OT tithing verses NT giving

[Maureen]

The LDS church believes in continuing revelation and they claim to be the restoration of Christ’s original church. The law of tithing is taken from the OT, but in 2nd Corinthians, chapters 8 & 9 talk about “giving” “to the glory of the Lord.” Paul says in 2nd Corinthians 9:7 (NET Bible):

Each one of you should give just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, because God loves a cheerful giver.

From reading the two chapters, the idea of “giving” with eagerness, would support your fellow church members and help the cause of spreading the gospel.

For if the eagerness is present, the gift itself is acceptable according to whatever one has, not according to what he does not have. For I do not say this so there would be relief for others and suffering for you, but as a matter of equality. At the present time, your abundance will meet their need, so that one day their abundance may also meet your need, and thus there may be equality…(II Corinthians 8:12-14, NET Bible)

I’m curious as to why the LDS church has kept the old covenant of tithing and not followed the new covenant of giving. In your opinion why do you think this is?

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

Mormonism does teach this Pauline principle of giving one's all with eagerness. The term we use is "consecration".

Why do we still hit tithing so hard? The short answer to your question is: We have a direct revelation from God telling us that tithing (in the form of 10%) is still in force. It's a lowest-common denominator. But true consecration is giving more, not less, than one would be giving under the old law of tithing. The many other demands Mormonism places on its members--both on their finances (fast offering funds, humanitarian aid, etc) and their time (callings, church farms/bishop's storehouse, service projects, home teaching, etc ) are designed to help us move beyond tithing and into a truly consecrated lifestyle.

Now, Mormonism would agree with you and Paul that doing the right thing for the wrong reason really doesn't do one much good. (See, e.g., Moroni 7:8.) On the other hand, if the believer says "well, I don't want to, so I won't, and I guess that's that"--Mormonism says that no, I can't just shrug and walk away. My job, in that kind of situation, is to become converted to Christ. His grace will help me to overcome my fallen nature, learn to love God and my fellowman, and therefore become the kind of person who wants to meet the standard the Lord has set.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Anddenex]

The LDS church believes in continuing revelation and they claim to be the restoration of Christ’s original church. The law of tithing is taken from the OT, but in 2nd Corinthians, chapters 8 & 9 talk about “giving” “to the glory of the Lord.” Paul says in 2nd Corinthians 9:7 (NET Bible):

Each one of you should give just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, because God loves a cheerful giver.

From reading the two chapters, the idea of “giving” with eagerness, would support your fellow church members and help the cause of spreading the gospel.

For if the eagerness is present, the gift itself is acceptable according to whatever one has, not according to what he does not have. For I do not say this so there would be relief for others and suffering for you, but as a matter of equality. At the present time, your abundance will meet their need, so that one day their abundance may also meet your need, and thus there may be equality…(II Corinthians 8:12-14, NET Bible)

I’m curious as to why the LDS church has kept the old covenant of tithing and not followed the new covenant of giving. In your opinion why do you think this is?

M.

We understandingly follow both, tithing and giving, as described in both the OT & NT. Through continuing revelation and God's guidance through his prophets we offer tithing as well as fast offerings, which provides substance for the poor according to an individuals ability to give and the willingness of their heart. In essence, the LDS faith follows both.

[Maureen]

Right now tithing is set up as a commandment; members promise to faithfully tithe. If "tithing" or "giving" were not set up as a commandment, do you think members would approach "tithing" differently? If the poor were able to give what they can, while the rich would be able to give more; do you think that would change the struggles and guilt some members feel when they can't live up to expectations?

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

Right now tithing is set up as a commandment; members promise to faithfully tithe. If "tithing" or "giving" were not set up as a commandment, do you think members would approach "tithing" differently? If the poor were able to give what they can, while the rich would be able to give more; do you think that would change the struggles and guilt some members feel when they can't live up to expectations?

M.

I think people would have a little less incentive to sacrifice in order to tithe, and so would miss out on a portion of the lesson that God is trying to teach us by imposing the standard.

But no, I don't think the rich would give more. They're already told to be generous. Those who have been through our temples are under covenant to do so.

And frankly, having been poor, married, with kids myself--having had to go without a cell phone, or cable, or internet; and having done bankruptcy work and knowing the HUGE array of federal and state assistance that is out there--Medicaid/CHIP, food stamps, cash assistance/unemployment, federal housing assistance, and so on--and also knowing of the things the Church itself has in place for needy members (storehouse, additional cash assistance via the ward); I have a really, really hard time sympathizing with people who claim they "can't afford" tithing on an ongoing basis. Yeah, you might have an isolated cash crunch due to poor planning or whatever. But quite frankly: if you live in a first-world country there is no reason why an able-bodied adult of average intelligence should have to choose between tithing and eating on a prolonged, recurring basis.

Edited September 14, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

Many Christian churches continue the practice of tithing. It is not Mosaic Law, but predates it by many centuries. Especially relevant to LDS is that Abraham gave 10% of what he had to the priest Melchezidek (sp?). Even Cain and Abel were giving a sacrifice based on "first fruits." They likely learned this from Adam & Eve.

Tithing is not bondage to the Old covenant. It's done as an offering to the Lord, and as a contribution to the community of Christ. Being a joyful giver, and deciding whether or not to give special offerings is beyond the tithe. Missions, soup kitchens, faith-based para-ministries...for LDS, the More Good Foundation, etc.--all might be examples where the believer seeks God on what to give, and then does so joyfully, having heard from his/her heavenly Father on the matter.

[NeuroTypical]

I’m curious as to why the LDS church has kept the old covenant of tithing and not followed the new covenant of giving. In your opinion why do you think this is?

We don't have to opine about possible answers here - it's in section 199 of the D&C. It's summarized in the Gospel Principles manual like this:

In modern times the Prophet Joseph Smith prayed, “O Lord, show unto thy servants how much thou requirest of the properties of thy people for a tithing” (D&C 119, section introduction). The Lord answered: “This shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever” (D&C 119:3–4). The First Presidency has explained that “one-tenth of all their interest annually” refers to our income (see First Presidency letter, Mar. 19, 1970).

If "tithing" or "giving" were not set up as a commandment, do you think members would approach "tithing" differently?

Your question is basically "What if God did it differently - do you think things would be different?"

I've never seen the relevance of such questions. If God had given no commandments, do you think folks would approach discipleship differently? I don't see the relevance.

If the poor were able to give what they can, while the rich would be able to give more; do you think that would change the struggles and guilt some members feel when they can't live up to expectations?

And he looked up, and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw also a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, that this poor widow hath cast in more than they all: For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had.

I bet a lot of poor widows across the millenia have encountered struggles and guilt at reading this section in the Bible. If the goal is to keep struggles and guilt feelings far away from us, one would think Christ would have had other things to say. I've never seen the point of asking such questions, but here goes: Maureen, if this scene had never happened or appeared in our Bible, do you think Christians would approach "tithing" or "giving" differently? Edited September 14, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Anddenex]

Right now tithing is set up as a commandment; members promise to faithfully tithe.

Correct, we understand tithing to be a law and a commandment which we promised as disciples of Christ to keep the moment we were baptized. Children are taught before the age of eight through principle and example to keep this law when they earn monies.

If "tithing" or "giving" were not set up as a commandment, do you think members would approach "tithing" differently?

Yes most definitely; unfortunately, we as a people have not yet reached the character and nature of not being "compelled" in things which are spiritual. We can look at the history of our restoration and tithing before President Lorenzo Snow.

I would assume without this revelation and without tithing being attached to temple attendance and our ability to be sealed as families, many members without this "compelling" force would not pay tithing.

I would admit, I am not sure I would be paying tithing if it weren't attached to being considered a member of good standing; however, I do pay a generous fast offering according to my yearly earnings. I wish I could pay more.

If the poor were able to give what they can, while the rich would be able to give more; do you think that would change the struggles and guilt some members feel when they can't live up to expectations?

M.

The poor already are in a position to give what they can. I pay tithing and I am happy to pay tithing and my yearly earnings place me actually within the poverty level at the moment.

In the end, in order to become a Zion society, both the poor and the rich will be willingly providing "all" they have such that there is no poor nor rich in the land. All will be of one heart and one mind.

I like tithing, due to this aspect, it doesn't matter how much a person pays (amount) since their ten percent and my ten percent are the same in the Lord's eyes. This brings us to the same level of sacrifice -- to a point. When I mean to a point, a person who makes less than 33K a year and a person ( member ) who earns more than a million a year, the trial of paying tithing is different. There is a difference when one pays tithing, in this life, with 900K left over, verses an individual who has to determine -- make an honest choice -- do I pay tithing or do I pay my phone bill, or electric bill, etc...

Yet, we are all on the same ground with God, pertaining to our ten percent.

[bytebear]

The LDS church believes in continuing revelation and they claim to be the restoration of Christ’s original church. The law of tithing is taken from the OT, but in 2nd Corinthians, chapters 8 & 9 talk about “giving” “to the glory of the Lord.” Paul says in 2nd Corinthians 9:7 (NET Bible):

Each one of you should give just as he has decided in his heart, not reluctantly or under compulsion, because God loves a cheerful giver.

From reading the two chapters, the idea of “giving” with eagerness, would support your fellow church members and help the cause of spreading the gospel.

For if the eagerness is present, the gift itself is acceptable according to whatever one has, not according to what he does not have. For I do not say this so there would be relief for others and suffering for you, but as a matter of equality. At the present time, your abundance will meet their need, so that one day their abundance may also meet your need, and thus there may be equality…(II Corinthians 8:12-14, NET Bible)

I’m curious as to why the LDS church has kept the old covenant of tithing and not followed the new covenant of giving. In your opinion why do you think this is?

M.

Never heard of Fast Offerings?

[Maureen]

...I would assume without this revelation and without tithing being attached to temple attendance and our ability to be sealed as families, many members without this "compelling" force would not pay tithing.

I would admit, I am not sure I would be paying tithing if it weren't attached to being considered a member of good standing; however, I do pay a generous fast offering according to my yearly earnings. I wish I could pay more....

So with knowing that the money that members give to and for their church, is for the benefit of spreading the gospel and supporting other members; you believe that members would not give willingly because people won't do what is right unless they are commanded to do so? But you willingly give a generous fast offering and wish you could do more. Don't you think other members might feel the same way with "giving" in general?

M.

[bytebear]

So with knowing that the money that members give to and for their church, is for the benefit of spreading the gospel and supporting other members; you believe that members would not give willingly because people won't do what is right unless they are commanded to do so? But you willingly give a generous fast offering and wish you could do more. Don't you think other members might feel the same way with "giving" in general?

M.

Mormons aren't discouraged from giving to other charities. But, I think knowing how Fast Offerings and the church's charities are run, I don't think anyone could find a more efficient or well run program, bar none. There are some areas where the Red Cross or Catholic Charities, or other organizations have better infrastructure or inroads, so the church will simply give their funds, goods and services to those organizations rather than try to replace them. From what I have observed, the church's welfare program is not in competition to other organizations, but is used in cooperation with them. I personally wish every church, every civic organization, and every business would put efforts as great as the churches into charity. Imagine if every American, regardless of belief, practiced a monthly fast and gave offerings as the church requests. What an over abundance of food we would have.

[Maureen]

...Many Christian churches continue the practice of tithing. It is not Mosaic Law, but predates it by many centuries. Especially relevant to LDS is that Abraham gave 10% of what he had to the priest Melchezidek (sp?). Even Cain and Abel were giving a sacrifice based on "first fruits." They likely learned this from Adam & Eve...

Yes, that's the point. The offerings and tithing that came from Abraham, Cain and Abel were before the Mosaic law of tithing. Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek were from the spoils of war; and as far as what is written only happened once. The Mosaic law of tithing came later and is part of the OT covenant. Churches have every right to follow this law of tithing if they wish but if there is a choice of changing from an old covenant to a new one; I'm curious as to why some stay with the old, when following the new might be better and produce more genuine good actions than relying on commandments that force members to do what is right.

M.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Maureen

[NeuroTypical]

Churches have every right to follow this law of tithing if they wish but if there is a choice of changing from an old covenant to a new one; I'm curious as to why some stay with the old, when following the new might be better and produce more genuine good actions than relying on commandments to force members to do what is right.

Hi Maureen, just wondering - did you read my post above? It addresses your point quite clearly and directly (I thought)...

I’m curious as to why the LDS church has kept the old covenant of tithing and not followed the new covenant of giving. In your opinion why do you think this is?

We don't have to opine about possible answers here - it's in section 199 of the D&C. It's summarized in the Gospel Principles manual like this:

In modern times the Prophet Joseph Smith prayed, “O Lord, show unto thy servants how much thou requirest of the properties of thy people for a tithing” (D&C 119, section introduction). The Lord answered: “This shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever” (D&C 119:3–4). The First Presidency has explained that “one-tenth of all their interest annually” refers to our income (see First Presidency letter, Mar. 19, 1970).

You ask why mormons stick with the "old" covenant. I point out where the Lord gave specific instructions to Joseph, a handful of decades ago. That's not ignoring New Testament newness in favor of old Old Testament oldness. That's obeying what the Lord just finished telling you.

Could you respond here?

Edited September 15, 2013 by Loudmouth_Mormon

[Maureen]

As an example, I work for a company that would take "Charity donations" out of my income and give it to whomever they saw fit. But now my company does it differently (for many years now) where the employees can pick which ever charity or charities they wish to give to. I definitely prefer this new way; I can give as much as I like to whomever I like and the company matches my donation to the charities I pick.

M.

[Maureen]

Hi Maureen, just wondering - did you read my post above? It addresses your point quite clearly and directly (I thought)...

I had to go re-read it and yes it explains it perfectly.

“This shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever” (D&C 119:3–4)

But since the LDS church is a church of continuing revelation, is there a possibility of this scripture becoming trumped by a newer doctrine based on NT giving?

M.

[Anddenex]

you believe that members would not give willingly because people won't do what is right unless they are commanded to do so? But you willingly give a generous fast offering and wish you could do more.

I believe there are members ( not all members ) who would not pay "tithing" willingly without the connection to the temple and by commandment.

I believe there are members ( not all members ) who would not even give "fast offerings" save it be by commandment.

In light of these two paragraphs, the opposite is also true, there are members ( not all members ) who would pay "tithing" and who would "give" a generous fast offering without a specific commandment in connection to these two laws save it be there willingness to follow the two great commandments -- love God -- love your fellowmen.

Tithing is in connection with the first and great commandment to love God. Fast offering is in connection to the second great commandment to love our fellowmen.

Don't you think other members might feel the same way with "giving" in general?

M.

I think we have a whole spectrum of members who feel the same way, who don't feel the same way, who feel like yourself; however, the importance is that we follow God and his counsel through his prophets.

[Just_A_Guy]

I had to go re-read it and yes it explains it perfectly.

“This shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever” (D&C 119:3–4)

But since the LDS church is a church of continuing revelation, is there a possibility of this scripture becoming trumped by a newer doctrine based on NT giving?

M.

Maureen, while you're re-reading posts, would you take another look at mine? With all due respect, I just don't see the basis for your implicit assertion that Mormonism isn't teaching tithing "based on NT giving".

Now, indulging your assumptions for the sake of the hypothetical - Of course, the Lord could instruct the Church to impose a progressive tithing rate, or give a "tithe credit" for donations to other accredited 501©(3) organizations. But I don't see a precedent for either in the New Testament, and I would be mildly surprised at such a revelation because the attitude underlying such reforms is "what can I get away with not giving up?"--which is the polar opposite of consecration.

But could He change it? Sure.

Edited September 15, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Maureen]

Maureen, while you're re-reading posts, would you take another look at mine? With all due respect, I just don't see the basis for your implicit assertion that Mormonism isn't teaching tithing "based on NT giving".

Tithing is defined as "a tenth of" the income/interest/produce, etc; where as "giving" as defined in the NT is based on no set amount.

For if the eagerness is present, the gift itself is acceptable according to whatever one has, not according to what he does not have. For I do not say this so there would be relief for others and suffering for you, but as a matter of equality. At the present time, your abundance will meet their need, so that one day their abundance may also meet your need, and thus there may be equality…(II Corinthians 8:12-14, NET Bible)

Now, indulging your assumptions for the sake of the hypothetical - Of course, the Lord could instruct the Church to impose a progressive tithing rate, or give a "tithe credit" for donations to other accredited 501©(3) organizations. But I don't see a precedent for either in the New Testament, and I would be mildly surprised at such a revelation because the attitude underlying such reforms is "what can I get away with not giving up?"--which is the polar opposite of consecration.

My example was not for the benefit of a tax deduction, but to show that in letting the members make their own choice in how much they would "give" to their church, that it would not only benefit the church but also the member in having some control and say in the welfare of his/her church without the guilt of not giving enough or the suffering that can come from worrying about paying bills (the necessities of life) because they have given what they do not have.

But could He change it? Sure.

Thanks.

M.

[Just_A_Guy]

Tithing is defined as "a tenth of" the income/interest/produce, etc; where as "giving" as defined in the NT is based on no set amount.

For if the eagerness is present, the gift itself is acceptable according to whatever one has, not according to what he does not have. For I do not say this so there would be relief for others and suffering for you, but as a matter of equality. At the present time, your abundance will meet their need, so that one day their abundance may also meet your need, and thus there may be equality…(II Corinthians 8:12-14, NET Bible)

Indeed. The Corinthian saints are being counseled to give according to what they have--much like tithing in the LDS Church. If my annual income is $10K, I pay $1K. If my annual income is $100K, I pay $10K. As a Mormon my tithing, like my other offerings, is according to whatever I have, not according to what I do not have.

But interestingly, if you look at Acts 4:34-37 you see the saints in Jerusalem having all things in common--what Mormons call "consecration", which we believe is the higher form of "tithing". It doesn't say that those with big houses sold them, while those with little houses kept them--everyone was selling off their property and laying 100% (not just 10%) of the proceeds at the feet of the apostles. And when Jesus saw a widow give 100% at the temple treasury, he didn't talk about how those two mites could have gone to a worthier cause or note that the widow's need exempted her from making such offerings. He praised her dedication.

If anything, the New Testament doesn't justify less than 10% in giving/offerings/tithing, for anyone. It--like Mormonism--demands more.

[prisonchaplain]

Yes, that's the point. The offerings and tithing that came from Abraham, Cain and Abel were before the Mosaic law of tithing. Abraham's tithe to Melchizedek were from the spoils of war; and as far as what is written only happened once.

The Mosaic law of tithing came later and is part of the OT covenant. Churches have every right to follow this law of tithing if they wish but if there is a choice of changing from an old covenant to a new one; I'm curious as to why some stay with the old, when following the new might be better and produce more genuine good actions than relying on commandments that force members to do what is right.

M.

Moses codified and brought detail to a principle that had existed for centuries. Abraham's tithe did not likely come out of thin air. It was something he knew to do. I'm not so sure that tithing was not so common to Jewish thinking that the New Testament had no need to mention it. In other words, the offerings mentioned--particularly in Paul's letters, were special incidents, rather than a replacement of the tithe.

I cannot comment on the idea of tithing as a command. However, most Christian churches have continued the practice, and do not see themselves reverting to the Mosaic Law.

[Just_A_Guy]

Wikipedia notes (which I hadn't realized) that at one point Jacob also promised the Lord ten percent of everything God ever saw fit to give to him--not just a one-time offering of the profits of a single windfall, as has been suggested Abraham's tithe was.

[Maureen]

LDS World: 'Iffy' blessings and paying tithing | Deseret News

This article talks about a woman who was in need of employment but was having difficulty finding it. It mentions that she was not a full tithe payer. The article does not go into her financial details, but since she is looking for employment, that seems to indicate to me that she is unemployed. Why would she be required to pay tithe when she seems to be unemployed? Isn't tithing to come from a member's interest or income?

M.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Maureen

[prisonchaplain]

Wikipedia notes (which I hadn't realized) that at one point Jacob also promised the Lord ten percent of everything God ever saw fit to give to him--not just a one-time offering of the profits of a single windfall, as has been suggested Abraham's tithe was.

And Wikipedia got this one right:

Genesis 28:22

Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

22 and this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee.

How did Jacob come up with this amount? "Off the top of his head," some might suggest (there are Christians who a strong in their belief that tithing is not for Christians). Might I suggest that nothing in scripture is incidental. Even if the amount was "off the cuff" in Jacob's mind, I would suggest that the Lord planted that thought in him.

Then again, I'd go further, and suggest that Jacob discloses a common practice--so common it did not have to be written down. People assumed it. Granted, this is an argument from silence. I find it compelling though.

[Dravin]

LDS World: 'Iffy' blessings and paying tithing | Deseret News

This article talks about a woman who was in need of employment but was having difficulty finding it. It mentions that she was not a full tithe payer. The article does not go into her financial details, but since she is looking for employment, that seems to indicate to me that she is unemployed. Why would she be required to pay tithe when she seems to be unemployed? Isn't tithing to come from a member's interest or income.

M.

Two possibilities that come to mind:

1) She had regular income though was underemployed and was not paying tithing.

2) She had irregular income and was not paying tithing.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Dravin

[Guest]

Two possibilities that come to mind:

1) She had regular income though was underemployed and was not paying tithing.

2) She had irregular income and was not paying tithing.

Didn't read the article, but there's a 3rd possibility:

3) She had no income and was required to pay $0 tithing. Even if your tithe is $0, you are still required to tithe... as in, you get to settle with the Bishop once a year to answer the question, Are you a full tithe payer? If you say No, then you're not. Even if your tithe is $0.

How's that for a mind-bend?