away with a sense of an equal union.

The idea of allowing the breadwinner to even tithe on 50% of the house hold funds is distasteful, as it still represents one sided spending with a large portion of a couples finances.

Would it be odd to suggest that tithing only be accepted by the church from a couple that can donate in mutual consent?

Indeed. And do I believe the church is going to take this eminently reasonable tack any time soon? Not hardly. The church that demands their pound of flesh from their poorest members, who struggle to feed their families, yet provides million dollar condos for the leaders to live in? Nope. Not even close.