4 Questions Currently On My Mind

[Rivers]

I don't think it really matters how tithing worked in the early days of the church. Things change with continuing revelation.

The church today teaches that we pay tithing on income. I don't see any room for the surplus method in the church's current official teachings. I do, however, see net as a viable option.

[Robert F. Smith]

I can't help you with the other questions, but I can see where you're confused about tithing.  I don't blame you, because many church members are.

 

While we're supposed to pay tithing on 10% of our income, you're forgetting that this does not apply to that portion of our income that is "non-tithing" income.

 

For example, if someone gives you a gift and you designate that gift for business or investment purposes, that is "non-tithing" income and you shouldn't pay tithing on it.  Likewise, if you have investment income, or income from other capitalistic activities that aren't classified as regular income, then that is "non-tithing" income and you shouldn't pay tithing on it.  "Tithing income" is defined as that portion of income that is specifically set aside as "tithing income" by those who give it to you.  You pay 10% of that.

 

But if your boss (or customers, or donators, or whoever else gives you "income") doesn't specify that money as "tithing income", or they specify that it be used for some non-tithing capitalist purpose, then you should adjust your tithing accordingly. 

Ridiculous, cinepro.

Your explanation has all the earmarks of gobbledegook.

Which may be fine for you, and work just fine as a matter of conscience.

But it does not comport with what the Brethren have said:

 

Bishop Victor L. Brown, Presiding Bishop of the Church, “I Have a Question,” April 1974 Ensign:

 

Since we learn in the Book of Mormon that Abraham paid his tithing to Melchizedek, we know the law of tithing was lived in ancient times. This law was reestablished in the Church in this dispensation through a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith at Far West, Missouri, on July 18, 1838, as recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 119, verses 3-4: 

 

“And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. 

“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.” D&C 119:3-4. 

 

On March 19, 1970, the First Presidency sent the following letter to presidents of stakes and missions, bishops of wards, and presidents of branches in answer to the question, 

“What is a proper tithe?” 

“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.” (End of quote from the March 19, 1970 letter.)

 

That's right cinepro, "no one is justified in making any other statement than this."

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't think it really matters how tithing worked in the early days of the church. Things change with continuing revelation.

The church today teaches that we pay tithing on income. I don't see any room for the surplus method in the church's current official teachings. I do, however, see net as a viable option.

Those who farm for a living have very different tithing concerns than those who are salaried or paid an hourly wage (with benefits).  Owing to the different circumstances, a farmer might only be able to afford to pay 10% of his increase, while others might be able to pay on either gross or net.  Such separate approaches probably even things out for both in the long run.

[ksfisher]

I don't think it really matters how tithing worked in the early days of the church. Things change with continuing revelation.

The church today teaches that we pay tithing on income. I don't see any room for the surplus method in the church's current official teachings. I do, however, see net as a viable option.

 

Net is very important in countries that have very high tax rates, social democracies such as Sweden.  

[Paddy]

Net is very important in countries that have very high tax rates, social democracies such as Sweden.

Australia has high tax rates as well. About two years ago we went from gross to a form of net. This was simply out of financial necessity. It was a difficult decision at the time and required a lot of research and prayer. I think we have found the correct balance. Interestingly the impression I got from god was "you work it out and I'll be happy with your tithe". A rather merciful response IMO.

[Grudunza]

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.

 

 

Uhhh, the last part, sure, if you are teaching it as absolute doctrine, but not getting a TR for practicing that would be very wrong, if that is your personal interpretation of tithing.  No man, including your Bishop or SP, is justified in stating otherwise if you have a personal confirmation of that being your full tithe.  I just read a story on a blog where a guy had become a bishop and was wondering what to tell his ward members about tithing...  He went to a leadership meeting where Elder Oaks led off by saying "In our church we don't have rules.  We have doctrine and we have principles."  The 1970 statement does a good job of letting us govern ourselves in that respect.

 

I don't think it really matters how tithing worked in the early days of the church. Things change with continuing revelation.

The church today teaches that we pay tithing on income. I don't see any room for the surplus method in the church's current official teachings. I do, however, see net as a viable option.

 

Why is "net" viable, but "net after expenses" (i.e., "surplus method") not?  The government taking their chunk of your earned income is not the only form of expense that can be considered relevant to what you have left to pay tithing from.  If it requires all a man has to support his family, then he is not tithed, as Orson Hyde said.  Supporting his family comes first in that case.  The person who earns $2,000 and has $1,900 in legitimate expenses should pay those expenses first, and then they are able to tithe on the remaining $100, without needing to go into debt or receive support funding from the church.

 

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

 

 

I agree that the term "surplus method" is problematic as we've sometimes been using it.  I think "net income after expenses" is probably a better way to define what I'm referring to, or perhaps "increase" (i.e. what you have left after your basic needs are met).

[Brian 2.0]

 

I agree that the term "surplus method" is problematic as we've sometimes been using it.  I think "net income after expenses" is probably a better way to define what I'm referring to, or perhaps "increase" (i.e. what you have left after your basic needs are met).

 

Some have referred to it as gross vs net vs "leftover" in a thread we had awhile back on this same issue.

[DBMormon]

Some have referred to it as gross vs net vs "leftover" in a thread we had awhile back on this same issue.

which is what I pay on. Not after all my expenses and leisure costs but rather after necessities are paid for Edited September 8, 2014 by DBMormon

[Brian 2.0]

which is what I pay on. Not after all my expenses and leisure costs but rather after necessities are paid for

 

I don't currently pay tithing.  But as I was slowly heading into inactivity I debated on the leftover method. ( I have no beef with the method and would welcome it having more institutional support).  As I thought about it I found it very interesting in how I would determine that line.  

 

Something like cell phone or internet would certainly have been considered "leisure" a number of years ago... but now?  I don't know.  We don't have a land line... just cell phones.  And my internet doesn't seem unnecessary, my work and family would fall apart without it... but I also stream netflix and hulu and itunes with it all the time.  

 

All those decisions are personal, and there's no right or wrong answer, but I realized I'd have to really get down to brass tax to figure out where that line was.  I figured I'd probably come up with some number I felt good about for what modest "living expenses" would be instead of going through my budget line by line.

[Stargazer]

Lots of things there.

I will comment on two.

The "6th April" position is clearly not revelation, irrespective of what Elder Bednar has said. I personally don't believe Christ was born on the 6th April.

I don't consider that knowing the date of the Savior's nativity to be salvific. That being said, if you don't believe the Savior was born on April 6, then when was He born according to your belief? The plain fact of the matter is this: you don't know. Therefore, April 6 is just as reasonable as any other date.

Not that I care, particularly. I am, if anything, a believer in April 6. But if it were actually April 10 then I would not be discomfited.

[DBMormon]

I don't consider that knowing the date of the Savior's nativity to be salvific. That being said, if you don't believe the Savior was born on April 6, then when was He born according to your belief? The plain fact of the matter is this: you don't know. Therefore, April 6 is just as reasonable as any other date.

Not that I care, particularly. I am, if anything, a believer in April 6. But if it were actually April 10 then I would not be discomfited.

he may have been born on april 6th but that is not the issue.  The issue is we as a community "do not know when he was born"  there is no communal revelation to use as a way of determining.  We are left guessing.  My issue is with claiming we know when we don't know

[ERayR]

he may have been born on april 6th but that is not the issue.  The issue is we as a community "do not know when he was born"  there is no communal revelation to use as a way of determining.  We are left guessing.  My issue is with claiming we know when we don't know

 

Insert something here about mountains and mole hills.

[Tacenda]

ERayR, it's breaking a commandment...thou shalt no lie...or give false pretence isn't it? Saying He was born April 6th? My quote function isn't working, btw.

[Grudunza]

ERayR, it's breaking a commandment...thou shalt no lie...or give false pretence isn't it? Saying He was born April 6th? My quote function isn't working, btw.

 

I wouldn't call it a lie, either.  It's just a misunderstanding that got perpetuated, but as Bill describes, his issue seems to be that after this last conference the church had a chance to correct that, but in the Ensign entrenched the idea with four references (all of which were related to the perpetuation of the original misunderstanding).  So there's a goofy thing now where if you say that's not based on revelation people can point to the references in the Ensign and say look, it's official, even though all of those references are still based on the same misunderstanding.  I'm not suggesting the church is deliberately misleading anyone, but it's as if they are now saying well, we're sticking with that idea no matter what...  we've been saying it so often now that we're more comfortable continuing with that than issuing a correction.

 

There is a chance Jesus was born on April 6.  At this point, it would be very convenient if that turns out to be true.  But D&C 20 does not really say that (even if you forget that the intro of that section was written later).  At best it describes the year he was born, though I wouldn't consider it reliable about that, either.  So it shouldn't be considered a matter of revelation, unless someone else that we're not aware of has received specific revelation on that.

[stemelbow]

he may have been born on april 6th but that is not the issue.  The issue is we as a community "do not know when he was born"  there is no communal revelation to use as a way of determining.  We are left guessing.  My issue is with claiming we know when we don't know

What it represents and few are acknowledging is this is one example that may indicate there are other instances wherein we make assumptions, treat them as revelation and continually preach them as revelation.

[ERayR]

ERayR, it's breaking a commandment...thou shalt no lie...or give false pretence isn't it? Saying He was born April 6th? My quote function isn't working, btw.

 

 

Do you celebrate Christmas?

[ERayR]

he may have been born on april 6th but that is not the issue.  The issue is we as a community "do not know when he was born"  there is no communal revelation to use as a way of determining.  We are left guessing.  My issue is with claiming we know when we don't know

 

I'll ask you the same question.  Do you celebrate Christmas?  If you do don't you think that per your reasoning you ought to cease perpetuating that falsehood.

[Calm]

ERayR, it's breaking a commandment...thou shalt no lie...or give false pretence isn't it? Saying He was born April 6th? My quote function isn't working, btw.

False witness actually, which means not testifying falsely against one's neigbour, such as accusing them of telling a lie when they are not.

http://biblehub.com/exodus/20-16.htm

"You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor."

[DBMormon]

ERayR, it's breaking a commandment...thou shalt no lie...or give false pretence isn't it? Saying He was born April 6th? My quote function isn't working, btw.

I don't think anyone is lying Tacenda though for what ever reason I do feel they would rather move on and brush it under the rug rather than admit that we claimed knowledge that we do not have.

[DBMormon]

I wouldn't call it a lie, either.  It's just a misunderstanding that got perpetuated, but as Bill describes, his issue seems to be that after this last conference the church had a chance to correct that, but in the Ensign entrenched the idea with four references (all of which were related to the perpetuation of the original misunderstanding).  So there's a goofy thing now where if you say that's not based on revelation people can point to the references in the Ensign and say look, it's official, even though all of those references are still based on the same misunderstanding.  I'm not suggesting the church is deliberately misleading anyone, but it's as if they are now saying well, we're sticking with that idea no matter what...  we've been saying it so often now that we're more comfortable continuing with that than issuing a correction.

 

There is a chance Jesus was born on April 6.  At this point, it would be very convenient if that turns out to be true.  But D&C 20 does not really say that (even if you forget that the intro of that section was written later).  At best it describes the year he was born, though I wouldn't consider it reliable about that, either.  So it shouldn't be considered a matter of revelation, unless someone else that we're not aware of has received specific revelation on that.

 

Exactly.... thanks.  Thats makes one person who understands it is not about the April 6th date but rather the "proclaiming we as a faith know something we as a faith do not know"

Edited September 8, 2014 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

What it represents and few are acknowledging is this is one example that may indicate there are other instances wherein we make assumptions, treat them as revelation and continually preach them as revelation.

correct. That makes two people!

Edited September 8, 2014 by DBMormon

[ERayR]

Well, Tacenda and DB do you celebrate Christmas?

[DBMormon]

I'll ask you the same question.  Do you celebrate Christmas?  If you do don't you think that per your reasoning you ought to cease perpetuating that falsehood.

I don't claim that we as Mormons "Know" Jesus was born on one day or another.  There is a difference but defend as you wish.  please see the above two posts where I acknowledged that they understood my issue, as your still missing the point.

[ERayR]

Here is one of many.  Do a Google search and take your pick.

 

http://www.answers.com/Q/When_was_Jesus%27_real_birthday

[ERayR]

Here is one of many.  Do a Google search and take your pick.

 

http://www.answers.com/Q/When_was_Jesus%27_real_birthday

 

The only issue I see is picking at nits or mountains out of mole hills.

 

Come on let the brethren be human for just a little while.