Tithing on surplus?

[Anonymous]

Thanks to all of you:) it’s really nice to read your comments/thoughts. Thanks! I’m also contemplating not paying tithing at all. Just because I feel so isolated in church. No one seems to understand where I’m coming from. And giving lessons keeps getting harder because I’m slowly acknowledging how I truly feel about many church topics. And I just don’t agree on too much anymore.

Thanks everyone. I’ll get back to you and write more later.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Anonymous]

Bear wrote:

Thanks to all of you:) it’s really nice to read your comments/thoughts. Thanks! I’m also contemplating not paying tithing at all. Just because I feel so isolated in church. No one seems to understand where I’m coming from. And giving lessons keeps getting harder because I’m slowly acknowledging how I truly feel about many church topics. And I just don’t agree on too much anymore.

Thanks everyone. I’ll get back to you and write more later.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that is the best solution. I stopped paying tithing some time ago and financially have never been better. Only because I had more disposable income. Statistically speaking there are not financial blessing associated with paying tithing. All the anecdotal stories you hear are just that stories.

Think of it this way. Taking God out of the equation, what would that money mean to you, and what would it mean to the church as a whole?

Now if you want to pay tithing because you like the church and want to support it I think that is fine. We should pay our way as much as possible. But if that house is important to you then by all means do what you need to to move in to it. At some point in the future it if you feel the ned you can always pay tithing again.

[Anonymous]

That is a solution, and it is best for some people, but it not best for everyone. Each person has to make whatever decision is best for him or her.

Absolutes generally aren’t appropriate here when it comes to principles and aspects of the Church and the Gospel. We are NOT here to teach ANY form of orthodoxy, even a new one that rejects the existing one.

[Anonymous]

I am thankful that tithing is one area where the church officially accepts a variety of formulations. This can give people like me a way to StayLDS even if that path does not look exactly the same as the majority of the people in my ward.

[Anonymous]

Grudunza wrote:

In recent years, I’ve paid much less tithing (though still full tithing, per my understanding), but try to practice much more charitable giving. And I don’t really care about a measure of blessings… I don’t think of God as a vending machine of blessings… but it feels more like the right thing to do, regardless.

I like this advice. Thanks Grudunza.

Cadence wrote:

Statistically speaking there are not financial blessing associated with paying tithing. All the anecdotal stories you hear are just that stories.

I also agree with Cadence. It is a matter of faith and how you see it helping you individually, it is not statistical or financially formulated in a repeatable or expected way. But I would say it does help some people have stories for themselves, and that can be something. Life can be enhanced with positive experiences and stories. Faith can be a powerful thing.

Roy wrote:

I am thankful that tithing is one area where the church officially accepts a variety of formulations.

Me too, since it is about faith not money.

[Anonymous]

For me, I don’t get the faith part of it anymore. Paying tithing is faith in what? For some, it’s faith that they will still have enough money to pay bills for necessities after they give the money to the church. That to me, with my new eyes, seems irresponsible and against the principle of self-reliance. It can also be unfair to the creditors who have provided you with goods and services who may not be paid on time***. For others, it may be faith that there will be blessings of some kind – quid pro quo. Perhaps faith the money will be put to a good purpose since you don’t know exactly where your dollars are used when you give them to the church?

Now, I give money because I want to see good results come to society, and I want to be charitable with the surplus I have. And it doesn’t have to be given to the church either. I don’t see where faith comes into it if you a) don’t care about the blessings and b) don’t give so much that you have to have faith that God will swoop in and give you funds so you can pay the bills you would have paid had you not paid the tithing.

***There was an Ensign article or Family Home Evening lesson that said if you don’t have enough money to pay tithing due to pending bills, pay your tithing and then divvy up whatever you DO have left over to pay your creditors equally among them, making a partial payment to each of those creditors. I find that also irresponsible, and can hurt your credit and incur late fees. If you exercising faith in some kind of windfall after a decision like that, then I can see that requiring faith. I would rather pay my bills as a responsible person and then have faith the Lord will give me the money I need to pay my tithing. Assuming I was being frugal with my money.

[Anonymous]

Every person needs to decide whether and how much tithing to pay. That is the most basic issue. I pay no tithing. I feel like I have paid sufficient to claim a lifetime membership, so I don’t pay any more. I have no problems with you paying nothing at all or 100% of your gross. Whatever you choose.

The only caveat that I would like to bring up is that the Church has an expectation about tithing and a policy that only full tithe payers are eligible for certain levels of Church involvement, most notably the Temple, but also I suspect that some monetary assistance from the Church’s welfare program would likely be more liberal for active members who are full tithe payers. With that in mind, I feel it is important to be honest with the Church regarding tithing.

Although not clearly stated in the public domain, the Church has a pretty open definition of tithing as being interpreted by the FP as 10% of income, and ‘income’ is up to the individual to decide. IMO, 10% of surplus does not meet the Church’s loose definition of tithing and contrary to what you might have heard, it never has. I don’t believe it would be honest for a person to pay 10% of surplus income AND to say to the Church that they are a full tithe payer. Since the Golden Rule is important to me, I try to be honest with others, including the Church. It’s part of the reason I don’t hold or ask for a Temple Recommend.

Here’s what I wrote on another thread regarding the conclusion that the Church once practiced 10% of surplus:

On Own Now wrote:

…’surplus’ described in D&C 119 has very little resemblance (thankfully) to tithing today.

Historical context: The Church had attempted the Law of Consecration in “Zion” (Jackson County, Missouri). That had proven very difficult. After the expulsion from Jackson County in Nov, 1833 and a couple of years spent as refugees in Clay County, the Church was allowed to settle in the purpose-created Caldwell County. By this time, JS was also finally moving to Missouri. The Far West settlement had begun as early as 1836, but really escalated in spring, 1838, when it became the primary gathering place of the Saints – the first time one location could be considered THE center of the Church. Earlier mass migration from Clay County and now from Ohio filled the area around Far West. In July, JS received the revelation we now have as 119. He referred to ‘Zion’, this time referencing the vicinity of Far West. The revelation answered the question of how to adjust from the failed LofC but still fund the “foundation of Zion”. At the end, the revelation instructs that this implementation in Zion would be an ‘ensample’ to all the other areas of settlement (“the stakes of Zion”).

In that section, people in Zion or arriving in Zion were to give ALL – 100% – of their surplus to the Church. This was what was meant by the term “tithe” in that section. Once tithed in this way, they were then to give 10 percent of their interest annually.

This proved to be short-lived. The sudden influx of Mormons to Far West sparked hostilities. The migration from elsewhere in Missouri had occurred only the previous year and the migration from Ohio had started in-earnest only in the spring of 1838. Sidney Rigdon gave the infamous Salt Sermon in June. The cornerstones of the FW Temple were laid July 4. The Tithing Revelation was a few days later. The Gallatin Election Day Battle was a month later… Danites… the Mormon War… the Battle of Crooked River… The Extermination Order… the Haun’s Mill Massacre… the arrest of JS and his imprisonment in Liberty Jail all came in the next three months. By February of 1839, BY was leading the Saints out of Missouri.

In short, there was tremendous financial chaos for a couple of years after the revelation.

The Nauvoo Era brought an entirely different manner of financing. As far as I can tell, but this is an area that I’m less familiar with, the Church purchased the Nauvoo land and then sold to the members at a ‘profit’ and that profit was what was used to finance the Church operations. In other words, rather than the people being ‘tithed’ again, Church income was via investment. But after two years, tithing was renewed in the Nauvoo Era; this time associated directly with the temple. People were to pay 10% of all they possessed at the time of the commencement of the Temple construction and 10% of their ‘increase’ annually until the Temple was completed. Note the new term, ‘increase’ used at this time. Also note the change from all surplus, to 10% of all possessions in the initial donation. The instructions were given by letter from the Q12 published in the Times & Seasons, Dec 15, 1841. People who had no money to give worked one day out of 10 on the Temple construction.

But the Mormon Exodus from Nauvoo threw finances into chaos again. You quoted Orson Hyde in 1847 saying that a new convert should give 10% of all his possessions when joining the Church and 10% of their increase annually thereafter, and that allowances could be made for those who had nothing extra not to be tithed at all. Remember, though, that the term ‘tithe’ in D&C 119 referred to giving all the initial surplus, not to the contribution of 10% thereafter. Also remember that those who had no money to give in Nauvoo gave of their time in lieu of funds. With that in mind, I think it is likely that what OHyde meant by “not tithed at all”, was in reference to not having any surplus at the time of joining or arriving in Zion, not to the annual payments.

Later, once the people were beginning to get a solid foothold in Utah, tithing again became an issue to be settled. In 1873, OHyde reinforced his vision that new converts should initially give 10% of all their possessions and 10% of increase annually. But that same year (two months later), Orson Pratt said that new converts should give all of their surplus at the time of joining and then 10% of increase annually. In other words, the matter was not settled.

Eventually, tithing became codified as 10% of annual income, with no initial payment. That doesn’t match the old-style, but is sort of a compromise. Can you imagine if we asked new members two give either all their surplus (D&C 119, OPratt-1873) or 10% of their net worth (Nauvoo, OHyde-1873) just to join?

Bottom line. ‘Surplus’ isn’t a word we want to use today with tithing, because to be “tithed of surplus” in D&C 119 meant to give all surplus to the Church. “Interest” or “Increase” are words used with annual requirements for tithing, but they were only used during a time when the “beginning of tithing” was to give a major slice of your net worth to the Church up front.

IMO, the best way to describe tithing today is 10% of income, and let the hearer decide what ‘income’ is. I would never say the word ‘income’ without the caveat that the Church doesn’t have a stand on whether that means gross or net, and that even the term ‘net’ is up to the individual to decide. If we get into semantics about the early laws of tithing, it is impossible to map to our world today. I’ve come to believe that the terms ‘interest’ or ‘increase’ only represent the easier part of the law of tithing from long ago and do not accurately reflect tithing of today.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

I don’t see where faith comes into it if you a) don’t care about the blessings and b) don’t give so much that you have to have faith that God will swoop in and give you funds so you can pay the bills you would have paid had you not paid the tithing.

Faith can be about giving without strings attached…I don’t need blessings for it, although I do see blessings in having a building for my kids to meet in and a temple recommend in my pocket. I don’t need sensational stories about it. My faith is in my actions on what I think is right.

I don’t see how faith cannot be a part of it. It isn’t a financial strategy that works in any way I can see.

On Own Now wrote:

The only caveat that I would like to bring up is that the Church has an expectation about tithing and a policy that only full tithe payers are eligible for certain levels of Church involvement, most notably the Temple, but also I suspect that some monetary assistance from the Church’s welfare program would likely be more liberal for active members who are full tithe payers.

I agree OON. Honesty about it is important too, it’s kind of the part of building trust with others and self on things, which is why it impacts faith, I think. Either do it, or don’t…find the way that makes sense to you…but be honest about it.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t read the book but in Michael Quinn’s “The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power” he states that tithing was once considered 2% of someone’s net worth after deducting debts, voluntary not forced. The history is all over the place and usually reflects the times. 10% of one’s total net worth and 10% on one’s increase thereafter might have worked for a church that was in debt and buying up land for destitute people emigrating/immigrating and settling into a community being built from the ground up. Maybe 10% on gross needed to be explicitly written (on bold no less) in the church handbook in 1963 for a church that was deeply in debt (and now I know where the teaching I’ve heard all my life comes from). What’s the updated definition for tithing for a church that some guess to be sitting on billions? Why update the definition in an “if it ain’t broke…” environment?

One can cherry pick a definition out of history to justify pretty much anything, but my definition of tithing isn’t between me and the historical church, it isn’t even between me and the contemporary church, it’s between me and the lord and I feel the lord has my back (even if I do factor my history into my definition 🙂 ).

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

I don’t see where faith comes into it if you a) don’t care about the blessings and b) don’t give so much that you have to have faith that God will swoop in and give you funds so you can pay the bills you would have paid had you not paid the tithing.

Faith can be about giving without strings attached…I don’t need blessings for it…

See, what I think you describe is generosity, not faith — giving without strings attached is not faith, it’s simply being kind and generous.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

Heber13 wrote:

SilentDawning wrote:

I don’t see where faith comes into it if you a) don’t care about the blessings and b) don’t give so much that you have to have faith that God will swoop in and give you funds so you can pay the bills you would have paid had you not paid the tithing.

Faith can be about giving without strings attached…I don’t need blessings for it…

See, what I think you describe is generosity, not faith — giving without strings attached is not faith, it’s simply being kind and generous.

I disagree. Christ asked us to believe in him. While there are plenty of people who do things out of a feeling of obligation or duty as well as those who do things with expected blessings in the present or future, there are also people who do things like get baptized because they believe. Baptism, as an example, is an outward and inward demonstration of belief (at least for some people, probably not most 8 year olds). Tithing could fall under that same category. There are people who pay tithing not because they feel obliged or because they want a TR or because they feel like they’re paying their membership dues or “fire insurance.” There some who pay tithing for the same reason they keep other commandments – because they love God and/or Christ. There are some who recognize it’s really all about grace no matter what we do and who keep the commandments not because they’re supposed to but because they want to.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

See, what I think you describe is generosity, not faith — giving without strings attached is not faith, it’s simply being kind and generous.

In a lot of ways…I think you are right SD. I learn a lot from reading your views. Thanks for sharing.

DarkJedi wrote:

There are some who recognize it’s really all about grace no matter what we do and who keep the commandments not because they’re supposed to but because they want to.

Good summary, DJ.

If I had to be honest…I would have to really evaluate my motivations. I do think faith is apart of it, not just “kind and generous” (I’m not that kind with my money…there are always groups and individuals with their hand out for donations…it is too much to give to all when I like my satellite TV to watch the NBA playoffs…I’m selfish still…but working on it).

I also think faith is a term that can have levels of meaning. That is worth discussing in relation to tithing. It is actually why I think tithing is included as part of the TR interview…because like DJ said, it is like baptism and other acts that can be used to discuss faith, which is what is ultimately important.

6 Questions I would love to hear thoughts about: (Discuss any or all of these as you have thoughts about it)

– Is it faith if I pay tithing with literal expectations of “fire insurance” or the electric bill will be paid by a mysterious envelope on my doorstep?

– Is it faith if I pay tithing with the expectation I can answer “Yes” in a TR interview?

– Is it faith if I pay so I feel good about myself for being kind and generous?

– Is it faith if I pay so I don’t upset my spouse, but I don’t believe in God?

– Is it faith if I pay to an outside organization, not the LDS church?

– Is it faith if I don’t pay?

[Anonymous]

I have no expectation of blessings from paying tithing. However, it has made it easier for me to ask for fast offering help when I was unemployed for too long. I know those two funds are different, but, psychologically, it helped.

As much as that is what giving financially does to further detachment from material wealth and the pride that too often accompanies it.

If someone decides not to pay tithing to a church, I still encourage them to give generously to a worthy cause. I love the overall concept and principle of tithing, even if it is calculated and distributed differently than I choose to do it.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

tithing with literal expectations of “fire insurance” or the electric bill will be paid by a mysterious envelope on my doorstep?

Yes — this is faith. This is because faith, in my view, is a belief in things that are not yet reality. These two things qualify as eventual realities we believe will happen if we pay out tithing..

Quote:

– Is it faith if I pay tithing with the expectation I can answer “Yes” in a TR interview?

No, this is an exercise is quid pro quo — this for that — payment for access to privileges granted by our organization.

Quote:

– Is it faith if I pay so I feel good about myself for being kind and generous?

I would say no. This does not take faith. The act of giving is its own reward, and you know, from past experience that you will feel good about what you did afterwards. There is no faith in that — it is simply an expression of good character, and an equally valid reason for giving compared to faith. But in my view, it is not faith.

Quote:

– Is it faith if I pay so I don’t upset my spouse, but I don’t believe in God?

No, it is not faith — it is an expression of a peace-making character. It is a charitable act where you do something to please another person. It is an expression of loyalty and commitment to one’s marriage, but it is not faith.

Quote:

– Is it faith if I pay to an outside organization, not the LDS church?

Only if I believe there will be eternal rewards for doing so, or God will make a check show up on my doorstep if my giving is at the expense of paying my bills.

At the same time, if your motive is simply to be generous, then it is not faith, simply and expression of your heart’s generosity. I think it really depends WHY you pay that outside organization. In my case, it’s because I want to be a kind person, and I want my money to do good. I want to see the good in action.

Quote:

– Is it faith if I don’t pay?

In a way — faith that the reasons for paying tithing we hear about at church are NOT true! Kind of an anti-faith, or expression of doubt. But it is also faith if you believe your giving to a different organization will result in some form of blessings like the ones we hear about at church.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Is it faith if I pay tithing with literal expectations of “fire insurance” or the electric bill will be paid by a mysterious envelope on my doorstep?

Yes and no, but more no than yes. I take a pretty limited definition of faith as applied to Christianity in general, and I think most of the time it should be stated as “faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.” So, were one paying tithing for the express reason of having faith in tithing (and the associated reward), then no. If one is paying tithing because he or she believes Christ will give the associated blessing, maybe.

Quote:

Is it faith if I pay tithing with the expectation I can answer “Yes” in a TR interview?

It’s not faith in doing so, but I don;t have a problem with anyone answering yes of that’s the case. The question is simple and straightforward – “Are you a full tithe payer.” The answer is yes or no regardless of why.

Quote:

Is it faith if I pay so I feel good about myself for being kind and generous?

Maybe. I do believe the good feeling we get from doing good is from God, so if it is good and you get that good feeling, I suppose so.[/quote]

Quote:

Is it faith if I pay so I don’t upset my spouse, but I don’t believe in God?

No.

Quote:

Is it faith if I pay to an outside organization, not the LDS church?

Perhaps. See the good feeling response above. Also, I think there s a real question whether or not the church administers the “lord’s funds.” I don’t think God needs any money, and if He did I don’t think the church has a monopoly on it. Locally the Catholic diocese runs an ad about the “year of mercy.” The ad specifically says what the money is used for, which is relieving the suffering of others. I have seriously considered donating to the cause in lieu of LDS donations. The ad is quite powerful.

Quote:

Is it faith if I don’t pay?

Probably not but under individual circumstances it could be.

Side note: A couple people have mentioned feeling better about asking for church welfare assistance if they are full tithe payers/fast offering donators. Leadership roulette does play a role in those decisions, and while assistance was not directly part of my faith crisis it was a contributing factor. It’s kind of a complicated piece of the puzzle, but in a nutshell lack of assistance (or what I perceive as a severe limiting of assistance) was a contributing factor to the idea that God did not really care about me (or my family) and that the church did not really care about individuals. This particular leader did expressly claim he had prayed about the situation and this was his answer, and despite a future stake president’s apology I have still not reconciled the situation – I expect nothing of the church and ask for the same.

[Author]

Posts