Is Tithing Only Of Your Surplus?

[williamsmith]

I didn't think that churches needed to be corporations necessarily. But understand that if we are to build temples etc. that probably needs to happen in order for the church to function. And therefore I'm off base in this regard. And am reminded how different our church is from the regular Christian church.

Basically every Church is a "corporation".

Temples are not built with the Churches "business" funds, but from it's spiritual funds, tithing etc.

Our Church really isn't any different at all compared to other Churches in this regard. They build all kinds of empires with the funds they receive. The only difference is that we create more successful people per-capita, and are more accountable in tithing, thus we have the fruits of our labors/donations.

[Bart Burk]

Don't you think that is a significant overstatement, especially since no one besides the bishop is supposed to know and one isn't barred from taking the sacrament, giving talks and teaching or anything besides the temple...something that many don't take advantage of anyway.

Confidentiality is not a strong suit of most Mormon Bishops. The ward clerk knows. People are going to know you couldn't attend your daughter's temple wedding. Or your sister's or brother's. I've seen active members who take the sacrament standing outside on such occasions. So no, I don't think it is an overstatement. And if only the Bishop on up think you are scum that is something important. Edited December 7, 2012 by Bart Burk

[Tacenda]

Confidentiality is not a strong suit if most Mormon Bishops. The ward clerk knows. People are going to know you couldn't attend your daughter's temple wedding. Or your sisre's or brother's. I've seen active members who take the sacrament standing outside on such occasions. So no, I don't think it is an overstatement. And if only the Bishop on up think you are scum that is something important.

I don't know if this was the worst thing but a former bishop of mine asked a couple in my ward to speak on how they were living the law of tithing again where they hadn't done so before. At that time, faith in tact, I even felt that was a little out there. Edited December 7, 2012 by Tacenda

[Bart Burk]

I don't know if this was the worst thing but a former bishop of mine asked a couple in my ward to speak on how they were living the law of tithing again where they hadn't done so before. At that time, faith in tact, I even felt that was a little out there.

So did they do it? I guess if they agreed to speak on the subject it's not a problem.

[Tacenda]

So did they do it? I guess if they agreed to speak on the subject it's not a problem.

They spoke! And it turned out really well! So it's all good then. Just thought this story was in line with the "knowing" part in the post above. But it never entered my mind that they were scum to not pay their tithing, even though they were very capable and had a large house, big wake boarding boat, nice vehicles etc. I guess the bishop picked the right couple to speak about it.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Tacenda

[Bart Burk]

One way to look at it -- what are employees of the LDS Church required to give as tithing to maintain their employment? The Church knows what they make.

Edited December 7, 2012 by Bart Burk

[thesometimesaint]

0% is required for employment. No one cross checks.

[JAHS]

I have studied the history of tithing in the church and the deffinition of the law appears to be whatever the current prophet of the church says it is, which varied widely from one prophet to the next. And since what our current prophet says is more important to us than what a dead prophet said decades ago; we should probably stick with what we are told today, regardless of what our own interpretation of D&C 119 is. However our interpretaion of what ten percent of our income is, might be different from one person to the next and is between us and God.

[Bart Burk]

0% is required for employment. No one cross checks.

So if you don't pay tithing and you're employed by the church and you tell your Bishop you are a full tithe payer to get a temple recommend you're in the clear? Don't think so ...

[thesometimesaint]

No one cross references. To do so would be a violation of Church policy. Further there is nothing stopping a person from lying to their Bishop if they really want to. The Judgment of God is against the liar not the Bishop.

[ERayR]

I don't know if this was the worst thing but a former bishop of mine asked a couple in my ward to speak on how they were living the law of tithing again where they hadn't done so before. At that time, faith in tact, I even felt that was a little out there.

Tacenda are you sure the topic wasn't blessing received for again living the law of the tithes?

[ERayR]

So if you don't pay tithing and you're employed by the church and you tell your Bishop you are a full tithe payer to get a temple recommend you're in the clear? Don't think so ...

As stated before the bishop does not conduct an audit of your finances nor does he have access to church employment records.

[pmccombs1]

Actually, when you give something that belongs to you it is "sacrifice", because you would have done something else with that money, so it is a sacrifice to give it, no matter how rich or poor one is. Although, obviously when rich it's much easier to give and less of a sacrifice, which is likely why we should then give much more.

Yes, BUT you miss a key word "interest". Interest is what you earn from what you have, which is above what you have.

For example, you have 10 sheep when you normally have 9, you give one for the Bishop. Those 9 sheep then have babies which is interest, or "growth" from what you have, you then pay a tenth of that increase for the year, then you have a surplus likely and then you give that surplus, until you're back to 9 sheep..

Yes, but the rule is to pay on one's "interest", not on income. Yes, in the church we have traditionally interpreted it that way, which is not a bad thing, if you can afford it, and it's a sacrifice to you, then do it. But the minimum requirement according to the law is to pay on one's interest. For me, even doing that is a sacrifice for me.

I understand what you are saying. I think you have a good argument, but I am suggesting that Hugh Nibley had a different opinion. He thought that tithing couldn't be a proper sacrifice unless it did not come from the surplus. He did not appear to interpret "interest" in the same way you do. Of course, "interest" does literally mean "any surplus advantage" (that definition is found in Webster's 1828 dictionary, and would have been familiar to people in Joseph Smith's time).

The really sticky thing for me is that this Law, as you have explained it, seems ideally suited to a substantially non-money economy in which it is common to have a yearly increase in material wealth, such as in flocks or crops or crafted things. In our abstract money economy, this becomes more difficult to understand. Why would the Lord give us an "Eternal Law" that requires an eternal economy as well? Our worldly economies aren't eternal; why do we have an eternal law for them? We've changed to an economy that doesn't map well to the Law that was given. The brethren then "reinterpret" the Law for us, to fit our circumstances and to allow for a certain latitude of interpretation. But then, is it still "eternal" if it has to change to fit some new circumstances? What is eternal about it? Is it the sacrifice? And if so, what does that really mean?

Anyway, as my bishop tells me, "It's between you and the Lord."

As a Mormon anarchist (ahem), I think the hierarchy is quite sufficiently wealthy and I find the Fast Offering fund a more suitable target for my sacrifices (though whenever I know of a particular need, I prefer to address it directly rather than through some abstraction). That, of course, is my own opinion as I am inclined to give more to the undeserving poor than to the deserving rich.

[thesometimesaint]

Until we live the Law of Consecration we live the Law of Tithing.

[rockpond]

Technically and truthfully, "business ventures" and such came from "Wills" donating holdings to the Church, rich members going well beyond their donations, etc. Tithing was NEVER tapped (that I'm aware) to engage in filthy lucre.

Is there any evidence/documentation of that being true? I commonly hear that business ventures are not entered into with tithing funds but I am not aware of any transparency in financial records to support such statements.

[rockpond]

I realize that the Brethren have defined "interest" as "income" but what they have refused to do is provide any additional clarification on the word "income". I imagine there are good reasons for this.

Is income my gross salary?

Is income my take home pay?

Is it my taxable income?

Or, do we look at income from the accounting perspective? Profit - loss = income. For example, I would take my salary + my wife's salary, subtract out the expenses required to keep us alive & working and what's left is our household income.

These are questions that the prophets and apostles over time have chosen not to answer (and I'm confident they *have* been asked). I believe that the interpretation is left to us.

[canard78]

I realize that the Brethren have defined "interest" as "income" but what they have refused to do is provide any additional clarification on the word "income". I imagine there are good reasons for this.

Is income my gross salary?

Is income my take home pay?

Is it my taxable income?

Or, do we look at income from the accounting perspective? Profit - loss = income. For example, I would take my salary + my wife's salary, subtract out the expenses required to keep us alive & working and what's left is our household income.

These are questions that the prophets and apostles over time have chosen not to answer (and I'm confident they *have* been asked). I believe that the interpretation is left to us.

I'm glad it's left to us to define. But it's never occured to me that 'income' is 'after costs'. There was a recent Ensign article published which had a clear statement of 'before you pay your rent, pay your tithing. before you... etc' - having said that, it didn't say 'before you pay your rent, pay your tithing on the total monthly household income regardless of the cost of your rent' nor 'before you pay your rent, pay your tithing on the amount left when you calculate your total monthly expenditure versus your salary (breathes).

[rockpond]

I'm glad it's left to us to define. But it's never occured to me that 'income' is 'after costs'. There was a recent Ensign article published which had a clear statement of 'before you pay your rent, pay your tithing. before you... etc' - having said that, it didn't say 'before you pay your rent, pay your tithing on the total monthly household income regardless of the cost of your rent' nor 'before you pay your rent, pay your tithing on the amount left when you calculate your total monthly expenditure versus your salary (breathes).

I don't think that Aaron L. West holds the keys to clarify the Law of Tithing.

[Bart Burk]

I don't think that Aaron L. West holds the keys to clarify the Law of Tithing.

Orson Hyde might have understood the way the scriptures understood it since he was closer to the person who received the revelation. So I repeat this quote:

"The celestial law requires one-tenth of all a man's substance which he possesses at the time he comes into the church (see D&C 119:4). If it requires all man can earn to support himself and his family, he is not tithed at all. The celestial law does not take the mother's and children's bread, neither ought else which they really need for their comfort. The poor that have not of this world's good to spare, but serve and honor God according to the best of their abilities in every other way, shall have a celestial crown in the Eternal Kingdom of our Father." (Millenial Star, 1847)

Of course we can debate who the poor are. A person with an 1800 square foot home is not necessarily poor. His family might survive in a 900 square foot home. A person might be able to live on hamburger instead of steak. So determining the above is a lot more difficult than just suggesting they pay 10% of their gross income.

Edited December 10, 2012 by Bart Burk

[canard78]

I don't think that Aaron L. West holds the keys to clarify the Law of Tithing.

Who's he? The writer of the article? I agree that the Ensign is not doctrine, but I'm sure its correlators are aware that many people read it as such. I've heard some say 'if it has the logo on it, it's doctrine.' Trademarked doctrine if you will.

I agree with you, the instruction on 'income' is left vague. I can only presume it is intended that way.

As I said on another thread, I'm aware that I'm often reluctant to think too hard about whether I'm over-paying. I'm aware of, in part, a concern about the "blessings of heaven" and "robbing God" implications of finding a way to reduce the contribution. Even if that reduction is technically still within one of the definitions of the law.

[canard78]

Orson Hyde might have understood the way the scriptures understood it since he was closer to the person who received the revelation. So I repeat this quote:

Of course we can debate who the poor are. A person with an 1800 square foot home is not necessarily poor. His family might survive in a 900 square foot home. A person might be able to live on hamburger instead of steak. So determining the above is a lot more difficult than just suggesting they pay 10% of their gross income.

I find that no matter how much more I earn, I always find a way spending it, aparently on things I really need. As such I tend to agree that 10% of the money that arrives in my bank account or the money that is on my employment contract is a good place to start.

Does that mean the only is this? Will I be more 'blessed' than the person who reads those quotes and pays 10% of what's left after cost of essential living? If spiritually and emotionally that is a bigger sacrifice for them than me, then, no, I don't believe so.

I love the degree of dificulty principle Stephen Robinson teaches in believing/following Christ.

[Nominee]

This has been an interesting read. To share my thoughts: I am in a "poor ward." Just yesterday I was a part of a conversation discussing not what the 10% is supposed to be but whether it is a sin to pay more than 10% tithing when you want to give more - as opposed to putting the additional funds anywhere else (fast offerings, missionary work, other, etc.) as is suggested on the tithing slip. I have seen where people who have less typically want to give more. This is fascinating to me.

For myself, I pay 10% of any and all money I receive the moment I receive it. This includes random extras, birthday money, paychecks, everything. $1 and I will pay 10 cents. I love to pay tithing. I also pay it immediately (easier for me to keep track) - sometimes 3 or 4 times in a month. After all, the bishopric live in my neighborhood and are ward family. It's as easy as dropping by his house on my way to the grocery store!

I consider myself to be paying a tithing to my Heavenly Father rather than to "the church." I would give him more if he asked me. But he doesn't. I agree with Mark, tithing is about faith and obedience not money. God does not need my money.

I like paying tithing before I do anything else because that way I pay more.

I love Heavenly Father so so much. I am so grateful for all that he gives to me and I cherish every opportunity I get to give back to him be it tithing, visiting teaching, motherhood, relief society, cookies or veggie trays. I live for my Lord and Savior as he lives for me.

Why would anyone ever want to try and get away with do less?

~ Naomi

[rockpond]

Why would anyone ever want to try and get away with do less?

How about this for an example... a family where both parents are working even though they have young children still at home. The battered economy has not provided them with raises for many years despite both holding advanced degrees. They are struggling to stay out of debt while still providing the necessities for their family. They live modestly and are doing their best to keep their older cars running as long as possible. Both serve faithfully in time consuming church callings.

The family above is real. There are many others in similar situations. And still others who on top of all that felt devastated by their church deciding to invest in a colossal monument to wealthy consumerism, City Creek Mall, whilst they suffered through the worst recession of our lifetime.

I honor you for your sacrifice and your willingness to give. You have my deep gratitude for your contributions to the kingdom. I also feel it's important to recognize that for some, a different definition of tithing can still be an equal or possibly greater sacrifice.

[Tacenda]

Will there ever be transparency of where tithing is spent or how much is received? Given that most other churches do this? And at one time the LDS church did also.

[pmccombs1]

How about this for an example... a family where both parents are working even though they have young children still at home. The battered economy has not provided them with raises for many years despite both holding advanced degrees. They are struggling to stay out of debt while still providing the necessities for their family. They live modestly and are doing their best to keep their older cars running as long as possible. Both serve faithfully in time consuming church callings.

The family above is real. There are many others in similar situations. And still others who on top of all that felt devastated by their church deciding to invest in a colossal monument to wealthy consumerism, City Creek Mall, whilst they suffered through the worst recession of our lifetime.

I honor you for your sacrifice and your willingness to give. You have my deep gratitude for your contributions to the kingdom. I also feel it's important to recognize that for some, a different definition of tithing can still be an equal or possibly greater sacrifice.

Good comment.

Money, of course, is pure abstract means; and we live in a world where you can buy almost anything at all with money. How important is it for us to use it wisely?

I find it astonishing the cognitive dissonance, if you will, that exists between the two opposing statements "I am giving to my Heavenly Father," and, "God does not need my money." The Lord has said, "If you love me, feed my sheep." What better way to feed sheep than with worldly means? And what sort of deity commandeers worldly means, that He doesn't need, in order to leave a pittance for his hungry sheep? Would not the sacrifice be equal if one were to give that means to the poor instead of to the Lord? And is not giving to the poor giving to the Lord also?

I agree with Hugh Nibley that things given from surplus do not constitute much of a sacrifice. But I also agree with the Lord that His Church only requires a fraction of surplus gain to keep it running. In view of the suffering now present in the world, He has better ways to employ the means of his faithful people than for corporate growth strategies, billboard campaigns, social media, DVDs and movies, mass-production factory style curricula, state-of-the-art web sites, cookie-cutter chapels that are well-tended and stand empty most of the time, fleets of vehicles, generous stipends, a real-estate empire, palatial temples in posh neighborhoods, and so forth. I have always said that all worthwhile religion is local religion, and I believe it. We ought to be proactive in doing good for our neighbors who haven't even asked for it, and whether they deserve it or not. In my mind, that is "laying the foundation of Zion." That is how there will be no poor among us.

Now, the Lord has said that this law of surplus (as williamsmith pointed out, "interest" has always meant "surplus advantage" and nothing else, regardless of what we wish it would mean) is a standing Law, and that it is an eternal Law. By saying such a thing, he has indicated to us that he is not going to change His mind on it. He is not going to give some other Law or some other meaning to us, therefore I suggest--and I am speaking for myself only--that whatever the brethren have since said about the matter constitutes their opinion. I further bolster this claim with the fact that our standard works that have been canonized and accepted by the Saints as the Will, covenants and laws of God, have not been redacted to state otherwise.

There is certainly room for sacrifice, but we have got things turned upside down. Rather than setting aside the scraps for those who happen to come by and beg for them, and reserving our magnanimity for "The Lord" who doesn't need or require it, let us instead sacrifice of our substance for the energetic building up of our communities and those who live in them. And after this sacrifice, let us render a fraction to the brethren for the management of the Lord's church on the earth. I realize we can't have Big Church when our focus is feeding sheep, but we can still have family and community, which is where Zion is found and where the gospel of the Lord is preached.