4 Questions Currently On My Mind

[Brian 2.0]

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

Sorry, but Manual does not = absolute truth

Certainly not everything in the manuals is true.

But I thought the discussion was what the church's current stance is. We have the 1970 statement. But we also have other things to help us in forming our interpretations and personal justification for how we choose to pay tithing.

If it were just 1970 alone. Period. Then I could say this stance:

"I pay 10% on all the interest I earn from my interest bearing bank accounts I have. That's all the interest I have, so I pay 10% of that number."

That is neither net, gross, or surplus... but am I justified in that interpretation? It jibes with the 1970 statement, does it not?

Anyone can do however they please and we should not be judgmental of them, but if we are in a discussion on this then we should be able to question whether we see an interpretation as having evidence to support it.

I've yet to hear statements in church publications that SUPPORT the surplus method as on option in today's church tithing practices... Only statements that it should be left up to the individual (which is support for any interpretation?). But I have heard statements AGAINST the surplus method as an option in current church publications.

That makes me think the surplus method has little evidential support.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[DBMormon]

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 would agree the manual does not support surplus.  I simply disagree with the manual.  I understand increase to be that which is an increase over what I currently have.  If I have ten cans of corn in my fridge and replensih those I have not had an increase but rather have put things back to where they were.  Or I have a house over my head and continue paying my mortgage I have not increased but rather maintained the status quo.  That is not an increase in my dissecting the issue.  Income also has been used to mean various things (gross income, net income, surplus income)  You are free to hold your individual definition but are not free to say more or less about my interpretation.  It is between me and God.  Yet you seem unable to let it go.  It seems to rub you the wrong way.  Perhaps that says more about you than me.

Edited September 7, 2014 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Certainly not everything in the manuals is true.

But I thought the discussion was what the church's current stance is. We have the 1970 statement. But we also have other things to help us in forming our interpretations and personal justification for how we choose to pay tithing.

If it were just 1970 alone. Period. Then I could say this stance:

"I pay 10% on all the interest I earn from my interest bearing bank accounts I have. That's all the interest I have, so I pay 10% of that number."

That is neither net, gross, or surplus... but am I justified in that interpretation? It jibes with the 1970 statement, does it not?

Anyone can do however they please and we should not be judgmental of them, but if we are in a discussion on this then we should be able to question whether we see an interpretation as having evidence to support it.

I've yet to hear statements in church publications that SUPPORT the surplus method as on option in today's church tithing practices... Only statements that it should be left up to the individual (which is support for any interpretation?). But I have heard statements AGAINST the surplus method as an option in current church publications.

That makes me think the surplus method has little evidential support.

 

And you have the right personally to hash it out that way.  the 1970 statement is clear that you do not have a right to to judge or discern for me whether my interpretation is ok between me and God.  

 

again

 

No one is justified in making any other statement than this. 

 

What does this mean to you and ErayR?  

 

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."

 

What does this mean to both of you?  What does the first quote mean in light of the second quote?

Edited September 7, 2014 by DBMormon

[YJacket]

 

Or I have a house over my head and continue paying my mortgage I have not increased but rather maintained the status quo. 

 

 

Minor quibble, but unless you have an interest only mortgage, paying your mortgage each month does equal an increase.  You have an increase in the percentage of the house that you actually own.  If you pay rent every month or interest only mortgage then no that is maintaining the status quo.

 

But the idea with a mortgage is that after 30 years you'll own it free and clear, therefore each month that you pay you do have an increase.  The longer you pay the greater the increase in the percentage of the home that you do own and the greater the percentage that you own each consecutive month.

 

I understand the idea of net, gross, surplus.  But the reason why it is not taught is extremely easy.  The laws are given so that everyone can follow them.  If surplus was taught as an option, think of the nightmare it would be for leadership as individuals who are not as well read and not as in-tune with the spirit would be asking a billion questions to leadership as to what is "surplus".

 

Unless one has been in a leadership position before, one has no idea as to the amount of questions that comes from people who in all honesty just want to be told what to do to be square.  People would be asking, what does "surplus" mean.  For example, I have a car, it breaks down and I buy a new car.  Living the surplus to the letter, I've gained a surplus (old cruddy car to new car), I have to pay tithing on this surplus so I need to figure out the increase in value from old car to new car, otherwise I could simply claim that going from old to new was not an increase but a replacement.

 

It would be a headache for leadership to answer this types of questions and a headache for members to try and figure it out.  You, through study and learning have found something that works for you and I congratulate you, but in today's modern society it can't work for everybody.  In fact, I would say that it should only work for those who have found it and studied it, prayed about it, etc.

 

Gross or net is pretty simple.  Gross, I pay on my salary.  Net, I pay on my actual paycheck.  If I own a business I pay on either my revenues, or I pay on after my expenses calculated at tax time.  Clean, simple, easy, it doesn't take a whole lot of thought.  That is why surplus isn't given as an option.

[Calm]

"No one is justified in making any other statement than this."

Somehow I doubt it means people can bring it up as a point on a message board discussion and then bar people from discussing it.

[ERayR]

What does this mean to you and ErayR?  

 

What does this mean to both of you?  What does the first quote mean in light of the second quote?

It means one is not to teach anything different than what the statement said.

 

It means we each make our own decision as to how generous and honest we want to be and will answer for themselves when asked if they paid a full and honest tithe.

[Grudunza]

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.

I might say that declaring that someone doesn't have the proper mind set if their personal understanding of tithing leads them to net/surplus payment is in itself not a proper mind set, per the 1970 statement. It's not about "stretching to minimize" a tithe, it's about paying what is the appropriate amount. D&C 119, stated to be a "standing law forever," is a simple law designed to cover the basic managing expenses of the church. It does not mention any blessings if we pay more than the appropriate amount. "Interest" at the time was defined as surplus or excess, after expenses. If we put our modern definition onto the word "interest" to change it to imply income in a different manner than surplus income, it is as though we are assuming that someone referring to another person as "gay" in 1950 must have meant "homosexual" and not "happy." We should interpret words and meanings based on their usage at the time they were used. "Interest annually" at the time of D&C 119 meant surplus income, after living expenses. The JST Genesis scripture from that time agrees with tithing being more than that which we have need of, as does Orson Hyde's 1847 statement that "If it requires all man can earn to support himself and his family, he is not tithed at all." We have since added a lot of philosophies of men to that simple, forever standing law.

Is expecting someone to go into debt in order to pay tithing the "proper mind set"? That is what someone who grosses $2,500 a month (taking home $2,000 a month) but has $1,900 of reasonable expenses would do if they paid gross or net tithing, without accounting first for their expenses. But if their tithe is $10 (and not $200 or $250), they are now both responsibly living within their means and also paying what is for them a full tithe. All is right and balanced, and they also now have means to give charitably from their remaining $90, and the church need not use resources to support them but can use those resources to support families who have *no* income, or income which is below the amount of their expenses. Paying tithing on gross or net, before expenses, may be easy enough for many of us in the church to do, but on the balance it puts a much greater burden on the poor, who are already burdened with making ends meet. To expect the poor to become poorer still or to go into debt doesn't seem like the right mind set, or the intention of tithing. It's self-defeating for the church to expect to collect money from those who can't afford to give it, only to have to pay it back out in support of the same. Surplus income, or net after basic necessary expenses, is the most fair and reasonable method across the board, which is why that comports with the scriptures and the just and loving God who inspired them.

[Hestia]

 I understand increase to be that which is anYou are free to hold your individual definition but are not free to say more or less about my interpretation.  It is between me and God.  Yet you seem unable to let it go.  It seems to rub you the wrong way.  Perhaps that says more about you than me.

 

This is a discussion. If you are stating your opinion others have a right to disagree with it just as you are disagreeing with them.

[Brian 2.0]

"No one is justified in making any other statement than this."

Somehow I doubt it means people can bring it up as a point on a message board discussion and then bar people from discussing it.

Thanks Cal. You took the words out of my mouth.

Bill, I'm not trying to attack you personally here. I wish you hadn't said you do the surplus method because now any discussion we have on the surplus method sounds like I'm attacking you, which I'm not trying to do.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Hamba Tuhan]

Gross or net is pretty simple.

 

And a 'first-world' distinction that doesn't even arise for the hundreds of thousands of Saints who, labouring in lands without pay packets or withholding taxes, choose to simply tithe.

[Brian 2.0]

I might say that declaring that someone doesn't have the proper mind set if their personal understanding of tithing leads them to net/surplus payment is in itself not a proper mind set, per the 1970 statement. It's not about "stretching to minimize" a tithe, it's about paying what is the appropriate amount. D&C 119, stated to be a "standing law forever," is a simple law designed to cover the basic managing expenses of the church. It does not mention any blessings if we pay more than the appropriate amount. "Interest" at the time was defined as surplus or excess, after expenses. If we put our modern definition onto the word "interest" to change it to imply income in a different manner than surplus income, it is as though we are assuming that someone referring to another person as "gay" in 1950 must have meant "homosexual" and not "happy." We should interpret words and meanings based on their usage at the time they were used. "Interest annually" at the time of D&C 119 meant surplus income, after living expenses. The JST Genesis scripture from that time agrees with tithing being more than that which we have need of, as does Orson Hyde's 1847 statement that "If it requires all man can earn to support himself and his family, he is not tithed at all." We have since added a lot of philosophies of men to that simple, forever standing law.

Is expecting someone to go into debt in order to pay tithing the "proper mind set"? That is what someone who grosses $2,500 a month (taking home $2,000 a month) but has $1,900 of reasonable expenses would do if they paid gross or net tithing, without accounting first for their expenses. But if their tithe is $10 (and not $200 or $250), they are now both responsibly living within their means and also paying what is for them a full tithe. All is right and balanced, and they also now have means to give charitably from their remaining $90, and the church need not use resources to support them but can use those resources to support families who have *no* income, or income which is below the amount of their expenses. Paying tithing on gross or net, before expenses, may be easy enough for many of us in the church to do, but on the balance it puts a much greater burden on the poor, who are already burdened with making ends meet. To expect the poor to become poorer still or to go into debt doesn't seem like the right mind set, or the intention of tithing. It's self-defeating for the church to expect to collect money from those who can't afford to give it, only to have to pay it back out in support of the same. Surplus income, or net after basic necessary expenses, is the most fair and reasonable method across the board, which is why that comports with the scriptures and the just and loving God who inspired them.

I believe it's highly probable that the surplus method was method the early church used.

I am saying that in our current church system, surplus in non-kosher ever since "interest means income".

Everyone has the right to practice how they want without personal judgment. My least favorite saying in this argument is "do you want gross blessings or net blessings". Can't stand that saying as it shows a misunderstanding of the debate.

But my opinion is that using the surplus method is acting in good faith with how the law was established and practiced in the early church... But is against how the modern church has outlined the law to be.

[Grudunza]

@YJacket: I agree that the term "surplus" can be confusing the way you describe it, but I think it can be simplified to mean "interest annually," as the original D&C description stated. Once a year, after accounting for all of your income minus reasonable necessary expenses, what is left? Pay a tenth of that. Simple. If upgrading to that newer car was really necessary, then the cost goes into necessary expenses. The car itself is not really a surplus or increase, though, regardless of its value (unless it was of a value greater than what you really needed... e.g., most people don't need a Lamborghini to get to work). You had a car, and now you have a car again, and it cost you money to maintain the state of "having a car."

I like the idea of learning personal responsibility and accountability for what our reasonable living expenses are, and what is left over to pay tithe on, and as I described above, paying on gross or net (without expenses accounted for) can lead to situations where people would have to go in debt in order to cover that measure of tithing. Better to learn a principle that promotes self-sufficiency and financial accountability, even if you have to ballpark some things (e.g., I count half of my food expenses as necessary, because I know our family could live on less and don't really need the occasional luxuries like pizza or ice cream).

[Grudunza]

I believe it's highly probable that the surplus method was method the early church used.

I am saying that in our current church system, surplus in non-kosher ever since "interest means income".

Everyone has the right to practice how they want without personal judgment. My least favorite saying in this argument is "do you want gross blessings or net blessings". Can't stand that saying as it shows a misunderstanding of the debate.

But my opinion is that using the surplus method is acting in good faith with how the law was established and practiced in the early church... But is against how the modern church has outlined the law to be.

But "surplus income" is still one possible current definition of "income," therefore still a valid way to interpret the 1970 statement (which makes direct reference to the D&C "interest annually" description). And the D&C statement, received as direct revelation, was stated to be a "standing law forever." The modern church should not outline that law to be different than how it was intended and practiced. And the modern church officially has not... per the 1970 statement, it can still be defined that way. Several individuals have outlined it differently, yes, but I don't believe they have the right to make that kind of an expression as being a definitive statement that all must accept, again per the 1970 statement, and per the scriptures themselves. I'll take a scriptural forever standing law over a Widtsoe opinion. I think it's fine that apostles and bishops and whoever else state that they feel tithing should be gross or whatever... I feel it's irresponsible and incorrect, especially when saying that we should pay tithing before feeding our families or paying rent, or saying the gross/net blessings thing, but they have the right to express that and most people won't be harmed much to adhere to that, regardless... But it's also fine for me to have my personal interpretation of that issue and opine that net after expenses is the appropriate method.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Grudunza

[Brian 2.0]

But "surplus income" is still one possible current definition of "income,"

And I guess my question is where is that a possible definition?

It's definitely not the definition in any usage of the term I can think of. Taxes, credit card applications, loan applications. Where does "income" ever mean "surplus income"?

Edited September 7, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Grudunza]

And I guess my question is where is that a possible definition?

It's definitely not the definition in any usage of the term I can think of. Taxes, credit card applications, loan applications. Where does "income" ever mean "surplus income"?

It may not be a technical financial term, I suppose, other than in bankruptcy, but it's a term people use and are familiar with (and I assume they were in 1970). I suppose "income after expenses" would be the better way to describe that. Or perhaps "adjusted income." Though that's a tax term and I don't think your tithing is necessarily meant to line up with one of the lines on your tax return. A business would define its "income" as what remains after legitimate expenses, and I believe that can also be the definition for a family (which is a company and organization of sorts). The 1970 statement is left vague on purpose, I would say. Again, though, it does refer directly to D&C 119, which was understood to mean income after expenses.

[Brian 2.0]

It may not be a technical financial term, I suppose, other than in bankruptcy, but it's a term people use and are familiar with (and I assume they were in 1970). I suppose "income after expenses" would be the better way to describe that. Or perhaps "adjusted income." Though that's a tax term and I don't think your tithing is necessarily meant to line up with one of the lines on your tax return. A business would define its "income" as what remains after legitimate expenses, and I believe that can also be the definition for a family (which is a company and organization of sorts). The 1970 statement is left vague on purpose, I would say. Again, though, it does refer directly to D&C 119, which was understood to mean income after expenses.

I can go down that road just a little... but when it seem every general conference talk is "pay The Lord first" filled with stories of rent and bills lining up and having faith and paying tithing first then a mysterious check appears in the mail to help them pay the electric bill... All that makes zero sense with a surplus method option.

[Grudunza]

I'd say we're blessed for our faith, regardless of how that is demonstrated. Someone who faithfully pays tithing once a year, after deducting basic family expenses, can be blessed with meeting their needs just as well as anyone else.

And not to discount the stories... they have their place and importance... but of course you're going to hear those faith-promoting stories. You're not going to hear stories, though, about the family who feels duty bound to pay their tithing first before their rent, and then has to find a new place to live, because, ya know, landlords. Or the lifelong struggles of people who make $2,000/month and have $1,800 expenses and pay the remaining $200 in tithing who get by alright but never really have a chance to get anywhere beyond that or afford food storage or health insurance and such. I know those stories exist as well as the faith-promoting ones, and both types involve those who would be considered faithful tithe payers.

Paying gross or net tithing, without considering basic family needs, is in disfavor to those who are poor or struggling to get by or who have large families. Paying tithing after expenses allows all to fully participate and be accountable and responsible. Our God is a God of reason and love. Tithing is not meant to be a burden, but a fair and easy law to follow. And beyond that, we are commanded to be generous with charitable contributions. That is where I believe our generosity and extra measure of giving is meant to be demonstrated.

Edited September 7, 2014 by Grudunza

[Brian 2.0]

I'd say we're blessed for our faith, regardless of how that is demonstrated. Someone who faithfully pays tithing once a year, after deducting basic family expenses, can be blessed with meeting their needs just as well as anyone else.

And not to discount the stories... they have their place and importance... but of course you're going to hear those faith-promoting stories. You're not going to hear stories, though, about the family who feels duty bound to pay their tithing first before their rent, and then has to find a new place to live, because, ya know, landlords. Or the lifelong struggles of people who make $2,000/month and have $1,800 expenses and pay the remaining $200 in tithing who get by alright but never really have a chance to get anywhere beyond that or afford food storage or health insurance and such. I know those stories exist as well as the faith-promoting ones, and both types involve those who would be considered faithful tithe payers.

Paying gross or net tithing, without considering basic family needs, is in disfavor to those who are poor or struggling to get by or who have large families. Paying tithing after expenses allows all to fully participate and be accountable and responsible. Our God is a God of reason and love. Tithing is not meant to be a burden, but a fair and easy law to follow. And beyond that, we are commanded to be generous with charitable contributions. That is where I believe our generosity and extra measure of giving is meant to be demonstrated.

I'm will you 100%. I'm in support of the surplus method personally. I just don't see much support for it institutionally.

[CV75]

CFR of a teaching in the last century please.

See the OP (item #3) for the reference. I don’t have Handbook 1, but similar guidance is given there on how to encourage members who approach leaders with this question about income to tithe so I refer you to that for a reference. Also, my replies in posts 21 and 24 are very encouraging, at least meant to be. So there you have references of “teaching” members that tithing decisions are theirs from two levels; one from an official source and one from little old me.

 

That said, did you really need a reference as to how members are to seek revelation on how they are to go about keeping their covenants? Did you really need a reference on agency as it pertains to decision-making?

[Grudunza]

I'm will you 100%. I'm in support of the surplus method personally. I just don't see much support for it institutionally.

I agree that the emphasis seems to be against that.

[ERayR]

I believe it's highly probable that the surplus method was method the early church used.

I am saying that in our current church system, surplus in non-kosher ever since "interest means income".

Everyone has the right to practice how they want without personal judgment. My least favorite saying in this argument is "do you want gross blessings or net blessings". Can't stand that saying as it shows a misunderstanding of the debate.

But my opinion is that using the surplus method is acting in good faith with how the law was established and practiced in the early church... But is against how the modern church has outlined the law to be.

 

Surplus is used in conjunction with the Law of Consecration and then it wasn't a tithe(10%) but all of the surplus.  In the early days of "in-kind" tithes they would deliver 1/10 of their crops.  If the harvest was 100 bushels of wheat 10 bushel was taken to the storehouse and they paid bills and lived off the remaining 90 bushel.  The faithful even tithed from their gardens. 

 

I really do think the problem is trying to minimize what we feel obligated to pay.  Obedience to the Law of Tithing is to give without reservation.

 

IMO the "surplus method" is intended for the Law of Consecration and refers to all ones surplus not just 10%.

[DBMormon]

"No one is justified in making any other statement than this."

Somehow I doubt it means people can bring it up as a point on a message board discussion and then bar people from discussing it.

we can discuss it as a general topic. What we can't do is judge another in their interpretation, because the leaders are clear, every person has the right to make their own decision and in regards to another's decision we are to not say more or less than 10 % of increase. All here can get their own answer, and totally respect which ever answer each of you get. It is your prerogative as the Lord has made that between you and him and I have no say nor right to get between you and your answer from god.

[Brian 2.0]

Surplus is used in conjunction with the Law of Consecration and then it wasn't a tithe(10%) but all of the surplus.  In the early days of "in-kind" tithes they would deliver 1/10 of their crops.  If the harvest was 100 bushels of wheat 10 bushel was taken to the storehouse and they paid bills and lived off the remaining 90 bushel.  The faithful even tithed from their gardens. 

 

I really do think the problem is trying to minimize what we feel obligated to pay.  Obedience to the Law of Tithing is to give without reservation.

 

IMO the "surplus method" is intended for the Law of Consecration and refers to all ones surplus not just 10%.

 

You may be right.  I haven't read up enough on it.   A quick search brought up this excerpt from Quinn's book.  A lot of good factoids and history of the implimentation of tithing.  I haven't checked the footnotes (and with Quinn some source material in the footnotes may not be publicly accessible).  It seem to align with your statement that there never really was a "10% of surplus".

 

Worth a look.

 

http://lds-church-history.blogspot.com/2010/12/lds-history-summary.html

[ERayR]

we can discuss it as a general topic. What we can't do is judge another in their interpretation, because the leaders are clear, every person has the right to make their own decision and in regards to another's decision we are to not say more or less than 10 % of increase. All here can get their own answer, and totally respect which ever answer each of you get. It is your prerogative as the Lord has made that between you and him and I have no say nor right to get between you and your answer from god.

 

Pardon me but you seem to take discussion that does not agree with your position as judging you. 

[BCSpace]

1.) What is my ability to disagree?  

 

 

 

As much as you want.

 

Wherein can I dissent?

 

 

Never.

 

To hold adifferent stance? To share my opinion (as long as I make it clear it is my

opinion) which may differ from the accepted view?

 

 

If you publically teach soemthing as doctrine and it's not or not doctrine and it is, you will be censured at the very least. By doctrine, I mean the major doctrines.  Nowhere is it stated, and at no time will it ever be stated, what the line between those two are. The reason for that, according to my understanding, is so that Bishops and Stake Presidents have leeway as to what's important for (not to) their congregations.  But it's safe to say that homosexuality is a major doctrine and Global vs. Local Flood is not.

 

 

I want to be safely in the Church but also can not walk the line exactly as Mormonism's ask

me to do in terms of what beliefs are imposed or when information is portrayed

as factual when it is not so clear cut.

 

 

Everyone struggles with their faith.

 

I love this quote from, of all people, Joseph Fielding Smith, who was quite

the dogmatist in his own right. -  ””It makes no difference what is written

or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the

Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teachings of any

other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the

revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear. We have

accepted the four standard works as the measuring yardsticks, or balances,

by which we measure every man’s doctrine. You cannot accept the books

written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so

far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works. Every man

who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding

Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every

member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in

perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.”””

- Joseph Fielding Smith

 

But it leaves me still wondering how I am allowed to both be safely in the Church

while also incorporating what Joseph Fielding Smith has stated.

 

 

 

You can set aside your disbelief on "LGBT" "issues".

 

 

2.) The LGBT issue.   Let me say, I stand behind the Doctrine of the Church

(though I must also say If a change in policy/Doctrine came by revelation or

other means I would applaud it and welcome it). My question is this, isn't

there some way we can both support the Doctrine and also be more inclusive

of LGBT individuals?

 

 

No.  The Church is as inclusive as is possible.  Always has been that way.  The complaints of those who support the homosexual agenda, including yours imho, are not designed to gain inclusiveness but to gain acceptance of their lifestyle choice which is in complete opposition to the doctrine and Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

As many of you well know, many of the homeless LDS youth

are LGBT youth who have either been kicked out of their homes or who have

left their homes not feeling loved and accepted.   As you also likely know, many

LDS LGBT suicides occur over such estrangement from families and the faith

of their LDS origin. I believe this is tragic and unacceptable. There has to be

more that we can do, right?

 

 

As a Church? No. As individuals, we can always improve. But the accusation/implication that the members of the LDS Church as a whole, or even a small minority, have or have had a problem with Christian treatment of homosexuals is a vicious lie imho.

 

3.) Tithing.   Tithing is taught as 10% of your increase.   It (increase) has been

interpreted as Net, Gross, and even Surplus at various times.   I also fully

understand the Doctrine from the First presidency statement   ""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.""

 

With that definition in mind that it is a personal decision between the member

and the Lord, why does the Church seem to emphasize that the right

interpretation is gross?   What I mean is that if I look at talks in the last

30 years on tithing, I see little room for a member to understand from what

is said that they have a right to decide for themselves, and that options such

as net and surplus are on the table.   It seems the Church is comfortable with

naive members assuming it must be gross rather than empowering them with

the Doctrine to seek out their own answer from the Lord.

 

Even the JST of Genesis 14 seems to indicate that even Abraham paid tithing

on Surplus

 

I feel like we will never tell people in conference that there are options and

that each member should seek personal revelation to get their own answer

on what the Lord expects from them. That would be so empowering and

show that teaching Doctrine is of value and that how much money is brought

in is not trumped by truth.

 

 

No Bishop or Stake President will define for you net vs. gross.  It is simply income and you must decide.  If you live according to the 'surplus' hypothesis and it were known, you could not get a TR. If you taught it as doctrine or that it is supposed to be the doctrine, you will be censured in some additional fashion.

 

4.) I am struggling with a principle. The April 6th birthdate is messy

and not clearly “known revelation” The April 6th issue

in and of itself is truly meaningless to me and the assumption made is an easy

one to make that has been repeated throughout our history, even by leaders.

My issue is essentially “Why would the Church choose to entrench and defend

such position once it is aware that it is not clear cut”?. I am unconcerned with

the birth date per se of Christ because of the following: a) it is an easy

assumption to make from a surface reading of available

information (D&C sec 20:1 and other leaders who have perpetuated this

assumption);   and b) this issue has little impact on anything relating to

importance.   My issues, however, are the following:   when the Brethren (or a leader on his own)

claim that "we" (the church as a whole) "know" something by revelation,

only to discover that we indeed do not really "know", then rather than

acknowledging the issue is not that cut and dry, the choice seems to be

defending and entrenching on the issue which by all indications is not

ccurate.   The Ensign article used 4 sources to bolster its support that 

April 6th is indeed the birth date of Christ. Some examples are: 

 

A.) D&C 20:1 which we now know almost certainly came from John

Whitmer, was as we understand it never intended to define the birth 

date of Christ.

 

B.) Harold B. Lee's   "“Strengthen the Stakes of Zion" where Pres. Lee

refers back to D&C 20:1 as his source for his assumption.

 

C.)Pres. Kimball's "“Why Call Me Lord, Lord, and Do Not the Things

Which I Say?”  where Pres Kimball states the knowledge of  April 6th 

as the birth date of the Savio,r but gives no source for such knowledge.  

Are we claiming that Pres. Kimball was stating that as revelation?

 

D.) Pres Kimball's "“Remarks and Dedication of the Fayette, New York, Buildings,”

where unfortunately the audio has him saying something completely different than

the transcript, which brings into question whether this is even support of the original

point.   In the Audio portion, President Kimball states that we celebrate Christ being born on

this EARTH, and also expresses gratitude for his resurrection along with his birth.

The transcript says "This DAY" which is not what he said. The entire meaning and

point Pres. Kimball made changed.  While it could simply be that he meant to say one thing, 

accidentally said another and the transcript fixes it, I don't know that we can know that at this point.

 

E.) The last was President Hinkley where he simply says we know we celebrate

Christmas with the rest of Christianity, even though we know he wasn't born then.  

Again, what revelation is he attributing this to?  For us as a community to "know" something, there

must be a revelation we can all acknowledge and see exists otherwise "We"  as a community can't know.

 

My point here is that I feel like we are taking the path of saying something enough

and bolstering it with circular sources that all draw from an inaccurate assumption

of D&C 20:1, to eventually "force" it to be true when it likely isn't.   And if it is

true, what revelation are we attributing it to?   Where Does God or his Son

actually state Jesus' date of birth?...D&C 20:1?  We already know that this is almost

certainly not a correct assumption.  There is no anger here, just frustration and

bewilderment, and a feeling the Church is not ready to truly tackle such things.

(again not admit it is wrong but rather it is not clear cut and may be incorrect.  

aka - we likely don't know the birthdate of Christ)

 

 

Minor doctrine which you can set aside.  I personally do not accept that D&C 20:1 says anything accurate about the birth of Jesus Christ. If a prophet makes an assumption, and such is officially published using the word 'assumption', the doctrine can only be that this is that specific prophet's assumption.

Edited September 7, 2014 by BCSpace