Tithing

[mfbukowski]

another bad gateway

I am getting sick of this error 502

Edited June 26, 2011 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

It was in answer to Yirgacheffe's question of what would happen if the person believed that paying on his net was a true tithe but the bishop wanted him to pay on his gross.

I was saying that the bishop would (should) never tell a member such a thing because the bishop only asks someone if they are a full tithe payer, he doesn't add to the definition of what the church has declared a 'full tithe' to be.

Hope that makes more sense.

(and by the way, my sentence IS a complete sentence. )

Now it is, thanks.

No, the bishop should not add to what the church has defined as a "full tithe".

And there are many reasons why we have tithing settlement which any alleged "insider" would know. One criterion the church uses, for example, in dividing stakes, is the number of full tithe payers there are in a given geographic area, since experience has shown that such individuals will accept callings and give support to proposed wards and stakes both financially and in ways other than financial.

It is a measure of commitment of the Saints in a given area. Since it is one of the most difficult commandments for most people, - and is often the one which keeps people out of the temple- it is the commandment chosen for closer statistical analysis as a measurement of "faithfulness" of the Saints.

Actually parting with 10% of your income sets those who are committed apart from those who are not, and is a great measure of one's faith. As always, tithing is paid with faith, not dollars.

So as a measure of faithfulness, tithing, and the number of temple recommend holders, is a prime measure of what is happening in the trenches of a given ward or stake.

Now if I don't get a "502 bad gateway" message, I will be able to post this. Otherwise I have other ways to spend my life...... fingers crossed.....

[Wants2know]

Interesting topic to come across as I'm sitting here about to write my first tithing check. I was very hung up on tithing throughout my investigation. And as i explained during my baptismal interview, it was not anyone from the church who changed my mind about it. I ran accross an article by David Ramsey (on his website I believe) that basically said, "Look, if you can't live on 90% of your income, you are doing something wrong to begin with and it has nothing to do with tithing". He advocated paying it, and that if you are handling finances well, it shouldn't be an issue. For some reason, this resonated with me, and I began to change my views of the potential tithing offered. For what it's worth….

[LeSellers]

I ran accross an article by David Ramsey (on his website I believe) that basically said, "Look, if you can't live on 90% of your income, you are doing something wrong to begin with and it has nothing to do with tithing". He advocated paying it, and that if you are handling finances well, it shouldn't be an issue. For some reason, this resonated with me, and I began to change my views of the potential tithing offered.

Ramsey is not the only one who understands it. As I explained here, most reputable financial advisors know this to be true.

By the way, this is about the only thing that I agree with Ramsey on. His program boils down to "eat beans'n'weenies and hold garage sales until you're out of debt". There are much better ways. They work faster and still allow you to live a decent sort of lifestyle.

Lehi

[TAO]

Have you ever heard of the Seventh-day Adventists getting any sort of pressure from their publishing of their numbers? Or any non-profit?

No, but with the way the news likes to go after us sometimes, I would suspect that would happen to us. I doubt the church would sway to the pressure, but it just causes alot less commotion if they keep the finances private.

[Hughes]

No, i believe it has two vital purposes (one i've already discussed in the 'EDIT TO ADD' part of my last post).

The other is that it is our opportunity to declare ourselves before the Lord and His witnesses. We are given the chance to purjur ourselves, or speak honestly, so that, in the end, God's judgements of us will be just.

It's like ananais and saphira in the NT. God knew they had lied and didn't give all they said they gave. God didn't need them to declare it to know the truth. If they were going to be dishonest though, and steal from Him, He wanted them to do so outloud, in front of witnesses, so that there would never be any question that His judgements of them were not fair.

A man isn't honest, just because he's never had the chance to steal. It is in the moments when are must declare ourselves that our true colors shine forth and where we lose our ability to deny, even to ourselves, our faults and weakness.

God has, historically, always commanded His people to announce their allegence to Him and His kingdom aloud and in front of witnesses. I see tithing settlement as one more time that He askes us to do so.

Ananias and Saphiria weren't tithing though, so the application of that passage to tithing is at the very least misapplied.

[mfbukowski]

Ramsey is not the only one who understands it. As I explained here, most reputable financial advisors know this to be true.

By the way, this is about the only thing that I agree with Ramsey on. His program boils down to "eat beans'n'weenies and hold garage sales until you're out of debt". There are much better ways. They work faster and still allow you to live a decent sort of lifestyle.

Lehi

Just want to add my voice to this- yes that IS in fact true for most financial advisors

[CARPE DIEM]

I was told by the Missionarys that it was 10% of all your total income, before anything is taken out!

[Questing Beast]

@Carpe diem: Well, "the missionaries" spoke presumptuously, which is nothing rare or new....

[bluebell]

Ananias and Saphiria weren't tithing though, so the application of that passage to tithing is at the very least misapplied.

I never said they were tithing.

The application is valid anyway because the topic was the need in certain situations for reporting our obedience to the commandments of the Lord to the Lord's representatives on earth and WHY God would require such a thing, even though He already knows whether or not we have been obedient.

[Commander]

Does anyone here pay directly to SLC? I started doing that when my bishop started getting too nosey.

[bluebell]

Does anyone here pay directly to SLC? I started doing that when my bishop started getting too nosey.

I've heard of other people doing that, but never met anyone who actually did.

[Garden Girl]

I never said they were tithing.

The application is valid anyway because the topic was the need in certain situations for reporting our obedience to the commandments of the Lord to the Lord's representatives on earth and WHY God would require such a thing, even though He already knows whether or not we have been obedient.

Exactly... your application as listed in your post is applicable indeed in concept of following the commandments and reporting to the Lord's representatives where required. Are we honest?

GG

[KevinG]

@Carpe diem: Well, "the missionaries" spoke presumptuously, which is nothing rare or new....

I joke that one proof of the truthfulness of the LDS Church is the fact that the 19-24 y/o missionaries have not destroyed it yet.

[Hughes]

I never said they were tithing.

The application is valid anyway because the topic was the need in certain situations for reporting our obedience to the commandments of the Lord to the Lord's representatives on earth and WHY God would require such a thing, even though He already knows whether or not we have been obedient.

If you would please quote for me (from Acts 4) what "commandments of the Lord" they were being obedient to or not as the case may be?

Edited June 28, 2011 by Hughes

[bluebell]

If you would please quote for me (from Acts 4) what "commandments of the Lord" they were being obedient to or not as the case may be?

The commandment not to steal from the Lord and then lie to Him about it (it's obviously not quoted in the chapters, but i can't imagine that you would want to argue that it's not implied in them).

(and A. and S. are actually mentioned in acts 5, not acts 4, though acts 4 is relevant because it is this chapter where we learn that the saints were living the law of consecration-or that they saints 'had everything in common'-at the time and that it was an attempt to live this law that caused A. and S. to sell their land in the first place and it is this law they violated when they kept back a portion of their offering and then lied about it).

[Okrahomer]

If you would please quote for me (from Acts 4) what "commandments of the Lord" they were being obedient to or not as the case may be?

The story of Ananias and Sapphira is actually found in Acts 5:

¹ But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. ² And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. ³ But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? ⁴ While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

⁵ Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. ⁶ And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.

⁷ Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. ⁸ And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?”

She said, “Yes, for so much.”

⁹ Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” ¹⁰ Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. ¹¹ So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.

Here is one non-LDS commentary which indicates that they were guilty of covetousness, dishonesty, and hypocrisy: Annias and Sapphira

[Hughes]

The commandment not to steal from the Lord and then lie to Him about it (it's obviously not quoted in the chapters, but i can't imagine that you would want to argue that it's not implied in them).

(and A. and S. are actually mentioned in acts 5, not acts 4, though acts 4 is relevant because it is this chapter where we learn that the saints were living the law of consecration-or that they saints 'had everything in common'-at the time and that it was an attempt to live this law that caused A. and S. to sell their land in the first place and it is this law they violated when they kept back a portion of their offering and then lied about it).

My mistake. Acts 5. So sorry.

However, the commandment not to steal from the Lord isn't in this passage, nor is it implied. Sorry.

In addition to this, I see no "law of consecration" as you put it. Where is this law you speak of?

The story of Ananias and Sapphira is actually found in Acts 5:

¹ But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. ² And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. ³ But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? ⁴ While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

⁵ Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. ⁶ And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.

⁷ Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. ⁸ And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?”

She said, “Yes, for so much.”

⁹ Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” ¹⁰ Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. ¹¹ So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.

Here is one non-LDS commentary which indicates that they were guilty of covetousness, dishonesty, and hypocrisy: Annias and Sapphira

Right. Annias and Sapphira weren't guilty of violating a commandment of giving, or law of consecration, but guilty of covetousness, dishonesty, and hypocrisy.

[Okrahomer]

The non-LDS commentary agrees with Bluebell:

"But if we think to put a cheat upon God, we shall put a fatal cheat upon our own souls."

Another non-LDS commentary (the BibleGateway.com) goes even further, describing their action as "embezzlement." BibleGateway.com

Many non-LDS commentators also refer to Acts 4 in order to provide context to the A&E story. Acts 4 (particularly verse 32) refers to the fact that the early Saints "had all things (possessions) in common.". We call this the Law of Consecration.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Okrahomer

[bluebell]

The non-LDS commentary agrees with Bluebell:

"But if we think to put a cheat upon God, we shall put a fatal cheat upon our own souls."

Another non-LDS commentary (the BibleGateway.com) goes even further, describing their action as "embezzlement." BibleGateway.com

Many non-LDS commentators also refer to Acts 4 in order to provide context to the A&E story. Acts 4 (particularly verse 32) refers to the fact that the early Saints "had all things (possessions) in common.". We call this the Law of Consecration.

[Hughes]

The non-LDS commentary agrees with Bluebell:

"But if we think to put a cheat upon God, we shall put a fatal cheat upon our own souls."

Another non-LDS commentary (the BibleGateway.com) goes even further, describing their action as "embezzlement." BibleGateway.com

Many non-LDS commentators also refer to Acts 4 in order to provide context to the A&E story. Acts 4 (particularly verse 32) refers to the fact that the early Saints "had all things (possessions) in common.". We call this the Law of Consecration.

So, there's no actual law that was being violated. Got it.

I'm opposed to this "all things in common" being stated as a "Law" as Paul stated, we are "not under the law, but under grace." (Rom. 6:14)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, there's no actual law that was being violated. Got it.

What part of "You have not lied to men but to God." do you not get? Why did they die Hughes?

[bluebell]

So, there's no actual law that was being violated. Got it.

I'm opposed to this "all things in common" being stated as a "Law" as Paul stated, we are "not under the law, but under grace." (Rom. 6:14)

Paul meant the law of moses.

And commandments are just laws.

[Hughes]

What part of "You have not lied to men but to God." do you not get? Why did they die Hughes?

I asked where the "law of consecration" was... it wasn't stated, so I concluded it's not there.

Why did they die? Because to whom much is given, much is required. They were judged harshly because of the miraculous things done before them, yet they decided in their hearts to lie.

Paul meant the law of moses.

And commandments are just laws.

Right, we aren't under the law of sin and death.

[shalamabobbi]

Back to the subject of tithing, I had been putting it off intending to pay it lump sum before the end of the year because of financial tightness in general. But I felt I needed to pay it, so I did. Within a week I heard from a friend that a former business associate wanted a payoff letter and he would pay me back several thousand dollars that he had borrowed years ago. I had written that one off as a loss.

Right, we aren't under the law of sin and death.

We're under a stricter law then the law of Moses. It's called the law of Christ.

Read Mathew chapters 5,6 and 7.

The law (of Moses) was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ. Much like Algebra is our schoolmaster to bring us unto calculus or

calisthenics is our schoolmaster to bring us unto weight training.

Tithe Mathew 23:23 "not to leave the other(tithing) undone..

Mathew 28:20 teaching them to observe ALL THINGS whatsoever I have COMMANDED you.

Oh oh, commandments..

note this is AFTER the resurrection..

So is this..

Revelation chapter 2