[dingobex]

TataniaAvalon wrote:

If I understand right the bishop is making you back pay from when you didn’t? If so that’s nuts. Everyone else here has given great advice and I’ll reinforce it. Your SP was the one with the most correct interpretation. From this post and your other ones it sounds like your bishop is a hard believer in the letter of the law and following it to exactness. Which again is nuts.

I also agree that I don’t think disability is for tithing. Remember to hold your ground when asked and just say yes.

Sadly im not the only person he’s made back pay and that person to is on disability. But I will say this he is very generous also, he recently paid for household items and a car for the other disabled person I just referred to.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[dingobex]

nibbler wrote:

Let’s say your 3 hour block is from 9-12. Try suggesting going on a hike or some other outdoor activity at 10:00AM on Sunday.

See the reaction.

1) Hike!?!?! On a Sunday!?!?! Then you know.

2) Ok we can hike but but that’s during church. Oh yeah, duh. How about 2:00PM? But then you know a little more.

3) Cool, church is boring. Then you buy a ring.

I have no other response to this besides Bahahahahahaha

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[dingobex]

I suppose im gonna just have to take a stand on this. At the end of the day it’s my conscience, my understanding and my relationship with heavenly father. Plus it’s not a sin either so I should not be letting myself feel pressured into living someone elses standards.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[dingobex]

DarkJedi wrote:

I’m not sure what’s meant by checking the records, either. It is possible for the bishop or clerk to view your donations, but that only tells what you gave, not what you earned. It is also possible to look at prior year donation records but I don’t know how any years – and it still only gives the amounts donated.

I agree with what others have said – it’s a yes or no question in both the TR interview and tithing settlement. Asking any more than that is stepping outside the bounds.

That worries me a bit because if I start paying less, he might accuse me of being a non tithe payer. But I suppose then I could argue as others have suggested “that I have seen the manual statement” and under my circumstances I am a full tithe payer. If he pushes for more info I can remind him that my personal finances are none of his business.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[dingobex]

Minyan Man wrote:

I agree with what’s been said.

Do I understand correctly, your income is a disability payment?

I’m not an expert on tithing. Is a disability payment considered income or increase?

Is it taxable? I know for a fact that support payment are not considered for tithing.

There are certain categories IMO that tithing should not apply.

Support payments.

Unemployment.

Insurance or lawsuit proceeds.

What does apply is:

Earnings from my job or business.

Gains on the sale of stocks or property.

Dividends & interest earned.

I have known people who declare bankruptcy with very successful jobs & business who were exempt from paying tithing & qualified for a TR.

Again this is my own opinion. The church has no power to audit your declaration of what you consider is a fair tithing offering. Including your Bishop.

Yes you’re right my sole income is a disability support pension. The Australian government pays me a small wage to live off and subsidies my medications, electricity, gas and car registration.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[dingobex]

I received a blessing once from Heavenly mother. She cut heavenly father off mid senstence lol She is courageous and strong, fortified but loving, soft and gentle all at the same time. She spoke of our times together in the pre-existence when we would just sit and chat and how much her and father missed that and me dearly. They longed to have me home but were so proud of me here. She told of the relationship I would have with my own children and to always remember I am more like her than I am my earthly mother. When she finished heavenly father bore testimony of his love and respect for her, how he would lost without her, for she is his strength. He testified that she had spoken the truth and commanded me to remember all she had said and to trist in her wisdom as there is no wiser woman than her.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[dingobex]

nibbler wrote:

dingobex wrote:

Is that even possible now?

Sure, what represents a tithe is between you and the lord. The bishop and stake president only ask “are you a full tithe payer?” which is a yes or no question. You can decide what a full tithe means between you and the lord and simply reply “yes” if you are paying what you consider to be a full tithe. There’s no need to say “yes, and this is what I mean by a full tithe.” A “yes” should be enough.

You might get a leader that presses. E.g. Do you pay on gross? Which I would consider as a leader going off the rails. I think I’m at the point where I wouldn’t even try to correct the leader, I’d just say “yes, I’m a full tithe payer” and move on. You pay on gross? Yes, I am a full tithe payer. In other words stick to answering the question that they should be asking.

I feel your stake president had the most correct, church approved answer. The last official word on the policy of tithing from the first presidency is from March 19, 1970 and reads:

Quote:

For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that we have uniformly replied that the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself that the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their interest annually, which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.

THANK YOU!!!! For this, that clarifies a lot. So im assuming when my bishop said he ‘checked my reccords’ to confirm I was a full tithe payer he was bluffing as there is no reason for him to know how much I pay in tithing, let alone how much I earn.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[dingobex]

Minyan Man wrote:

My advice: Come up with a decision. Pray about it. Don’t ask for clarification from the Bishop or SP.

Is that even possible now? At the time I asked because I didn’t know any better and id heard a lot of conflicting information. But now that im paying so much in tithing im beginning to resent it. I waz happy before hand it was something I would pray about every fortnight and id decide prayerfully how much my 10% was and often id give more because I wanted to but now that ive been made to give 10% of gross, it’s become something I do my rote and not something I do by spirit. It’s taken the joy out of it but I worry because I know my bishop “checked” his reccords to confirm I was tithing before he gave me a reccommend. So wouldn’t he notice the monetary difference if I went back to praying about it and giving of my want each fortnight instead of obligation.

I worry cause as a disability pensioner my income and thus tithing isn’t a lot either way.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[dingobex]

Roy wrote:

dingobex wrote:

“The rest of your days” completely changes the context for me and takes the pressure off. So why then does the endowment teaching manual say to wear them at all times except showering and sports etc…. “the rest of your days” implies to me that they should be worn when reasonably possible and as often as possible but doesn’t enforce time or circumstance. For example under that definition I might choose bot to wear them if they would show under my clothing but I would however put them straight back on when in more comfortable clothing later that day etc…. Am I wrong?

Here is what I pulled from the manual:

Quote:

4. Each person should understand the importance of wearing the temple garment.

Explain that those who have participated in the temple ceremony are privileged to wear the garment of the holy priesthood. In a statement to the Church, the First Presidency said:

“Church members who have been clothed with the garment in the temple have made a covenant to wear it throughout their lives. This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night. …

“The fundamental principle ought to be to wear the garment and not to find occasions to remove it. … When the garment must be removed, … it should be restored as soon as possible.

“The principles of modesty and keeping the body appropriately covered are implicit in the covenant and should govern the nature of all clothing worn. Endowed members of the Church wear the garment as a reminder of the sacred covenants they have made with the Lord and also as a protection against temptation and evil. How it is worn is an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior” (First Presidency letter, 10 Oct. 1988).

Technically, we never “covenant” or promise to wear the garment but we are instructed in the temple to do so “throughout [our] lives.” So the garment serves as an important reminder of the covenants made and not a covenant in and of itself. Unfortunately there are many people who will not notice the difference and may judge you if they notice that you are not wearing for an occasion when they themselves would have worn it.

Next the letter states, “This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night. …” Notice the passive voice. Who made this interpretation? Is it cultural? When did it come into common practice among the LDS? (Hint – the garment has changed over time both in physical appearance and in the times in which it has been worn)

Quote:

There are some who would welcome a detailed dress code answering every conceivable question about the wearing of the temple garment. They would have priesthood leaders legislate lengths, specify conditions of when and how it should and should not be worn, and impose penalties upon those who missed the mark by a fraction of an inch. Such individuals would have Church members strain at a thread and omit the weightier matters of the gospel of Jesus Christ (see Matt. 23:23–26).

Most Latter-day Saints, however, rejoice over the moral agency extended them by a loving Father in Heaven. They prize highly the trust placed in them by the Lord and Church leaders—a trust implied in this statement made by the Prophet Joseph Smith: “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”

In my opinion, there are two aspects to garment wearing: 1) the private and personal aspect between you and God and 2) the outward marking that serves as a group identifier for all the other members in the group.

If you are going to the temple to move up the social ladder into the “in crowd” in your LDS community – then wearing the garment according to accepted norms is super important. This is not as bad as it sounds. We all do things to be accepted by our community.

If the wearing of the garment has special meaning between you and God then wear it as your conscience and reason dictate. Period. Remember that it is “an outward expression of an inward commitment to follow the Savior.” It is a symbol, not unlike a CTR ring, young women’s medallion, cross necklace, or “What would Jesus do?” bracelet. It is the inward commitment and not the specific form of the outward expression that matters. Just be prepared for some people that should know better to criticize if your conscience and reason about how to wear the garment do not dictate the same thing as theirs.

OMG!!!! ROY, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I can not begin to tell you how frightened I have been but this explanation makes me feel so much better.

I grew up a jehovah witness, I was a witness well into my twenties. I grew up under black and white, totalitarian, fear based control. For 15 years I fantasied about how I could kill myself without actually committing suicide and damning myself. I promised myself I would never feel like that again.

I get that were an imperfect church leds by imperfect men. But high control terrifies me. I believe in a loving father and I believe in agency. I want to make a covenant with my father because I love and miss him, because I want to go home and because I want to welcome him into my mortal life as much as possible. But I was beginning to feel endowments were being used as a means of control and not a sacred and loving commitment to our father. [BLACK HEART SUIT][BLACK HEART SUIT][BLACK HEART SUIT][BLACK HEART SUIT]

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[dingobex]

Old-Timer wrote:

The actual initiatory and the culture that has grown up around it are very different.

There is no covenant in the initiatory. There simply is a statement that the garment is to be worn throughout your life and a promise that you will receive strength and protection if you don’t defile it.

All of the details outside the temple are people attaching conditions to what it means to weAr it throughout your life and what it means to them to not defile it. I know some people who don’t wear the garment in hot weather when they are involved in activities that cause them to sweat heavily, specifically because they feel like doing so defiles the garment. I know others who view sleeping naked at times as extended foreplay, so they don’t wear the garment at those times. How you define those phrases is completely up to you.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Knowing this makes me feel so much better. I was feeling like taking my endowments was tantamount to signing a damnation contract as the covenants were sounding unatainable and extremist.

That being said my bishop read straight from the teachers manual “must be worn at all times” except for bathing and sports. That to me sounds like the church has the expectation otherwise why teach it?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[dingobex]

GBSmith wrote:

dingobex wrote:

I am unmarried but at 32 I’ve long since found I can cope with celibacy but I understand what you mean. What worries me the most is the inconsistent and often subjective definition of what constitutes sin. I don’t want to live my life in fear of this kind of failure and as it stands it feels heavily geared towards failure. Based on what my bishop has taught me, I feel like the endowments would be impossible to live up to. If not wearing both peices of my garments 100% of the time is enough to damn me what other ‘petty’ and ‘invalidating’ conditions might there be. I have serious health issues that have me worried about wearing the garments in summer, I don’t want to make myself sick but I don’t want to live in fear and guilt either of not wearing them in summer.

I did ask my bishop and he said under those circumstances it would be upto my personal choice and discretion but I worry he’s watering it down to ‘convert’ me like when my stake president told me tithing was only 10% of my surplus income but my bishop later corrected me to 10% of my gross income.

That misrepresentation didn’t sit well with me and I worry my bishop is white washing this down for the same purpose but ultimately leading me to failure and damnation.

I hope that all makes sense.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

There is no covenant associated with the garment. The instruction is to “wear the garment throughout your life and not defile it”. During a recommend interview there are instructions sometimes given about wearing but as far as the temple is concerned it’s what I mentioned. Where and when is up to you and if you need a quote from Pres. McKay to a letter from a sister about sunbathing in a book I have about development of temple worship, I’ll try and find it for you. Personally I don’t sleep in my garments and recently passed my recommend interview with a clear conscience.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! Knowing this makes me feel so much better. I was feeling like taking my endowments was tantamount to signing a damnation contract as the covenants were sounding unatainable and extremist.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[dingobex]

TataniaAvalon wrote:

Fwiw on the garments you covenant to wear them the rest of your days and not 100% of the time minus bathing and sports. So if you don’t feel comfortable wearing them in bed. … don’t. It’s us humans who like rules and laws that say 100% of the time. That’s pharisee thinking and it drives me nuts. On the whole damnation thing we’re not prefect we can’t be perfect that’s what the atonement is for, seems like your bishop has forgotten that. I’d agree with everyone else, tell him you’ve thought and prayed about it and you don’t feel like it’s time. You may get some pressure to go but stick with your no.

“The rest of your days” completely changes the context for me and takes the pressure off. So why then does the endowment teaching manual say to wear them at all times except showering and sports etc…. “the rest of your days” implies to me that they should be worn when reasonably possible and as often as possible but doesn’t enforce time or circumstance. For example under that definition I might choose bot to wear them if they would show under my clothing but I would however put them straight back on when in more comfortable clothing later that day etc….

Am I wrong?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[dingobex]

nibbler wrote:

dingobex wrote:

To be perfectly honest i’m not sure i want to take out my endowments atm. It feels like a massive commitment and i take commitment and integrity very seriously. It’s little things that have me worried for one the word damnation keeps coming up in classes, now perhaps because of the cultural gap between my bishop and myself the word damnation means something different but i highly doubt it, as it’s written in D&C. When i think of the word damnation from a theological point of view i think of condemnation to eternal punishment as a consequence of sin. So when my bishop talks about someone going into the temple unprepared or without first confessing all of his sins as bringing damnation upon himself, and consequently someone who doesn’t live their endowment with exactness for example not wearing their temple garments 100% of the time, except for sports and bathing, as also bringing damnation upon themselves.

In the past I’ve felt this way as well, that the temple really upped the ante when it came to righteous living. I reached the point where I developed scrupulosity, I never felt comfortable in my own skin. Never.

Here’s the thing though… if the temple really does work that way, upping the ante on potential punishments, then the temple would ultimately be a damning experience for everyone. Everyone sins after going to the temple. Everyone. Big sins, small sins, some as big as your head, *and bigger* (to borrow from “I’ve Got a Lovely Bunch of Coconuts” :crazy: ). I don’t believe the purpose of the temple was to damn people, I believe it was to bless people.

I also compare it to becoming a parent. If you wait around until you are skilled enough to be a perfect parent before you have your first child you will never have children. Parental skills can be developed before having children but it’s difficult. I think everyone ends up becoming a parent before they are truly ready but over time they grow into the role. Even then no one ever becomes a perfect parent.

The endowment could work similarly. The endowment alone isn’t like a light switch where our nature changes in an instant. For the most part the same person that enters the temple is the same person that leaves. In the temple we receive a role that we spend a lifetime growing into. If we had to wait until we have already grown into the role before going to the temple we’ll never end up going. Even the people that receive their endowment never “arrive” in this lifetime.

And for the record I don’t view receiving the endowment or becoming a parent as essential. I just think this whole “damnation” business was never the intent of the endowment. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

I agree with the other comments, that given your feelings if I were you I wouldn’t go, but it sounds like you’ve already made that decision. I’m not a big fan of the model where we push ordinances on people or how ordinances are tied to social promotion. I believe the scriptures lay out an “ask and ye shall receive” model, where someone receives something when they start to show interest (where interest is what qualifies someone as being ready). Often in church I see a “Here, take it. Take it!” model, where someone receives something at a predetermined age whether they ask for it or not. For the most part the endowment is a little better in that regard but it can become another ordinance on autopilot when getting married, going on a mission, or as a reactivation carrot.

Thank you! This makes me feel a lot better

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[dingobex]

SilentDawning wrote:

dingobex wrote:

So I’ve begun taking endowment classes with my bishop (i live to far away for formal classes) Originally when i went to speak to my bishop about the temple i just wanted a recommend but somehow that turned into endowment classes, which i was fine with at the time but now i’m starting worry. To be perfectly honest i’m not sure i want to take out my endowments atm. It feels like a massive commitment and i take commitment and integrity very seriously.

It’s little things that have me worried for one the word damnation keeps coming up in classes, now perhaps because of the cultural gap between my bishop and myself the word damnation means something different but i highly doubt it, as it’s written in D&C. When i think of the word damnation from a theological point of view i think of condemnation to eternal punishment as a consequence of sin. So when my bishop talks about someone going into the temple unprepared or without first confessing all of his sins as bringing damnation upon himself, and consequently someone who doesn’t live their endowment with exactness for example not wearing their temple garments 100% of the time, except for sports and bathing, as also bringing damnation upon themselves.

That kind of catastrophizing makes me feel physically sick to my stomach. I can understand walking into the temple with sin as being a serious sin, but honestly who decides what serious sin is, that seems to change between bishops. If your bishop is a letter of the law kinda guy he will stick to the stock standard but what about those sins not expressly mentioned but have become socially classified as serious.

One of my dear friends is a ex mo and he and i often have debates about this kind of thing, and up until now i really didn’t care but now that the bishop keeps using the word damnation i find myself thinking about what my friend has said. My friend uses the example of masturbation, depending on which bishop you get, it can be seen as completely natural and normal or demonic and leading to homosexuality.

I’m beginning to see why so many Mormons seem to hate themselves, their riddled with the kinda guilt we only think the Catholics have.

And don’t even get me started on the temple garments, i personally dislike someone dictating to me what i have to wear to bed and thus how comfortable i will be. I have extremely sensitive skin, i am not wearing anything except what i absolutely have to, to bed. Nor am i wearing anything under my clothes on a “sickeningly” hot boiling day here in OZ. Hell as fair as i’m concerned once the temp goes above 95f/35c i reserve the right to wear singlets, short, shorts and skirts. If i want to show my legs an inch above the knee on a summers day, i bloody well will!!!! and i refuse to let my body be sexualised, i don’t sexualize men, so don’t sexualize me.

Shoulders and knees are not sexual to anyone except a pervert. and all of that brings me back to going into the temple unprepared, or in my case unprepared and unwilling to live the law of garments with exactness. To say that i would be damning myself makes me feel sick and disgusted, and certainly not comfortable making such a lifelong and strong commitment.

Not to mention the new changes to church policy, which i understand the justification the church gave and would support it, except that by labeling homosexuality as apostasy you’ve condemned those who make the change from ‘SSA’ to ‘Homosexuality’ to a life of shunning and excommunication from their families and loved ones. The Church says they don’t teach shunning but the doctrine strictly says to shun apostates and the definition of apostasy seems all to arbitrary amoungst some members let alone the actual impact of the church itself labeling you an apostate.

It’s all just feeling a bit passive aggressive, controlling and manipulating at the moment and whole too much like my old religion which is making me feel sick to my stomach.

When I read all this, I don’t think you should do it — the consequences and threat of damnation bother you. You don’t want to wear garments, and the new church policy has you disillusioned with the church.

Are you single? The endowment also heightens penalties if you make a mistake. If you are an unendowed person, the consequences are less severe if you make a mistake. And of course, sexual activity is one of the biggest problems unmarried people face.

I’d wait and try to find a gentle way out of this situation. You can go on the “I don’t have any deeds to confess, and feel worthy based on what I’ve been taught, but the commitment scares me”. Leave it at that and don’t give any more information.

I am unmarried but at 32 I’ve long since found I can cope with celibacy but I understand what you mean. What worries me the most is the inconsistent and often subjective definition of what constitutes sin. I don’t want to live my life in fear of this kind of failure and as it stands it feels heavily geared towards failure. Based on what my bishop has taught me, I feel like the endowments would be impossible to live up to. If not wearing both peices of my garments 100% of the time is enough to damn me what other ‘petty’ and ‘invalidating’ conditions might there be. I have serious health issues that have me worried about wearing the garments in summer, I don’t want to make myself sick but I don’t want to live in fear and guilt either of not wearing them in summer.

I did ask my bishop and he said under those circumstances it would be upto my personal choice and discretion but I worry he’s watering it down to ‘convert’ me like when my stake president told me tithing was only 10% of my surplus income but my bishop later corrected me to 10% of my gross income.

That misrepresentation didn’t sit well with me and I worry my bishop is white washing this down for the same purpose but ultimately leading me to failure and damnation.

I hope that all makes sense.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[dingobex]

Old-Timer wrote:

Talk with someone who attends the temple but doesn’t take it literally. There are plenty of people, even top leaders, who have said it is all symbolic.

If you want to talk in detail, feel free to PM me. There is very little we covenant not to disclose, so we can talk about almost everything that happens there. (For example, my kids knew exactly what they would experience – minus a few specific details – before they attended for the first time.)

Thanks Ray,

I think I will message you. I have you on Facebook and I always enjoy your measured and insightful posts and blogs. I’ve even shared a couple :-p

Bec

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[Author]

Posts