pogi Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 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." The beauty of the law of consecration (and tithing in my opinion) is that we don't need to differentiate between needs and wants. In consecration, we give all to the church and they divvy it up. In tithing (as I understand it), we are tithed on our income and can pay for our wants and needs from our tithed funds. If you are truly giving all of your wants (surplus) to the church and are tithed on what you "need" to live on, you will mathematically fall exactly 10% short each month in paying your bills. It can't work. Can I never buy a donut or go to a movie without feeling like I am cheating the Lord out of my surplus? 2
KevinG Posted March 2, 2015 Posted March 2, 2015 After this discussion I now believe refusing to get embroiled in debates defining what increase is for individual tithe payers, is additional proof of the wisdom and inspiration of Latter-day Prophets. 2
DBMormon Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 After this discussion I now believe refusing to get embroiled in debates defining what increase is for individual tithe payers, is additional proof of the wisdom and inspiration of Latter-day Prophets.Yep 1
DBMormon Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I don't define surplus to mean income. I define it as anything we have above our needs..You mean like Abraham 39 Wherefore, Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need. 2
pogi Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) You mean like Abraham39 Wherefore, Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need. I always interpreted that to mean that Abram paid tithes of "all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed" - seems pretty straight forward. The last part of the verse is only acknowledging that "all that he possessed" is "more than that which he had need", or in other words, God blessed him with more than he needs. I don't think it can properly be interpreted to mean that he only paid tithing on his surplus. The message is that God blesses us with more than we need, we should honor him with 10% of what we have. Edited March 3, 2015 by pogi
omni Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 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.I've always understood this to be a one time occurrence that happens after baptism. I remember reading somewhere that many early converts tithed 10% of their property after joining the Church.
DBMormon Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I always interpreted that to mean that Abram paid tithes of "all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed" - seems pretty straight forward. The last part of the verse is only acknowledging that "all that he possessed" is "more than that which he had need", or in other words, God blessed him with more than he needs. I don't think it can properly be interpreted to mean that he only paid tithing on his surplus. The message is that God blesses us with more than we need, we should honor him with 10% of what we have. And yet i understand it very different... Weird how scripture does that.
ERayR Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 And yet i understand it very different... Weird how scripture does that. I have my doubts that it is the scripture doing it. 2
pogi Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) And yet i understand it very different... Weird how scripture does that. This might help clear it up the meaning. To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace(Hebrews 7:2)." Edited March 3, 2015 by pogi
Garden Girl Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I'm totally confused... why should there be so many opinions... I receive a pension, soc sec, and an amount from an annuity each month... I simply total up the gross amt of each and tithe on that total gross... What's left over after tithing is what I have available to live on. Am I missing something here? GG
ERayR Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I'm totally confused... why should there be so many opinions... I receive a pension, soc sec, and an amount from an annuity each month... I simply total up the gross amt of each and tithe on that total gross... What's left over after tithing is what I have available to live on. Am I missing something here? GG Nope and I think that God rewards such uncomplicated compliance.
JLHPROF Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I'm totally confused... why should there be so many opinions... I receive a pension, soc sec, and an amount from an annuity each month... I simply total up the gross amt of each and tithe on that total gross... What's left over after tithing is what I have available to live on. Am I missing something here? GG No you aren't missing anything. I believe in paying either gross or net - I see no scripture defining how we measure income. All else I posted was really more about scripture, doctrine, and consecration, - just a little exploration of the doctrine of tithing.But I am not advocating any action outside of what the Church has asked.
Recommended Posts