Friend and tithing

[creekster]

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.

OK, I'll bite: apart from your already stated conclusion on the more interesting subject, what do you think?

[Rosebud]

OK, I'll bite: apart from your already stated conclusion on the more interesting subject, what do you think?

About the gross/net debate?

[pellegrino]

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:

I would find that interesting.

[creekster]

About the gross/net debate?

Now you are doing it on purpose.

Unless I misread you, the only previously offered conclusion on your part related to the church's ostensible authority to speak for god. Thus, I was asking about the second topic, although I can see how my question was ambiguous.

[Rosebud]

Now you are doing it on purpose.

Unless I misread you, the only previously offered conclusion on your part related to the church's ostensible authority to speak for god. Thus, I was asking about the second topic, although I can see how my question was ambiguous.

But the second topic IS the church's ostensible authority to speak for god. So why ask me about the silly (and "vague" mind you) gross/net debate?

[pellegrino]

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.

I'll take responsibility for the thread jack, but it wasn't to discuss gross vs net, but rather surplus vs any other interpretation. To my knowledge we haven't really had that debate. However, knowing my luck someone will post some old link from 2009.

[creekster]

But the second topic IS the church's ostensible authority to speak for god. So why ask me about the silly (and "vague" mind you) gross/net debate?

I didnt.

At this point, I am sure you would join me in saying "'Sorry I brought it up."

[creekster]

I'll take responsibility for the thread jack, but it wasn't to discuss gross vs net, but rather surplus vs any other interpretation. To my knowledge we haven't really had that debate. However, knowing my luck someone will post some old link from 2009.

We didnt! Geez, i only used it as shorthand ofr the typw of questiojn someone might have. I apologize. I really, truly, do. Forget I said anything at all. Rosebud, my apology. Please ignore my posts altogether.

[Rosebud]

I didnt.

At this point, I am sure you would join me in saying "'Sorry I brought it up."

Sorry, too. I'll stop messing. I guess it's hard to resist. Are you sure you don't want me to dissect the meaning (or lack of meaning) of all official pronouncements on gross/net? I'm sure I could give you a beautiful rendition.

I'll take responsibility for the thread jack, but it wasn't to discuss gross vs net, but rather surplus vs any other interpretation. To my knowledge we haven't really had that debate. However, knowing my luck someone will post some old link from 2009.

Oh, I'll have to go find your post.

[cowboy]

Sorry, too. I'll stop messing. I guess it's hard to resist. Are you sure you don't want me to dissect the meaning (or lack of meaning) of all official pronouncements on gross/net? I'm sure I could give you a beautiful rendition.

Whatever it takes.

[Rosebud]

Whatever it takes.

So that means you DO want to hear my rendition?

[HauteCoug]

Clueless, Viking, and I have had a few good discussions on this, and I'd love Doctor Coug's input, too. Ultimately it is most important to take care of your family and those who rely on you for food and the basic necessities. I have no problem saying that God understands your heart and intentions. The gross vs. net thing is pretty silly, and I hate the guilt complex that comes along with it.

Here's something that is difficult for me to take: I love giving gifts to other people, especially when they're things that they ordinarily wouldn't be able to have, be it a friend who's never spoiled herself so her kids could have what they needed or even a family who can't afford any sort of Christmas. It is so invigorating.

Giving 10% of my income (by my definition that I am comfortable God will agree with) is something I'll do because I hope that one day I'll really comprehend the doctrine, but it doesn't bring the same charitable feeling. At all. And I think that's something that is needing more emphasis.

[Uncle Ted]

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

I am guessing that most of the self-employed have no chance of living this higher law so they should just give up now.

I am thinking maybe I should pay my tithing directly to BYU. I like to think all my tithing goes there anyway and not toward lame investments like multi-billion dollar shopping malls that are not open on one of the busiest mall shopping day of the week and seem like just an attempt to boost the local economy of Utah or, at least, line the pockets of LDS-owned construction companies.

[Portland Ute]

So that means you DO want to hear my rendition?

What is your intention in this thread?

[RobinFinderson]

The only way I would pay tithing is if I were drunk, and then I would be drunk tithing. Friends don't let friends tithe drunk. That is all I have to say on this subject.