Tithing - Gross, Net, Or Leftover

[Calm]

I think Tacenda has demonstrated in the past that her issue is not contempt for the Church on the transparency issue, but simply frustration because of her own confusion over certain things she feels could be easily resolved with more.

Now as to any issue she might be having with your attitude, I will leave that to her.

[Tacenda]

And here we see the "root" of that irritation, a contempt for the Church in not being more transparent, as well as trying to make some false accusation of me abusing some Priesthood authority.

I find this line of comments and the support of it unfortunate.

It felt like it. Why did you ask me to excuse myself? Who else does that? And btw, it would clear up any problems, if the church had transparency. During an interview with Pres. Hinckley, he states that only the members need to know where the tithing goes. Why did he say that, when we don't see that transparency? I could find the quote but think that you probably know which one it is. ETA: Last post till evening, I AGREE that the GA's don't live off members money extravagantly and IMO, give up so much for our benefit. And I AGREE that the church puts money into our temples, church buildings etc. But it would be nice to go back to how it once was and SEE how this is done, it might even merit more people paying an honest tithe. Edited July 13, 2013 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

I have been pondering tithing for a while. I joined the Church 17 years ago. I am the only member of my family (not including future wife, kids, and in laws) I was 17 years old and the mebers of the Ward who helped me develop my framework of what is Church Doctrine taught me to see Tithing as 10% of your gross pay.

Fast forward 14 - 17 years. I have for the past couple of years been on a quest to rid myself of false beliefs, fasle doctrine, and bad assumptions. For the first time ever I am seeing that A.) the pure Doctrine is 10% of our increase which is understood as Income. B.) That Income can mean various things, and C.) that each member is encouraged by the Church to prayerfully seek their personal definiton from the Lord and then do as the Lord says and pay it.

This leaves plenty of individual flexibility and responsibility to receive an revelatory answer.

My questions are

1.) Why don't we teach this openly in our three hour block as it seems most members had it defined for them as gross.

2.) what can we do to teach the official stance

3.) Would the Church prefer we see it as gross though they will not officially define it that way

and 4.) If someone delivered the following talk in a meeting would it be well received

Neither is it the doctrine of the church that it is on the gross, nor is it on the net. It is on interest(increase). How we individually calculate it is between us and the Lord. But I believe in being generous with the Lord, as he has been so very generous with me.

[halconero]

Awesome info DB, thank you for that.

In all honesty, this is how I feel about 99% of the discussions surrounding tithing:

[rpn]

Before tithing was instituted in this dispensation, people did give everything they had to the church, and then surplus thereafter. People couldn't live that doctrine and it became 10% of interest (income) annually.

People mixup the original instructions with the lesser law instructions that includes tithing.

[ERayR]

Before tithing was instituted in this dispensation, people did give everything they had to the church, and then surplus thereafter. People couldn't live that doctrine and it became 10% of interest (income) annually.

People mixup the original instructions with the lesser law instructions that includes tithing.

The law of tithing is 10% of your interest. It is then incumbent on you to figure out your interest. Anything else that someone tells you is their interpretation of "interest". It is nice to hear their ideas but . . .

[Brian 2.0]

The law of tithing is 10% of your interest. It is then incumbent on you to figure out your interest. Anything else that someone tells you is their interpretation of "interest". It is nice to hear their ideas but . . .

Well... yes an no. In regards to "interest" we do have to take into account the First Presidnecy Letter and the Handbook saying "which is understood to mean income"

I would think that those who prescribe to the leftover/surplus method are going by their interpretation of "interest" and might disagree with the 1970 first presidency statement that "interest" means "income" (for it's hard to see a surplus/leftover definintion in the word "income."

For the gross vs. net people, i think they are taking the interpretation in the handbook/first presidency statement of "interest" as valid, and are now arguing over the interpretation of the word "income."

[mnn727]

Both, it is an assumption that is taught without any other view taught. No one has ever mentioned praying about what a full tithe is. Tithing is 10% of gross, no ifs ands or buts, is taught exclusively

I've lived in 5 wards in 20 years and the correct view has been taught in all of them, however you ALWAYS have someone pipe up when a lesson on tithing is given and say "Do you want Gross blessings or Net blessings?" Personally I'll like to pop them in the mouth when they say that. As it seems to always be the person in the Ward that is always trying to appear to be better than anyone else. Edited July 13, 2013 by mnn727

[emarkp]

My response to grossers has been: "I have a business that has 9% profit margin. What should I pay?"

[Brian 2.0]

My response to grossers has been: "I have a business that has 9% profit margin. What should I pay?"

This example is interesting for "surplus/leftover" people to use. Because I agree it would be odd to pay 100% of Gross Tithing form a 9% profit margin business. But a profit margin is that that is leftover after expenses, including office space lease, cost of goods, all overhead, etc. If I applied that straight across to my personal life I would pay be tithing on the amount of money after my rent/food/clothes/etc was paid. My surplus. That would be the straight equivalent of your example, which is definately not a "net" argument.

I know some that apply this thinking... They don't take gross or net... They take their net, then take away a certain amount to accomodate their basic living expenses... they do rent and clothes, but they don't do things like DirecTV because they feel that purchase if from their "surplus" definately not basic living. This is obviously a personal judgment call between them and the Lord on where they draw the line. But they are applying your "profit margin" idea and are neither grosser or netters.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[rpn]

What does business with 9% profit margin have to do with gross or net? Your only increase is the profit (revenue minus expenses) from the business.

[DBMormon]

Before tithing was instituted in this dispensation, people did give everything they had to the church, and then surplus thereafter.

Please show a source, as it have understood it to always have been a tenth.

[DBMormon]

Well... yes an no. In regards to "interest" we do have to take into account the First Presidnecy Letter and the Handbook saying "which is understood to mean income"

I would think that those who prescribe to the leftover/surplus method are going by their interpretation of "interest" and might disagree with the 1970 first presidency statement that "interest" means "income" (for it's hard to see a surplus/leftover definintion in the word "income."

For the gross vs. net people, i think they are taking the interpretation in the handbook/first presidency statement of "interest" as valid, and are now arguing over the interpretation of the word "income."

ahhh.... but then you would be unaware that income has all three meanings as well

for instance you pay tax on your income. Your income is determined after all deductions are accounted for.

Again even income doesn't take one of the three options off the table

[ERayR]

Well... yes an no. In regards to "interest" we do have to take into account the First Presidnecy Letter and the Handbook saying "which is understood to mean income"

I would think that those who prescribe to the leftover/surplus method are going by their interpretation of "interest" and might disagree with the 1970 first presidency statement that "interest" means "income" (for it's hard to see a surplus/leftover definintion in the word "income."

For the gross vs. net people, i think they are taking the interpretation in the handbook/first presidency statement of "interest" as valid, and are now arguing over the interpretation of the word "income."

I think you are right. Tithing is a personal matter and if you are quibbling over how much then you have lost the spirit of tithing.

[ERayR]

Your income is determined after all deductions are accounted for.

Not quite. What about the deductions that are for personal purchases and savings such as insurance premiums and retirement savings?

[volgadon]

Please show a source, as it have understood it to always have been a tenth.

I'll have to find the page number, but it is mentioned in Andrus's Doctrines of the Kingdom, to name but one source.

[canard78]

Church Ad Campaigns are NOT paid for by "Tithing" of the Church Membership. It's paid for by it's Business holdings.

CFR please.

[canard78]

I have some storiesto tell of people who couldn't afford to pay tithing, but did so anyway, and prospered

Glenn

I wonder what you mean by prospered? This came up in Priesthood today as the topic was the Pres Snow Tithing lesson.

A couple of people mention the material blessing of tithing, to which I observed:

Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. He doesn't pay tithing to our church and hasn't been cursed for it. He is however very benevolent.

The blessing of tithing is simple. It is not financial. The blessing of tithing is letting go of the love of money. Accepting that it is not "my" money and not letting money become your "graven image."

By taking the attitude of money being God's gift to you and being willing to give some of it back you release yourself of one of society's greatest ills, the love of money.

Nowhere does it say "pay tithing to get more money." When it talks about the windows of heaven opening, it's not gold coins pouring out, it's the gift of charity and unselfishness and being less materialistic.

There are plenty of poor full tithe payers. I went to the Philippines and met a chapel full of them. There were no cars in the parking lot, they lived in wooden shacks and were living from one week to the next. There are many temples in poor parts of the world.

So yes, I agree that paying tithing will lead to spiritual prosperity, but I reject the notion that it will lead to financial prosperity. The evidence simply doesn't exist as far as I can see. If you are talking of financial prosperity and have anything beyond anecdotes I'd happily consider it (everyone has a tithing anecdote).

[canard78]

Depends on how much blessings you want

I'm guessing you like pressing buttons to get a reaction?

Would you like to list, specifically the promised blessings from scriptural sources AND how paying proportionally more leads to increased blessings?

[DBMormon]

Not quite. What about the deductions that are for personal purchases and savings such as insurance premiums and retirement savings?

my point is the word income is not cut and dry and interpreted one way and can only be understood to mean gross. In fact listen to an apostle Elder Orson Hyde speak of tithing

]"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)

He seems set on a leftover position.

Or even Elder Talmadge

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."

Who seems to support a net position

or Even Abraham from the JST

]"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.

which seems to indicate that it is paid on that which is left above what is needed to provide for one's needs

Edited July 14, 2013 by DBMormon

[canard78]

Wow. That's not the way it's been taught in any of the wards I've been in for at least the last 15 years.

It's always been taught 10% of "income" and if it's Sunday School you'll get the "If you want net blessings, pay net, but I want gross blessings" from someone commenting.

But I haven't heard a "it's gross, no if and's or buts" .... maybe ever (but I wasn't paying much attention when I was younger).

Similar for me. I've certainly been given the impression by teachers and leaders that gross is a more altruistic way and had a Bishop who would always answer the net/gross question with the 'do you want your blessing gross/net.' Which is the wrong way to teach it. The blessings promised are not conditional on the amount, so any net/gross response is always wrong.

I get the impression that some of the 'grossers' think others are 'getting away with it' when they talk of net or surplus.

I appreciate the 1970 statement. I like the trust it places in us. I don't want them to clarify it further. In fact I wish more of the commandments were treated in this way. For example, do we really need instruction on what to wear while working in the yard?

[DBMormon]

I wonder what you mean by prospered? This came up in Priesthood today as the topic was the Pres Snow Tithing lesson.

A couple of people mention the material blessing of tithing, to which I observed:

Bill Gates is the richest man in the world. He doesn't pay tithing to our church and hasn't been cursed for it. He is however very benevolent.

The blessing of tithing is simple. It is not financial. The blessing of tithing is letting go of the love of money. Accepting that it is not "my" money and not letting money become your "graven image."

By taking the attitude of money being God's gift to you and being willing to give some of it back you release yourself of one of society's greatest ills, the love of money.

Nowhere does it say "pay tithing to get more money." When it talks about the windows of heaven opening, it's not gold coins pouring out, it's the gift of charity and unselfishness and being less materialistic.

There are plenty of poor full tithe payers. I went to the Philippines and met a chapel full of them. There were no cars in the parking lot, they lived in wooden shacks and were living from one week to the next. There are many temples in poor parts of the world.

So yes, I agree that paying tithing will lead to spiritual prosperity, but I reject the notion that it will lead to financial prosperity. The evidence simply doesn't exist as far as I can see. If you are talking of financial prosperity and have anything beyond anecdotes I'd happily consider it (everyone has a tithing anecdote).

Amen Canard

[canard78]

my point is the word income is not cut and dry and interpreted one way and can only be understood to mean gross. In fact listen to an apostle Elder Orson Hyde speak of tithing

He seems set on a leftover position.

Or even Elder Talmadge

Who seems to support a net position

What would you say 'net' means? After tax? Or after other costs? I'm not sure Talmage is making a clear-cut 'net' statement. He's simply saying that is your income is high you'll pay more (but not proportionally). Obviously if someone had no income for a year they'd pay nothing. 10% of 0 is the same as 100% of 0.

Edited July 14, 2013 by canard78

[DBMormon]

I'll have to find the page number, but it is mentioned in Andrus's Doctrines of the Kingdom, to name but one source.

Hmmm... closest I come is if you look up tenth in the scriptures on line and notice it is used way more then any other fraction. It plays a role in temple sacrifice and in payment for religious items.

[canard78]

Amen Canard

Thanks for opening the thread on the topic. Good selection of quotes too.

In the p'hood lesson today I was planning on sharing the 1970 letter if it was relevant, but the teacher mainly focused on the blessings of tithing so I didn't want to disrupt the lesson without the need.

The question of 'how much' didn't come up once. Which was quite nice in a way.

The only thing referenced was this on page 164:

Teach [children] to pay their tithing while they are young. You mothers, teach your children that when they get any money they should pay one-tenth of it to the Lord, however little it may be. Educate them to pay their tithing in full.

That would suggest a 'net' (after tax) principle, but certainly not a surplus. We don't ask the kids to pay tithing on the pre-tax value of their monthly allowance, just on the money that hits their pocket.

I wonder where people go from net as kids to gross as adults?

Some countries are paying 50%+ income tax. That would making tithing cost x2 effectively compared to lower tax countries.