4 Questions Currently On My Mind

[ERayR]

Re #2: Do we really need a GA to tell us not to shun people regardless of the reason? This is my pet peeve as my brother has been shunned his whole life living on the Mormon front.

 

It seems that some must be instructed in all things.

[ERayR]

 

   On the issue of tithing. It became a non-issue for me when I decided to become a full tithe payer instead of doing the hit or miss method that I had used for so very long. I decided to pay on my gross income. It was a personal decision and have tried to follow it faithfully for the duration. I don't worry about it any longer, i.e what it means by "increase". It is only a small test after all, and the Lord has promised us some great blessings if we are faithful in paying our tithing. I think that if a person can honestly answer "yes" to the full tithe question, after clearing it with the Lord in humble prayer,  all of the other issues will be moot. If a person has been assured by the Lord that their tithe is accepted, then who am I to try to dissuade him or her that my way is correct? It all goes back to the spirit of the law. We are not living the Mosaic law of exactitude in everything.

 

Glenn

 

It does become much simpler when we cease trying to figure out what we don't have to pay. 

Edited September 6, 2014 by ERayR

[DBMormon]

It is not for me to be comfortable or uncomfortable with the way others live or perceive things but only their effects.  As for your tithing choices no problem as long as you don't start teaching it as doctrine.  I was just a bit bemused in your mingling of consecration and tithe.  It just seemed to me that if you are going to use the consecration model you would then consecrate and not tithe.  The two are not the same. 

 

Carry on.

I don't teach Surplus as Doctrine.  Rather I do teach though, that members have a choice and the decision is between them and the Lord.  Surplus is one of several options and the Doctrine is that they are to decide between them and the Lord and no one is to say more or less than than that.

[DBMormon]

   On the issue of tithing. It became a non-issue for me when I decided to become a full tithe payer instead of doing the hit or miss method that I had used for so very long. I decided to pay on my gross income. It was a personal decision and have tried to follow it faithfully for the duration. I don't worry about it any longer, i.e what it means by "increase". It is only a small test after all, and the Lord has promised us some great blessings if we are faithful in paying our tithing. I think that if a person can honestly answer "yes" to the full tithe question, after clearing it with the Lord in humble prayer,  all of the other issues will be moot. If a person has been assured by the Lord that their tithe is accepted, then who am I to try to dissuade him or her that my way is correct? It all goes back to the spirit of the law. We are not living the Mosaic law of exactitude in everything.

 

On the dissent question, there is no clear cut answer about the lines. There is none drawn in the sand. But I still think that a person can get a lot more done by fervent prayer than with fervent dissent.

 

On the LGBT issue. The lines have been drawn in the sand for many years as to acceptable moral behavior. I emphasize the word behavior. Because how we treat others can be moral or immoral behavior.

 

As far as the birth date of the Christ, it is irrelevant to my salvation, a non-issue. It may well have been a revelation. Or not. It does not matter.

 

Glenn

On your last point, Does it matter if the Church taught Idea X as a known fact and that "all of Us" know such fact to be true only to then disocver Idea X is not a known fact.  Going forward they decide to bolster X rather than retract that their is absolute knowledge about X?

 

The issue as you point out is meaningless.  But the behavior of defending a probelmatic historical point rather than acknowledge that is is messy is of note and worth to me at least.

[DBMormon]

In regards to Tithing, I did an podcast episode on this which may be of worth to some.  http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2013/07/479/

[Calm]

Because, as someone else intimated, it creates a problem for the church if they have to correct it, when there is an increasing list of entrenched supporters. It's not just correcting Elder Bednar, but also the many before him.

A bigger and more egregious example of that kind of thing, IMO, is the idea that BY was transfigured into JS at the succession meeting... There is no evidence or indication of that happening from the dozens of sources reporting on that day immediately thereafter, and the first reference came 13 years later and probably grew and morphed from there like a "telephone game" thing ("BY reminded me of JS that day" becomes "BY turned into JS"), but it is now not only pervasive in our cultural history, but still referenced in many of our official manuals. At this point, though, to correct that error not only requires many manual changes but also could cast doubt on BY's "divine appointment" (which it needn't do, of course). But if I have any distasteful opinion of our church (which I love and fully support, otherwise), it's when things like that are done which would seem to prefer perpetuating falsehoods for the sake of faith promotion, as opposed to correcting them, or at least discontinuing them. It is very Orwellian, and reminds me of another example (a certain conference talk from 1984).

My memory says that the evidence is better than that (I had assumed it was as you described...all late and likely reinforced rather than original, but then iirc someone corrected me...possibly with this article).

I don't want to pay the fee though to doublecheck, the complication of it, not the amount, so I can't really say for sure, but perhaps someone with a membership can take a quick look to see if the documentation supports the abstract:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=6439

A better summary:

On August 8, 1844, six weeks after the Prophet Joseph Smith's martyrdom, a meeting of the Saints was held in Nauvoo, Illinois, to resolve the issue of Church leadership. At the meeting, Sidney Rigdon, former first counselor to Joseph Smith, claimed to be the new guardian of the Church. Brigham Young, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, arose and stated that, as a body, the Quorum of the Twelve possessed the necessary priesthood keys and authority to lead the Church. Many Saints in the audience said that as Brigham Young spoke, he took on the voice or appearance of Joseph Smith, a witness that Young was to be the next leader. The Saints understood this to be the passing of the mantle from the Prophet Joseph Smith to Brigham Young, in reference to the mantle of Elijah passing to Elisha (2 Kings 2:9–15). Brigham Young's transformation was not recorded on August 8, 1844, in any extant journals. However, contemporaneous accounts, testimonies by children, and later published accounts testify of the divine occurrence. This article includes fifty-seven firsthand accounts and forty-four secondhand accounts from over eighty people who witnessed the event.

http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/viewQuestion.aspx?view=71e0e8ef-4523-4aec-9296-c74713470101

Also this gives more info abt the article:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865585792/Event-convinced-Saints-of-Brigham-Youngs-mantle.html?pg=all&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D%2522joseph%2520smith%2522%2520mantle%2520%2522brigham%2520young%2522%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D3%26ved%3D0CCMQFjAC%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.deseretnews.com%252Farticle%252F865585792%252FEvent-convinced-Saints-of-Brigham-Youngs-mantle.html%253Fpg%253Dall%26ei%3Dr0ALVLqVD42fyATniIDIAQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNGB8ZWSgKLPQgfOzeN0ynmN3BcTqg%26bvm%3Dbv.74649129%2Cd.aWw

This includes an active link to the PDF without a fee! So now you can read and decide for yourself.

Edited September 6, 2014 by calmoriah

[Brian 2.0]

Been searching LDS.org for quotes. I'm not convinced you'll find surplus given as on optional interpretation. In fact. Look at this damning evidence against surplus method. This is a quote used in the D&C Student Manual:

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.

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

[Grudunza]

That's a quote from John A. Widstoe from 1943.  I reject it based on my previous reasoning given, and several other quotes from other church notables and scriptures that Bill has already posted would also counter that.  This is a great example, though, per the topic of this thread, of the church telling us (by virtue of quoting it on that page) something very specific about tithing, when there are other possible interpretations, and when the manner of interpreting tithing and income/increase should be determined personally, as described officially in 1970.

 

As for the transfiguration story, I will read through the whole article soon, but just skimming it and looking at the references, you can see that many begin well after the time.  One reference refers to being the earliest known recollection, but that's ten months after the meeting.  (Earlier than what I thought was the earliest, but still...)  More to the point, we have numerous accounts and journal entries, minutes of the meeting and newspaper articles, written on that day or within days of the event, including writings by Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, Wilford Woodruff and others, none of which mention any kind of miraculous transfiguration.  I'm inclined to accept the telephone game premise for how that story got propagated... 

[ERayR]

I don't teach Surplus as Doctrine.  Rather I do teach though, that members have a choice and the decision is between them and the Lord.  Surplus is one of several options and the Doctrine is that they are to decide between them and the Lord and no one is to say more or less than than that.

 

Just a point to think about.  Surplus is used in reference to consecration and is not used anywhere in reference to tithing.  Where it is used it is reference to all your surplus both originally and annually.

[Brian 2.0]

That's a quote from John A. Widstoe from 1943. I reject it based on my previous reasoning given

I agree it's an old quote, but there's a big difference between any random quote from 1943... And a quote from 1943 that's in CURRENT church manuals.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

Just a point to think about. Surplus is used in reference to consecration and is not used anywhere in reference to tithing. Where it is used it is reference to all your surplus both originally and annually.

This seems to be true in all the stuff I've tried to look up on it.

We agree again, ERayR... Strange times we live in

[readstoomuch]

Random thoughts about the issues. Have Togo wash cars for school fundraiser. Not much time. For me tithing is a net after taxes or gross income issue. I think it is interesting accounting by Bill, but he pays something and is faithful in his belief. Worked it out for him. I can live with that.

I have far bigger worries about whether my tithing is used the way The Lord wants. Others? Is the missionary program going in the right direction? Is our curriculum doing what The Lord wants. Are my children doing what The Lord wants? Is Scouting a real Boone to the Church? JSP and other writings are bringing transparency to history, but are we really getting that through to members? Do we have to be a stodgy church that does things forever the same way? I don't needs rock band, but why can't we have some new types of music? How come Church seems to make the gospel seem boring (I'll say it for you all now-that is my fault)?

bill has his issues. I guess I have mine. My last tithing check was off of gross. It felt good. I am still the same guy that has other questions.

[Brian 2.0]

Just a point to think about. Surplus is used in reference to consecration and is not used anywhere in reference to tithing. Where it is used it is reference to all your surplus both originally and annually.

Actually I need to amend my statement. Tithing of surplus is mentioned in D&C 119:5

5 Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.

"Tithed of surplus" means 10% of surplus to me. Especially in the context of the section.

EDIT: amending again! It. It could be using "tithing" to refer to the give ALL the surplus as outlined in vs. 1. Or it could be using "surplus" as a substitute for the word "interest" in the previous verse. One could probably argue both ways.

Edited September 6, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[ERayR]

This seems to be true in all the stuff I've tried to look up on it.

We agree again, ERayR... Strange times we live in

 

IT IS THE END TIMES.

[ERayR]

Actually I need to amend my statement. Tithing of surplus is mentioned in D&C 119:5

5 Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.

"Tithed of surplus" means 10% of surplus to me. Especially in the context of the section.

EDIT: amending again! It. It could be using "tithing" to refer to the give ALL the surplus as outlined in vs. 1. Or it could be using "surplus" as a substitute for the word "interest" in the previous verse. One could probably argue both ways.

 

I understand that to mean what your edit addition is saying.

[DBMormon]

I understand that to mean what your edit addition is saying.

So it is true, that all three interpretations can be argued for.  The Church chooses to put down none of these in the 1970 statement and they say it is between the the individual and the Lord.... perfect.....  Pretty sure that is what I have been saying.

[Brian 2.0]

So it is true, that all three interpretations can be argued for. The Church chooses to put down none of these in the 1970 statement and they say it is between the the individual and the Lord.... perfect..... Pretty sure that is what I have been saying.

You do have quotes in current church manuals putting surplus method down. You have to deal with that somehow.

[ERayR]

So it is true, that all three interpretations can be argued for.  The Church chooses to put down none of these in the 1970 statement and they say it is between the the individual and the Lord.... perfect.....  Pretty sure that is what I have been saying.

I have made it abundantly clear you are free to to as you please.  It is also clear to me that not all interpretations are valid and context is important.  It is also clear to me that the blessings from paying tithing are enlarged by the proper mind set.  Therefore, one certainly misses the point when they stretch to minimize what they call a tithe.  It took me a few years to learn that one.

[ERayR]

You do have quotes in current church manuals putting surplus method down. You have to deal with that somehow.

 

It is true it can be argued but then most anything can be argued, valid or not.  And yes we do have those pesky authoritative quotes but . . .

[DBMormon]

You do have quotes in current church manuals putting surplus method down. You have to deal with that somehow.

Is everything in the manuals true? Is everything in them Doctrine?

Sorry, but Manual does not = absolute truth

[DBMormon]

I have made it abundantly clear you are free to to as you please.  It is also clear to me that not all interpretations are valid and context is important.  It is also clear to me that the blessings from paying tithing are enlarged by the proper mind set.  Therefore, one certainly misses the point when they stretch to minimize what they call a tithe.  It took me a few years to learn that one.

again it is between me and the Lord and no one including you or any other is to say more than what the 1970 letter states.  We should not shame people into our interpretation as the 1970 letter seems to be speaking to exactly that point.  

 

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.

 

This seems to give me room to do what I feel is right without your trying to shame me into changing my mind.

 

Also consider the Ecyclopedia of Mormonism

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

 

A 1970 letter from the First Presidency stated that notwithstanding the fact that members should pay one-tenth of their income, "every member of the Church is entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord and to make payment accordingly" (Mar. 19, 1970; cf. Doxey, pp. 16, 18). Hence, the exact amount paid is not as important as that each member feels that he or she has paid an honest tenth.

I feel my tithe is an honest tithe.  That should be respected and not be up for comments

Edited September 6, 2014 by DBMormon

[ERayR]

again it is between me and the Lord and no one including you or any other is to say more than what the 1970 letter states.  We should not shame people into our interpretation as the 1970 letter seems to be speaking to exactly that point.  

 

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.

 

This seems to give me room to do what I feel is right without your trying to shame me into changing my mind.

 

Also consider the Ecyclopedia of Mormonism

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

I feel my tithe is an honest tithe.  That should be respected and not be up for comments

 

I am not trying to shame anyone.  You brought it up so I assumed you wanted discussion.  Pardon me if you didn't.

[DBMormon]

I am not trying to shame anyone.  You brought it up so I assumed you wanted discussion.  Pardon me if you didn't.

not bothered at all, just din't want this to turn into something beyond what the 1970 letter says we should do.  I am looking out for ya.  I want discussion about tithing, not my tithing

Edited September 7, 2014 by DBMormon

[ERayR]

not bothered at all, just din't want this to turn into something beyond what the 1970 letter says we should do.  I am looking out for ya.  I want discussion about tithing, not my tithing

 

I would suggest that this really doesn't support your stand.

 

https://www.lds.org/...ithing?lang=eng

 

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.

Edited September 7, 2014 by ERayR

[Brian 2.0]

I would suggest that this really doesn't support your stand.

https://www.lds.org/...ithing?lang=eng

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.

I quoted the same thing earlier in the thread. We're getting a little too chummy here ERayR