Tithing - Gross, Net, Or Leftover

[JLHPROF]

I know. As long as our church leaders live better then indigent Somali peasants and our churches are more then dilapidated barns it is clear we do not actually care about others and are all about sweet sweet profits.

 

Oh they are going to LOVE when consecration comes back and we have to sign all our property over to our leaders and manage a small stewardship while the streets of the New Jerusalem get paved with gold.

[CCRW]

Oh they are going to LOVE when consecration comes back and we have to sign all our property over to our leaders and manage a small stewardship while the streets of the New Jerusalem get paved with gold.

 

who are you suggestion will be "our leaders" at that time?

[JLHPROF]

who are you suggestion will be "our leaders" at that time?

 

Christ will rule of course, but anyone who thinks there won't be a hierarchy of apostles, bishops, and other priesthood offices running things doesn't understand priesthood.

[CCRW]

Christ will rule of course, but anyone who thinks there won't be a hierarchy of apostles, bishops, and other priesthood offices running things doesn't understand priesthood.

well, I don't understand then ... I understood no prophets, apostles or bishops

[JLHPROF]

well, I don't understand then ... I understood no prophets, apostles or bishops

 

It's a little late and I'm a little tired.  Did I forget a teaching or quote to that effect?  I was under the impression that priesthood offices would continue through the Millennium.  Certainly apostleship, for the 12 are to judge Israel at the final judgement.  Until post-judgement and we are all resurrected to the next world I was under the impression ecclesiastical priesthood would still function.

[CCRW]

my understanding was that there would be no ecclesiastical priesthood at that time.  That it would be the Holy Order.  But its been way to long

Edited April 19, 2015 by CCRW

[The Nehor]

Oh they are going to LOVE when consecration comes back and we have to sign all our property over to our leaders and manage a small stewardship while the streets of the New Jerusalem get paved with gold.

I like to imagine that gold is symbolic of permanence (does not rust) and glory (gold is shiny and because we are weird we think this means it should be valuable). If the streets appear gold I imagine it will be because God's glory shines through the city. As a practical matter gold is a terrible paving material.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Haha there was a Simpsons joke where the streets were paved with actual gold and the cars were sliding everywhere. Grandpa Simpson was having a flashback.

[DBMormon]

So since no rebuttal was made I am assuming we all agree that

1.) the words Income and Increase both have a history of having the definition as surplus as at least one way to define them.

2.) The Church has never chosen in official channels to eliminate surplus as an option from the possible options of ways to define tithing

and

3.) The Church's Doctrine places the impetus for deciding between the member and the Lord which option they choose and the member should then pay it accordingly

 

I would also add that

A.) The Church has officially stated in it's doctrine that no one is to define tithing for another beyond the surface level definition the Church has given.  

 

B.) And historically there is as much evidence in early church history that in Joseph life tithing was seen as 10% of surplus as there is evidence it was defined differently.

Edited April 19, 2015 by DBMormon

[Tacenda]

So since no rebuttal was made I am assuming we all agree that

1.) the words Income and Increase both have a history of having the definition as surplus as at least one way to define them.

2.) The Church has never chosen in official channels to eliminate surplus as an option from the possible options of ways to define tithing

and

3.) The Church's Doctrine places the impetus for deciding between the member and the Lord which option they choose and the member should then pay it accordingly

I would also add that

A.) The Church has officially stated in it's doctrine that no one is to define tithing for another beyond the surface level definition the Church has given.

B.) And historically there is as much evidence in early church history that in Joseph life tithing was seen as 10% of surplus as there is evidence it was defined differently.

This is probably a dumb question, but did the debt crisis and the time they quit reporting finances change the way those in leadership generally, taught tithing? Emphasis on gross or net and out of the two, gross equaling more blessings. Have you read/heard when the change came about, from it being 10% on surplus or what's leftover?

[DBMormon]

This is probably a dumb question, but did the debt crisis and the time they quit reporting finances change the way those in leadership generally, taught tithing? Emphasis on gross or net and out of the two, gross equaling more blessings. Have you read/heard when the change came about, from it being 10% on surplus or what's leftover?

I am not aware of the details of this transition though I suspect it comes from many contributions of thought and culture.

1. Yes there likely is something to our culture and even quotes from leaders adapting in response to our financial needs

2. There also came a dynamic in church culture regarding dissent. In the early days it was common to dissent. Brigham and the Pratt brothers would even disagree with each other in conferences. It was public and carried nowhere near the negative connotation it does today. Today public unity is seen at times as more important than getting the doctrine right. Hence one quote that goes unchallenged in order to keep the public unity holds more weight with general membership.

[rpn]

I wouldn't say we all agree.   The surplus discussion was for those who had already donated their all in the Law of Consecration, not part of okay, we'll go back to tithing, since we can't seem to do Consecration.    And I don't agree that surplus was ever taught as a tithing expectation.

[DBMormon]

I wouldn't say we all agree. The surplus discussion was for those who had already donated their all in the Law of Consecration, not part of okay, we'll go back to tithing, since we can't seem to do Consecration. And I don't agree that surplus was ever taught as a tithing expectation.

Thanks for responding. Since you take the view that tithing was never surplus and the law of consecration where surplus was required ended, I would love an explanation of the folowing quote and how you make this mean net or gross

"The celestial law requires one-tenth part of all a man's substance which he possesses at the time he comes into the church (See D&C 119:1), and one-tenth part of his annual increase ever after(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." (The Millenial Star, 1847. Orson Hyde, editor)

It seems as though Orson Hyde understands tithing as surplus though perhaps you have an explanation. Also many here explain section 119 away as speaking about consecration and yet the encyclopedia of Mormonism seems to disagree as it says 119 is the lords effort to move away from consecration to a new law of tithing. Orson Hyde says this in 47 and consecration as it applies to financial sacrifices ended in 38 and the EoM says the following

After these early failures, the Lord adapted the requirements of the law of consecration to the capacities of the Saints and revealed the law of tithing as a practice to follow (HC 3:44; D&C 119). Although tithing does not require the giving of everything to the Lord, it teaches the fundamental elements upon which the character of a Zion people rests: self-control, generosity, love of fellow humans, love for God, and a desire to build the kingdom of God. Giving tithing for over a century, as the Saints proved their ability to live this commandment, prepared them to accept also the Welfare program, introduced in 1936 by Church President Heber J. Grant (CR [Oct. 1936]:3). Five years later, President J. Reuben Clark, Jr., observed that the practices of tithing, fast offerings, and Church Welfare had brought Church members closer to the original principles of the United Order and law of consecration (CR [Oct. 1942]:57).

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Consecration

Edited April 20, 2015 by DBMormon

[ERayR]

So since no rebuttal was made I am assuming we all agree that

1.) the words Income and Increase both have a history of having the definition as surplus as at least one way to define them.

2.) The Church has never chosen in official channels to eliminate surplus as an option from the possible options of ways to define tithing

and

3.) The Church's Doctrine places the impetus for deciding between the member and the Lord which option they choose and the member should then pay it accordingly

 

I would also add that

A.) The Church has officially stated in it's doctrine that no one is to define tithing for another beyond the surface level definition the Church has given.  

 

B.) And historically there is as much evidence in early church history that in Joseph life tithing was seen as 10% of surplus as there is evidence it was defined differently.

 

Don't assume universal agreement.  It just is not so.

[ERayR]

This is probably a dumb question, but did the debt crisis and the time they quit reporting finances change the way those in leadership generally, taught tithing? Emphasis on gross or net and out of the two, gross equaling more blessings. Have you read/heard when the change came about, from it being 10% on surplus or what's leftover?

 

No.  The repp point was accidental.

[Tacenda]

No. The repp point was accidental.

Tanks anyway.

[DBMormon]

Don't assume universal agreement.  It just is not so.

love to hear the substance of your disagreement.

[pogi]

So since no rebuttal was made I am assuming we all agree that

1.) the words Income and Increase both have a history of having the definition as surplus as at least one way to define them.

2.) The Church has never chosen in official channels to eliminate surplus as an option from the possible options of ways to define tithing

and

3.) The Church's Doctrine places the impetus for deciding between the member and the Lord which option they choose and the member should then pay it accordingly

 

I would also add that

A.) The Church has officially stated in it's doctrine that no one is to define tithing for another beyond the surface level definition the Church has given.  

 

B.) And historically there is as much evidence in early church history that in Joseph life tithing was seen as 10% of surplus as there is evidence it was defined differently.

 

Just curious, if you are so confident in your method of tithing and don't think that there is a wrong answer on how to pay tithing, why are you seeking our validation?  Isn't your bishop a better judge as to your temple worthiness in regards to a full tithe?  You should bring it up with him instead of us.

 

What is there to argue, or what evidence can we provide that will be acceptable to you?  If we provide any evidence which contradicts your beliefs and practices, you will simply refer us to the church's official statement and say that we are not entitled to say anything more than what has been said.  How we define "income" does not seem to be of interest to you.  You are free to interpret "income" however you want, but I am fairly confident what the word "income" referred to in the 1970's based on the general accepted use of the word at the time and previous quotes by general authorities around that time.

 

Elder Howard W. Hunter stated it this way:

 

"The law is simply stated as 'one-tenth of all their interest.' Interest means profit, compensation, increase. It is the wage of one employed, the profit from the operation of a business, the increase of one who grows or produces, or the income to a person from any other source.

The Lord said it is a standing law "forever" as it has been in the past."

 

Elder John A. Widtsoe explained: “Tithing means one-tenth. Those who give less do not really pay tithing; they are lesser contributors to the Latter-day cause of the Lord. Tithing means one-tenth of a person’s income, interest, or increase. The merchant should pay tithing upon the net income of his business, the farmer upon the net income of his farming operations; the wage earner or salaried man upon the wage or salary earned by him. Out of the remaining nine-tenths he pays his current expenses … etc. To deduct living costs … and similar expenses from the income and pay tithing upon the remainder does not conform to the Lord’s commandment. Under such a system most people would show nothing on which to pay tithing. There is really no place for quibbling on this point. Tithing should be given upon the basis of our full earned income. If the nature of a business requires special interpretation, the tithepayer should consult the father of his ward, the bishop.” (Evidences and Reconciliations, 2:86.)

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-110-121/section-119-the-law-of-tithing?lang=eng

 

I am fairly confident that you will disregard these quotes as not being justified.  That is your prerogative, but it does suggest to the mind what "income" most likely meant at the time. 

Edited April 20, 2015 by pogi

[ERayR]

Tanks anyway.

 

You are welcome.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Just curious, if you are so confident in your method of tithing and don't think that there is a wrong answer on how to pay tithing, why are you seeking our validation?  Isn't your bishop a better judge as to your temple worthiness in regards to a full tithe?  You should bring it up with him instead of us.

 

What is there to argue, or what evidence can we provide that will be acceptable to you?  If we provide any evidence which contradicts your beliefs and practices, you will simply refer us to the church's official statement and say that we are not entitled to say anything more than what has been said.  How we define "income" does not seem to be of interest to you.  You are free to interpret "income" however you want, but I am fairly confident what the word "income" referred to in the 1970's based on the general accepted use of the word at the time and previous quotes by general authorities.

 

Elder Howard W. Hunter stated it this way:

 

"The law is simply stated as 'one-tenth of all their interest.' Interest means profit, compensation, increase. It is the wage of one employed, the profit from the operation of a business, the increase of one who grows or produces, or the income to a person from any other source.

The Lord said it is a standing law "forever" as it has been in the past."

 

Elder John A. Widtsoe explained: “Tithing means one-tenth. Those who give less do not really pay tithing; they are lesser contributors to the Latter-day cause of the Lord. Tithing means one-tenth of a person’s income, interest, or increase. The merchant should pay tithing upon the net income of his business, the farmer upon the net income of his farming operations; the wage earner or salaried man upon the wage or salary earned by him. Out of the remaining nine-tenths he pays his current expenses … etc. To deduct living costs … and similar expenses from the income and pay tithing upon the remainder does not conform to the Lord’s commandment. Under such a system most people would show nothing on which to pay tithing. There is really no place for quibbling on this point. Tithing should be given upon the basis of our full earned income. If the nature of a business requires special interpretation, the tithepayer should consult the father of his ward, the bishop.” (Evidences and Reconciliations, 2:86.)

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-110-121/section-119-the-law-of-tithing?lang=eng

 

I am fairly confident that you will disregard these quotes as not being justified.  That is your prerogative, but it does suggest to the mind what "income" most likely meant at the time. 

 

Beautiful.

 

Lo these many years later, it seems like an official reiteration of Elder Widtsoe's explanation is in order, especially if the Rock Waterman school of thought seems to be gaining traction.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Just curious, if you are so confident in your method of tithing and don't think that there is a wrong answer on how to pay tithing, why are you seeking our validation?  Isn't your bishop a better judge as to your temple worthiness in regards to a full tithe?  You should bring it up with him instead of us.

 

What is there to argue, or what evidence can we provide that will be acceptable to you?  If we provide any evidence which contradicts your beliefs and practices, you will simply refer us to the church's official statement and say that we are not entitled to say anything more than what has been said.  How we define "income" does not seem to be of interest to you.  You are free to interpret "income" however you want, but I am fairly confident what the word "income" referred to in the 1970's based on the general accepted use of the word at the time and previous quotes by general authorities around that time.

 

Elder Howard W. Hunter stated it this way:

 

"The law is simply stated as 'one-tenth of all their interest.' Interest means profit, compensation, increase. It is the wage of one employed, the profit from the operation of a business, the increase of one who grows or produces, or the income to a person from any other source.

The Lord said it is a standing law "forever" as it has been in the past."

 

Elder John A. Widtsoe explained: “Tithing means one-tenth. Those who give less do not really pay tithing; they are lesser contributors to the Latter-day cause of the Lord. Tithing means one-tenth of a person’s income, interest, or increase. The merchant should pay tithing upon the net income of his business, the farmer upon the net income of his farming operations; the wage earner or salaried man upon the wage or salary earned by him. Out of the remaining nine-tenths he pays his current expenses … etc. To deduct living costs … and similar expenses from the income and pay tithing upon the remainder does not conform to the Lord’s commandment. Under such a system most people would show nothing on which to pay tithing. There is really no place for quibbling on this point. Tithing should be given upon the basis of our full earned income. If the nature of a business requires special interpretation, the tithepayer should consult the father of his ward, the bishop.” (Evidences and Reconciliations, 2:86.)

 

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-110-121/section-119-the-law-of-tithing?lang=eng

 

I am fairly confident that you will disregard these quotes as not being justified.  That is your prerogative, but it does suggest to the mind what "income" most likely meant at the time.

The businessman pays on Net.

The farmer pays on Net.

The wage earner pays on Gross.

There seems to be an inconsistency there. That's why there's debate. If the household is treated like a business enterprise then it would be reasonable for the wage earner to also pay on Net.

BTW- Does someone like a bishop, by virtue of their calling, automatically have a more pure understanding of what tithing should be? Or should this really be left to the individual to decide and declare for himself?

[ERayR]

 

The businessman pays on Net.

The farmer pays on Net.

The wage earner pays on Gross.

There seems to be an inconsistency there. That's why there's debate. If the household is treated like a business enterprise then it would be reasonable for the wage earner to also pay on Net.

BTW- Does someone like a bishop, by virtue of their calling, automatically have a more pure understanding of what tithing should be? Or should this really be left to the individual to decide and declare for himself?

That is not what it says.  If a wage earner pays on the amount of the check received they are paying on the net.

 

Net for business does not mean personal expenses have been deducted.  For a business net is after all business expenses and before personal expenses are removed.

[Scott Lloyd]

 

The businessman pays on Net.

The farmer pays on Net.

The wage earner pays on Gross.

There seems to be an inconsistency there. That's why there's debate. If the household is treated like a business enterprise then it would be reasonable for the wage earner to also pay on Net.

BTW- Does someone like a bishop, by virtue of their calling, automatically have a more pure understanding of what tithing should be? Or should this really be left to the individual to decide and declare for himself?

The profit the business owner earns could be considered comparable to the wage that the wage earner is paid, since, in theory, the wage earner has no expenses associated with earning his livelihood. Household expenses don't count in that regard; otherwise the business owner would also be deducting his own non-business-associated household expenses.

 

No inconsistency here.

 

Besides, the dispute here seems to be over whether one should get away with paying tithing on the surplus (what's left over when you've bought everything you need or want), which is what really seems beyond the pale. See the portion of the Widtsoe quote in red.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

 

BTW- Does someone like a bishop, by virtue of their calling, automatically have a more pure understanding of what tithing should be? Or should this really be left to the individual to decide and declare for himself?

It seems to me it would fall under his role as a common judge in Israel and his function to counsel members of his ward as to matters of obedience to laws and commandments.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

It seems to me it would fall under his role as a common judge in Israel and his function to counsel members of his ward as to matters of obedience to laws and commandments.

 

That didn't answer my question and I think we could all agree that there is little uniformity between the judgements of all the judges in Israel.

"the wage earner has no expenses associated with earning his livelihood. Household expenses don't count in that regard;"

Really? The wage earner has no expenses in association with earning a livlihood? I wish that were the case.