On Love, on Charity, and on Salvation.

[BeccaKirstyn]

1 minute ago, Overwatch said:

lol

We're just super smart LDS members with nothing else to do other than bother people who come on this forum trying to outdo our smartness. 

Obviously.

[Overwatch]

1 minute ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

We're just super smart LDS members with nothing else to do other than bother people who come on this forum trying to outdo our smartness. 

Obviously.

Me -->      <-- you guys     

  <-- wait... isn't that peanut butter jelly time?

 

[BeccaKirstyn]

Just now, Overwatch said:

Me -->      <-- you guys     

  <-- wait... isn't that peanut butter jelly time?

 

That's what I see when I see that emoji lol

[Overwatch]

Just now, BeccaKirstyn said:

That's what I see when I see that emoji lol

haha it looks the same on both

[Pale Queen]

4 hours ago, zil said:

No.  Tithing is always 10% of your interest annually, regardless of the way in which the law of consecration is administered.

The wording is obscure. When the saints were living the law of consecration, everything was supposed to be given (100%), and they received back what they needed. Tithing as we know it today was instituted to the restored church only after the saints as a whole did not live the law of consecration. It wasn't until 1838, when Joseph Smith asked how much was required for tithing, that the Lord defined tithing for the saints as 10% of interest annually. Any mention of tithing before then meant not only a 10% offering, but ANY offering given freely to the Church. (See the heading to D&C 119).

[Overwatch]

Well she replied but it looks like a mod needs to let her first message through. 

[JohnsonJones]

15 hours ago, Vort said:

 

Do you really believe anyone will work any more? Will anyone do anything other than pursue immediate gratification of short-term interest? There is literally no measurable reward for hard work or doing a good job. Sure, your efforts increase the value of the world -- but you personally will only ever see one-eight billionth of that. That means that if your Herculean efforts result in a net increase to the world of, say, a hundred million dollars, your share of that amazing increase you have caused will be about a cent.

It depends on the society.  In a true Christian Society, I do.  People WILL work. 

In a Christian society, people work NOT because they have to, but because they WANT to.  Work is not something they need to do for survival, but because they desire some other outcome which requires work.

A prime example is how we imagine (because, though we may read about it, we really do not know how it really operates) the Kingdom of Heaven works once we have exaltation.  In theory, there will be no need for food.  We will have everything that we want or need.  Why then, would we work? 

We work because we want to do more.  We work to increase the glory of the Lord and heaven.  We work to provide for heavenly children so that they can have habitations and work to achieve their own exaltation.  We work...not because we have to, but because we want to.

That work may or may not correlate to the type of work we do on this earth. 

The thing we do now, the reasons we work, are normally because this is a fallen world.  We NEED to eat, and we have desires for goods (for example, I love to have books and to read them.  Not something I absolutely need beyond the Scriptures, but something that I want).  This fuels our desires to get more, and to get more, we need money to do so.  We then work to get that money.  However, most of those that are in that .1% would never need to work again.  They have as much money as really could affect them.  Many of them still work.  When they do not need to work, the question is...why do they continue to work?

Relating that to the church.  There are people that have callings in the church.  There is no requirement that you must participate in a calling in the LDS church.  There is no teaching that says to get to heaven you have to have a calling.  Yet, people accept callings and participate.  Why is this?  Sometimes it IS a feeling of obligation.  They've been taught you never turn down a calling or that because the Lord selects callings, who are you to reject it.  They do their callings, and they are blessed because of it.

On the otherhand, I've seen a LOT of people reject a calling when asked of them.  You also have people that do the calling, not because of any requirement of them, but because they want to do their calling.  Even if it is something they do not want to do, they glory in the Lord for the opportunity to participate and help his kingdom grow.  They do not do this because it is a requirement, but because they want to work.  A calling IS a form of work, but it is not one you get paid in money for.  We are a Christian society within the church, though, and thus, even if there is no monetary benefit, people work in the church because they want to work in the church in many instances.

In this, I think it can be a reflection of how we might be in the Kingdom of Heaven above.

[JohnsonJones]

9 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Perhaps I can help translate.

 

If that doesn't help, I just don't know what to do.

I've seen this meme, but what does it mean?

I actually saw this done today.  I went to a restaurant with one of my kids and their kids (my grandkids) today.  While there, I saw a member and one of the youth sitting there.  The Youth did this dab thing, then smiled and waved. 

The rest of the family then waved too.  I think it may be a kidding or something, but the kid did that arm thing.

What does it mean?

[Connie]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I've seen this meme, but what does it mean?

I actually saw this done today.  I went to a restaurant with one of my kids and their kids (my grandkids) today.  While there, I saw a member and one of the youth sitting there.  The Youth did this dab thing, then smiled and waved. 

The rest of the family then waved too.  I think it may be a kidding or something, but the kid did that arm thing.

What does it mean?

According to the urban dictionary: "Atlanta term used to describe dance move (bowing head into elbow) which represents confidence, accomplishment, and pride."

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dab_(dance)

[zil]

9 hours ago, Pale Queen said:

The wording is obscure. When the saints were living the law of consecration, everything was supposed to be given (100%), and they received back what they needed. Tithing as we know it today was instituted to the restored church only after the saints as a whole did not live the law of consecration. It wasn't until 1838, when Joseph Smith asked how much was required for tithing, that the Lord defined tithing for the saints as 10% of interest annually. Any mention of tithing before then meant not only a 10% offering, but ANY offering given freely to the Church. (See the heading to D&C 119).

My comment was not limited to the early Church (which was not, by the way, done being restored at this point, so its pre-full-restoration practices are not, IMO, a good reference for eternal truths).  My comment was an expression of my understanding of the eternal principles of the tithe and consecration.

In English, the word "comment" means a "remark" (keeping it simple here).  In English, the word "tithe" means "tenth".  It's simply a dictionary definition.  By definition, less than a tenth is not a tithe.  By definition, more than a tenth is not a tithe.  I'm not saying this to argue that people have not or cannot use that word in a different way.  For example, I know full well that the bishop, at tithing settlement can indicate that someone declared himself a "partial tithe payer" - meaning he payed a portion of his tithes (his tenth) but not all of it.  That doesn't alter the meaning of the word.

IMO, the wording in D&C 119 represents a restoration of the true principle of tithing being one-tenth of all one's interest annually.  I believe this is restoring exactly what Abraham (and by inference, "the fathers") and the House of Israel did, and is the same thing which Malachi taught.  Yes, the scripture record is sparse and so one must draw conclusions, and yes, my conclusions could be wrong.  While I respect everyone's right to disagree, and more strongly respect everyone's right to keep it between themselves and the Lord (making an annual tithing settlement and biennial temple recommend interview declaration to their bishop), I feel that my conclusions are consistent with revelation.  D&C 119 (emphasis mine):

Quote

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion,

2 For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church.

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

4 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.

First, all their surplus is required to be given to the bishop.  (Sounds a lot like consecration.)

Then, only after the surplus is given are they tithed.  Give up all your excess (verse 1) and then out of what you need, pay one tenth (verse 4).  This is truly a sacrifice.  To pay a tenth out of your excess isn't much of a sacrifice.

Quote

5 Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.

6 And I say unto you, if my people observe not this law, to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion unto me, that my statutes and my judgments may be kept thereon, that it may be most holy, behold, verily I say unto you, it shall not be a land of Zion unto you.

7 And this shall be an ensample unto all the stakes of Zion. Even so. Amen.

And this is to be the pattern from here on, forever - give up all your excess, then pay one tenth out of what you need.  Until we can do this, we are not ready for Zion.  It implies this is how Zion - the City of Enoch - was.  It implies that this is how Zion will always be, because if things aren't this way, it's not Zion.  Consecration + Tithing = Zion.

Yes, my personal understanding, but I don't know how else to read it.

[zil]

PS: Welcome, @Pale Queen!

[zil]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It depends on the society.  In a true Christian Society, I do.  People WILL work.

Which is kinda the point.  The solution is not to spread money around.  The solution is to spread the gospel around.

I think we need this again:

Quote

The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men by changing their environment. Christ changes men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.

-- from "Born of God", by President Ezra Taft Benson

[NeuroTypical]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I've seen this meme, but what does it mean?

Fun things are happening online as we seek to communicate effectively.  They tell me 80% of information communicated in a conversation, is nonverbal in nature.  Body language, facial expression, tone of voice, etc - that tends to add meaning to the words.  Out of necessity and because technology allows us to, we humans are finding better ways to add these bits of info to our online typing. 

I think Connie nailed the dab: It represents confidence, accomplishment, and pride.  It doesn't really rise to the level of a meme, more of a glorified emoji.

Quote

* * Dab **  Imma go eat, son. See ya in a bit

Overwatch didn't just take a quick break from posting online, he owned taking that break like a boss!  Ain't nothing wrong with that. 

Edited May 31, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Vort]

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

20 hours ago, Vort said:

Do you really believe anyone will work any more? Will anyone do anything other than pursue immediate gratification of short-term interest? There is literally no measurable reward for hard work or doing a good job. Sure, your efforts increase the value of the world -- but you personally will only ever see one-eight billionth of that. That means that if your Herculean efforts result in a net increase to the world of, say, a hundred million dollars, your share of that amazing increase you have caused will be about a cent.

It depends on the society.  In a true Christian Society, I do.  People WILL work. 

In a Christian society, people work NOT because they have to, but because they WANT to.  Work is not something they need to do for survival, but because they desire some other outcome which requires work.

As seems often to be the case, I appreciate and, to some extent, disagree with your careful insights.

Your second paragraph contradicts your first. Remember, I asked, "Do you really believe anyone will work any more [if] there is literally no measurable reward for hard work or doing a good job[?]" In your first paragraph, you claim that, yes, a "true Christian Society" will indeed work for no reward whatsoever. In your second paragraph, you then shift the reward to being some unspecified "other outcome".

I happen to agree with you (second paragraph). Those in Zion work for Zion, because it is rewarding to them. Our Father works infinitely harder than any of us can understand because his work and glory is to bring about our immortality and eternal life. Merely giving souls the opportunity to exercise agency -- even unrighteously -- appears to be reward enough to God.

Now, in a fallen world as we find around us, and within societies of men (and women) that comprise such a world, is it reasonable to pretend that you can set up a society where the rewards are primarily intangible or unselfish? I submit that it is impossible, except in extraordinarily rare circumstances. Our pioneer forbears attempted to establish economic Zion, but failed again and again and again and again. I personally do not believe that the vast bulk of humanity in general or of Americans in specific are anywhere near the level of righteousness, unselfishness, and dedication to principle that our pioneer ancestors were. If they failed in their efforts to establish such a society, I think that we have no chance of doing so.

Societies in this fallen world are constructed on personal gain. Wicked societies -- the majority -- are constructed on gain at any cost. Our western democracies' rule of law is largely an attempt to overcome this natural wicked tendency. It is possible to do great good in a society constructed around the idea of increasing personal gain. It is not possible to do that same good in a society where personal gain is prevented or seriously curtailed (inevitably and in every case, by those who seek gain of money and/or power and see your prosperity as a threat of some sort to theirs).

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

A prime example is how we imagine (because, though we may read about it, we really do not know how it really operates) the Kingdom of Heaven works once we have exaltation.  In theory, there will be no need for food.

I am not at all convinced that this is so. The resurrected Lord ate fish and honeycomb. I see no compelling reason to believe that the exalted will never need to eat. God still has teeth.

[zil]

Hijack / off topic...

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

I see no compelling reason to believe that the exalted will never need to eat.

If one needs to eat in order to stay alive, then one will die if one does not eat.  If one will die if one does not eat, one is not immortal.

I'm perfectly OK with whatever eternity looks like, but, IMO, the need to eat would make "immortal" a lie.  (The ability to eat is a whole other matter.)

[Vort]

6 minutes ago, zil said:

If one needs to eat in order to stay alive, then one will die if one does not eat.  If one will die if one does not eat, one is not immortal.

Not sure I agree with this. Tolkien's elves were "immortal" (I believe "deathless" was his term of choice) because they never aged or sickened and died from disease. But they could still be killed, after a fashion.

Fantasy doesn't prove anything about reality, of course. But we actually know next to nothing about the nature of immortality. For example:

In our mortal sphere, we have people who actively seek to terminate (as they suppose) their own existence. What if such an action simply does not occur in the eternities? What if the suicidal impulse is only and strictly a bizarre by-product of mortality? What if even the most wretched and degraded soul has an understanding that existence trumps non-existence? What if the very definition of a spirit is an intelligent self-existent essence -- self-existent because that is the most important and underlying desire of any such being? What if spirits and resurrected souls are rather the reverse of Tolkien's elves -- unable to be killed by external force, but continuing to exist based on self-will, and requiring certain voluntary actions -- such as eating?

Obviously, these are fanciful ideas, not even worthy of the term "speculations". They are put here to illustrate the point: We do not really understand the nature of immortality or of post-mortal existence. There may well be bounds to eternal existence that all such beings must observe. Perhaps the key secret of eternal life is not so much that the exalted keep on living forever as that, even after fathomless eons of existence, they continue to find their very existence refreshing, stimulating, fulfilling, and endlessly joyful.

(It is perhaps worth noting that President Joseph Fielding Smith, as well as his son-in-law Bruce R. McConkie, appear to have believed that spirits are created of a primordial spirit element called "intelligence", and that the fate of the lost spirits of perdition was eventually to degrade into their elemental state of "intelligence" and be recycled into someone else. The above paragraph, outrageous though it may sound, actually fits in nicely with this theory.)

(And for the record, I do not buy into the theory of spiritual degradation into "spirit element". I include it here only as an interesting and perhaps relevant by-the-way.)

[zil]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

But we actually know next to nothing about the nature of immortality.

We agree on this, for sure.

Quote

John 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;

Obviously, I don't know for sure what this means, but I take it to mean exaltation (including eternal life) and that his continuation is independent of all else.  I suspect that it is "light" and "spirit" which make the immortal immortal, and that exaltation somehow makes one a generator of life rather than a consumer of that which gives life.  Vague nonsense, I know, but that's what my brain suspects, knowing full well it's mostly only good as a paperweight.

[2ndRateMind]

18 hours ago, MormonGator said:

@NeuroTypical is exactly right. I'll go a step further. Just giving money to some people without supervision will probably harm or in some cases, kill them. 

I would not like it thought that I generally approve of 'free money'. Clearly, people value the money they have earned at a higher, more responsible, manner, than what they are given for nothing. Nevertheless, there are people in the world shut out from the global economy because they have nothing at all. No money to buy land, or tools, or seed, or to educate themselves such that they get to earn a decent living. I suspect those with nothing have at least as good an appreciation of the value of money as those with much. Maybe better. In such cases, charity money can save both lives and souls. Or why are we Christian, at all? Because we want to save ourselves, or because we want to save others?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 31, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Overwatch]

5 hours ago, zil said:

My comment was not limited to the early Church (which was not, by the way, done being restored at this point, so its pre-full-restoration practices are not, IMO, a good reference for eternal truths).  My comment was an expression of my understanding of the eternal principles of the tithe and consecration.

In English, the word "comment" means a "remark" (keeping it simple here).  In English, the word "tithe" means "tenth".  It's simply a dictionary definition.  By definition, less than a tenth is not a tithe.  By definition, more than a tenth is not a tithe.  I'm not saying this to argue that people have not or cannot use that word in a different way.  For example, I know full well that the bishop, at tithing settlement can indicate that someone declared himself a "partial tithe payer" - meaning he payed a portion of his tithes (his tenth) but not all of it.  That doesn't alter the meaning of the word.

IMO, the wording in D&C 119 represents a restoration of the true principle of tithing being one-tenth of all one's interest annually.  I believe this is restoring exactly what Abraham (and by inference, "the fathers") and the House of Israel did, and is the same thing which Malachi taught.  Yes, the scripture record is sparse and so one must draw conclusions, and yes, my conclusions could be wrong.  While I respect everyone's right to disagree, and more strongly respect everyone's right to keep it between themselves and the Lord (making an annual tithing settlement and biennial temple recommend interview declaration to their bishop), I feel that my conclusions are consistent with revelation.  D&C 119 (emphasis mine):

First, all their surplus is required to be given to the bishop.  (Sounds a lot like consecration.)

Then, only after the surplus is given are they tithed.  Give up all your excess (verse 1) and then out of what you need, pay one tenth (verse 4).  This is truly a sacrifice.  To pay a tenth out of your excess isn't much of a sacrifice.

And this is to be the pattern from here on, forever - give up all your excess, then pay one tenth out of what you need.  Until we can do this, we are not ready for Zion.  It implies this is how Zion - the City of Enoch - was.  It implies that this is how Zion will always be, because if things aren't this way, it's not Zion.  Consecration + Tithing = Zion.

Yes, my personal understanding, but I don't know how else to read it.

Got my second wind!  (also my wife is out and about BUT I think I got this XD)

Law of Consecration

 

In 1831 the Lord began revealing aspects of the law of consecration, a spiritual and temporal system that, if followed in righteousness, would bless the lives of the impoverished Latter-day Saints. Under this law, members of the Church were asked to consecrate, or deed, all their property to the bishop of the Church. He then granted an inheritance, or stewardship, back to the members. Families administered their stewardships as well as they could. If at the year’s end they had a surplus, this was given to the bishop to use in caring for those in need. Edward Partridge was called by the Lord to serve as the first bishop of the Church.

The law of consecration consists of principles and practices that strengthen members spiritually and bring about relative economic equality, eliminating greed and poverty. Some Saints lived it well, to the blessing of themselves and others, but other members failed to rise above selfish desires, causing the eventual withdrawal of the law from the Church. In 1838 the Lord revealed the law of tithing (see D&C 119), which continues today as the financial law of the Church.

https://www.lds.org/manual/our-heritage-a-brief-history-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/chapter-three?lang=eng 

While the israelites used a tithe in the old testament times they also made blood sacrifices (which we know was changed when Christ came)

The saints were given the higher Law of Consecration but because they could not live it,  In its Fullness; the Lord revealed to them the Law of tithe which would be easier for them to bear the burden of providing for the saints necessities . The Church subsequently has not changed this since.

On my next post I shall dissect D&C 119!  (haha wish me luck)

Edited May 31, 2018 by Overwatch

[Overwatch]

4 hours ago, zil said:

My comment was not limited to the early Church (which was not, by the way, done being restored at this point, so its pre-full-restoration practices are not, IMO, a good reference for eternal truths).  My comment was an expression of my understanding of the eternal principles of the tithe and consecration.

In English, the word "comment" means a "remark" (keeping it simple here).  In English, the word "tithe" means "tenth".  It's simply a dictionary definition.  By definition, less than a tenth is not a tithe.  By definition, more than a tenth is not a tithe.  I'm not saying this to argue that people have not or cannot use that word in a different way.  For example, I know full well that the bishop, at tithing settlement can indicate that someone declared himself a "partial tithe payer" - meaning he payed a portion of his tithes (his tenth) but not all of it.  That doesn't alter the meaning of the word.

IMO, the wording in D&C 119 represents a restoration of the true principle of tithing being one-tenth of all one's interest annually.  I believe this is restoring exactly what Abraham (and by inference, "the fathers") and the House of Israel did, and is the same thing which Malachi taught.  Yes, the scripture record is sparse and so one must draw conclusions, and yes, my conclusions could be wrong.  While I respect everyone's right to disagree, and more strongly respect everyone's right to keep it between themselves and the Lord (making an annual tithing settlement and biennial temple recommend interview declaration to their bishop), I feel that my conclusions are consistent with revelation.  D&C 119 (emphasis mine):

First, all their surplus is required to be given to the bishop.  (Sounds a lot like consecration.)

Then, only after the surplus is given are they tithed.  Give up all your excess (verse 1) and then out of what you need, pay one tenth (verse 4).  This is truly a sacrifice.  To pay a tenth out of your excess isn't much of a sacrifice.

And this is to be the pattern from here on, forever - give up all your excess, then pay one tenth out of what you need.  Until we can do this, we are not ready for Zion.  It implies this is how Zion - the City of Enoch - was.  It implies that this is how Zion will always be, because if things aren't this way, it's not Zion.  Consecration + Tithing = Zion.

Yes, my personal understanding, but I don't know how else to read it.

 The Lord revealed the law of tithing (see D&C 119), which continues today as the financial law of the Church.

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord, I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop of my church in Zion,

-SO, all my extra stuff goes to the Bishop? Okay

2 For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church.

-Sounds good, don’t mind being a team player. Leaders need to eat, Church needs to grow, Temple is a must and debts need to be paid asap. Ok, I’m on board

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

-Fair enough. Seems okay to me.

4 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.

-Okay after you take my surplus stuff that I already had with me from then on I will pay 10% of ALL my annual interests on my gains, sweet. FOREVER??? Like even after I gain exaltation I will stay pay a 10% to my Holy Father. Okay. I’ll have to figure that out later. Or maybe it means my entire mortal life only? Meh, no idea at the moment.

5 Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.

-Okay. All new comers give up a tithe of their extra stuff and pay a Tithe on their annual interests. Got it

6 And I say unto you, if my people observe not this law, to keep it holy, and by this law sanctify the land of Zion unto me, that my statutes and my judgments may be kept thereon, that it may be most holy, behold, verily I say unto you, it shall not be a land of Zion unto you.

-Yikes! Okie. Keep the Law of Tithing

7 And this shall be an ensample unto all the stakes of Zion. Even so. Amen.

Amen

[2ndRateMind]

So, I'm not entirely impressed by tithes on income of 10%. Muslims do the same, called Zakat. One of the five pillars of Islam. The basic problem seems to me that it is based on what rich people have, as opposed to what poor people need. Strikes me as a somewhat loveless calculus, that satisfies the conscience of the rich, without ever addressing the fundamental disparities in the inequitable distribution of the world's wealth.

Best wishes, 2RM.

[BeccaKirstyn]

9 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, I'm not entirely impressed by tithes on income of 10%.

I'd bring that up with the Lord. Since you know...He's the one who instated that law (per the LDS doctrine). 

[Vort]

46 minutes ago, Overwatch said:

Got my second wind!  (also my wife is out and about BUT I think I got this XD)

Law of Consecration

 

In 1831 the Lord began revealing aspects of the law of consecration, a spiritual and temporal system that, if followed in righteousness, would bless the lives of the impoverished Latter-day Saints. Under this law, members of the Church were asked to consecrate, or deed, all their property to the bishop of the Church. He then granted an inheritance, or stewardship, back to the members. Families administered their stewardships as well as they could. If at the year’s end they had a surplus, this was given to the bishop to use in caring for those in need. Edward Partridge was called by the Lord to serve as the first bishop of the Church.

 

The law of consecration consists of principles and practices that strengthen members spiritually and bring about relative economic equality, eliminating greed and poverty. Some Saints lived it well, to the blessing of themselves and others, but other members failed to rise above selfish desires, causing the eventual withdrawal of the law from the Church. In 1838 the Lord revealed the law of tithing (see D&C 119), which continues today as the financial law of the Church.

https://www.lds.org/manual/our-heritage-a-brief-history-of-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/chapter-three?lang=eng 

While the israelites used a tithe in the old testament times they also made blood sacrifices (which we know was changed when Christ came)

The saints were given the higher Law of Consecration but because they could not live it the Lord revealed to them the Law of tithe which would be easier for them to bear. The Church subsequently has not changed this since.

On my next post I shall dissect D&C 119!  (haha wish me luck)

A problem is that the term "law of consecration" is used in two distinct but related ways.

• The Law of Consecration refers primarily to an eternal law and individual covenant that we make, wherein we give ourselves and our means to the kingdom of God. In this sense, each of us who has made the covenants of the temple (and to some extent, even of baptism) is fully under the law of consecration. If we live it, it will redound to our benefit. If we do not live it, we will be condemned.
• The "law of consecration" is also commonly used as a shorthand reference to the many attempts of the Saints early in the Restoration to implement ideals of the Law of Consecration (as defined above) in various economic systems involving communal pooling of resources. Many of these efforts were made, in good faith, over decades, before the Church decided to stop formally sponsoring such efforts. They never seemed to work out well, due to some combination of honest ignorance, people taking advantage, and various failings of leadership and administration.

When people say "we don't live the law of consecration today", they are (hopefully) talking only about #2 above. We are most certainly fully under the covenant, as described in #1.

Unfortunately, my experience is that many Saints do not understand this distinction. This is the genesis of the idea that tithing is some ersatz version of consecration, because we can't live "the real thing" right now. This understandable confusion is equivalent to saying that we don't live the law of chastity today, because we don't practice plural marriage. Hopefully no one believes that.

Edited May 31, 2018 by Vort

[2ndRateMind]

7 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

I'd bring that up with the Lord. Since you know...He's the one who instated that law (per the LDS doctrine). 

I will readily admit that giving 10% of one's income to succour the poor is better than giving nothing at all. I just don't believe it sufficient to right the world's economic injustices.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited May 31, 2018 by 2ndRateMind

[Grunt]

19 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So, I'm not entirely impressed by tithes on income of 10%. Muslims do the same, called Zakat. One of the five pillars of Islam. The basic problem seems to me that it is based on what rich people have, as opposed to what poor people need. Strikes me as a somewhat loveless calculus, that satisfies the conscience of the rich, without ever addressing the fundamental disparities in the inequitable distribution of the world's wealth.

Best wishes, 2RM.

What does tithing have to do with rich or poor people?