Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
1.) “The celestial law requires one-tenth part of all a man’s substance which he possesses at the time he comes into the church (See D&C 119:1), and one-tenth part of his annual increase ever after(See D&C 119:4). IF IT REQUIRES ALL MAN CAN EARN TO SUPPORT HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY, HE IS NOT TITHED AT ALL. The celestial law does not take the mother’s and children’s bread, neither ought else which they really need for their comfort. The poor that have not of this world’s good to spare, but serve and honor God according to the best of their abilities in every other way, shall have a celestial crown in the Eternal Kingdom of our Father.” (The Millenial Star, 1847. Orson Hyde, editor) – quotes comes post end of consecration and after law of tithing is revealed 2.) section 119 refers to surplus
3.) Encyclopedia of Mormonism on tithing as it refers to section 119 as the Lord’s new law of tithing and not consecration and speaks directly of surplus.
4.) JST of Genesis 14 – “Wherefore Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need.” JST Genesis 14:39. (Emphasis added.)
5.) The actual words Lorenzo Snow used when he went to St. George to deliver his address on tithing – (“Gen Conf. 1899) “I pray that every man, woman, and child [who has means] shall pay one tenth of their income astithing.” – When net or gross are used everyone has means with almost no exception
6.) The church’s Doctrine – “For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that we have uniformly replied that the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself that the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their interest annually, which is understood to mean income.No one is justified in making any other statement than this. We feel that every member of the Church should be entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord, and to make payment accordingly.”
– while not supporting surplus as the right conclusion it certainly doesn’t exclude it. It also begs the question why the Church officially chooses not to define tithing beyond this if Surplus is a pernicious lie.
7.) the handbook – “The simplest statement we know of is the statement of the Lord himself, namely, that the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all theirinterest annually,’ which is understood to mean income. No one is justified in making any other statement than this.” (First Presidency letter, 19 Mar. 1970;see also D&C 119:4)
same as number 6
8.) “The Lord’s Tenth, Pamphlet, 1968”
THE TITHE AS A RENTAL
As the matter presents itself to my mind, it is as though there had been a
contract made between myself and the Lord, and that in effect He had said to me: “You have need of many things in this world — food, clothing, and shelter for your family and yourself, the common comforts of life, and the things that shall be conducive to refinement, to development, to righteous enjoyment. You desire material possessions to use for the assistance of others, and thereby gain greater blessings for yourself and yours. Now, you shall have the means of acquiring these things; but remember they are mine, and I require of you the payment of a rental upon that which I give into your hands. However, your life will not be one of uniform increase in substance and possessions; you will have your losses, as well as your gains; you will have your periods of trouble as
well as your times of peace. Some years, will be years of plenty unto you, and others will be years of scarcity, And, now, instead of doing as mortal landlords do — require you to contract with them to pay in advance, whatever your fortunes or your prospects may be — you shall pay me not in advance, but when you have received; and you shall pay me in accordance with what you receive. If it so be that in one year your income is abundant, then you can afford to pay me a little more; and if it be so that the next year is one of distress and your income is not what it was, then you shall pay me less; and should it be that you are reduced to the utmost penury so that/you have nothing coming in, you will pay me nothing.”
Talmadge can be seen as defending all three and while some may see Gross as the conclusion here I post it anyway as there are phrases used that seem to indicate other options such as net or surplus as well as Talmadge first speaks of one’s needs and then speaks of not paying in advance but only once one knows whether one has an abundance or a scarcity. (which contradicts some modern leaders)
I admit #8 is the weakest of the quotes but share it here for others to read
9.) “In more recent times the Church has not called upon the members to give all their SURPLUS property to the Church, but it has been the requirement according to the covenant, that they PAY THE TENTH.” (Emphases added. Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 4 vols. [Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1946-1949], 3: 120.). Without adding tenth of Gross, any person listening to this originally or reading it is left to assume tenth of one’s surplus. (the original law was to give one tenth of one’s surplus properties and then a tenth of one’s surplus ever after… it seems most reasonable that as the Church got into better financial shape it simply removed the first part of one’s surplus properties when one entered and members were now only required to pay the tenth (which was surplus based on D&C 119
10.) Heb 7:4 – “Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils.”
11.) the 1970 FP letter. It is a bit of a sleight of hand. The Lord never mentions the word “income” in the revelation(119), but only surplus and interest. “Income” is mans addition. The FP letter should read, “For your guidance in this matter, please be advised that we have uniformly replied that the simplest statement we know of is that statement of the Lord himself that the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their interest annually, which is understood by us without any formal revelation as income.
12.) In discussing consecration, the Lord defines surplus as giving “more then is necessary for their support” (D&C 42:33). This was always curious to me. If tithing is a lesser law, why does it demand more of your money (if using the gross or net model) than does consecration (surplus). It seems like if consecration is the goal, surplus, and tithing is a lesser law, tithing should be 10% of surplus, not gross or net, which could be much more than a persons surplus.
13.) There is also the famous three words removed from the Lorenzo Snow quote in the church manual, “who has means”
“I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child … shall pay one-tenth of their income as a tithing.”
14.) In a Letter from Heber C. Kimball to his wife Vilate and subsequently reprinted in Elders’ Journal (Oct 1837) pp.4-7 detailing the early work and organisation of the church in the Lanchashire area, 1837:
Preston, Lancashire, England, September 2, 1837
My Dear Companion [Vilate Kimball],
“….We have to live quite short but the brethren are very kind to us. They are willing to divide with us the last they have. They are quite ignorant; many of them cannot read a word and it needs great care to teach them the gospel so that they can understand. The people here are bound down under priestcraft in a manner I never saw before. They have to pay tithes to the priests of every tenth they raise, so that they cannot lay up one cent. They are in the same situation the children of Israel were in Egypt. They have their taskmasters over them to bind them down. It will be as great a miracle to deliver this people as it was the children of Israel.
There are a great many believing in Preston; we are baptizing almost every day.”
Heber is suggesting those priests who are skimming off the top are practicing priestcraft.
15.) In “A Companion to your Study of the Doctrine & Covenants” written by Ludlow, 1978, in the section marked 119 you will read the following:
“I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop” Let us consider for a moment this word ‘SURPLUS.’ What does it mean when applied to a man and his property?
SURPLUS CANNOT MEAN THAT WHICH IS INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY FOR ANY GIVEN PURPOSE, BUT WHAT REMAINS AFTER SUPPLYING WHAT IS NEEDED FOR THAT PURPOSE. Is not the first and most necessary use of a man’s property that he feed, clothe and provide a home for himself and family! . . . WAS NOT ‘SURPLUS PROPERTY,’ THAT WHICH WAS OVER AND ABOVE A COMFORTABLE AND NECESSARY SUBSTANCE?
In the light of what had transpired and of subsequent events, what else could it mean? CAN WE TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF IT WHEN WE CONSIDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT WAS GIVEN IN FAR WEST, IN JULY, 1838? “I have been unable in studying this subject to find any other definition of the term ‘SURPLUS,’ as used in this revelation, than the one I have just given. I find that it was so understood and recorded by the Bishops and people in those days, AS WELL AS BY THE PROPHET JOSEPH HIMSELF, WHO WAS UNQUESTIONABLY THE ABLEST AND BEST EXPONENT OF THIS REVELATION.”
(Emphasis added, Franklin D. Richards, Nov. 6, 1882. JD 23:313.)
16.) President David O. McKay has this explanation of D&C 119:
The law of tithing as now understood and practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was given by revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith in response to a prayer in which the Prophet sought the Lord to know “how much he required of the properties of the people for a tithing.” The Lord answered saying, the “beginning” of tithing consisted first of “all the surplus property,” and named the specific purposes for which this “surplus property” should be used. “After that” tithing consists “of one-tenth of all the interest annually; and this,” he continued, “shall be a standing law unto them forever.” (See D. & C. 119.)
reference should actually be “David O. McKay, Gospel Ideals, p.197.”
17.) “If a man is worth a $1000, the interest on that would be $60, and one/10. of the interest will be of course $6.— thus you see the plan.” Bishop Partridge
18.) Howard W. Hunter
Burton, ed., We Believe, Tithing
The law is simply stated as “one-tenth of all their interest.” Interest means profit, compensation, increase. It is the wage of one employed, the profit from the operation of a business, the increase of one who grows or produces, or the income to a person from any other source. The Lord said it is a standing law “forever” as has been in the past. CR1964Apr:35
Love them where they are and pray they do the same. – you have a right to hold your truth. whether they respect you or not it is yours and you have a right to that ground.
flameburns623 wrote:Do you have permission for the article? I believe the original was done by a Sorensen?
He emailed me and said I did as long as I added an attribution which I didI can provide the email if needed
Roy wrote:The document has the following at the bottom.
Quote:Adapted from an original handout written by C.J. Sorenson of the Richmond 2nd Ward
I am assuming that “leaked” is not the best term for this. I am guessing that it was handed out in church (possibly in just a single ward) and then someone posted it to the internet. I also assume that it was DB that made the revisions.
DB, Please correct me if I am off base on any of this.
It was leaked in the sense that a person in the ward released it before the author wanted it public. He has said there were yet revisions to be madeFaithfulSkeptic wrote:This is interesting. I saw an earlier version of this handout and didn’t care for it much. Below is the version I saw:
I’ll admit, I read through it quickly at first, but I didn’t like it very much. For example, under Sources, it used to say:
Quote:Sources— Carefully consider where the information being presented is coming from. Who is the author/speaker and what is their relationship to the Church? Where are they getting their information? Be cautious of “wolves in sheep’s clothing”, who profess to be committed to Mormonism or to have a desire to help Church members, but in actuality have an agenda that detracts from the faith in Jesus Christ and the restored gospel (Matt 7:15). This was changed significantly in the version DB posted:
Quote:SOURCES – Carefully consider the information you are reading. Many sources are witness accounts written years later and may be affected by one’s memory. Also, some details are only found in one source which should give us pause. People on both sides may find certain sources to be untrustworthy due to the bias of the person writing or collecting the information, and so we should spend time studying to know which sources are reliable. In the end, one should not deem all non-Mormon sources as false, nor should one see all “believing” sources as having the best answers. Instead, facts and critical analysis should be weighed by their merit and the strength of their argument, and should be balanced by prayer and spiritual study with an eye single to the glory of God.
At first, I thought I was reading a new document and couldn’t figure out why I liked this one so much better. I actually think there is a lot to like in this “adapted” handout. The main points are the same, but I like the explanations much better.
Here’s another one that I particularly like (emphasis added):
Quote:4.) STAY GROUNDED IN CHRIST AND COVENANTS: Ultimately the Gospel is about our relationship with the Savior, and it is the Church’s responsibility to point us to Christ.
The Church being constituted of flawed members is flawed itself. One of the assumptions that must change is a view that the Church is perfect, or near it. The Church is flawed and at times deeply.This is because we are imperfect and we are the body of Christ. Consider for a moment that by the Church being deeply flawed, it actually does its job and points us to Christ. The imperfect Church inspires us to let go of it as our foundation and instead build upon Christ. It essentially says, “I will let you down, I may hurt you, and I will certainly disappoint you. I am not the Rock. Christ is the Rock. Look past me to Him. I am simply here to show the way, which is Christ.” Whoever made these changes to the original (DB?), Thank you! A big improvement to the original version.
I am the author of the 2nd and not the first. You are right it is a very different document.
amateurparent wrote:This is the sort of article that got Alan Rock Waterman ex’d.
except Rock said the Church was wrong and I argue that they are right. Rock went to great length to say that Surplus is the right method and the Church was wrong for imposing otherwise. Instead I argue that surplus is one viable option and that The Church is right to protect members right to decide for themselves. to me it is apples and oranges
Minyan Man wrote:I admire anyone that can discuss his position on this topic without getting emotional or angry.
And, you did a great job. I don’t envy your position. I’m not sure what I’m going to do yet.
I like your conclusion about
Quote:being open to further light & knowledge
That is where I’m currently at. I don’t expect it to come anytime soon.The example of the member in your ward who said that he was glad for the church leadership that tells him what to think is classic.
I see similar examples in my ward.
My only question is: how has your family reacted to your position?
I wish you the very best. Keep us informed.
As a convert I don’t have to worry about my own parents they don’t care one way or the other and probably if they had to care they would be happier if I was out. My in-laws on the other hand are not happy with the situation and are not saying a whole lot to me but what little they are saying implies that I have been deceived and am on a slippery slope to apostasy. As far as my wife and kids, I think all of them were TBM until this policy change and now our whole family seems to realize that this is contrary to the gospel .
I actually find this “3rd alternative” less credible but as you point out it needs to have a seat at the table for those who are prone to be helped by it worry or not I am plowing forward. At the local level this is subtle and not taking over any meeting, It simply is a chance for people to observe a difference that might strike conversation and open a few minds. DarkJedi wrote:I don’t see anything wrong with wearing a cross as a profession of belief, just as I don’t see anything wrong with wearing temple garments or CTR rings. I do have a question, though. While I would (and have considered) wear a cross on a chain with my everyday dress, on Sunday it would end up under my shirt and tie. I’m not especially a fashion bug, but wearing the cross outside that attire just doesn’t look right to me. Is there a way men are going to do this that doesn’t look goofy? (And please understand this is a serious question.)
(I have realized writing this that I could purchase a cross or crucifix pin, although in the summer I don’t generally wear a suit/jacket either.)
Tie Tack, collar lapel, cufflinks
In the Church there are exist cultural rules and teachings that have no basis in real truth, theology, or Doctrine. One of these is negative feeling of the symbol of the Cross. While Mormons in early Church history wore and celebrated the cross, somewhere something changed. Leaders along the way removed the symbol of the cross as a way to distance us from other faiths. Today we realize this is a cultural taboo and lacks any real Doctrinal or theological backing. Even the Church realizes this as the new LDS temple in Rome is supposed to have a Cross on its front door based on the blueprints. So in order to help us all begin opening up to new discussion of truth and letting go of bad assumptions and helping our wards and stake focus more on Christ and his atonement we are announcing a “Wear Your Cross to Church” day on Sunday August 16th. You can hear my interview with Michael Reed by clicking it in the links. You also can order your own cross in the links below. If you are unable to find a Cross Mormon Discussion and its sponsor Family Pawn will send you a free Cross lapel. Just send me a self addressed envelope to
Mormon Discussion Podcast
1975 Dove Dr.
Santa Clara, Utah 84765
If any of you want to help fund the costs of this event please donate here
GBSmith wrote:I listened to the podcast and then checked out the link to the man and his wife that were excommunicated and I don’t think we have anything to worry about. The typical StayLDS type faith crisis, as I experienced, has nothing to do with what DHO was preaching about. It sounds like there’s a Denver Snuffer problem there and the brethren are trying to nip it in the bud. Doubt in the sense of polygamy, JS and accounts of the first vision, etc. doesn’t seem to be the issue but it’s if TSM is really a prophet why doesn’t he prophesy something. There’s a big difference between wondering if it’s really true and “God revealed to me it isn’t and I’m going to do something about it”. In summary I’d say to DBMormon that you’ve nothing to concern yourself with.
I hope!!!
