Friend and tithing

[MarkGrace]

Utestar, I think your friend's heart is in a good place. I had a similar inclination last year, though it didn't involve family. My wife worked with this girl who was engaged to a dude from Puerto Rico. After they got engaged, they went down to PR to enjoy the holidays and meet more of his family. While they were at a dinner party, one of the uncles doused the entire place in some type of accelerant and threw a match on it. The girl who worked with my wife died, as did her fiance and many other family members at the party.

Just an incredibly tragic deal, and a massive financial burden for the families as they had to get the bodies treated in PR and flown home before even undertaking all the costs that go along with a funeral. A fund was set up for donations, and at the time we were backed up a handful of months on tithing. I told my wife I would just prefer to take that tithing money and donate it to the family. I couldn't get her to go for it, as she has a different kind of mental block about these sorts of things than I do. I don't mind paying tithing; hell, sometimes I even like it. But there are definitely times when it would make me feel better to give it to someone else besides a guy in a suit at church.

[Solon]

I have my own opinions on how the LDS church goes about defining, collecting, and managing tithing, but I don't have much of interest to add to this thread other than this:

From the 2010 CHOI (volume 1, pg 125, 14.4.1)

Definition of Tithing

The First Presidency has written: "The simplest statement we know of is the statement of the Lord himself, namely, 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" (First Presidency letter, Mar. 19, 1970; see also D&C 119:4).

[Rosebud]

From the 2010 CHOI (volume 1, pg 125, 14.4.1)

Definition of Tithing

The First Presidency has written: "The simplest statement we know of is the statement of the Lord himself, namely, 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" (First Presidency letter, Mar. 19, 1970; see also D&C 119:4)

And thus the issue is settled. Answers make life easy. (And nothing besides "the" answer is justified.)

Done.

[falafel]

And thus the issue is settled. Answers make life easy. (And nothing besides "the" answer is justified.)

Done.

I doubt Solon is making the point you seem to be mocking.

[creekster]

And thus the issue is settled. Answers make life easy. (And nothing besides "the" answer is justified.)

Done.

Isn't the CHOI statement precisely the opposite of this? Please direct us to any clue that statement provides on the gross/net debate.

[Rosebud]

I doubt Solon is making the point you seem to be mocking.

So do I.

[Rosebud]

Isn't the CHOI statement precisely the opposite of this?

chuckle

Please direct us to any clue that statement provides on the gross/net debate.

Sorry, I only skimmed the thread.

[myboynoah]

I pay on gross. I look at it as kind of a higher law type of thing.

[Jarid in Cedar]

I pay on gross. I look at it as kind of a higher law type of thing.

Sometime, a person is obligated to point out the obvious

[creekster]

chuckle



Sorry, I only skimmed the thread.

Chuckle? Want to explain why it merited a chuckle?

Forget gross/net, then, what guidance does thew CHOI stament on tithing give?

[Rosebud]

Chuckle? Want to explain why it merited a chuckle?

Forget gross/net, then, what guidance does thew CHOI stament on tithing give?

That's the point, isn't it?

[creekster]

That's the point, isn't it?

Only if you are agreeing with me. Everyone is entitled to copnclude what they want and then decalre it without comment. I see this as good. I am glad the CHOI is vague.

[Rosebud]

Only if you are agreeing with me. Everyone is entitled to copnclude what they want and then decalre it without comment. I see this as good. I am glad the CHOI is vague.

If the primary concern is the gross/net debate, then I agree. If the primary concern is whether or not the church has the authority to speak for god, define tithing, and declare what others are and aren't justified in stating, then I disagree.

[creekster]

If the primary concern is the gross/net debate, then I agree. If the primary concern is whether or not the church has the authority to speak for god, define tithing, and declare what others are and aren't justified in stating, then I disagree.

With respect, I think this would be a more frutiful exchange if you read the thread first.

[Rosebud]

With respect, I think this would be a more frutiful exchange if you read the thread first.

If the thread deteriorated into the worn out gross/net debate, that's too bad. How many times will we point out that the church is intentionally vague on that subject?

The first post speaks to whether or not the church has the authority to define tithing as donations made expressly to the organization and no other individual or organization. That's a much more interesting conversation, IMO.