Tithing: a Costly Leap of Faith

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Ultimately, it’s my decision how to interpret these scriptures – as it is the perogative of each member.

Yeah, I reckon that’s what it comes down to. All of these quotes are superceded by the 1970 FP letter, anywayt, but it’s interesting to see how things evolved.

Old-Timer wrote:

Fwiw, I discount a lot of things that Joseph Fielding Smith said, and that comment about taxes and tithing is a perfect example of why I do that.

If I never have the money, there is no way in heaven or hell I’m paying tithing on it. That’s not just wrong, imo; it’s stupid – and I don’t care who said it.

I agree about taxes. My wife and I used to pay on gross, but a few years ago we decided to pay on net. Taxes withheld are NOT part of my income. I just thought of something that I haven’t considered before, though: I guess we have not been paying on money taken from my check for my 401k and insurance. Hm.

[Anonymous]

Ray, I agree with you that it should be up to the person, and I also prefer the church not to be black & white in dictating pharisaical rules to us. But, I think I’m not making my point clearly…

I like the FP letter of 1970, specifically because it says that the individual member of the church is the only one who can determine what is a full-tithe for himself/herself. Great. Love it. What I don’t like is that the church itself hides this very policy from rank-and-file members. As I said before, I have never personally heard a talk or lesson at the local or general level in which this letter was referenced, or that anything less than ‘gross’ constituted acceptable tithing… I HAVE heard the ‘gross’ teaching many, many times. When I was a missionary, I taught people to pay on ‘gross’.

It’s great that you and I understand that the church has an open view toward tithing, yet the church continues to speak authoritatively on the subject. If the church would say, out loud, that it doesn’t have the specific answer and that it is OK for each of us to determine what is appropriate, I would stand up and cheer. But it doesn’t say that. Consider the language in some of the quotes listed in this thread. While these don’t address the gross/net/growth question, these are very presumptive and authoritative statements about the will of God in relation to funding the church… some of these would make televangelists blush:

Quote:

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

Quote:

Celestial law requires [paying tithing] –Millenial Star, 1844

Quote:

The Lord gives us possessions, and he requires of us one-tenth –BY, 1863

Quote:

[Tithing is given] to the Lord… [and goes into the] treasury of the Lord –Orson Pratt, 1873

Quote:

God has required of us, as he did of ancient Israel, obedience to that law –George A. Smith, 1873

Quote:

The Lord requires one-tenth of that which he has given me –BY, 1873

I don’t think it’s fair to the lay members of the church, for the church to be intentionally vague and at the same time authoritative and absolute.

When the Mormonism documentary aired in prime time on NBC during the 2012 campaign, a church member stated that she didn’t drink Coke because of the WoW. The church immediately responded with clarification for the long-contested issue, stating that it was not prohibited by the WoW. Yet, when Steve Young, I believe it was on 60 Minutes, said that he paid 10% of gross, the church was silent.

I’m not overly cynical on most topics, but to me, it seems pretty clear that the church has much to gain by the membership paying 10% of gross, and intentionally hides or avoids any hint at the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“I guess we have not been paying on money taken from my check for my 401k and insurance. Hm.”

Yup – and I am perfectly okay with that, as well, since I will pay on whatever I get from a retirement account whenever I get it.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now, I understand – but I’m just saying not one of those quotes you listed talks about “how” to pay tithing. They simply say it’s commanded.

If I had heard a talk from the General Conference pulpit lately about how paying tithing means paying 10% of gross income, I would have a huge problem with that – but the last official statement we have is that it’s up to me to decide. I want it to remain that open; I don’t want anything more. Yeah, it would be nice for others I know to hear it again – but I could say the same thing about lots of other topics. Rather than recycle those statements over and over again, I prefer to have one statement and let it stand – unless, of course, a new statement would make a change I want. 😆

See, in the end, I’m no different than anyone else in that regard.

[Anonymous]

I believe in tithing because when I joined the LDS church, I feel like paying 10 percent of my income to the Church in order to support it was a commitment I made that I keep. However, I do not believe that the money is going to the lord. I believe that my money is going to Church Headquaters in Salt Lake City. Personally, I don’t believe that God’s address is in Utah.

[Anonymous]

Here’s what I reckon:

1. During some decades after the 1838 revelation, “interest,” “income,” and “increase” were used interchangeably and referred to annual profit after supporting self and family.

2. Over time, tithing evolved and the brethren became more and more specific about what the saints should pay tithing on. Interest, income, and increase were taught to be gross pay. This was presented as the word of God.

3. We were taught that it had always been that way. (“We have never expected to pay our taxes out of the Lord’s tenth.” -LeGrand Richards, 1944)

4. We got a breath of fresh air with the 1970 First Presidency letter, but I don’t think today’s understanding of “income” equates with the 19th century understanding of “interest.”

5. I can ignore any specific teaching about tithing because it is all overridden by the 1970 FP letter until something supersedes that.

So have I been duped into paying a lot more tithing than I need to? Right now, I’m giving the brethren the benefit of the doubt by believing the evolution of tithing was a natural thing and not done with ill will. Maybe it really was supposed to evolve the way it did. My mind is open.

[Anonymous]

I believe tithing means “a tenth” (linguistically, that is exactly what it means) and that it can mean whatever it needs to mean at any given time. I believe the Church desperately needed it to mean more than just a tenth of interest when the Church was facing severe cash deficit issues, and I am fine with that – and I would have no problem if it changed to mean some other tenth (like back to interest) if the Church is in a financial situation to not need a tenth of income any more.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I believe tithing means “a tenth” (linguistically, that is exactly what it means) and that it can mean whatever it needs to mean at any given time. I believe the Church desperately needed it to mean more than just a tenth of interest when the Church was facing severe cash deficit issues, and I am fine with that – and I would have no problem if it changed to mean some other tenth (like back to interest) if the Church is in a financial situation to not need a tenth of income any more.

If the church were to say we should change to being tithed on interest rather than income, that would acknowledge that we have strayed from the true meaning of section 119, which shall “be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.” I don’t think it was okay to change from interest to income (if income means something different).

[Anonymous]

No, Shawn, it wouldn’t change the standing law (a tenth), just like alterations to the enforcement of the Word of Wisdom don’t invalidate the basic, core “law” of taking care of our bodies as temples. It only would change how that law was interpreted and taught.

Just about every single religious “law” that has existed throughout history has changed somewhat to fit the various times – even the Law of Chastity. It’s called evolution or on-going revelation, whichever seems more appropriate. The foundational concept hasn’t changed in the slightest – but the commonly accepted structure has ebbed and flowed throughout time.

I am completely fine with changes in detail, even to things I love as concepts and principles.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I am completely fine with changes in detail, even to things I love as concepts and principles.

I agree Ray. I only ask if we as a church are doing a good job at creating members that don’t look past the mark or fail to see the forest for the trees – IOW fixate on the details to the point of bluring the principle. In the end is it more important to be found within the main body of the church or to internalize the concepts and principles in our hearts?

[Anonymous]

Quote:

In the end is it more important to be found within the main body of the church or to internalize the concepts and principles in our hearts?

Given that exact wording, and only that wording, we can do both.

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

Quote:

In the end is it more important to be found within the main body of the church or to internalize the concepts and principles in our hearts?

Given that exact wording, and only that wording, we can do both.

Yes, but I sure wish it was easier…. I guess the path to God was always meant to be a personal one, even when we travel in a group.

[Anonymous]

I am usually okay with such changes in detail as well. In the case of tithing, the standing law is not merely a tenth, though. A tenth of interest is specifically part of the “standing law unto them forever…” That’s why it would be a problem for the brethren to say tithing is changing from a tenth of income to a tenth of interest. It works to say tithing is a tenth of income now only if it is understood to be synonymous with interest, which is what the 1970 letter purports. Maybe I’m not articulating my concern well

[Anonymous]

You are articulating it fine, Shawn. It’s just a case where someone else can see it differently – and that is perfectly fine.

[Anonymous]

After all the opinions, personal outlooks, conflicting statements, and vagueness, let’s take a look at the one ‘binding’ statement, the only direction given in our Standard Works:

D&C 119:

Quote:

1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion,

2 For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church.

3 And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.

4 And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

Specifics, as I understand them:

– The beginning of tithing is to give all your surplus to the church, retaining only what you need for your operating expenses.

– The ‘standing law’, then comes into effect which is that for the rest of their lives, they are to give one-tenth of their “interest” annually.

Based on that, I don’t believe that tithing is a ‘standing law’ to the church, but rather that after giving all surplus, a standing law goes into effect for ‘them’, that is the people referenced in the revelation… the people of the early church gathering to Zion.

The law has already been changed, in that we no longer (thankfully) give all our surplus. I believe it is also changed because we now use ‘income’ as our basis, rather than ‘interest’, which I would take to be ‘growth’. It’s an OK trade-off, because the surplus thing would be tough.

I’m glad, Ray, that you can be at-peace with it. I am not. I no longer pay tithing. For my purposes, I believe I have already sacrificed enough to have a lifetime membership. So, my concern is not MY inability to interpret the hidden meaning. I personally believe that paying 10% of growth is perfectly acceptable.

My concern is this: how is a rank-and-file member of the church supposed to know that 10% of gross income is not required? I believe each and every one of us personally knows people in the church who dutifully pay 10% of gross, at great personal sacrifice, believing that anything else is cheating God.

Shame on the church for allowing it to be this way.

Here’s a statement that the church could make:

Quote:

The First Presidency has long sought to provide better guidance to what constitutes a ‘full tithe’. Beginning immediately we are establishing a new law associated with tithing. We have taken this matter before the Lord for his acceptance. We now wish to state that each member of the church should donate 10% of their personal annual surplus, by which we mean, all of your net income after meeting your own reasonable family needs and earthly obligations. To the extent that the Lord blesses you with a surplus, we ask that you tithe yourselves on that amount. This will be considered strict adherence to the law, and will constitute a full tithe. Any of you who has the means to do so, we would ask that you donate what you are able above the tithing amount, for the betterment of the church and its people. These extra donations will not be part of tithing, and we ask that you donate it to the new ‘Church Donation Fund” that we are setting up. One-third of this fund will be used for temples and meetinghouses. One-third will be used for missionary work. One-third will be used for worldwide humanitarian efforts. This will be all the guidance given. We do not wish to add rules and laws about how to calculate the specific amount. We encourage you to be generous and giving. With this general guidance, we feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his or her own decision as to what he or she thinks would be a proper amount to donate to the Church. –hypothetical statement from the FP

This may be the very way that some people already think about tithing, so there can be no harm in making it official. But avoiding the topic, knowing that confusion leads to most church members donating the max, is a bit self-serving.

[Author]

Posts