On Love, on Charity, and on Salvation.


2ndRateMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

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

Nothing. It just gives him another opportunity to rant about quasi-socialism. Dude obviously listened to "Eat the Rich" by Aerosmith one too many times.
 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Not much. To return to the theme of thread, gifting is charity, motivated by the love in one's heart. Tithing is for those who prefer rules to love. Rich pr poor, some prefer rules to love, because it limits their liabilities. But that was not the example of Jesus.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

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.

Again...bring it up to the Person who created the law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

That's why God gave us tithing; he obviously prefers rules to love.

Do you think so? All I can construe from the NT is that God prefers love to rules. Jesus never spoke of tithing, just loving one's neighbour, and doing good to them.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Do you think so? All I can construe from the NT is that God prefers love to rules.

Yet you wrote:

8 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Tithing is for those who prefer rules to love.

Jesus gave us the law of tithing. Therefore, by simple logical syllogism, you maintain that Jesus prefers rules to love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Jesus gave us the law of tithing. Therefore, by simple logical syllogism, you maintain that Jesus prefers rules to love.

Reference, please. Meanwhile, here is mine.

Best wishes, 2RM..

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Vort said:

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.

Update: Well I looked for my own sources to what you said. I can agree with this statement. Here is my supporting find

"Explain that the principles of the law of consecration have not changed since it was revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith. However, the application of those principles changes from time to time. The current prophet helps us understand how to apply these principles in our day."

https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-and-church-history-gospel-doctrine-teachers-manual/lesson-14-the-law-of-consecration?lang=eng

Within The Law of Consecration there appears to be a financial portion which deals with providing for the poor and needy of the saints (all saints well being in general) When that portion of The Law of Consecration was not fulfilled by the saints, the Lord issued once again the Tithe as a way to take care of the saints temporal and spiritual needs. Otherwise EVERYTHING we have in this life technically belongs to The Lord and can be required of as requested by Him or his servants the prophets.

Cool. We are getting somewhere.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Overwatch said:

Within The Law of Consecration there appears to be a financial portion which deals with providing for the poor and needy of the saints (all saints well being in general) When that portion of The Law of Consecration was not fulfilled by the saints, the Lord issued once again the Tithe as a way to take care of the saints temporal and spiritual needs. Otherwise EVERYTHING we have in this life technically belongs to The Lord and can be required of as requested by Him or his servants the prophets.

This is not too different from my understanding, especially the last sentence. However, I believe that tithing and consecration are two separate (though related) things. One does not replace the other. Even under a united-order style of consecration, you still tithe your increase.

I am no historian, so I cannot give a reliable account of how the Saints attempted to live the law of consecration. I have an understanding of what consecration means and of what tithing means. The following explanation is based on my understanding. if you have a better source, listen to it.

What the early Saints often called the "Law of Consecration" is more precisely referred to as the "united order". The goal of the various united orders was to live the (private, personal) law of consecration in its fullness, not just as individuals but as a community, and so do away with poverty. However, the united orders were not designed to "take care of" the poor. Rather, the founding assumptions always included the idea that people willingly worked to help themselves and each other. All resources were pooled, then assigned out as the members needed to fulfill their part. Each would be given enough so that he could provide the necessities of life to his family and himself. In addition, each would be assigned things as required: The blacksmith would be given a forge and metalworking materials; the hotelier would be given a large house with many rooms; and so forth.

Such a united order was not set up with the idea that people would be living on the street, panhandling for cash. The idea was rather that each member would be a productive part and would help fill a niche. Poverty would be eliminated, because job scarcity and other such economic phenomena would be done away with.

But what do we do with people such as widows, those who have responsibilities to see to and no way to take care of the necessities of life? These are the people who might well eventually end up panhandling on the streets or prostituting themselves to provide. Sure, maybe some unmarried man will marry the widow and assume responsibility for her and her dependent children. Or maybe not. What of the farmer who has broken his legs and can't farm his land? What of the badly injured or sick man who is confined to his bed for months or more? These people fall outside the normal constraints and expectations of a united order. Do we simply let family and friends shoulder the burden of caring for them, or do we as a Zion community have something more to offer?

Enter tithing. Each person, from his consecrated work, produces an income that he uses to care for himself and his family. He also gives a tenth to the bishop, for the bishop's storehouse. This tenth, or tithe, is then used by the bishop to build Zion, including to take care of the widows and orphans. (Note: This isn't how we do things today. It's mostly fast offerings, not tithing, that pay for people's needs for food and such. Tithing goes directly to Church headquarters and is used as the Church sees fit, I think mostly for covering Church expenditures and property management around the world. But I believe, from my studies -- and again, I'm no historian -- that tithing was originally used to take care of people in need as well as fund the Church.)

The various united orders had different rules about when and how to gather up excess (and what constituted "excess") for redistribution. But such actions were not tithing, or a tithing substitute. According to my understanding, tithing was paid and collected whether or not people were attempting to live a united order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

This is not too different from my understanding, especially the last sentence. However, I believe that tithing and consecration are two separate (though related) things. One does not replace the other. Even under a united-order style of consecration, you still tithe your increase.

I am no historian, so I cannot give a reliable account of how the Saints attempted to live the law of consecration. I have an understanding of what consecration means and of what tithing means. The following explanation is based on my understanding. if you have a better source, listen to it.

What the early Saints often called the "Law of Consecration" is more precisely referred to as the "united order". The goal of the various united orders was to live the (private, personal) law of consecration in its fullness, not just as individuals but as a community, and so do away with poverty. However, the united orders were not designed to "take care of" the poor. Rather, the founding assumptions always included the idea that people willingly worked to help themselves and each other. All resources were pooled, then assigned out as the members needed to fulfill their part. Each would be given enough so that he could provide the necessities of life to his family and himself. In addition, each would be assigned things as required: The blacksmith would be given a forge and metalworking materials; the hotelier would be given a large house with many rooms; and so forth.

Such a united order was not set up with the idea that people would be living on the street, panhandling for cash. The idea was rather that each member would be a productive part and would help fill a niche. Poverty would be eliminated, because job scarcity and other such economic phenomena would be done away with.

But what do we do with people such as widows, those who have responsibilities to see to and no way to take care of the necessities of life? These are the people who might well eventually end up panhandling on the streets or prostituting themselves to provide. Sure, maybe some unmarried man will marry the widow and assume responsibility for her and her dependent children. Or maybe not. What of the farmer who has broken his legs and can't farm his land? What of the badly injured or sick man who is confined to his bed for months or more? These people fall outside the normal constraints and expectations of a united order. Do we simply let family and friends shoulder the burden of caring for them, or do we as a Zion community have something more to offer?

Enter tithing. Each person, from his consecrated work, produces an income that he uses to care for himself and his family. He also gives a tenth to the bishop, for the bishop's storehouse. This tenth, or tithe, is then used by the bishop to build Zion, including to take care of the widows and orphans. (Note: This isn't how we do things today. It's mostly fast offerings, not tithing, that pay for people's needs for food and such. Tithing goes directly to Church headquarters and is used as the Church sees fit, I think mostly for covering Church expenditures and property management around the world. But I believe, from my studies -- and again, I'm no historian -- that tithing was originally used to take care of people in need as well as fund the Church.)

The various united orders had different rules about when and how to gather up excess (and what constituted "excess") for redistribution. But such actions were not tithing, or a tithing substitute. According to my understanding, tithing was paid and collected whether or not people were attempting to live a united order.

I really like the way you describe things here (except believing widows would not be helpful. They can babysit, make quilts or even go get a job. A Farmer with a broken leg can still peel potatoes or work online (modern day)  I also like that you pointed out its your own understanding. What matters is the saints needs are being met. I also like that you mention the food offerings (fast offerings for supplementing those lacking food) which I suppose comes from only a portion of one's income being donated to the Church instead of their entire earnings.

Here is what I see:

8045.jpg

*With other meaning: Book of Mormon and Temple construction (For extra funding) 

just for more knowledge of the tithe

https://www.lds.org/topics/tithing?lang=eng

*Side note: Even after reading your response, it is still hard to understand your take on believing 10% would still be paid. After giving everything I have to the Church and giving ALL (100%) of my gains to the Church afterward. Where would I pull the extra 10%?  I was sitting and pondering and my mind kept hitting a wall.

Edited by Overwatch
*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Overwatch said:

*Side note: Even after reading your response, it is still hard to understand your take on believing 10% would still be paid. After giving everything I have to the Church and giving ALL (100%) of my gains to the Church afterward. Where would I pull the extra 10%?  I was sitting and pondering and my mind kept hitting a wall.

I understand the united order(s) to have worked more or less as follows:

You consecrate all your property and goods (other than your private things, like your work clothes and your wedding ring) to the bishop. You literally hand over or deed over everything to the Church, with the bishop as agent. Your stewardship (essentially, your societal role) is identified, and the bishop consecrates back to you what you need for taking care of your family, plus what you need to fulfill your stewardship. Again, if you're a blacksmith, you need a forge and an anvil. If you're a farmer, you need 50 acres and a yoke of oxen with a plow. If you're a barber, I guess you need a stripey pole, a chair, a comb, and a pair of scissors.

Note that this stuff now belongs to you. It is your personal possession, at least in the way united orders operated after the earliest years. Naturally, as a consecrated man, you still consider all of "your" stuff to be the Lord's, and don't take any jealously possessive attitude toward it. But it is your stuff. If you're the barber, someone will not come into your shop, take your scissors, and say, "Thanks, brother, I was needing these." That would be theft.

Assuming the society is still using money as a token of exchange, you just charge for your labors like before. You pay 10% of your increase to the bishop to fund the bishop's storehouse. You live off the rest of your increase, including upkeep and such. Every so often, maybe every year or every six months or something, you render an account of your stewardship to the bishop along with your increase. You tell him your needs to upgrade your equipment or grow your business or whatever. Then the bishop requests whatever portion of your increase he deems fit, maybe all of it, maybe none, maybe half, whatever he sees as appropriate. This cycle continues more or less in perpetuity.

That's my understanding of how the united order was supposed to work, and maybe a hint of how the law of consecration might be lived as a whole society rather than just on an individual basis.

My point is that we are supposed to live the law of consecration right now. We don't deed our property to the Church through the agent bishop -- yet -- but our attitude should be identical. Whatever we have is God's, and is at the disposal of God's kingdom and authorized representatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Vort said:

I understand the united order(s) to have worked more or less as follows:

You consecrate all your property and goods (other than your private things, like your work clothes and your wedding ring) to the bishop. You literally hand over or deed over everything to the Church, with the bishop as agent. Your stewardship (essentially, your societal role) is identified, and the bishop consecrates back to you what you need for taking care of your family, plus what you need to fulfill your stewardship. Again, if you're a blacksmith, you need a forge and an anvil. If you're a farmer, you need 50 acres and a yoke of oxen with a plow. If you're a barber, I guess you need a stripey pole, a chair, a comb, and a pair of scissors.

Note that this stuff now belongs to you. It is your personal possession, at least in the way united orders operated after the earliest years. Naturally, as a consecrated man, you still consider all of "your" stuff to be the Lord's, and don't take any jealously possessive attitude toward it. But it is your stuff. If you're the barber, someone will not come into your shop, take your scissors, and say, "Thanks, brother, I was needing these." That would be theft.

Assuming the society is still using money as a token of exchange, you just charge for your labors like before. You pay 10% of your increase to the bishop to fund the bishop's storehouse. You live off the rest of your increase, including upkeep and such. Every so often, maybe every year or every six months or something, you render an account of your stewardship to the bishop along with your increase. You tell him your needs to upgrade your equipment or grow your business or whatever. Then the bishop requests whatever portion of your increase he deems fit, maybe all of it, maybe none, maybe half, whatever he sees as appropriate. This cycle continues more or less in perpetuity.

That's my understanding of how the united order was supposed to work, and maybe a hint of how the law of consecration might be lived as a whole society rather than just on an individual basis.

My point is that we are supposed to live the law of consecration right now. We don't deed our property to the Church through the agent bishop -- yet -- but our attitude should be identical. Whatever we have is God's, and is at the disposal of God's kingdom and authorized representatives.

Okay. I am going to start my search for the United Order and see what I find there. I think I remember my old mentor saying it like that (United Order)

As of right now I am using what is written in Our Heritage  (and of course D&C 119)

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 

*I imagine the yearly deposit of excess goods would be carefully given throughout the following year to cover those in need.

okay, will report back after I do some more searching

thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Overwatch said:

Assuming the society is still using money as a token of exchange

Oh and this I am not sure how money would apply if everyone is sharing. I suppose if gentiles come and visit we could make extra earnings that way. Anyway, before I get to into my search and I forget about this again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Grunt said:

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

It depends on how it is interpreted.

In the original idea of tithing, it is supposed it was ONLY on one's increase.  That indicates this is above and beyond what one has as needs, and is the SURPLUS that they attain.  If they are in the negatives or only exactly have as much as necessary, they have no surplus and thus no increase.  Abraham is never noted to having tithed on what he had each year, but as a one time tithe on the spoils that he obtained.

In this view, the poor would pay exactly nothing in tithing typically, while the rich would pay a greater amount.

However, this is NOT the interpretation that we use today.  We use it that it is a tenth of all that you earn, at least this is how we typically interpret it.

Thus, you are presented the same problem that becomes a difficulty when considering a flat tax rather than a progressive tax.

An example, let's say you have someone that makes 12K a year, and another that makes 120K a year.

The individual that earns 12K a year pays rent and buys food which costs them $800 a month.  This means they have a discretionary amount left for fuel or other things at $200 a month.  With a flat tax of 10%, they then would pay $100 more.  This means that they only have $100 left per month to buy anything extra including gas, etc.  If they pay an additional tithing on that, they have $0 a month left.

Let's say the individual who gets 120K a year has the same expenses, except theirs is a mortgage at $800 a month with the necessary food included with that.  They then have 9,200 left for whatever they want.  They pay an additional 10% on their income so they have to pay $1000 which reduces it to 8,200 for the month.  They pay their tithing at another $1000, and then they only have a measly $7,200 left for the month. 

Which is where you can point out, even if 10% seems the same, due to the cost of things, the one who makes more money has more at the end of the day as extra money beyond what someone who does not make less has.  All expenses being the same (and greater expense can be seen coming from their extra money they have, so if the richer individual wants a bigger house and wants to pay $2000 a month, they can, though they still won't be anywhere close to being as hard pressed as the poorer individual, and in fact, even with an extra cost will still have more left over to utilize than the poorer individual even makes each month) the rich person is better off and flat taxes (or tithing) affect them a LOT less than those who are poorer.  The rich individual has more discretionary income than those who are poor due to this.

Just the basic idea of how it works, a dedicated economics professor probably could give you a much better and clearer explanation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most in the church today do not live the law of consecration.  Some may make a promise to live it, or that in theory they feel that what they have is the Lord's, but in practice, almost none actually give everything they have to the church (probably because the church would not give back the necessities of life in this instance if one truly was able to do this...as consecration is not in effect for most of the membership).  Thus, we live the law of tithing.

However, TITHING is NOT for the poor.  It is for the support and sustaining of the church and it's officers.  FAST OFFERINGS are utilized today to help those in need.  Tithing may be allocated at times by those who have the authority to do so as a support for those in need, but normally it is dedicated to the building of the church.

Tithing IS a law of the Lord and is part of the LOWER law.  It is a law that it is seen that anyone can live.  It is also a sacrifice on our part to the Lord.  It is a physical means of his church on this earth.

The Higher law is the Law of Consecration.  The General Authorities live this law to a degree today, as do some other church positions such as Missionaries.  Missionaries (the younger ones) are a good example of a limited version of Consecration today.  They donate their money each month.  It goes centrally and then is redistributed according to the needs of the Missionaries.  Each Missionary receives the amount that it is determined is necessary for them to provide the necessities of life in their area of work.  Not every missionary receives the same amount.  The amount needed varies, and so the amount they receive each month varies.  Some receive FAR more than the money that they give to the church for their mission, others receive far less.  It is to each according to their need.

The general membership, however, does not experience this on their monthly or even annual basis.  We get to keep what we earn and are not reliant upon the church to provide a necessary allowance each month.  Instead, we pay our tithings (missionaries are not supposed to tithe on their monthly allowance from the church, though some may anyways, the same applies to other positions that fall under this policy) to the church each month, or 10% of our increases (I would normally suggest gross for those in the US, but we are not to specify, so it is up to the individual whether it is on their gross or net income). 

We do this, NOT because we will be blessed (but we are in many cases), but because it is a commandment of the Lord to pay tithing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Creation of the United Firm Which would be known as the United order later

 

 

 

Section 82

 

Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, in Independence, Jackson County, Missouri, April 26, 1832. The occasion was a council of high priests and elders of the Church. At the council, Joseph Smith was sustained as the President of the High Priesthood, to which office he had previously been ordained at a conference of high priests, elders, and members, at Amherst, Ohio, January 25, 1832 (see the heading to section 75). This revelation reiterates instructions given in an earlier revelation (section 78) to establish a firm—known as the United Firm (under Joseph Smith’s direction, the term “order” later replaced “firm”)—to govern the Church’s mercantile and publishing endeavors.

 

1–4, Where much is given, much is required; 5–7, Darkness reigns in the world; 8–13, The Lord is bound when we do what He says; 14–18, Zion must increase in beauty and holiness; 19–24, Every man should seek the interest of his neighbor.

 

 

 

10 I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.

17 And you are to be equal, or in other words, you are to have equal claims on the properties, for the benefit of managing the concerns of your stewardships, every man according to his wants and his needs, inasmuch as his wants are just—

18 And all this for the benefit of the church of the living God, that every man may improve upon his talent, that every man may gain other talents, yea, even an hundred fold, to be cast into the Lord’s storehouse, to become the common property of the whole church—

*”the United Firm was established, with nine men acting as its officers and having responsibility for the church’s storehouses, publications, and temporal affairs.

 Additional officers were appointed later.

 The goal was to manage these enterprises in such a way as to generate funds that would “become the common property of the whole church” once the needs of those within the firm were met”

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/united-firm

The Church Historian’s Press is an imprint of the Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, and a trademark of Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

- Will follow up with the United Order Next

Edited by Overwatch
*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

In the original idea of tithing, it is supposed it was ONLY on one's increase.  That indicates this is above and beyond what one has as needs, and is the SURPLUS that they attain.

That's not my understanding of the word "increase". If I plant a twenty bushels of wheat and I harvest a hundred. my increase is eighty bushels. That's before I decide how much I need to keep to feed my family for the following year. If my family needs, say, thirty bushels for the year, then my excess is fifty bushels. But when I tithe, I tithe on my increase -- eighty bushels. I take eight bushels, not five, to the bishop's storehouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The United Order D&C 104

 

Concerning those belonging to the order:

 

13 For it is expedient that I, the Lord, should make every man accountable, as a steward over earthly blessings, which I have made and prepared for my creatures.

14 I, the Lord, stretched out the heavens, and built the earth, my very handiwork; and all things therein are mine.

15 And it is my purpose to provide for my saints, for all things are mine.

16 But it must needs be done in mine own way; and behold this is the way that I, the Lord, have decreed to provide for my saints, that the poor shall be exalted, in that the rich are made low.

17 For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.

18 Therefore, if any man shall take of the abundance which I have made, and impart not his portion, according to the law of my gospel, unto the poor and the needy, he shall, with the wicked, lift up his eyes in hell, being in torment.

 

Continued:

67 And again, there shall be another treasury prepared, and a treasurer appointed to keep the treasury, and a seal shall be placed upon it;

68 And all moneys that you receive in your stewardships, by improving upon the properties which I have appointed unto you, in houses, or in lands, or in cattle, or in all things save it be the holy and sacred writings, which I have reserved unto myself for holy and sacred purposes, shall be cast into the treasury as fast as you receive moneys, by hundreds, or by fifties, or by twenties, or by tens, or by fives.

69 Or in other words, if any man among you obtain five dollars let him cast them into the treasury; or if he obtain ten, or twenty, or fifty, or an hundred, let him do likewise;

70 And let not any among you say that it is his own; for it shall not be called his, nor any part of it.

71 And there shall not any part of it be used, or taken out of the treasury, only by the voice and common consent of the order.

72 And this shall be the voice and common consent of the order—that any man among you say to the treasurer: I have need of this to help me in my stewardship—

73 If it be five dollars, or if it be ten dollars, or twenty, or fifty, or a hundred, the treasurer shall give unto him the sum which he requires to help him in his stewardship—

74 Until he be found a transgressor, and it is manifest before the council of the order plainly that he is an unfaithful and an unwise steward.

75 But so long as he is in full fellowship, and is faithful and wise in his stewardship, this shall be his token unto the treasurer that the treasurer shall not withhold.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/104?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/united-order?lang=eng

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Vort I agree with you on some points and disagree with you on others. First, I agree that the law of tithing is not a lesser law. According to Steven Harper, who wrote the articles on the Law of Consecration for the Church History section of lds.org, affirms this idea. Harper said in an LDS Perspectives Podcast that "It didn't get revoked or suspended or rescinded or anything else. It's still here. We often, though, get confused because we've heard lots of times, 'Well, the law went away,' or, 'They couldn't do it so God took it away.' He doesn't do that, so the law is still there, but what changes over time is what we might call tactics, or methods for carrying out the law, ways of enacting the law."

However, I disagree about the 10%. Harper says in the Church History article "The Tithing of My People" this:

"Saints at the time understood tithing to refer to any amount of freely consecrated goods or money. In September 1837, Bishop Whitney and his counselors in the Kirtland bishopric declared that 'it is the fixed purpose of our God . . . that the great work of the last days was to be accomplished by the tithing of his saints.' Referring to the promise in Malachi 3:10, they urged the Saints to 'bring their tithes into the store house, and after that, not before, they were to look for a blessing that there should not be room enough to receive it.'

A few months later, the bishopric in Missouri proposed a similar but more specific policy: each household should offer a tithe of 2 percent of its annual worth after paying the household’s debts. This, the bishopric in Zion wrote, 'will be in some degree fulfilling the law of consecration.'"

For this reason, I concluded that at least in the early years of the Church, tithing, despite its etymology, was ANY offering. Also, it seems at that time that a bishop could define what an offering was. As far as I know, Bishop Partridge's proposal for a 2% tithe was never put into practice, but was on the table for consideration,  with no mention of any problems with the idea of offering less than 10% tithing. Less than a year later, Joseph asked the Lord how much the saints should give and received D&C 119, and that became the method of practicing the Law of Consecration.

 

Sources:

http://www.ldsperspectives.com/2017/04/12/tithing-law-consecration/

https://history.lds.org/article/the-tithing-of-my-people?lang=eng

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an interested side note on the consecration from earlier. It seems to be a very holy and desirable thing in its Fullness. However we see that it has been proven very hard to be put into practice.

Consecration

Summary

The dedicating of money, lands, goods, or one’s own life for sacred purposes.1 Both the New Testament and Book of Mormon referred to some groups having “all things common” economically; the Book of Mormon also referred to individuals who consecrated or dedicated themselves to God’s service.2 In February 1831, JS dictated the “Laws of the Church of Christ,” which mandated community-based economic arrangements to provide for the poor and contribute to the building up of the “New Jerusalem.”3 The revelation explained that individuals were to donate their money, goods, and land to the church, after which they would receive back an inheritance, or stewardship, based on their circumstances, needs, and wants.4 Bishops were to administer the law of consecration by receiving consecrated properties, determining stewardships, and managing the surplus property in church storehouses.5 After the initial consecration of property, Saints were expected to consecrate their yearly surplus to the storehouse, from which the needy could be supported.6 Not all features of consecration were implemented, and many members of the church were never invited to practice consecration as outlined in the scriptures.7 Though the ideal remained, the practice was largely abandoned by 1834.8 An 8 July 1838 revelation eliminated the requirement of an initial consecration of property but instructed church members to give all “their surplus property” to the bishop and then a “tenth of all their interest annually” thereafter.9 In 1841, as church leaders sought funds to build the Nauvoo temple and Nauvoo House, Saints were asked to tithe a tenth of their personal property and a tenth of their increase.10 Men were also invited to donate a tenth of their time in labor for temple construction.11 JS, as trustee-in-trust of the church, had oversight of donations to the temple and distribution of surplus property and goods to the poor.12 The system was thus significantly adjusted during JS’s ministry, but the principles continued to guide church efforts to cooperatively share resources to build up communities and the church

http://www.josephsmithpapers.org/topic/consecration#2905347793460150926

 

I am actually very saddened by this activity we have done here. It was fun but learning about the nature of these things and how much further we have to go as people kind of bummed me out. It did however reaffirm my belief that the poor and needy need love and care. C :

Thanks you guys for sending me on this voyage of knowledge. ♥

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share