5%

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don’t know.  How can a 5th ever be a full tenth? 

You would have to redefine what is to be tithed, imo, so you are tithing only half as much….still a tenth of that.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Calm

[Diamondhands69]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I don’t know.  How can a 5th ever be a full tenth? 

Prob the same way the WOW says drinking beer is fine, but the prophets says it is prohibited. 
 

“17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.”

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Prob the same way the WOW says drinking beer is fine, but the prophets says it is prohibited. 
 

“17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.”

Whether or not beer is what the mild barley drink that is mentioned, or it is referring to the many other barley drinks has been debated a lot on this board so feel free to peruse those old threads if interested.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You would have to redefine what is to be tithed, imo, so you are tithing only half as much….still a tenth of that.

A tenth of a half?  (asking to make sure I understand you right).

[InCognitus]

18 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

“17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.”

That has to be contrasted with "strong drinks" in verse 5 and 7, which is understood to be any drinks containing alcohol.  

[Diamondhands69]

21 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

That has to be contrasted with "strong drinks" in verse 5 and 7, which is understood to be any drinks containing alcohol.  

That might be the understanding now, but Joseph smith spoke with Jesus about this and his takeaway seemed to be that it was ok.  Easy mistake to make I’m sure. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

A tenth of a half?  (asking to make sure I understand you right).

Say leaders tell members income is now defined as income after taxes, medical and educational expenses or something else…something that drops what is counted as income to half the amount it used to be for the individual. A tenth of that income definition would be half what a tenth of the previous tithing income would be.  I don’t see leaders moving away from one tenth as that is doctrinal, but how income is defined appears to be policy and that could change.

[Diamondhands69]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Whether or not beer is what the mild barley drink that is mentioned, or it is referring to the many other barley drinks has been debated a lot on this board so feel free to peruse those old threads if interested.

 

I love the mental gymnastics over the beer thing. Kinda like how our Sunday school teachers lie to kids about Jesus’ wine drinking was really just grape juice. 
 

all one needs to do to determine what barley drink 🍺 is the subject of the WOW is to look at what is made of barley and was regularly consumed by our prophets and compare that to what is prohibited now. It is beer. Not real hard. 
 

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Prob the same way the WOW says drinking beer is fine, but the prophets says it is prohibited. 
 

“17 Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.”

In this Mormon Land podcast, members drank wine all the time, until it became a problem. This was in the Utah era, but then there were alcoholics even among the leaders and they needed to put a stop to it.

 https://open.spotify.com/episode/0D2m5HZysmyrL1b6QI8rnA?go=1&sp_cid=57e94c7a0e6154c1e043deb356445fde&utm_source=embed_player_p&utm_medium=desktop&nd=1&dlsi=ea81c8ad97064ff6

 

The rise and fall of Brigham Young’s wine mission | Episode 307

For today’s faithful, believing, temple-recommend-carrying members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, sipping a Chardonnay with their salmon entree would be unthinkable, off the table, a no-no. They know that the faith’s Word of Wisdom health code strictly forbids consumption of alcohol. But there was time in the church’s history when teetotaling wasn’t the order of the day. In fact, there was a time when Latter-day Saints not only drank wine but also produced it, sold it and profited from it — all with their prophet’s blessing and encouragement. Indeed, southwestern Utah’s pioneer past was home to a church “wine mission.” On this week’s show, Lindsay Hansen Park, a blogger, podcaster and executive director of the Sunstone Education Foundation, discusses Brigham Young’s wine mission — its roots, the success it enjoyed, the product it produced, the problems it encountered (and engendered), and the ultimate demise it met.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Say leaders tell members income is now defined as income after taxes, medical and educational expenses or something else…something that drops what is counted as income to half the amount it used to be for the individual. A tenth of that income definition would be half what a tenth of the previous tithing income would be.  I don’t see leaders moving away from one tenth as that is doctrinal, but how income is defined appears to be policy and that could change.

I read these articles and I'm a little bit miffed. I hope all members pay accordingly and maybe larger fast offerings. The church can handle it and it may even alleviate some guilt for those leaders that know of the original meaning of tithing. 

New historical information reveals original meaning of LDS tithing

https://kutv.com/news/local/new-historical-information-reveals-original-meaning-of-lds-

Understanding “Interest” in Joseph Smith’s Original Tithing Revelation

tithinghttps://juvenileinstructor.org/understanding-interest-in-joseph-smiths-original-tithing-revelation/

Edited November 28, 2023 by Tacenda

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, Diamondhands69 said:

That might be the understanding now, but Joseph smith spoke with Jesus about this and his takeaway seemed to be that it was ok.  Easy mistake to make I’m sure. 

Originally the Word of Wisdom was "not by commandment or constraint", so whatever Joseph Smith or other members of the church did at the time is irrelevant.  They drank wine while in the Carthage jail.  So what?

But the topic of this thread is not about the Word of Wisdom, it's about tithing (so we return now to our regular program).  

[pogi]

On 11/27/2023 at 6:15 PM, InCognitus said:

That has to be contrasted with "strong drinks" in verse 5 and 7, which is understood to be any drinks containing alcohol.  

That isn't how those terms were commonly understood in Joseph's time.  That is simply how it is interpreted today and only within the church, but that is still not how those terms are understood outside the church today.   

"Strong drinks", in Joseph's time and even today are considered to be hard liquors.  Beer simply was not considered a "strong drink". 

The fact that the WoW contrasts strong vs mild drinks shows a spectrum of alcoholic beverages.  It has always been viewed that way, on a spectrum.  In fact, "mild" is a specific type of beer common in Joseph's time.  These references have no skin in the WoW debate:

Quote

 

Milds and history – compiled by Tim Stuemke


Mild merely refers to beers that were not stored for long periods of time at the brewery. Milds were young beers produced and consumed within months. At the time, they were also called running beers. 

https://www.nordeastbrewersalliance.org/education/education/getting-wicky-wild-with-milds/

 

 

Quote

Mild: Isn’t that the dark, low-gravity, lightly hopped stuff that Welsh coalminers drink? An unassuming and unexciting session ale that’s about as fashionable as a polka-dotted, pink kipper tie. But the reality is much more complicated. And much more fascinating.

You might be surprised at some of the multitude of forms Mild Ale has taken. Many were about as dissimilar from the modern version as you can imagine. But let’s get one thing straight first: The name Mild has nothing to do with low gravity or low hopping rates.

The 18th Century


Mild is often called one of the oldest beer styles. That’s sort of true … but only sort of. Mild Ale was around at least as long ago as 1700. But how did it compare with modern Mild?
First, a crash course in old British beer terminology. In the 18th century, there were two quite distinct types of malt liquor: beer and ale. Beer had first been brewed in the 1500s when hops began to be imported. Ale had been around since Saxon times. The original ales were unhopped, but by 1700, they did contain small quantities of hops. Simple, isn’t it? Ale, lightly hopped; beer, heavily hopped.
Both beer and ale were brewed to a few different strengths from a variety of base malts. So you had Pale Ale, Amber Ale and Brown Ale; Pale Beer, Amber Beer and Brown Beer. “Common” was the standard strength, “Stout” the strongest. Only beer was usually made at the weakest strengths; it was called “Table Beer” or “Small Beer.”
Another method of classifying malt liquors was their age. Brews sold young were described as “Mild.” Brews that had been aged were called “Keeping” or “Stale.” Most (but not all) ales were sold “Mild,” and some beers were, too. Porter is a good example of a Brown Beer that was often sold “Mild,” from the 1700s right up until its demise in the 1940s.
In the 1700s, “Mild Ale” was a very vague term. It covered ales of all colors and all strengths. It wasn’t a specific style, just a description of the level of conditioning. None of the beers described as “Mild Ale” at this time had any but the slightest similarity to modern Mild. Even the weakest would have had an OG (original gravity) of over 1050º. Mild Brown Ale, brewed from 100 percent brown malt, would have had the roasty flavor of London Porter, just with a much lower level of hopping.

1800


There was a big change around 1800: the base malts used. A jump in the malt tax to finance the Napoleonic War forced brewers to find ways to cut costs. Coincidentally, this was also the period when the hydrometer was coming into use in British breweries. Brewers soon noticed that the better yield from pale malt more than outweighed the lower price of darker malts. Soon, all British malt liquors, even very dark beers like Porters and Stouts, were being brewed from a base of pale malt.
We’re now at the early years of the 19th century. The period when the “X” system of classifying ales came into use. The base level Mild Ale, X Ale, had an OG of around 1070º in the 1830s. That’s stronger than Pale Ale, which was 1060-1065º. It was usually brewed from 100 percent pale malt, though I’ve seen a couple that use a tiny amount of black malt—about 0.5 percent. Its bigger brothers, XX and XXX Ale, were respectively 1085º and 1100º. All were 100 percent pale malt.

1880


The 1880 Free Mash Tun Act, which repealed Britain’s equivalent of the Reinheitsgebot, had a big impact on brewing—especially on the brewing of Mild. Brewers were free to use anything they wanted in their beer (as long as it wasn’t poisonous). Maize, rice and sugar replaced some of the malt, making Milds lighter bodied and quicker to come into condition. No one, with the exception of the eccentric country brewery, brewed all-malt Mild anymore.
But sugar wasn’t just used to lighten the body of Milds. It was also used to darken their color. Dark sugars allowed brewers to control beer color like never before. This, combined with new glass drinking vessels thaat let customers to see the color of their drink, led to a gradual darkening of Mild. By the end of the century, it was a dark amber color, about 15 SRM (Standard Reference Method); darker than Pale Ales of the period, but much paler than modern Dark Mild.

https://www.beeradvocate.com/articles/5538/a-short-history-of-mild/

Your comment deserved a response before returning to our regular program. 

 

[Diamondhands69]

22 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Originally the Word of Wisdom was "not by commandment or constraint", so whatever Joseph Smith or other members of the church did at the time is irrelevant.  They drank wine while in the Carthage jail.  So what?

But the topic of this thread is not about the Word of Wisdom, it's about tithing (so we return now to our regular program).  

I just read the WOW just now… still says not by commandment or constraint.  Either JS interpreted it wrong or our current leaders are. There is only one right way and that is to obey as it is written.
 

This is just a matter of a prophet making stuff up. If not, why not change the d&c? There is a method for doing that. Heck in the b of m they made the “white and delightsome” phrase change. It can be done. 

[InCognitus]

49 minutes ago, Diamondhands69 said:

Heck in the b of m they made the “white and delightsome” phrase change.

"They" was Joseph Smith.  He changed that in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon (see page 115, third to the last paragraph at the end of the paragraph).  Unfortunately, subsequent editions of the Book of Mormon were copied from the 1837 edition, so the change that Joseph Smith made to the 1840 edition wasn't fixed and put back to the way he intended it until the 1981 edition.

Edited November 29, 2023 by InCognitus

[Diamondhands69]

38 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

"They" was Joseph Smith.  He changed that in the 1840 edition of the Book of Mormon (see page 115, third to the last paragraph at the end of the paragraph).  Unfortunately, subsequent editions of the Book of Mormon were copied from the 1837 edition, so the change that Joseph Smith made to the 1840 edition wasn't fixed and put back to the way he intended it until the 1981 edition.

Ok.. so changes can be made right?

[The Nehor]

I agree that the Word of Wisdom needs a rewrite. If you have to reference our ‘Talmudic’ commentary to find out what parts of it can be ignored and which parts are enforced and which parts aren’t in there at all the original is not that useful.