When Scripture and Policy are in apparent conflict.

So, which prevails? The original wording and meaning from 1838, or the FP letter from 1970 — considering the CHI is not doctrine? Does an administrative bulletin from a more recent prophet supercede the revelation in our canon?

The interpretation that prevails is the one we choose to follow.

Current CHI Book 1, 14.4.1, Definition of Tithing: (not going to quote the whole paragraph)

It references D&C 119:4 and states that “all their interest annually” “is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this.” (First Presidency letter, March 19, 1970)

That is the official policy of the current people running the show, as published in their policy manual. Is it Official Doctrine? No, not by the stricter definition that I choose to accept. But I can’t say it isn’t Official Policy. It is.

All that aside, I still loop back to my original statement conclusion. The interpretation that prevails is the one we choose to accept.

Income still doesn’t indicate net or gross. Personally, I think it’s a principle of faith, and the more you pay, the more you benefit from the detachment from worldly goods – the freer you are from attachment to wealth. But that’s also easy to say from where I’m sitting. Flat tithing is a regressive tax that penalizes the poor more than the rich because the poor have a greater percentage of their income that goes toward living costs.

In any case, being a full tithe payer is self-reported. They don’t go over your W-4. So to me, that means, it’s between you and God.

I can’t think of much that we do on Sundays that is spelled out clearly in the scriptures. I often wonder where it all comes from.

Income still doesn’t indicate net or gross. Personally, I think it’s a principle of faith, and the more you pay, the more you benefit from the detachment from worldly goods – the freer you are from attachment to wealth.

Reminds me of the story of the farmer who decided to train his mules not to eat. Problem was as soon as they were trained, they up and died on him.

I remember one quotation years ago where a GA said “a parent would rather see their child buried than have them subject to a sexual violation or moral transgression” (i’m paraphrasing, but the gist was that being buried was preferable to some form of sexuality outside of marriage, I’m not sure the exact kind).

That is a sad, sad, sad, quote. I will never tell my kids that God teaches that as part of His gospel…I cannot accept that. But yes, there are times and circumstances where church leaders make some bold claims…and that is why it becomes sooooooo important to develop our own discernment.

these many disconnects has been to make me feel free to interpret everything myself — while being honest about my spiritual feelings and my conscience, and weighing all the information seriously.

That is a great, great, great quote. That is what I want to teach my kids is part of God’s gospel and as we progress and mature to develop Christ-like attributes. Well said, SD.

the people at the top of our organization don’t split hairs over doctrine, scripture, and policy — they generally hope we will try to obey it all — including current interpretations of the scriptures that don’t match historical interpretation.

Yep! Parsing words and seeing the difference between a “doctrine” and “guidance by the prophet”, or policy v scripture is just not important to some people.

At times, it is not important to me…at other times it keeps me in the church.

Being the cynic that you all know I am I believe all instruction whether it be scripture or pronouncements over the pulpit are in response to control certain behaviors or to generate a result. If the scripture is not doing it sufficiently some extra twist is put on it over the pulpit. Not that it is premeditated or anything but it is human nature. If the church was broke it goes from interest to income to generate more donations. If tattos are offensive to some individuals a pronouncement comes over the pulpit. Little of it has to do with the desire of God to correct the situation.

I’m reminded of a quote that was pasted to the wall of one of my university professors. It showed a manager giving a piece of paper to an assistant. The caption had the manager saying to his assistant: “That’s the gist of what I want to say, now get me the statistics to back it up”.

I feel that I have been guilty of using the scriptures in the same fashion. I would start with what I would like the target group to “do”, and then I would search for scriptures that support the behavior I am encouraging in others. Passages which don’t support it, or are too ambiguous, I will shy away from. Passages which support my case, or can be interpreted as such, I would use.

No longer; I feel using the scriptures with integrity means sharing what I truly believe they are saying, not twisting them to suit my thesis. If I must share my opinion, I must share it simply as opinion.

Cadence’s point about tithing being redefined as based on income, and no longer “interest”, back when the Church may have been struggling is a very telling idea. The more I ponder the history of tithing, and weigh the interests of the Church, my children, my own needs, and the often use of scripture to justify a convenient imperative, the firmer and more confident my ideas become on the meaning of scripture about tithing.

Here’s an example of proof-texting, where you use isolated quotes out of context to make a point:

A man dissatisfied with his life decided to consult the Bible for guidance. Closing his eyes, he flipped the book open and pointed to a spot on the page. Opening his eyes, he read the verse under his finger. It read, “Then Judas went away and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5b) Closing his eyes again, the man randomly selected another verse. This one read, “Jesus told him, ‘Go and do likewise.'” (Luke 10:37b)