History of Tithing in the Church

[Bagnon]

Hi,

Can someone point me to a timeline that shows how and when the doctrine of tithing evolved?

For example, during the law of consecration, it seems you paid 10% on the increase after your received your portion of goods from the church.

But then, after the law of consecration and united order were discontinued, Lorenzo Snow changed it to mean 10% of income from your job?

Anyone know of a site that explains the different ways tithing was paid and when?

Thanks

[Vort]

But then, after the law of consecration and united order were discontinued

The law of consecration was never discontinued. It is just as applicable to us as it was to the early Saints. Each person who receives his or her temple endowment is bound under that law.

Lorenzo Snow changed it to mean 10% of income from your job?

President Snow changed nothing. The word "tithing" means "tenth", and has since the English language evolved from lowland German. The law given to the Church through Joseph Smith is that we pay a tenth of our annual interest to the Church in tithing. This has never changed.

[bytebear]

From what I understand, tithing has always been a principle of the church. I think that after the Great Depression caused the church to emphasize it more as a way to shore up the needs of the members in times of financial trouble. Saving for a rainy day, as it were. And with the explosive expansion of the church, it's a good thing they did.

[Suzie]

Historically speaking, the Law of Tithing has changed a lot since the early days. Tithing in 1837 meant 2 percent of your net worth.

[Vort]

Historically speaking, the Law of Tithing has changed a lot since the early days. Tithing in 1837 meant 2 percent of your net worth.

Not so. The very word "tithing" means "tenth". Tithing has always been a tenth of your increase, though the term was used more loosely in the early Church.

[ruthiechan]

Not so. The very word "tithing" means "tenth". Tithing has always been a tenth of your increase, though the term was used more loosely in the early Church.

Basically, they were doing it wrong until corrected later.

Also, wasn't there at some point when the Church was about to go bankrupt that tithing changed to 30% but then changed back after the crisis was over?

[Suzie]

Vort, I was trying to get my copy of Michael Quinn on the issue (he is very, very thorough on this topic) but I feel too tired to search on my files however a quick google search...

Dec 7, 1837 - Bishop Edward Partridge and counselors officially define tithing as 2 percent of the net worth of each Mormon after deducting debts. An 1838 revelation would define tithing as a donation of all surplus property at conversion and a tenth of the annual income thereafter. By 1843 the initial donation would be reduced to one-tenth of net worth.

December 7 - MormonWiki.org

Tithing has change a lot since the early days.

[Suzie]

Oh, I found it online:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/102-17-29.pdf

I don't think there is any doubt left that it indeed many changes occurred.

[Vort]

Oh, I found it online:

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/102-17-29.pdf

I don't think there is any doubt left that it indeed many changes occurred.

Fascinating. Thank you for the links. Though I'm no fan either of Sunstone or Michael Quinn, his scholarship is said to be first-rate.

My point is: "Tithing" means "tenth", so therefore the meaning of tithing is intrinsic. That the presiding bishopric redefined tithing to mean 2% is interesting and relevant. But the divine law, as contained in the very meaning of the word "tithing", is a tenth of our increase. A 2% "tithing" is a contradiction in terms, as Section 119 established (if not in so many words).

[Suzie]

Fascinating. Thank you for the links. Though I'm no fan either of Sunstone or Michael Quinn, his scholarship is said to be first-rate.

It is indeed.

My point is: "Tithing" means "tenth", so therefore the meaning of tithing is intrinsic. That the presiding bishopric redefined tithing to mean 2% is interesting and relevant. But the divine law, as contained in the very meaning of the word "tithing", is a tenth of our increase. A 2% "tithing" is a contradiction in terms, as Section 119 established (if not in so many words).

Well, it is an issue of timing. When they redefined tithing was December 1837, a year before JS received his July 1838 revelation.

[Vort]

It is indeed.

I see why so many people were uncomfortable with Quinn's writings. He challenges Church leadership and makes implicit negative assumptions throughout. Rather unsavory to read, though still very interesting.

Well, it is an issue of timing. When they redefined tithing was December 1837, a year before JS received his July 1838 revelation.

Closer to seven months, actually.

[Suzie]

I see why so many people were uncomfortable with Quinn's writings. He challenges Church leadership and makes implicit negative assumptions throughout. Rather unsavory to read, though still very interesting.

Are you referring to the link I provided? I didn't see any challenges to Church leadership. However, I said in another thread a while ago Quinn isn't for everyone. Personally, I enjoy a lot of his work,

[Vort]

Are you referring to the link I provided? I didn't see any challenges to Church leadership. However, I said in another thread a while ago Quinn isn't for everyone. Personally, I enjoy a lot of his work,

Yes, the link you provided. Quinn has a way of phrasing things that casts doubt on the integrity or intentions of the men of whom he speaks. For example (and there are a great many examples, just in the paper you cite): "Almost from the beginning, the business of the LDS church has been business." This section lead-off sentence is manifestly unfair; Quinn himself says a few paragraphs later, "Non-Mormons have almost always overlooked the reality that the LDs church has rarely had financial profit as the motive for starting even the most ambitious business." Other examples abound.

[Suzie]

Yes, the link you provided. Quinn has a way of phrasing things that casts doubt on the integrity or intentions of the men of whom he speaks. For example (and there are a great many examples, just in the paper you cite): "Almost from the beginning, the business of the LDS church has been business." This section lead-off sentence is manifestly unfair; Quinn himself says a few paragraphs later, "Non-Mormons have almost always overlooked the reality that the LDs church has rarely had financial profit as the motive for starting even the most ambitious business." Other examples abound.

I see what you're saying (although I personally don't see him as "challenging" the Church but rather him being frank about his views) but like I said, Quinn isn't for everyone however as a Church history junkie myself, I think most people agree that his work and research (not necessarily his opinions or conclusions) are exceptional and well respected.

[Vort]

I see what you're saying (although I personally don't see him as "challenging" the Church but rather him being frank about his views) but like I said, Quinn isn't for everyone however as a Church history junkie myself, I think most people agree that his work and research (not necessarily his opinions or conclusions) are exceptional and well respected.

Perhaps, but he just cannot help inserting the digs. Toward the end of this (very interesting) article, he writes:

[R]ank-and-file Mormons feel no need for public accountability for general Church funds in view of the motto of the contemporary Church: "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done."

This a manifestly unfair statement surpasses churlishness and enters the realm of outright dishonesty. Buried in the footnotes, Quinn admits that Persident George Albert Smith said "the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church," but then claims that since this was said in private correspondence, it doesn't count. Quinn does not bother to mention the perfectly sound interpretation that reads: "Decisions from the Church are not arrived at without a great deal of thought." Instead, he allows the darker inference: "Church decisions end all thought." To substantiate this uncharitable view, he quotes sister Elaine Cannon, Young Women's General President: "When the prophet speaks the debate is over." But while Sister Cannon's words sound similar, they are not at all. They are a statement both of obvious truth and of the need to sustain one's prophet, not an abrogation of the need to use one's mind.

This entire paper is riddled with such digs, both subtle and overt. It's a pity, and it's irritating, but it certainly is no secret. And given Quinn's personal struggles and excommunication, it is no surprise, either.

[Suzie]

Again, some folks may not like his style but when quoting him I specifically do it with regards to historical information and research on the field he's well known and respected. I really try my best not to assume intention when I read his work (or try to discredit him based on that) so it really makes no difference to me his status with regards to the Church otherwise his work (for which he's really known) is lost (or put behind) and the distraction with regards to his persona and feelings about the Church takes precedent, kind of silly in a way.

Edited June 18, 2011 by Suzie

[Vort]

Again, some folks may not like his style but when quoting him I specifically do it with regards to historical information and research on the field he's well known and respected. I really try my best not to assume intention when I read his work so it really makes no difference to me his status with regards to the Church.

The problem is that historical information can rarely or never be presented in an unbiased manner. This is because such information exists in a certain context, and how that context is presented (and manipulated) makes all the difference in how the information is perceived. Quinn may present good information, but if he phrases it in a sinister context, how can any reader not personally familiar with the facts interpret it any way except for how Quinn tells him/her to interpret it?

The most effective anti-Mormon propaganda is not the 98% of garbage that tells outright falsehoods or mixes some truth with lies and presents an unsavory and ultimately preposterous story. Most people of good will eventually see through such nonsense, and usually sooner rather than later. The most effective anti-Mormon propaganda is that which bases itself on solid historical evidence, but presents this evidence in a context that questions the motives of the principals at every turn and constantly implies less-than-noble or outright unsavory motives. You don't have to prove motives, you see. That's the part of history that the historian gets to invent; just ask Fawn Brodie. In my view, D. Michael Quinn falls firmly into this camp.

[Suzie]

Just curious, are you judging Quinn based on the only link I provided on this thread or are you well familiar with his work? Well, for me, there is no doubt the man knows Church history (and I believe the Church also agreed since they hired him).

I would not label him as Anti but I would say he is critical about the Church in some aspects. Having said that, his work still respected and quoted by other Mormon historians and scholars.

[Vort]

Just curious, are you judging Quinn based on the only link I provided on this thread or are you well familiar with his work?

Neither. This is not the first thing I have read from Quinn, but by the same token, I have not read his books, nor do I consider myself extensively familiar with his work.