Friend and tithing

[hostile]

10% is the minimum threshold and we are repeatedly encouraged to give more, if we have the means. I think it's in line with the spirit of 119:3-5.

I don't think I've heard anyone advocate more than a 10% tithing. I have heard several times that we should be generous with fast offerings. Maybe that is what you were saying? Apologies if I misread.

[pellegrino]

10% is the minimum threshold and we are repeatedly encouraged to give more, if we have the means. I think it's in line with the spirit of 119:3-5.

the question of what percent you pay isn't in question, but what that 10% is based on. Is it your gross, your net (after taxes), or your surplus (after basic needs are met)?

[Indy Coug]

I don't think I've heard anyone advocate more than a 10% tithing. I have heard several times that we should be generous with fast offerings. Maybe that is what you were saying? Apologies if I misread.

Tithing vs fast offerings (and humanitarian, perpetual education, etc.) is a pretty artificial distinction, but yes, that is what I was saying.

[Indy Coug]

the question of what percent you pay isn't in question, but what that 10% is based on. Is it your gross, your net (after taxes), or your surplus (after basic needs are met)?

I would read this with an agrarian society in mind, where some basic level of their output of their crops, animals, etc. were required to remain alive and the "surplus" was the actual increase upon which tithes would be based.

$0.02

[pellegrino]

I would read this with an agrarian society in mind, where some basic level of their output of their crops, animals, etc. were required to remain alive and the "surplus" was the actual increase upon which tithes would be based.

$0.02

agreed, but I would add to it that their surplus was also what was left after their basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter were met. So how does that translate to contemporary times? Nobody has adjusted the wording to the canon and all that comes from the pulpit is a reference to that scripture and the pronouncement that we're entitled to make our own decision and that it's between us and the Lord, the bishop is just the servant who records the tithing.

The more I look at the text, the more I think Brother Joseph intended for us to pay on our surplus, meaning what was left over after our needs were met.

[Indy Coug]

agreed, but I would add to it that their surplus was also what was left after their basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter were met. So how does that translate to contemporary times? Nobody has adjusted the wording to the canon and all that comes from the pulpit is a reference to that scripture and the pronouncement that we're entitled to make our own decision and that it's between us and the Lord, the bishop is just the servant who records the tithing.

The more I look at the text, the more I think Brother Joseph intended for us to pay on our surplus, meaning what was left over after our needs were met.

First, this D&C would be what the Lord intended, not Joseph Smith. Second, modern revelation has clarified what the acceptable current application is.

[pellegrino]

First, this D&C would be what the Lord intended, not Joseph Smith. Second, modern revelation has clarified what the acceptable current application is.

you never disappoint when it comes to being a stickler for details, Indy. I'm glad to see you posting and that your sabbatical was fruitful.

I don't know that modern revelation has clarified the issue.

[Moliere]

you never disappoint when it comes to being a stickler for details, Indy. I'm glad to see you posting and that your sabbatical was fruitful.

I don't know that modern revelation has clarified the issue.

The only explanation your bishop should give is that "increase" refers to "income" and I believe that explanation comes from people sustained as prophets.

I personally like Jacobs response. We declare whether or not we are a full tithe payer. The bishop doesn't declare it and the church doesn't declare it. Interpret the scripture and subsequent clarification however you want.

[NorthwestUteFan]

First, this D&C would be what the Lord intended, not Joseph Smith. Second, modern revelation has clarified what the acceptable current application is.

Going back to the teachings of the Jesus Himself, I would posit that the true meaning of the parable of the Good Samaritan is that we must sometimes overlook the trivial details of our religion* to offer TRUE Christ-like service to a brother in need**.


*(potentially touching a non-related deceased body and thus becoming ritually impure, or not paying a full tenth directly to the church)

**(figuratively in the parable, literally in this case).

[lambdacoug]

I have a good friend of mine that is a very strong mormon. But he is not afraid to do things the way he feels are right even if it does not exactly match up with mormon 'policy.'

He says that his brother is having a rough year (his brother owns a small business). They are waiting for paperwork to be signed to finish up a really nice deal for him, but it may take 3-6 months. His brother is in big financial distress waiting for this deal to be signed and is on the verge of losing his house. His brother did not want to go to the bishop to ask for help (I have no idea why and I didn't ask). So, my buddy says that he gave him $2500 to help save his house.

My friend said that was money for his tithing, but he had 'reassigned' it. His reasoning - if my brother can never pay it back, then it went to a great cause and he is 'square' with God and he considers himself a full tithe payer. If his brother can pay him back, then he will just turn that money around and give it back to the church as tithes. He considers that it is tithing put to good use to help his brother who is also helping building up the kingdom of God through church attendance, etc.

I just wished him and his brother luck. I thought about it - I am not sure if the church would agree (though I guess it doesn't matter because he believes that he is a full tithe payer, and that is his call)...but I am curious if God would agree. I know that my friend is a really good person. I am just wondering what others think - he may not be following the letter of the law in tithing, but I wonder if him doing this in the spirit of the law is just as good.

I have several friends that tithe this way. They are encouraged by their church to pay a full 10% tithing, but leave the allocation of the 10% up to the people donating. I don't get into with them much, so I don't know the details, but they were surprised to learn that mormons pay their tithe to the church and only the church. When I first heard of this I was still a member and I remember thinking to myself how much sense it made to do it that way, rather than the way I was doing it at the time. It just seems a lot more authentic and meaningful to me, if a church encourages tithing, but then gains nothing financially from doing so.

[Pelado]

I can't remember if we've discussed it here before, but what does everyone think about the actual wording of D&C 119:3-5? I'm particularly interested in knowing what people think of verse five and the concept of paying tithing on your surplus income, that is, after meeting your basic needs.

the question of what percent you pay isn't in question, but what that 10% is based on. Is it your gross, your net (after taxes), or your surplus (after basic needs are met)?

"The law of tithing is simple: we pay one-tenth of our individual increase annually. Increase has been interpreted by the First Presidency to mean income. What amounts to 10 percent of our individual income is between each of us and our Maker" - Pres. James Faust, 1998 Oct. General Conference.

Basing the 10% on the surplus income, per the statutory language, seems like an acceptable method, so long as you've cleared it with the Man Upstairs.

[Green Monstah]

First, this D&C would be what the Lord intended, not Joseph Smith. Second, modern revelation has clarified what the acceptable current application is.

What about the spirit of the law? I understand what you're saying, but it does come across as a wee bit Pharasaical (I know that word gets abused, so I apologize for resorting to using it).

[Jacob]

I can't remember if we've discussed it here before, but what does everyone think about the actual wording of D&C 119:3-5? I'm particularly interested in knowing what people think of verse five and the concept of paying tithing on your surplus income, that is, after meeting your basic needs.

It seems to me that you can't read v 5 without reference to v 1.

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion,
2 For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church.

3 And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.

4 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, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

5 Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.

The 10% interest is the law only after the member has first donated all it's surplus property to the church. By this, I think it means all surplus wealth, not income. If you own a second home, you donate it to the church, etc.

Only after having donated all that surplus, is the law to continue to contribute 10% of your interest. So, v 5 is not discussing surplus interest or income, it is a reference back to v 1 where all surplus properties are to be donated, then pay 10% after that. Again, not 10% of your surplus, 10% of your interest.

The church no longer requires the donation of all surplus prior to the law of 10%, so we have, in effect, determined that verses 1-2, and 5 are to be ignored. Only verses 3-4 apply. But to take those verses out of such context makes no rational sense to me. If we are ignoring the bulk of the revelation, then we ought to set aside the whole thing.

Our modern american definition of income came about long after the revelation with the 16th amendment to the constitution and the resulting development of the internal revenue code. It seems strange indeed to rely on the revenue code to determine what amounts are owed to God under his law of tithing.

We are left to rely on other revelations.

[Sullyute]

When I was in young men's and spent significant dollars, I would just deduct it from my tithing.

I have a hard time with this idea. I think that you are totally justified in doing this (and I would probably do the same), but where I have an issue is that then the Church has no idea what it takes to run a ward.

It seems that there is a huge push to keep the youth involved in the Church and more and more is expected of the youth leaders, but budgets are tightened all the time. I think that this gives gives faulty feedback to the Church that members are able to have great activities and retain the youth and do it all on a dime, when in reality leaders are taking it in the shorts to fund many of the things that are done.

I agree with everyone else on the Utestar original question, that it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks as long as his friend feels he is a full tithe payer.

[Mormon Red Death]

It seems to me that you can't read v 5 without reference to v 1.


The 10% interest is the law only after the member has first donated all it's surplus property to the church. By this, I think it means all surplus wealth, not income. If you own a second home, you donate it to the church, etc.

Only after having donated all that surplus, is the law to continue to contribute 10% of your interest. So, v 5 is not discussing surplus interest or income, it is a reference back to v 1 where all surplus properties are to be donated, then pay 10% after that. Again, not 10% of your surplus, 10% of your interest.

The church no longer requires the donation of all surplus prior to the law of 10%, so we have, in effect, determined that verses 1-2, and 5 are to be ignored. Only verses 3-4 apply. But to take those verses out of such context makes no rational sense to me. If we are ignoring the bulk of the revelation, then we ought to set aside the whole thing.

Our modern american definition of income came about long after the revelation with the 16th amendment to the constitution and the resulting development of the internal revenue code. It seems strange indeed to rely on the revenue code to determine what amounts are owed to God under his law of tithing.

We are left to rely on other revelations.

Interesting thoughts.. So then what does "interest" mean in verse 4?