Tithing Means 10% Gross Income. Period

[thesometimesaint]

All the legalistic contortions don't seem necessary to me - "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Why not just say that we have been commanded to pay 10% of our annual increase and leave the computation of that to the individual and their Heavenly Father and leave it at that? Simple enough.

Agreed.

[ERayR]

All the legalistic contortions don't seem necessary to me - "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is." Why not just say that we have been commanded to pay 10% of our annual increase and leave the computation of that to the individual and their Heavenly Father and leave it at that? Simple enough.

Because we periodically have someone come to the board seeking justification for the way they are computing their tithing.

Edited May 22, 2013 by ERayR

[go_utes01]

Because we periodically have someone come to the board seeking justification for the way they are computing their tithing.

Or, more likely, coming to the board to announce their superior righteousness.

Edited May 22, 2013 by go_utes01

[ERayR]

Or, more likely, coming to the board to announce their superior righteousness.

That's a possibility but I can't speak to it as of a certainty. Only that in my case it is not so.

[go_utes01]

That's a possibility but I can't speak to it as of a certainty. Only that in my case it is not so.

You're right, my conclusion was unfairly harsh. I apologize if I offended anybody.

[Madmardigan]

When you get on Social Security, how will you determine your tithing, since the SS is part of the gross.

Like ERay said, that can be figured out by how much was paid into it. But there is also the issue of my 401(k) contributions, etc. I will just pay tithing once I retire from my 401(k). Doesn't hurt to pay a little more into tithing.

I just think that as soon as I try to be stingy about the exact percentages and everything I am losing the spirit of why I pay tithing in the first place. This is my own opinion though. If someone sits down and figures it all out, that's their deal.

[T-Shirt]

When you receive an inheritance you are getting something you did not have before so it is an increase to you.

See how simple it is. What did I have before the event? What do I have after the event? The difference is increase.

If your inheritance is $100,000.00 in cash, would you treat it differently than if the inheritance was property worth $100,000.00. Would you require one to sell the property in order to pay tithing?

[ERayR]

If your inheritance is $100,000.00 in cash, would you treat it differently than if the inheritance was property worth $100,000.00. Would you require one to sell the property in order to pay tithing?

No. I have no authority to compel anyone to do anything and how they handled it would be strictly up to them. It seems to me that selling the property simply to pay the tithes would not be prudent when there are other options.

Edited May 22, 2013 by ERayR

[Senator]

Because we periodically have someone come to the board seeking justification for the way they are computing their tithing.

And that's ok. What else ought we to say, other than.....ok...? We can rehearse the church's official statement, but other than that, there's not much else to say.

[T-Shirt]

When one is self employed, it is not always cut and dried. For example, I do not know anyone who pays tithing on health insurance paid by his employer or the employer's portion of the employee's Social Security (approx. 7.6%). As a Sole Proprietor of a small company, if I buy an individual health plan (which cannot be fully deducted as a business expense) am I required to pay tithing on the insurance premium? In addition, as a self employed individual, I must pay both the employer's and the employee's portion of Social Security, and all of it is considered to be personal income. Should I pay tithing on both portions of the Social Security payment?

If one works for someone else and receives a bonus of $35,000.00 in cash, should it be tithed? What if the bonus is a car worth $35,000.00, should it be tithed? Or, what if the employer gives the employee $35,000.00 for a car with the instruction that it must be spent on a car?

Edited May 22, 2013 by T-Shirt

[T-Shirt]

No. I have no authority to compel anyone to do anything and how they handled it would be strictly up to them. It seems to me that selling the property simply to pay the tithes would not be prudent when there are other options.

The value of the inheritance is the same, why should it be treated differently? What if one simply doesn't have ten thousand dollars to pay tithing on the property without selling it? Edited May 22, 2013 by T-Shirt

[pmccombs1]

Tithing is officially defined by the Lord as "one-tenth of all their interest annually." "Interest" is defined by the Church officially as "income."

Yes, the church said "income." And by that, you want the Church to mean "any and all income." Why does the church redefine our words? Is it for gain?

Because when JS received that revelation, "interest" meant something quite different than "any and all income." The simple fact is that "interest" does not mean that at all. It never has. Does the church get to redefine English words now? Without it's members raising their hands to that? Or are you now interpreting what the Church has said?

What does it do to our revelation when we say its words no longer mean what people have agreed that those words mean? How is such a thing ever to be conveyed or understood by others? God speaks, but please do not take His words at face value. Though His words sound like they are words from our language, they are not. They are not literal. They are not clear. They do not mean what we have formally declared them to mean. Is that it?

If we believe in continuing revelation, rather than redefining what words mean, why don't we accept new revelation that is clear and unambiguous? Not that "interest" is at all ambiguous. In 1838, Webster wrote clearly about what it meant. Interest was surplus income. That's how the early saints, who were Webster's contemporaries, understood it ("Tithing is all of one's surplus income upon entering Zion, and 10% of the surplus annually thereafter. Period").

Times have changed. Why don't we just change the words of the revelation, or supersede it with a new one, if that is what God wants for us today? And then why not raise our hands to that and accept it as new doctrine, as has been done in the past? Current teaching on tithing, where "interest" (surplus) has been changed through subreption to mean "everything" does not match the text. It is not what God said. Well, is He saying it now? Then let's canonize it. Why should there be discrepancy between our "standard work" and our practice? Why is our canon closed?

The above is my response to all those who insist that the Church's declaration that interest=income means all income. Yes, interest is income. It is surplus income. It is NOT all income. By definition. So, if the Church says that interest is income, and then leaves it up to us to decide what our income is, then I will agree that it is in compliance with the original, literal revelation, but that its curious allowance of ambiguity about what "interest" meant to JS and his followers is puzzling and rather beneficial to Church coffers. Not to update revelation and allow the confusion without technically reversing (via canon) the original is irresponsible and makes one wonder if there is corruption afoot.

[Senator]

Yes, the church said "income." And by that, you want the Church to mean "any and all income." Why does the church redefine our words? Is it for gain?

Because when JS received that revelation, "interest" meant something quite different than "any and all income." The simple fact is that "interest" does not mean that at all. It never has. Does the church get to redefine English words now? Without it's members raising their hands to that? Or are you now interpreting what the Church has said?

What does it do to our revelation when we say its words no longer mean what people have agreed that those words mean? How is such a thing ever to be conveyed or understood by others? God speaks, but please do not take His words at face value. Though His words sound like they are words from our language, they are not. They are not literal. They are not clear. They do not mean what we have formally declared them to mean. Is that it?

If we believe in continuing revelation, rather than redefining what words mean, why don't we accept new revelation that is clear and unambiguous? Not that "interest" is at all ambiguous. In 1838, Webster wrote clearly about what it meant. Interest was surplus income. That's how the early saints, who were Webster's contemporaries, understood it ("Tithing is all of one's surplus income upon entering Zion, and 10% of the surplus annually thereafter. Period").

Times have changed. Why don't we just change the words of the revelation, or supersede it with a new one, if that is what God wants for us today? And then why not raise our hands to that and accept it as new doctrine, as has been done in the past? Current teaching on tithing, where "interest" (surplus) has been changed through subreption to mean "everything" does not match the text. It is not what God said. Well, is He saying it now? Then let's canonize it. Why should there be discrepancy between our "standard work" and our practice? Why is our canon closed?

The above is my response to all those who insist that the Church's declaration that interest=income means all income. Yes, interest is income. It is surplus income. It is NOT all income. By definition. So, if the Church says that interest is income, and then leaves it up to us to decide what our income is, then I will agree that it is in compliance with the original, literal revelation, but that its curious allowance of ambiguity about what "interest" meant to JS and his followers is puzzling and rather beneficial to Church coffers. Not to update revelation and allow the confusion without technically reversing (via canon) the original is irresponsible and makes one wonder if there is corruption afoot.

Just when I was about to sing "Kumbaya"...............

Edited May 22, 2013 by Senator

[daz2]

I think it is worth reading the entirety of the 1970 FP letter, which was written in response to inquiries to the FP about how to calculate a full tithe (including [presumably questions like is it gross or net]:

Dear Brethren:

Inquiries are received at the office of the First

Presidency from time to time from officers and

members of the Church asking for information as to

what is considered a propertithe.

For your guidance in this matter, please be

advised that we have uniformly replied that the

simplest statement we know of is the statement of

the Lord himself, namely, that the members of the

Church should pay “one-tenth of all their interest

annually,” which is understood to mean income. No

one is justified in making any other statement than

this.

We feel that every member of the Church is

entitled to make his own decision as to what he

thinks he owes the Lord and to make payment

accordingly.

http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/TithingPayOnWhat.pdf (This page contains a lot of different quotes on tithing, some of which say it should be paid on gross, however the FP statement seems pretty clear.])

[ERayR]

Yes, the church said "income." And by that, you want the Church to mean "any and all income." Why does the church redefine our words? Is it for gain?

Because when JS received that revelation, "interest" meant something quite different than "any and all income." The simple fact is that "interest" does not mean that at all. It never has. Does the church get to redefine English words now? Without it's members raising their hands to that? Or are you now interpreting what the Church has said?

What does it do to our revelation when we say its words no longer mean what people have agreed that those words mean? How is such a thing ever to be conveyed or understood by others? God speaks, but please do not take His words at face value. Though His words sound like they are words from our language, they are not. They are not literal. They are not clear. They do not mean what we have formally declared them to mean. Is that it?

If we believe in continuing revelation, rather than redefining what words mean, why don't we accept new revelation that is clear and unambiguous? Not that "interest" is at all ambiguous. In 1838, Webster wrote clearly about what it meant. Interest was surplus income. That's how the early saints, who were Webster's contemporaries, understood it ("Tithing is all of one's surplus income upon entering Zion, and 10% of the surplus annually thereafter. Period").

Times have changed. Why don't we just change the words of the revelation, or supersede it with a new one, if that is what God wants for us today? And then why not raise our hands to that and accept it as new doctrine, as has been done in the past? Current teaching on tithing, where "interest" (surplus) has been changed through subreption to mean "everything" does not match the text. It is not what God said. Well, is He saying it now? Then let's canonize it. Why should there be discrepancy between our "standard work" and our practice? Why is our canon closed?

The above is my response to all those who insist that the Church's declaration that interest=income means all income. Yes, interest is income. It is surplus income. It is NOT all income. By definition. So, if the Church says that interest is income, and then leaves it up to us to decide what our income is, then I will agree that it is in compliance with the original, literal revelation, but that its curious allowance of ambiguity about what "interest" meant to JS and his followers is puzzling and rather beneficial to Church coffers. Not to update revelation and allow the confusion without technically reversing (via canon) the original is irresponsible and makes one wonder if there is corruption afoot.

Your response makes me wonder but not about corruption in the church.

[mfbukowski]

So, it is possible that a wealthy member in France would have to pay more than 100% to the government and then another 10% to the church. http://www.reuters.c...E94H0AX20130518. I wonder what the income tax rate was when these revelations on tithing were given? Oh, I remember, there wasn't an income tax then.

Do you think it is fair that some members pay no income tax and others pay 35% to the Federal Government? Yet both pay on the gross? I say we not judge each and let each member work it out with the Lord.

And that's not all.

Suppose you have your own business. You pay $5,000. for something and sell it for $10,000. Your profit was $5,000. Should you pay $500. tithing - which is 10% of your increase- or profit- or $1000 which is 20% of your profit?

And suppose you make $50k per year, but your employer makes other contributions to your retirement fund and health benefits which cost him an additional $20k per year??

If you pay on your "gross"- your gross is 50k plus 20, or 70k. Tithing on the gross would mean that you owe $7,000.

But wait- we haven't figured out your take home pay yet.

Suppose your take home pay- on the 50k salary runs about $35k per year, or deductions around 15% which seems reasonable.

If you pay 7k on your true "gross" you are paying a whopping 20% on your take-home pay, leaving you about $2500 per month to live on.

Good luck with that.

[mfbukowski]

nevermind

[Brian 2.0]

Yes, the church said "income." And by that, you want the Church to mean "any and all income." Why does the church redefine our words? Is it for gain?

Because when JS received that revelation, "interest" meant something quite different than "any and all income." The simple fact is that "interest" does not mean that at all. It never has. Does the church get to redefine English words now? Without it's members raising their hands to that? Or are you now interpreting what the Church has said?

What does it do to our revelation when we say its words no longer mean what people have agreed that those words mean? How is such a thing ever to be conveyed or understood by others? God speaks, but please do not take His words at face value. Though His words sound like they are words from our language, they are not. They are not literal. They are not clear. They do not mean what we have formally declared them to mean. Is that it?

If we believe in continuing revelation, rather than redefining what words mean, why don't we accept new revelation that is clear and unambiguous? Not that "interest" is at all ambiguous. In 1838, Webster wrote clearly about what it meant. Interest was surplus income. That's how the early saints, who were Webster's contemporaries, understood it ("Tithing is all of one's surplus income upon entering Zion, and 10% of the surplus annually thereafter. Period").

Times have changed. Why don't we just change the words of the revelation, or supersede it with a new one, if that is what God wants for us today? And then why not raise our hands to that and accept it as new doctrine, as has been done in the past? Current teaching on tithing, where "interest" (surplus) has been changed through subreption to mean "everything" does not match the text. It is not what God said. Well, is He saying it now? Then let's canonize it. Why should there be discrepancy between our "standard work" and our practice? Why is our canon closed?

The above is my response to all those who insist that the Church's declaration that interest=income means all income. Yes, interest is income. It is surplus income. It is NOT all income. By definition. So, if the Church says that interest is income, and then leaves it up to us to decide what our income is, then I will agree that it is in compliance with the original, literal revelation, but that its curious allowance of ambiguity about what "interest" meant to JS and his followers is puzzling and rather beneficial to Church coffers. Not to update revelation and allow the confusion without technically reversing (via canon) the original is irresponsible and makes one wonder if there is corruption afoot.

I was about to write this same thing.

If CH1 makes it pretty clear as MMason says, they say it in General Conference. What is the purpose of being so vague? Is it some test? Or do the breathren really not know what it should be, or further revelation on the matter hasn't come." Because pmccombs is right... "intrest means income" doesn't really make sense.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[ERayR]

I was about to write this same thing.

If CH1 makes it pretty clear as MMason says, they say it in General Conference. What is the purpose of being so vague? Is it some test? Or do the breathren really not know what it should be, or further revelation on the matter hasn't come." Because pmccombs is right... "intrest means income" doesn't really make sense.

Makes perfect sense to me. Why do you have a problem with it? Why is interest not income?

[Brian 2.0]

Makes perfect sense to me. Why do you have a problem with it? Why is interest not income?

Let me restate. I do believe interest is income. But I don't believe interest is gross income or even the net income on my paycheck. If I'm filling out my tax return and it asked how much interest I earned in 2013, I'm definately not going to put down my gross income from my job or my net income from my job, and I would be hard pressed to find anyone who would.

[EllenMaksoud]

For the first time this past year my husband didn't pay like the teacher ascribed, 10% gross. I'm due to go in for an interview for my recommend, we didn't follow that teacher's advice, but did pay far more than just an increase, would I be an honest tithe payer? This is kind of urgent, and I'm glad for the topic...thanks Senator. I know my testimony isn't on par, but will tell the individual who interviews me the truth. But I believe the tithing is quite paramount, sorry but it is, to whether I get the TR. I hate to be dishonest. I wonder why the church doesn't go by the original scripture to pay on increase, why isn't this taught? I've never been taught the increase only the gross! I also remember being told when you pay on gross you get more blessings and especially with fast offerings!

I just giggle when I see people say that "if you do this, then you get more blessings". I depend on the Holy Spirit and find it presumptive that a mere man would try to ridgidly describe it.

[The Nehor]

If paying more gets you more blessings wouldn't 20% tithing get you more blessings? Why not 50%? Why not maximize blessing output at 100%?

[Tacenda]

If paying more gets you more blessings wouldn't 20% tithing get you more blessings? Why not 50%? Why not maximize blessing output at 100%?

Nehor and Ellen, if you've read a couple of my posts, I hate to do things just to get the blessings, when I pay my FO, it's with the assurance that it goes to the poor and needy. If that ever gets lumped in with tithing, I'll have a problem with it not staying in our ward boundaries or even the stake. But I never hesitate to be give as much as I can, but not just to get blessings.

[JKimball]

This last year is the first year I stopped paying on "gross income." To be honest, that decision did not stem from any desire to hold on to more of my net pay. It has more to do with the feeling of revulsion I have toward taxes and how the federal government uses them. Do I want to pretend that I am happily giving my money to pay war mongers, abortionists, tyrants, and gadianton robbers? But the Lord said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Well if it is Caesar's, and I never saw it "come in," why should I consider it my income?

I once heard someone quote Dallin H. Oaks from a speech they attended when he spoke to this question. He said something to the effect of, "There was a time when I thought I knew the easy answer to that question. But I can't say that now." So that Gospel Doctrine teacher is probably out of line to say what he did.

We often talk about how the Lord gives us all we have and only asks for 10% back. It is probably helpful to consider this question in that light. In reality the Lord probably expects us to be wise stewards with how we use all of our money/increase/income. That perspective would help us get out of the "this much is the Lord's, and the rest is mine" mentality.

[Freedom]

When you receive an inheritance you are getting something you did not have before so it is an increase to you.

See how simple it is. What did I have before the event? What do I have after the event? The difference is increase.

So you pay tithing on a birthday present? If someone gives your children clothing, do you pay tithing on it? I pay on my income, not in every increase. If you want to pay more, there are other methods to donate offerings.