Provident living vs living the law of consecration and church welfare

[scottyg]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

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.

Agreed. I said that.

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.

 

[Vort]

8 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.

I would take issue with this. My oldest three sons have each served missions, and my youngest is currently preparing. Such preparation involves saving up about $15,000 or so. Believe you me, they paid tithing on every dollar. We send in whatever the "equalization" amount is, $400 per month or something (from the missionary's already-tithed bank account savings), then the Church sends our son whatever their local amount is. To call this money "untithed" is blatantly incorrect. They are receiving a portion of the money they pay in every month, and that money itself has already been tithed.

tl;dr Missionaries most certainly do pay tithing.

[Vort]

I believe the mistaken idea that missionaries don't pay tithing results from the incorrect view that missionaries are somehow paid by the Church for their service. This is completely untrue. Missionaries themselves, along with family, friends, and other donors, bear the expense of the costs of a mission. The Church serves in this capacity as a a clearinghouse and financial equalizer, sending less money to e.g. my son in lower-cost Brazil and more money to missionaries in e.g. higher-cost Italy.

Most non-Latter-day Saints assume that missionaries receive payment for their service. When talking to others about LDS missionaries, I try to be clear that this is not the case.

[JohnsonJones]

On 12/1/2022 at 9:31 AM, mirkwood said:

Again, search LOC on lds.org and start reading what the prophets and apostles and manuals teach:  once you have been deeded back your stewardship it is your private property.

 

I have.

I also have studied a lot of history.

However, I KNOW the conservatives of today would NOT like to understand it in the way it was practiced.  It goes against their very essence of political worship.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist nor a genius to understand.

The BIG difference between communism as practiced in the USSR and China is at the very core of why the Law of Consecration and the United Order are different.  It isn't about whether you have private ownership or property, as that is actually just about the same in both Communism and what is labeled as Religious Communism (with the early LDS groups as a primary example in some educational venues).  It isn't whether or not people are supposed to only be given what they need and not necessarily what they want.  It isn't that both are dramatically the opposite of capitalism.

What it IS is that one is directed by men and as such...flawed.  The other is directed by God, and thus just.   In both systems, private ownership really doesn't exist.  The only owner is the top dog.  In Communism that is the government, but in reality whoever it is directing that government (hence corrupted men in general).  In the Gospel, it is only God.  Those who would steal from God get the fate that we see Peter give out to those who decided that the "private property' was theirs to keep. 

However, people with money never want to see a true society where there are no rich or poor among them.  It is all about the money and possessions they have.  They NEED to feel they OWN something.

The Law of Consecration is merely a mirror to that of our mortal lives.  AS we sin, we have already lost ourselves.  We cannot save ourselves as we now belong to the adversary.  We have divorced ourselves from the Lord.  HOWEVER...the LORD HAS PAID THE PRICE.  If we are to be saved, the only way to be saved is to give ourselves to him and love him with all our heart, might, mind and soul.  We must hold nothing back and give everything to him, for whoever is willing to lose all they have for his sake will gain eternal life. 

The Lord never told the Rich man...go and sell all you have and then I'll give you a small part again in this life so that you have some private property.  That wasn't the deal.  It still isn't.  The deal was different.  It was give all you have and come follow me.  The Rich man couldn't abide by the terms.

The Law of Consecration are those terms.  If we think that we are going to retain private property and base our thoughts and belief on that, we have already missed the point of the Law of Consecration.  It is NOT just a physical state of being.  It deals with the very essence of Salvation and what we should be willing to do to attain it.  We can be called as stewards over the Lords church and the Lord's property, but when we start thinking that the Lord's property will be ours and that it is then OUR title and OUR property, we've missed the point, as well as what actually has happened in history and how it actually was performed.

The big thing about accepting the Law of Consecration is that you give without the expectation of ANYTHING in return except for your love of Jesus Christ.  Tithing is a smaller version of this.  You don't pay tithing because you will get something in return, though many feel you can receive blessings...it is NOT the reason you pay tithing.  If you pay tithing so that you are going to get something back like that, it sort of misses the point.  The reason you pay tithing is it is a commandment.  You obey the commandment because you love the Lord.

The same applies to the Law of Consecration.  You are not supposed to do it because you think that it operates with you getting some private property that you will get to keep, even if you apostasize and leave the church (Several of those who were excommunicated would have LOVED to keep the property 'deeded' to them in the manner you are describing, unfortunately for them it didn't work that way, or perhaps we should say...fortunately) or you have no matter what.  That property is given to the LORD (in theory, it was already his, you are just recognizing it formally) and is HIS.  You give the property because you wish to follow him out of love for him and a desire to devote yourself fully to him.  You do it with no expectation of returns, because you love the Lord and desire to follow him in a way the Rich young man could not.

However, I know this is something that most members in the United States would not agree with today.  100 years ago they probably would have, and 80 years ago that belief of theirs changed the entire landscape of America as they inspired a United States President and his government to create what many members today consider a socialistic program. 

It is possibly something that we will not agree upon here.  This is something has actually changed in my lifetime.  When I first joined the church what I have said was NOT unpopular nor was it unknown.  Today...a much different view and interpretation of the very same scriptures are being tossed around. 

Th

[JohnsonJones]

On 12/2/2022 at 5:55 PM, Vort said:

I would take issue with this. My oldest three sons have each served missions, and my youngest is currently preparing. Such preparation involves saving up about $15,000 or so. Believe you me, they paid tithing on every dollar. We send in whatever the "equalization" amount is, $400 per month or something (from the missionary's already-tithed bank account savings), then the Church sends our son whatever their local amount is. To call this money "untithed" is blatantly incorrect. They are receiving a portion of the money they pay in every month, and that money itself has already been tithed.

tl;dr Missionaries most certainly do pay tithing.

That's not tithing that a Missionary is paying.

The MEMBER who was NOT a missionary was paying on their increase.  They chose to put some (or all of it in some cases) of it or all of it into savings.

When they go on their mission they then follow a modified form of the Law of Consecration.  Someone (it's not necessarily always the missionary, in fact, there are many times someone else is actually helping to pay for the mission.  It is good that your sons paid for their missions, but this is not so in every case) pays the money for the missionary fund.

It is then distributed and utilized as per the NEEDS (or what is seen as sufficient to cover their needs) of those missionaries.  They are NOT receiving THEIR money back.  They are not getting the money they paid.  That money is gone.  Any money given for the missionary is the church's money.  The missionary is then receiving funds to help them pay for the necessities in life as needed.  That money is actually the LORD's money.  Not theirs.  The LORD's money.  This is why they don't pay tithing.  There is no need to pay tithing on the Lord's money.

In contrast to this.  A University professor at BYU is paid from the Church coffers.  This is initially the Lord's money, but is now given to the University professor as their increase.  That professor has also paid tithing and paid into the church coffers (perhaps the same coffers their paycheck comes from!).  However, this is no longer the Lord's money they have gotten.  It is their private funds and money.  Thus, they should pay tithing on it as per the Commandment. 

Now, if the missionary has money that is not the LORD's money they should pay tithing on it.  This would be money their parents send them if the parents do that, or money that the missionary may be earning from worldly sources. 

However, it is a mistake to think that the money the missionary is getting to help pay for their needs on their mission is actually the money that the missionary paid the church.  It is not. 

It USED to be that the missionaries funded their own missions.  Today, it is not.  IN fact, in many instances the missionary is getting MORE from the Lord than anything they paid (housing and other expenses including the monthly allowance are supplemented by the Church in many areas today from other funds outside and beyond the basic money paid by the missionaries in the field). 

For example, just living in SLC or the Provo areas today have an average Rent of 900 dollars for a one bedroom apartment (though some places say it runs more towards $1500 in SLC).  That does not include the car payment if they have a vehicle, or car insurance.  With that you can peg on another 200 to 300 dollars.  You add in another 135 dollars for each missionary and you have something like 1400 to 1500 dollars per missionary.  Missionaries do not pay that much into the missionary fund each month.  SLC and Provo areas are actually cheaper than many other metropolitan areas in the US or Europe. 

On 12/2/2022 at 6:18 PM, Vort said:

I believe the mistaken idea that missionaries don't pay tithing results from the incorrect view that missionaries are somehow paid by the Church for their service. This is completely untrue. Missionaries themselves, along with family, friends, and other donors, bear the expense of the costs of a mission. The Church serves in this capacity as a a clearinghouse and financial equalizer, sending less money to e.g. my son in lower-cost Brazil and more money to missionaries in e.g. higher-cost Italy.

Most non-Latter-day Saints assume that missionaries receive payment for their service. When talking to others about LDS missionaries, I try to be clear that this is not the case.

 

The view isn't that missionaries are being paid by the Church for their service...if they were they would also have to pay taxes.  I stated above that the understanding today is that they are using the Lord's funds to pay for their needs.  This is supposed to be sacred money that they are using to help them meet the necessities of life. 

Now, on something not really spoken outloud, but more of a personal idea on the matter...

It is a personal thought that I have that the missionary fund today doesn't cover the entirety of the missionary costs of the Church, that just like the Universities and CES system of the church, the mission program is heavily supplemented by other funds and investments from the Church itself today.  This is to help alleviate the difficulty of saving enough for a mission.  The money given to the Church to help pay for a mission is to help the missionary understand and have enough commitment to it to sacrifice time and effort in order to prepare themselves to serve even before they have gone on a mission, and to help the family also in a similar manner if the family are the ones helping pay these costs. 

Edited December 5, 2022 by JohnsonJones

[scottyg]

On 12/2/2022 at 5:55 PM, Vort said:

I would take issue with this. My oldest three sons have each served missions, and my youngest is currently preparing. Such preparation involves saving up about $15,000 or so. Believe you me, they paid tithing on every dollar. We send in whatever the "equalization" amount is, $400 per month or something (from the missionary's already-tithed bank account savings), then the Church sends our son whatever their local amount is. To call this money "untithed" is blatantly incorrect. They are receiving a portion of the money they pay in every month, and that money itself has already been tithed.

tl;dr Missionaries most certainly do pay tithing.

I never said the money used to fund their missions was untithed. Of course that money would be. I only said that missionaries themselves do not pay tithing while serving because they have no income. No slips are filled out by them, no tithing declaration is held with their mission president, etc... Anything they earned before their mission should have been tithed when they earned it, but they were not missionaries then. I understand what you are saying, but I am simply saying that during the 18 months - 2 years of service, they will not be paying anything. No one pays tithing unless they have an increase.

Regardless, the exempt status does not exist anymore. Bishops can only mark a member's tithing status as full, part, or none. 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, scottyg said:

I only said that missionaries themselves do not pay tithing while serving because they have no income.

Then we are in agreement.

[scottyg]

1 hour ago, Watcher said:

Just a note because I fell into that catagory while on my mission.  If a missionary has income because of investments there are two options.  Option one is to pay tithing on the investments during their mission when and how they wish.  Option two is to settle their tithing on investments when their mission is completed.  At least that was what I was advised over 55 years ago.

What percentage of young 19-20 year old's are going to be withdrawing from an investment account while on their mission? Methinks less than 0.1%, mostly because less than 0.1% are going to have one at that age. If I was a mission president, I would recommend them to not withdraw any funds from any account outside of what they are allotted by the church unless there is a real emergency. And even in that case, the church will cover real emergencies...the young elder or sister just needs to reach out to their leadership and explain the situation. Ultimately, we do our best to follow the spirit.

Senior missionaries on the other hand is a different story. I can see them pulling from retirement accounts often, in which case tithing would be expected.

[Still_Small_Voice]

On 11/30/2022 at 5:49 AM, JohnsonJones said:

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.

I 100% agree with this.  Opening the windows of heaven to have blessings poured out does not mean temporal blessings always.  The greatest gift is eternal life with Heavenly Father.  What greater gift can God give one of us?

However, in paying my tithing I have seen many times the LORD rebuke the devourer for my sake.  I believe I cannot afford to not pay my tithing.

[mordorbund]

For what it’s worth, missionaries who regularly review mission standards should know what to tithe on and what not to tithe.

Quote

You do not need to pay tithing on mission funds.
…

Tithing on personal funds received and any income from a business or investments at home should be paid with personal funds through your home ward or through online donations.

There was a similar statement in the old (white) missionary handbook.

[mirkwood]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

It is possibly something that we will not agree upon here. 

Nope, because you have an incorrect understanding of the LOC.  That is okay, if you are still alive when it is implemented again I believe you will still live it even though you misunderstood how it really functions.

[mordorbund]

@JohnsonJones A previous poster referred to the revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants to show that the early implementation for the Law of Consecration had the member voluntarily deed their property to the bishop as agent of the Church, who in turn deeded a "stewardship" back to the person. The Joseph Smith Papers editors note that the execution was limited in scope and duration. "Not all features of consecration were implemented, and many members of the church were never invited to practice consecration as outlined in the scriptures." I've searched for examples of these deeds either to the bishop or from the bishop and have turned up empty. The closest I can find is 1) general land transactions and 2) dissolving the United Firm. For 1) every Kirtland transaction and Missouri transaction I see involves the exchange of land for money. For 2) I haven't found the deeds, but Revelations in Context says Whitney's store stewardship was deeded to him after the Firm was dissolved. Is this what you were talking about with the deeds not actually being deeded? Or are you talking about something else?

As a historian, I would appreciate it if you would provide sources for your claims that Consecrated properties were communal and theocommunistic in practice.

[mrmarklin]

On 11/29/2022 at 12:59 PM, Backroads said:

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? 

I guess that if your tithing equates with a mortgage payment, you make plenty of $$$$.  What else is going on in your situation??