- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
DevilsAdvocate wrote:
However, I would never pay 10% of gross income. As far as I’m concerned wages I’ll never be able to use might as well be imaginary and I don’t see any good reason to thank God for all the taxes I have to pay.
😆 Very good. I might try to work this in to the next interview I get.Quote:For me Tithing is really the main reason I still haven’t been married in the temple and haven’t had a recommend for over 10 years. I’m still debating whether to go ahead and pay it at least long enough to get a recommend just to try to make my wife happy because even though we’ve been inactive much of the time she still thinks the ultimate goal is to eventually get married in the temple. However, I would never pay 10% of gross income. As far as I’m concerned wages I’ll never be able to use might as well be imaginary and I don’t see any good reason to thank God for all the taxes I have to pay.
I’m going through my own Gethsemane now about tithing, and I wonder, if you ended up on your deathbed in the near future, how would you look back on a life of no tithing or temple worthiness? I’m not criticizing, but when I think that way, it just makes me feel like there’s no way out — except to pay it. And of course, my heart isn’t in it right now.
SilentDawning wrote:…I wonder, if you ended up on your deathbed in the near future, how would you look back on a life of no tithing or temple worthiness? I’m not criticizing, but when I think that way, it just makes me feel like there’s no way out — except to pay it. And of course, my heart isn’t in it right now.
I could die in a car crash tomorrow and I would have no real regrets or guilt about any of that because I look at tithing as basically a commandment of men. In my opinion, they mostly got this idea from the Bible but the problem is that the Bible also says that donkeys can talk and many other unbelievable things. As far as I’m concerned, most real sins involve doing tangible harm to others.
So why would I consider giving any money at all to the LDS church if I don’t really believe in this principle? Mostly because the idea of going to the temple is important to my wife and I still feel some sense of loyalty to the LDS Church in spite of all its warts. I really don’t have a problem with the idea of donating some money or time to charity but 10% seems way out of proportion compared to the general lack of confidence I have in the Bible and LDS prophets and apostles.
I wonder if people who are raising children in the church should pay less tithing too. Since they are effectively giving new members to the church and paying for their upkeep etc. SamBee wrote:I wonder if people who are raising children in the church should pay less tithing too. Since they are effectively giving new members to the church and paying for their upkeep etc.
😆 Man I love this website.I’m not really joking Cwald (although I joke about many other things), this came to me tonight. If the church is causing financial strain on parents, it is essentially shooting itself in the foot. Every child raised in the church is an investment for it, and it’s not just a case of “families are forever” for me, it’s “thank you very much for having these children, and bringing them to us”! I’m still in the throes of this whole tithing question, in spite of what I may have said earlier. My feelings keep changing on it. I read this article:
Where GB Hinckley commented on the mall the Church purchased. This was to revitalize the area around the Salt Lake Temple. He commented that no tithing funds were used to buy the mall area, and that the land on which the mall is built belongs to the Church. All funds used were from commercial entities owned by the Church.
My question here is — where did the funds come from to buy the commercial entities? Or the land on which the mall stands? At some point, donations from the members had to be used to make the initial investment in these commerical entities which fund the further business interests of the Church….
SamBee wrote:I’m not really joking Cwald
I didn’t think you were. That is why I’m laughing about it. It’s something
Iwould bring up in EQ and I wouldn’t be joking about it either. It just makes logical sense to me – something that often times is lacking in church policy. Totally agree. Sometimes the church is so keen to have pat answers to everything, it misses the biggies! Poverty can cause big problems with child rearing, and doesn’t need to be made worse. In severe cases, it can lead to malnutrition, and the children are more likely to get involved in crime unfortunately.
I don’t think loving parents come with a price tag on them, but they need to be able to look after their offspring to a reasonable level.
I’d like to have children. But I need to get an increase in income if I wish to provide for them.
Tithing isn’t keeping members in poverty who would be out of poverty without it – and plenty of people receive Fast Offering assistance that is MUCH higher than what their tithing would have been. I normally don’t push things this strongly, but let’s be very, very careful about throwing around statements like tithing keeps Mormons in poverty. It doesn’t – and certainly not to the extent that it keeps clothing and food from children.
On a different note, I’m still researching, and found this in the doctrine and covenants: Quote:
1–5, The saints are to pay their surplus property and then give, as tithing, one-tenth of their interest annually; 6–7, Such a course will sanctify the land of Zion.1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their asurplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion,
2 For the building of mine ahouse, 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 atithing of my people.
4 And after that, those who have thus been atithed 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.
5 Verily I say unto you,
it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of aZion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.6 And I say unto you, if my people observe not this law, to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion unto me, that my statutes and my judgments may be kept thereon, that it may be most holy, behold, verily I say unto you, it shall not be a land of aZion unto you.
7 And this shall be an ensample unto all the astakes of Zion. Even so. Amen.
If you read the preamble to this passage, it says that the law of consecration had failed, so JS inquired what the new amount to be tithed should be. It indicates that if anyone new comes, they have to give all of their surplus, and then, 10% of their interest (which the brethren has said is income).
Anyone know when having to give all your surplus up front disappeared from policy? And why?
The Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) still practices this. FireTag at my blog said,
Quote:The 1841 interpretation of tithing was in effect in our denomination until recently, although compliance was always poor. Old timers (even compared to me) considered it a life’e milestone to pay off one’s tithing, and often made it the first thing to be taken from their estates in their wills.
His next comment says,
Quote:The principle was that 1/10th of everything you had in excess of your basic living needs and “necessary wants” was tithable, as was a tenth of your annual income, subject to the same limitation. When baptized at 8, I dutifully filed my initial tithing statement indicating the value of my worldly goods, including toys, at $150 and accepting a tithing due of $15.00. This was quite a sobering sum for one whose allowance was 25 cents per week.
I suspect it was really sobering to adult converts!
He has several really interesting comments. See
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/09/13/successors-of-consecration-tithing-and-fast-offerings/#comment-3526 It seems that through the end of the 1800’s, the LDS church under Brigham Young practiced this same law. I wish I could answer when that position officially changed.
Great Basin Kingdomreally covers the time period of 1847-1900. It is evident to me that Brigham Young promoted the 1841 definition, and he died in 1873. After that, I don’t recall Arrington talking about tithing very much. The United Orders lasted through the 1890’s, so I suspect the 1841 definition was still in effect. I haven’t finished Establishing Zion, and perhaps it is in there. Anyway, in the 1880’s people quit paying their tithing because they didn’t want to turn it over to the government. The Manifesto came in 1890, statehood in 1898, the drought in 1899, and I suspect that it is about this time that Lorenzo Snow may have been happy just to get 10% from everyone, rather than follow the 1841 definition.
That was a wonderful lesson, mh! I think tithing is a wonderful practice. I think it’s fine for people to give their tithing elsewhere if they feel the church is driving families to poverty. But to give up on tithing altogether seems like a movement away from the direction of enlightenment and love and toward fear and smallness. After all, why won’t my Father in Heaven care for me if my faith is not little?
I like Mormonheretic’s statement above — thanks for the education. But after reading it, it sounds like tithing has been arbitrarily defined at different times throughout the history of the Church. They tried the law of consecration, but that didn’t work. They tried paying on surplus, but that was probably insufficient, or open to so much interpretation that people used it to minimize donations. It was defined as a lump sum donation of your net worth upon baptism, followed by 10% of some undefined amount (“interest” means rent on money, not income). Then it was redefined in 1970 as “income”. And the Church membership took this to mean gross income or net income after deductions on your pay check, but before non-discretionary expenses. And now, this definition of “gross or net” has gotten more and more entrenched in our Mormon culture.
And for a “standing law” forever, it seems to have undergone a lot of interpretation over the years by the Church leaders.
In various talks at Church, I’ve heard Stake Presidency Counselors and others make comments like “Nickel and Dime the Lord and He’ll nickel and dime you”. “Pay the Lord first”. One Bishop told everyone to pay on gross in a Ward I lived in once. Another said “better to err on the side of the Lord if you’re going to err at all”. All meant to portray God as having strict accounting. Does He really? Wouldn’t he just be glad that you lived your life serving people, being chaste, honest, good to others, and charitable to the extent your circumstances allow?
And what about self-reliance. It appears that tithing eclipses that commandment. I asked our Bishop once — what if after paying tithing, they are short on money for basic necessities? He replied “they pay their tithing, and then we give them a food order”. So, even the principle of self-reliance is subordinate to tithing, and I don’t feel right about that anymore.
Regarding tithing keeping people in poverty. I don’t see this necessarily as the rule. But I do know that it DOES limit the experience of people in this life, such as children. There is a family in our ward that has three intelligent daugthers. The mother is a single mother. They don’t have any money for things like music lessons, sports involvement, or anything. The kids go to school and Church and that’s it. This is part of the price of paying tithing; the kids grow up with talents undeveloped, etcetera.
People like my in-laws end up working far beyond retirement age because they don’t have anything saved due to paying tithing, and this in spite of failing health, etcetera…
Don’t know….
SilentDawning wrote:But after reading it, it sounds like tithing has been arbitrarily defined at different times throughout the history of the Church. They tried the law of consecration, but that didn’t work. They tried paying on surplus, but that was probably insufficient, or open to so much interpretation that people used it to minimize donations. It was defined as a lump sum donation of your net worth upon baptism, followed by 10% of some undefined amount (“interest” means rent on money, not income). Then it was redefined in 1970 as “income”. And the Church membership took this to mean gross income or net income after deductions on your pay check, but before non-discretionary expenses. And now, this definition of “gross or net” has gotten more and more entrenched in our Mormon culture.
And for a “standing law” forever, it seems to have undergone a lot of interpretation over the years by the Church leaders.
Yeah, that’s about right. The LDS Church is just a church. Mormonism is just a religion. It happens to be our religion and our church, and it has its own unique flavor and tradition, but it is just one of the guys, and not the mother of all faiths or the One True Faith.
Once you set aside all delusions about separate-ness and One True People/Church/Religion, you can get directly to finding out the One Truth that you share with the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa, President Monson, and your neighbors.
SilentDawning wrote:But I do know that it DOES limit the experience of people in this life, such as children.
I think it would be worthwhile to keep an open mind about that. Would it be possible to remove the LDS Church from your considerations about tithing? Would it be possible to think of it less as a tax and more as a spiritual practice, or a choice? Would it help for a time if you gave the money to people obviously less fortunate than yourself, or to some of those in poverty you are seeing? It is possible tithing is a Good Part of the LDS tradition (or at least if you squint, walk around to just the right angle, tilt your head to the side, and put your tongue to one side just right)? Is it possible you might even desire to increase your tithing for a time? Can you see the speck of gold in the sand?
The church is false big time! Can you see the truth in it?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.