Tithing Settlement

I've always understood tithing settlement as an opportunity for members to declare to the bishop their status as tithe payers. Essentially, you're declaring a habit of paying tithing or not--meaning you don't have to 100% up-to-date on that particular Sunday, as long as you pay your tithing. That being true, what is the use of printing the tithing settlement statement and handing it to members the day of tithing settlement? The Bishop does not need to record those donations on that form, not does he need to record the declaration on that form for the member. Just seems like added confusion to an already chaotic process. Thoughts? If the process has been followed, the member has already received a recent donor statement showing YTD contributions. Why then can't the member just meet with the Bishop, declare his/her status, and the Bishop records it on the Tithing Declaration Report for later submission?

I think the member would like a "current" listing when they go in to make their declaration. It's also a chance for the member to point out any errors.

I'm sure the member does...the confusion comes from the space at the bottom of the Tithing Settlement Statement. It has room for additional donations made during tithing settlement time. It's as if you should record those donations (by hand) and then check the "Declaration of Tithing Status" box. Because of that, the member walks into the Bishop's office, gives him the forms, almost expecting the Bishop to fill them out. The Bishop, however, doesn't have time or energy to fill all that out and keep his own record of each member's declared status. It just seems like a lot of wasted time and effort. In theory, the errors should all be caught when the 1st statement is given to members, one month before tithing settlement. If we simply printed a donor statement, rather than the settlement statement, the member would have an updated sheet. Am I missing something?

I'd guess that the member's declaration may be dependent on the last-minute donation to declare themselves "full". And some members would rather give it to the bishop directly.

I understand what you're saying, but it would take a shift on the member's part to accept that.

The purpose for giving the statement one month before is so members can check their records against what the Church has. Any discrepancies can be settled or looked into by the clerk and the member before the interview.

Between receiving the first statement and tithing settlement interview a member can make other contributions. The statement given at the time of the interview is another opportunity to find any discrepancies and for the member to verify the adjustments found previously have been rectified.

Both settlement forms are for the member and they can do with them as they see fit. There is no need for the member to bring the form into the interview. The ability for adding information to the form is again for the benefit of the member and is not to be considered an official final statement of contributions. The tax valid statement in January is the official statement a member uses for their records.

jjone389 wrote:I've always understood tithing settlement as an opportunity for members to declare to the bishop their status as tithe payers. Essentially, you're declaring a habit of paying tithing or not--meaning you don't have to 100% up-to-date on that particular Sunday, as long as you pay your tithing.

I believe this statement is generally correct, but not technically true. By that I mean that a member really is declaring to the bishop whether or not they have paid a full tithing for the year. A member may have started paying tithing in March, and now have a habit of paying tithing, but he or she is not a full tithe payer if income was earned before March and tithing not paid.

So the member is not really declaring a "habit" of paying tithing. The member is declaring whether or not a full tithing has been paid. In earlier times, tithing settlement was actually when tithing was paid. The crops were in for the fall, and farmers were able to calculate a tenth of their increase for the year. They paid the bishop at tithing settlement. (This is still allowed, by the way.)

Having a habit of paying tithing comes in, I believe, when a member declares to the bishop at tithing settlement that a full tithing has been paid so far, but the member pays as income is received, and informs the bishop that there will be more tithing for the year as paychecks come in toward the end of December.

One of the most interesting challenges I had was convincing a member who had faithfully paid tithing all year long that he did not have to come over to the bishop's home on New Year's Eve to pay tithing on the December 31st paycheck. He could still declare a full tithing if he paid his tithing the following Sunday, as he had been doing for the last 100 years. That is where the habit comes in.

I am glad for the form used at tithing settlement. It allows a bishop to teach a member about the principle of tithing, make notes that may assist the member in keeping this commandment, and help a member to feel they have done what they should to be obedient.

lajackson wrote:

jjone389 wrote:I've always understood tithing settlement as an opportunity for members to declare to the bishop their status as tithe payers. Essentially, you're declaring a habit of paying tithing or not--meaning you don't have to 100% up-to-date on that particular Sunday, as long as you pay your tithing.

I believe this statement is generally correct, but not technically true. By that I mean that a member really is declaring to the bishop whether or not they have paid a full tithing for the year.

As long as we're trying to be "technically true," I would adjust your use of the past tense in your statements. A person who attends tithing settlement on November 16 is unlikely to "have paid a full tithing" for the entire year. What they are declaring is that they are a full-tithe payer for the year, which may include an implicit (or explicit) promise to make payment(s) through the end of the year to make that a reality.

lajackson wrote:A member may have started paying tithing in March, and now have a habit of paying tithing, but he or she is not a full tithe payer if income was earned before March and tithing not paid.

And one other minor adjustment to this issue: I agree completely with the above statement if the person was a member for the whole year. But if they were baptized at some point during the year, their only responsibility in order to be a full-tithe payer for the year is to pay tithing on income earned since they were baptized.

aebrown wrote:As long as we're trying to be "technically true,"

You worded it better than I, and it sure beats everyone showing up on December 31st for tithing settlement.

aebrown wrote:. . . their only responsibility in order to be a full-tithe payer for the year is to pay tithing on income earned since they were baptized.

Absolutely correct. Increase before baptism does not need to be included in the calculation.

It is also very likely that the process doesn't really make sense anymore, it hasn't changed in any significant way in 20-30 years, since we've been doing finances with computers. Nobody is old enough to remember why we do it the way we do - so we makeup reasons why its the way it is (these made up reasons are not necessarily wrong, there are many principles that can be taught, reinforced or learned through tithing settlement).

Tithing Settlement is the way it is because tithing was initially understood as a tithe of increase year-over-year (drawing a salary was not very common) and it took time evaluating what increases in the family pig, goat, chicken, cow, horse, onions, potatoes, wheat, disaster, famine, disease truly was.

I'd be just as happy to fill out a form and check a box that tells my bishop that I'm a full-tithe payer. Maybe we could have TS on the off-year of our TR interview in which we basically do the same thing. I'm not particularly interested interested in whether I'm full in 2015 or 2014, but each time I receive certain callings, when I go to my TR interviews, etc.. I am accounting for my Tithing status. Sometimes I think we do things for years longer than they need to be done because we fail to stop and question their real need/value (or at least consider the value vs something else, etc...)

Amen, John Shaw. Amen. After participating in Tithing Settlement for a few years as the financial clerk I came to the same conclusion, which is, that Tithing Settlement is essentially left over from a bygone era and it is not necessary. Of course, Bishops will tell you that it's valuable because it might be the only "interview time" they have with some ward members. Well, if that's the purpose, then let's not call it "Tithing Settlement" anymore and, instead, be honest about the purpose.

On these forums I've seen countless requests to automate many aspects of church service and/or create apps for many aspects of church functions. People want to make donations online, to manage home teaching online, to access all MLS functions online, etc.. I'm surprised there haven't been more requests to implement an online version of Tithing Settlement. There are places where the majority of members of a given ward may live in a concentrated area which isn't particularly close to the meetinghouse. Yet everyone has travel to the Bishop's office for Tithing Settlement (on cold, wintery evenings) just to officially say "Full Tithe Payer" and then go home. (Let's face it. Very few members who are not full tithe payers will bother to go to Tithing Settlement.) And the clerk has to sit in another room for several hours doing little more than printing a few papers and waiting. It seems unnecessary to me.

President Hinckley gave a very interesting talk in the October 2002 Priesthood Session of General Conference (https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... d?lang=eng) which has often made me wonder what happened behind-the-scenes. He said…

...we know that the administrative load is very heavy on our bishops and stake presidents, as well as some others. An awareness of that fact has led the Presidency and the Twelve to hold a number of meetings, some of them long and interesting, in which in effect we have taken the Church apart and then put it together again. Our objective has been to see whether there might be some programs we could do away with. But as we have analyzed these, we have not seen much that could be dropped. To drop one is like giving away one of your children. You haven’t the heart to do it.

I can only speculate about what programs and elements of the church almost didn't make the cut. I have my own wish list of things that should be dropped, of course, but I'll just have to wait and pray.

aebrown wrote:But if they were baptized at some point during the year, their only responsibility in order to be a full-tithe payer for the year is to pay tithing on income earned since they were baptized.

So how does it work when a less-active member returns to full activity and wants to get a temple recommend again after having stopped paying tithing for a period of time? Suppose, for example, that I started being a full tithe payer again in February and have been faithful in all other ways. Do I owe "back tithing" before I can get another temple recommend? Do I have to wait until the new year before I can become an official, full-tithe payer?

mrrad wrote:

aebrown wrote:But if they were baptized at some point during the year, their only responsibility in order to be a full-tithe payer for the year is to pay tithing on income earned since they were baptized.

So how does it work when a less-active member returns to full activity and wants to get a temple recommend again after having stopped paying tithing for a period of time? Suppose, for example, that I started being a full tithe payer again in February and have been faithful in all other ways. Do I owe "back tithing" before I can get another temple recommend? Do I have to wait until the new year before I can become an official, full-tithe payer?

The question about a new convert is addressed directly in Handbook 1, but there is no similar guidance on the subject of reactivation. I could certainly imagine that there could be different answers for the official tithing settlement versus temple worthiness. So I would say that it is the bishop's call, perhaps in consultation with the stake president.

mrrad wrote:So how does it work when a less-active member returns to full activity and wants to get a temple recommend again after having stopped paying tithing for a period of time? . . . Do I have to wait until the new year before I can become an official, full-tithe payer?

For tithing settlement, a full-tithe payer is a donor whose tithing is "one-tenth of all their interest annually" (D&C 119), which the First Presidency has stated is understood to mean income (FP Letter, March 19, 1970). As aebrown mentioned, converts who have paid a full tithe since baptism are considered to be full-tithe payers.

The question are you a full-tithe payer in a temple recommend interview relates more to a member's current status as a tithe payer and is not an accounting of tithing status for the year.

aebrown wrote:The question about a new convert is addressed directly in Handbook 1, but there is no similar guidance on the subject of reactivation. I could certainly imagine that there could be different answers for the official tithing settlement versus temple worthiness. So I would say that it is the bishop's call, perhaps in consultation with the stake president.

This is correct. I would hardly consider not paying tithing a "serious transgression" (other than the eternal consequences), but the standard for a temple recommend in that circumstance provides a bishop guidance in the matter of paying tithing. The standard for issuing a recommend is that the member has repented. The waiting period between the transgression and the issuing of a recommend is left to the bishop's discretion. When the bishop feels the time has been sufficient to determine that the member has genuinely repented, he may issue a recommend.

Using that standard, if a member stopped paying tithing for a season, I would not expect a bishop to issue a recommend at the first payment of tithing that followed. In my experience, bishops and stake presidents would expect a member to have demonstrated a change in the member's commitment to paying tithing over a certain period of time before issuing a recommend.

As aebrown correctly says, it is the bishop's call and the stake president, who will also sign the recommend, will also have a say. In my experience, several months of paying tithing will usually demonstrate a change of heart, and the Spirit will confirm to the bishop and stake president that a member is once again "a full-tithe payer" without having to wait until an official declaration of tithing status for the year at tithing settlement.

So, as long as we're speaking in "technicalities" here, are we saying that a person could be a full-tithe payer for the purposes of a temple recommend but not be a full-tithe payer for the purposes of tithing settlement? Pretend I was "less-active" for a period of time but I came back in February and started paying tithing again. I went to the Bishop in November to get a temple recommend and I had been a full-tithe payer for at least 9 months already, so I obtained the recommend. But then when I went to Tithing Settlement in December I had to be a "part-tithe" payer for the year 2014 because I never made up for not paying tithing in January. Is that, technically, the way this situation should appear on the paperwork? I was declared a part-tithe payer just a month after legitimately receiving my temple recommend yet I hadn't stopped paying a full tithe after receiving my temple recommend.

In that case, I'd hope that the Bishop would put something clear in the "notes" box at the end of my tithing declaration because, otherwise, a stake leader might see the discrepancy on the paperwork after January 31st and de-authorize the temple recommend.

If we go back to the "old days" (Pre-computer), the Tithing forms were printed in triplicate (carbon paper) by SLC and sent to the Wards. Every week you manually entered the donations, both on the typed receipt (3 to a page on NCR paper) and hand entered the donation on the Tithing Report. Because donations were entered until December 31st on this report could possibly be the "carry over" that is being discussed. Of the 10 Bishops that I served under as clerk, they had the counselors collect and "additional" donations when the individual came in for TS. The Bishop used the form for the individual to record their status, then typically at a later time either he or the clerk enters the information into the Tithing Status Report that is submitted to the Stake and SLC. The Bishop would not want to use this form when he is interviewing individuals/families as it shows many people per page and that information is confidential.

mrrad wrote:In that case, I'd hope that the Bishop would put something clear in the "notes" box at the end of my tithing declaration because, otherwise, a stake leader might see the discrepancy on the paperwork after January 31st and de-authorize the temple recommend.

I can't imagine that a member of the stake presidency would presume to cancel a temple recommend in that situation without first consulting with the bishop. It certainly would never happen in my stake.

mrrad wrote:So, as long as we're speaking in "technicalities" here, are we saying that a person could be a full-tithe payer for the purposes of a temple recommend but not be a full-tithe payer for the purposes of tithing settlement? . . . [In the example given] I was declared a part-tithe payer just a month after legitimately receiving my temple recommend yet I hadn't stopped paying a full tithe after receiving my temple recommend.

Yes. The example you have given is possible, and in my experience has occasionally happened. The tithing settlement visit usually takes a little longer in those circumstances.

mrrad wrote:In that case, I'd hope that the Bishop would put something clear in the "notes" box at the end of my tithing declaration because, otherwise, a stake leader might see the discrepancy on the paperwork after January 31st and de-authorize the temple recommend.

I echo aebrown's comment. First, it would never happen in our stake, and second, counselors need the permission of the stake president to cancel a recommend. Ours usually does it himself, rather than asking a counselor to do it. Besides, the counselors would not see the annual tithing report.

Our presidency also knows the difference between the temple recommend requirement and the tithing settlement requirement.

I don't want to bandy words, but I just want to state some things after I have read all of the above comments. I go to tithing settlement to declare my status to my Father in Heaven. Not to my bishop and not to mankind. I am pleased that I have this opportunity with my bishop to do so, because he holds those keys. Other members can feel of the importance, by doing the same thing and declaring their dealings with the Lord. This is Christs' church and tithing settlement is a part of it (I don't foresee this going away at all). Its a great time for members to reflect upon their dealings with the Lord. As leaders we are required to give much, and we should be serving the Lord because we love him, despite the long hours. They are many sacrifices to be made when serving in the church as leaders. And as a clerk I am very grateful to assist the bishop in this process. It just reaffirms to me that the Lord is in charge of his Church.

Years ago I had a Bishop whose Tithing Settlement "Interview" lasted only about a minute. Honestly, it was little more than "Hello. Welcome to Tithing Settlement. Are you a full-tithe payer? Okay. Thanks for coming here tonight." Maybe he just didn't like me and/or just didn't want to talk to me (and didn't want to talk to my parents either, because they had a similar experience). In the end, however, I realized that he'd done his duty. It really could be as simple as that.

mrrad wrote:Years ago I had a Bishop whose Tithing Settlement "Interview" lasted only about a minute.

Yes, he did his duty. On the other hand, my bishops have taken the opportunity to use the visit for other things than just a declaration of tithing status.

For those who are not full-tithe payers, it becomes an opportunity to teach the blessings of this commandment. For those who are, and who contribute other offerings, it becomes an opportunity for the bishop to express his appreciation for their contributions. When a family is present, a bishop might take a minute or two on another topic that will help the family better live the gospel, a simple goal suggestion, a word of encouragement, a scripture he may be inspired to share with that particular individual or family. Very few bishops would not take advantage of an opportunity such as this to meet with a member and simply get a tithing declaration that could have been phoned in.

That said, the most thorough personal worthiness interview I ever had in my lifetime lasted less than 60 seconds.

I love tithing settlement. I came to that over many years sitting in the clerk's office while my bishop interviewed faithful members. A bonus is that I get to visit with them while they wait their turn. It is a great opportunity to get to know people - some of whom have not come to church in years, but they come to tithing settlement when we invite them. My current bishop used this year's interviews to ask the members in what areas they felt a need to improve. And then challenged them to set specific goals that would lead to change. I have no idea what anyone else said, but I know for me it was an opportunity to reflect on my life and commit to some changes. In my opinion, tithing settlement can and should be so much more than a simple declaration of status.

idjeeper2 wrote:I love tithing settlement. I came to that over many years sitting in the clerk's office while my bishop interviewed faithful members. A bonus is that I get to visit with them while they wait their turn. It is a great opportunity to get to know people - some of whom have not come to church in years, but they come to tithing settlement when we invite them. My current bishop used this year's interviews to ask the members in what areas they felt a need to improve. And then challenged them to set specific goals that would lead to change. I have no idea what anyone else said, but I know for me it was an opportunity to reflect on my life and commit to some changes. In my opinion, tithing settlement can and should be so much more than a simple declaration of status.

This sounds to me like about 1% tithing settlement and 99% not tithing settlement. Isn't this an argument, in fact, in favor of revamping TS? This sounds more like a End of Year - Family PPI than it does tithing settlement. If Bishops want family PPI's then they should schedule them, if they want tithing settlement, then they should schedule that.

Our ward did a "tithing settlement breakfast" yesterday and will do another next Saturday to get the bulk of the tithing settlement interviews completed (some members will still need to set appointments the old-fashioned way). It seems to go really well – everyone comes and enjoys a ward breakfast together, and members are called in one by one for their tithing settlement during the breakfast.

What a great innovation, this would be a very good thing, especially, for those that have a lengthy drive to the meetinghouse. Ward Activity / Tithing Settlement layering is a great... well done!

johnshaw wrote:This sounds more like a End of Year - Family PPI than it does tithing settlement. If Bishops want family PPI's then they should schedule them, if they want tithing settlement, then they should schedule that.

You make a valid point but let me offer examples to defend my Bishop's approach: In Handbook 1 Section 5.2.1 the Bishopric is instructed to teach the Law of the Fast and encourage members to live it. It then states that this should be taught in all types of meetings, home visits, temple recommend interviews, and tithing settlement interviews. If tithing settlement interviews are appropriate to teach the Law of the Fast, it seems they would also be appropriate to offer other types of teaching and counsel. Handbook 2 Section 14.4.1 further supports this stating that tithing settlement should be used to discuss tithing, fast offerings and other relevant matters. Relevant matters is a pretty broad area for discussion. In my mind, a simple yes or no to full-tithe status meets the letter of the instruction, but completely misses the spirit of being able to declare to Heavenly Father and His appointed witness how I'm doing with respect to living this commandment.

In reality, I believe there is room for every viewpoint on this and it is ultimately the Bishop's call on how he wants to conduct tithing settlement. My job as clerk is to support him in the process. If that means I sit in the clerk's office for a couple of days, I'll gladly do it. The breakfast idea sounds like it could be a fun way to do things, perhaps something like a brunch that could be served over a few hours so everyone wouldn't have to be there at the same time. Or maybe have some service or craft projects to keep the members around. I may make some suggestions like this next year.

idjeeper2 wrote:In reality, I believe there is room for every viewpoint on this...

Good. Please don't think I'm wicked just because I think there could be a better way, which, to me, is something President Hinckley was at least exploring a few years ago.

I'm reminded of the story of the mother and daughter who always cut the head and tail off the fish before frying them. They never knew why it was done this way but assumed it was an essential part of frying fish. Then the mother asked the grandmother (who taught her how to cook) and she said, simply, that the frying pan she was using in the old days wasn't big enough to hold the whole fish. There was no practical reason to cut the head and tail off anymore! Please take note of johnshaw's signature on his posts.

And so we continue to hold tithing settlement in a way reminiscent of when members paid tithing in-kind with livestock although I don't think it's necessary anymore. I can't help thinking that our primary purpose, nowadays, is providing statistics for some number-crunching department at CHQ. I would love to see the members, themselves, have the chance to choose what type of tithing settlement they want. Do they want "express" where they can just hand the Bishop a note with a box checked on it or do they want the "full version" which requires a special trip to the meetinghouse? (In the past, I certainly did see notes tucked into donation envelopes saying "I'm a full-tithe payer" and then those donors didn't sign up for appointments. Does the Bishop count that as a "member" or a "Bishop" declaration on his reports, seeing as how he didn't have a face-to-face conversation with the donor?)

My point in quoting President Hinckley is that, at some point, there was momentum towards lifting the "very heavy" administrative load from priesthood leaders and I think that tithing settlement would be a great thing to consider in this light. December is already a very busy month with any number of Christmas parties for families, co-workers, civic groups, clubs and the ward, along with shopping, cleaning, meeting any number of year-end deadlines and planning vacations and doing vacations… not to mention the increased number of weddings around that time of year. So we mix tithing settlement into that (along with a lot of bad driving conditions in many areas) and, well, could there not be a better way to do this (if it's really needed anyway)?

The last thing I would want to convey is that someone is wrong because they have a different viewpoint. I particularly agree with your comments about the burdens placed on our good bishops. I believe that may be one reason the date for starting tithing settlement continues to come earlier. We were done before Thanksgiving except for a few reschedules. It's really nice to be able to go into the holiday season without having to work it into everyone's schedule.

Thanks to all for a good exchange of ideas. I appreciate the different perspectives.