JLHPROF Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 So by this definition we are supposed to tithe 100% of our surplus, not just 10. No, by the scripture around which we base the entire tithing program we donate 100% of our surplus and tithe 10% of any income after that.
DBMormon Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) What I've done is to question your definition of income. I find it unworkable as it applies to tithe paying. The Brethren did say "increase" is interpreted to mean income. They did not say "surplus." You, on the other hand, have advocated your quirky definition of tithing. You have faulted the Church leaders, not only because they haven't embraced, but because they haven't made it known far and wide among the Church membership as an option. It seems to me you are the one going beyond what the Brethren have said.what is my definition to others? I have never defined tithing as surplus but rather one of three viable options. I hold all three as viable and as the Brethren have said empower each member to make his own decision and pay it accordingly. Though I personally pay on surplus (after having consulted the Lord) and have been blessed for doing so. I have a testimony of tithing and have seen the fruits of it. It may make you uncomfortable and it likely would make many local leaders and others uncomfortable but I would simply refer any who are back to the first presidency statement. Edited March 2, 2015 by DBMormon
ksfisher Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 No, by the scripture around which we base the entire tithing program we donate 100% of our surplus and tithe 10% of any income after that. Not sure I understand the math. So, for example, I earn $1000 and I need $900 to meet my basic needs and living expenses, how much would I pay in tithing by this definition?
JLHPROF Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) Not sure I understand the math. So, for example, I earn $1000 and I need $900 to meet my basic needs and living expenses, how much would I pay in tithing by this definition? Well, that would presume that $100 was surplus which would need to be donated.Then your income is $900 that would need to be tithed. There is meant to be an element of sacrifice to tithing. You would pay $190.At least that's what D&C 119:1-4 clearly states. I suppose some could argue that if you needed ALL of the $900 just to make ends meet and tithing it would make your children go hungry, then the other $100 isn't really surplus. But that is not the issue.If we want to actually live the law of tithing, D&C 119 couldn't be clearer. Heck, if we ever want to get back to consecration we need to adjust to the notion of giving 100% of our possessions to the Bishop, deciding on our needs and a stewardship to work with and getting that back from him. Then STILL giving 10% tithing on our increase and 100% of our surplus to the storehouse. Basically, everything is God's and anything we need to survive comes from him anyway. Edited March 2, 2015 by JLHPROF
bluebell Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Well, that would presume that $100 was surplus which would need to be donated.Then your income is $900 that would need to be tithed. There is meant to be an element of sacrifice to tithing. You would pay $190.At least that's what D&C 119:1-4 clearly states. I suppose some could argue that if you needed ALL of the $900 just to make ends meet and tithing it would make your children go hungry, then the other $100 isn't really surplus. But that is not the issue.If we want to actually live the law of tithing, D&C 119 couldn't be clearer. Heck, if we ever want to get back to consecration we need to adjust to the notion of giving 100% of our possessions to the Bishop, deciding on our needs and a stewardship to work with and getting that back from him. Then STILL giving 10% tithing on our increase and 100% of our surplus to the storehouse. Basically, everything is God's and anything we need to survive comes from him anyway. I'm confused. $190 is ten percent of $1900. Yet in the example ksfisher only makes $1000 total. How would he owe $190 in tithing?
JLHPROF Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 I'm confused. $190 is ten percent of $1900. Yet in the example ksfisher only makes $1000 total. How would he owe $190 in tithing? He said income was $1000. Needs were $900. This makes$900 non-surplus income that needs to be tithed. According to D&C 119 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion,2 For the building of mine house, 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 tithing of my people.4 And after that, those who have thus been tithed 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. Surplus first - $100.After that - 10% of their interest (income) $900 = $90 $190.
Popular Post KevinG Posted March 2, 2015 Popular Post Posted March 2, 2015 Am I the only one here who is happy his tithing isn't correlated by a board of MD&D participants? 7
DBMormon Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Am I the only one here who is happy his tithing isn't correlated by a board of MD&D participantsKevin, yes thank goodness it is between the Member and the Lord.
JLHPROF Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Am I the only one here who is happy his tithing isn't correlated by a board of MD&D participants? Oh I definitely am glad of that. But I also think that understanding the Lord's word (scriptures) on tithing is more important than everyone's opinion, even the Church Handbook's.
bluebell Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 He said income was $1000. Needs were $900. This makes$900 non-surplus income that needs to be tithed. According to D&C 119 Surplus first - $100.After that - 10% of their interest (income) $900 = $90 $190. I guess it confused me because ksfisher specifically asked how much he would need to pay in tithing. And he would not need to pay $190 in tithing. 1
pogi Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 He said income was $1000. Needs were $900. This makes$900 non-surplus income that needs to be tithed. According to D&C 119 Surplus first - $100.After that - 10% of their interest (income) $900 = $90 $190. Wow, really? Some people only pay 10% on their surplus only and you give all of your surplus plus 10% of everything else? That is remarkable. How do you save for retirement if all of your surplus goes to the church instead of savings?
ksfisher Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) He said income was $1000. Needs were $900. This makes$900 non-surplus income that needs to be tithed. According to D&C 119 Surplus first - $100.After that - 10% of their interest (income) $900 = $90 $190. Still not sure I understand. So if I earn 1000 and need 900 I pay 190 in tithing. That leaves me 90 shy of meeting my basic needs. So, say I sacrifice and do this, and embrace frugality to cut my living expenses down to 800 so that I'm not coming up short every month. By your definition I now have 200 in surplus, which I pay, plus pay another 10%. So that would be 200 plus 80. So 1000 minus my 800 in expenses minus my 280 in tithing leaves me 80 short. We could keep going...earning 1000 and having 700 in expenses would leave me 70 short. 600 in expenses would leave me 60 short, etc. Under this system every full tithe paying member in the church would soon go broke, leaving the church with a bunch of homeless and starving full tithing payers because their tithing would always amount to more than the difference between their income and money needed to meet basic needs. I don't see a downside. Edited March 2, 2015 by ksfisher 1
JLHPROF Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Still not sure I understand. So if I earn 1000 and need 900 I pay 190 in tithing. That leaves me 90 shy of meeting my basic needs. So, say I sacrifice and do this, and embrace frugality to cut my living expenses down to 800 so that I'm not coming up short every month. By your definition I now have 200 in surplus, which I pay, plus pay another 10%. So that would be 200 plus 80. So 1000 minus my 800 in expenses minus my 280 in tithing leaves me 80 short. We could keep going...earning 1000 and having 700 in expenses would leave me 70 short. 600 in expenses would leave me 60 short, etc. Under this system every full tithe paying member in the church would soon go broke, leaving the church with a bunch of homeless and starving full tithing payers. I don't see a downside. There are those who believe that the surplus payment in verse 1 is a one time payment of anything you don't need, and then the 10% tithing in verse 4 kicks in on your income...
JLHPROF Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Wow, really? Some people only pay 10% on their surplus only and you give all of your surplus plus 10% of everything else? That is remarkable. How do you save for retirement if all of your surplus goes to the church instead of savings? Is saving for retirement a need? If it is then those funds aren't actually surplus. However, is that 3rd big screen tv for the den a need? Maybe those funds might be surplus...
pogi Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Is saving for retirement a need? If it is then those funds aren't actually surplus. However, is that 3rd big screen tv for the den a need? Maybe those funds might be surplus... That's true. Now that I think about it, you could live in a tent or a teepee and give the extra $250,000 surplus (or whatever) that you would have spent on your home to the church. Do you reallly "need" toilet paper? The Filippinos where I served got by just fine without. When you really get down to what are "needs", I think you would find the the majority of "stuff" that we accumulate in the consumeristic American lifestyle are really just "wants". I don't think the Lord wants us to play that game of dividing needs from wants and giving all of our "wants" to the church. If we have to give all of our wants (surplus) to the church and are then tithed on the needs, we would not have sufficient to live on as others have pointed out.
ERayR Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Sounds quite irrelevant. Try doing it in Japan, boy things are bad over there. Or try living on social security, after you have squandered all you retirement funds on medical bills, and pay your tithing. Boy it is tough all over.
ERayR Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 The Church definition of interest or increase is income. That's it. That's all.So it comes down to how you interpret "income". Personally I go with "incoming!!" Anything that arrives in my hands gets tithed. Money paid to the government by my employer on my behalf I have a hard time considering income. I never see a dime of it. I never have the money to tithe.If I get a refund then I tithe that. The scripture from which we get the Lord's most recent request for tithing says: Tithing cannot be "gross income" based on this scripture. Gross income is EVERYTHING we earn. The scripture says we must donate ALL our surplus and THEN tithe what is left. I don't know anyone that does that. Each must figure out what they would be comfortable with standing before the judgement bar and declaring to he who is your judge that you paid a full and honest tithe. 1
ERayR Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Something to ponder: Is the interest you pay (for example) to the bank for your mortgage really income to you or is it income to the bank? I think a good argument could be made that it's income to the bank. Here's another thing to ponder -- my wife and I were never blessed with children, so if we plan to leave our estate to the Church (already in our will), should we eliminate tithing on it in advance? The Church will get our entire estate when we die - seems unfair to have to tithe on it too. Something to ponder: The principal portion of your mortgage payment increases your equity in your home. Seems like that might fall under the definition of an increase.
ERayR Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 No, by the scripture around which we base the entire tithing program we donate 100% of our surplus and tithe 10% of any income after that. That sounds correct but are you defining income to mean surplus? If you are I would like to know how you equate surplus with income.
mnn727 Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 Something to ponder: The principal portion of your mortgage payment increases your equity in your home. Seems like that might fall under the definition of an increase.You are right, however I stated the interest you pay, not the principle.. 1
ERayR Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 You are right, however I stated the interest you pay, not the principle.. One might consider the interest you pay as income to you as you would not get a loan to buy a house without paying interest, therefore without the income to pay the interest you wouldn't have a home so it is your income to pay your obligation. Does that sound confusing enough?
Popular Post smac97 Posted March 2, 2015 Popular Post Posted March 2, 2015 Except D&C 119:4 is only half of the Lord's commandment. It is no interpretation to read the 3 verses before it: 1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion, 2 For the building of mine house, 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 tithing of my people. The key word here is "interpretation." I give substantial deference to the Brethren in terms of interpreting scriptural mandates. I believe they are fallible men, but also that they are generally in communion with God. Therefore, if a conflict arises between my interpretation of scripture/doctrine and the Church's position, I will usually either subordinate my interpretation in favor of theirs or else remain publicly silent on the issue. What I would definitely not do is use a Gospel Doctrine class as a bully pulpit to announce my doctrinal view as binding on others, particularly where that view conflicts with the published position of the Church. Thanks, -Smac 6
Popular Post strappinglad Posted March 2, 2015 Popular Post Posted March 2, 2015 From these debates I can see how the Jewish leaders listed 600 + commandments and were even specific about how many steps were allowed before the Sabbath was broken. 5
JLHPROF Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 That's true. Now that I think about it, you could live in a tent or a teepee and give the extra $250,000 surplus (or whatever) that you would have spent on your home to the church. Do you reallly "need" toilet paper? The Filippinos where I served got by just fine without. When you really get down to what are "needs", I think you would find the the majority of "stuff" that we accumulate in the consumeristic American lifestyle are really just "wants". I don't think the Lord wants us to play that game of dividing needs from wants and giving all of our "wants" to the church. If we have to give all of our wants (surplus) to the church and are then tithed on the needs, we would not have sufficient to live on as others have pointed out. I always find this a poor excuse. How do we ever expect to live consecration if we can't even differentiate a need from a want?I'd love to know how Consecration is supposed to work if people feel that if "we have to give all of our wants (surplus) to the church and are then tithed on the needs, we would not have sufficient to live on as others have pointed out."
JLHPROF Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 (edited) That sounds correct but are you defining income to mean surplus? If you are I would like to know how you equate surplus with income. I am just reading D&C 119 as it is written. There is only one thing that I find ambigous: Verse one might indicate that the surplus donation is a one time event followed by 10% of total income in verse 4.orVerse one might indicate that we need to donate all our surplus and tithe our usable income as in verse 4. I don't define surplus to mean income. I define it as anything we have above our needs.My understanding of consecration is: 1. You give everything to the Lord's representative.2. Together you determine your needs.3. Your are given sufficient for your needs and a stewardship with which to maintain them.4. You are expected to use that stewardship to generate additional surplus for the storehouse (making surplus ongoing).5. Tithing is paid on your increase/income, not on your surplus as a form of sacrifice. When consecration was withdrawn #'s 1-3 were removed, #'s 4&5 remained.If I am wrong on any of this I'd be happy to look at the scriptural correction. Edited March 2, 2015 by JLHPROF
Recommended Posts