#45835--Tithing and Income

[vorpal blade]

Great, now I have to understand the tax code to be a good Mormon!

LOL I feel your pain.

[Katya]

I once knew a man who figured his tithing on his net increase for the year. He would take his salary and deduct all his living expenses. His new car, his education expenses, his food, clothing, travel, and entertainment – all were living expenses. Essentially he ended up paying ten percent on his net increase in his savings account. If he had less money in the bank than the previous year he figured the Church owed him money.

Can we find no fault in him, because it is his decision between him and the Lord?

Out of curiosity, what, exactly, am I supposed to do once I've found fault in someone? Gossip? Whine? Pout? Tattle on him to the Stake President?

If I were his wife, I would take issue with his behavior. If I were his bishop and he was claiming to be a full tithe payer, I'd take the time to carefully explain the law of tithing. If I were his home teacher, I would bear my testimony of the blessings that come from paying an honest tithe. If I were God, I would see his heart and reward him in accordance with my perfect Law. However, I am none of those things, and while I may disagree with his choices, I don't see the point in fretting over them in my current position.

This life is not fair and if my only motivation for keeping a commandment is that everyone else has to do it, I'm going to spend my life very angry that not everyone else interprets every commandment and doctrine the way I do, and pointing out the motes in everyone else's eyes to the detriment of my own spiritual progression.

I don't endorse an "eat, drink, and be merry" mindset where you just hang out and have fun and never have to live with the results of your choices. However, we are very rarely in position where we have the knowledge and stewardship to righteously cast a severe judgment on another person, and most people could stand to work on their own relationship with God a bit more and gossip and judge a bit less.

[Benvolio]

Out of curiosity, what, exactly, am I supposed to do once I've found fault in someone? Gossip? Whine? Pout? Tattle on him to the Stake President?

My personal opinion on this subject depends on the particular fault. In the example above of the "creative tithe payer," it would depend on my relationship with him. If I was his ecclesiastical leader, I would probably feel the obligation to discuss the meaning of "increase" with him. I certainly wouldn't be granting him a valid temple recommend. I might have a similar duty to counsel him if I was his quorum leader, home teacher, etc. Other than that, I'd leave it alone.

However, I must note a significant exception to this rule. It's one thing to let someone do something I believe is erroneous when the issue is tithing. It's another thing entirely if there is an actual victim. If I have reason to believe that someone is committing abuse, especially that of a child, I wouldn't leave it alone. Depending on the situation and the legal and ethical obligations, I would disclose it to the proper legal and ecclesiastical authorities. There's no standing by in situations like that. I might feel a similar obligation in situations of fraud, theft, infidelity, etc., depending on the situation.

[Katya]

However, I must note a significant exception to this rule. It's one thing to let someone do something I believe is erroneous when the issue is tithing. It's another thing entirely if there is an actual victim. If I have reason to believe that someone is committing abuse, especially that of a child, I wouldn't leave it alone. Depending on the situation and the legal and ethical obligations, I would disclose it to the proper legal and ecclesiastical authorities. There's no standing by in situations like that. I might feel a similar obligation in situations of fraud, theft, infidelity, etc., depending on the situation.

Oh, of course. If it's a situation of abuse, you obviously has the ethical obligation to intervene. But if it's a matter of, I don't know, knowing that sister so-and-so shops on Sundays or drinks diet Coke or pay tithing on net instead of gross, I don't see the point in getting one's knickers in a twist. That's all I meant by saying that it's between the individual and God.

[vorpal blade]

I once knew a man who figured his tithing on his net increase for the year. He would take his salary and deduct all his living expenses. His new car, his education expenses, his food, clothing, travel, and entertainment – all were living expenses. Essentially he ended up paying ten percent on his net increase in his savings account. If he had less money in the bank than the previous year he figured the Church owed him money.

Can we find no fault in him, because it is his decision between him and the Lord?

Out of curiosity, what, exactly, am I supposed to do once I've found fault in someone? Gossip? Whine? Pout? Tattle on him to the Stake President?

If I were his wife, I would take issue with his behavior. If I were his bishop and he was claiming to be a full tithe payer, I'd take the time to carefully explain the law of tithing. If I were his home teacher, I would bear my testimony of the blessings that come from paying an honest tithe. If I were God, I would see his heart and reward him in accordance with my perfect Law. However, I am none of those things, and while I may disagree with his choices, I don't see the point in fretting over them in my current position.

This life is not fair and if my only motivation for keeping a commandment is that everyone else has to do it, I'm going to spend my life very angry that not everyone else interprets every commandment and doctrine the way I do, and pointing out the motes in everyone else's eyes to the detriment of my own spiritual progression.

I don't endorse an "eat, drink, and be merry" mindset where you just hang out and have fun and never have to live with the results of your choices. However, we are very rarely in position where we have the knowledge and stewardship to righteously cast a severe judgment on another person, and most people could stand to work on their own relationship with God a bit more and gossip and judge a bit less.

I agree that we cannot, and should not judge a person’s heart, or his intentions, or his sincerity. We are rarely in a position to cast severe judgment on a person because we don’t know what motivates him.

However, as Benvolio writes, “I certainly wouldn’t be granting him a valid temple recommend.” The point I was making is that we are capable of objectively determining whether or not someone has paid a full tithing based on what he does and without having to consider his understanding of the law of tithing. We are not judging the motives of the “creative tithe payer” when we say that he is not paying his tithing. If you give the Lord less than one tenth of your income you are making contributions. If you do it for the right reasons you will be blessed for it. But you cannot be said to be paying your tithing if you give less than ten percent of your income as God defines your income. Judging intent is between the individual and God. Judging keeping the law is objective and the only decision you can make is whether or not you are in compliance with the law. You don’t get a say in making or interpreting the law. It doesn’t depend on what you are comfortable with doing.

Even though a man might sincerely believe that baptism by sprinkling by his local priest should meet the commandment to be baptized, he is still mistaken and his baptism is of no effect. I’m sure there are blessings for his righteous desires and intent, but nevertheless he hasn’t really been baptized and it will have to be done over again, or he misses the blessings of baptism.

I don’t mean to say we should find fault with the man’s intentions, but we can objectively state that the sprinkled man was not really baptized, and the “creative tithe payer” did not keep the law of tithing. Their actions are inadequate and therefore at fault. They didn’t keep the law so they will not receive the blessings predicated on obedience to that law. What we are supposed to do with this knowledge of the fault of another is to be instructed as to what we must do. Perhaps some of us are also guilty of “creative tithe paying” which is easier to see in another than in ourselves.

Whether it is baptism or tithing, we must keep the commandment by the intent of our heart AND by exactness in doing it the way the Lord has said. Tithing is ten percent of our income, and God knows what that is, independently of what we think it is, and regardless of our sincerity in a false belief.

[bismark]

sorry vorpal blade, but you are incorrect. you are using a false analogy.

the required form of the baptismal ordinance has been laid out by revelation. the meaning of a tenth of one's increase has not been laid out. as a bishop, you may disagree with someone's personal interpretation of tithing. you may counsel them to prayerfully consider what the Lord would have them do. but ultimately it is up to the person if they declare they are a full tithe payer or not. you do not have the right to mark partial tithe if the person claims to have paid a full tithe.

[vorpal blade]

sorry vorpal blade, but you are incorrect. you are using a false analogy.

the required form of the baptismal ordinance has been laid out by revelation. the meaning of a tenth of one's increase has not been laid out. as a bishop, you may disagree with someone's personal interpretation of tithing. you may counsel them to prayerfully consider what the Lord would have them do. but ultimately it is up to the person if they declare they are a full tithe payer or not. you do not have the right to mark partial tithe if the person claims to have paid a full tithe.

I disagree for five reasons.

(1) The Lord knows whether or not a person has paid a full tithe, just as he knows whether or not your baptism is valid. Ultimately it is solely the Lord’s decision, not the tithe payer’s personal interpretation of tithing. The law is set and has nothing to do with interpretation.

(2) Clearly the person who pays tithing solely on his increase in his saving account is not living the law of tithing. No one, including the would-be tithe payer is justified in making a statement as to the definition of tithing other than one-tenth of all their income. The meaning of tithing, as well as the required form of baptism, has already been clearly laid out by revelation.

(3) A bishop does have the right to mark partial tithe if he believes the person is not paying a full tithe. In this case he marks the annual tithing status report as part tithing as determined by the bishop. The bishop is not bound by the patently false interpretation of the “creative tithe payer.”

(4) The annual tithing status report is reviewed and corrected by the stake president and sometimes the stake clerk for accuracy, including tithing status declarations.

(5) The “creative tithe payer” may sincerely declare himself a full tithe payer but be denied a temple recommend if the person conducting the interview feels inspired that the ”creative tithe payer” is not truly obeying the law of tithing.

[Tao]

An interesting set of points, please allow me to attempt to show my thoughts as I read them.

(1) The Lord knows whether or not a person has paid a full tithe, just as he knows whether or not your baptism is valid. Ultimately it is solely the Lord’s decision, not the tithe payer’s personal interpretation of tithing. The law is set and has nothing to do with interpretation.

I agree with this whole heartedly, but I think in my agreeing I actually take a different stance than either vorpal blade or bismark. In the end it is thankfully the Lord's understanding that will have eternal sway upon our decisions. The difficult part is that so many things are left for us to interpret as we grow and progress in this life. I personally interpret the laws of baptism differently than others and would say that while on the Earth, I think the Lord would be as likely to accept a Catholic baptism as a Mormon one.

(2) Clearly the person who pays tithing solely on his increase in his saving account is not living the law of tithing. No one, including the would-be tithe payer is justified in making a statement as to the definition of tithing other than one-tenth of all their income. The meaning of tithing, as well as the required form of baptism, has already been clearly laid out by revelation.

Again, interpretation plays a heavy role. While it is easy to proclaim a desire for an absolute literal rendition of the words of the prophets, it does not take much reductio ad absurdum to show this can get out of hand. Do you set aside one tenth of the dinner given to you at your company Christmas party? Do you count the beans you get out of your garden to be sure that the bishop gets one in ten? If you have animals, do you bequeath 10% of their meat, milk and offspring to the Church? Each of these represents income, and if we are giving less than that, are we not finding an interpretation of increase that satisfies our sense of obligation to the law? Could not someone who takes such an extremist (in my opinion) view of bean counting look upon me and say that "clearly the person who pays tithing solely on his monetary increase is not living the law of tithing"? While few in the church would define tithing as being other than one tenth of their income, 'income' is much less strictly quantized than 'one tenth'.

(4) The annual tithing status report is reviewed and corrected by the stake president and sometimes the stake clerk for accuracy, including tithing status declarations.

Yes, that makes sense to me, typos do occur and the Church is aware that mistakes do happen. Though I may have missed the thrust of this point, I agree with what I understand of it.

(3) A bishop does have the right to mark partial tithe if he believes the person is not paying a full tithe. In this case he marks the annual tithing status report as part tithing as determined by the bishop. The bishop is not bound by the patently false interpretation of the “creative tithe payer.”

(5) The “creative tithe payer” may sincerely declare himself a full tithe payer but be denied a temple recommend if the person conducting the interview feels inspired that the ”creative tithe payer” is not truly obeying the law of tithing.

While I agree that bishops may have the right that you describe, I can only hope that the bishops I work with choose not to exercise that right. Obeying the laws of the land is a temple recommend question, and if I claim to so do, when the bishop saw me pass him going one mile over the posted speed limit he would rightfully believe me to not only not be following that commandment, but obviously I am not "honest with my fellow man" either. I would posit a common thought exercise on a similar issue: you are a bishop over a young couple that have been dating for some time; the young woman comes in and confesses that they slipped into temptation and thoroughly broke the law of chastity. She turns in her recommend and continues the process of repentance. Later that week the young man comes in for a renewal of his recommend. He claims that he has his struggles, but they are not of note and he feels he is worthy to enter the House of the Lord. What do you do? Do you deny his recommend, claiming that you know he isn't worthy and that he will have to confess his indiscretion before you will permit him to continue? Does a forced confession hold any value in the process of humbling oneself and repenting? On the other hand, do you allow someone who in your eyes isn't worthy to enter into holy practices, perhaps further profaning himself in the process? neither option is correct for all cases. I believe that this is when the 'Judge in Israel' appeals to the King. God alone knows the situation fully. He will determine whether the bishop thanks the prodigal son for his desire to do temple work and the "creative tithe payer" for contributing what he has, or gently taking them aside and helping them clear up any attitudes or actions that might be hampering their progress. Remember that the law demanded that the woman taken in adultery be mercilessly slaughtered, yet Christ chose not to condemn (John 8:1-16). Other times he saw fit to cut hypocrisy off at its roots (Matt. 21:18-19)

These are my thoughts, poorly laid out though they may be.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

I personally interpret the laws of baptism differently than others and would say that while on the Earth, I think the Lord would be as likely to accept a Catholic baptism as a Mormon one.

If by the Lord accepting another baptism of someone who hasn't gained a testimony of the LDS church as a test of faith in Him and in Christ and rewards blessings accordingly, then yeah, I imagine that the Lord would bless someone who does their best to follow the commandments, including being baptized in another church. Not all the blessings, such as the gift of the Holy Ghost of course, but blessings nonetheless.

[Portia]

Wow. Firestorm! I've always found tithing to be one of the more dry parts of Mormon theology, personally . . .

[Nanti-SARRMM]

Wow. Firestorm! I've always found tithing to be one of the more dry parts of Mormon theology, personally . . .

Dry? Would you consider blessings being poured out of the windows of heaven to be dry? I don't think I would.

[jooniper]

Oh man, I typed a doozy of a reply late last night and hit submit just before going to bed, but apparently it didn't go through. Drat.

(1) The Lord knows whether or not a person has paid a full tithe, just as he knows whether or not your baptism is valid. Ultimately it is solely the Lord’s decision, not the tithe payer’s personal interpretation of tithing. The law is set and has nothing to do with interpretation.

All laws, and in fact anything being expressed in a human language, are subject to interpretation. I do agree that the decision is ultimately the Lord's, but I believe the Lord's decision will have to do with the state of the tithe-payer's heart, their intentions, and their commitment to follow THEIR UNDERSTANDING of the law. Just like I like to think that the Lord would still count a baptism as valid if one toe accidentally didn't get dunked.

The Lord doesn't need our tithing, just like he doesn't NEED us to pray- these are things that we are asked to do, I believe, more to benefit us than to benefit God. The goal is ultimately to make us as Christ-like in our hearts as possible, so if we are following the law to the best of our understanding, then that goal is being met. Only the Lord is capable of making that judgement- we have no way of looking at our neighbor and seeing if they are paying to the best of their knowledge and understanding, nor is it our business. If you interpret the law as "the requirement is to pay on the gross", but are paying on the net, then that is indicative of a problem- not because of the percentage you are paying but because of what it tells about the state of your heart, not following the law to the best of your own understanding.

(2) Clearly the person who pays tithing solely on his increase in his saving account is not living the law of tithing. No one, including the would-be tithe payer is justified in making a statement as to the definition of tithing other than one-tenth of all their income. The meaning of tithing, as well as the required form of baptism, has already been clearly laid out by revelation.

If it is so clearly laid out, how is this forum, so full of intelligent and presumably righteous people, so split on the interpretation. This is why I'm so glad that personal revelation exists, as well as the hierarchy of stewardship and revelation.

(3) A bishop does have the right to mark partial tithe if he believes the person is not paying a full tithe. In this case he marks the annual tithing status report as part tithing as determined by the bishop. The bishop is not bound by the patently false interpretation of the “creative tithe payer.”

If he believes the person is not paying what the person believes to be a full tithe, then yeah, he should note the person is not paying a full tithe. But what it comes down to should be if the person is following the law as they understand it. If their interpretation is different than the bishop's, then the bishop needs to educate them. If the person, after being educated and given a fuller, more correct understanding doesn't change their ways, then yeah, that's another problem- again, not because of the percentage paid, but because of what that says about the state of their heart.

(4) The annual tithing status report is reviewed and corrected by the stake president and sometimes the stake clerk for accuracy, including tithing status declarations.

I have no idea what is relevant about that. Does the stake clerk have the stewardship and guidance to decide that the bishop was wrong? Does he have access to my tax records to make sure it was on the gross?

(5) The “creative tithe payer” may sincerely declare himself a full tithe payer but be denied a temple recommend if the person conducting the interview feels inspired that the ”creative tithe payer” is not truly obeying the law of tithing.

"Creative tithe payer", to me, implies that the payer consciously tried to find a loophole in the law. If they did, that's bad. Obviously. BUT, it's possible for someone, through no "creative" process, to have a different understanding of the law. Until I met my Husband, I had always paid on the net- I hadn't even ever thought about paying on the gross. I sincerely believe that the Lord accepted my offering all the same because my heart was in a state of obedience to the law as I understood it, and I was willing to give whatever I felt the Lord required. Then I married and my husband mentioned the gross thing, and I prayed about it, and my understanding of the Law changed, through personal revelation (note: that means revelation just to me, I don't think it needs to apply to anyone else). From that moment on, tithing on the net wouldn't have been a full tithe for me because it wouldn't be 100% obedience to my new understanding of the law.
My point? I don't think the Lord cares what percentage we pay. If he did, he'd use his "revelation chain of command" (stewards within the church) to clarify.
I think he cares that we are doing our honest best to follow the Law as we understand it.

[bismark]

thanks jooniper for saying the things i wanted to say minus the snarkiness.

[jooniper]

I also wanted to throw in that I don't think the baptism argument is relevant. In the sprinkling example, it sounds like the problem is the authority of the ones doing the baptizing. Since that is a priesthood ordinance, authority is kind of important.
Tithing isn't an ordinance, (though it is implied in some covenants), but rather commandment to test our obedience and to help mold our hearts into what they should be.

[vorpal blade]

Tao, you are too modest. Your comments were thought provoking and very much to the point. You expressed yourself well. I wish I could do as well.

"I personally interpret the laws of baptism differently than others and would say that while on the Earth, I think the Lord would be as likely to accept a Catholic baptism as a Mormon one." Yes, you do seem to interpret the laws differently. I'm not sure what value a Catholic baptism has on Earth. It is performed by one who does not have the authority, so it is not recognized by the Lord. It is not really baptism because baptism by definition implies immersion. We know from the Book of Moroni that infant baptism is an evil abomination. Those baptized as Catholics will have to be rebaptized, either in this life or by proxy in the next life. In what way is the Lord going to accept a Catholic baptism?

"Could not someone who takes such an extremist (in my opinion) view of bean counting look upon me and say that "clearly the person who pays tithing solely on his monetary increase is not living the law of tithing"?" Tithing is one tenth of your income, which is not limited to your salary.

"I would posit a common thought exercise on a similar issue: you are a bishop over a young couple that have been dating for some time; the young woman comes in and confesses that they slipped into temptation and thoroughly broke the law of chastity. She turns in her recommend and continues the process of repentance. Later that week the young man comes in for a renewal of his recommend. He claims that he has his struggles, but they are not of note and he feels he is worthy to enter the House of the Lord. What do you do? Do you deny his recommend, claiming that you know he isn't worthy and that he will have to confess his indiscretion before you will permit him to continue? Does a forced confession hold any value in the process of humbling oneself and repenting? On the other hand, do you allow someone who in your eyes isn't worthy to enter into holy practices, perhaps further profaning himself in the process? neither option is correct for all cases. I believe that this is when the 'Judge in Israel' appeals to the King. God alone knows the situation fully. He will determine whether the bishop thanks the prodigal son for his desire to do temple work and the "creative tithe payer" for contributing what he has, or gently taking them aside and helping them clear up any attitudes or actions that might be hampering their progress. Remember that the law demanded that the woman taken in adultery be mercilessly slaughtered, yet Christ chose not to condemn (John 8:1-16). Other times he saw fit to cut hypocrisy off at its roots (Matt. 21:18-19)"

If I am the bishop then I do not sign the recommend if I know that the young man is guilty of serious moral transgression. If the young man denies his sin I would have to pray about it and try to find out the truth before I signed the recommend. If a member says to me that he is a full tithe payer I would take his word for it, realizing that if he is not a full tithe payer then he may be under some condemnation from the Lord. If, however, he tells me that he hasn't paid any tithing that year because his expenses have been great, but he still considers himself a full tithe payer then I probably would not give him a temple recommend, despite his good intentions and his sincere belief that the Lord considers him a full tithe payer.

[vorpal blade]

Wow. Firestorm! I've always found tithing to be one of the more dry parts of Mormon theology, personally . . .

Dry? Would you consider blessings being poured out of the windows of heaven to be dry? I don't think I would.

That's really clever, Nanti-SARRMM.

[vorpal blade]

All laws, and in fact anything being expressed in a human language, are subject to interpretation. I do agree that the decision is ultimately the Lord's, but I believe the Lord's decision will have to do with the state of the tithe-payer's heart, their intentions, and their commitment to follow THEIR UNDERSTANDING of the law. Just like I like to think that the Lord would still count a baptism as valid if one toe accidentally didn't get dunked.

I don't think we have the right to interpret God's laws. I do agree that we need the guidance of the Holy Ghost to know how to put into practice the laws, but we are not judged soley by our understanding or interpretation of the law.

Certainly the Lord's decision will have something to do with the state of the tithe-payer's heart, but that cannot be the whole story. Exactness in actually carrying out the commandment is also required. As Elder Uchtdorf recently said, the Lord expects more from us than merely a good effort. We know that the Lord does require us to baptize a person again if one toe accidentally comes up, as you've probably seen several times if you attended baptisms.

The Lord doesn't need our tithing, just like he doesn't NEED us to pray- these are things that we are asked to do, I believe, more to benefit us than to benefit God. The goal is ultimately to make us as Christ-like in our hearts as possible, so if we are following the law to the best of our understanding, then that goal is being met.

I partly agree with you, the goal is to make us Christ-like, but I disagree with your conclusion. Following the law to the best of our understanding won't get us to be Christ-like until we actually completely and totally obey the law. We are on the way, to be sure, but we haven't reached the goal yet.

Only the Lord is capable of making that judgement- we have no way of looking at our neighbor and seeing if they are paying to the best of their knowledge and understanding, nor is it our business.

I'm not concerned with whether or not my neigher is paying his tithing. I'm making my comments in the hope that someone will examine himself and see that he might be able to make some progress in keeping the law of tithing and reap the benefits of it.

If you interpret the law as "the requirement is to pay on the gross", but are paying on the net, then that is indicative of a problem- not because of the percentage you are paying but because of what it tells about the state of your heart, not following the law to the best of your own understanding.

We are in agreement that if you know you aren't living the law then your heart isn't right.

If it is so clearly laid out, how is this forum, so full of intelligent and presumably righteous people, so split on the interpretation. This is why I'm so glad that personal revelation exists, as well as the hierarchy of stewardship and revelation.

Some folks here were under the impression that what the government takes out in taxes was never their income to begin with. My stake president and bishops used to say that understanding the law of tithing is easy as long as you don't try to rationalize your behavior.

My point? I don't think the Lord cares what percentage we pay. If he did, he'd use his "revelation chain of command" (stewards within the church) to clarify.
I think he cares that we are doing our honest best to follow the Law as we understand it.

I think he definitely cares what is in our heart, but he also cares what percentage we pay. I think this is interesting. From Elder Daniel L. Johnson, Ensign November 2006.

"So what is a tithing? The Lord has given us His definition: “And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever.” Please note that the tithe is not just any freewill offering, nor is it a 20th or some other fraction of our annual interest or income.

President Howard W. Hunter stated it this way: “The law is simply stated as ‘one-tenth of all their interest.’ Interest means profit, compensation, increase. It is the wage of one employed, the profit from the operation of a business, the increase of one who grows or produces, or the income to a person from any other source. The Lord said it is a standing law ‘forever’ as it has been in the past.”

[vorpal blade]

I also wanted to throw in that I don't think the baptism argument is relevant. In the sprinkling example, it sounds like the problem is the authority of the ones doing the baptizing. Since that is a priesthood ordinance, authority is kind of important.
Tithing isn't an ordinance, (though it is implied in some covenants), but rather commandment to test our obedience and to help mold our hearts into what they should be.

An analogy is never perfect, but can be useful for illustrating a point. My apologies if you don't like my analogy. Pick another commandment, if you like. In which commandment is it okay to define what it means to keep that commandment, and then expect God to be bound to your definition? That's what I'm hearing in regard to tithing. Any amount we pay is keeping the commandment, and God will honor that as though we were fully keeping the commandment, as long as we are doing our best and we are sincere.

By the way, some people think it is okay to pay ten percent of their income to any charity they like, and count it as tithing. "Mighty free with the Lord's money," someone said. What they forget is that tithing must be paid to the person with the proper priesthood authority to act as the Lord's agent. It is very important. Kind of reminds me of baptism....

[Portia]

Come on, people! Let's put the page count on this one past the gay marriage and the gender role threads combined! WOO!

[bobtheenchantedone]

Come on, people! Let's put the page count on this one past the gay marriage and the gender role threads combined! WOO!

Wow, Portia... we're thinking the same thoughts, almost word for word!