Tithing: a Costly Leap of Faith

[Anonymous]

I once came across the JST version of Genesis 14:39. That opened a whole new perspective for me. Abram payed tithing on what was left after he had met the basic needs. At least that’s what I get out of it.

Wherefore Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need.” JST Genesis 14:39

[Anonymous]

doug wrote:

On Own Now wrote:

Bottom line is that I feel very strongly about the issue at hand, but am afraid to bring it up with them and afraid not to bring it up with them.

It’s frustrating. I know exactly what you mean. I think this is a reflection of the all-or-nothing black-or-white mentality that is forstered in the church. And that applies both to the issue of being hesitant and fearful to talk to your own children about your personal beliefs, and tithing specifically.

I also think this all-or-nothing black-or-white mentality is a reflection of the age and maturity level of the individual. The older we get, the more life experience we have that causes us to question our prior assumptions. For example, I’d love someone to raise their hand and ask one of these hard-liner bishops how we should pay 10% on food stamps. Of course, there is a part of me that is afraid the guy would answer it instead of being humbled by that person’s question!

Tithing has been called one tenth of income, of interest, and of increase, all at different times. So I agree that it’s up to the individual to determine, even if we hear individual opinions shared stridently over the pulpit by local shepherds. In general, there is a focus in the church (at least here in Asia) to go away from words like “expectation” and “assignment” to “invitation” and “voluntary.” That’s a very important shift that is probably long overdue. We should “invite people to come to Christ,” not harangue them into it or expect them to toe the line or assign them to clean the chapel whether they can do it or not.

[Anonymous]

hawkgrrrl wrote:

For example, I’d love someone to raise their hand and ask one of these hard-liner bishops how we should pay 10% on food stamps. Of course, there is a part of me that is afraid the guy would answer it instead of being humbled by that person’s question!

I love this. I like the food stamps idea. I’ve been tempted to ask: “Someone gave me a gift of some spices: anise and cumin. Since they are hard goods, should i provide my tithing in 10% of the anise and cumin or some cash value. And then, if cash value, how do I evaluate the worth of the anise and cumin — should it be fair market value or the value i would get if I had to sell it?”

[Anonymous]

As a retired Accountant, I could go “nuts” trying to find a definition for a “worthy” tithe.

I’ve heard of members who would tithe on birthday presents & child support.

I recently started making a donation to the church again.

This time I’ll try to let God tell me if it’s acceptable or not.

Mike from Milton.

[Anonymous]

This is kind of a thread jack – but in a way it applies. Years ago I read a financial planning book by Suze Orman in the book she said that one of the counsels she gives people for wise money management is to donate a worthy sum to a cause you care for first and foremost. She never specified an amount or percentage, but she had learned from observation and personal practice that the donating of your money to a worthy cause somehow effects how you use your money or how it works for you after that.

I no longer have the book but I remember talking about it with my husband and family – we compared it to the tithing idea. If when you are paying your portion (I am not stating how much) but that your intent is to thank Heavenly Father or to honor him will the effect happen. I think it does. Now I know there are other details involved such as feeling your donation was wisely used, etc. But I wonder if as a person who wishes to tithe, can you find peace in tithing your selected portion, disregarding the letter of the law and paying something in the spirit of the law. I don’t know the answer but the concepts and the results seem similar to me.

[Anonymous]

Today, in SM, a Stake High Counselor spoke. His topic was faith. He told a story regarding tithing that made my chest tighten. He related how he and his wife had realized that they did not have enough money in the bank to pay tithing as tithing settlement neared. So, they borrowed money from the bank in order to pay tithing. Now, whatever, an individual wants to do that, fine. But to speak from the pulpit, representing the Stake President, and to say this with the implication that it was right because it was faithful, and that it was “putting our future in the Lord’s hands” is over the top. After the HC spoke, there were a few minutes remaining, and the Bishop arose (he wasn’t conducting the meeting). I hoped he would say something like, Brother X’s experiences aside, I hope no one here today ever incurs earthly debt in order to pay tithing… but no… he, teary-eyed, expressed that we had today heard the word of God, though he didn’t specifically mention the Tithing statement… then went onto an unrelated topic.

Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Those are the really hard moments for me. I know it meant a lot to him, and I have no problem with it meaning a lot to him, but, as you said, to share it over the pulpit as a HC . . .

*sigh*

[Anonymous]

oddly, this is where the counsel of paying tithing up front makes sense. one never goes in debt to “pay tithing” because the income allocated to tithing is never availble for anything else. the HC violated two important pieces of counsel to appear to the settlement as a full tithe payer: paying as you go, and not going into debt. if i were the Bishop, I might have pointed that out…

[Anonymous]

Wayfarer — you’re assuming, however, that the people had the money to pay tithing and still meet their needs, though — aren’t you? That they spent it on other things when it should have gone to tithing — therefore, you suggest paying up front to avoid other priorities from using the surplus? What about the family that does not have enough income to meet their basic needs to “pay as they go?”.

One article I read suggested that if you don’t have enough to pay your tithing in the month, then you pay part of all each bills but not the total amount, so you can pay your tithing. I questioned the ethics of this personally. What about one’s personal integrity to fulfil obligations to others who have given up temporal value on the strength of your word that you will pay them by a certain date? Why does the church, demand that it be paid first and everyone else afterwards, even if it means (in this article) disadvantaging others who then must forgo cashflow to pay employees, run operations, avoid interest etcetera after you made a promise to pay? Particularly in situations where family circumstances leave people with everything they need to pay basic necessities?

Some might argue that we have the church welfare program to help people get into a situation where they can generate surpluses. At first, that was enough for me — until I was involved in needs assessments. In these, the local leaders asked these people to give up piddly amounts or things like their $8/month netflix account which is the only affordable entertainment they have, or eliminate a $14 per month magazine subscription. These were short term squeezes that did little to ease the situation of the people for the long-term.

One gentleman asking for assistance said “is there any allowance for the fact that I’ve paid the equivalent of two mortgages to the church over my lifetime? Could it not be considered fair that in my old age and inability to work, that I could be relieved of paying tithing so I can meet my basic financial needs?”

I said “No” but his question stuck with me as I felt he had a point. I’m studying social responsibility in a business ethics course right now. And my conclusion at the end of an assignment was that corporation’s first priority should be to generate sufficient returns to ensure their continued operations — achieved by behaving ethically. Social Responsibility, while worthile and important cannot sacrifice corporate self-reliance on the altar. Social responsibility is discretionary. Enlightened companies will still pursue it and it should not be neglected, but proactive social responsibility that involves spending is secondary to pursing operational profit, ethically.

I keep coming back to this when I consider the whole issue of tithing, temporal welfare and fast offerings in our church.

[Anonymous]

Again the church (via the Ensign) has promoted the pay-even-if-you-can’t-afford-it approach. In December’s Ensign, in an article called “Sacred Transformations”, under the subsection, “Changes and Blessings”, the author recounts the story of a Bishop in Central America exhorting new converts:

Quote:

If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. The Lord will not abandon you. — Ensign, December, 2012

Of course, this is followed by faith, sacrifice and blessings. After paying tithing in this manner, the faithful new members declared:

Quote:

We’re doing all right. Sometimes we don’t have much to eat, but we have enough. And more than anything, we trust in the Lord. — Ensign, December, 2012

I think I may go nuts over this.

Here is the link to the article: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2012/12/sacred-transformations?lang=eng

[Anonymous]

Yes, my biggest problem is that it blatantly disregards the principle of self reliance. Pay even if you can’t afford to feed yourself, which will put you asking others (the bishop?) for help. If something seems unreasonable/illogical, then I have a hard time accepting it. My mind and heart simply won’t come into alignment!

[Anonymous]

There’s an irony that the church is very much against debt, and is proud to boast that as an organisation it has no debt then at the same time encourage members to become indebted in order to meet financial obligations to the church.

[Anonymous]

I’ve said this in other threads, but I have no problem with that advice IF, AND ONLY IF, the Church then turns around and helps the person / family through fast offerings make the payments they skipped in order to pay tithing. That sort of advice demands a true partnership, imo – at least until circumstances change and help no longer is needed.

If reciprocal help is not being offered, I believe food and other absolute necessities come first.

[Anonymous]

Completely agree Ray. :clap:

[Anonymous]

I reckon most of you already know this stuff, but I want to cover it here.

Genesis 14:20 states:

Quote:

And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all.

JST, Genesis 14:39 states:

Quote:

Wherefore, Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need.

That’s an important difference and the JST harmonizes the concept with D&C 119, which uses the words “surplus property” and “interest.” Relevant definitions in the 1828 Webster’s dictionary are :

Quote:

2. Share; portion; part; participation in value. He has parted with his interest in the stocks.

3. Regard to private profit.

4. Premium paid for the use of money; the profit per cent derived from money lent, or property used by another person, or from debts remaining unpaid.

5. Any surplus advantage.

Brother Orson Hyde wrote:

Quote:

The celestial law requires one-tenth of all a man’s substance which he possesses at the time he comes into the church. If it requires all man can earn to support himself and his family, he is not tithed at all. The celestial law does not take the mother’s and children’s bread, neither ought else which they really need for their comfort. The poor that have not of this world’s good to spare, but serve and honor God according to the best of their abilities in every other way, shall have a celestial crown in the Eternal Kingdom of our Father.” (Millenial Star, 1847)

Brother Franklin Richards explained it well in 1882:

Quote:

Let us consider for a moment this word “surplus.” What does it mean when applied to a man and his property? Surplus cannot mean that which is indispensably necessary for any given purpose, but what remains after supplying what is needed for that purpose. Is not the first and most necessary use of a man’s property that he feed, clothe and provide a home for himself and family? This appears to be the great leading objects for which we labor to acquire means, and as, until the time that this revelation was given, all public works and raising of all public funds had been by consecration, was not “surplus property,” that which was over and above a comfortable and necessary subsistence? In the light of what had transpired and of subsequent events, what else could it mean? Can we take any other view of it when we consider the circumstances under which it was given in Far West in July, 1838?

I have been unable in studying this subject to find any other definition of the term surplus, as used in this revelation, than the one I have just given. I find that it was so understood and recorded by the Bishops and people in those days, as well as by the Prophet Joseph himself, who was unquestionably the ablest and best exponent of this revelation.

Brother Talmage explained it well:

Quote:

The Tithe as a Rental

As the matter presents itself to my mind, it is as though there had been a contract made between myself and the Lord, and that in effect He had said to me: “You have need of many things in this world—food, clothing, and shelter for your family and yourself, the common comforts of life, and the things that shall be conducive to refinement, to development, to righteous enjoyment. You desire material possessions to use for the assistance of others, and thereby gain greater blessings for yourself and yours. Now, you shall have the means of acquiring these things; but remember they are mine, and I require of you the payment of a rental upon that which I give into your hands. However, your life will not be one of uniform increase in substance and possessions; you will have your loses, as well as your gains; you will have your periods of trouble as well as your times of peace. Some years will be plenty unto you, and others will be years of scarcity. And, now, instead of doing as mortal landlords do—require you to contract with them to pay in advance, whatever your fortunes or your prospects may be—you shall pay me not in advance, but when you have received; and you shall pay me in accordance with what you receive. If it so be that in one year your income is abundant, then you can afford to pay me a little more; and if it be so that the next year is one of distress and your income is not what it was, then you shall pay me less; and should it be that you are reduced to the utmost penury so that you have nothing coming in, you will pay me nothing.” (Salt Lake City: Office of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1923)

And we have this:

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. — First Presidency Letter, March 19, 1970

Though “income” is generally understood to be wages or salary in our time, it can have other meanings. Consider current information from Webster’s:

Quote:

a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor; also : the amount of such gain received in a period of time…

Synonyms

earnings, gain(s), incoming(s), proceeds, profit, return, revenue, yield

We can also consider that the First Presidency said merely that interest is “understood to mean income.” They do not say it absolutely means “income” and they leave the decision in our hands.

To respond to On Own Now:

Quote:

Choosing to live the law of tithing will be a great blessing throughout your life. A tithe is one-tenth of your income… Pay it first, even when you think you do not have enough money to meet your other needs. Doing so will help you develop greater faith, overcome selfishness, and be more receptive to the Spirit. — For the Strength of the Youth, 2012

This is only a suggestion. Going beyond the scriptures and the 1970 First Presidency letter by making this a commandment or policy would not be justified.

On Own Now wrote:

I think that speaks for itself. Official policy is not to delineate how much is a full tithe, so you and I are perfectly free to give 10% of our growth, if we determine that that’s what we can give. It’s ironic that Robert D. Hales called for “strict observance of the law of tithing” in a 2002 GC address, yet the law itself is not strictly defined.

The law is strictly defined as “one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.” What “interest” means has been made clear.

On Own Now wrote:

I’ve heard lots of over-the-pulpit talks over the years that say outright that it is gross. Most of these are unchallenged local talks, but there is a talk from Daniel L. Johnson, of the Seventy, from October, 2006, GC, in which he quotes a statement from a source that he referred to as “President Howard W. Hunter”. Although the quote was, in fact from Hunter, there are two very important omissions from Elder Johnson. First is that Hunter was not “President Hunter” when he made the remark, but was “Elder Hunter” of the Qof12. Second, the statement was made prior to the clarifying First Presidency statement of 1970, so should have been superseded by the latter. Here’s the quote from “President Hunter”:

Quote:

The law is simply stated as ‘one-tenth of all their interest.’ Interest means profit, compensation, increase. It is the wage of one employed, the profit from the operation of a business, the increase of one who grows or produces, or the income to a person from any other source. — Elder Howard W. Hunter, General Conference, April, 1964

I agree that Brother Hunter’s words were superseded by the 1970 First Presidency letter. Brother Johnson would not be justified in making any other statement and implying it is a commandment or policy.

Quote:

Yet, the church continues to insinuate gross. Here’s how they do it.

They explain tithing in child terms. You get an allowance of 10 dollars, you pay one dollar. While that may be true for a child, if you project that explanation onto an adult, you are now preaching gross. A great example is Earl C. Tingey’s April 2002 GC talk.

That’s just a story and it is not justified to make any other statement beyond what is in the 1970 First Presidency letter and imply it is a commandment or policy

On Own Now wrote:

So, how do I approach the subject of educating my older, and some adult children, that they need to be reasonable and logical, but at the same time not come across as anti-LDS, anti-Tithing, anti-Generous, anti-Donations, and anti-Their-Choices?

I would point out the facts that have been outlined and explain that anyone who pays more than 10% of their surplus annually is making a donation beyond what is required, and that is their choice.

[Author]

Posts