Sacrament meeting theme: Tithing

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

Personally I would be more inclined to pay some tithing if the church was just honest. Just ask for the money because they need it to keep the church running. Quit making extravagant claims about the blessings involved. Do not tell the lie that the Lords church does not need your money which is a crock.

I think I’d feel a lot better about capital-T Tithing if we could just be honest and say you are paying your share of church buildings, lesson manuals, etc. Of course it begs the question how much of our tithing is actually being used for things the membership benefits from directly and how much is being put into real estate investments. But we will never know this. Does the Lord bless us for contributing to the LDS Church’s stock portfolio?

I had an interesting talk with my husband last night. He represents a lot of the TBM thinking and reflects the attitude of what I see as the corporate Church. For example, he’s still really uncomfortable with the idea of only tithing on net vs. gross. (I never really thought about it until he started his current job. He receives a really low base salary and a decent sized commission. Problem is, the commission is taxed at a REALLY high rate – like 30 percent – and we are still tithing on the gross of that.) But I did get him to admit that the financial blessings we supposedly receive as a result of paying tithing are most likely the result of paying tithing faithfully, rather than paying tithing on gross.

(My husband is a good man and I don’t mean to pick on him here. But he represents a lot of the TBM thinking that I am questioning. He wasn’t really raised to ask a lot of questions.)

Moving on from the net vs. gross question, we also differed on what actually counts as tithing. I believe that anything that goes into the gray envelope is tithing, whether it’s actually Tithing or humanitarian aid or fast offerings or missionary fund. He believes that only the top box, marked Tithing, actually counts – so if you put ten percent of your income into Humanitarian Aid, you aren’t actually a full tithe payer. And I think that’s the prevailing attitude in the Church – but I’ve never heard it spoken from the pulpit and I certainly don’t think that’s actually The Lord’s opinion. I believe that one of the reasons we pay tithing is to help the poor and the needy – you know, like Jesus would do. Husband also contended that another purpose of tithing is to build up the Kingdom of God and grow the Church. I said it certainly is and what better way to grow the Church than to contribute to the General Missionary Fund?

The Church is a little more open about their humanitarian spending, and there is a figure floating around that they contributed $1.2 billion over a 30 year period. Now, that sounds like a lot until you consider that it’s spread out over 30 years and (at present) 15 million people. As individuals, we are actually contributing very little to humanitarian aid. I think that what happens is we put 10 percent into that Tithing box, we pay a few dollars in fast offerings, and then we ignore the other boxes on the tithing slip because we are already feeling pretty tapped out after contributing 10 percent of our gross (which is a lot more than 10 percent of our take-home pay). That’s always been my experience and I feel pretty confident in saying a LOT of other members of the Church do the same.

And, I would argue, we have got it all backwards.

It’s never been preached from the pulpit that only Tithing counts as tithing, or that the Lord is pleased when we give more money to this sort of black box fund (we don’t know how much goes in, how much goes out, or where it goes) than when we give in ways that actually directly benefit His children. I would even question, who benefits from us continuing to believe that the Lord will only bless us if we tithe in a certain way? Certainly The Church as an entity benefits more from my capital-T Tithing than from my (paltry) fast offerings or my (non-existent) humanitarian aid. But when we give tithing, do we give it for the glory of The Church, or the Lord?

My husband also brought up the extremely popular sentiment that tithing is the Lord’s money, and it’s not up to us how He spends it. But I learned something interesting last night. The Lord’s name doesn’t appear anywhere on the tithing slip. Neither does the Savior’s. But the phrase “the Church” is on there THREE TIMES.

I said that I can guarantee that there is tithing money being spent in a way that it shouldn’t. I hope I don’t sound like a crack conspiracy theorist (now get off my lawn) but you have a combination of a HUGE amount of money, a small number of people charged with oversight, and precious little transparency – it’s the perfect storm for misappropriation and even corruption. I asked my husband if he would donate to a secular charity that refused to divulge anything but the most rudimentary facts about its financial practices. (I admit I’m not consoled by the Church Accounting Office telling us in GC, “Yep. Everything’s fine.”) He admitted that he wouldn’t, or at the least, he’d be extremely skeptical. Yet our eternal salvation isn’t dependent on whether or not we contribute to the Red Cross. But we can’t even enter the temple if we don’t pay tithing.

I am one hundred percent certain that some fraction of tithing funds is being used in a manner that the Lord would not approve. I don’t know what percent it is, but I can guarantee that there are bad investments being made and possibly even fraud. I can say this with absolute certainty because it has happened before. On more than one occasion, the Church has darn near gone bankrupt because of bad investments. (It’s sad that the response to that appears to have been less transparency and more orthodoxy when it should have been the other way around.) And we can say, well, the Church is perfect, the people running it aren’t. But then on the other hand, we say well, the Church leadership won’t lead us astray. And it’s the Lord’s money, we shouldn’t question how it’s being used. But those are mutually exclusive ideas. Asking for a fair accounting of tithing – even questioning some of the investments made on our behalf – is perfectly in line with our acceptance that the Church is imperfect even up to and including President Monson.

What I told my husband is that I don’t have a testimony of tithing as I’m currently paying it, because I don’t have a testimony of The Church. Gasp! But what are we really saying when we get up in F&T meeting and proclaim, “I know the Church is true”? My husband loves to tell stories of sobbing BYU freshman declaring, “This is such a true school!” And I think it makes as much sense to declare The Church true as it does to declare BYU true. They are “true” in the sense that they deonstrably exist; but beyond that, neither BYU nor The Church are really a thing that can even be true or not. I think we can say that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is and always will be what we define as “true.” But even the restored gospel as we know it, can we even say that is such a thing as “true”? Doctrine changes all the time. Can we say the gospel is more or less true than it was in 1830 or 1890 or 1978? And if the gospel is “more true” than it was in previous years, doesn’t that mean it’s “less true” than it will be in the future?

It really makes my head swim if I think about it too much.

My husband is the primary breadwinner, though he emphasizes that the paychecks that come with his name on them are OUR money, not HIS. (Like I said, he’s a good man. He isn’t going to start asking the tough questions anytime soon but he respects that this is what I need to do.) One thing he mentioned is that it would be possible to capital-T Tithe ten percent of the net, and then ‘make up the difference’ by greatly increasing our contributions to the other boxes on the tithing slip. (The more I think about it, the more I really don’t feel good about not contributing to the missionary fund. I guarantee our children will benefit from that fund at some point.) I think that maybe The Church as an organization would disapprove of this allocation – but I feel one hundred percent certain that The Lord would approve. And as much as I don’t trust my ability to have my prayers answered, I think it’s totally fair to “experiment upon the word” and ask God for confirmation that we are doing the right thing.

Plus, I would feel better about it. Right now I pay tithing out of a sense of obligation. It’s supposed to bring us joy.

Anyway, I apologize for writing an essay here. I don’t know what’s gotten into me!

ETA: pdiggity, I have to fight back tears as I read your story. Clearly “The Church” does not approve of the way you’ve allocated your financial resources (to the extent of witholding you TR). But everything I believe tells me that The Lord heartily approves. You owe more to your wife, your eternal companion and the mother of your children, than you ever will to the Church’s financial coffers. And when The Church and the Lord are at odds, I tend to side with the higher authority.

[Anonymous]

Joni wrote:

Anyway, I apologize for writing an essay here. I don’t know what’s gotten into me!

I enjoyed reading it. Lots and lots of valuable insights.

Joni wrote:

Moving on from the net vs. gross question, we also differed on what actually counts as tithing. I believe that anything that goes into the gray envelope is tithing, whether it’s actually Tithing or humanitarian aid or fast offerings or missionary fund. He believes that only the top box, marked Tithing, actually counts – so if you put ten percent of your income into Humanitarian Aid, you aren’t actually a full tithe payer. And I think that’s the prevailing attitude in the Church – but I’ve never heard it spoken from the pulpit and I certainly don’t think that’s actually The Lord’s opinion.

I’m not arguing against your position, I actually agree with it, I’m just saying that I have heard it explicitly stated… only “tithing” counts towards being a full tithe payer, everything else on the tithing slip represents something above and beyond.

It’s been pointed out that whether we consider ourselves full tithe payers is a matter between us and the lord. Language is a struggle for me so I’ll try to use numbers to get my point across:

Assume $20,000/year:

Tithing on gross: $2,000

Tithing on net: $1,600

Tithing on increase: $400

Let’s say you pay $300 into the general missionary fund during that year. If a full tithe is between you and the lord I don’t see why that would preclude the following line of reasoning. I paid $300 into the GMF, so a full tithe for me is:

Tithing box on gross: $1,700

Tithing box on net: $1,300

Tithing box on increase: $100

But don’t listen to me, my example is just a justification I came up with. Ultimately:

Quote:

We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.

In looking for the quote from the 1978 letter on tithing I ran across the following:

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-110-121/section-119-the-law-of-tithing” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-110-121/section-119-the-law-of-tithing

Quote:

What Is an Honest Tithing?

Elder John A. Widtsoe explained: “Tithing means one-tenth. Those who give less do not really pay tithing; they are lesser contributors to the Latter-day cause of the Lord. Tithing means one-tenth of a person’s income, interest, or increase. The merchant should pay tithing upon the net income of his business, the farmer upon the net income of his farming operations; the wage earner or salaried man upon the wage or salary earned by him. Out of the remaining nine-tenths he pays his current expenses … etc. To deduct living costs … and similar expenses from the income and pay tithing upon the remainder does not conform to the Lord’s commandment. Under such a system most people would show nothing on which to pay tithing. There is really no place for quibbling on this point. Tithing should be given upon the basis of our full earned income. If the nature of a business requires special interpretation, the tithepayer should consult the father of his ward, the bishop.” (Evidences and Reconciliations, 2:86.)

Which is explicitly saying that tithing is on gross… unless you are a farmer or small business owner. It’s important to note that this statement was made before the 1978 letter, so the letter takes precedent. I just share it because it was one of the few times I’ve seen counsel favoring one calculation method over another in a manual… and it’s interesting that it remains in the manual given the superseding statement in the 1978 letter. The statement even counsels a person with a question to go to the bishop, not the lord. I also underlined a portion for emphasis. I won’t get deep into it as I already did that as a part of an edit but it really makes me wonder what the increase is for people that are just able to meet their needs.

One other random note. We all know we’ll get wide and diverging counsel on tithing, the policy is after all left open to interpretation and people sometimes present their interpretations as policy. Tithing can take funds away from local humanitarian aid (fast offerings) and people are very aware of that. I’ve even heard the suggestion from the pulpit that a worthy goal would be to pay 1% on gross toward the fast offering – evidently because there was a need to have more money for local needs. So… 11% on gross was the theme of that meeting.

Anyway, back to the topic. It’s interesting to hear from your perspective Joni. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I’m not arguing against your position, I actually agree with it, I’m just saying that I have heard it explicitly stated… only “tithing” counts towards being a full tithe payer, everything else on the tithing slip represents something above and beyond.

I think it’s fair to ask where this statement is coming from. If we believe it’s coming via revelation, then we are entitled to have this revelation confirmed to us personally. But not everything that is spoken from the pulpit in GC is revelation. The Church leadership is deeply invested in the Church’s bottom line and can be expected to make non-revelatory statements that bolster that bottom line. I don’t think it’s about greed or being a false prophet; I think it’s human nature.

Look at the source for the Widstoe quote above: it’s coming from LDS.org but it’s not originally from a revelatory source.

I feel comfortable allocating some of that 10 percent of net (I am a small business owner so I tithe on my profits, not my sales. Where it gets hairy is when you’re trying to decide if the portion of your income that goes directly to Uncle Sam counts as ‘increase’) to the missionary fund or humanitarian aid. I haven’t prayed about it yet to receive confirmation, but unless the Lord explicitly tells me not to, I want to tithe in a way I feel comfortable with.

We tend to talk about tithing like it’s an unchangeable eternal principle but I don’t really think it is. I’ve read some sources to indicate that it wasn’t always ten percent. It used to be paid in kind and now only cash money is acceptable. And the law of tithing was instituted long before the law of the land instituted a federal income tax. Like a lot of points of doctrine (the WoW for example) the practical application has fluctuated a LOT; I think it’s unfortunate that the Church membership continues to apply a lot of orthodoxy where I don’t really think it’s called for.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

I think many here who continue to pay tithing have come to think of it as a commitment between the payer and God, not between the payer and the Church. Thanks for being the kind of person that can see right and act on it. I wish you, your wife, your kids and your mom well.

Totally agree, tithes are between us and the Lord. To me it is very personal.

Our [LDS] culture, in my experience has diminished this somewhat where it is not personal. I have recently chosen to experience the Gospel the way I prayerfully understand it, not the way I have been told to understand it over the years. It has made things better.

Thanks for the kind words and well wishes.

[Anonymous]

Joni wrote:

ETA: pdiggity, I have to fight back tears as I read your story. Clearly “The Church” does not approve of the way you’ve allocated your financial resources (to the extent of witholding you TR). But everything I believe tells me that The Lord heartily approves. You owe more to your wife, your eternal companion and the mother of your children, than you ever will to the Church’s financial coffers. And when The Church and the Lord are at odds, I tend to side with the higher authority.

Hi Joni,

I appreciate that very much. I have had internal struggle about this issue, but most, outside of TBMs, concur with my decision in this regard. TBMs are not bad people for their opinions on this, I just don’t think they can grasp my situation without my life experiences.

It is still a struggle, because as of October, my wife has relapsed. We had some pretty decent recovery for about 1.5 years. She is not as bad as before, but it is tough. That disease destroys the mind. I wish some many women did not have to suffer from it. It is horrible.

[Anonymous]

Joni wrote:

I think it’s fair to ask where this statement is coming from.

I do too.

Joni wrote:

Look at the source for the Widstoe quote above: it’s coming from LDS.org but it’s not originally from a revelatory source.

But it’s still right there being echoed in a manual. It’s what is being taught in institute and BYU.

I agree with your position of the importance of teachings coming from revelatory sources but that important distinction often gets lost. I agree that not everything that is spoken from the pulpit is revelation… but that can make for little difference when members perceive it that way. This is what the GA said… or this is what manual says and the manual has TCoJCoLDS stamped on the back so it’s FP approved, gospel truth. It’s very easy for something that falls squarely in the camp of policy to be construed as coming out of revelation if the information is communicated from a pulpit and it can be an uphill battle to convince people otherwise.

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

I agree with your position of the importance of teachings coming from revelatory sources but that important distinction often gets lost. I agree that not everything that is spoken from the pulpit is revelation… but that can make for little difference when members perceive it that way. This is what the GA said… or this is what manual says and the manual has TCoJCoLDS stamped on the back so it’s FP approved, gospel truth. It’s very easy for something that falls squarely in the camp of policy to be construed as coming out of revelation if the information is communicated from a pulpit and it can be an uphill battle to convince people otherwise.

Like a lot of Mormons of my generation, I grew up in a home where ‘Mormon Doctrine’ was considered, well, doctrine. Giving up on the idea that not all writings by Church leaders are revelatory has been a big step in my journey from more-or-less TBM to… whatever I call myself now. ‘Mormon Doctrine,’ of course, wasn’t officially published by the church. But even with lesson manuals published by the church, you see a lot of stories passed off as factual, and then you look at the original source and it’s from a book called “Tales of the Pioneers” or something like that. Grain of salt.

I don’t consider FP letters read from the pulpit to be revelatory, necessarily, but I do consider them to be ‘binding,’ if that makes any sense. So the 1970 letter saying that tithing is ten percent, and ten percent of what is between me and the Lord, isn’t superseded by the Widstoe statement of eight years later. But if a FP letter was read from the pulpit next Sunday that tithing is now nine or eleven percent, that would nullify the previous letter.

[Anonymous]

Just to clarify a bit:

John A. Widtsoe made that statement in a book he published in 1943. I misspoke, the first presidency letter was in 1970, not 1978:

Quote:

For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that we have uniformly replied that the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself 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. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.

The letter represents the last official, binding word on the matter.

I just brought up that Widsoe quote because I found it interesting in that it was direct counsel implying an actual method of calculation and it can be found in a church manual in 2014. A statement other than that if you will.

[Author]

Posts