Mormonien tilit

MAP-kirkko on tilivelvollinen omille jäsenilleen niin kuin kaikki yhteisöt. Sehän tässä juuri puuttu. Korjaan asiavirheen: teidän kirkkonne johtaja ei ole Jeesus Kristus, vaan Gordon B. Hinckley.

Samoilta sivuilta näin, että kirkon "profeetta" ja muut "valitaan", kuten Neuvostoliitossa aikanaan. Kaikille paikoille on yksi ehdokas ja kaikki valitaan yksimielisesti.

Joti kirjoitti:

MAP-kirkko on tilivelvollinen omille jäsenilleen niin kuin kaikki yhteisöt. Sehän tässä juuri puuttu. Korjaan asiavirheen: teidän kirkkonne johtaja ei ole Jeesus Kristus, vaan Gordon B. Hinckley.

Samoilta sivuilta näin, että kirkon "profeetta" ja muut "valitaan", kuten Neuvostoliitossa aikanaan. Kaikille paikoille on yksi ehdokas ja kaikki valitaan yksimielisesti.

Hengen asioita ei voi ymmärtää kuin Hengen avulla.
turhaan arvostelet kun sinulla ei sitä Henkeä tunnu olevan. Mikä mättää siinä että kirkkomme pää on Jeesus Kristus joka johtaa kirkkoaan elävän profeettansa kautta??
Mikä sinä arvoisa nimimerkki Joti olet sitä muuksi muuttamaan tai edes sanomaan??
Mitä tarvetta sinulla siihen on??
Tilit ovat kunnossa ja yksikään johtajista ei saa palkkaa. Kaikki tilintarkastukset tehdään lain sääntöjen mukaan.

ja oikein kirjoitti:

Hengen asioita ei voi ymmärtää kuin Hengen avulla.
turhaan arvostelet kun sinulla ei sitä Henkeä tunnu olevan. Mikä mättää siinä että kirkkomme pää on Jeesus Kristus joka johtaa kirkkoaan elävän profeettansa kautta??
Mikä sinä arvoisa nimimerkki Joti olet sitä muuksi muuttamaan tai edes sanomaan??
Mitä tarvetta sinulla siihen on??
Tilit ovat kunnossa ja yksikään johtajista ei saa palkkaa. Kaikki tilintarkastukset tehdään lain sääntöjen mukaan.

Mutta kaikki heidän kulunsa katetaan. Mielestäni sitä voisi sanoa palkaksi.

ja oikein kirjoitti:

Hengen asioita ei voi ymmärtää kuin Hengen avulla.
turhaan arvostelet kun sinulla ei sitä Henkeä tunnu olevan. Mikä mättää siinä että kirkkomme pää on Jeesus Kristus joka johtaa kirkkoaan elävän profeettansa kautta??
Mikä sinä arvoisa nimimerkki Joti olet sitä muuksi muuttamaan tai edes sanomaan??
Mitä tarvetta sinulla siihen on??
Tilit ovat kunnossa ja yksikään johtajista ei saa palkkaa. Kaikki tilintarkastukset tehdään lain sääntöjen mukaan.

"Tilit ovat kunnossa ja yksikään johtajista ei saa palkkaa. Kaikki tilintarkastukset tehdään lain sääntöjen mukaan."

Kyse ei ole siitä, ovatko ne kunnossa vai eivät. Kyse on siitä, että jäsenistö ei voi sitä tietää, koska sille ei kerrota mitään.

Joti kirjoitti:

"Tilit ovat kunnossa ja yksikään johtajista ei saa palkkaa. Kaikki tilintarkastukset tehdään lain sääntöjen mukaan."

Kyse ei ole siitä, ovatko ne kunnossa vai eivät. Kyse on siitä, että jäsenistö ei voi sitä tietää, koska sille ei kerrota mitään.

"Kyse ei ole siitä, ovatko ne kunnossa vai eivät. Kyse on siitä, että jäsenistö ei voi sitä tietää, koska sille ei kerrota mitään."

Siis kerrotaanhan jäsenille että asiat on hoidetto oikein...

Jos taas haluat tietää että minne rahaa on käytetty tai mistä sitä on saatu, niin kysessä onm siis ihan eri asia kun että onko asiat hoidettu oikein vai ei.

Puhumme siis aidasta ja aidan seipääsä.

Sinä siis et ole kiinostunutkaan siitä onko asiat hoidettu oikein vai ei vaan että mistä sitä rahaa on tullut tai mihin sitä on käytetty.

zappax kirjoitti:

"Kyse ei ole siitä, ovatko ne kunnossa vai eivät. Kyse on siitä, että jäsenistö ei voi sitä tietää, koska sille ei kerrota mitään."

Siis kerrotaanhan jäsenille että asiat on hoidetto oikein...

Jos taas haluat tietää että minne rahaa on käytetty tai mistä sitä on saatu, niin kysessä onm siis ihan eri asia kun että onko asiat hoidettu oikein vai ei.

Puhumme siis aidasta ja aidan seipääsä.

Sinä siis et ole kiinostunutkaan siitä onko asiat hoidettu oikein vai ei vaan että mistä sitä rahaa on tullut tai mihin sitä on käytetty.

olisin kiinnostunut just tästä:
"Sinä siis et ole kiinostunutkaan siitä onko asiat hoidettu oikein vai ei vaan että mistä sitä rahaa on tullut tai mihin sitä on käytetty."
jos jäsen olisin. Pitäisin oikeutenani saada tietää paljonko on tullut, mistä on tullut ja minne ja kuinka paljon sijoitetaan. Mielestäni tieto olisi ehdottoman tärkeää. Vain aivopestyjä tömppöjä ei kiinnosta oman organisaationsa rahatalous, mihin kuitenkin lykkää 10€ vuotuisista tuloistaan.

ainakin kirjoitti:

olisin kiinnostunut just tästä:
"Sinä siis et ole kiinostunutkaan siitä onko asiat hoidettu oikein vai ei vaan että mistä sitä rahaa on tullut tai mihin sitä on käytetty."
jos jäsen olisin. Pitäisin oikeutenani saada tietää paljonko on tullut, mistä on tullut ja minne ja kuinka paljon sijoitetaan. Mielestäni tieto olisi ehdottoman tärkeää. Vain aivopestyjä tömppöjä ei kiinnosta oman organisaationsa rahatalous, mihin kuitenkin lykkää 10€ vuotuisista tuloistaan.

10 prosenttia % vuotuisista tuloistaan ; )

ainakin kirjoitti:

olisin kiinnostunut just tästä:
"Sinä siis et ole kiinostunutkaan siitä onko asiat hoidettu oikein vai ei vaan että mistä sitä rahaa on tullut tai mihin sitä on käytetty."
jos jäsen olisin. Pitäisin oikeutenani saada tietää paljonko on tullut, mistä on tullut ja minne ja kuinka paljon sijoitetaan. Mielestäni tieto olisi ehdottoman tärkeää. Vain aivopestyjä tömppöjä ei kiinnosta oman organisaationsa rahatalous, mihin kuitenkin lykkää 10€ vuotuisista tuloistaan.

joka vuosi, että lahjoituksemme on kirjattu oikein. Saamme väliraporttejakin.

Jäsenten kontrolli toimii niinkin, että voimme todeta, ettei kukaan johtajistamme elä ylellisyydessä kirkon kustannuksella. Sellainen pistäisi pian silmään. Paikallisella tasolla palkattomat tilintarkastajat tarkastavat ajoittain tilit.

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

joka vuosi, että lahjoituksemme on kirjattu oikein. Saamme väliraporttejakin.

Jäsenten kontrolli toimii niinkin, että voimme todeta, ettei kukaan johtajistamme elä ylellisyydessä kirkon kustannuksella. Sellainen pistäisi pian silmään. Paikallisella tasolla palkattomat tilintarkastajat tarkastavat ajoittain tilit.

mitään johtajia olekaan, tuskin edes tietävät mihin rahat seurakunnista matkaa. Ja että ihan saat väliraportin omista maksuistasi, puhut ilmeisesti kuitista? Varmaan Tapsa tajusit, että kyse on siitä mitä tehdään sillä rahavirralla, joka seurakunnista ympäri maailmaa kerätään. Kuinka paljon sitä kertyy ja minne ja mihin se käytetään, entä mitä kirkko omistaa, paljonko nämä sijoitukset tuottavat ja mihin voitto menee. Epäilenpä, että sinulla ei ole hajua mistään muusta kuin siitä kuinka paljon kahisevaa sinun lompakostasi lähtee "suureen tuntemattomaan"

pikkujohtajat kirjoitti:

mitään johtajia olekaan, tuskin edes tietävät mihin rahat seurakunnista matkaa. Ja että ihan saat väliraportin omista maksuistasi, puhut ilmeisesti kuitista? Varmaan Tapsa tajusit, että kyse on siitä mitä tehdään sillä rahavirralla, joka seurakunnista ympäri maailmaa kerätään. Kuinka paljon sitä kertyy ja minne ja mihin se käytetään, entä mitä kirkko omistaa, paljonko nämä sijoitukset tuottavat ja mihin voitto menee. Epäilenpä, että sinulla ei ole hajua mistään muusta kuin siitä kuinka paljon kahisevaa sinun lompakostasi lähtee "suureen tuntemattomaan"

mihin mm. kirkon varoja käytetään.
http://www.mormonit.fi/index.php?itemid=3
Vasemmalla olevia aiheiden otsikoja klikkaamalla saat tietoja.

Varojen käytön kohdentumisesta on muitakin jaotteluja.

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

mihin mm. kirkon varoja käytetään.
http://www.mormonit.fi/index.php?itemid=3
Vasemmalla olevia aiheiden otsikoja klikkaamalla saat tietoja.

Varojen käytön kohdentumisesta on muitakin jaotteluja.

mistä on kyse? Tilintarkastusraportista. Siitä, missä näkyy tulot ja menot; koko liikevaihto. Missä on linkki siihen?

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

joka vuosi, että lahjoituksemme on kirjattu oikein. Saamme väliraporttejakin.

Jäsenten kontrolli toimii niinkin, että voimme todeta, ettei kukaan johtajistamme elä ylellisyydessä kirkon kustannuksella. Sellainen pistäisi pian silmään. Paikallisella tasolla palkattomat tilintarkastajat tarkastavat ajoittain tilit.

"Jäsenten kontrolli toimii niinkin, että voimme todeta, ettei kukaan johtajistamme elä ylellisyydessä kirkon kustannuksella. Sellainen pistäisi pian silmään. Paikallisella tasolla palkattomat tilintarkastajat tarkastavat ajoittain tilit."

Oletko koskaan nähnyt oman seurakuntasi tilinpäätöstä? Tiedätkö, paljonko tulee ja paljonko menee?

Joti kirjoitti:

"Jäsenten kontrolli toimii niinkin, että voimme todeta, ettei kukaan johtajistamme elä ylellisyydessä kirkon kustannuksella. Sellainen pistäisi pian silmään. Paikallisella tasolla palkattomat tilintarkastajat tarkastavat ajoittain tilit."

Oletko koskaan nähnyt oman seurakuntasi tilinpäätöstä? Tiedätkö, paljonko tulee ja paljonko menee?

kun olin seurakunnan johtajana.

ainakin kirjoitti:

olisin kiinnostunut just tästä:
"Sinä siis et ole kiinostunutkaan siitä onko asiat hoidettu oikein vai ei vaan että mistä sitä rahaa on tullut tai mihin sitä on käytetty."
jos jäsen olisin. Pitäisin oikeutenani saada tietää paljonko on tullut, mistä on tullut ja minne ja kuinka paljon sijoitetaan. Mielestäni tieto olisi ehdottoman tärkeää. Vain aivopestyjä tömppöjä ei kiinnosta oman organisaationsa rahatalous, mihin kuitenkin lykkää 10€ vuotuisista tuloistaan.

Koska jotta voisit olla jäsenenä varma siitä että varoja ei väärinkäytetä, niin sinun tulisi nähdä kaikki tapahtumat yksityiskohtaisesti, eli mm. kaikkien niiden jäsenten saamat summat jotka saavat apua kirkolta --> salassa pitovelvollisuuden alaisuuteen kuuluva asia.

Eli ehdottomasti, koska et voi ko. tietoa saada, eli sinulla ei ole mahdollisutta tarkastaa tilejä tapahtumatasolla, niin et voi koskaan tietää onko varoja väärinkäyutetty, sitä varten siis on olemassa kirkon sisäinen tarkastus ja tilintarkastajat.

tajua kirjoitti:

mistä on kyse? Tilintarkastusraportista. Siitä, missä näkyy tulot ja menot; koko liikevaihto. Missä on linkki siihen?

tästä:

"Ei mitään selvitystä varojen määrästä, kertymisestä, omaisuudesta, ei ainuttakaan numeroa. Jäsenet antavat hyväksynnän varojen käyttämisestä, vaikka heille ei kerrota niistä mitään. Kuinka tällainen on mahdollista?"

Ja todettakoon että jenkeissä ei ole lainvastaista olla antamatta noita lukuja. Vai onko?

Joti kirjoitti:

"Jäsenten kontrolli toimii niinkin, että voimme todeta, ettei kukaan johtajistamme elä ylellisyydessä kirkon kustannuksella. Sellainen pistäisi pian silmään. Paikallisella tasolla palkattomat tilintarkastajat tarkastavat ajoittain tilit."

Oletko koskaan nähnyt oman seurakuntasi tilinpäätöstä? Tiedätkö, paljonko tulee ja paljonko menee?

"Oletko koskaan nähnyt oman seurakuntasi tilinpäätöstä? Tiedätkö, paljonko tulee ja paljonko menee?"

Siis erillisten seurakuntien tilinpäätöksiä ei tarvitse näyttää, niitä ei lienee ole olemassakaan, vaan seurakunnat ovat osa MAP-Kirkkoa Suomessa, jonka tilinpäätöstiedot ovat sitten julkisia tai eivät ole, laki määrää sen.

Ja tule katsomaan vaarnakonferenssiin jossa ko. tunnusluvut esitetään, samalla kun hyväksytään ne.

zappax kirjoitti:

Koska jotta voisit olla jäsenenä varma siitä että varoja ei väärinkäytetä, niin sinun tulisi nähdä kaikki tapahtumat yksityiskohtaisesti, eli mm. kaikkien niiden jäsenten saamat summat jotka saavat apua kirkolta --> salassa pitovelvollisuuden alaisuuteen kuuluva asia.

Eli ehdottomasti, koska et voi ko. tietoa saada, eli sinulla ei ole mahdollisutta tarkastaa tilejä tapahtumatasolla, niin et voi koskaan tietää onko varoja väärinkäyutetty, sitä varten siis on olemassa kirkon sisäinen tarkastus ja tilintarkastajat.

Riittää yhteistieto siitä, kuinka paljon jäsenille annetaan avustusta, ei jokaisen saamia erikseen.

Joti kirjoitti:

"Tilit ovat kunnossa ja yksikään johtajista ei saa palkkaa. Kaikki tilintarkastukset tehdään lain sääntöjen mukaan."

Kyse ei ole siitä, ovatko ne kunnossa vai eivät. Kyse on siitä, että jäsenistö ei voi sitä tietää, koska sille ei kerrota mitään.

se ydinasia. Uskotaan, että tilit ovat kunnolla hoidettu, useinmiten lienee ovatkin. Vahvasti uskottaessa ei tarvita numeroita.

Uskotaan, että papit ja talousjohtajat ovat puhtaita pulmusia. Aika ajoin usko romahtaa: kansanedustajapappi ahdistelee eduskunnan naisia, pappi lyö vaimoaan raamatulla, piispalla on salarakas.

Amerikkalainen Mormoonipappi opetti minulle hyödyllisen asian 1950-luvulla:englanninkielen.

Kaikki uskonnot ovat täsmälleen yhtä oikeassa ja yhtä hyviä...minusta.

Taas on aika auringon, uskon jälleen haaveisiin, en aaveisiin.

tietoja kirjoitti:

Riittää yhteistieto siitä, kuinka paljon jäsenille annetaan avustusta, ei jokaisen saamia erikseen.

Se taas ei auta yhtään siinä että onko noita varoja käytetty väärin vai ei.

Usko Ulkopuolinen kirjoitti:

se ydinasia. Uskotaan, että tilit ovat kunnolla hoidettu, useinmiten lienee ovatkin. Vahvasti uskottaessa ei tarvita numeroita.

Uskotaan, että papit ja talousjohtajat ovat puhtaita pulmusia. Aika ajoin usko romahtaa: kansanedustajapappi ahdistelee eduskunnan naisia, pappi lyö vaimoaan raamatulla, piispalla on salarakas.

Amerikkalainen Mormoonipappi opetti minulle hyödyllisen asian 1950-luvulla:englanninkielen.

Kaikki uskonnot ovat täsmälleen yhtä oikeassa ja yhtä hyviä...minusta.

Taas on aika auringon, uskon jälleen haaveisiin, en aaveisiin.

Tilintarkastajat eivät usko että tilit on hoidettu ok vaan tarkastavat tilit aj antavat sitten lausunnon asiasta...

Mitään muuta laki ei USA:ssa vaadi, koksa muuten siihen olisi jo joku puuttunut.

"Amerikkalainen Mormoonipappi opetti minulle hyödyllisen asian 1950-luvulla:englanninkielen."

Se on hyvä.

"Kaikki uskonnot ovat täsmälleen yhtä oikeassa ja yhtä hyviä...minusta."

Hyvä niin.

"Taas on aika auringon, uskon jälleen haaveisiin, en aaveisiin."

Edes Pyhään Aaveeseen (Holy GHOST - avve ;-)

itseään liian täydellisinä tekemään virheitä, ja se jos mikä on pelottavaa, koska ihminen ei ole täydellinen, vaikka Herra olisikin. Eikä etenkään raha-asioissa! Kiva nähdä mitä kytköksiä kirkolla mihinkin suuntaan on kunhan kaikki eräänä päivänä ”huudetaan julki katoilta”. En usko yhtään, että varojenkäyttö on sellaista kun jäsenparat ruohonjuuritasolla haluavat uskoa. Tilit pitäisi ehdottomasti olla avoimet, vaikka vaan sen takia, että johtajat laskeutuisivat samalle tasolle rivijäsenen kanssa, kuten kuuluu, jos palvelijoiksi itseään kutsuvat.

pitävät kirjoitti:

itseään liian täydellisinä tekemään virheitä, ja se jos mikä on pelottavaa, koska ihminen ei ole täydellinen, vaikka Herra olisikin. Eikä etenkään raha-asioissa! Kiva nähdä mitä kytköksiä kirkolla mihinkin suuntaan on kunhan kaikki eräänä päivänä ”huudetaan julki katoilta”. En usko yhtään, että varojenkäyttö on sellaista kun jäsenparat ruohonjuuritasolla haluavat uskoa. Tilit pitäisi ehdottomasti olla avoimet, vaikka vaan sen takia, että johtajat laskeutuisivat samalle tasolle rivijäsenen kanssa, kuten kuuluu, jos palvelijoiksi itseään kutsuvat.

suorastaan palvotaan, heidän edessään madellaan ja silti jotkut käyttäytyvät sikamaisesti kuten esim. kakkosmies Tommy Monson. Eipä taida suomalaisilla mormoneilla olla aavistustakaan siitä millaisia heidän johtajansa oikeasti ovat. Vai palvelijoita! Siinäpä mielikuva.

pitävät kirjoitti:

itseään liian täydellisinä tekemään virheitä, ja se jos mikä on pelottavaa, koska ihminen ei ole täydellinen, vaikka Herra olisikin. Eikä etenkään raha-asioissa! Kiva nähdä mitä kytköksiä kirkolla mihinkin suuntaan on kunhan kaikki eräänä päivänä ”huudetaan julki katoilta”. En usko yhtään, että varojenkäyttö on sellaista kun jäsenparat ruohonjuuritasolla haluavat uskoa. Tilit pitäisi ehdottomasti olla avoimet, vaikka vaan sen takia, että johtajat laskeutuisivat samalle tasolle rivijäsenen kanssa, kuten kuuluu, jos palvelijoiksi itseään kutsuvat.

Vaikka olen mormoni, olen silti aivan samaa mieltä kanssasi! Ihmettelen miksi me jäsenet ei saada tietää noita raha-asioita?

Silti kiltisti maksan tuon 10% tuloistani, koska uskon kymmenysten lakiin. Jos sitten kirkon ihmiset toimivat väärin ja käyttävät rahat omiin menoihinsa tms. se on heidän häpeänsä. Olen kuitenkin maksanut sen mitä jo raamatussa meitä kehoitetaan maksamaan.

Ihmiset kirkossa ovat hyvinkin vajaavaisia ja tekevät paljon asioita jotka ovat väärin ja vastoin Kristuksen oppia, mutta me ollaan kaikki inhimillisiä. Oppi on silti oikein.

mormoni jäsen kirjoitti:

Vaikka olen mormoni, olen silti aivan samaa mieltä kanssasi! Ihmettelen miksi me jäsenet ei saada tietää noita raha-asioita?

Silti kiltisti maksan tuon 10% tuloistani, koska uskon kymmenysten lakiin. Jos sitten kirkon ihmiset toimivat väärin ja käyttävät rahat omiin menoihinsa tms. se on heidän häpeänsä. Olen kuitenkin maksanut sen mitä jo raamatussa meitä kehoitetaan maksamaan.

Ihmiset kirkossa ovat hyvinkin vajaavaisia ja tekevät paljon asioita jotka ovat väärin ja vastoin Kristuksen oppia, mutta me ollaan kaikki inhimillisiä. Oppi on silti oikein.

Raamatun ohjeen mukaisen 10 % ylimääräisestä omaisuudestasi, jos maksat 10 % kaikista tuloistasi. Se on hiukan eri asia.

kuin sen kirjoitti:

Raamatun ohjeen mukaisen 10 % ylimääräisestä omaisuudestasi, jos maksat 10 % kaikista tuloistasi. Se on hiukan eri asia.

Mietin tuossa että jos kirkolla on jäseniä "niin ja niin" paljon ja he maksavat 10% tuloistaan (about "niin ja niin" suuresta palkasta) niin se on IHAN TAJUTON SUMMA JO KUUSSA!

Saa siinä rakentaa hienoja temppeleitä ja teetetään jäsenillä ilmaista työtä...
Luulenpa ettei kukaan oikein tajua miten varakas kirkko on!
Kirkkohan ei periaateessa yksittäisille ihmiselle maksa mistään mitään. Oppimateriaalit kirkko suurimmaksi osaksi tarjoaa, mormoninkirja ja raamattukin pitää maksaa...

Xilomeida kirjoitti:

Mietin tuossa että jos kirkolla on jäseniä "niin ja niin" paljon ja he maksavat 10% tuloistaan (about "niin ja niin" suuresta palkasta) niin se on IHAN TAJUTON SUMMA JO KUUSSA!

Saa siinä rakentaa hienoja temppeleitä ja teetetään jäsenillä ilmaista työtä...
Luulenpa ettei kukaan oikein tajua miten varakas kirkko on!
Kirkkohan ei periaateessa yksittäisille ihmiselle maksa mistään mitään. Oppimateriaalit kirkko suurimmaksi osaksi tarjoaa, mormoninkirja ja raamattukin pitää maksaa...

onhan siitä aikaa... Ei saatu ilmaseksi. Mutta ei ne kalliita olleet silti.

kuin sen kirjoitti:

Raamatun ohjeen mukaisen 10 % ylimääräisestä omaisuudestasi, jos maksat 10 % kaikista tuloistasi. Se on hiukan eri asia.

Raamatussa "Raamatun ohjeen mukaisen 10 % ylimääräisestä omaisuudestasi"? Taidat sotkea asioita.

mutta kirjoitti:

onhan siitä aikaa... Ei saatu ilmaseksi. Mutta ei ne kalliita olleet silti.

Mutta pappeuskokouksissa ja Apuyhdistyksessä vuosittain vaihtuvat kirjat ovat ilmaisia.

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

Raamatussa "Raamatun ohjeen mukaisen 10 % ylimääräisestä omaisuudestasi"? Taidat sotkea asioita.

Jos teksti on liian pitkä niin lue ainakin pääotsakkeet.


The Scriptural and Official Meaning of Tithing © Sarony

1. Introduction – It is Not 10% of Gross
2. The Scriptural Meaning of "Interest" is Excess and Surplus Income
3. The Official Meaning is 10% of Excess; found in "I Have a Question", "A Statement of the First Presidency", and "The General Handbook"
4. Harmony of the Scriptural and Official Meanings in Light of Holland's, Tingey's, and Hales's Messages
5. Conclusion - It is an Individual Matter How Much to Pay

1. The last three General Conferences of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have included speeches dedicated to tithing. Jeffery R. Holland delivered a speech in the October, 2001 Conference. Earl C. Tingey delivered a speech in the April, 2002 Conference. And Robert D. Hales delivered a speech in the October, 2002 Conference.

Each of them, on an escalating scale, may have influenced Mormons to think they must pay a tithe on their gross incomes. They don’t.

All inspired latter-day pronouncements on the amount to be tithed, must be in harmony with each other. Otherwise, there is no inspiration.

In sections 2 and 3 of this essay, I will discuss official Mormon scripture and policy, respectively. In section 4, I will review pertinent statements by Holland, Tingey, and Hales, respectively, in view of official Mormon scripture and policy.

What they said, in light of official Mormon scripture and policy may appear deceptive.

1a. Various historical tithing schemes have been discussed in scholarly works. All inspired latter-day pronouncements regarding what exactly is tithed, must be in harmony with each other. Otherwise, they are not inspired. The scope of this essay is directed to official LDS scriptural passages and current official pronouncements from the church.

2. The meaning of what is tithed can be ascertained from Mormon scripture.

2a. The oldest known Mormon expression of tithing is in the Book of Mormon. In Alma (1828-1829) it appears that Abraham paid “tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed.” Joseph Smith would shed more light and knowledge on this passage later, to clarify that Abraham paid a one-tenth part of his excess (see paragraph 2b). In 3 Nephi 24, Malachi 3 is quoted. There is no definition of tithing in this passage.

2b. Apparently, the first scriptural definition of what exactly is tithed, was given by Smith in his inspired translation (“Joseph Smith Translation” or “JST”) of Genesis 14 (about 1830, see D&C 37:1), which included new verses. Verse 39 states:

“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 HE HAD NEED.” (Emphasis added.)

One could make the argument that Abram paid tithes of all he had, period. But that conclusion is not in harmony with other modern-day passages. (See paragraphs 2d and 2e, and paragraph 4, Comment 6). One could also make the argument that the phrase "more than he had need" is an incidental reference to God's abundant blessings to Abram, and not a reference to a tithe of the amount more than he had need. But that interpretation requires semantic gymnastics that takes out of context, the phrase "more than he had need".

The passage in Genesis 14 therefore refers to a tithe on excess. The passage can be found in the Quadruple Combination, on page 798, after the Bible Dictionary, in the section JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION. Although the church avoids several of Smith's translations in the JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION, the church has included this one in its official and current book of scripture as authoritative commentary.

The passage in Alma can be harmonized with the passage in Genesis, only if the one-tenth part is one tenth of the amount “more than [Abram] had need.”

2c. Several passages were produced in the Doctrine & Covenants (D&C). But they did not provide a definition of what is tithed. They are D&C 64:23 (1831), 85:3 (1832), and 97:11-12 (1833).

2d. Finally, a definition for the modern church was produced. In D&C 119:3-4 (1838), it states:

“And after that, those who have been thus tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their INTEREST annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.” (Emphasis added.)

To emphasize what is to be tithed, verse 5 speaks to the Saints who were gathering, “all those who gather to the land of Zion shall be tithed of all their SURPLUS properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide. . . .” (Ibid. Emphasis added.)

For verses 4 and 5 to be harmonious, INTEREST and SURPLUS must have common meaning.

2e. A review of pertinent dictionary definitions for INTEREST include (1) right, title, or legal SHARE in something, (2) the PROFIT in goods or money that is made on invested capital, and (3) an EXCESS or bonus beyond what is expected or due.

All three definitions of INTEREST are in harmony with the passage describing Abram: “all the riches which he possessed (legal SHARE), which God had given him more than he had need” (PROFIT, EXCESS). (Genesis 14:39 JST). Therefore, the D&C 119 expression of a tithe on INTEREST or a tithe on SURPLUS, as defined, is in harmony with what Smith meant when he wrote Genesis 14:39, supra.

3a. In the April 1974 Ensign, Bishop Victor L. Brown repeated a 1970 Statement of the First Presidency. The meaning of tithing on excess has not changed if one reads this statement in light of Smith’s two scriptural definitions, set forth in paragraphs 2b and 2d, supra. Here is an extract of Brown’s “I Have A Question”:

”My wife and I want to fully obey the Lord’s commandment to pay tithing, but we are confused as to what figure we should base our tithing on. Can you help us?

Bishop Victor L. Brown, Presiding Bishop of the Church.

Since we learn in the Book of Mormon that Abraham paid his tithing to Melchizedek, we know the law of tithing was lived in ancient times. This law was reestablished in the Church in this dispensation through a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith at Far West, Missouri, on July 18, 1838, as recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 119, verses 3-4:

“And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.
“And after that, those who have been thus tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.” D&C 119:3-4.

”On March 19, 1970, the First Presidency sent the following letter to presidents of stakes and missions, bishops of wards, and presidents of branches in answer to the question,
“What is a proper tithe?”
“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.” (End of quote from the March 19, 1970 letter.)

”At the close of each year, each member of the Church has the responsibility of attending tithing settlement with his bishop. At this time, each member has the opportunity to declare whether he is a full, part, or non-tithe payer. The payment of tithing is A MATTER BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE LORD. The bishop is merely the Lord’s servant who receives and accounts for the contribution.
The Lord has promised that he will open the windows of heaven to those who pay their tithes and offerings. (Quotation of Malachi: 3:8-10).

“When one has been completely honest with the Lord, a feeling of peace and tranquility enters his heart and he knows that he is a full tithe payer.
Pay your tithing on the basis on which you wish to be blessed." (End of Victor Brown Quote. Emphases added.)

If “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” (March 19, 1970 First Presidency Letter), how can every member do that if Holland, Tingey, and Hales told the faithful to pay 10 percent of their gross, or their net for that matter?

3b. The General Handbook of Instructions quotes from the March 19, 1970 letter from the First Presidency as its definition of what is tithed. Here is a portion of the General Handbook of Instructions from that section:

Definition of Tithing
The First Presidency has written: “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 their interest 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).

Because the General Handbook of Instructions quotes the 1970 letter from the First Presidency, the 1970 letter remains the official written policy on tithing.

But even the First Presidency statement fails to define "INCOME". Hence, one must look to the scriptures for a definition. They state INTEREST income (D&C 119:4), which means excess or SURPLUS income (D&C 119:5) MORE THAN [THE TITHE PAYER] HAS NEED (Genesis 14:39, JST).

4. In view of the fact that a proper tithe is based upon surplus, it may come as a surprise that the speeches of Holland, Tingey, and Hales message may have been legally correct. However, because they did not volunteer pertinent information, it could have been misunderstood.

4a. JEFFREY R. HOLLAND'S SPEECH

When Holland told his audience that tithing is 10 percent of income, he quoted from the deceased Apostle James E. Talmage.

Holland's lengthy quotation of Talmage is so riddled with ellipses and square brackets, one wonders what Talmage actually wrote.

I checked.

Holland's "quotation" is not what Talmage meant, particularly regarding what should be tithed.

The amount to be tithed is and remains one tenth of a person's increase after needs are met. (Genesis 14:39, Joseph Smith Translation, D&C 119:3-5). The First Presidency letter dated March 19, 1970 states in part, " 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." (Supra.)

Talmage's writing supports current official policy, and the two scriptures cited above. Holland's "quotation" of Talmage changes the meaning Talmage wrote.

Below is a full text, alternating-paragraph quotation of both Talmage and Holland.
I have highlighted differences with ALL CAPS.
(Comments are set forth in parenthesis).

(1)TALMAGE: "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.

(1)HOLLAND: ‘You have need of many things in this world—food, clothing, and shelter for your family … , the common comforts of life. …

(COMMENT 1: Holland leaves the individual out: "YOURSELF", and the following needs: "THE THINGS THAT SHALL BE CONDUCIVE TO REFINEMENT, TO DEVELOPMENT, TO RIGHTEOUS ENJOYMENT". Talmage taught these are legitimate needs. But lest Holland give a hint that tithing should be calculated after needs are met, he has dropped these lines.)

(2)TALMAGE: 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 GAIN; 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.
(2)HOLLAND: 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 …
(COMMENT 2: Holland truncates the phrase "increase in substance and possessions" probably because it fleshes out the meaning of an increase, that tithing should be paid after a calculation of "surplus properties" (D&C 119:5.) )
(3) TALMAGE: 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."
(3) HOLLAND: [so] instead of doing as mortal landlords do—requir[ing] you to … pay in advance, whatever your fortunes or … prospects may be—you shall pay me … [only] 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 … [YOUR 10 PERCENT will be 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 … [YOUR 10 PERCENT will be] less. … [WHATEVER YOUR CIRCUMSTANCE, THE TITHE WILL BE FAIR.]’

(COMMENT 3:
FIRST, Holland deletes the phrase "not in advance" since that contradicts current declarations to "pay the Lord first" or even as Hinckley suggested to pay even in the face of disaster; the story of the woman who needed to pay her tuition, but paid tithing instead.
SECOND, Holland inserts "YOUR 10 PERCENT" where Talmage clearly did not say "ten percent". Rather, Talmage's statement is in harmony with the First Presidency letter dated March 19, 1970 states in part, " 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."
THIRD, like a white rabbit from a hat, Holland pulls the following "quotation" out of thin air: "whatever your circumstance, the tithe will be fair".
FOURTH, Holland drops the phrase, "you shall pay me nothing." The reason is this would have destroyed the guilt-inspiring story of Mary Fielding Smith in his message. Because, to quote Talmage, she was "reduced to the utmost penury so that you have nothing coming in".)

(4) TALMAGE: Have you ever found a landlord of earth who was willing to make that kind of a contract with you? When I consider the liberality of it all, and the consideration that my Lord has had for me, I feel in my heart that I could scarcely raise my countenance to his heaven above if I tried to defraud him out of that just rental.

(4) HOLLAND: “Have you ever found a landlord on earth who was willing to make that kind of [EQUITABLE] contract with you?” Elder Talmage asks. “When I consider the liberality of it all,” he says, “… I feel in my heart that I could scarcely raise my countenance to … Heaven … if I tried to defraud [GOD] out of that [WHICH IS RIGHTFULLY HIS].”

(COMMENT 4: Holland's insertion of "EQUITALE", "GOD", and "WHICH IS RIGHTFULLY HIS" may inspire awe and guilt. It also minimizes the thought that one might have an indifferent or even unfair "landlord".)

Summary. Talmage did not mean what Holland said when Holland "quoted" Talmage.

4b. EARL C. TINGEY'S SPPECH

Tingey showed from his first childhood journal, that he had earned $7.00 gross, and that he paid a $0.70 tithe.

But Tingey owed no taxes. Although it appeared he was paying a tithe on his gross, he was actually paying a tithe on his net since they were the same.

But Tingey was also paying a tithe on his excess beyond his needs. Tingey was a legal minor according to Mormon scripture, and his parents were obligated to meet his needs; the obligation was to his "parents for [his] maintenance until [he became] of age." (D&C 83:4). Tingey’s talk, although misleading, was also consistent with the original meaning in Genesis 14:39 where Abram paid a tithe on “that which God had given him, more than that which he had need.”

It is remarkable that Tingey’s $0.70 from a gross of $7.00 was a tithe on his gross, his net, and his excess!

4c. ROBERT D. HALES'S SPEECH

Let us review Hales's pertinent statements regarding tithing. They are listed as Hales 1 through Hales 7:
Hales 1: "In the Old Testament, Abraham proved his faith by paying tithes to the great high priest Melchizedek." (See Genesis 14:20.)
Comment 1: The amount Abraham paid is not clear, and this statement oversimplifies that Abraham paid tithes of his excess. See JST Genesis 14:39)

Hales 2: Abraham's grandson Jacob vowed to the Lord, "Of all thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee." Genesis 28:22.
Comment 2: This verse indicates Jacob paid a tenth. But to harmonize this with Joseph Smith's inspired translation of the Bible, since it is clear Abraham paid a tenth of his excess, Genesis 14:39 JST, what Jacob vowed to pay was individual to Jacob. If Jacob was paying what Abraham paid, it was a tenth of his excess.
Hales 3: The strict observance of the law of tithing not only qualifies us to receive the higher, saving ordinances of the temple, it allows us to receive them on behalf of our ancestors. When asked whether members of the Church could be baptized for the dead if they had not paid their tithing, President John Taylor, then of the Quorum of the Twelve, answered: "A man who has not paid his tithing is unfit to be baptized for his dead. . . . If a man has not faith enough to attend to these little things, he has not faith enough to save himself and his friends." (History of the Church, 7:292–93.)
Comment 3: This paragraph is targeted to the youth who are being taken to the temple almost monthly nowadays.
Hales 4: The law of consecration was then withdrawn. In its place the Lord revealed the law of tithing for the whole Church. (See historical introduction to D&C 119.) On July 8, 1838, He declared:
"And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.
" . . . Those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever." (D&C 119:3-4).
Comment 4: This passage has been dealt with, supra. The scriptural meaning of "interest" is increase or excess or surplus. Just read the next verse, 5:
"Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties . . . "
Could "tithed of their surplus properties" mean all of their surplus properties? Just look at what Hales does with his next statement, and then, for a surprise, read what the reference actually says.

Hales 5: The law of tithing prepares us to live the higher law of consecration—to dedicate and give all our time, talents, and resources to the work of the Lord. Until the day when we are required to live this higher law, we are commanded to live the law of the tithe, which is to freely give one-tenth of our income annually. (See Church History and Modern Revelation (third series, 1946), 120.)

Comment 5: There are two significant problems with the statement and the reference.
First, the 1970 letter of the First Presidency, as a newer pronouncement from an authoritative source, supercedes a 1946 book such as Church History and Modern Revelation.
To repeat, the 1970 First Presidency letter states:

"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.”

Second, even the book Church History and Modern Revelation, indicates a tithing is a tenth of the surplus:

"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." (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., emphasis added.)

"[P]ay the tenth", ibid., is clearly referring to less than "all their surplus". Since Elder Hales's talk does not quote from the 1946 book, rather it only lists a citation to it, it is not clear what he was referring to on page 120. No clear statement was found, "to freely give one-tenth of our income annually". But this statement was found:

"We call it a free-will offering, and so it is, for everything in the Gospel is by free will, but nevertheless it is a law of God which to us is everlasting. (Ibid. pp. 120-121).
In Hales's statement, his footnote follows the word "freely". This is a well-placed footnote regarding a "free-will offering", supra, not a definition of what is to be tithed.
Hales 6: Members who freely give a full 10 percent of their annual income receive all of the promised blessings of tithing, whether the amount is a widow's mite or a king's ransom.
Comment 6: This essay and even Hales's cited reference in the book, Church History and Modern Revelation, make it clear a proper tithe is scripturally defined as a tenth of surplus. Therefore, members who freely give a tenth of their surplus will also receive all of the promised blessings of tithing.
In defense of Hales's statement, the question must be posed, "Why pay a full 10 percent of one's annual income if that is more than what is required?" Perhaps Hales is repeating Bishop Brown's suggestion: "Pay your tithing on the basis on which you wish to be blessed." (Victor Brown Quote, supra.)
Hales 7: When a friend of President George Albert Smith asked him what he thought of his friend's personal plan to take what would have been tithing and donate his tenth in charitable donations of his own choice, President Smith's counsel was:
"I think you are a very generous man with someone else's property. . . .
" . . . You have told me what you have done with the Lord's money but you have not told me that you have given anyone a penny of your own. He is the best partner you have in the world. He gives you everything you have, even the air you breathe. He has said you should take one-tenth of what comes to you and give it to the Church as directed by the Lord. You haven't done that; you have taken your best partner's money, and have given it away." (Sharing the Gospel With Others, sel. Preston Nibley (1948), 46; see also 44–47.)
Comment 7: This is an interesting anecdote, but since it is not controlling authority over the scripture: " . . . when you are in the service of your fellow beings, you are only in the service of your God", Mosiah 2:17, the issue must be considered that one is not taking the tithing money away from God by tithing outside of church channels.
In any event, the following is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Regarding a man who did good works in the name of Jesus, but the man would not follow his apostles when commanded to by the Apostle John. Jesus said, "Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." (Luke 9:49).

5. Despite the impressions Holland, Tingey, and Hales may have given,
5a. the official interpretation of tithing remains “one-tenth of all their interest annually”. "Interest" is an increased amount or "surplus" (D&C 119:4-5) of income “more than [one] has need.” (Genesis 14:39, JST.), and
5b. "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." (On March 19, 1970 letter from the First Presidency.)


Subject:    Re: Tithing Settlement Time!
Date:    Nov 25 14:48
Author:    Missing one thing...
Sarony quotes the following FP statement:

The First Presidency has written: “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 their interest 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).

I'm missing something though. I read the rest of the post and didn't see where the word "income" was shown to mean something other than either your gross or net take home pay.

I don't want to say that you passed over that word because I may not have read your synopsis with enough care, but on first pass I didn't feel that you made your case to override that part of the statement.

Not that I believe that tithing should be paid to mormonism anyway mind you, but I'm trying to follow the logical argument.

OPEN MY EYES THAT I MAY SEE!


Subject:    You have hit the nail on the head by missing the point
Date:    Nov 25 15:31
Author:    Sarony
Sorry for the mixed metaphor, but your question reveals the "hide the ball" game the GAs play with their members, and not just on tithing.

You missed it because it was not there. Show me where the GAs explicitly wrote the amount to tithe was on one's gross or one's net. You may have missed the statement where it does NOT mean on gross or net, but I missed the statement where it does mean it on gross or net. If you find one, it will contradict the statement of the First Presidency that states every member of the church is "ENTITLED TO MAKE HIS OWN DECISION". If it is clearly on gross or net, the above statement from the First Presidency is meaningless.

The point is the GAs have left it intentionally vague modernly to maximize income. The earlier pronouncements were clearly based on a tithe of surplus. If they were to come right out and say, "pay on your gross" they would contradict Mormon scripture and official policy.

Talmage enumerated several legitimate human needs that came before calculating a tithing on the remainder. His statement eliminated a tithe on gross or net:

"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."

Hales cited to a book that says
"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." (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., emphasis added.)"

Let me insert the word "income" into the First Presidency statement. " . . . the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their income annually."
Did they define income for you? No.
Does it mean gross income? Show me an explicit statement from an authoritative source that says it.
Does it mean net income? Show me an explicit statement from an authoritative source that says it.
Does it mean excess, surplus, or income more than one has need? Yes. There are authoritative statements that support a tithe on surplus. I think these are the only explicit statements on what is to be tithed.


Subject:    Clear as the mud they want it to be...


Subject:    Why do MoMos deduct their tithing on their taxes?.
Date:    Nov 25 20:56
Author:    spencer
Seems to me that if you are GIVING your money to THE church,that you should be doing so without the thought of reward.

I doubt very much that AS many would tithe if they could not deduct it from their taxes.

How does one say HORSESHIT!!!!!


Subject:    Re: Why do MoMos deduct their tithing on their taxes?.
Date:    Nov 25 21:16
Author:    Sarony
You are right. My TBM DW is always disgusted when I deduct tithing from taxes. I am disgusted too, but for the waste, not for the fact that Jehovah is up there with his calculator, scaling my "blessings" back in a prorated amount, relative to the value I get back on my taxes.

Sheesh!


Subject:    Re: Why do MoMos deduct their tithing on their taxes?.
Date:    Nov 25 21:35
Author:    spencer
But Jehovah knows that you are getting some of the money back that you say you gave. So in fact you are not giving as much as you say you are. They call that lying but that in itself is such a MoMo trait anyway.


Subject:    Re: "new "concept of charitable giving
Date:    Nov 25 19:17
Author:    quixotequest
Your essay is pretty spot on. I stopped pay a "full tithe" a few years ago. I'm quite comfortable with the periodic "guilting" that comes with the reaffirmation from the pulpit of the "official" statement on tithing because I have developed a much more fulfilling attitude toward charitable giving. Surprisingly, my bishops, privately, have not tried to "guilt" me at all when I explain my position.

It made me really mad for a while because the "10% of the gross" statement is pretty grossly inaccurate. You are correct: not only is LDS doctrine resoundingly unclear, but while tithing is definitely a historical and scriptural practice, there are arguable, valid interpretations that differ from the LDS one.

But when I learned how dismally low the LDS Church's charitable contributions are compared to other organizations, I just decided not to pay tithing anymore. I wanted to feel my money was going more good--or at least benefiting the causes I care about.

The fact was, for a while, I decided to define myself as "someone who doesn't pay tithing." Defined by the negative, rather than affirmative. Not very fulfilling a self-imposed definition.

But then a little while later I read an article by Claude Rosenberg (www.newtithing.org) about how he asserts that anyone can be a philanthropist, and how fulfilled that can make one's life. He made me rethink how nice it can be to choose causes/organizations one feels strongly about and to make philanthropic contributions. Claude also has some very practical calculations so that someone can use to analyze what a good amount of charitable contribution is good. Some can afford way more than 10% comfortably. And some can't. The point is that's its not only okay, but much more enriching, to take control of how one donates their money. And, how much one donates should be well considered--not an arbitrary amount.

I now define myself as someone who pays "tithing," just not a Mormon tithe.

It bugged me how I developed a bit of a "I gave at the office" mentality when I paid a Mormon tithe. And it bugs me that many LDS have a similar attitude. Many really aren't as charitable as their tax deduction claims. Many aren't personally fulfilled because they are just paying their Mormon Tax. Many LDS might feel perfectly "blessed" and fulfilled for paying their tithing, but many would have a happier life taking more ownership for how they "spend" their money on donations. They ought to realize that the road to defining one's own plan of "tithing" (read: a charitable life) isn't that difficult, nor is it with that much penalty (assuming not attending temple isn't considered a bad thing. *smile*) from local LDS leadership. (I've found most bishops are just filling the role of the tax collector and would rather be doing something else, anyway.) When one takes as affirmative, philanthropic role like Mr. Rosenberg advocates, bishops really have little foundation to complain about it. (And none of my 3 bishops who know this about me have ever tried to make me feel guilty .)


Subject:    Thanks for the quote
Date:    Nov 25 21:10
Author:    Sarony
about how each can be a philanthropist.

I think some money would be much more effectively applied if I could do something for someone I knew up close. It would sometimes need to be done without the recipient knowing the source. But I could monitor the result and make adjustment accordingly. With the CoJCoLDS administering tithes by central planning, it may be applied as ineffectively as the former Soviet Union.

This may seem weird to some of you, but I have nieces on missions whose parents could use some relief. I could easily support them, and still have a huge chunk of change in lieu of giving it all to the tithing fund. Although I think my nieces are being captured by the Morg like so many of us were, they are still my family, and I could help my brother and sister-in-law.



Recovery from Mormonism - http://www.exmormon.org

ja mieti kirjoitti:

Jos teksti on liian pitkä niin lue ainakin pääotsakkeet.


The Scriptural and Official Meaning of Tithing © Sarony

1. Introduction – It is Not 10% of Gross
2. The Scriptural Meaning of "Interest" is Excess and Surplus Income
3. The Official Meaning is 10% of Excess; found in "I Have a Question", "A Statement of the First Presidency", and "The General Handbook"
4. Harmony of the Scriptural and Official Meanings in Light of Holland's, Tingey's, and Hales's Messages
5. Conclusion - It is an Individual Matter How Much to Pay

1. The last three General Conferences of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have included speeches dedicated to tithing. Jeffery R. Holland delivered a speech in the October, 2001 Conference. Earl C. Tingey delivered a speech in the April, 2002 Conference. And Robert D. Hales delivered a speech in the October, 2002 Conference.

Each of them, on an escalating scale, may have influenced Mormons to think they must pay a tithe on their gross incomes. They don’t.

All inspired latter-day pronouncements on the amount to be tithed, must be in harmony with each other. Otherwise, there is no inspiration.

In sections 2 and 3 of this essay, I will discuss official Mormon scripture and policy, respectively. In section 4, I will review pertinent statements by Holland, Tingey, and Hales, respectively, in view of official Mormon scripture and policy.

What they said, in light of official Mormon scripture and policy may appear deceptive.

1a. Various historical tithing schemes have been discussed in scholarly works. All inspired latter-day pronouncements regarding what exactly is tithed, must be in harmony with each other. Otherwise, they are not inspired. The scope of this essay is directed to official LDS scriptural passages and current official pronouncements from the church.

2. The meaning of what is tithed can be ascertained from Mormon scripture.

2a. The oldest known Mormon expression of tithing is in the Book of Mormon. In Alma (1828-1829) it appears that Abraham paid “tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed.” Joseph Smith would shed more light and knowledge on this passage later, to clarify that Abraham paid a one-tenth part of his excess (see paragraph 2b). In 3 Nephi 24, Malachi 3 is quoted. There is no definition of tithing in this passage.

2b. Apparently, the first scriptural definition of what exactly is tithed, was given by Smith in his inspired translation (“Joseph Smith Translation” or “JST”) of Genesis 14 (about 1830, see D&C 37:1), which included new verses. Verse 39 states:

“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 HE HAD NEED.” (Emphasis added.)

One could make the argument that Abram paid tithes of all he had, period. But that conclusion is not in harmony with other modern-day passages. (See paragraphs 2d and 2e, and paragraph 4, Comment 6). One could also make the argument that the phrase "more than he had need" is an incidental reference to God's abundant blessings to Abram, and not a reference to a tithe of the amount more than he had need. But that interpretation requires semantic gymnastics that takes out of context, the phrase "more than he had need".

The passage in Genesis 14 therefore refers to a tithe on excess. The passage can be found in the Quadruple Combination, on page 798, after the Bible Dictionary, in the section JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION. Although the church avoids several of Smith's translations in the JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION, the church has included this one in its official and current book of scripture as authoritative commentary.

The passage in Alma can be harmonized with the passage in Genesis, only if the one-tenth part is one tenth of the amount “more than [Abram] had need.”

2c. Several passages were produced in the Doctrine & Covenants (D&C). But they did not provide a definition of what is tithed. They are D&C 64:23 (1831), 85:3 (1832), and 97:11-12 (1833).

2d. Finally, a definition for the modern church was produced. In D&C 119:3-4 (1838), it states:

“And after that, those who have been thus tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their INTEREST annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.” (Emphasis added.)

To emphasize what is to be tithed, verse 5 speaks to the Saints who were gathering, “all those who gather to the land of Zion shall be tithed of all their SURPLUS properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide. . . .” (Ibid. Emphasis added.)

For verses 4 and 5 to be harmonious, INTEREST and SURPLUS must have common meaning.

2e. A review of pertinent dictionary definitions for INTEREST include (1) right, title, or legal SHARE in something, (2) the PROFIT in goods or money that is made on invested capital, and (3) an EXCESS or bonus beyond what is expected or due.

All three definitions of INTEREST are in harmony with the passage describing Abram: “all the riches which he possessed (legal SHARE), which God had given him more than he had need” (PROFIT, EXCESS). (Genesis 14:39 JST). Therefore, the D&C 119 expression of a tithe on INTEREST or a tithe on SURPLUS, as defined, is in harmony with what Smith meant when he wrote Genesis 14:39, supra.

3a. In the April 1974 Ensign, Bishop Victor L. Brown repeated a 1970 Statement of the First Presidency. The meaning of tithing on excess has not changed if one reads this statement in light of Smith’s two scriptural definitions, set forth in paragraphs 2b and 2d, supra. Here is an extract of Brown’s “I Have A Question”:

”My wife and I want to fully obey the Lord’s commandment to pay tithing, but we are confused as to what figure we should base our tithing on. Can you help us?

Bishop Victor L. Brown, Presiding Bishop of the Church.

Since we learn in the Book of Mormon that Abraham paid his tithing to Melchizedek, we know the law of tithing was lived in ancient times. This law was reestablished in the Church in this dispensation through a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith at Far West, Missouri, on July 18, 1838, as recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 119, verses 3-4:

“And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.
“And after that, those who have been thus tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.” D&C 119:3-4.

”On March 19, 1970, the First Presidency sent the following letter to presidents of stakes and missions, bishops of wards, and presidents of branches in answer to the question,
“What is a proper tithe?”
“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.” (End of quote from the March 19, 1970 letter.)

”At the close of each year, each member of the Church has the responsibility of attending tithing settlement with his bishop. At this time, each member has the opportunity to declare whether he is a full, part, or non-tithe payer. The payment of tithing is A MATTER BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE LORD. The bishop is merely the Lord’s servant who receives and accounts for the contribution.
The Lord has promised that he will open the windows of heaven to those who pay their tithes and offerings. (Quotation of Malachi: 3:8-10).

“When one has been completely honest with the Lord, a feeling of peace and tranquility enters his heart and he knows that he is a full tithe payer.
Pay your tithing on the basis on which you wish to be blessed." (End of Victor Brown Quote. Emphases added.)

If “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” (March 19, 1970 First Presidency Letter), how can every member do that if Holland, Tingey, and Hales told the faithful to pay 10 percent of their gross, or their net for that matter?

3b. The General Handbook of Instructions quotes from the March 19, 1970 letter from the First Presidency as its definition of what is tithed. Here is a portion of the General Handbook of Instructions from that section:

Definition of Tithing
The First Presidency has written: “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 their interest 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).

Because the General Handbook of Instructions quotes the 1970 letter from the First Presidency, the 1970 letter remains the official written policy on tithing.

But even the First Presidency statement fails to define "INCOME". Hence, one must look to the scriptures for a definition. They state INTEREST income (D&C 119:4), which means excess or SURPLUS income (D&C 119:5) MORE THAN [THE TITHE PAYER] HAS NEED (Genesis 14:39, JST).

4. In view of the fact that a proper tithe is based upon surplus, it may come as a surprise that the speeches of Holland, Tingey, and Hales message may have been legally correct. However, because they did not volunteer pertinent information, it could have been misunderstood.

4a. JEFFREY R. HOLLAND'S SPEECH

When Holland told his audience that tithing is 10 percent of income, he quoted from the deceased Apostle James E. Talmage.

Holland's lengthy quotation of Talmage is so riddled with ellipses and square brackets, one wonders what Talmage actually wrote.

I checked.

Holland's "quotation" is not what Talmage meant, particularly regarding what should be tithed.

The amount to be tithed is and remains one tenth of a person's increase after needs are met. (Genesis 14:39, Joseph Smith Translation, D&C 119:3-5). The First Presidency letter dated March 19, 1970 states in part, " 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." (Supra.)

Talmage's writing supports current official policy, and the two scriptures cited above. Holland's "quotation" of Talmage changes the meaning Talmage wrote.

Below is a full text, alternating-paragraph quotation of both Talmage and Holland.
I have highlighted differences with ALL CAPS.
(Comments are set forth in parenthesis).

(1)TALMAGE: "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.

(1)HOLLAND: ‘You have need of many things in this world—food, clothing, and shelter for your family … , the common comforts of life. …

(COMMENT 1: Holland leaves the individual out: "YOURSELF", and the following needs: "THE THINGS THAT SHALL BE CONDUCIVE TO REFINEMENT, TO DEVELOPMENT, TO RIGHTEOUS ENJOYMENT". Talmage taught these are legitimate needs. But lest Holland give a hint that tithing should be calculated after needs are met, he has dropped these lines.)

(2)TALMAGE: 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 GAIN; 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.
(2)HOLLAND: 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 …
(COMMENT 2: Holland truncates the phrase "increase in substance and possessions" probably because it fleshes out the meaning of an increase, that tithing should be paid after a calculation of "surplus properties" (D&C 119:5.) )
(3) TALMAGE: 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."
(3) HOLLAND: [so] instead of doing as mortal landlords do—requir[ing] you to … pay in advance, whatever your fortunes or … prospects may be—you shall pay me … [only] 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 … [YOUR 10 PERCENT will be 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 … [YOUR 10 PERCENT will be] less. … [WHATEVER YOUR CIRCUMSTANCE, THE TITHE WILL BE FAIR.]’

(COMMENT 3:
FIRST, Holland deletes the phrase "not in advance" since that contradicts current declarations to "pay the Lord first" or even as Hinckley suggested to pay even in the face of disaster; the story of the woman who needed to pay her tuition, but paid tithing instead.
SECOND, Holland inserts "YOUR 10 PERCENT" where Talmage clearly did not say "ten percent". Rather, Talmage's statement is in harmony with the First Presidency letter dated March 19, 1970 states in part, " 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."
THIRD, like a white rabbit from a hat, Holland pulls the following "quotation" out of thin air: "whatever your circumstance, the tithe will be fair".
FOURTH, Holland drops the phrase, "you shall pay me nothing." The reason is this would have destroyed the guilt-inspiring story of Mary Fielding Smith in his message. Because, to quote Talmage, she was "reduced to the utmost penury so that you have nothing coming in".)

(4) TALMAGE: Have you ever found a landlord of earth who was willing to make that kind of a contract with you? When I consider the liberality of it all, and the consideration that my Lord has had for me, I feel in my heart that I could scarcely raise my countenance to his heaven above if I tried to defraud him out of that just rental.

(4) HOLLAND: “Have you ever found a landlord on earth who was willing to make that kind of [EQUITABLE] contract with you?” Elder Talmage asks. “When I consider the liberality of it all,” he says, “… I feel in my heart that I could scarcely raise my countenance to … Heaven … if I tried to defraud [GOD] out of that [WHICH IS RIGHTFULLY HIS].”

(COMMENT 4: Holland's insertion of "EQUITALE", "GOD", and "WHICH IS RIGHTFULLY HIS" may inspire awe and guilt. It also minimizes the thought that one might have an indifferent or even unfair "landlord".)

Summary. Talmage did not mean what Holland said when Holland "quoted" Talmage.

4b. EARL C. TINGEY'S SPPECH

Tingey showed from his first childhood journal, that he had earned $7.00 gross, and that he paid a $0.70 tithe.

But Tingey owed no taxes. Although it appeared he was paying a tithe on his gross, he was actually paying a tithe on his net since they were the same.

But Tingey was also paying a tithe on his excess beyond his needs. Tingey was a legal minor according to Mormon scripture, and his parents were obligated to meet his needs; the obligation was to his "parents for [his] maintenance until [he became] of age." (D&C 83:4). Tingey’s talk, although misleading, was also consistent with the original meaning in Genesis 14:39 where Abram paid a tithe on “that which God had given him, more than that which he had need.”

It is remarkable that Tingey’s $0.70 from a gross of $7.00 was a tithe on his gross, his net, and his excess!

4c. ROBERT D. HALES'S SPEECH

Let us review Hales's pertinent statements regarding tithing. They are listed as Hales 1 through Hales 7:
Hales 1: "In the Old Testament, Abraham proved his faith by paying tithes to the great high priest Melchizedek." (See Genesis 14:20.)
Comment 1: The amount Abraham paid is not clear, and this statement oversimplifies that Abraham paid tithes of his excess. See JST Genesis 14:39)

Hales 2: Abraham's grandson Jacob vowed to the Lord, "Of all thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee." Genesis 28:22.
Comment 2: This verse indicates Jacob paid a tenth. But to harmonize this with Joseph Smith's inspired translation of the Bible, since it is clear Abraham paid a tenth of his excess, Genesis 14:39 JST, what Jacob vowed to pay was individual to Jacob. If Jacob was paying what Abraham paid, it was a tenth of his excess.
Hales 3: The strict observance of the law of tithing not only qualifies us to receive the higher, saving ordinances of the temple, it allows us to receive them on behalf of our ancestors. When asked whether members of the Church could be baptized for the dead if they had not paid their tithing, President John Taylor, then of the Quorum of the Twelve, answered: "A man who has not paid his tithing is unfit to be baptized for his dead. . . . If a man has not faith enough to attend to these little things, he has not faith enough to save himself and his friends." (History of the Church, 7:292–93.)
Comment 3: This paragraph is targeted to the youth who are being taken to the temple almost monthly nowadays.
Hales 4: The law of consecration was then withdrawn. In its place the Lord revealed the law of tithing for the whole Church. (See historical introduction to D&C 119.) On July 8, 1838, He declared:
"And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.
" . . . Those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever." (D&C 119:3-4).
Comment 4: This passage has been dealt with, supra. The scriptural meaning of "interest" is increase or excess or surplus. Just read the next verse, 5:
"Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties . . . "
Could "tithed of their surplus properties" mean all of their surplus properties? Just look at what Hales does with his next statement, and then, for a surprise, read what the reference actually says.

Hales 5: The law of tithing prepares us to live the higher law of consecration—to dedicate and give all our time, talents, and resources to the work of the Lord. Until the day when we are required to live this higher law, we are commanded to live the law of the tithe, which is to freely give one-tenth of our income annually. (See Church History and Modern Revelation (third series, 1946), 120.)

Comment 5: There are two significant problems with the statement and the reference.
First, the 1970 letter of the First Presidency, as a newer pronouncement from an authoritative source, supercedes a 1946 book such as Church History and Modern Revelation.
To repeat, the 1970 First Presidency letter states:

"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.”

Second, even the book Church History and Modern Revelation, indicates a tithing is a tenth of the surplus:

"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." (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., emphasis added.)

"[P]ay the tenth", ibid., is clearly referring to less than "all their surplus". Since Elder Hales's talk does not quote from the 1946 book, rather it only lists a citation to it, it is not clear what he was referring to on page 120. No clear statement was found, "to freely give one-tenth of our income annually". But this statement was found:

"We call it a free-will offering, and so it is, for everything in the Gospel is by free will, but nevertheless it is a law of God which to us is everlasting. (Ibid. pp. 120-121).
In Hales's statement, his footnote follows the word "freely". This is a well-placed footnote regarding a "free-will offering", supra, not a definition of what is to be tithed.
Hales 6: Members who freely give a full 10 percent of their annual income receive all of the promised blessings of tithing, whether the amount is a widow's mite or a king's ransom.
Comment 6: This essay and even Hales's cited reference in the book, Church History and Modern Revelation, make it clear a proper tithe is scripturally defined as a tenth of surplus. Therefore, members who freely give a tenth of their surplus will also receive all of the promised blessings of tithing.
In defense of Hales's statement, the question must be posed, "Why pay a full 10 percent of one's annual income if that is more than what is required?" Perhaps Hales is repeating Bishop Brown's suggestion: "Pay your tithing on the basis on which you wish to be blessed." (Victor Brown Quote, supra.)
Hales 7: When a friend of President George Albert Smith asked him what he thought of his friend's personal plan to take what would have been tithing and donate his tenth in charitable donations of his own choice, President Smith's counsel was:
"I think you are a very generous man with someone else's property. . . .
" . . . You have told me what you have done with the Lord's money but you have not told me that you have given anyone a penny of your own. He is the best partner you have in the world. He gives you everything you have, even the air you breathe. He has said you should take one-tenth of what comes to you and give it to the Church as directed by the Lord. You haven't done that; you have taken your best partner's money, and have given it away." (Sharing the Gospel With Others, sel. Preston Nibley (1948), 46; see also 44–47.)
Comment 7: This is an interesting anecdote, but since it is not controlling authority over the scripture: " . . . when you are in the service of your fellow beings, you are only in the service of your God", Mosiah 2:17, the issue must be considered that one is not taking the tithing money away from God by tithing outside of church channels.
In any event, the following is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Regarding a man who did good works in the name of Jesus, but the man would not follow his apostles when commanded to by the Apostle John. Jesus said, "Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." (Luke 9:49).

5. Despite the impressions Holland, Tingey, and Hales may have given,
5a. the official interpretation of tithing remains “one-tenth of all their interest annually”. "Interest" is an increased amount or "surplus" (D&C 119:4-5) of income “more than [one] has need.” (Genesis 14:39, JST.), and
5b. "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." (On March 19, 1970 letter from the First Presidency.)


Subject:    Re: Tithing Settlement Time!
Date:    Nov 25 14:48
Author:    Missing one thing...
Sarony quotes the following FP statement:

The First Presidency has written: “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 their interest 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).

I'm missing something though. I read the rest of the post and didn't see where the word "income" was shown to mean something other than either your gross or net take home pay.

I don't want to say that you passed over that word because I may not have read your synopsis with enough care, but on first pass I didn't feel that you made your case to override that part of the statement.

Not that I believe that tithing should be paid to mormonism anyway mind you, but I'm trying to follow the logical argument.

OPEN MY EYES THAT I MAY SEE!


Subject:    You have hit the nail on the head by missing the point
Date:    Nov 25 15:31
Author:    Sarony
Sorry for the mixed metaphor, but your question reveals the "hide the ball" game the GAs play with their members, and not just on tithing.

You missed it because it was not there. Show me where the GAs explicitly wrote the amount to tithe was on one's gross or one's net. You may have missed the statement where it does NOT mean on gross or net, but I missed the statement where it does mean it on gross or net. If you find one, it will contradict the statement of the First Presidency that states every member of the church is "ENTITLED TO MAKE HIS OWN DECISION". If it is clearly on gross or net, the above statement from the First Presidency is meaningless.

The point is the GAs have left it intentionally vague modernly to maximize income. The earlier pronouncements were clearly based on a tithe of surplus. If they were to come right out and say, "pay on your gross" they would contradict Mormon scripture and official policy.

Talmage enumerated several legitimate human needs that came before calculating a tithing on the remainder. His statement eliminated a tithe on gross or net:

"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."

Hales cited to a book that says
"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." (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., emphasis added.)"

Let me insert the word "income" into the First Presidency statement. " . . . the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their income annually."
Did they define income for you? No.
Does it mean gross income? Show me an explicit statement from an authoritative source that says it.
Does it mean net income? Show me an explicit statement from an authoritative source that says it.
Does it mean excess, surplus, or income more than one has need? Yes. There are authoritative statements that support a tithe on surplus. I think these are the only explicit statements on what is to be tithed.


Subject:    Clear as the mud they want it to be...


Subject:    Why do MoMos deduct their tithing on their taxes?.
Date:    Nov 25 20:56
Author:    spencer
Seems to me that if you are GIVING your money to THE church,that you should be doing so without the thought of reward.

I doubt very much that AS many would tithe if they could not deduct it from their taxes.

How does one say HORSESHIT!!!!!


Subject:    Re: Why do MoMos deduct their tithing on their taxes?.
Date:    Nov 25 21:16
Author:    Sarony
You are right. My TBM DW is always disgusted when I deduct tithing from taxes. I am disgusted too, but for the waste, not for the fact that Jehovah is up there with his calculator, scaling my "blessings" back in a prorated amount, relative to the value I get back on my taxes.

Sheesh!


Subject:    Re: Why do MoMos deduct their tithing on their taxes?.
Date:    Nov 25 21:35
Author:    spencer
But Jehovah knows that you are getting some of the money back that you say you gave. So in fact you are not giving as much as you say you are. They call that lying but that in itself is such a MoMo trait anyway.


Subject:    Re: "new "concept of charitable giving
Date:    Nov 25 19:17
Author:    quixotequest
Your essay is pretty spot on. I stopped pay a "full tithe" a few years ago. I'm quite comfortable with the periodic "guilting" that comes with the reaffirmation from the pulpit of the "official" statement on tithing because I have developed a much more fulfilling attitude toward charitable giving. Surprisingly, my bishops, privately, have not tried to "guilt" me at all when I explain my position.

It made me really mad for a while because the "10% of the gross" statement is pretty grossly inaccurate. You are correct: not only is LDS doctrine resoundingly unclear, but while tithing is definitely a historical and scriptural practice, there are arguable, valid interpretations that differ from the LDS one.

But when I learned how dismally low the LDS Church's charitable contributions are compared to other organizations, I just decided not to pay tithing anymore. I wanted to feel my money was going more good--or at least benefiting the causes I care about.

The fact was, for a while, I decided to define myself as "someone who doesn't pay tithing." Defined by the negative, rather than affirmative. Not very fulfilling a self-imposed definition.

But then a little while later I read an article by Claude Rosenberg (www.newtithing.org) about how he asserts that anyone can be a philanthropist, and how fulfilled that can make one's life. He made me rethink how nice it can be to choose causes/organizations one feels strongly about and to make philanthropic contributions. Claude also has some very practical calculations so that someone can use to analyze what a good amount of charitable contribution is good. Some can afford way more than 10% comfortably. And some can't. The point is that's its not only okay, but much more enriching, to take control of how one donates their money. And, how much one donates should be well considered--not an arbitrary amount.

I now define myself as someone who pays "tithing," just not a Mormon tithe.

It bugged me how I developed a bit of a "I gave at the office" mentality when I paid a Mormon tithe. And it bugs me that many LDS have a similar attitude. Many really aren't as charitable as their tax deduction claims. Many aren't personally fulfilled because they are just paying their Mormon Tax. Many LDS might feel perfectly "blessed" and fulfilled for paying their tithing, but many would have a happier life taking more ownership for how they "spend" their money on donations. They ought to realize that the road to defining one's own plan of "tithing" (read: a charitable life) isn't that difficult, nor is it with that much penalty (assuming not attending temple isn't considered a bad thing. *smile*) from local LDS leadership. (I've found most bishops are just filling the role of the tax collector and would rather be doing something else, anyway.) When one takes as affirmative, philanthropic role like Mr. Rosenberg advocates, bishops really have little foundation to complain about it. (And none of my 3 bishops who know this about me have ever tried to make me feel guilty .)


Subject:    Thanks for the quote
Date:    Nov 25 21:10
Author:    Sarony
about how each can be a philanthropist.

I think some money would be much more effectively applied if I could do something for someone I knew up close. It would sometimes need to be done without the recipient knowing the source. But I could monitor the result and make adjustment accordingly. With the CoJCoLDS administering tithes by central planning, it may be applied as ineffectively as the former Soviet Union.

This may seem weird to some of you, but I have nieces on missions whose parents could use some relief. I could easily support them, and still have a huge chunk of change in lieu of giving it all to the tithing fund. Although I think my nieces are being captured by the Morg like so many of us were, they are still my family, and I could help my brother and sister-in-law.



Recovery from Mormonism - http://www.exmormon.org

siten, etten jaksanut lukea paljonkaan. Kysyin, missä kohtaa Raamatussa sanotaan, että pitää maksaa 10% liika omaisuudesta. Sellaista en tiedä olevan. Kymmenykset ovat 10% vuotuisesta tulosta eikä kukaan saa listätä tähän mitään.

Aikanaan koetettiin elää pyhityksen lain mukaan. Se on asia erikseen.

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

siten, etten jaksanut lukea paljonkaan. Kysyin, missä kohtaa Raamatussa sanotaan, että pitää maksaa 10% liika omaisuudesta. Sellaista en tiedä olevan. Kymmenykset ovat 10% vuotuisesta tulosta eikä kukaan saa listätä tähän mitään.

Aikanaan koetettiin elää pyhityksen lain mukaan. Se on asia erikseen.

Opettele!

sorry kuule kirjoitti:

Opettele!

tarpeeksi em. kommenttini perusteluksi. Osaan englantia, mutta en kovin hyvin.

ja mieti kirjoitti:

Jos teksti on liian pitkä niin lue ainakin pääotsakkeet.


The Scriptural and Official Meaning of Tithing © Sarony

1. Introduction – It is Not 10% of Gross
2. The Scriptural Meaning of "Interest" is Excess and Surplus Income
3. The Official Meaning is 10% of Excess; found in "I Have a Question", "A Statement of the First Presidency", and "The General Handbook"
4. Harmony of the Scriptural and Official Meanings in Light of Holland's, Tingey's, and Hales's Messages
5. Conclusion - It is an Individual Matter How Much to Pay

1. The last three General Conferences of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have included speeches dedicated to tithing. Jeffery R. Holland delivered a speech in the October, 2001 Conference. Earl C. Tingey delivered a speech in the April, 2002 Conference. And Robert D. Hales delivered a speech in the October, 2002 Conference.

Each of them, on an escalating scale, may have influenced Mormons to think they must pay a tithe on their gross incomes. They don’t.

All inspired latter-day pronouncements on the amount to be tithed, must be in harmony with each other. Otherwise, there is no inspiration.

In sections 2 and 3 of this essay, I will discuss official Mormon scripture and policy, respectively. In section 4, I will review pertinent statements by Holland, Tingey, and Hales, respectively, in view of official Mormon scripture and policy.

What they said, in light of official Mormon scripture and policy may appear deceptive.

1a. Various historical tithing schemes have been discussed in scholarly works. All inspired latter-day pronouncements regarding what exactly is tithed, must be in harmony with each other. Otherwise, they are not inspired. The scope of this essay is directed to official LDS scriptural passages and current official pronouncements from the church.

2. The meaning of what is tithed can be ascertained from Mormon scripture.

2a. The oldest known Mormon expression of tithing is in the Book of Mormon. In Alma (1828-1829) it appears that Abraham paid “tithes of one-tenth part of all he possessed.” Joseph Smith would shed more light and knowledge on this passage later, to clarify that Abraham paid a one-tenth part of his excess (see paragraph 2b). In 3 Nephi 24, Malachi 3 is quoted. There is no definition of tithing in this passage.

2b. Apparently, the first scriptural definition of what exactly is tithed, was given by Smith in his inspired translation (“Joseph Smith Translation” or “JST”) of Genesis 14 (about 1830, see D&C 37:1), which included new verses. Verse 39 states:

“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 HE HAD NEED.” (Emphasis added.)

One could make the argument that Abram paid tithes of all he had, period. But that conclusion is not in harmony with other modern-day passages. (See paragraphs 2d and 2e, and paragraph 4, Comment 6). One could also make the argument that the phrase "more than he had need" is an incidental reference to God's abundant blessings to Abram, and not a reference to a tithe of the amount more than he had need. But that interpretation requires semantic gymnastics that takes out of context, the phrase "more than he had need".

The passage in Genesis 14 therefore refers to a tithe on excess. The passage can be found in the Quadruple Combination, on page 798, after the Bible Dictionary, in the section JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION. Although the church avoids several of Smith's translations in the JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION, the church has included this one in its official and current book of scripture as authoritative commentary.

The passage in Alma can be harmonized with the passage in Genesis, only if the one-tenth part is one tenth of the amount “more than [Abram] had need.”

2c. Several passages were produced in the Doctrine & Covenants (D&C). But they did not provide a definition of what is tithed. They are D&C 64:23 (1831), 85:3 (1832), and 97:11-12 (1833).

2d. Finally, a definition for the modern church was produced. In D&C 119:3-4 (1838), it states:

“And after that, those who have been thus tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their INTEREST annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.” (Emphasis added.)

To emphasize what is to be tithed, verse 5 speaks to the Saints who were gathering, “all those who gather to the land of Zion shall be tithed of all their SURPLUS properties, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide. . . .” (Ibid. Emphasis added.)

For verses 4 and 5 to be harmonious, INTEREST and SURPLUS must have common meaning.

2e. A review of pertinent dictionary definitions for INTEREST include (1) right, title, or legal SHARE in something, (2) the PROFIT in goods or money that is made on invested capital, and (3) an EXCESS or bonus beyond what is expected or due.

All three definitions of INTEREST are in harmony with the passage describing Abram: “all the riches which he possessed (legal SHARE), which God had given him more than he had need” (PROFIT, EXCESS). (Genesis 14:39 JST). Therefore, the D&C 119 expression of a tithe on INTEREST or a tithe on SURPLUS, as defined, is in harmony with what Smith meant when he wrote Genesis 14:39, supra.

3a. In the April 1974 Ensign, Bishop Victor L. Brown repeated a 1970 Statement of the First Presidency. The meaning of tithing on excess has not changed if one reads this statement in light of Smith’s two scriptural definitions, set forth in paragraphs 2b and 2d, supra. Here is an extract of Brown’s “I Have A Question”:

”My wife and I want to fully obey the Lord’s commandment to pay tithing, but we are confused as to what figure we should base our tithing on. Can you help us?

Bishop Victor L. Brown, Presiding Bishop of the Church.

Since we learn in the Book of Mormon that Abraham paid his tithing to Melchizedek, we know the law of tithing was lived in ancient times. This law was reestablished in the Church in this dispensation through a revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith at Far West, Missouri, on July 18, 1838, as recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, section 119, verses 3-4:

“And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.
“And after that, those who have been thus tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.” D&C 119:3-4.

”On March 19, 1970, the First Presidency sent the following letter to presidents of stakes and missions, bishops of wards, and presidents of branches in answer to the question,
“What is a proper tithe?”
“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.” (End of quote from the March 19, 1970 letter.)

”At the close of each year, each member of the Church has the responsibility of attending tithing settlement with his bishop. At this time, each member has the opportunity to declare whether he is a full, part, or non-tithe payer. The payment of tithing is A MATTER BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE LORD. The bishop is merely the Lord’s servant who receives and accounts for the contribution.
The Lord has promised that he will open the windows of heaven to those who pay their tithes and offerings. (Quotation of Malachi: 3:8-10).

“When one has been completely honest with the Lord, a feeling of peace and tranquility enters his heart and he knows that he is a full tithe payer.
Pay your tithing on the basis on which you wish to be blessed." (End of Victor Brown Quote. Emphases added.)

If “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” (March 19, 1970 First Presidency Letter), how can every member do that if Holland, Tingey, and Hales told the faithful to pay 10 percent of their gross, or their net for that matter?

3b. The General Handbook of Instructions quotes from the March 19, 1970 letter from the First Presidency as its definition of what is tithed. Here is a portion of the General Handbook of Instructions from that section:

Definition of Tithing
The First Presidency has written: “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 their interest 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).

Because the General Handbook of Instructions quotes the 1970 letter from the First Presidency, the 1970 letter remains the official written policy on tithing.

But even the First Presidency statement fails to define "INCOME". Hence, one must look to the scriptures for a definition. They state INTEREST income (D&C 119:4), which means excess or SURPLUS income (D&C 119:5) MORE THAN [THE TITHE PAYER] HAS NEED (Genesis 14:39, JST).

4. In view of the fact that a proper tithe is based upon surplus, it may come as a surprise that the speeches of Holland, Tingey, and Hales message may have been legally correct. However, because they did not volunteer pertinent information, it could have been misunderstood.

4a. JEFFREY R. HOLLAND'S SPEECH

When Holland told his audience that tithing is 10 percent of income, he quoted from the deceased Apostle James E. Talmage.

Holland's lengthy quotation of Talmage is so riddled with ellipses and square brackets, one wonders what Talmage actually wrote.

I checked.

Holland's "quotation" is not what Talmage meant, particularly regarding what should be tithed.

The amount to be tithed is and remains one tenth of a person's increase after needs are met. (Genesis 14:39, Joseph Smith Translation, D&C 119:3-5). The First Presidency letter dated March 19, 1970 states in part, " 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." (Supra.)

Talmage's writing supports current official policy, and the two scriptures cited above. Holland's "quotation" of Talmage changes the meaning Talmage wrote.

Below is a full text, alternating-paragraph quotation of both Talmage and Holland.
I have highlighted differences with ALL CAPS.
(Comments are set forth in parenthesis).

(1)TALMAGE: "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.

(1)HOLLAND: ‘You have need of many things in this world—food, clothing, and shelter for your family … , the common comforts of life. …

(COMMENT 1: Holland leaves the individual out: "YOURSELF", and the following needs: "THE THINGS THAT SHALL BE CONDUCIVE TO REFINEMENT, TO DEVELOPMENT, TO RIGHTEOUS ENJOYMENT". Talmage taught these are legitimate needs. But lest Holland give a hint that tithing should be calculated after needs are met, he has dropped these lines.)

(2)TALMAGE: 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 GAIN; 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.
(2)HOLLAND: 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 …
(COMMENT 2: Holland truncates the phrase "increase in substance and possessions" probably because it fleshes out the meaning of an increase, that tithing should be paid after a calculation of "surplus properties" (D&C 119:5.) )
(3) TALMAGE: 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."
(3) HOLLAND: [so] instead of doing as mortal landlords do—requir[ing] you to … pay in advance, whatever your fortunes or … prospects may be—you shall pay me … [only] 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 … [YOUR 10 PERCENT will be 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 … [YOUR 10 PERCENT will be] less. … [WHATEVER YOUR CIRCUMSTANCE, THE TITHE WILL BE FAIR.]’

(COMMENT 3:
FIRST, Holland deletes the phrase "not in advance" since that contradicts current declarations to "pay the Lord first" or even as Hinckley suggested to pay even in the face of disaster; the story of the woman who needed to pay her tuition, but paid tithing instead.
SECOND, Holland inserts "YOUR 10 PERCENT" where Talmage clearly did not say "ten percent". Rather, Talmage's statement is in harmony with the First Presidency letter dated March 19, 1970 states in part, " 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."
THIRD, like a white rabbit from a hat, Holland pulls the following "quotation" out of thin air: "whatever your circumstance, the tithe will be fair".
FOURTH, Holland drops the phrase, "you shall pay me nothing." The reason is this would have destroyed the guilt-inspiring story of Mary Fielding Smith in his message. Because, to quote Talmage, she was "reduced to the utmost penury so that you have nothing coming in".)

(4) TALMAGE: Have you ever found a landlord of earth who was willing to make that kind of a contract with you? When I consider the liberality of it all, and the consideration that my Lord has had for me, I feel in my heart that I could scarcely raise my countenance to his heaven above if I tried to defraud him out of that just rental.

(4) HOLLAND: “Have you ever found a landlord on earth who was willing to make that kind of [EQUITABLE] contract with you?” Elder Talmage asks. “When I consider the liberality of it all,” he says, “… I feel in my heart that I could scarcely raise my countenance to … Heaven … if I tried to defraud [GOD] out of that [WHICH IS RIGHTFULLY HIS].”

(COMMENT 4: Holland's insertion of "EQUITALE", "GOD", and "WHICH IS RIGHTFULLY HIS" may inspire awe and guilt. It also minimizes the thought that one might have an indifferent or even unfair "landlord".)

Summary. Talmage did not mean what Holland said when Holland "quoted" Talmage.

4b. EARL C. TINGEY'S SPPECH

Tingey showed from his first childhood journal, that he had earned $7.00 gross, and that he paid a $0.70 tithe.

But Tingey owed no taxes. Although it appeared he was paying a tithe on his gross, he was actually paying a tithe on his net since they were the same.

But Tingey was also paying a tithe on his excess beyond his needs. Tingey was a legal minor according to Mormon scripture, and his parents were obligated to meet his needs; the obligation was to his "parents for [his] maintenance until [he became] of age." (D&C 83:4). Tingey’s talk, although misleading, was also consistent with the original meaning in Genesis 14:39 where Abram paid a tithe on “that which God had given him, more than that which he had need.”

It is remarkable that Tingey’s $0.70 from a gross of $7.00 was a tithe on his gross, his net, and his excess!

4c. ROBERT D. HALES'S SPEECH

Let us review Hales's pertinent statements regarding tithing. They are listed as Hales 1 through Hales 7:
Hales 1: "In the Old Testament, Abraham proved his faith by paying tithes to the great high priest Melchizedek." (See Genesis 14:20.)
Comment 1: The amount Abraham paid is not clear, and this statement oversimplifies that Abraham paid tithes of his excess. See JST Genesis 14:39)

Hales 2: Abraham's grandson Jacob vowed to the Lord, "Of all thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee." Genesis 28:22.
Comment 2: This verse indicates Jacob paid a tenth. But to harmonize this with Joseph Smith's inspired translation of the Bible, since it is clear Abraham paid a tenth of his excess, Genesis 14:39 JST, what Jacob vowed to pay was individual to Jacob. If Jacob was paying what Abraham paid, it was a tenth of his excess.
Hales 3: The strict observance of the law of tithing not only qualifies us to receive the higher, saving ordinances of the temple, it allows us to receive them on behalf of our ancestors. When asked whether members of the Church could be baptized for the dead if they had not paid their tithing, President John Taylor, then of the Quorum of the Twelve, answered: "A man who has not paid his tithing is unfit to be baptized for his dead. . . . If a man has not faith enough to attend to these little things, he has not faith enough to save himself and his friends." (History of the Church, 7:292–93.)
Comment 3: This paragraph is targeted to the youth who are being taken to the temple almost monthly nowadays.
Hales 4: The law of consecration was then withdrawn. In its place the Lord revealed the law of tithing for the whole Church. (See historical introduction to D&C 119.) On July 8, 1838, He declared:
"And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people.
" . . . Those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever." (D&C 119:3-4).
Comment 4: This passage has been dealt with, supra. The scriptural meaning of "interest" is increase or excess or surplus. Just read the next verse, 5:
"Verily I say unto you, it shall come to pass that all those who gather unto the land of Zion shall be tithed of their surplus properties . . . "
Could "tithed of their surplus properties" mean all of their surplus properties? Just look at what Hales does with his next statement, and then, for a surprise, read what the reference actually says.

Hales 5: The law of tithing prepares us to live the higher law of consecration—to dedicate and give all our time, talents, and resources to the work of the Lord. Until the day when we are required to live this higher law, we are commanded to live the law of the tithe, which is to freely give one-tenth of our income annually. (See Church History and Modern Revelation (third series, 1946), 120.)

Comment 5: There are two significant problems with the statement and the reference.
First, the 1970 letter of the First Presidency, as a newer pronouncement from an authoritative source, supercedes a 1946 book such as Church History and Modern Revelation.
To repeat, the 1970 First Presidency letter states:

"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.”

Second, even the book Church History and Modern Revelation, indicates a tithing is a tenth of the surplus:

"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." (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., emphasis added.)

"[P]ay the tenth", ibid., is clearly referring to less than "all their surplus". Since Elder Hales's talk does not quote from the 1946 book, rather it only lists a citation to it, it is not clear what he was referring to on page 120. No clear statement was found, "to freely give one-tenth of our income annually". But this statement was found:

"We call it a free-will offering, and so it is, for everything in the Gospel is by free will, but nevertheless it is a law of God which to us is everlasting. (Ibid. pp. 120-121).
In Hales's statement, his footnote follows the word "freely". This is a well-placed footnote regarding a "free-will offering", supra, not a definition of what is to be tithed.
Hales 6: Members who freely give a full 10 percent of their annual income receive all of the promised blessings of tithing, whether the amount is a widow's mite or a king's ransom.
Comment 6: This essay and even Hales's cited reference in the book, Church History and Modern Revelation, make it clear a proper tithe is scripturally defined as a tenth of surplus. Therefore, members who freely give a tenth of their surplus will also receive all of the promised blessings of tithing.
In defense of Hales's statement, the question must be posed, "Why pay a full 10 percent of one's annual income if that is more than what is required?" Perhaps Hales is repeating Bishop Brown's suggestion: "Pay your tithing on the basis on which you wish to be blessed." (Victor Brown Quote, supra.)
Hales 7: When a friend of President George Albert Smith asked him what he thought of his friend's personal plan to take what would have been tithing and donate his tenth in charitable donations of his own choice, President Smith's counsel was:
"I think you are a very generous man with someone else's property. . . .
" . . . You have told me what you have done with the Lord's money but you have not told me that you have given anyone a penny of your own. He is the best partner you have in the world. He gives you everything you have, even the air you breathe. He has said you should take one-tenth of what comes to you and give it to the Church as directed by the Lord. You haven't done that; you have taken your best partner's money, and have given it away." (Sharing the Gospel With Others, sel. Preston Nibley (1948), 46; see also 44–47.)
Comment 7: This is an interesting anecdote, but since it is not controlling authority over the scripture: " . . . when you are in the service of your fellow beings, you are only in the service of your God", Mosiah 2:17, the issue must be considered that one is not taking the tithing money away from God by tithing outside of church channels.
In any event, the following is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. Regarding a man who did good works in the name of Jesus, but the man would not follow his apostles when commanded to by the Apostle John. Jesus said, "Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us." (Luke 9:49).

5. Despite the impressions Holland, Tingey, and Hales may have given,
5a. the official interpretation of tithing remains “one-tenth of all their interest annually”. "Interest" is an increased amount or "surplus" (D&C 119:4-5) of income “more than [one] has need.” (Genesis 14:39, JST.), and
5b. "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." (On March 19, 1970 letter from the First Presidency.)


Subject:    Re: Tithing Settlement Time!
Date:    Nov 25 14:48
Author:    Missing one thing...
Sarony quotes the following FP statement:

The First Presidency has written: “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 their interest 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).

I'm missing something though. I read the rest of the post and didn't see where the word "income" was shown to mean something other than either your gross or net take home pay.

I don't want to say that you passed over that word because I may not have read your synopsis with enough care, but on first pass I didn't feel that you made your case to override that part of the statement.

Not that I believe that tithing should be paid to mormonism anyway mind you, but I'm trying to follow the logical argument.

OPEN MY EYES THAT I MAY SEE!


Subject:    You have hit the nail on the head by missing the point
Date:    Nov 25 15:31
Author:    Sarony
Sorry for the mixed metaphor, but your question reveals the "hide the ball" game the GAs play with their members, and not just on tithing.

You missed it because it was not there. Show me where the GAs explicitly wrote the amount to tithe was on one's gross or one's net. You may have missed the statement where it does NOT mean on gross or net, but I missed the statement where it does mean it on gross or net. If you find one, it will contradict the statement of the First Presidency that states every member of the church is "ENTITLED TO MAKE HIS OWN DECISION". If it is clearly on gross or net, the above statement from the First Presidency is meaningless.

The point is the GAs have left it intentionally vague modernly to maximize income. The earlier pronouncements were clearly based on a tithe of surplus. If they were to come right out and say, "pay on your gross" they would contradict Mormon scripture and official policy.

Talmage enumerated several legitimate human needs that came before calculating a tithing on the remainder. His statement eliminated a tithe on gross or net:

"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."

Hales cited to a book that says
"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." (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., emphasis added.)"

Let me insert the word "income" into the First Presidency statement. " . . . the members of the Church should pay one-tenth of all their income annually."
Did they define income for you? No.
Does it mean gross income? Show me an explicit statement from an authoritative source that says it.
Does it mean net income? Show me an explicit statement from an authoritative source that says it.
Does it mean excess, surplus, or income more than one has need? Yes. There are authoritative statements that support a tithe on surplus. I think these are the only explicit statements on what is to be tithed.


Subject:    Clear as the mud they want it to be...


Subject:    Why do MoMos deduct their tithing on their taxes?.
Date:    Nov 25 20:56
Author:    spencer
Seems to me that if you are GIVING your money to THE church,that you should be doing so without the thought of reward.

I doubt very much that AS many would tithe if they could not deduct it from their taxes.

How does one say HORSESHIT!!!!!


Subject:    Re: Why do MoMos deduct their tithing on their taxes?.
Date:    Nov 25 21:16
Author:    Sarony
You are right. My TBM DW is always disgusted when I deduct tithing from taxes. I am disgusted too, but for the waste, not for the fact that Jehovah is up there with his calculator, scaling my "blessings" back in a prorated amount, relative to the value I get back on my taxes.

Sheesh!


Subject:    Re: Why do MoMos deduct their tithing on their taxes?.
Date:    Nov 25 21:35
Author:    spencer
But Jehovah knows that you are getting some of the money back that you say you gave. So in fact you are not giving as much as you say you are. They call that lying but that in itself is such a MoMo trait anyway.


Subject:    Re: "new "concept of charitable giving
Date:    Nov 25 19:17
Author:    quixotequest
Your essay is pretty spot on. I stopped pay a "full tithe" a few years ago. I'm quite comfortable with the periodic "guilting" that comes with the reaffirmation from the pulpit of the "official" statement on tithing because I have developed a much more fulfilling attitude toward charitable giving. Surprisingly, my bishops, privately, have not tried to "guilt" me at all when I explain my position.

It made me really mad for a while because the "10% of the gross" statement is pretty grossly inaccurate. You are correct: not only is LDS doctrine resoundingly unclear, but while tithing is definitely a historical and scriptural practice, there are arguable, valid interpretations that differ from the LDS one.

But when I learned how dismally low the LDS Church's charitable contributions are compared to other organizations, I just decided not to pay tithing anymore. I wanted to feel my money was going more good--or at least benefiting the causes I care about.

The fact was, for a while, I decided to define myself as "someone who doesn't pay tithing." Defined by the negative, rather than affirmative. Not very fulfilling a self-imposed definition.

But then a little while later I read an article by Claude Rosenberg (www.newtithing.org) about how he asserts that anyone can be a philanthropist, and how fulfilled that can make one's life. He made me rethink how nice it can be to choose causes/organizations one feels strongly about and to make philanthropic contributions. Claude also has some very practical calculations so that someone can use to analyze what a good amount of charitable contribution is good. Some can afford way more than 10% comfortably. And some can't. The point is that's its not only okay, but much more enriching, to take control of how one donates their money. And, how much one donates should be well considered--not an arbitrary amount.

I now define myself as someone who pays "tithing," just not a Mormon tithe.

It bugged me how I developed a bit of a "I gave at the office" mentality when I paid a Mormon tithe. And it bugs me that many LDS have a similar attitude. Many really aren't as charitable as their tax deduction claims. Many aren't personally fulfilled because they are just paying their Mormon Tax. Many LDS might feel perfectly "blessed" and fulfilled for paying their tithing, but many would have a happier life taking more ownership for how they "spend" their money on donations. They ought to realize that the road to defining one's own plan of "tithing" (read: a charitable life) isn't that difficult, nor is it with that much penalty (assuming not attending temple isn't considered a bad thing. *smile*) from local LDS leadership. (I've found most bishops are just filling the role of the tax collector and would rather be doing something else, anyway.) When one takes as affirmative, philanthropic role like Mr. Rosenberg advocates, bishops really have little foundation to complain about it. (And none of my 3 bishops who know this about me have ever tried to make me feel guilty .)


Subject:    Thanks for the quote
Date:    Nov 25 21:10
Author:    Sarony
about how each can be a philanthropist.

I think some money would be much more effectively applied if I could do something for someone I knew up close. It would sometimes need to be done without the recipient knowing the source. But I could monitor the result and make adjustment accordingly. With the CoJCoLDS administering tithes by central planning, it may be applied as ineffectively as the former Soviet Union.

This may seem weird to some of you, but I have nieces on missions whose parents could use some relief. I could easily support them, and still have a huge chunk of change in lieu of giving it all to the tithing fund. Although I think my nieces are being captured by the Morg like so many of us were, they are still my family, and I could help my brother and sister-in-law.



Recovery from Mormonism - http://www.exmormon.org

"All inspired latter-day pronouncements regarding what exactly is tithed, must be in harmony with each other. Otherwise, they are not inspired."

Tämä ei siis pidä paikaansa... Onko siis aihetta lukea yhtään enempää ko. tekstiä?

...?

zappax kirjoitti:

"All inspired latter-day pronouncements regarding what exactly is tithed, must be in harmony with each other. Otherwise, they are not inspired."

Tämä ei siis pidä paikaansa... Onko siis aihetta lukea yhtään enempää ko. tekstiä?

...?

Totta kai ilmoitusten pitää olla sopusoinnussa keskenään, muuten jotain on pielessä ja pahasti.

ihmettelenpä kirjoitti:

Totta kai ilmoitusten pitää olla sopusoinnussa keskenään, muuten jotain on pielessä ja pahasti.

Joka ajanjaksolla voi ihan hyvin olla jostakin säännöstä omat sovelluksensa, johtuen vaikka ihmisten uskollisuuden määrästä, jne. muista syistä (vaikka yhteiskunnalliset vrt. moniavioisuus...).

Kun opimme elämään vähemmän (pienemmän tms.) lain kanssa, niin samme suuremman lain sen jälkeen. Näin yleistäen siis.

UT:ssa puhutaan maitoa ennen lihaa jutusta...

Pyhityksen laki on mm. sellaine että sen noudattaminen tulee sitten joskus ajankohtaiseksi. Sitä kokeiltiin jo innokkasti 1800-luvulla, mutta ihmisten itsekkyys oli suurempi.

miksi tämä asia sinua kiinnostaa? Vaikuttaa siltä, että koetat löytää tästäkin vain jotain epäilyttävää.

Pitkäaikaisena ja aktiivisena jäsenä minua ei ole koskaan epäilyttänyt kirkon varojen käytttö. Olen pikemminkin ihmetellyt, miten paljon riittää meille suomalaisillekin, sillä kovin monia kymmenysten maksajia ei täällä ole. Silti on rakennettu useita suuria seurakuntakeskuksia ja nyt nousee tosi hieno temppeli!

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

miksi tämä asia sinua kiinnostaa? Vaikuttaa siltä, että koetat löytää tästäkin vain jotain epäilyttävää.

Pitkäaikaisena ja aktiivisena jäsenä minua ei ole koskaan epäilyttänyt kirkon varojen käytttö. Olen pikemminkin ihmetellyt, miten paljon riittää meille suomalaisillekin, sillä kovin monia kymmenysten maksajia ei täällä ole. Silti on rakennettu useita suuria seurakuntakeskuksia ja nyt nousee tosi hieno temppeli!

"miksi tämä asia sinua kiinnostaa? Vaikuttaa siltä, että koetat löytää tästäkin vain jotain epäilyttävää."

Tässäkin heti yrität kyseenalaistaa vaikuttimia. Missään yhteisössä ei valvota eikä voida valvoa varainkäyttöä niin, että vain kerrotaan asioiden olevan kunnossa.

Antaisitko nyt ne luvut?

Joti kirjoitti:

"miksi tämä asia sinua kiinnostaa? Vaikuttaa siltä, että koetat löytää tästäkin vain jotain epäilyttävää."

Tässäkin heti yrität kyseenalaistaa vaikuttimia. Missään yhteisössä ei valvota eikä voida valvoa varainkäyttöä niin, että vain kerrotaan asioiden olevan kunnossa.

Antaisitko nyt ne luvut?

Et ole edes jäsen, joten motiivisi tietää on kyseenalainen ja suorastaan läpinäkyvä.

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

Et ole edes jäsen, joten motiivisi tietää on kyseenalainen ja suorastaan läpinäkyvä.

Miksi asia on salainen?

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

Et ole edes jäsen, joten motiivisi tietää on kyseenalainen ja suorastaan läpinäkyvä.

Miksi asia on salainen?

itse kirjoitti:

Miksi asia on salainen?

Tilintarkastajat saavat nähdä kaiken eikä ole syytä epäillä heitä.

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

Tilintarkastajat saavat nähdä kaiken eikä ole syytä epäillä heitä.

"Tilintarkastajat saavat nähdä kaiken eikä ole syytä epäillä heitä."

Mitäpä tähän enää voisi lisätä? Mutta sain niin hyvät kesänaurut, että voinkin lähteä ansaitulle lomalleni iloisin mielin. Heippa!

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

Tilintarkastajat saavat nähdä kaiken eikä ole syytä epäillä heitä.

Mihin oikeastaan rahaa käytetään. 1 Miljardi meni ostoskeskukseen. Rahalla kuulemma tehdään hyviä asioita autetaan ihmisiä ja niin edes päin. Tuollasen ison onnettomuuden niin kuin tsunamin hoitoon meni rahaa 1 miljoona. Mihin loput? Jos rahalla kerta autetaan ihmisiä niin olisi voinut antaa tsunami alueella edes muutaman kymmen miljoonaa näin aluksi. Kumminkin ei ole vähään aikaan tapahtunut mitää noin isoa onnettomuutta kuin tsunami.

Olen kuullut jotain mormonien ruuan varastoinnista. Onko mormoni kirkolla joku systeemi että sapuskaa pitää varastoida toen teolla jotain hätää varten?

Lopuksi mites tuo paasto homma mistä tulee rahaa nälkää näkeville meneekö se raha suoraan afrikkaan vai meneekö se saman kassan kautta mihin menevät kirkollisverot?

tapanilta! kirjoitti:

"Tilintarkastajat saavat nähdä kaiken eikä ole syytä epäillä heitä."

Mitäpä tähän enää voisi lisätä? Mutta sain niin hyvät kesänaurut, että voinkin lähteä ansaitulle lomalleni iloisin mielin. Heippa!

mikä on kehäpäätelmä? En ole päätellyt mitään kehässä, vaan todennut oman luottamukseni kirkon tilintarkastajiin ja kirkon johtoon.

??? kirjoitti:

Mihin oikeastaan rahaa käytetään. 1 Miljardi meni ostoskeskukseen. Rahalla kuulemma tehdään hyviä asioita autetaan ihmisiä ja niin edes päin. Tuollasen ison onnettomuuden niin kuin tsunamin hoitoon meni rahaa 1 miljoona. Mihin loput? Jos rahalla kerta autetaan ihmisiä niin olisi voinut antaa tsunami alueella edes muutaman kymmen miljoonaa näin aluksi. Kumminkin ei ole vähään aikaan tapahtunut mitää noin isoa onnettomuutta kuin tsunami.

Olen kuullut jotain mormonien ruuan varastoinnista. Onko mormoni kirkolla joku systeemi että sapuskaa pitää varastoida toen teolla jotain hätää varten?

Lopuksi mites tuo paasto homma mistä tulee rahaa nälkää näkeville meneekö se raha suoraan afrikkaan vai meneekö se saman kassan kautta mihin menevät kirkollisverot?

kirkon humanitaarisesta toiminnasta sivuilla
http://www.mormonit.fi
Siellä on mm. paastorahojen käytöstä. Suuri osa niistä käytetään oman seurakunnan puutteenalaisten auttamiseen. Ylijäämä lähetetään kirkon paastorahastoon.

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

mikä on kehäpäätelmä? En ole päätellyt mitään kehässä, vaan todennut oman luottamukseni kirkon tilintarkastajiin ja kirkon johtoon.

Jättäisit jo tuon argumentoinnin virheet -listan rauhaan, kun et käsitä siitä mitään!

heko heko kirjoitti:

Jättäisit jo tuon argumentoinnin virheet -listan rauhaan, kun et käsitä siitä mitään!

Tässä on esimerkki kehäpäätelmästä noilta skeptikojen sivuilta. Ajattele, miten se sopii eli ei sovi siihen, mitä olen sanonut.

"Jumala on olemassa, koska Raamattu sanoo niin. Ja Raamattu on totta, koska se on Jumalan sanaa, eikä Jumala koskaan valehtele." - Koska väitteen johtopäätöksen eli Jumalan olemassaolon hyväksyminen vaatii ensin lähtöoletuksena Jumalan olemassaolon hyväksymistä, ei väitteellä ole mitään todistusvoimaa.

Kehäpäätelmä on johtopäätösten perusteleminen väitteen lähtökohdilla. Tätähän en ole tehnyt. Olen vedonnut siihen, että jokainen voi saada varmuuden Mormonin kirjasta, kun tutkii. Lähtökohtana ei ole tuo varmuus, vaan se, että tuon varmuuden saaminen on mahdollista, kun tekee oman osansa. Näin on monien muidenkin asioiden kanssa. Tutkimalla läytää ratkaisuja eli "etsivä löytää ja kolkuttavalle avataan".

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

Tässä on esimerkki kehäpäätelmästä noilta skeptikojen sivuilta. Ajattele, miten se sopii eli ei sovi siihen, mitä olen sanonut.

"Jumala on olemassa, koska Raamattu sanoo niin. Ja Raamattu on totta, koska se on Jumalan sanaa, eikä Jumala koskaan valehtele." - Koska väitteen johtopäätöksen eli Jumalan olemassaolon hyväksyminen vaatii ensin lähtöoletuksena Jumalan olemassaolon hyväksymistä, ei väitteellä ole mitään todistusvoimaa.

Kehäpäätelmä on johtopäätösten perusteleminen väitteen lähtökohdilla. Tätähän en ole tehnyt. Olen vedonnut siihen, että jokainen voi saada varmuuden Mormonin kirjasta, kun tutkii. Lähtökohtana ei ole tuo varmuus, vaan se, että tuon varmuuden saaminen on mahdollista, kun tekee oman osansa. Näin on monien muidenkin asioiden kanssa. Tutkimalla läytää ratkaisuja eli "etsivä löytää ja kolkuttavalle avataan".

Täs oli kyse tileistä ja niiden tarkastuksesta hei. Mutta kyllä tuo MK:n totuuden "huomaaminenkin" käy esimerkistä.

Onhan tää jo sulle selitetty, mutta pannaan vielä yhden kerran:

Väität että kaikki, jotka tutkivat Mormonin kirjaa, saavat siitä todistuksen, että se on Jumalan ilmoitusta.

Väitteesi on perusteeton. Ainoa mihin voit vedota, on jae MK:ssa itsessään. Eihän siihen voi vedota oikeasti. Et myöskään voi vedota siihen, että itse tunnet sitä tai tätä ja olet vakuuttunut jonkin totuudesta, ja sitten vain päistikkaa väität, että kaikki muutkin voivat kokea saman. Ei se kuule noin toimi.

Tietenkin kirjoitan tämän ihan turhaan, olen lukenut viestejäsi eikä sinulle mene jakeluun koko logiikka alkuunkaan. Mutta ehkä joku muu lukija pääsee kärryille tutkiessaan näitä juttuja.

Hyvää yötä, Suomi.

heko heko kirjoitti:

Täs oli kyse tileistä ja niiden tarkastuksesta hei. Mutta kyllä tuo MK:n totuuden "huomaaminenkin" käy esimerkistä.

Onhan tää jo sulle selitetty, mutta pannaan vielä yhden kerran:

Väität että kaikki, jotka tutkivat Mormonin kirjaa, saavat siitä todistuksen, että se on Jumalan ilmoitusta.

Väitteesi on perusteeton. Ainoa mihin voit vedota, on jae MK:ssa itsessään. Eihän siihen voi vedota oikeasti. Et myöskään voi vedota siihen, että itse tunnet sitä tai tätä ja olet vakuuttunut jonkin totuudesta, ja sitten vain päistikkaa väität, että kaikki muutkin voivat kokea saman. Ei se kuule noin toimi.

Tietenkin kirjoitan tämän ihan turhaan, olen lukenut viestejäsi eikä sinulle mene jakeluun koko logiikka alkuunkaan. Mutta ehkä joku muu lukija pääsee kärryille tutkiessaan näitä juttuja.

Hyvää yötä, Suomi.

”Väität että kaikki, jotka tutkivat Mormonin kirjaa, saavat siitä todistuksen, että se on Jumalan ilmoitusta.
Väitteesi on perusteeton. Ainoa mihin voit vedota, on jae MK:ssa itsessään. Eihän siihen voi vedota oikeasti. Et myöskään voi vedota siihen, että itse tunnet sitä tai tätä ja olet vakuuttunut jonkin totuudesta, ja sitten vain päistikkaa väität, että kaikki muutkin voivat kokea saman. Ei se kuule noin toimi.”

Ihan niin. Kun minua opetettiin, niin sisaret sanoivat, että lukiessaan pitää toivoa Mormonin kirjan olevan totta, että eihän Pyhä Henki voi antaa todistusta, jos etsii virheitä ja epäilee. Vähän luulen, että sitä se koko totuus onkin; pitää ensin haluta kuulua mormoneihin, vaikka vain sosiaalisista syistä, ja sitten toivoa voivansa hyväksyä myös opin, niin saahan siitä ’varmuuden’, mutta ei kaikki mitä hurjasti toivoo ole totta, syntyipä toivosta minkälainen fantasia ja elämäntapa hyvänsä. Ja täytyy vielä muistaa sekin ettei edes todistuksesta syntyvä innostus, mistä minullekin usein todistettiin, voimantunne ja kiihko ole merkki oikeasta eikä asian hyvyydestä, myös huonoihin ja vahingoittaviin asioihin uskovat ovat usein voimakkaita ja aatteensa levityksessä menestyviä.

Mutta on sitä pahempiinkin asioihin uskottu, joten en minä sillä. Jos joku haluaa uskoa Joseph Smithiin ja mormonikirkon tilintarkastajiin, niin siitä vaan.

vehmas kirjoitti:

”Väität että kaikki, jotka tutkivat Mormonin kirjaa, saavat siitä todistuksen, että se on Jumalan ilmoitusta.
Väitteesi on perusteeton. Ainoa mihin voit vedota, on jae MK:ssa itsessään. Eihän siihen voi vedota oikeasti. Et myöskään voi vedota siihen, että itse tunnet sitä tai tätä ja olet vakuuttunut jonkin totuudesta, ja sitten vain päistikkaa väität, että kaikki muutkin voivat kokea saman. Ei se kuule noin toimi.”

Ihan niin. Kun minua opetettiin, niin sisaret sanoivat, että lukiessaan pitää toivoa Mormonin kirjan olevan totta, että eihän Pyhä Henki voi antaa todistusta, jos etsii virheitä ja epäilee. Vähän luulen, että sitä se koko totuus onkin; pitää ensin haluta kuulua mormoneihin, vaikka vain sosiaalisista syistä, ja sitten toivoa voivansa hyväksyä myös opin, niin saahan siitä ’varmuuden’, mutta ei kaikki mitä hurjasti toivoo ole totta, syntyipä toivosta minkälainen fantasia ja elämäntapa hyvänsä. Ja täytyy vielä muistaa sekin ettei edes todistuksesta syntyvä innostus, mistä minullekin usein todistettiin, voimantunne ja kiihko ole merkki oikeasta eikä asian hyvyydestä, myös huonoihin ja vahingoittaviin asioihin uskovat ovat usein voimakkaita ja aatteensa levityksessä menestyviä.

Mutta on sitä pahempiinkin asioihin uskottu, joten en minä sillä. Jos joku haluaa uskoa Joseph Smithiin ja mormonikirkon tilintarkastajiin, niin siitä vaan.

Näin ei sanota, kuten kirjoitit: "Ihan niin. Kun minua opetettiin, niin sisaret sanoivat, että lukiessaan pitää toivoa Mormonin kirjan olevan totta, että eihän Pyhä Henki voi antaa todistusta, jos etsii virheitä ja epäilee."

Mutta näin sanotaan Mormonin kirjassa: "Ja kun te nämä saatte, minä tahtoisin kehottaa teitä kysymään Jumalalta,iankaikkiselta Isältä, Kristuksen nimessä, eivätkö nämä asiat ole totta; ja jos te kysytte vilpittömin sydämin, vakain aikein, Kristukseen uskoen, hän ilmoittaa niistä totuuden Pyhän Hengen voimalla. Ja pyhän Hengen voimalla te voitte tietää totuuden kaikesta." (Moroni 10:4-5)

Ei siis edellytetä mitään etukäteistoivomusta kirjan totuudesta, mutta kylläkin vilpitöntä ja vakaata mieltä sekä uskoa Kristukseen. Jos etukäteen haluaa vastauksen, ettei Mormonin kirja olisi totta, niin eihän se olisikaan vakaalla ja vilpittömällä mielellä tutkimista.

heko heko kirjoitti:

Täs oli kyse tileistä ja niiden tarkastuksesta hei. Mutta kyllä tuo MK:n totuuden "huomaaminenkin" käy esimerkistä.

Onhan tää jo sulle selitetty, mutta pannaan vielä yhden kerran:

Väität että kaikki, jotka tutkivat Mormonin kirjaa, saavat siitä todistuksen, että se on Jumalan ilmoitusta.

Väitteesi on perusteeton. Ainoa mihin voit vedota, on jae MK:ssa itsessään. Eihän siihen voi vedota oikeasti. Et myöskään voi vedota siihen, että itse tunnet sitä tai tätä ja olet vakuuttunut jonkin totuudesta, ja sitten vain päistikkaa väität, että kaikki muutkin voivat kokea saman. Ei se kuule noin toimi.

Tietenkin kirjoitan tämän ihan turhaan, olen lukenut viestejäsi eikä sinulle mene jakeluun koko logiikka alkuunkaan. Mutta ehkä joku muu lukija pääsee kärryille tutkiessaan näitä juttuja.

Hyvää yötä, Suomi.

kehäpäätelmästä, joka minun väitettiin esittävän, kun sanon, että Mormonin kirjasta voi saada totuuden ja että luotan tilintarkastajiin. Kehäpäätelmän tuntomerkkejä nämä lauseeni eivät täytä. Lähtökohtani ei ole ollut joku olettamus, vaan luottamus tilintarkastajien suhteen ja omakohtainen tutkimisen kautta tuleva vakaumus.

Jos yksinkertaistettuna sanoen väittäisin, että Mormonin kirja on totta, koska se on totta, niin se olisi kehäpäätelmä. Sen sijaan sanon, että jokainen tietyt ehdot täyttävä tutkiminen tuo siitä varmuuden. Ei siis edellytetetä mitään ennakko-oletusta, mutta kylläkin tutkimista. Tämä pätee kaikkeen muuhunkin tutkimiseen. Ei vakuuttuneisuutta synny tai jotain ei havaitse vääräksi ilman tutkimista. Väitteitä voi esittää, mutta perustelut ratkaisevat. Tässä tapauksessa Pyhä Henki todistaa, kun teemme oman osamme. Yleensäkin Pyhä Henki todistaa kaikesta totuudesta.

Tietenkin on rohkeata sanoa, että jokainen ehdot täyttävä saa varmuuden, mutta niin se vain on.

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

kehäpäätelmästä, joka minun väitettiin esittävän, kun sanon, että Mormonin kirjasta voi saada totuuden ja että luotan tilintarkastajiin. Kehäpäätelmän tuntomerkkejä nämä lauseeni eivät täytä. Lähtökohtani ei ole ollut joku olettamus, vaan luottamus tilintarkastajien suhteen ja omakohtainen tutkimisen kautta tuleva vakaumus.

Jos yksinkertaistettuna sanoen väittäisin, että Mormonin kirja on totta, koska se on totta, niin se olisi kehäpäätelmä. Sen sijaan sanon, että jokainen tietyt ehdot täyttävä tutkiminen tuo siitä varmuuden. Ei siis edellytetetä mitään ennakko-oletusta, mutta kylläkin tutkimista. Tämä pätee kaikkeen muuhunkin tutkimiseen. Ei vakuuttuneisuutta synny tai jotain ei havaitse vääräksi ilman tutkimista. Väitteitä voi esittää, mutta perustelut ratkaisevat. Tässä tapauksessa Pyhä Henki todistaa, kun teemme oman osamme. Yleensäkin Pyhä Henki todistaa kaikesta totuudesta.

Tietenkin on rohkeata sanoa, että jokainen ehdot täyttävä saa varmuuden, mutta niin se vain on.

>"tietyt ehdot täyttävä tutkiminen"

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

Näin ei sanota, kuten kirjoitit: "Ihan niin. Kun minua opetettiin, niin sisaret sanoivat, että lukiessaan pitää toivoa Mormonin kirjan olevan totta, että eihän Pyhä Henki voi antaa todistusta, jos etsii virheitä ja epäilee."

Mutta näin sanotaan Mormonin kirjassa: "Ja kun te nämä saatte, minä tahtoisin kehottaa teitä kysymään Jumalalta,iankaikkiselta Isältä, Kristuksen nimessä, eivätkö nämä asiat ole totta; ja jos te kysytte vilpittömin sydämin, vakain aikein, Kristukseen uskoen, hän ilmoittaa niistä totuuden Pyhän Hengen voimalla. Ja pyhän Hengen voimalla te voitte tietää totuuden kaikesta." (Moroni 10:4-5)

Ei siis edellytetä mitään etukäteistoivomusta kirjan totuudesta, mutta kylläkin vilpitöntä ja vakaata mieltä sekä uskoa Kristukseen. Jos etukäteen haluaa vastauksen, ettei Mormonin kirja olisi totta, niin eihän se olisikaan vakaalla ja vilpittömällä mielellä tutkimista.

"Näin ei sanota, kuten kirjoitit: "Ihan niin. Kun minua opetettiin, niin sisaret sanoivat, että lukiessaan pitää toivoa Mormonin kirjan olevan totta, että eihän Pyhä Henki voi antaa todistusta, jos etsii virheitä ja epäilee." "

Mistä sinä tiedät, ettei Vehmakselle ole sanottu näin? Taas heti kun tulee jotain epämiellyttävää, kiirehdit leimaamaan esittäjän.

"Mutta näin sanotaan Mormonin kirjassa: "Ja kun te nämä saatte, minä tahtoisin kehottaa teitä kysymään Jumalalta,iankaikkiselta Isältä, Kristuksen nimessä, eivätkö nämä asiat ole totta; ja jos te kysytte vilpittömin sydämin, vakain aikein, Kristukseen uskoen, hän ilmoittaa niistä totuuden Pyhän Hengen voimalla. Ja pyhän Hengen voimalla te voitte tietää totuuden kaikesta." (Moroni 10:4-5)

Tässähän ei itse asiassa edes väitetä, että kirja on totta. Väitetään vain, että Pyhä Henki kertoo, onko kirja totta. Ja jos kyseessä on oikea Pyhä Henki, vastaus on tietysti, että kirja on valhetta alusta loppuun.

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

Et ole edes jäsen, joten motiivisi tietää on kyseenalainen ja suorastaan läpinäkyvä.

"Et ole edes jäsen, joten motiivisi tietää on kyseenalainen ja suorastaan läpinäkyvä."

Sovitaan näin, että motiivini on tuo, minkä kerroit. Minulle on yksi ja sama, mitä motiiveistani ajattelet.

Saanko nyt ne luvut, niin pääsemme aiheessa eteenpäin.

Joti kirjoitti:

"Näin ei sanota, kuten kirjoitit: "Ihan niin. Kun minua opetettiin, niin sisaret sanoivat, että lukiessaan pitää toivoa Mormonin kirjan olevan totta, että eihän Pyhä Henki voi antaa todistusta, jos etsii virheitä ja epäilee." "

Mistä sinä tiedät, ettei Vehmakselle ole sanottu näin? Taas heti kun tulee jotain epämiellyttävää, kiirehdit leimaamaan esittäjän.

"Mutta näin sanotaan Mormonin kirjassa: "Ja kun te nämä saatte, minä tahtoisin kehottaa teitä kysymään Jumalalta,iankaikkiselta Isältä, Kristuksen nimessä, eivätkö nämä asiat ole totta; ja jos te kysytte vilpittömin sydämin, vakain aikein, Kristukseen uskoen, hän ilmoittaa niistä totuuden Pyhän Hengen voimalla. Ja pyhän Hengen voimalla te voitte tietää totuuden kaikesta." (Moroni 10:4-5)

Tässähän ei itse asiassa edes väitetä, että kirja on totta. Väitetään vain, että Pyhä Henki kertoo, onko kirja totta. Ja jos kyseessä on oikea Pyhä Henki, vastaus on tietysti, että kirja on valhetta alusta loppuun.

Millähän tuonkin perustelet? Pelkkä väite ja ennakkoluulo jos sitäkään eli vain tyhjä heitto. Tekniikka tuokin: väitetään perusteetta, jotta joku uskoisi siinä olevan jotain perää.

niin. kirjoitti:

>"tietyt ehdot täyttävä tutkiminen"

Ei mikä tahansa tutkiminen tuota oikeita tuloksia. "Hengelliset on tutkittava hengellisesti."

Joti kirjoitti:

"Et ole edes jäsen, joten motiivisi tietää on kyseenalainen ja suorastaan läpinäkyvä."

Sovitaan näin, että motiivini on tuo, minkä kerroit. Minulle on yksi ja sama, mitä motiiveistani ajattelet.

Saanko nyt ne luvut, niin pääsemme aiheessa eteenpäin.

motiivisi ovat ne, jotka ovat, niin et tarvitse vastaustakaan.

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

Millähän tuonkin perustelet? Pelkkä väite ja ennakkoluulo jos sitäkään eli vain tyhjä heitto. Tekniikka tuokin: väitetään perusteetta, jotta joku uskoisi siinä olevan jotain perää.

Millähän perustelet, että kirja olisi totta. Niin tietysti; sillä kehäpäätelmälläsi! Se on kuitenkin vain tyhjä heitto.

Sinun tekniikkasi on toisto. Luotat siihen, että kun toistat tarpeeksi monta kertaa joku lopulta uskoo tai kukaan ei vaivaudu joka kerta osoittamaan argumentointivirhettäsi.

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

motiivisi ovat ne, jotka ovat, niin et tarvitse vastaustakaan.

Jos väität, että tunnet kirkon talouden läpikotaisin, on vain kaksi mahdollisuutta:
a) olet töissä kirkon pääkallonpaikalla
b) valehtelet

Kuis on?

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

Ei mikä tahansa tutkiminen tuota oikeita tuloksia. "Hengelliset on tutkittava hengellisesti."

Mutta kun tuota hengellistä tutkimista harjoitetaan hyvin laajasti hyvin monissa eri piireissä kautta maailman. Vieläpä monien suuntausten harjoittama hengellinen tutkiminen on paljon syvällisempää kuin mormonien.

Jos kaikki hengellistä tutkimista harjoittavat lukisivat Mormonin kirjan, mikähän prosenttiosuus vakuuttuisi sen edustavan uskonnollista totuutta? Luulisin, että hyvin pieni.

Sitten sinä syyttäisit niitä jotka eivät vakuuttuisi, että he tutkivat väärällä mielellä. Ja kaikki jotka vakuuttuisivat tutkivat oikealla mielellä.

Kyllä sinä olet nyt loputtoman syvässä suossa ja voit perustella väitettäsi vain syyllistymällä argumentointivirheisiin.

noita lukuja kirjoitti:

Jos väität, että tunnet kirkon talouden läpikotaisin, on vain kaksi mahdollisuutta:
a) olet töissä kirkon pääkallonpaikalla
b) valehtelet

Kuis on?

jotta en epäile rahojen väärinkäyttöä.

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

jotta en epäile rahojen väärinkäyttöä.

Kerro edes se vähä mitä tiedät.

niin. kirjoitti:

Mutta kun tuota hengellistä tutkimista harjoitetaan hyvin laajasti hyvin monissa eri piireissä kautta maailman. Vieläpä monien suuntausten harjoittama hengellinen tutkiminen on paljon syvällisempää kuin mormonien.

Jos kaikki hengellistä tutkimista harjoittavat lukisivat Mormonin kirjan, mikähän prosenttiosuus vakuuttuisi sen edustavan uskonnollista totuutta? Luulisin, että hyvin pieni.

Sitten sinä syyttäisit niitä jotka eivät vakuuttuisi, että he tutkivat väärällä mielellä. Ja kaikki jotka vakuuttuisivat tutkivat oikealla mielellä.

Kyllä sinä olet nyt loputtoman syvässä suossa ja voit perustella väitettäsi vain syyllistymällä argumentointivirheisiin.

jotain suurempaa kuin minua vähätellessäsi hegellistä tutkimista tehden siitä kelvottoman siten, että sillä voisi saada aikaan mitä tahansa tuloksia. - Tässä vetoan Raamatun auktoriteettiin ja teen kai mielestäsi siinäkin argumentointivirheen.

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

Näin ei sanota, kuten kirjoitit: "Ihan niin. Kun minua opetettiin, niin sisaret sanoivat, että lukiessaan pitää toivoa Mormonin kirjan olevan totta, että eihän Pyhä Henki voi antaa todistusta, jos etsii virheitä ja epäilee."

Mutta näin sanotaan Mormonin kirjassa: "Ja kun te nämä saatte, minä tahtoisin kehottaa teitä kysymään Jumalalta,iankaikkiselta Isältä, Kristuksen nimessä, eivätkö nämä asiat ole totta; ja jos te kysytte vilpittömin sydämin, vakain aikein, Kristukseen uskoen, hän ilmoittaa niistä totuuden Pyhän Hengen voimalla. Ja pyhän Hengen voimalla te voitte tietää totuuden kaikesta." (Moroni 10:4-5)

Ei siis edellytetä mitään etukäteistoivomusta kirjan totuudesta, mutta kylläkin vilpitöntä ja vakaata mieltä sekä uskoa Kristukseen. Jos etukäteen haluaa vastauksen, ettei Mormonin kirja olisi totta, niin eihän se olisikaan vakaalla ja vilpittömällä mielellä tutkimista.

Tutkiminen tarkoittaa yleensä sitä, että tutkii sekä kohdetta itseään, että sen syntyä, kehitystä ja vuorovaikutusta ympäristöön ja kun näin tekee, niin voi toki rukoilla ja kysyä Jumalalta onko mormonin kirjan teksti hengellisesti mieltä ylentävää, mutta teoksen historiallisen ja tieteellisen tutkimisen jälkeen olisi lähinnä Jumalan pilkkaa kysellä onko se ’totta’. Olen lukenut Mormonin kirjan kannesta kanteen, monet luvut useaan kertaan ja määrittelen sen paikka paikoin hengellisesti kohottavaksi, mutta tutkittuani kirjan taustaa ja uskontoa, joka sen ympärille on syntynyt en usko, että teoksella on historiallista tai profeetallista arvoa.
Tietysti jos olisin mormonikirkkoa tutkiessani tekeytynyt tyhmäksi ja uskotellut itselleni, että ainoa tiedonlähde ovat lähetyssaarnaajat ulkoa opeteltuine keskusteluineen ja heidän antamansa kirjallisuus, olisin kenties uudelleen ja uudelleen samaa toistellessani saanut naarmutettua aivosoluihini jonkinmoisen mormoninaarmun, mutta koska en ole luonteeltani ihminen jota talutetaan laput silmillä en mitenkään voinut astua mormonijunan kyytiin sen, mitä ilmeisimmin taktikoidusti suppean informaation turvin, jota aktiivikäännyttäjät lusikallinen kerrallaan tarjoilevat.
Ehdot täyttävä tutkiminen mormonien näkökulmasta on sitä, että tavataan sama sana niin monta kertaa, että sana rupeaa muodostumaan, vaikka siinä ei sanaa olisikaan.
Ja kyllä, sisaret sanoivat, että pitää toivoa kirjan olevan totta ennen kuin rukoilee. Minun mormonin kirjaani on tuon klassikoksi muodostuneen lupauksen kohtaan merkitty kolme jaetta ja ensimmäisessä niistä kehotetaan lukemaan kirjaa ja huomaamaan kuinka armollinen Jumala on ollut ihmislapsia kohtaa aina Adamin luomisesta lähtien (vapaasti kohtaa muistellen) ja sen nämä nuoret naiset, mielestäni erittäin järkevästi tulkitsivat tarkoittamaan, että ennen rukoilemista pitäisi kirjaa lukemalla päästä toivoon, että teksti olisi totta ja olisi olemassa kertomuksissa esiintyvä armollinen Jumala, ja kun on päässyt tähän toivontunteeseen, niin Pyhä henki todistaa.
Minä olin kiinnostunut, mutta en toivonut.
Hyvää Juhannusta kaikille!

vehmas kirjoitti:

Tutkiminen tarkoittaa yleensä sitä, että tutkii sekä kohdetta itseään, että sen syntyä, kehitystä ja vuorovaikutusta ympäristöön ja kun näin tekee, niin voi toki rukoilla ja kysyä Jumalalta onko mormonin kirjan teksti hengellisesti mieltä ylentävää, mutta teoksen historiallisen ja tieteellisen tutkimisen jälkeen olisi lähinnä Jumalan pilkkaa kysellä onko se ’totta’. Olen lukenut Mormonin kirjan kannesta kanteen, monet luvut useaan kertaan ja määrittelen sen paikka paikoin hengellisesti kohottavaksi, mutta tutkittuani kirjan taustaa ja uskontoa, joka sen ympärille on syntynyt en usko, että teoksella on historiallista tai profeetallista arvoa.
Tietysti jos olisin mormonikirkkoa tutkiessani tekeytynyt tyhmäksi ja uskotellut itselleni, että ainoa tiedonlähde ovat lähetyssaarnaajat ulkoa opeteltuine keskusteluineen ja heidän antamansa kirjallisuus, olisin kenties uudelleen ja uudelleen samaa toistellessani saanut naarmutettua aivosoluihini jonkinmoisen mormoninaarmun, mutta koska en ole luonteeltani ihminen jota talutetaan laput silmillä en mitenkään voinut astua mormonijunan kyytiin sen, mitä ilmeisimmin taktikoidusti suppean informaation turvin, jota aktiivikäännyttäjät lusikallinen kerrallaan tarjoilevat.
Ehdot täyttävä tutkiminen mormonien näkökulmasta on sitä, että tavataan sama sana niin monta kertaa, että sana rupeaa muodostumaan, vaikka siinä ei sanaa olisikaan.
Ja kyllä, sisaret sanoivat, että pitää toivoa kirjan olevan totta ennen kuin rukoilee. Minun mormonin kirjaani on tuon klassikoksi muodostuneen lupauksen kohtaan merkitty kolme jaetta ja ensimmäisessä niistä kehotetaan lukemaan kirjaa ja huomaamaan kuinka armollinen Jumala on ollut ihmislapsia kohtaa aina Adamin luomisesta lähtien (vapaasti kohtaa muistellen) ja sen nämä nuoret naiset, mielestäni erittäin järkevästi tulkitsivat tarkoittamaan, että ennen rukoilemista pitäisi kirjaa lukemalla päästä toivoon, että teksti olisi totta ja olisi olemassa kertomuksissa esiintyvä armollinen Jumala, ja kun on päässyt tähän toivontunteeseen, niin Pyhä henki todistaa.
Minä olin kiinnostunut, mutta en toivonut.
Hyvää Juhannusta kaikille!

niin sitä ei tarkoitettu. Ei todellakaan edellytetä mitään ennakkotoivomusta Mormonin kirjan totuudesta, vaan juuri niin kuin, Moroni 10:4 kohdassa sanotaan. Voihan olla, että sisaret ovat käyttäneet halu -sanan tilalla toivo -sanaa tai muistat sanan väärästä yhteydestä. Halu tietää totuus on tärkeä ja tietenkin toivo yleensä totuuden läytymiseen on tärkeä, mutta ei tuota toivoa niin kehoteta suuntaamaan, kuten olet käsittänyt.

Muu osa kommentistasi osoittaa kyllä melkoista ennakkoasennoitumista ja valmiutta tulla kielteiseen tulokseen. Tosin myönnät:
"paikka paikoin hengellisesti kohottavaksi, mutta tutkittuani kirjan taustaa ja uskontoa, joka sen ympärille on syntynyt en usko, että teoksella on historiallista tai profeetallista arvoa."
Et siis anna kirjan puhutella sinua sellaisenaan, vaan etsit myönteisten tuntemuksiesi peittämiseksi keinoja niiden kieltäiseksi. Todisteita Mormonin kirjasta on koonnut mm. Jeff Lindsay. Niitä on vaikka minkä verran sivuilla:
http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/BMEvidences.shtml
Ei ole silti tarkoitus, että vakaumuksen Mormonin kirjasta saisi tällaisen todistelun kautta. Juuri hengellinen tutkiminen riittää sille, joka haluaa ja osaa tutkia vakaalla ja vilpittömällä mielellä Kristukseen uskoen.

On varsin vahvasti sanottu: "olisi lähinnä Jumalan pilkkaa kysellä onko se ’totta’." Tuo lause merkitsee sitä, että et ole ole edes kysynyt, vaan jo etukäteen tehnyt päätöksesi. Ei ole koskaan Jumalan pilkkaa kysyä onko joku totta. Jaak. 1:5 kehottaa pyytämään viisautta ja kysymään Jumalalta ja siinä luvataan: "Hän on saava pyytämänsä, sillä Jumala antaa auliisti kaikille, ketään soimaamatta." - Voit siis huoleti kysyä pelkäämättä pilkkaavasi Jumalaa, kun kysyt.

Hyvää juhannusta ja totuuden valoa!

UPDATE_6767016 kirjoitti:

jotain suurempaa kuin minua vähätellessäsi hegellistä tutkimista tehden siitä kelvottoman siten, että sillä voisi saada aikaan mitä tahansa tuloksia. - Tässä vetoan Raamatun auktoriteettiin ja teen kai mielestäsi siinäkin argumentointivirheen.

KAIKKI kristilliset piirit vetoavat tavalla tai toisella Raamattuun. Kuitenkin he saavat eri tuloksia kuin sinä.

En ole vähätellyt hengellistä tutkimusta. Ihmisten vaillinaisuus vain saa heidät menemään siitä mistä aita on matalin. Uskotaan jopa profeettoihin jotka erehtyvät käytännöllisesti katsoen kaikessa.