Tithing

[Guest]

Or you can always donate 1 out of every 10 of your dolls and yugi-oh cards... I'd love to see the bishop's face when he opens up the tithing envelope and out fell a yugi-oh card!

[Lakumi]

Or you can always donate 1 out of every 10 of your dolls and yugi-oh cards... I'd love to see the bishop's face when he opens up the tithing envelope and out fell a yugi-oh card!

those dolls are worth more to me then anything else.

And I buy them generally one at a time, even 2 at a time, but how can you give 10% of two things?

Maybe some little dresses?

The cards make sense, but he better keep an eye to know when to sell them, lest he ends up with worthless or far lower value cards:lol:

or a bunch of staples that are always usually worth a decent sum

I imagine when the law was first told, they meant something that was value to all, like grain or currency, not doll dresses.

[Guest]

those dolls are worth more to me then anything else.

And I buy them generally one at a time, even 2 at a time, but how can you give 10% of two things?

Maybe some little dresses?

The cards make sense, but he better keep an eye to know when to sell them, lest he ends up with worthless or far lower value cards:lol:

or a bunch of staples that are always usually worth a decent sum

I imagine when the law was first told, they meant something that was value to all, like grain or currency, not doll dresses.

You pay tithes on the resources gained at the point you gained it that you eventually used to buy the dolls... basically, you pay tithes on what you earn, not what you buy.

Or... say in this scenario: You go to the store and buy a doll marked down to 75% off... you don't pay tithes on the 75% off thinking that it's a "gain". But, if down the road you sell the doll for full price, then the 75% is an earning that may be tithed.

[Lakumi]

You pay tithes on the resources gained at the point you gained it that you eventually used to buy the dolls... basically, you pay tithes on what you earn, not what you buy.

Or... say in this scenario: You go to the store and buy a doll marked down to 75% off... you don't pay tithes on the 75% off thinking that it's a "gain". But, if down the road you sell the doll for full price, then the 75% is an earning that may be tithed.

Sometimes there is no money ever in the equasion.

Like I get a tv from a unit I was cleaning out (as a favour to a friend), I trade the tv for yugioh cards, which I trade further for my little ponies.

I see what you mean, but as I said I have made it my business to trade, its just easier that way:lol:

[Vort]

This is an example of why the leaders of the Church do not specify tithing any more closely than the Lord himself did. It's a tenth of your increase. You calculate what your increase is, then give a tenth to the Lord's Church. That means a tenth of your increase in dolls, if dolls are the currency you trade in.

[Lakumi]

This is an example of why the leaders of the Church do not specify tithing any more closely than the Lord himself did. It's a tenth of your increase. You calculate what your increase is, then give a tenth to the Lord's Church. That means a tenth of your increase in dolls, if dolls are the currency you trade in.

I could only imagine a bishop's face being handed a ball jointed doll, a mixture of confusion and terror is the most common one

[Guest]

I could only imagine a bishop's face being handed a ball jointed doll, a mixture of confusion and terror is the most common one

It delight! Don't discount it! He might know exactly who to sell it to for big cash...

[Lakumi]

It delight! Don't discount it! He might know exactly who to sell it to for big cash...

You can't even get on Den of Angels these days without an invite

anyone who is anyone is there!

[notquiteperfect]

Seriously--I think the concept notquiteperfect is getting at (and with which I agree) is that, from a devotional standpoint, one would rather give the Lord too much than not enough.

Yes, that was my point. Thank you JAG.

As far as paying on 'increase' - some may interpret that as after the bills are paid but I don't see how that works when there are some who don't have anything left as a result but all are commanded to tithe.

One other thought about gross/net - the way I look at it is that the Lord has not nickle and dimed me when it comes to blessings so why would I nickle and dime Him?

[Latter Days Guy]

Yes, that was my point. Thank you JAG.

As far as paying on 'increase' - some may interpret that as after the bills are paid but I don't see how that works when there are some who don't have anything left as a result but all are commanded to tithe.

If you have no increase then you pay no tithes. How can you tithe on nothing?

[Swiper]

I could only imagine a bishop's face being handed a ball jointed doll, a mixture of confusion and terror is the most common one

Particularly if the doll looks like the doll Annabelle in the movie Conjuring.

[gfchase]

If you have no rocks in your yard and someone dumps 100 rocks in your yard, what is the INCREASE of rocks in your yard? To say that the definition of increase is leftovers is justification and not accurate. You may use all 100 rocks to build a pond and have nothing left but you still had an increase of 100 rocks.

Jerry

[pam]

If you have no rocks in your yard and someone dumps 100 rocks in your yard, what is the INCREASE of rocks in your yard? To say that the definition of increase is leftovers is justification and not accurate. You may use all 100 rocks to build a pond and have nothing left but you still had an increase of 100 rocks.

Jerry

I like this analogy.

[Lakumi]

If you have no rocks in your yard and someone dumps 100 rocks in your yard, what is the INCREASE of rocks in your yard? To say that the definition of increase is leftovers is justification and not accurate. You may use all 100 rocks to build a pond and have nothing left but you still had an increase of 100 rocks.

Jerry

and then you give the bishop 10 rocks and he thinks you're off the rocker:lol:

[Lakumi]

Particularly if the doll looks like the doll Annabelle in the movie Conjuring.

https://imageshack.com/i/fkjxbpj

the real Lakumi, you tell me

[Latter Days Guy]

If you have no rocks in your yard and someone dumps 100 rocks in your yard, what is the INCREASE of rocks in your yard? To say that the definition of increase is leftovers is justification and not accurate. You may use all 100 rocks to build a pond and have nothing left but you still had an increase of 100 rocks.

Jerry

But then the rocks aren't yours to do with as you please. what an absurd comparsion to tithing. D&C 119 says:

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, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

What did interest mean when this passage was written? Webster 1828 dictionary states several meanings but only one fits:

5. Any surplus advantage

What does it say about surplus:

1. Over plus; that which remains when use is satisfied; excess beyond what is prescribed or wanted. In the United States, the surplus of wheat and rye not required for consumption or exportation, is distilled.

2. In law, the residuum of an estate, after the debts and legacies are paid.

What does it say about over plus:

Surplus; that which remains after a supply, or beyond a quantity proposed. Take what is wanted and return the overplus

It would look like a fable to report that this gentleman gives away all which is the overplus of a great fortune.

So clearly we can see that at the time of the Prophet Joseph, the meaning of the word interest meant that which was remaining after all other needs were met, the surplus.

Do you really think that Heavenly Father wants us to be unable to feed, clothe, shelter our families? I believe that all comes from Heavenly Father, including our wages which he provides to meet our needs and the needs of our families, and that from our interest or surplus we pay a tithe to help with the needs of the Church.

Edited February 20, 2014 by GB-UK

[Just_A_Guy]

But then the rocks aren't yours to do with as you please.

Well . . . but the pond is. You've had "surplus" of one hundred rocks or one pond--whichever you wish--but it is surplus. (And of course, you could always disassemble the pond, in which case you've got your 100 rocks again.)

I think this is why the Church institutionally tries to avoid delving into the minutiae about how tithing should be calculated. There's no point in creating a byzantine series of rules that are just going to be gamed by people who walk into tithing settlement with the mindset that, regardless of the obviousness of the Church's position, they are going to make darned sure that they give the Church exactly what they owe and not a penny more (and less, if they can get away with it). Better not to tithe at all, then to tithe with that kind of mentality.

What did interest mean when this passage was written? Webster 1828 dictionary states several meanings but only one fits:

5. Any surplus advantage

Erm . . . which Webster's 1828 dictionary are you using? This one also lists "Concern; advantage; good; as private interest; public interest. . . . Share; portion; part; participation in value."

Do you really think that Heavenly Father wants us to be unable to feed, clothe, shelter our families? I believe that all comes from Heavenly Father, including our wages which he provides to meet our needs and the needs of our families, and that from our interest or surplus we pay a tithe to help with the needs of the Church.

I've been poor. I've also worked with quite a few families in bankruptcy. I would submit that if your finances are such that you can't feed, clothe, and shelter your family on 90% of your income; it's a practical certainty that you won't be able to do it on 100% either. Tithing isn't the problem in those kinds of situations--but I've found, through personal experience, that it has frequently been a key to the solution.

[Leah]

If you have no increase then you pay no tithes. How can you tithe on nothing?

Your assertion then is that we should base our tithing on what is leftover after we pay rent, utilities, groceries, gas, etc? Your assertion is that that is what the Church teaching is?

And where would the line be drawn? What expenses would be allowed?

Are you sure this is Church teaching or is this YOUR interpretation?

[Leah]

But then the rocks aren't yours to do with as you please. what an absurd comparsion to tithing. D&C 119 says:

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, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

What did interest mean when this passage was written? Webster 1828 dictionary states several meanings but only one fits:

5. Any surplus advantage

What does it say about surplus:

1. Over plus; that which remains when use is satisfied; excess beyond what is prescribed or wanted. In the United States, the surplus of wheat and rye not required for consumption or exportation, is distilled.

2. In law, the residuum of an estate, after the debts and legacies are paid.

What does it say about over plus:

Surplus; that which remains after a supply, or beyond a quantity proposed. Take what is wanted and return the overplus

It would look like a fable to report that this gentleman gives away all which is the overplus of a great fortune.

So clearly we can see that at the time of the Prophet Joseph, the meaning of the word interest meant that which was remaining after all other needs were met, the surplus.

Do you really think that Heavenly Father wants us to be unable to feed, clothe, shelter our families? I believe that all comes from Heavenly Father, including our wages which he provides to meet our needs and the needs of our families, and that from our interest or surplus we pay a tithe to help with the needs of the Church.

It's been posted what the Church teaches today. It's clear and simple. Are we to ignore the clarifications and teachings of today and revert back to something which pleases us personally? Can we apply that standard to other church teachings? Should we practice polygamy today if we feel like it, just because it was the practice once upon a time? Should those who prefer it, go back to the priesthood ban?

Under your recommended practice, we should only tithe if and when we feel we have a "surplus". So we give our money everywhere BUT to the Lord. Make his work the LAST priority on our list?

If I waited to have a surplus before paying tithing, no tithing would ever be paid. And I can just imagine what mental gymnastics would be used (not unlike yours) by members to justify the various "needs" that they feel must be met before they can pay tithing.

I think your last paragraph does Heavenly Father a grave disservice. If you truly understood the concept of tithing, you would know that it is NOT his intention that people go homeless or hungry in order for the church to receive tithes. That's an unfair statement or one that is woefully ignorant.

If the above is how you justify the way you pay (or don't pay) your tithing, that is to be settled between you and the Lord. But the Church is clear in its' teaching that you don't get to tell others that that is the "correct" way of tithing.

[Latter Days Guy]

Well . . . but the pond is. You've had "surplus" of one hundred rocks or one pond--whichever you wish--but it is surplus. (And of course, you could always disassemble the pond, in which case you've got your 100 rocks again.)

I think this is why the Church institutionally tries to avoid delving into the minutiae about how tithing should be calculated. There's no point in creating a byzantine series of rules that are just going to be gamed by people who walk into tithing settlement with the mindset that, regardless of the obviousness of the Church's position, they are going to make darned sure that they give the Church exactly what they owe and not a penny more (and less, if they can get away with it). Better not to tithe at all, then to tithe with that kind of mentality.

If the Chruch's position is so clear, why is there so many interpretations of it?

Erm . . . which Webster's 1828 dictionary are you using? This one also lists "Concern; advantage; good; as private interest; public interest. . . . Share; portion; part; participation in value."

And the one I quoted is the only one relevant.

I've been poor. I've also worked with quite a few families in bankruptcy. I would submit that if your finances are such that you can't feed, clothe, and shelter your family on 90% of your income; it's a practical certainty that you won't be able to do it on 100% either. Tithing isn't the problem in those kinds of situations--but I've found, through personal experience, that it has frequently been a key to the solution.

But then I find it hard to think that the Lord would put us in a situation where it would be necessary to choose between paying tithes or providing for your family.

Edited February 20, 2014 by GB-UK

[Latter Days Guy]

Your assertion then is that we should base our tithing on what is leftover after we pay rent, utilities, groceries, gas, etc? Your assertion is that that is what the Church teaching is?

And where would the line be drawn? What expenses would be allowed?

Are you sure this is Church teaching or is this YOUR interpretation?

No, I'm saying the essential needs of the family come first, and that what is left is our interest which tithing is paid on. I'm saying that I studied what the scriptures say, what the church has said and then enquired of the Lord. As the church has said:

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.

Edited February 20, 2014 by GB-UK

[Lakumi]

Your assertion then is that we should base our tithing on what is leftover after we pay rent, utilities, groceries, gas, etc? Your assertion is that that is what the Church teaching is?

And where would the line be drawn? What expenses would be allowed?

Are you sure this is Church teaching or is this YOUR interpretation?

I got that, using myself as an example, I have no job, thusly no income, I have no money, so couldn't tithe to the church if I was a member because I have no income

10% of 0 is 0

[pam]

Not directing this at anyone in particular just a thought.

It always amazes me the differences in answers among even members of the church regarding basic principles of the gospel.

[Latter Days Guy]

It's been posted what the Church teaches today. It's clear and simple. Are we to ignore the clarifications and teachings of today and revert back to something which pleases us personally? Can we apply that standard to other church teachings? Should we practice polygamy today if we feel like it, just because it was the practice once upon a time? Should those who prefer it, go back to the priesthood ban?

If its so clear why is there so much discussion on that particular subject, and posts almost weekly here asking about it?

Under your recommended practice, we should only tithe if and when we feel we have a "surplus". So we give our money everywhere BUT to the Lord. Make his work the LAST priority on our list?

No we tithe on our interest, it's the interpretation of what that interest is that is the crux to the discussion. Clearly the meaning is different today than what it was in the 1830's. So does that mean that we and our families are the last priority on the Lords list then?

If I waited to have a surplus before paying tithing, no tithing would ever be paid. And I can just imagine what mental gymnastics would be used (not unlike yours) by members to justify the various "needs" that they feel must be met before they can pay tithing.

Then there are always those who would try and abuse the system no matter how they work it.

I think your last paragraph does Heavenly Father a grave disservice. If you truly understood the concept of tithing, you would know that it is NOT his intention that people go homeless or hungry in order for the church to receive tithes. That's an unfair statement or one that is woefully ignorant.

I don't think Heavenly Father has any intent to do any of the things that I said, but I do believe that when men begin to teach things which they clearly have no right to then people are put into positions where they have to choose between doing those things and paying a supposed full tithe.

If the above is how you justify the way you pay (or don't pay) your tithing, that is to be settled between you and the Lord. But the Church is clear in its' teaching that you don't get to tell others that that is the "correct" way of tithing.

How I pay my tithe is between the Lord and me, I have prayed and received my confirmation on what I need to pay. I have not told anyone how or how much they need to pay as that is between them and the Lord as well.

[Just_A_Guy]

If the Chruch's position is so clear, why is there so many interpretations of it?

The Church's position, at least on the point we're discussing, is crystal clear--it's a tenth of "increase" or "income". See the Gospel Principles Manual, last year's Lorenzo Snow Manual, last year's D&C teacher's manual, this year's Old Testament teacher's manual, the Primary manual . . .

I can see wondering how we got from the plain text of the scriptures to the phrase "one tenth of income/increase"; but this alleged confusion over the Church's current interpretation/definition of tithing is almost wholly artificial.

And the one I quoted is the only one relevant.

I think it might be more accurate to say that it's the only one that substantiates your position. The plain, ordinary, and common meaning of the word as used in 1828 establishes a more stringent standard than either what you advocate or, indeed, the modern Church's definition.

But then I find it hard to think that the Lord would put us in a situation where it would be necessary to choose between paying tithes or providing for your family.

As I've said, if we're hurting that badly, we probably aren't fully "providing for our family" anyways and are eligible for a number of forms of assistance--either from the ward or via public and private social assistance programs. This notion of "I can do either/or, but not both" is, in my experience, a false dichotomy.