[Joni]

nibbler wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

If I never have the money, there is no way in heaven or hell I’m paying tithing on it. That’s not just wrong, imo; it’s stupid – and I don’t care who said it.

Ha. Look at it this way. You paid your tithing on the money you received from your employer. If the government didn’t pay tithing on the money it received from your employer that’s their bad.

That is fantastic. And really, it’s a great way of looking at it! I don’t know that we need to pay our tithing in the same manner today as the Saints did when they were a mostly-agrarian economy without a federally-mandated income tax.

[Joni]

I really have a problem with the Church using my tithing money to subsidize BYU tuition. But I still pay it. I just don’t have the expectation of any particular blessing, financial or otherwise, associated with my tithes.

I really think we need to get away from the “if you do X, you will be blessed with Y” mindset in this church. If I hear one more of those “We lost our job but because we paid our tithing we were offered a new job the next day that paid 50% more!” stories I swear I am going to hurl something. Or just hurl. The first time my husband was laid off, I was six months pregnant, he was out of work for four months (while we were making COBRA payments that exceeded our mortgage) and he eventually accepted a job paying 60% less than the old one. And then he was laid off three more times. And yep, we were paying our tithing the whole time.

I did recently mention to my husband something I learned from this forum – that it isn’t Church doctrine that tithing is paid on your gross. He works in sales, so the majority of his income is paid in commission, which is taxed at a ridiculously high rate. And we are still paying tithing on the gross even though we only see about 60% of his commission check once Uncle Sam is done with it. :crazy: So the tithe we pay on that is closer to 20% than 10. It’s hard to define your ‘increase’ – can you consider your increase to be money that goes directly from your employer to the feds without ever passing through your hands? However, I don’t think he would ever agree to tithe on his net pay – or even, say, the gross of his salary and the net of his commission – because we are conditioned to think that the more tithing you pay, the more (nebulous) blessings you receive. So paying more tithing than you actually have to, I don’t know, gets you to the Celestial Kingdom sooner or something.

At least he doesn’t also insist that we pay tithing on our tax return. Although I’m sure we’ve all known people who would. 😮

[Joni]

DarkJedi wrote:

Old-Timer wrote:

The online seminary program is very good for an online program. Some kids would thrive who don’t do well in a traditional early morning program, but other kids need the live interaction and would flounder in an online program. I’d like to have both available, no pressure either way, and allow parents and students to choose which one they want to do.

I agree that would be optimal. Many years ago, in the “home study” days (I know, it still does exist), our ward made the decision to have early morning seminary only, no more home study option. Sadly, there were kids and families for whom early morning just doesn’t work and those kids were left out. At the time I was generally supportive of the idea, but in retrospect I’d push for wards/stakes not taking such an all or nothing approach in all areas (not just seminary).

I had home study – it was the only option available at the time – and it wasn’t right for me. I really didn’t have the self discipline to make myself do 4 days’ worth of seminary packets in a timely fashion. By my junior year of HS, I went to the Monday morning classes (they were great) but didn’t bother with the packets. I’m glad my kids will have the option of going every day. I think it helps the kids to see each other as social equals, too, something that never really happened for me.

I like to remind my TBM husband that seminary isn’t a saving ordinance. He grew up in Idaho and attended school release seminary in the middle of his school day, so I don’t think he can even really judge. (And I wish school release was an option out here in the Midwest, it would really help with scheduling issues. Then again, I’m not totally comfortable with seminary teachers in ID/UT getting paid a salary to teach the gospel when seminary teachers out here are expected to do it for free.)

[Joni]

Tithing settlement is not a saving ordinance.

As far as I can tell it’s a meeting which exists for the sole purpose of holding a meeting. I don’t know of anyone who’s had a beautiful spiritual experience in tithing settlement.

[Joni]

I’m a SAHM with a (very small) income of my own, and I’ve always had separate statements. This year my husband got a statement in preparation for TS and I didn’t – but that’s because I haven’t actually *paid* my tithing yet, I’ve had a gradually increasing hoard of ones and fives in the side pocket of my church bag. (I pay every single one of my expenses via PayPal except for tithing. I actually just ordered checks for the sole purpose of paying tithing, since I’m given to understand they don’t like sorting through my wad of small bills. ) We do have a new bishopric this year so I guess I will see what happens.

FWIW, even my TBM husband isn’t a big fan of tithing settlement. It’s just enforced awkwardness. And this year the stake has decreed that sign-up sheets are a no-no, so you have to hunt down the executive secretary (and I don’t even know who that is right now) to make an appointment. Last year we showed up on a Wednesday night for our 7:30 appointment and learned that TS was so far behind we wouldn’t be seen until 9:00. So we said ‘thanks but no thanks’ and went home.

I guess I am not sure why TS is necessary, when it’s redundant with – and not in any way connected to – the tithing question in a temple recomend interview.

[Joni]

DarkJedi wrote:

Orson wrote:

I agree with Haven, and I essentially had the same thoughts while reading your post. To me it is simply impossible for God to deny love, or he would cease to be God. Read 1 John 4:8, let it soak in. Any other thoughts in the scriptures that may imply a different idea are tainted by the human hand that wrote the words down. God’s love is one of the constants in the universe, it is a force that cannot be disrupted or broken, denied, or diminished. God’s love is absolute and unconditional, don’t let yourself believe any different. Whatever told you different is the thing in error.

1 John 4:8

Quote:

He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

I get what you’re saying, and I do understand the scripture, Orson. I’m not going to argue with you. However, your experiences are not hers (or mine), mine are not hers, either, and her experience is not the same as either of ours. When I have related my own experience about being cut off from the spirit and feeling as though my prayers bounce off the ceiling, others respond similarly to you. I know how Joseph Smith felt when he got the reactions he got when he shared his vision. Because they didn’t experience it and because they think it was scripturally impossible, it couldn’t have happened. But it did, and so did my experience and so did Joni’s.

God does love his children, and God is love, but there are different ways to interpret all of that which do not necessarily indicate that God loves you or anyone else as an individual.

If I hadn’t had the experience I did, I would have believed such a thing was impossible. But I don’t know how to deny it to myself. I don’t grudge anyone else the feeling tht they are loved by their Heavenly Father and that His love is infinite. I hope someday I can repent of whatever wrong I’ve committed, and that someday I can look back on this phase of my life and see it as just a phase.

(DarkJedi – I grew up in Upstate NY! Sure don’t miss the snow.)

Thankful wrote:

You mention untreated depression. Is there a reason you are not treating your depression? I know for me I didn’t treat my depression because I didn’t recognize it as an illness, separate from myself. I thought I was just uniquely worthless and exempt from God’s love and I SHOULD suffer. That didn’t feel like an illness. It felt like a normal reaction to being worthless. It felt sane. Obviously I felt sad, but I figured I deserved it. Am I even making sense?

That makes perfect sense, and you’ve perfectly described the exact justification I’ve gone through in not seeking treatment. God doesn’t love me = God wants me to be unhappy. I also tend to be extremely superstitious, and I’m afraid that if I try to seek help for the depression that (in my mind) is a punishment from God, He will take it out on me in some other way. Like my husband will lose his job (again). Or one of our children will die.

Your radio analogy is good food for thought. I always think of the celestial room in the temple as a place free from distraction but we can never be totally free from the distraction of our own thoughts and feelings.

Thankful wrote:

P.S. The temple ceremony as currently presented is a problem for women. It just is.

Too many women I know (including myself) struggle with it and are hurt by the endowment. The God I worship loves men and women both. The current endowment can make it very hard for many women to feel loved and valued by God. No amount of talks about women being of “great worth” will counteract the fact that in our supposedly most holy place, women are treated as less valued.

I chalk it up to generations of having no female voice in counsel or in decision making capacity (related to the male-only priesthood). I see most of the covenants as from God, perhaps with the exception being that the “hearken” covenant is not equally applied to both sexes. I see the format as coming from fallible men.

There is no need to repent for being female. 😮( Do what you feel will help you find peace, whether in the temple or out, in the church or out.

I’m glad that you weighed in on this. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen or heard it discussed, how the endowment ceremonty makes women feel. It took me over a decade to catch on to it. Now I feel like I’ve stumbled onto some deep, dark secret and of course it doesn’t help that I’m afraid to talk about anything pertaining to the temple. My husband’s position is that it’s okay to talk about anything except a few specifics, and his idea falls in line with the rules of this board, so maybe he’s on to something.

I’ve been working on typing up my feelings about the temple endowment as a woman. Once I can beat my thoughts into some kind of shape, I’ll post them in the doctrine section of this board.

[Joni]

momto11 wrote:

I think that it would be perfectly acceptable, if when you are called to a calling, to say, “let me go home and pray about it, then I will give you an answer.” I just think it is kind of interesting that we are told that callings are inspired and prayed about—we we all know that they aren’t always prayed about. But if we are being called according to prayer and inspiration, I think that we should be able to do the same with giving our answer.” This does not fit with, accept all callings.

I actually did this when called as seminary teacher. The bishopric member was shocked, my husband was shocked, but I didn’t feel comfortable accepting that calling right away. I should add that they were asking me in the spring, so it was well in advance of any need. And I did come back with a Yes the following Sunday. And the year that I taught seminary turned out to be one of the hardest years of my life (I was going to say “worst” but my youngest daughter was born in the midst of it ) and if I hadn’t had confirmation from the Lord that I was doing the right thing, I would have crashed and burned.

My husband and I were called about a year or so as “family history consultants.” This was clearly an administrative need – I’m sure someone from the stake said each ward needs to have X number of FH consultants – and not only could the bishopric member not tell us anything about the calling, we have never received any training and in fact we’ve been told we have no assignment. I don’t fault the bishopric member for this but I think this is a clear cut case of a calling not coming from the Lord. Husband and I both felt pretty awkward so we said “yes,” I think, to avoid making waves. But I have promised myself since then that I will not accept a calling that’s extended to me without making some attempt for myself to discern who is really extending the calling. This may cause some administrative problems as there’s a habit in our ward to extend a calling at 8:50 on a Sunday morning and announce it over the pulpit at 9:05. But if we keep talking about individuals’ ability to receive revelation for ourselves, we need to put our money where our mouths are.

[Joni]

InquiringMind wrote:

And why would God create billions of spirit children with the knowledge that they would spend eternity in misery?

I think that God is a lot less compassionate and infinitely loving than what we tell kids in Primary.

[Joni]

I actually brought this up with my husband last night and he gave me the kneejerk response: nope, not okay ever, not if you’re married, not under any circumstances. I think he must have heard the same talks as a lot of you I do wish we could differentiate between “not okay for an unmarried 19-year-old male whose focus is supposed to be on missionary work” and “not okay for a married woman who probably isn’t going to experience orgasm otherwise.” But the leadership of the Church won’t even say the word “sex” 😯 so I don’t think we can expect any kind of clarification.

I do think it’s really unfair how the Lord designed our bodies differently. It’s almost impossible for a healthy, functioning male not to experience orgasm as the result of regular, garden-variety sex. And it’s almost impossible for a woman to. (This is a fact I’ve even seen acknowledged in LDS-centric sex books!) To me, that is another sign of how much the Lord prefers men over women, that he loves and respects males a lot more than he does females. Because the kind of sex that is generally regarded as kosher in the LDS faith is going to result in a male orgasm but not a female one.

I even explained this to my husband and he didn’t have a good response, but he still will not back down on the “masturbation is always wrong, always” viewpoint. His argument is that masturbation is selfish and one-sided. Of course, regular ol’ intercourse can also be selfish and one-sided but that has the Lord’s stamp of approval (and it’s almost always one-sided in the favor of the male).

I don’t think it’s wrong within a marriage and several posters have mentioned situations where it’s even been encouraged by PH leaders. I would never judge or condemn a married couple who has decided it’s within healthy and appropriate boundaries for their marriage. But as much as I may want to, I can’t do it knowing that my husband is opposed to it.

[Joni]

I hope the Primary manuals get overhauled sooner rather than later. I am teaching out of the Primary Church History manual this year and it is horrid.

[Author]

Posts