It is currently Sat Nov 17, 2018 10:01 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:40 pm 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

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

Quote:
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!

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


Yay!!!

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:45 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
TD, I think you are getting a little wound up about this whole thing.

Jason can't do anything about what Salt Lake City 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 my husband 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 my husband 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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 5:57 pm 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:43 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:27 am
Posts: 4085
Location: Planet Earth
asbestosman wrote:
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.

_________________
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 5:34 pm 
God

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


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 6:00 pm 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

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

I totally agree.

Quote:
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~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:12 pm 
Regional Representative

Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:29 pm
Posts: 677
harmony wrote:
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?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:40 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Maxrep wrote:
harmony wrote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:47 am 
High Goddess of Atlantis
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:40 am
Posts: 4792
Maxrep.... YAY! Welcome!

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


I think modern, reasonable, civilized people the world over would think this the only decent, moral, humane thing to do!

Seems to me the church is more interested in obtaining money than supporting and strengthening marriage and families.

:-(

~dancer~


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 09, 2007 9:17 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:09 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: House of Lords cellar
Maxrep - welcome!

I noticed that you haven't posted at FAIR/MAD in a while. Were you banned? Or did you just stop posting there? I always enjoyed your posts.

_________________
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: Fri Feb 09, 2007 10:23 am 
Regional Representative

Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:29 pm
Posts: 677
Thanks for the welcome folks. I just found out about this board from the infamous "shutdown Fair/Madd" thread over there. Great to see some familiar but long lost forum names!

The Fair/Mormon Apologetics board has become so lopsided that it seems to tire you out just reading the threads. Starting a new thread there was not enticing at all. To field the out numbered apologetics responses required too much of a time commitment. It felt like being trapped in an overcrowded room where much of the oxygen had been used up. Now this is a breath of fresh air!

Hanging his head low: No I didn't get banned, there is no honor for me today.......Hah, good to be here anyway!


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

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Grudunza, karl61 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