Tithing - Gross, Net, Or Leftover

[Scott Lloyd]

 

 

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.

 

I wouldn't readily concede that, no.

 

"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.

 

In theory, whatever expenses he incurred would be reimbursed by the employer. That's how it works in my case.

 

If not, then I suppose the wage earner could deduct his business expenses, just as the merchant or the farmer does.

 

But I don't see how household expenses could honestly be regarded as business expenses.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

 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.

 

Wether or not you sustain your bishop as a competent judge in Israel is another question. 

[HappyJackWagon]

HappyJackWagon, on 20 Apr 2015 - 3:58 PM, said:

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.

Scott Lloyd: I wouldn't readily concede that, no.

Of course not. You live in your own special kind of pseudo-reality. You wouldn't concede that the sky is blue or the earth is round either.

Put another way, Scott Lloyd, you are claiming that every judge in Israel, would have a uniform interpretation of how to pay the law of tithing? Either you are disagreeing simply to be contrary or you've chosen yet another indefensible position.

[Scott Lloyd]

HappyJackWagon, on 20 Apr 2015 - 3:58 PM, said:

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.

Scott Lloyd: I wouldn't readily concede that, no.

Of course not. You live in your own special kind of pseudo-reality. You wouldn't concede that the sky is blue or the earth is round either.

 

Is this what you would call a reasoned response?

 

Put another way, Scott Lloyd, you are claiming that every judge in Israel, would have a uniform interpretation of how to pay the law of tithing? Either you are disagreeing simply to be contrary or you've chosen yet another indefensible position.

 

This is different from what you said previously, which was this:

 

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.

 

I certainly don't agree that "there is little uniformity between the judgments of all the judges in Israel" and I don't concede that "we could all agree" there is.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[DBMormon]

 

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. 

 

 

-  As already pointed out by Happy there truly is a leader roulette.  My bishop from my Ohio ward acknowledged that what tithing is (gross, net, surplus) was between the person and the Lord.  I know of other leaders who state that tithing is 10% of gross and that's that.  That said I have informed leaders at times that I have all three options.  and it is between me and the Lord.  I have gotten no flack at those times.

 

Your logic falls short on why and how you defend that Surplus is not an option.  

 

-   I do not disregard the quote(s) you shared.  In fact I welcome them with open arms into the plethora of definitions various leaders have given to tithing.  They support my point not invalidate it.  What you did was share one quote from Howard W Hunter and one from Widstoe and assumed since they understood tithing to be 10% of gross that it must be so.  But you fail to validate that we also have leader's quotes that suggest surplus as the best interpretation.  I agree Pres. Hunter felt tithing was on gross.  But you seem to fail to acknowledge I am not bound by any one leader's interpretation, even two leader's interpretation, and frankly I am not even bound by all 15 leaders interpretation.

 

Elder Christofferson said a teaching by any one leader is not necessarily Doctrine and Elder Anderson taught that only what all 15 men teach unitedly constitutes Doctrine ( and even that has exceptions).  So while I validate that Pres Hunter in his quote taught Tithing is on gross, I am not bound by his teaching.  I am bound no more than you are bound by the quote I shared from Orson Hyde.  What these quotes prove is that tithing has been defined in a multitude of ways and hence many options are viable.  I am still waiting for someone to deal with the Hyde quote and the EoM discussion of D&C 119.  

 

-   Where as many of you feel bound to the words of a prophet whenever he is speaking, I do not.  It may be my weakness but it feels like a strength.  I realize that leader's quotes are all over the place on various issues and so I adhere to Moroni 7 when that is the case.  What ever brings me to Christ is of God and I "judge for myself"  what that is by the spirit.  When leaders disagree I realize there are multiple options and I do not feel bound to the cultural norm or even the current position of the church.

 

For example consider Elder McConkie when he addressed the issue of the Adam-God theory

 

Nonetheless, as Joseph Smith so pointedly taught, a prophet is not always a prophet, only when he is acting as such. Prophets are men and they make mistakes. Sometimes they err in doctrine. This is one of the reasons the Lord has given us the Standard Works. They become the standards and rules that govern where doctrine and philosophy are concerned. If this were not so, we would believe one thing when one man was president of the Church and another thing in the days of his successors. Truth is eternal and does not vary. Sometimes even wise and good men fall short in the accurate presentation of what is truth. Sometimes a prophet gives personal views which are not endorsed and approved by the Lord.

Yes, President Young did teach that Adam was the father of our spirits, and all the related things that the cultists ascribe to him. This, however, is not true. He expressed views that are out of harmony with the gospel. But, be it known, Brigham Young also taught accurately and correctly, the status and position of Adam in the eternal scheme of things. What I am saying is that Brigham Young contradicted Brigham Young, and the issue becomes one of which Brigham Young we will believe. The answer is we will believe the expressions that accord with the teachings in the Standard Works....

I think you can give me credit for having a knowledge of the quotations from Brigham Young relative to Adam, and of knowing what he taught under the subject that has become known as the Adam God Theory. President Joseph Fielding Smith said that Brigham Young will have to make his own explanations on the points there involved.... As for me and my house, we will have the good sense to choose between the divergent teachings of the same man and come up with those that accord with what God has set forth in his eternal plan of salvation....

 

  quotes on tithing are all over the place and each definition of "10% of what" has merit.  Since each has merit (until you deal with the Hyde quote you fall short in taking surplus off the table), and since no one quote equals official doctrine and since the Church has chosen not to endorse any one position then it truly is between the member and the Lord and yes, Gross, net, and surplus are all viable faithful options that may have approval from God.

Edited April 21, 2015 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Wether or not you sustain your bishop as a competent judge in Israel is another question. 

Happy is right.  Church leaders while called of God are left to their weakness much of the time and screw up with the best of them.   That said I am grateful to those who try and profess to have been no better when I was a Bishop.  I screwed up with the best of them as well

[DBMormon]

quotes and scriptures that lend credibility and merit to surplus as one viable option

 

1.) "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) - quotes comes post end of consecration and after law of tithing is revealed

 

2.) section 119 refers to surplus and says

"And after that, those who have been thus 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." (Emphasis added.)

 

Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines "INTEREST" as "any surplus advantage."

 

 

3.) Encyclopedia of Mormonism on tithing as it refers to section 119 as the Lord's new law of tithing and not consecration.

 

4.) JST of Genesis 14 - "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." JST Genesis 14:39. (Emphasis added.)

 

5.) The actual words Lorenzo Snow used when he went to St. George to deliver his address on tithing  - ("Gen Conf. 1899) "I pray that every man, woman, and child who has means shall pay one tenth of their income astithing."   - When net or gross are used everyone has means with almost no exception

 

6.) The church's Doctrine - "For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that we have uniformly replied that the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself 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 should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly."

 

- while not supporting surplus as the right conclusion it certainly doesn't exclude it.  It also begs the question why the Church officially tends to define tithing beyond this if Surplus is a pernicious lie.

 

7.) the handbook - "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 theirinterest annually,' which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this." (First Presidency letter, 19 Mar. 1970;see also D&C 119:4)

 

same as number 6

 

8.) "The Lord's Tenth, Pamphlet, 1968”

 

THE TITHE AS A RENTAL

As the matter presents itself to my mind, it is as though there had been a
contract made between myself and the Lord, and that in effect He had said to me:
"You have need of many things in this world -- food, clothing, and shelter for
your family and yourself, the common comforts of life, and the things that shall
be conducive to refinement, to development, to righteous enjoyment. You desire
material possessions to use for the assistance of others, and thereby gain
greater blessings for yourself and yours. Now, you shall have the means of
acquiring these things; but remember they are mine, and I require of you the
payment of a rental upon that which I give into your hands. However, your life
will not be one of uniform increase in substance and possessions; you will have
your losses, as well as your gains; you will have your periods of trouble as
well as your times of peace. Some years, will be years of plenty unto you, and
others will be years of scarcity, And, now, instead of doing as mortal landlords
do -- require you to contract with them to pay in advance, whatever your
fortunes or your prospects may be -- you shall pay me not in advance, but when
you have received; and you shall pay me in accordance with what you receive. If
it so be that in one year your income is abundant, then you can afford to pay me
a little more; and if it be so that the next year is one of distress and your
income is not what it was, then you shall pay me less; and should it be that you
are reduced to the utmost penury so that/you have nothing coming in, you will
pay me nothing."

 

Talmadge seems could be seen defending any of the 3 interpretations and while some may see Gross as the conclusion here I post it anyway as there are phrases used that seem to indicate other options such as net or surplus as well.  Talmadge first speaks of one's needs and then speaks of not paying in advance but only once one knows whether one has an abundance or a scarcity.   (which contradicts some modern leaders) 

 

I admit #8 is the weakest of the quotes but share it here for others to read

 

9.) "In more recent times the Church has not called upon the members to give all their SURPLUS property to the Church, but it has been the requirement according to the covenant, that they PAY THE TENTH." (Emphases added. Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 4 vols. [salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1946-1949], 3: 120.).  Without adding tenth of Gross, any person listening to this originally or reading it is left to assume tenth of one's surplus.  (the original law was to give one tenth of one's surplus properties and then a tenth of one's surplus ever after... it seems most reasonable that as the Church got into better financial shape it simply removed the first part of one's surplus properties when one entered and members were now only required to pay the tenth (which was surplus based on D&C 119

 

Again I do not endorse any one interpretation but only ask that our culture begin to allow all 3 as viable answers that we may get from God as we seek out this very personal answer.

 

=============================================

Also I would welcome a list of quotes and teachings prior to Talmadge that indicate Gross or Net tithing.  In my search I have found nothing

Edited April 21, 2015 by DBMormon

[Tacenda]

Good quotes DB!  I think the church would stand to be less corporate if these were put into place.  When the church is a multi billion corporation, it seems to override the message.  And we do get the message loud and clear of church related things of course, through their media and marketing campaign which in turn seem so corporate. 

[pogi]

Your logic falls short on why and how you defend that Surplus is not an option.  

 

Here is the logic - you have not been able to supply me with one single quote that does not require some word contortion or alternate dictionary definitions to come to your conclusion.  Not one of your quotes uses the word "surplus", while several GA's have given clear explenations (no contortion necessary) that do not allow for surplus, and still others flat out insist that surplus is the wrong approach to tithing and that there is "no place for quibbling on this point."  Elder Widtsoe's quote has never been questioned or rebuked by any other GA (which you would expect if it is an acceptable approach to tithing), in fact the Church still publishes it and teaches it in their institute manuals and on LDS.org.  In fact, if you google the words LDS, tithing, and surplus, that quote is the top result.   Usually the simplest answer is the right one.

 

9.)  the original law was to give one tenth of one's surplus properties and then a tenth of one's surplus ever after... it seems most reasonable that as the Church got into better financial shape it simply removed the first part of one's surplus properties when one entered and members were now only required to pay the tenth (which was surplus based on D&C 119

 

 

Again with the contortion.  It did not actually say the part in red at all.  Here is what it said:

 

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.

 

 

What is the church's official interpretation (or "doctrine" according to you) of "interest" in 1970?  You have kindly supplied that answer for me below:

 

6.) The church's Doctrine - "For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that we have uniformly replied that the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself that the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their interest annually, which is understood to mean income.

 

 

This is the best explanation we have.  What percentage of the public would interpret "income" to mean "surplus" in 1970?  Probably close to 0%. 

 

I think this is pretty strong logic actually. 

 

Edited April 21, 2015 by pogi

[ERayR]

 

Here is the logic.  You have not been able to supply me with one single quote that does not require some word contortion or alternate dictionary definitions to come to your conclusion.  Not one of your quotes uses the word "surplus", while several GA's have given clear explenations (no contortion necessary) that do not allow for surplus, and still others flat out insist that surplus is the wrong approach to tithing and that there is "no place for quibbling on this point."  Elder Widtsoe's quote has never been questioned or rebuked by any other GA (which you would expect if it is an acceptable approach to tithing), in fact the Church still publishes it and teaches it in their institute manuals and on LDS.org.  In fact, if you google the words LDS, tithing, and surplus, that quote is the top result.   Usually the simplest answer is the right one.

 

 

Again with the contortion.  It did not actually say the part in red at all.  Here is what it said:

 

 

What is the church's official interpretation (or "doctrine" according to you) of "interest" in 1970?  You have kindly supplied that answer for me below:

 

 

This is the best explanation we have.  What percentage of the public would interpret "income" to mean "surplus" in 1970?  Probably close to 0%. 

 

I think this is pretty strong logic actually. 

 

 

 

This has been pointed out before but DB seems to be seeking (IMO) validation for his choices.

[pogi]

This has been pointed out before but DB seems to be seeking (IMO) validation for his choices.

 

I think so too.

[DBMormon]

 

Here is the logic - you have not been able to supply me with one single quote that does not require some word contortion or alternate dictionary definitions to come to your conclusion.  Not one of your quotes uses the word "surplus", while several GA's have given clear explenations (no contortion necessary) that do not allow for surplus, and still others flat out insist that surplus is the wrong approach to tithing and that there is "no place for quibbling on this point."  Elder Widtsoe's quote has never been questioned or rebuked by any other GA (which you would expect if it is an acceptable approach to tithing), in fact the Church still publishes it and teaches it in their institute manuals and on LDS.org.  In fact, if you google the words LDS, tithing, and surplus, that quote is the top result.   Usually the simplest answer is the right one.

 

 

Again with the contortion.  It did not actually say the part in red at all.  Here is what it said:

 

 

What is the church's official interpretation (or "doctrine" according to you) of "interest" in 1970?  You have kindly supplied that answer for me below:

 

 

This is the best explanation we have.  What percentage of the public would interpret "income" to mean "surplus" in 1970?  Probably close to 0%. 

 

I think this is pretty strong logic actually. 

 

 

please explain how you understand the Orson Hyde quote? and make it to mean NOT surplus?

[DBMormon]

while 1 or 2 of you disagree, you have no substance to your argument as you never deal with the Hyde quote which can only mean surplus unless you have a better understanding.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

please explain how you understand the Orson Hyde quote? and make it to mean NOT surplus?

What the crap does that have to do with what has already been pointed out? It seems to be clear to every one but you that you are straining here.

[DBMormon]

who is everyone? you, pogi, erayr and scott lloyd?

[pogi]

 

1.) "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) - quotes comes post end of consecration and after law of tithing is revealed

 

I have been searching for the quote in its full context and have a'las found it.  As expected, it was indeed taken out of context.   Orson hyde was not teaching to pay tithing on "surplus" as a general, acceptable, and applicable rule for all members, in fact, he wasn't teaching to pay tithing on "surplus" at all.  He was actually suggesting that the enforcement of the law of tithing be suspended temporarily in England due to the different "circumstance, habits and customs", until they could hear from head quarters on the subject.  He was upset at some Elders for trying to enforce tithing.  Here is what he said:

 

...the difference of circumstances, the difference of countries, habits and customs should have been a sufficient warrant to postpone the enforcing of this law until the wisdom and propriety of so doing, at this time,  could have been determined in council at head quarters, and the result of such deliberations made known through the Star; then it would have been sufficiently early for the Elders to attend to teaching and enforcing it.  But as they desire to be forward in every good work, they are certainly pardonable for their rather premature action upon this subject.

 

 

Orson Hyde wrote this as an exception to the rule until they could hear from headquarters.  It should not be understood that Orson Hyde or others in his time understood the law of tithing or "interest" to mean surplus.  Again he was suggesting that the poor not pay tithing at all, he was not suggesting that all people should only pay on surplus.

 

Here is the link, it is on page 12:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=UCEEAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA2-PA12&lpg=RA2-PA12&dq=IF+IT+REQUIRES+ALL+MAN+CAN+EARN+TO+SUPPORT+HIMSELF+AND+HIS+FAMILY,+HE+IS+NOT+TITHED+AT+ALL&source=bl&ots=SNqPQVu8Sn&sig=8womqZ15kYrdkC6bzvQCV9EXEmY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JeE2VeuLHYXFsAX7s4HwCg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=IF%20IT%20REQUIRES%20ALL%20MAN%20CAN%20EARN%20TO%20SUPPORT%20HIMSELF%20AND%20HIS%20FAMILY%2C%20HE%20IS%20NOT%20TITHED%20AT%20ALL&f=false

 

Interestingly, in searching for the source of this quote, I came across another article from the Millenieal Star No. 9, Vol. XXXVI (Tuesday, March 3, 1874).  This should suffice as a quote from pre contemporary references against tithing on "surplus":

 

In the course of my experience for several years past in the practical working of the law of Tithing, I have met many persons who endeavored to drag in the thousands and one circumstances under which individuals may happen to be laboring, as though they in some way, modified or affected the intent of the law itself.  As for instance… “I worked all the year and just came out even, supporting my family, and, consequently, I have nothing to pay.”  But, my dear friend, the law of Tithing requires you to pay one-tenth of your time, or its equivalent, as you pass along through the year, and your current expenses must come out of the nine-tenths; and if that is insufficient for the comfortable maintenance of your family, you are entitled to call on the Bishop, or Lord’s storehouse keeper, for the balance, else the law of Tithing is not honored in your case.

 

 

Page 131 of the following link:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=zFMoAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA130&lpg=RA1-PA130&dq=IF+IT+REQUIRES+ALL+MAN+CAN+EARN+TO+SUPPORT+HIMSELF+AND+HIS+FAMILY,+HE+IS+NOT+TITHED+AT+ALL&source=bl&ots=iKkdcVMVxu&sig=uRRdurc-t6qLKNHTs2gDK8ewPG8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dd02VYekCMWksAXb1oGICw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=crop&f=false

 

The evidence is stacking up against your case.

Edited April 22, 2015 by pogi

[DBMormon]

I have been searching for the quote in its full context and have a'las found it.  As expected, it was indeed taken out of context.   Orson hyde was not teaching to pay tithing on "surplus" as a general, acceptable, and applicable rule for all members, in fact, he wasn't teaching to pay tithing on "surplus" at all.  He was actually suggesting that the enforcement of the law of tithing be suspended temporarily in England due to the different "circumstance, habits and customs", until they could hear from head quarters on the subject.  He was upset at some Elders for trying to enforce tithing.  Here is what he said:

 

 

Orson Hyde wrote this as an exception to the rule until they could hear from headquarters.  It should not be understood that Orson Hyde or others in his time understood the law of tithing or "interest" to mean surplus.  Again he was suggesting that the poor not pay tithing at all, he was not suggesting that all people should only pay on surplus.

 

Here is the link, it is on page 12:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=UCEEAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA2-PA12&lpg=RA2-PA12&dq=IF+IT+REQUIRES+ALL+MAN+CAN+EARN+TO+SUPPORT+HIMSELF+AND+HIS+FAMILY,+HE+IS+NOT+TITHED+AT+ALL&source=bl&ots=SNqPQVu8Sn&sig=8womqZ15kYrdkC6bzvQCV9EXEmY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JeE2VeuLHYXFsAX7s4HwCg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=IF%20IT%20REQUIRES%20ALL%20MAN%20CAN%20EARN%20TO%20SUPPORT%20HIMSELF%20AND%20HIS%20FAMILY%2C%20HE%20IS%20NOT%20TITHED%20AT%20ALL&f=false

 

Interestingly, in searching for the source of this quote, I came across another article from the Millenieal Star No. 9, Vol. XXXVI (Tuesday, March 3, 1874).  This should suffice as a quote from pre contemporary references against tithing on "surplus":

 

 

Page 131 of the following link:

 

https://books.google.com/books?id=zFMoAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA130&lpg=RA1-PA130&dq=IF+IT+REQUIRES+ALL+MAN+CAN+EARN+TO+SUPPORT+HIMSELF+AND+HIS+FAMILY,+HE+IS+NOT+TITHED+AT+ALL&source=bl&ots=iKkdcVMVxu&sig=uRRdurc-t6qLKNHTs2gDK8ewPG8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dd02VYekCMWksAXb1oGICw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=crop&f=false

 

The evidence is stacking up against your case.

see that wasn't so hard was it?   That said, I think if anyone reads the source who is not trying to defend a point I highly suspect that most would understand this source differently.  In the first parapgraph he states that "they" wish to expound on the subject of tithing.  He then elaborates on the problem of teaching the law too early when means to collect it have not been established.  But the next paragraph is his laying out the law as he understands it.  He is clear, at least to me, the asking of others to refrain from paying tithing is not due to the church being unable to collect but rather because the member has no leftover to pay.  I think your grabbing at straws and I strongly disagree with your interpretation.  That said you at least had a refutation which I applaud the effort.

 

Ask yourself if he seems to be talking about an exception to the rule or the rule itself

 

"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."

 

To further corroborate my point I share the following

 

Franklin D. Richards explained the meaning of SURPLUS as it appeared in verse 1 of D&C 119: "I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop" Let us consider for a moment this word 'SURPLUS.' What does it mean when applied to a man and his property? SURPLUS CANNOT MEAN THAT WHICH IS INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY FOR ANY GIVEN PURPOSE, BUT WHAT REMAINS AFTER SUPPLYING WHAT IS NEEDED FOR THAT PURPOSE. Is not the first and most necessary use of a man's property that he feed, clothe and provide a home for himself and family! . . . WAS NOT 'SURPLUS PROPERTY,' THAT WHICH WAS OVER AND ABOVE A COMFORTABLE AND NECESSARY SUBSTANCE? In the light of what had transpired and of subsequent events, what else could it mean? CAN WE TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF IT WHEN WE CONSIDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT WAS GIVEN IN FAR WEST, IN JULY, 1838? "I have been unable in studying this subject to find any other definition of the term 'SURPLUS,' as used in this revelation, than the one I have just given. I find that it was so understood and recorded by the Bishops and people in those days, AS WELL AS BY THE PROPHET JOSEPH HIMSELF, WHO WAS UNQUESTIONABLY THE ABLEST AND BEST EXPONENT OF THIS REVELATION." (Emphasis added, Franklin D. Richards, Nov. 6, 1882. JD 23:313.)

 

Again this 1838 revelation is re: tithing and not consecration per the Encyclopedia of Mormonism

Edited April 22, 2015 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

I am completely comfortable with leaders saying net or gross.  They do little to my argument.  I personally see surplus as a definition that is supported and strangely the CoC saw the same connection.  I think at a bare minimum it should be acknowledged that some early leaders understood tithing to be 10% of surplus.

[pogi]

see that wasn't so hard was it?   That said, I think if anyone reads the source who is not trying to defend a point I highly suspect that most would understand this source differently. 

 

I disagree, Hyde admits to speaking and acting without the authorization of headquarters.

 

Ask yourself if he seems to be talking about an exception to the rule or the rule itself

 

"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."

 

Note that where the scriptures only require 1/10 of the "surplus" of one's possessions at the time of baptism, Orson actually states that 1/10 of "all" of one's possessions is required at the time of baptism (surplus is clearly not on his mind).  He then states that 1/10 of the annual "increase" is "required" ever after.  Again, the official interpretation of increase in 1970 is "income".  Orson actually gives no room for surplus at all (even though the scriptures do at the time of baptism only).  

 

Orson then contradicts himself with the part in blue with an exception to the rule or "requirement" just stated.  Where it is clearly written and explained by Orson as a "requirement" for all, he then suggests that tithing may not be a requirement after all.  He does not suggest anything about "surplus" anywhere, but when read in context, he is actually suggesting that the poor not pay tithing at all (this is the part that he is waiting to hear from headquarters on).   That is very different than saying that the rich and poor alike are validated in paying 1/10th of their "surplus".  That simply is not written anywhere in the black and white. 

 

Once again to clarify, his explanation of the law "requires" 1/10 of "all" at baptism, then 1/10 of annual increase thereafter.  No room for surplus whatsoever.  He then suggests an exception to the rule just explained, that the poor need not be tithed at all (no requirement).  He suggested earlier that the enforcement be put on hold until they can hear from headquarters.  That is the exception of which he has not received authorization for. 

 

To further corroborate my point I share the following

 

Franklin D. Richards explained the meaning of SURPLUS as it appeared in verse 1 of D&C 119:

 

Verse 1 is speaking about the tithing to be paid on the surplus of a man's possessions at the time of baptism only.   It is not speaking about the tithing that is required thereafter (one-tenth of annual increase.  Official interpretation - "income"). 

Edited April 22, 2015 by pogi

[pogi]

You seem to justify surplus out of protection for the poor.  Orson also clearly worried about the poor which is why he suggested a halt on the enforcement of the law until they hear from headquarters, due to the different, country and cultures etc.  But doesn't the quote below answer both of your concerns about the poor paying on their "income" instead of "surplus":

 

In the course of my experience for several years past in the practical working of the law of Tithing, I have met many persons who endeavored to drag in the thousands and one circumstances under which individuals may happen to be laboring, as though they in some way, modified or affected the intent of the law itself.  As for instance… “I worked all the year and just came out even, supporting my family, and, consequently, I have nothing to pay.”  But, my dear friend, the law of Tithing requires you to pay one-tenth of your time, or its equivalent, as you pass along through the year, and your current expenses must come out of the nine-tenths; and if that is insufficient for the comfortable maintenance of your family, you are entitled to call on the Bishop, or Lord’s storehouse keeper, for the balance, else the law of Tithing is not honored in your case.

 

 

This is the best explanation I have heard in regard to paying on surplus.  This way the law of tithing truly does not "take the mother's and children's bread, neither ought else which they really need for their comfort" as Orson suggested.  

 

This was published in the same magazine that Orson wrote his comments in about 27 years earlier.  Does this not satisfy all concerns about "taking the mother's and child's bread" after paying on their income?  Also, is there any question regarding the response of headquarters to Orson's temporary exception to the rule after reading this?

Edited April 22, 2015 by pogi

[Grudunza]

What is the church's official interpretation (or "doctrine" according to you) of "interest" in 1970?  You have kindly supplied that answer for me below:

 

 

This is the best explanation we have.  What percentage of the public would interpret "income" to mean "surplus" in 1970?  Probably close to 0%. 

 

I think this is pretty strong logic actually. 

 

 

 

What is more relevant, since that statement is directly referring to the D&C revelation's reference of "interest," is not what people in 1970 would interpret, but what people at the time thought of the term.  One of the definitions in the 1828 Webster's dictionary for "interest" was "any surplus advantage."  To apply a 1970 understanding of the word would be like reading an account of someone in 1950 referring to someone else as looking "gay" and assuming they surely meant "homosexual."  But even taking the term with our modern understanding, interest can indeed be thought of as the extra amount that is left over after your expenses are met.  "You got what you needed, plus interest."  Interest is the *extra* amount that we pay after the base amount of what we owe on our mortgage or credit card (or the extra amount we earn if we are the bank or credit card company).  It is the extra.

For me, the answer to my prayers and studies about tithing came in the form of an appreciation for the God of my understanding being fair and loving to all of His children.  I considered what is truly fair, and what could be at odds among different classes and circumstances.  With that in mind, I can accept net or surplus (and practice a middle ground of that, myself), but not gross.  To me, gross is the one method that tithing specifically should *not* be (though if anyone believes otherwise and wishes to pay gross tithing, by all means they should).  Gross tithing carries a potential for disproportion among circumstances and incomes, and the potential for incurring debt and keeping those who are poor from having means to grow out of that and afford other things that are encouraged, such as food storage and college.  I'm not saying it does that in most circumstances, as many Latter-day Saints can easily afford to pay gross, but that it has the potential to do that invalidates it for me as being an inspired method.

A person earns $2,000 a month ($24,000 a year), and has legitimate living expenses of $1,801 every month, including rent, food, utilities, fuel, etc.  To pay gross tithing of $200, that person will now be in debt, and also have no extra money to put into savings, to contribute charitably from, to build food storage with, to have a little bit of fun and recreation with (yes, poor people need that, too), and so on.  However, if they pay $19.90 of tithing, now they have $179.10 left with which to do all of that, even if only in a small way, and they are now living responsibly within their means and not incurring debt or relying on anyone else to cover them, and not stiffing a landlord or bill collector.  The church does not need to pay any of their expenses for them from other people's tithing, and can give of those resources to people whose income is less than their expenses, or who have no income, or to the needy in the community.  As a comparison, look at someone making just $100 more a month, or $25,200 a year, with the same $1,801 monthly expenses.  They would pay $210 on gross, leaving them with $89 left over.  So for just a $100 a month difference, one person is in debt by paying gross tithing, and another is not.  And of course, the higher the income from there, the less the burden of the amount paid and the more remaining play money.  And sure, someone earning more money should have more remaining money, but as a percentage they will have the exact same burden as everyone else if they also account for their basic expenses (i.e., surplus method of tithing).  

Another example is a healthy family of three that earns $50,000 a year, compared to a family of seven (with two special needs kids) that also earns $50,000 a year.  Both can take care of their families with the income they make, but should the basic family needs really not be factored into both family situations when accounting for tithing?  The family of seven is essentially being penalized financially, by comparison, in addition to the further challenges they already face.  And yes, it may be a measure of their choice to have had more kids, knowing they would have a heavier burden in many respects than smaller families, but let's face it, having kids is something that our religion strongly encourages, so again, it would seem a contradiction to our religious practice to penalize that.  To me, if there's any chance that someone could incur debt by paying gross tithing, or a disparity among incomes and circumstances can be evident, then that invalidates the method.  Surplus method is fair across the board for all family circumstances.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Grudunza

[DBMormon]

What is more relevant, since that statement is directly referring to the D&C revelation's reference of "interest," is not what people in 1970 would interpret, but what people at the time thought of the term.  One of the definitions in the 1828 Webster's dictionary for "interest" was "any surplus advantage."  To apply a 1970 understanding of the word would be like reading an account of someone in 1950 referring to someone else as looking "gay" and assuming they surely meant "homosexual."  But even taking the term with our modern understanding, interest can indeed be thought of as the extra amount that is left over after your expenses are met.  "You got what you needed, plus interest."  Interest is the *extra* amount that we pay after the base amount of what we owe on our mortgage or credit card (or the extra amount we earn if we are the bank or credit card company).  It is the extra.

For me, the answer to my prayers and studies about tithing came in the form of an appreciation for the God of my understanding being fair and loving to all of His children.  I considered what is truly fair, and what could be at odds among different classes and circumstances.  With that in mind, I can accept net or surplus (and practice a middle ground of that, myself), but not gross.  To me, gross is the one method that tithing specifically should *not* be (though if anyone believes otherwise and wishes to pay gross tithing, by all means they should).  Gross tithing carries a potential for disproportion among circumstances and incomes, and the potential for incurring debt and keeping those who are poor from having means to grow out of that and afford other things that are encouraged, such as food storage and college.  I'm not saying it does that in most circumstances, as many Latter-day Saints can easily afford to pay gross, but that it has the potential to do that invalidates it for me as being an inspired method.

A person earns $2,000 a month ($24,000 a year), and has legitimate living expenses of $1,801 every month, including rent, food, utilities, fuel, etc.  To pay gross tithing of $200, that person will now be in debt, and also have no extra money to put into savings, to contribute charitably from, to build food storage with, to have a little bit of fun and recreation with (yes, poor people need that, too), and so on.  However, if they pay $19.90 of tithing, now they have $179.10 left with which to do all of that, even if only in a small way, and they are now living responsibly within their means and not incurring debt or relying on anyone else to cover them, and not stiffing a landlord or bill collector.  The church does not need to pay any of their expenses for them from other people's tithing, and can give of those resources to people whose income is less than their expenses, or who have no income, or to the needy in the community.  As a comparison, look at someone making just $100 more a month, or $25,200 a year, with the same $1,801 monthly expenses.  They would pay $210 on gross, leaving them with $89 left over.  So for just a $100 a month difference, one person is in debt by paying gross tithing, and another is not.  And of course, the higher the income from there, the less the burden of the amount paid and the more remaining play money.  And sure, someone earning more money should have more remaining money, but as a percentage they will have the exact same burden as everyone else if they also account for their basic expenses (i.e., surplus method of tithing).  

Another example is a healthy family of three that earns $50,000 a year, compared to a family of seven (with two special needs kids) that also earns $50,000 a year.  Both can take care of their families with the income they make, but should the basic family needs really not be factored into both family situations when accounting for tithing?  The family of seven is essentially being penalized financially, by comparison, in addition to the further challenges they already face.  And yes, it may be a measure of their choice to have had more kids, knowing they would have a heavier burden in many respects than smaller families, but let's face it, having kids is something that our religion strongly encourages, so again, it would seem a contradiction to our religious practice to penalize that.  To me, if there's any chance that someone could incur debt by paying gross tithing, or a disparity among incomes and circumstances can be evident, then that invalidates the method.  Surplus method is fair across the board for all family circumstances.

thanks for weighing in

[VideoGameJunkie]

I always pay what I feel is best and add on fast offering and humanitarian aid donations. I always know blessings are coming.

[Scott Lloyd]

What is more relevant, since that statement is directly referring to the D&C revelation's reference of "interest," is not what people in 1970 would interpret, but what people at the time thought of the term. 

 

The meaning of "interest" has been interpreted by the First Presidency to be income. That trumps any and every other understanding, past or present.

 

Those who claim to have a superior interpretation or understanding from what the First Presidency has directed are looking beyond the mark.

 

For a good discourse on "looking beyond the mark," see this by Elder Quentin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

 

A relevant excerpt:

 

 

Another sign of spiritual immaturity and sometimes apostasy is when one focuses on certain gospel principles or pursues “gospel hobbies” with excess zeal. Almost any virtue taken to excess can become a vice.

Certain members have wanted to add substantially to various doctrines. An example might be when one advocates additions to the Word of Wisdom that are not authorized by the Brethren and proselytes others to adopt these interpretations. If we turn a health law or any other principle into a form of religious fanaticism, we are looking beyond the mark.

Some who are not authorized want to speak for the Brethren and imply that their message contains the “meat” the Brethren would teach if they were not constrained to teach only the “milk.” Others want to counsel the Brethren and are critical of all teachings that do not comply with their version of what should be taught.

 

(Emphasis mine)

Edited April 23, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

If you need others to agree with or at least not oppose your decision I would suggest your confidence is low. Ask God. I doubt God will approve of the "surplus" interpretation but if he does go for it.