Provident living vs living the law of consecration and church welfare


Backroads
 Share

Recommended Posts

Elsewhere on the interweb (fine, it was the cesspool Reddit) there was a discussion on being unable to afford to pay tithing and provide for oneself. While of course there were many comments on the blessings of tithing and faithfulness and even some practical financial advice, a few comments got me thinking.

There were of the following paraphrased nature:

Pay your tithing and ask the church to cover rent/mortgage, food, bills, etc. because that is what the church is there for. This was presented under the idea of the law of consecration and bringing everything to the storehouse and all.

I don't know if I can fully fight against this argument despite my desire for self-reliant living, but again, it all got me thinking. Which side are we supposed to be leaning toward? Provident, self-reliant living, or giving to the church and relying upon it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Backroads said:

giving to the church and relying upon it? 

I’m not sure the church would allow you to get to the point where you rely on it 100%. The bishop would probably do everything in his power to give you life skills, budget management, etc before it gets that far. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

I’m not sure the church would allow you to get to the point where you rely on it 100%. The bishop would probably do everything in his power to give you life skills, budget management, etc before it gets that far. 

And perhaps that is the balance.

There may be something to be said about the widow's mite and giving of literally all your money, but at least in today's society, I think most bishop's would wonder why paying your tithing is putting you in the poor house. Do you need better job skills or a better job? General money management skills? And that certainly fits in the realm of the church helping others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The law of consecration does not mean that the Church pays for everything. That idea is false, plain and simple. Not sure it's even worth the effort to roll one's eyes.

The idea of tithing is that we freely give to the Lord a tenth part of what he has given to us. We give it to the Lord by giving it to the Lord's kingdom, which today is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To expect remuneration for "giving back" to the Lord a fraction of what he has given us is ridiculous, absolutely opposite to the whole idea of tithing. As is true in so many cases, it's advisable to ignore the opinions expressed on Reddit about this matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

The law of consecration does not mean that the Church pays for everything. That idea is false, plain and simple. Not sure it's even worth the effort to roll one's eyes.

The idea of tithing is that we freely give to the Lord a tenth part of what he has given to us. We give it to the Lord by giving it to the Lord's kingdom, which today is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. To expect remuneration for "giving back" to the Lord a fraction of what he has given us is ridiculous, absolutely opposite to the whole idea of tithing. As is true in so many cases, it's advisable to ignore the opinions expressed on Reddit about this matter.

Don't disagree, but then to pull in the original question of inspiration, what does one do after they pay a full tithe and can't make that month's mortgage? Is that simply a case where you negotiate with your creditor, or is it appropriate to turn to the church? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're always free to discuss matters with your bishop. In my experience, most bishops who have access to the means to help are quite generous, so it's not unlikely that the bishop will chip in for your rent. My objection is not to this path or the fact that it exists, but to the entitlement mentality that I infer in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Backroads said:

Elsewhere on the interweb (fine, it was the cesspool Reddit) there was a discussion on being unable to afford to pay tithing and provide for oneself. While of course there were many comments on the blessings of tithing and faithfulness and even some practical financial advice, a few comments got me thinking.

There were of the following paraphrased nature:

Pay your tithing and ask the church to cover rent/mortgage, food, bills, etc. because that is what the church is there for. This was presented under the idea of the law of consecration and bringing everything to the storehouse and all.

I don't know if I can fully fight against this argument despite my desire for self-reliant living, but again, it all got me thinking. Which side are we supposed to be leaning toward? Provident, self-reliant living, or giving to the church and relying upon it? 

From a talk I recently gave.  I address the Law of Consecration, quoting directly from the church website.  People really have a poor understanding of what the LOC is and is not.

 

There are some members who believe when hard times arrive we will all pool our food and everyone will have enough.  They somehow believe that a miracle like the fishes and loaves will occur for them, or they think the Law of Consecration will take care of everyone. 

 

Let me read to you Doctrine and Covenants, section 130: verses 20-21:

 

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

 

If we fail to obey a principle of the gospel, we cannot receive the blessings for another’s faithfulness.  Faith without works is dead.  If you do not have the faith to follow the consistent counsel from the prophets and apostles to put up some food storage and other essentials for your family, how can you believe you will have faith equal to the fishes and loaves miracle?

 

For those who smugly think that the Law of Consecration will protect them, allow me to point out certain principles associated with the doctrine.  Under the Law of Consecration all things are deeded to the church.  The agent bishop than returns a stewardship back to you based on your needs and circumstances.  That stewardship becomes private property for the steward and his family.  It is not communal property.  If there is a surplus from that stewardship, it would then go to the bishop’s storehouse to care for the poor and needy.  To be clear, under this law, a year supply of food for one family, is not a year supply for everyone else to tap into.  If there was any surplus, it would be available through the bishop’s storehouse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone came up with a list of priorities decades ago, that stuck with me.  When looking to meeting your own needs, look first to yourself and spouse.  Then close family, and finally the church. 

In the decades since, "government programs" seems to have been added to the list, right before family.  I was born into a church that preached passionately and often against 'the public dole' and government programs.  Haven't heard something like that in 20 years.  As a finance clerk, my bishops have shared with me how often they work with folks seeking welfare, directing them to govt employment centers and food stamps and low-income aid.  I think the general notion is, if we're gonna pay for that stuff with our taxes, we may as well make use of it when we need it.

Church welfare is meant to be short term.  Bishops will ensure that it's short term.  I've seen Stake Presidents counsel with generous-to-a-fault bishops, to ensure it's short term.  I'm not privy to the discussions, but I've watched the checks stop on long term needy folks, who end up forced to move to a situation they can afford.  The church isn't here to support your lifestyle, and "I'll lose my house" isn't a way to keep the church paying.  I've written endless rent/mortgage/car/utility payments, but I don't keep writing them for the same folks over and over.

Let me add my enthusiastic support and encouragement to anyone with a short-term need approaching their bishop for help.  This is the backbone of church welfare, the reason for fast offerings.  Ain't no shame.  Your bishop will be happy to work with you, and the finance clerk is happy to write checks to cover bills.  And both of us know how to keep our mouths shut, so dignity and privacy is preserved.  I pretty much never know the details, my bishop will just hand me a bill and say "pay this for Sis X please".

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need to remember the difference between the law of consecration and the united order. The united order is no longer practiced but we still covenant to live the law of consecration. And the law of consecration is all about being willing to offer to the Lord anything He asks, whether the Lord will provide for us temporally or not. Abinidi fully consecrated himself and the Lord gave him nothing back in return, temporally speaking. 

Of course the Lord has promised to provide for his saints. But to base our level of consecration on a perceived expectation to receive in return is not so much consecrating as it is working the system. It might keep your body alive but something far more important is withering away.

Edited by laronius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

I pretty much never know the details, my bishop will just hand me a bill and say "pay this for Sis X please".

I once had a job where many of my coworkers were, for some reason, bishops. No intent to shame them because I had no idea who these people were, but I overheard more than my share of details about random members of their congregation needing help.

A memorable one "I feel awkward but she needs the help because we all know she's a pole dancer".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Backroads said:

Elsewhere on the interweb (fine, it was the cesspool Reddit) there was a discussion on being unable to afford to pay tithing and provide for oneself. While of course there were many comments on the blessings of tithing and faithfulness and even some practical financial advice, a few comments got me thinking.

There were of the following paraphrased nature:

Pay your tithing and ask the church to cover rent/mortgage, food, bills, etc. because that is what the church is there for. This was presented under the idea of the law of consecration and bringing everything to the storehouse and all.

I don't know if I can fully fight against this argument despite my desire for self-reliant living, but again, it all got me thinking. Which side are we supposed to be leaning toward? Provident, self-reliant living, or giving to the church and relying upon it? 

I think provident, self-reliant living, and giving to the Church and relying upon "it" (more accurately, the Lord) are aspects of abiding in the companionship of the Holy Ghost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking as a former branch finance clerk?

Under the old system, it was possible for someone to be flagged as being "exempt" from the requirement to tithe. 

I never had to put it through to make someone exempt, but the tithing settlement reporting window for the MLS computer software the church was using back then had that as one of the four options (full, partial, non, exempt). 

So... it's entirely possible that this could be a moot point here...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, mirkwood said:

From a talk I recently gave.  I address the Law of Consecration, quoting directly from the church website.  People really have a poor understanding of what the LOC is and is not.

 

There are some members who believe when hard times arrive we will all pool our food and everyone will have enough.  They somehow believe that a miracle like the fishes and loaves will occur for them, or they think the Law of Consecration will take care of everyone. 

 

Let me read to you Doctrine and Covenants, section 130: verses 20-21:

 

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—

21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

 

If we fail to obey a principle of the gospel, we cannot receive the blessings for another’s faithfulness.  Faith without works is dead.  If you do not have the faith to follow the consistent counsel from the prophets and apostles to put up some food storage and other essentials for your family, how can you believe you will have faith equal to the fishes and loaves miracle?

 

For those who smugly think that the Law of Consecration will protect them, allow me to point out certain principles associated with the doctrine.  Under the Law of Consecration all things are deeded to the church.  The agent bishop than returns a stewardship back to you based on your needs and circumstances.  That stewardship becomes private property for the steward and his family.  It is not communal property.  If there is a surplus from that stewardship, it would then go to the bishop’s storehouse to care for the poor and needy.  To be clear, under this law, a year supply of food for one family, is not a year supply for everyone else to tap into.  If there was any surplus, it would be available through the bishop’s storehouse.

 

That's not how it worked in New Testament times.

That's not how it worked under Joseph Smith's Presidency.

That's not how Brigham Young ran it.

Why do you think the Church would do it differently than it ever did before.

They NEVER ceded property to be a member's private property.  That's not how it worked.  If you left the church you did NOT get to keep that property.

This was a factor of GREAT contention during Joseph Smith's time (and many of the apostates who left over this exact matter were some of the mob leaders who later martyred him).

This was found out to be absolutely NOT true under Brigham Young, much to the regret of some who decided to leave the church.

Whatever was the church's property REMAINED the Church's property.  The only incident of question regarding this was pertaining to Brigham Young and what was his and what was the Church's property upon his death. 

You were given what you needed (food obviously was not returned, but property was NOT yours it was the church's property, you were simply the caretaker of it temporarily).  This was many times FAR LESS than what people THOUGHT they needed.  The best comparison is that it was one of the only successful run communal or communistic governments (even if religious) ever ran.

I think if the church actually RAN it how it was run in Brigham Young's day, there would be a GREAT DEAL of apostasy from many very conservative Saints who think exactly as you do above. 

They would find out they do NOT OWN anything once given to the Church and are NOT GIVEN anything to OWN as their OWN property.  They are given STEWARDSHIP of that property, but the titles and all else remain the property sole of the Prophet or the Church.  To make matters worse, many well off and those in the middle class would probably feel as if they had their property stolen (much like some did during Joseph Smith's time.  It wasn't as big a factor during Brigham Young's time as most didn't have much to begin with when they arrived in Utah or when they set up the settlements, so communal property owned and administered by the Church made a LOT MORE sense from a survival viewpoint) when they get a LOT LESS to be stewards over than they feel they deserve.

What is given to the church is the church's...or the Lords.  It is no longer ours and we should not expect to get it back as our property...because...if it is run anything like it was in the past...you are not going to get it.

At least it wasn't run as in Peter's time.  Those who withheld something or didn't like it but remained members in the church in his time seem to have met untimely deaths.  It could be FAR more strict than it was during Brigham Young's time.

A similar item, or lesser law, is followed by us today.  The Law of Tithing has the same principal.  Whatever you give to the Church is the Church's property.  They can do with it as they please.  Do NOT expect to get it or anything back from the church itself.  You do not pay tithing out of expectation of blessings or that you will have everything turn out excellent.  You pay it because it is a commandment.  The Lord will probably bless you, but that is NOT why you actually pay tithing.  You pay it because it is a commandment.  The Church OWNS that once you give it to them.

The same applies to the Law of Consecration. 

Under the law of consecration, anyone who expects that they will have their own private property back will probably be greatly surprised unless they are among the very poor (and even then, it is not theirs, it is still the church's, they are given stewardship over it, but it is NOT their property).  If we spread the property out from those in North America to those in South America, Africa, and some parts of Asia...a far greater amount will be given to those in other nations than left in the United States.  It may turn out similar to how tithing funds are used today (a ward in North America may end up donating a million dollars in tithing funds a year...but they are probably only going to get a few thousand as a budget back...and that is for the Church expenditures normally...helping the needy comes from a different fund typically).  Those in North America may only get a fraction of what they are expecting.  They will probably get enough to get them by...but it's not going to be something they are used to most likely.  Unless they remember that once something is given to the Lord it is no longer theirs, and are happy with whatever the Lord blesses with them back...there may be great anguish and grief if we ever were called to actually LIVE the Law of Consecration again. 

Under the Law we give all we have to the Church (and that isn't just monetary or physical property, it is also composed of time and effort).  It is then that the Lord will grant us what he will, not what we think we need or demand. 

 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Ironhold said:

Speaking as a former branch finance clerk?

Under the old system, it was possible for someone to be flagged as being "exempt" from the requirement to tithe. 

I never had to put it through to make someone exempt, but the tithing settlement reporting window for the MLS computer software the church was using back then had that as one of the four options (full, partial, non, exempt). 

So... it's entirely possible that this could be a moot point here...

I believe in theory there are a few church positions that are exempt and that's what it is for.  Apostles and the first Quorum of the Seventy I think are actually exempt from having to tithe on their allowances and such.  The same would apply to Mission President reimbursement and such.  For those who that is their only means, they would in theory be exempt.  The same would also apply to Missionaries and their allowances I think.

There is no need to actually ask a Missionary if they are a full tithe payer (I would assume, I have never been a Mission President myself, but I don't think that would probably come up in the temple recommend interviews with them...though I could be highly mistaken). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JohnsonJones  I believe the first five verses of D&C 51 specify that people would receive their stewardship by legal deed, which would remain their property even if they left the Church.

As to @Backroads’s OP:  I get the willies whenever anyone says “that’s what it’s there for”, because in my experience it usually (not always, but usually) coincides with a certain sense of entitlement; and consecration—whether implemented through tithing or through the United Order—is all about giving, not receiving.

The Church doesn’t “owe” me church welfare just because I am a full tithepayer; and it seems to me that the Church’s teachings on tithing have consistently been that if you pay your tithing first no matter what, the blessings will come and you’ll get by somehow.  (That’s what I’ve found to have been true as I’ve personally applied that principle.)  Church welfare may or may not thereafter be a part of that “getting by” process.  Either way, irrespective of tithepayer status—I look at Church welfare as a last resort; but once all other avenues are exhausted I feel no shame in asking for it.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone serving the church full-time is exempt from paying tithing...because you are already giving your all. This includes the general authorities, mission presidents, and missionaries.

When choosing to enter the United Order, the right to personal property was retained. The church did not own everything. If they did, that would be socialism, and that practice is contrary to the Father's plan. It should also be noted that the Law of Consecration and the United Order are not the same thing.

The ultimate goal is to be self sufficient. The church would not be able to assist in caring for the poor and needy if it's members weren't largely taking care of themselves already. We are responsible for our own welfare, largely by living providently. But when assistance is required, we should first seek help from family, then from community/government programs, then the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

@JohnsonJones  I believe the first five verses of D&C 51 specify that people would receive their stewardship by legal deed, which would remain their property even if they left the Church.

As to @Backroads’s OP:  I get the willies whenever anyone says “that’s what it’s there for”, because in my experience it usually (not always, but usually) coincides with a certain sense of entitlement; and consecration—whether implemented through tithing or through the United Order—is all about giving, not receiving.

The Church doesn’t “owe” me church welfare just because I am a full tithepayer; and it seems to me that the Church’s teachings on tithing have consistently been that if you pay your tithing first no matter what, the blessings will come and you’ll get by somehow.  (That’s what I’ve found to have been true as I’ve personally applied that principle.)  Church welfare may or may not thereafter be a part of that “getting by” process.  Either way, irrespective of tithepayer status—I look at Church welfare as a last resort; but once all other avenues are exhausted I feel no shame in asking for it.

[For those who TLDR... I have a much shorter TLDR at the bottom].

 

It's an interesting verse.  From my readings in Church History that's how it worked, but NOT how many here think it worked.

The Church in many instances retained title.  Members were given a paper based upon their worthiness.  As LONG AS THEY REMAINED FAITHFUL the property was theirs for stewardship and an inheritance.  It could and WAS taken away when members apostatized.  Exceptions were given for wives and children left behind or widows.  One is a title for legal property.  The other is a document given by the Church that could spell out when and how that individual would be allowed to use or keep the property.

A man would give his property to the church and it became the church's.  The Church then retained that property, but there would be items that the family would be able to retain (for example, food, clothing, etc).  Hard Property normally was kept by the church, especially in certain areas. 

This was an even harder rule under Brigham Young.  His ideal was Orderville in which property (such as land) was all deeded to the community and none held by the individual, though personal property such as personal effect WERE deeded to individuals. 

If we look at how the church runs the United Order, or it's parallels today, we can see how the Law of Consecration probably would be run.  There are two methods or groups in this.

The first is not the Law of Consecration, but a much lesser law, that of tithing.  Today, much of the tithing funds come from North America, with Europe and Australia normally also having wards give tithing funds in excess of what they receive.  In return, the Ward will get a lot less (it is not unusual for a Ward to be giving tens of thousands of dollars a month, sometimes over a hundred thousand in some wards. wards that donate this much tithing do not get anywhere close to this much back as their budgets).  The funds they get back ARE theirs to do with as they want.  This is their stewardship. 

The tithing funds are used to help all of the church, not just the richer wards of North America. 

In a like manner we have those under the auspices of the Church (the one most can relate to are Missionaries) who live under a modified law of Consecration and United Order type of support.  Missionaries are allocated funds each month in regards to how much it is expected they can live off of and survive.  They are given enough for their needs.  They are also given a place to live and sometimes a vehicle.  They are supposed to be good stewards of this property.  Missionaries VERY RARELY are given the title or deed to the vehicle or property.  They normally do not even have a deed for the furniture.   They ARE allowed to keep what they purchase with the money (though in some missions it is requested that if the missionary has excess money at the mission, that the missionary also returns that money). 

IF you are deeded property with a title, as per the scripture, you may keep that property.  In general though, the title was the church's and thus if you became unworthy or separated from the Church, the church did NOT lose that money or property. 

[SIDETRACK of Mine] This was even a thorn in Brigham Young's side (who, if we listened to could have had some interesting impacts on the dynamics of Utah today) who said to the effect that property (land) should NEVER leave the church or the church's membership.  That if they sold the land to those who were not part of the church, or it was given or taken by those who were not part of the church, great sin and apostasy would afflict the saints at later times. 

If we visit Utah today it has many of the same sins found in the rest of the US in abundance there as well.  I would say Brigham Young was prophesying correctly what would happen.  Of course, a lot of the economic bounty that has come from non-members being a part of the Utah economy would not be possible if the Saints had followed what Young had said as well...interesting to wonder what Utah would be like in that instance.  [ END OF SIDETRACK]

Anyways, it didn't work as people in the thread seem to want to interpret it  in how it worked.  Yes, people got deeds, but it was NOT necessarily deeds to titles and such.  Sometimes they did, many did not. 

The problem comes in is the first part which is where one is commanded to consecrate their property to the Church.  This would be ALL their property...not just some.  This property is NOW the Church's, and as per the prior verses, the property thus consecrated REMAINS with the Church.  There were some that felt that the property they were given stewardship over should remain theirs and argued it WAS theirs after this.  When they were told that some of the land they had would then go to other Saints that were arriving, bitter feelings arose (a great deal of bitter feelings, especially from those who tended to have a lot more of that land they tended to before others arrived). 

Section 42 Addresses this rather clearly, and as it is written precedent prior to the next sections, it would be the one that is read first... as it says..

 

Quote

32 And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.

The problem arises if he has title from the government for this land (rather than the church having the title) instead of it being granted to him to merely be a steward at the whims of the church the next verse becomes unenforceable under Church law.

Quote

33 And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.

The church had to be able to force them to give up the extra land, which, without legal title, they would not be able to do...no matter how righteous or unrighteous that individual was.

You see this same wording in Section 51.

Quote

4 And let my servant Edward Partridge, when he shall appoint a man his portion, give unto him a writing that shall secure unto him his portion, that he shall hold it, even this right and this inheritance in the church, until he transgresses and is not accounted worthy by the voice of the church, according to the laws and covenants of the church, to belong to the church.

This specifies that yes, it is his right an inheritance, UNTIL he transgresses. 

What then does he get to keep?

His appointed portion, of which he has lost his stewardship if he is not worthy of it...OR something else. 

Well, that's where it gets tricky and depends on who is interpreting it.

Quote

And if he shall transgress and is not accounted worthy to belong to the church, he shall not have power to claim that portion which he has consecrated unto the bishop for the poor and needy of my church; therefore, he shall not retain the gift, but shall only have claim on that portion that is deeded unto him

Which comes to the question, what part was consecrated...Why ALL of it.  It was ALL given to the Church at first...at least land and such.

BUT...food was not necessarily all given, neither was money or profit if it was just sufficient.  Excess profit and food were supposed to be donated, but they all were supposed to have sufficient for their needs. 

Under Brigham in many instances, such apostates would be tossed off the land and out of the community.  If they refused, well, normally bad things followed those who refused this. 

Section 83 makes allowances though and in theory they were supposed to be allowed to remain on the lands "of their inheritance" as it were.  If you were a man, this normally did not happen.  If you were a widow or a single mother, it COULD HAPPEN.

A good way to see it in action today would be to look at the FLDS branches of the church.  If someone apostatizes, if they have enough power in the church they may be able to retain ownership of the property they supposedly have stewardship over.  Normally though, the CHURCH (FLDS or other fundamentalist groups in this instance, not the true church) will retain control over that property and the apostate kicked off and out.    They probably don't live the true law of consecration, but they probably have a better handle on how it works than many of the Saints today in our church.  It is probably a lot closer to how it would work if enacted today then what many imagine it would work like. 

 

The TLDR

Thus, there WOULD be some who actually have deeds which specify you have property, but most of the members would not have these titles.  They MIGHT have documents which bless them with stewardship over property to be theirs as an inheritance (as long as they are faithful, similar to other promises one may make where they are given blessings as long as they are faithful), but if they leave the church in apostasy...that paper will be of little effect against the power of the Church and the actual title that they would hold in general.

The way it actually worked in the past, the way we see the lesser law of tithing and the modified version of it today (missionaries, tithing), as well as the way we see groups which branched off from the church but still try to practice it to a degree,  show that in practice it works a LOT differently than what many think it would.

PS: I should add, that if a Missionary saves enough money to BUY A HOUSE OR LAND than they would indeed be able to keep that house if they purchased it with their missionary allowance (highly doubtful they would ever have that much).  In that light, YES, they could keep that property.  Ideally, under the law of consecration though, if someone was saving that much money they would be donating it back to the Bishop rather than buying property as it would be obvious they were receiving far beyond what they needed to suffice for their own needs.  The same principles apply to the Law of Consecration and the United Order...in theory. 

 

(Post Note:  I find that the idea of people having property like they do today is more from those who desire to retain the property they have and place value on it.  You talk to those who are in poverty in South America or Africa and their take on the matter is far different...interestingly enough.  Those in the States tend to think of it more of a matter of keeping what is theirs and that they will be able to keep and control their property like they do today, while those from poorer nations seem to have more of an idea of a group sharing of things and everyone being more equal in most ways...just some interesting differences I've seen and read).

Edited by JohnsonJones
clarity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a true Zion setting where the participants are indeed the pure in heart I think who retains legal title is irrelevant. There would be the general recognition that all things belong to the Lord and we are only stewards so the idea of legal title would revolve mainly around whatever best satisfies the then current government regulations. 

D&C 51:6 And thus all things shall be made sure, according to the laws of the land.

But because we have not really had true Zion conditions under which to establish the United Order I think the idea of private property has become a bigger issue, especially in the wake of communism that was on the rise in the 1900's. 

Though there were instances, like I think Orderville, where private property really didn't exist but that was just one of various forms of the United Order that existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Where are you getting this from?

Just personal experience. Missionaries don't pay tithing...what you get in your monthly allowance is yours to spend as you wish. Same goes for mission presidents. They don't have any increase while serving, just a monthly living stipend from church headquarters, and they aren't expected to pay back 10% of it. General authorities work full-time for the church until their release, and receive living stipends as well. This does not include area seventies however, many of whom are still actively employed while also serving in their callings.

However, it depends on where the money comes from - all of this only includes what reimbursement they receive from the church. If I was a mission president or general authority for example, and continued to earn interest in my retirement plan, I would choose to pay tithing on that when I withdrew the funds to my bank account. I would be surprised if the brethren don't also do this. If my wife had a hobby making and selling items on a website like Etsy, we would pay tithing on that income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, scottyg said:

Just personal experience. Missionaries don't pay tithing...what you get in your monthly allowance is yours to spend as you wish. Same goes for mission presidents. They don't have any increase while serving, just a monthly living stipend from church headquarters, and they aren't expected to pay back 10% of it. General authorities work full-time for the church until their release, and receive living stipends as well. This does not include area seventies however, many of whom are still actively employed while also serving in their callings.

However, it depends on where the money comes from - all of this only includes what reimbursement they receive from the church. If I was a mission president or general authority for example, and continued to earn interest in my retirement plan, I would choose to pay tithing on that when I withdrew the funds to my bank account. I would be surprised if the brethren don't also do this. If my wife had a hobby making and selling items on a website like Etsy, we would pay tithing on that income.

I get what you're saying.  But you're missing a lot.  Even if you're a GA and have the stipend to pay for expenses while engaged in the work of the Lord, you probably still have investments from before you became a GA.  Those investments grow, and if you withdraw profits from such investments, you need to pay tithing on your increase.  This is required even if you're a GA or a missionary.

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