- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
On Own Now wrote:
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.
i raise my right hand in support of that revelation.In the church I hear this a lot and I believe it to: “A full tithe should always be paid with a willing heart.” Whether gross or net, doesn’t matter as long as it’s a full tithe with a willing heart.” On Own Now wrote: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.
You make a very good point. Since we no longer hand over all our surplus stuff initially, I have been skipping that part of D&C 119 but still using the “pay one-tenth of all their interest annually” part. I now suppose none of D&C 119 is applicable to me. What an interesting concept.Shawn wrote:On Own Now wrote: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.
You make a very good point. Since we no longer hand over all our surplus stuff initially, I have been skipping that part of D&C 119 but still using the “pay one-tenth of all their interest annually” part. I now suppose none of D&C 119 is applicable to me. What an interesting concept.So if we’ve shown that 119 is redundant and given we don’t believe in ‘the church of Joseph Smith’ then the 1970 letter (now in CH1) should be the only definition that matters.
Problem is, 1970 is ambiguous.
I’m trying to feel ok with income/interest as the ‘net after essential costs’ – but it still doesn’t. I’m fine with ‘money into bank’ (salary after deductions by company at source… Tax etc). This is a new attitude. I used to tithe on what my contract said (pre-tax).
Maybe it’ll change in future to another perspective.
In the end, as long as I make a willing donation that I feel is acceptable to God, it doesn’t make a jot of difference what church policy is. I give it to God, not the corporation. If I am and He are happy with the contribution I make to Him then we’re all square and I’m a full tithe payer.
I appreciate what Ray said about people seeing it differently. My views differ from others’ and I often differ from what I believed yesterday. I can see how turning all surplus property over to the church can be discontinued while still adhering to the payment of one-tenth of interest annually, so D&C 119 can still be applicable. I’ve taken another look at that revelation. Verse 1 says “
alltheir surplus property” should be donated (first payment), then verse 4 says they should “pay one-tenth of all their interest annually” (second type of payment). So what is verse 5 referring to when it says they “shall betithedof their surplus properties”? Is it referring to the first or second type of payment? Shawn wrote:I’ve taken another look at that revelation. Verse 1 says “all their surplus property” should be donated (first payment), then verse 4 says they should “pay one-tenth of all their interest annually” (second type of payment). So what is verse 5 referring to when it says they “shall be tithed of their surplus properties”? Is it referring to the first or second type of payment?
Great question! My opinion is that JS experimented with different ways to fund the church while teaching good principles to church members. The evolution of these ideas continued beyond his death eventually morphing into what we have today. I believe the current version is wildly successful in funding church operations and does a decent job of teaching members good principles (humility, stewardship, etc.) without most of the hassles of previous iterations (consecration and/or dealing in livestock etc.).
I also second that the most official statement explicitly allows for individual adaptation. This is not merely a form of “Do you want net blessings or gross blessings?” This is truly between you and your maker.
Shawn wrote:So what is verse 5 referring to when it says they “shall betithedof their surplus properties”? Is it referring to the first or second type of payment?
IMO, it’s talking about both together, in separate clauses. The revelation is a two-parter… 1) all surplus and 2) 10% on interest annually. Vers 5 simply repeats the two parts, saying both (“and”) being required:Quote:5 Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion
shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law,or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.
In the above statement, the part that is underlined refers to the placing of “all their surplus property” “into the hands of the bishop.” The part in italics refers to paying 10% on an ongoing basis.Interestingly, forms of the word ‘tithing’ appear three times in the revelation. In each case, it is referring to the giving of all surplus properties to the Church. First time is to state that the giving of the surplus “is the beginning of tithing of my people.” The second, is in verse 4, stating, “And after that [the giving of surplus], those who have thus been tithed [have given their surplus] shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually…” Finally, verse 5 uses “tithed” referring to the surplus.
Section 119 is only of value for historical understanding of what they were doing then. Trying to define modern tithing from this section is akin to trying to determine whether it’s OK to drink Coke by a careful reading of Leviticus. Tithing, today, has been institutionalized into paying 10% of annual income, regardless of the 1838 law.
To follow up on the last comment, using Section 119 to analyze our rule today is like using the Old Testament’s standard to evaluate our system today. A participant and I went the rounds about that in a different thread, because she was condemning the LDS Church for not following the Biblical (OT) standard. I pointed out that everything about the two societies are different, including the things that were covered by tithing back then that we cover through other means – including, in some cases, government taxes. The case with Section 119 is apples and oranges, but the comparison to the OT standard is apples to sushi. They serve totally different dietary needs, so they can’t be compared directly.
Haha… agreed, Ray. I’m satisfied with saying that Section 119 and tithing as practiced today are “apples and oranges”. mackay11 wrote:Shawn wrote:On Own Now wrote: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.
You make a very good point. Since we no longer hand over all our surplus stuff initially, I have been skipping that part of D&C 119 but still using the “pay one-tenth of all their interest annually” part. I now suppose none of D&C 119 is applicable to me. What an interesting concept.So if we’ve shown that 119 is redundant and given we don’t believe in ‘the church of Joseph Smith’ then the 1970 letter (now in CH1) should be the only definition that matters.
Problem is, 1970 is ambiguous.
I’m trying to feel ok with income/interest as the ‘net after essential costs’ – but it still doesn’t. I’m fine with ‘money into bank’ (salary after deductions by company at source… Tax etc). This is a new attitude. I used to tithe on what my contract said (pre-tax).
Maybe it’ll change in future to another perspective.
In the end, as long as I make a willing donation that I feel is acceptable to God, it doesn’t make a jot of difference what church policy is. I give it to God, not the corporation. If I am and He are happy with the contribution I make to Him then we’re all square and I’m a full tithe payer.
This is going to be my new attitude towards tithing. My wife and all of her church friends all say that anything less than 10% of gross is not acceptable, but I don’t feel that 10% of every gross dollar I make is fair really. I paid that for about a year (which admittedly isn’t a ton of money unfortunately)
Bds4206 wrote:do it happily and willingly and I’ll be good to go.
It is said that a God loves a cheerful giver. I think cheerfully giving is helpful to everyone regardless of the relative size of what is being given. Remember the Widow’s mite.
It’s interesting to look at the story of the widow’s mite, since it says something most people completely overlook – and speaks directly, I believe, to the concept of it being the condition of the heart not the amount that matters. Jesus did NOT condemn the system that accepted the widow’s mite, nor did he dismiss or chastise in any way the widow who paid it. He also didn’t say she shouldn’t have paid it. In fact, he praised her for paying it and condemned the rich man for not paying more. In a very real way, Jesus praised the widow for being willing to live the Law of Consecration, and he chastised the rich man for not being willing to pay tithing (comparing his percent to hers). Jesus didn’t condemn tithing; he framed it as the lesser commitment than the widow’s willing contribution. From strictly a conceptual standpoint, that’s important to recognize and consider.
Again, I don’t care personally how someone else interprets tithing or how they choose to calculate their own tithing. That is between them and God, and I refuse to try to sit in a judgment seat. Ain’t happening. However, I also will not condemn or criticize any church for teaching tithing – and for having other areas where contributions can be made.
The principle, imo, is to give as much as possible (money, time, talents, and everything with which God has blessed me) to God – however I define and calculate that gift. To me, buying a house that is much bigger than needed, buying an expensive car when a less expensive one will do just fine, buying high end clothing, etc. is “grinding the faces of the poor” – because the extra money spent on something that is nowhere close to a need keeps me from donating that money, in some way, to help the poor and/or build a community infrastructure that will help all alike.
So, while I am completely open about people calculating amounts and arriving at definitions differently, I am opposed to the idea of doing it just to keep more money for themselves – over and above real need, which I also leave up to them to determine. I love the concept and principle of the law of consecration and its modern component parts (tithing, fast offerings, charitable and humanitarian giving, service, etc.), so, even though I won’t try to dictate how someone participates in and implements that concept and principle, I believe strongly that everyone should look seriously at how they can try – and be willing to give up wants to provide others’ needs.
I am a real believer in living with in one’s means and that principle applies to donations as well. I also really believe that we need to pay ourselves (meaning savings and retirement). I really believe that we need to save for our old age so that we don’t become a burden on society or our children or the church for that matter. I don’t want to pay one red dime more than I have to to the government because I don’t think that the government is very responsible in the way it spends the money and I feel the same way about the church right now plus I don’t think God expects us to either. There is a lot of good we can do with our donations outside of the church or even directly to others in need with out the church being the middle man. Amen, church0333 – to every word. Whether or not someone “tithes” to a church, I believe they should try to live the principle and “tithe” somehow – but I also believe that reasonable retirement savings in this age of scattered families, especially, can be a need and not a want. Again, I leave the exact decisions (all of them) to each person. It’s the concept and the principle I love.
Old-Timer wrote:Amen, church0333 – to every word.
I agree generally with what church said. The one exception would be the implication that the church is not responsible with its funds. I would argue that the church is as fiscally responsible with money as any organization can hope to be. The organization’s goals may not fit well with the individual’s goals in terms of humanitarian giving etc. but I find it very fiscally responsible.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.