It is currently Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:27 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 7:02 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:16 pm
Posts: 29421
Location: Off the Deep End
Didn't someone say (and if they didn't they should have) that in the case of a non-wage earning spouse (let's take the SAHM partly out of this and include other marriage partners who do not earn income such as the disabled spouse) and wage earning spouse that the income could be considered jointly owned and that the wage earning spouse could rightly pay tithing on one half of the joint income?

TD, does that sound more palatable to you?

Jersey Girl

_________________
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb


Stay close to the people who feel like sunlight ~ Arsu Shaikh


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:44 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
truth dancer wrote:
HI Jason...


Quote:
I think I addressed this. If Mom is stay at home and non member and Dad works and makes all the money and is a member he would be expected to tithe on what he makes, period. Same if it were reverse. A less strict bishop might let the member slide is non member stay at home objects and earning income member does not tithe to keep the peace. My guess is most would consider him a non tither


OMG Jason.. PLEASE tell me this is your opinion and not the policy of the church.


TD, you know as well as I do that there are no hard and fast policies about tithing in the church. It's left up to the individual bishop. Jason is simply giving his opinion of how he thinks it would work in most wards (and I suspect he's right).

Quote:
You are saying that whomever makes the money in a relationship owns the money? Are you kidding? So a SAHM has no money? The breadwinner has the right to do with the money as he wishes? And is expected to give their joint money to the church or he can't go to the temple? Please tell me you aren't serious.


He's giving you what he thinks the bishop would do. Don't hold it against him, just because he's probably right. We try to keep the messengers alive, remember?

Quote:
I can hardly believe it is possible to hold such a view.


Why? Surely you've had bishops who would hestitate to deviate from the standard 10% line?

Quote:
You are suggesting that a believing husband would have to go against the wishes of his non-member wife and give their shared money to the church because the church views the woman as having no money and no say in how their money is spent?


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. That would surprise me.

Quote:
REALLY? And the church claims to be all about family and marriage! Wow!


Just don't blame Jason. It's not his fault he's the bearer of an unpopular idea.

Quote:
Ohhh Harmony... I think you are right! :-(


Even a broken clock is right twice a day (which is better than my average, according to Plu!)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 7:11 am 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:40 am
Posts: 4792
Hi Harmony...

No, I'm not blaming Jason at all. I appreciate his information. I should have used the word "observation," or, "guess" rather than "opinion."

I'm quite certain Jason would not agree to this sort of policy (if it is the policy) or thinking. I know he is very conscientious when it comes to equality and the dignity of women.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised but I guess I just didn't realize this sort of thinking still existed. I'm totally wrong.

Jersey Girl...

Yes splitting the money is better than the breadwinner being the sole "owner" of the money. It is still taking away from, say, the retirement of the non-working spouse which could be pretty tough but it certainly is a way a couple could work it out. I think there are many ways individual couples could work it out but they are limited by the policy of the church (if there is one).

:-)

~dancer~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:32 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
truth dancer wrote:
Hi Harmony...

No, I'm not blaming Jason at all. I appreciate his information. I should have used the word "observation," or, "guess" rather than "opinion."

I'm quite certain Jason would not agree to this sort of policy (if it is the policy) or thinking. I know he is very conscientious when it comes to equality and the dignity of women.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised but I guess I just didn't realize this sort of thinking still existed. I'm totally wrong.

Jersey Girl...

Yes splitting the money is better than the breadwinner being the sole "owner" of the money. It is still taking away from, say, the retirement of the non-working spouse which could be pretty tough but it certainly is a way a couple could work it out. I think there are many ways individual couples could work it out but they are limited by the policy of the church (if there is one).

:-)

~dancer~


I wonder how many LDS couples or widows realize their retirement is a lot less than it could be, and that the poverty in which they will spend their later years is a result of poor fiscal planning/paying tithing instead of putting money away for retirement. Probably not many. I know until the last dozen years or so, I had no retirement fund at all, and what I have now is pretty meager in comparison to others who did a much better job of managing their money than I did. I was too busy paying my 10th to keep our church leaders in million dollar condos.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:10 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm
Posts: 6215
Location: in the dog house
harmony wrote:
I know until the last dozen years or so, I had no retirement fund at all, and what I have now is pretty meager in comparison to others who did a much better job of managing their money than I did. I was too busy paying my 10th to keep our church leaders in million dollar condos.

Then you paid tithing for the wrong reason. I've been putting my money into retirement despite paying tithing. And no, I can't really afford either one. The housing costs here are ridiculous. It's just that if I don't put money into retirement, Uncle Sam will take it anyhow. As to tithing, it is unlikely I'd be putting more toward retirement without it. More than likely, that money would go to a nice vacation to Europe, a new car, or something like that.

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:28 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:09 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: House of Lords cellar
asbestosman wrote:
As to tithing, it is unlikely I'd be putting more toward retirement without it. More than likely, that money would go to a nice vacation to Europe, a new car, or something like that.


Why do you think so? If you're so good about managing your money right now, what makes you think you'd just suddenly stop being good about it when you stop paying tithing?

When I stopped paying tithing, i just squandered my extra money:

Some of it went to a children's hospital nearby
Some of it went into my retirement fund
Some of it went into a college fund for my 3 kids
And the rest of it went to pay for a family vacation

_________________
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:32 pm 
He-Who-Has-Not-Sinned (Recently)
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:49 pm
Posts: 4627
Location: MI6-Private Quarters
Who Knows wrote:
Why do you think so? If you're so good about managing your money right now, what makes you think you'd just suddenly stop being good about it when you stop paying tithing?

When I stopped paying tithing, i just squandered my extra money:

Some of it went to a children's hospital nearby
Some of it went into my retirement fund
Some of it went into a college fund for my 3 kids
And the rest of it went to pay for a family vacation


Gosh Who Knows, you might as well just take your paycheck out in the backyard and burn it. I've never seen such waste. ;)

Bond

_________________
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 12:40 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:09 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: House of Lords cellar
Let me clarify - i didn't mean to brag or anything. I've just heard the argument so many times before, and it just drives me nuts - "If i didn't pay tithing, i'd just waste my money anyways, so I might as well pay it".

Total 'what if' BS.

_________________
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:09 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Quote:
When I stopped paying tithing, i just squandered my extra money:

Some of it went to a children's hospital nearby


Definitely a worthy charity.

Quote:
Some of it went into my retirement fund


Good fiscal management.

Quote:
Some of it went into a college fund for my 3 kids


Good fiscal management.

Quote:
And the rest of it went to pay for a family vacation


Priceless memories.

All part of responsible fiscal management. Had I not paid all those thousands of dollars (some of which I had to borrow at 24% interest if we were short in December), I like to think I'd have a stock portfolio, a retirement fund 25 years bigger than the one I have now, a smaller mortgage, and I wouldn't have to work until I'm 70 (as my husband expects to). Instead, I paid thousands of dollars every year so our leaders could have unlimited charge cards, stipends fit for kings, maid service, and a set of closed books I can't see. And people wonder why I have trust issues?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:40 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm
Posts: 6215
Location: in the dog house
harmony wrote:
Had I not paid all those thousands of dollars (some of which I had to borrow at 24% interest if we were short in December)

Borrowing money to pay tithing? I really don't think that's how it's supposed to work. Maybe if you paid tithing and then borrowed money to buy food, but in that situation you should ask the bishop for help. I have written checks at the Bishop's request for many people who come across hard times.

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 1:45 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm
Posts: 6215
Location: in the dog house
Who Knows wrote:
asbestosman wrote:
As to tithing, it is unlikely I'd be putting more toward retirement without it. More than likely, that money would go to a nice vacation to Europe, a new car, or something like that.


Why do you think so? If you're so good about managing your money right now, what makes you think you'd just suddenly stop being good about it when you stop paying tithing?

Because I don't manage our money--my wife does.

(guess who's gonna sleep in the dog house tonight?)

Actually she's pretty good and almost certainly would continue to save for retirement because she knows that the company match is free money and also that it gets it out of Uncle Sam's grubs. However, any money over from that would likely be spent on things other than retirement: nicer home, college savings, vacations, gifts for friends/family, or maybe other charity. To assume the extra would go to retirement is highly unlikely. Let's face it, I haven't seen my other relatives sell their homes to live off that for retirement. All of them continue to live in those homes even when the kids leave because then there's grandkids and their old friends.

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:16 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
asbestosman wrote:
harmony wrote:
Had I not paid all those thousands of dollars (some of which I had to borrow at 24% interest if we were short in December)

Borrowing money to pay tithing? I really don't think that's how it's supposed to work. Maybe if you paid tithing and then borrowed money to buy food, but in that situation you should ask the bishop for help. I have written checks at the Bishop's request for many people who come across hard times.


Well, once was enough for me. I'd go on food stamps before I'd borrow money to pay tithing again.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:16 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:09 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: House of Lords cellar
asbestosman wrote:
Who Knows wrote:
Why do you think so? If you're so good about managing your money right now, what makes you think you'd just suddenly stop being good about it when you stop paying tithing?

Because I don't manage our money--my wife does.

(guess who's gonna sleep in the dog house tonight?)

Actually she's pretty good and almost certainly would continue to save for retirement because she knows that the company match is free money and also that it gets it out of Uncle Sam's grubs. However, any money over from that would likely be spent on things other than retirement: nicer home, college savings, vacations, gifts for friends/family, or maybe other charity. To assume the extra would go to retirement is highly unlikely. Let's face it, I haven't seen my other relatives sell their homes to live off that for retirement. All of them continue to live in those homes even when the kids leave because then there's grandkids and their old friends.


Bad money management is bad money management - whether you're LDS/exmo/tithe payer/non-tithe payer.

_________________
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:23 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm
Posts: 9189
truth dancer wrote:
HI Jason...


Quote:
I think I addressed this. If Mom is stay at home and non member and Dad works and makes all the money and is a member he would be expected to tithe on what he makes, period. Same if it were reverse. A less strict bishop might let the member slide is non member stay at home objects and earning income member does not tithe to keep the peace. My guess is most would consider him a non tither


OMG Jason.. PLEASE tell me this is your opinion and not the policy of the church.

You are saying that whomever makes the money in a relationship owns the money? Are you kidding? So a SAHM has no money? The breadwinner has the right to do with the money as he wishes? And is expected to give their joint money to the church or he can't go to the temple? Please tell me you aren't serious.

I can hardly believe it is possible to hold such a view.

You are suggesting that a believing husband would have to go against the wishes of his non-member wife and give their shared money to the church because the church views the woman as having no money and no say in how their money is spent?

REALLY? And the church claims to be all about family and marriage! Wow!

Ohhh Harmony... I think you are right! :-(

~dancer~


There is no set policy other then tithing is 10% of income. My guess is most bishops would interpret that to mean if you earn it you tithe on it. Some may still give a recommend if the believing earner does not pay 10% because the non believing non earner objects to the earner paying tithing.

I am not sure why this is so shocking. If the believing non earner does not make any income then the bishop does not say "Well your non believing spouse makes money and since it should be at least half your you should tithe on it or no recommend." Rather, they just assume the believing non earner has no money to tithe on.

Do you think in that case the believing non earner should have to tihte on some of the non believer's income to get into the temple? Well I know you do no think tithing should be a requirement to get into the temple, but given that it is do you apply your dismay both ways?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:32 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm
Posts: 9189
Jersey Girl wrote:
Didn't someone say (and if they didn't they should have) that in the case of a non-wage earning spouse (let's take the SAHM partly out of this and include other marriage partners who do not earn income such as the disabled spouse) and wage earning spouse that the income could be considered jointly owned and that the wage earning spouse could rightly pay tithing on one half of the joint income?

TD, does that sound more palatable to you?

Jersey Girl


This is not really the case.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:33 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm
Posts: 6215
Location: in the dog house
Who Knows wrote:
Bad money management is bad money management - whether you're LDS/exmo/tithe payer/non-tithe payer.

Exactly!

_________________
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 2:35 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm
Posts: 9189
harmony wrote:
truth dancer wrote:
HI Jason...


Quote:
I think I addressed this. If Mom is stay at home and non member and Dad works and makes all the money and is a member he would be expected to tithe on what he makes, period. Same if it were reverse. A less strict bishop might let the member slide is non member stay at home objects and earning income member does not tithe to keep the peace. My guess is most would consider him a non tither


OMG Jason.. PLEASE tell me this is your opinion and not the policy of the church.


TD, you know as well as I do that there are no hard and fast policies about tithing in the church. It's left up to the individual bishop. Jason is simply giving his opinion of how he thinks it would work in most wards (and I suspect he's right).

Quote:
You are saying that whomever makes the money in a relationship owns the money? Are you kidding? So a SAHM has no money? The breadwinner has the right to do with the money as he wishes? And is expected to give their joint money to the church or he can't go to the temple? Please tell me you aren't serious.


He's giving you what he thinks the bishop would do. Don't hold it against him, just because he's probably right. We try to keep the messengers alive, remember?

Quote:
I can hardly believe it is possible to hold such a view.


Why? Surely you've had bishops who would hestitate to deviate from the standard 10% line?

Quote:
You are suggesting that a believing husband would have to go against the wishes of his non-member wife and give their shared money to the church because the church views the woman as having no money and no say in how their money is spent?


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. That would surprise me.

Quote:
REALLY? And the church claims to be all about family and marriage! Wow!


Just don't blame Jason. It's not his fault he's the bearer of an unpopular idea.

Quote:
Ohhh Harmony... I think you are right! :-(


Even a broken clock is right twice a day (which is better than my average, according to Plu!)


I agree with Harmony accept for this. If it was the wife the earned the money, not the husband, and the wife believed, and not the husband, and the husband did not want the wife to tithe, the same standards would most likely apply. So it is not a man presides thing. If both worked the bishop would most likely look to what the believer earned to determine tithing and expect half of what the other earns.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:59 pm 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:40 am
Posts: 4792
Hi Jason,

I consider any money that comes into a family (by the parents) to be joint money.

I don't consider it the sole property of the breadwinner, nor do I consider it half one spouses' and half the others.

IMO, it is family money... to be spent as both agree it should be spent.

Your scenario seems to suggest the breadwinner "owns" the money and it is not the wife's as well. What is the wife? Worth nothing?

I think the money is shared and the rules (whatever they are) should apply to both spouses regardless of how the money comes into the family.

Suggesting the breadwinner is the sole owner of the money, and the wife has NO money, comes very close to saying the wife is ... well never mind. :-(

No, I think the money any parent brings to the family is family money and should only be donated to any charity organization that both spouses support, In other words, it should be donated as the couple sees fit.

The thought that the church would make a spouse choose the church over the wishes of one's spouse is pretty sick IMO.

~dancer~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:21 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm
Posts: 9189
truth dancer wrote:
Hi Jason,

I consider any money that comes into a family (by the parents) to be joint money.

I don't consider it the sole property of the breadwinner, nor do I consider it half one spouses' and half the others.

IMO, it is family money... to be spent as both agree it should be spent.

Your scenario seems to suggest the breadwinner "owns" the money and it is not the wife's as well. What is the wife? Worth nothing?

I think the money is shared and the rules (whatever they are) should apply to both spouses regardless of how the money comes into the family.

Suggesting the breadwinner is the sole owner of the money, and the wife has NO money, comes very close to saying the wife is ... well never mind. :-(

No, I think the money any parent brings to the family is family money and should only be donated to any charity organization that both spouses support, In other words, it should be donated as the couple sees fit.

The thought that the church would make a spouse choose the church over the wishes of one's spouse is pretty sick IMO.

~dancer~


Why do you keep focusing on the wife here? It dostorts what I have said. It is the same if the wife makes all the money and the husband does not. It bothers me that you bring this back to a man vs. woman thing. It is not. It is just that my guess is most bishops operate under a you earn it you tithe it principle. There is nothing malicious or intentional about it at all. 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.

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.

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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:44 pm 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:40 am
Posts: 4792
Hi Jason...

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

Quote:
Why do you keep focusing on the wife here?


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

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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. IMO, 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~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:20 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm
Posts: 9189
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Grudunza, Philo Sofee and 55 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group