Wheat & Tares welcomes guest poster Bill Reel: Host of “Mormon Discussion Podcast”. His Podcast serves to help those reconstructing their faith within Mormonism to do so “Leading with Faith” in the gospel rather than leaving the Church.
D&C 119 renews tithing in this dispensation as a commandment and hence every week Latter-day Saints grab envelopes next to their Bishop’s office and/or sign into LDS.org to pay their tithing on 10% of their income. Yet have you ever stopped to ask what is income? Some people pay on gross, others on net, and a few pay on surplus. Wait, you didn’t know surplus was an option? Well, it is.
First, here are my definitions:
Gross Income: income you receive before any taxes or other deductions are removed
Net Income: income you receive in hand after taxes, medicaid, social security and other government deductions have taken place
Surplus Income: income you have left over after all deductions by outside entities as well as all basic living expenses are paid for (housing, clothing, groceries, medical costs, utilities, etc…)
While I stand with the Brethren that none of us are to impose any definition on another and that each member has a right to seek their own answer of how to pay from the Lord, I feel obligated to ensure that every Latter-day Saint becomes aware of the scriptural and historical validity of all three options. And since surplus gets the most neglect, I figured it best to begin here. Below are the historical and scriptural reasons that support surplus as a valid option as you take this question to the Lord. Knowing all three options empowers you to seek the right spiritual answer for yourself through the guidance of the Holy Ghost.
Let’s start at the beginning of tithing in the restored church, with D&C 119 and how this revelation describes tithing:
3 And this shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. 4 And after that, 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, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord. 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, and shall observe this law, or they shall not be found worthy to abide among you.
Notice the use of the word surplus and the word interest in the above revelation. The saints were required when entering the church to dedicate 10% of their properties to the church and thereafter 10% of their increase. The word increase can be tricky to nail down. An 1828 Webster’s dictionary defines interest in at least one case as “any surplus advantage” and in the same dictionary “advantage” is defined at least in one instance as “interest, increase, or overplus.”
Next, let’s examine a quote from Orson Hyde who is expounding on the D&C 119 revelation.
The celestial law requires one-tenth part of all a man’s substance which he possesses at the time he comes into the church and one-tenth part of his annual increase ever after. IF IT REQUIRES ALL MAN CAN EARN TO SUPPORT HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY, HE IS NOT TITHED AT ALL. The celestial law does not take the mother’s and children’s bread, neither ought else which they really need for their comfort. The poor that have not of this world’s good to spare, but serve and honor God according to the best of their abilities in every other way, shall have a celestial crown in the Eternal Kingdom of our Father.” (The Millenial Star, 1847. Orson Hyde, editor)
This quote comes after the law of of tithing was revealed and also after the law of consecration was done away.
Brother Hyde seems clear that he personally sees the definition as “surplus” and that if one spends all his gross income to sustain his family’s needs then he is not tithed at all. In essence the poor are not tithed at all.
“Encyclopedia of Mormonism” when referring to tithing states:
Tithing is the basic contribution by which Latter-day Saints fund the activities of the Church. By revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith, the Lord stated that members should pay “one-tenth of all their interest [increase] annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever” (D&C 119:4).
This is important because some apologists argue that 119 could perhaps be referring to the surplus of the Law of Consecration and not the surplus of the Law of Tithing. Bro. Hyde and The Encyclopedia of Mormonism both agree that Section 119 is the Law of Tithing which is “a standing law unto them forever.”
Another interesting piece of evidence is found in the JST of Genesis 14 where Brother Joseph is making inspired corrections to the bible.
Wherefore Abram paid unto him tithes of all that he had, of all the riches which he possessed, which God had given him more than that which he had need.” JST Genesis 14:39.
This correction shows that Abraham paid tithes on the portion that was above and beyond “that which he had need,” clearly a surplus interpretation. Add to that Hebrews 7:4
4 Now consider how great this man was, unto whom even the patriarch Abraham gave the tenth of the spoils
This New Testament scripture seems to reinforce that Abraham paid tithing on his surplus or “spoils.”
Next, let’s consider the words of President Lorenzo Snow at the 1899 General Conference (page 30 on the pdf, page 28 of the actual document). These words are often partially quoted. Here is the quote in full:
I pray that every man, woman, and child who has means shall pay one tenth of their income as tithing.
The word “who has means” is strangely absent when the talk is quoted in manuals, conferences, and other places. Omitting this phrase changes the meaning of the quotation significantly.
Further instruction given in the pamphlet “The Lord’s Tenth, Pamphlet, 1968”:
THE TITHE AS A RENTAL
As the matter presents itself to my mind, it is as though there had been a contract made between myself and the Lord, and that in effect He had said to me: “You have need of many things in this world — food, clothing, and shelter for your family and yourself, the common comforts of life, and the things that shall be conducive to refinement, to development, to righteous enjoyment. You desire material possessions to use for the assistance of others, and thereby gain greater blessings for yourself and yours. Now, you shall have the means of acquiring these things; but remember they are mine, and I require of you the payment of a rental upon that which I give into your hands. However, your life will not be one of uniform increase in substance and possessions; you will have your losses, as well as your gains; you will have your periods of trouble as well as your times of peace. Some years, will be years of plenty unto you, and others will be years of scarcity, And, now, instead of doing as mortal landlords do — require you to contract with them to pay in advance, whatever your fortunes or your prospects may be — you shall pay me not in advance, but when you have received; and you shall pay me in accordance with what you receive. If it so be that in one year your income is abundant, then you can afford to pay me a little more; and if it be so that the next year is one of distress and your income is not what it was, then you shall pay me less; and should it be that you are reduced to the utmost penury so that/you have nothing coming in, you will pay me nothing.”
Talmage can be seen as defending all three interpretations and while some may see gross as the conclusion here I post it anyway as there are phrases used that seem to indicate other options such as net or surplus as well as Talmage first speaks of one’s needs and then speaks of not paying in advance but only once one knows whether one has an abundance or a scarcity. This advice is a contrast to some more recent instruction from various church leaders.
Joseph Fielding Smith in explaining why we no longer pay 10% of our property to the church upon joining said this:
“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.” (Emphasis mine. 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.).
Note that he does not state that one should pay the tenth of gross. In the context of the remark, it is clear he meant the tenth of surplus as it had always been paid; he was referring to no longer giving the tenth of surplus property first. As the Church became more financially successful, leaders simply removed the requirement to donate the initial tenth of one’s surplus properties. Members were now only required to pay the tenth of surplus annually.
In consecration, the Lord defines surplus as the part of one’s income that is “more than is necessary for their support” (D&C 42:33). If tithing is a lesser law than consecration, why does it currently demand more of your money (the gross or net model) than did consecration (a tenth of surplus). If consecration is the goal (surplus) and tithing is a lesser law, why does tithing require a greater sacrifice than consecration did?
In a Letter from Heber C. Kimball to his wife Vilate that was subsequently reprinted in Elders’ Journal (Oct 1837, pp.4-7) he critiques the tithing practices of competing denominations in the Lancashire area.
Preston, Lancashire, England, September 2, 1837
My Dear Companion [Vilate Kimball],
“We have to live quite short but the brethren are very kind to us. They are willing to divide with us the last they have. They are quite ignorant; many of them cannot read a word and it needs great care to teach them the gospel so that they can understand. The people here are bound down under priestcraft in a manner I never saw before. They have to pay tithes to the priests of every tenth they raise, so that they cannot lay up one cent. They are in the same situation the children of Israel were in Egypt. They have their taskmasters over them to bind them down. It will be as great a miracle to deliver this people as it was the children of Israel. There are a great many believing in Preston; we are baptizing almost every day.”
Heber’s criticism is that any church that requires 10% of gross as tithing is practicing priestcraft. This letter was written months before section 119 was revealed.
Mosiah also argues on behalf of the poor, distinguishing between those who have sufficient for their needs and those who do not. He releases the poor from making donations.
Mosiah 4:24 And again, I say unto the poor, ye who have not and yet have sufficient, that ye remain from day to day; I mean all you who deny the beggar, because ye have not; I would that ye say in your hearts that: I give not because I have not, but if I had I would give. 25 And now, if ye say this in your hearts ye remain guiltless, otherwise ye are condemned; and your condemnation is just for ye covet that which ye have not received.
When we make a tithing declaration at the end of the year, we declare ourselves full tithe payers, partial tithe payers, or exempt. Who are the exempt? Mosiah would say “the poor,” those who have no surplus.
The saints are to pay tithing annually as instructed in D&C 119. The instruction to pay annually only makes sense in light of surplus. When you pay on surplus, it is only at the end of the year that you know how much surplus you have left over. Present instruction to pay tithing before you pay other obligations contradicts the revelation of D&C 119.
those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually
Tellingly, the Gospel Principles book remains vague on the topic of tithing:
In modern times the Joseph Smith prayed, “O Lord, show unto thy servants how much thou requirest of the properties of thy people for a tithing” (D&C 119, section introduction). The Lord answered: “This shall be the beginning of the tithing of my people. And after that, 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). The First Presidency has explained that “one-tenth of all their interest annually” refers to our income (see First Presidency letter, Mar. 19, 1970).
The “Preach my Gospel” manual seems to be intentionally vague as well:
Tithing means one-tenth, and the Lord has commanded us to give a tenth of our increase, which is understood to mean income, that we may be blessed.
Lastly let’s look at the First Presidency’s official doctrine on the matter from a 1970 letter sent to the wards and stakes.
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.
It should be noted that the Lord never mentions the word “income” in the revelation (section 119), but only surplus and interest. “Income” is man’s addition even if they are men of God. They admit as much when they state the word interest is “understood” to mean income.
By remaining deliberately vague, leaders are signaling that they are protecting each member’s right to seek out their own answer among three without anyone else, including local leaders, imposing an answer on them. The handbook of instruction sticks with this vague definition:
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)
The “Encyclopedia of Mormonism” While arguing that interest means “income” also states clearly that each person has a right to determine what an honest and fair tithe is and pay it accordingly.
A 1970 letter from the First Presidency stated that notwithstanding the fact that members should pay one-tenth of their income, “every member of the Church is entitled to make his own decision as to what he thinks he owes the Lord and to make payment accordingly” (Mar. 19, 1970; cf. Doxey, pp. 16, 18). Hence, the exact amount paid is not as important as that each member feels that he or she has paid an honest tenth.
I personally have been paying tithing on surplus income for two years now. It has been a blessing to our family to pay tithing and I am grateful the Lord and his Church have encouraged me to get my own answer and for them to respect that answer as long as it was done with prayer and thought. I hold dear the right for each individual to arrive at their own answer with humility and prayer, while I also encourage each member to understand fully all options before seeking that guidance. May we each be blessed as we seek guidance on this matter.
Questions to Consider:
- What scriptural or historical evidence do you see for the net or gross options as opposed to surplus?
- Do you pay on surplus, net or gross income? Did you seek guidance in prayer to decide how to pay? What was you reasoning?
- Has your approach changed over time?
- Do you think most members who tithe underpay or overpay on their tithing?
Bill Reel is the host of Mormon Discussion Podcast which seeks to help Latter-Day Saints work through a faith reconstruction with the end goal of remaining in the Church and remaining faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Wheat & Tares 
I once had a Gospel Doctrine teacher whose hobby horse was the selfishness of ward members who lived extravegently. Why did we live in huge houses, have two or three cars, while there was so much poverty in the world? Then we had a lesson on tithing and most of the class argued for paying tithes on gross income. He was the Lone Ranger who defended his own practice of paying on his net income. I never forgot the irony.
I had a couple of quick thoughts. First, I am in the exempt category this year because we literally have no income. We aren’t exactly poor, but we have invested everything into our business, and we literally are living out of savings only, money we paid tithing on when we earned it. But I absolutely agree with you that we as Mormons consistently overpay on tithing, assuming it’s income and not “increase” or “surplus.” One argument you didn’t put forward is a simple economic principle. If you don’t pay tithing on your surplus, then tithing is a regressive tax. Members like to think of it as a “flat tax, equitable for all,” but in reality, anything that doesn’t account for the difference in percent of earning that goes to meet basic living expenses is a regressive tax.
One other observation, though, is that many who are “poor” would object to the idea of not paying tithing when most members are paying based on gross or net. There is plenty of pride in every economic class, including poverty. And many bishops counsel that in order to be worthy of ward assistance, you must first pay tithing, even if it makes you dependent on church welfare.
So I agree generally with the post that what counts as a full tithe is a personal choice and that there is a broad range of acceptable definitions and methods that faithful Latter-day Saints can choose and determine what is best for them. I also should add that individual circumstances will necessitate different solutions (think of a mixed faith marriage, for example).
I don’t want to delegitimize the surplus understanding as acceptable, but where people start arguing that it is the correct method or the best method, or even the most historically sound or scripturally supported method, I think some counterpoints bear emphasis:
Remember that the natural man is always going to be drawn to anything telling you to take the easier path, to be less generous, and to sacrifice less. So we need to be extra skeptical of any arguments telling us this, because we are naturally more prone to accept them.
Another issue is that “what’s left” does not really exist. I have a good job, my family and I live a comfortable life. I make more money than a large majority of Americans. I am not saying this to brag in any way. I am saying this to make a very important point: Do you know what my surplus is? Zero. By the time I pay my mortgage, retirement accounts, groceries, kid’s activities, college funds, data plan, netflix, amazon prime, clothes, diapers, an occasional restaurant, an occasional vacation, etc., there is nothing left. My wife is very good at budgeting and every single penny is accounted for. There is no extra money (right now that budget includes tithing, but even if it did not I am sure some necessary expense would come in and fill the void).
But it is not right for me to not pay anything. The point of tithing is that it is a sacrifice. Paying 10% of a mythical surplus that you don’t have other things to do with cannot possibly be a sacrifice. Someone might object that I am not accurately considering my needs versus my wants; my data plan, and netfilx subscriptions are wants, not needs. Perhaps they aren’t, but I can make you some really good arguments for why they are, arguments that my natural man is going to tend to accept. My point is that if we are going to err on how much tithing we are supposed to pay, we should err on the side of generosity, on the side of giving too much. Because our default setting is to err on the other side.
Finally, I think the interpretation of Section 119 as referring to 10% of surplus is strained. The simplest reading, in my view, is that the saints were supposed to give all (100%) of their “surplus properties” upon arriving in Zion. “And after that, those who have thus been tithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually.” The fact that “interest” and “surplus” both appear in the section and are used differently seems to indicate that they mean different things. At the very least, it is a leap to equate interest with surplus based on this section.
It is my understanding based on the history that this is what in fact happened when people got to Missouri. They would give 100% of their surplus properties (not just earnings, but everything, including possessions) to the church as a kick off for the law of tithing and then they would pay 10% of their annual increase. Not that I or the church follow that either. I don’t take things hyper-literally and I give permission to the church to adapt and change. But I emphasize that’s my personal take. I accept that tithing is personal and give people the room to determine what it means for them.
Again there are arguments for a variety of interpretations. At the end of the day, what is a “full” tithe is a personal choice based on which argument you accept
I have often wondered if anyone has done a mathematical analysis on the effective rates of tithing based on taxation and cost of living. For example if you were earning $100,000 in Saudi Arabia and paying no income tax and paying on gross you would pay 10% of your take home salary. In Australia where the income tax rate is about 33% – give or take – if you earnt $100,000 and took home $67,000 you would be paying about 15% of your take home. Also, the cost of housing in Australia is staggering and amongst to a higher proportional rate of income than many other countries. Average is about 35% on mortgage repayments. Many people entering the housing market now are much higher.
Point is that, that as Hawkgrrrl states tithing is perceived as a flat rate that is equitable. This is far from true and massive differences would be seen across countries and ecomomies.
Look the church is a club, tithing the dues. Before reducing your tithing ask yourself what kind of club do you want to be a member of, a gross club, a net club or a surplus club? Do you want high end glitzy malls and Florida towns or do you want to be attending services at a strip mall? Next you’ll probably be arguing for saving third world lives with the excess! What kind of image would that leave us with?
Howard makes a fine point in that tithing is the money the church runs off. And while this was certainly true when the commandment was given, that is only /somewhat/ true today. A fair portion of what the church runs on these days is interest on monies held; returns on investments and specialist donations including fast offering, the perpetual funds, and humanitarian offerings. I know that in our ward we spend more from our fast offering funds (for counselling, welfare groceries and emergency rent payments) than anything else.
Considering all that God has blessed me with, I would rather not be quibbling with God (or anyone else) over percentages and base amounts tithed and donated to the church or to other organizations that I see doing good.
The way I see it: God is generous with me. So it makes sense to me to try to lean towards generosity too.
I don’t see the irony to be honest. Tithing money is not used to feed the poor, it’s used to pay BYU football coaching salaries, build shopping malls, and ornate hundred million dollar self-serving temples. His choosing to live in a small house and pay surplus doesn’t mean anything. His income could be higher and he voluntarily sacrifices much more, on a daily ongoing basis.
To those who pay on gross, I wonder, how many of you retroactively add in the value of all your jobs provided benefits? Does your job provide health insurance? You may have a copay but it certainly isn’t the full cost. I have a gold plan with obamacare and pay $1200/mo in premiums and my deductible is about $12k. Do the math on that. Most of you with normal salary jobs probably get the same benefit, but a tiny fraction of the cost. Are you counting that benefit as income and paying tithing on it? If not, then all the high and mighty talk about paying gross is hypocrisy.
What about your house? Are you counting the appreciation in you homes value as income? Do you deduct the cost of commuting to work? Regardless of the jobs people have, every household should be treated like a business with varying costs and expenses. Surplus is the only thing that makes sense as nobody’s situation is directly comparable.
It bothers me that the correlated manuals edit the quotes in that way. When you combine it with stories of poor people who choose to pay tithing before essentials it changes the whole meaning of the quote. We shouldn’t quote someone to lend support to a message they wouldn’t agree with.
Every man is left to be his own judge as to what he calls his tithing, and there is a great variety of opinion as to what a tithing is. A man who works for wages, and devotes his whole time to the service his employer, and he receives $1,000 or $2,000 a year for his salary, it is an matter for him to tell how much he owes for tithing. If I earned $2,000 a year, I should know that my tithing was just one-tenth of that. And I would not take out what it had cost me to feed and clothe myself and to pay all the expenses necessary to the maintenance of my family, before I reckoned with the Lord as to what belonged to Him. Two hundred dollars would be my honest tithing, would it not? (Apparently President Smith paid on his “Gross Income.”) That is the way I look at it. Then, if a farmer raises 2,000 bushels of wheat as the result of his year’s labor, how many bushels should he pay for tithing? Well, some people will go, straightway to dickering with the Lord. They will say they hired a man so and so, and his wages must be taken out; that they had to pay such and such expenses, and this cost and that cost; and they reckon out all their expenses, and tithe the balance. If a man earns $1,000, and it has cost him $600 to live, he pays tithing on the remaining $400. He considers that his net income, and he reckons with the Lord on that basis. Well, a great many of the Latter-day Saints reckon with God in just that way. Now, you are at liberty to do as you please in regard to this matter. You can choose which ever course you wish. But let me say to you that as we measure out so will it be measured back unto us again. When we go to dickering with the Lord, probably He will dicker with us: and if He undertakes to do so, we shall get the worst of it. I think we had better be honest with the Lord, and deal justly and liberally with Him; for, as it is said in the scriptures, the liberal man deviseth liberal things, and by his liberality shall he stand. My experience in my childhood was that when the widow paid one-tenth of every bushel of potatoes, of wheat, of oats of barley; when she paid the tenth chicken, or egg, the tenth calf, the tenth colt, the tenth pound of beef, or pork–when she did this she was blessed, and I know it. God opened up her way, and multiplied blessings upon her; and though a widow, driven into the wilderness with a large family, and without means to take care of them, she never had to ask for or receive help from the Church to feed and clothe her or her children. The Lord provided for her, because she put her trust in Him and she was obedient to His law. I am a witness to that. And the Lord will provide for other widows in the same way. He will provide for all His people according as they put their trust in Him and are faithful and obedient. “Obedience is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.” It is the heart and the willing mind that the Lord requires of His people, and not so much their substance. He does not need our obedience. But we need to be obedient; for it is through obedience that we will receive the reward.
Joseph F. Smith, Conference Report, April 1899, p.69
I know one man who paid $600.00 a year tithing. Being in the banking business and having available financial statements of many people, I knew that he made a little more than $45,000 that year, instead of the $6,000.00 which his tithing indicated. If he made $45,000.00 and paid $4,500.00 tithing, what would he have left? Over $40,000.00. If he had the right vision his heart should almost have burst with gratitude to God for the difference, rather than dwell upon the amount of tithing to be paid. When he paid the $600.00 originally, what did he have left? $5,400.00. The more he made, the easier it should have been to pay his tithing. But no, he had set his heart on accumulating money.
I could go on and on with similar quotes from church leaders that support the payment of tithing on “gross income.”
The whole thing is tricky business, so I think it is best for people to make their own decisions about how to apply it. As Andrew rightly points out, those who work at a job likely never pay against benefits, but if you owned a small business, you would have to pay that out of pocket. It’s most definitely a part of your compensation value. And like Rockwell, the widow’s mite makes it feel a little bit slimy if we deliberately omit information that causes them to overpay and not be able to make ends meet. I do think we should pay generously for our own benefit, but that doesn’t mean we should sacrifice our self-reliance in the process.
Surplus is a term that makes more sense if you are an old-timey farmer, living off your lands first (which is maybe never converted into money, just lived off of directly), and then paying tithing off the excess you sell at market. It gets more difficult to ascertain what is surplus in a post-industrial revolution society. And yet it’s unfair to place an additional burden on the poor just because their basic needs require a higher percent (or maybe all) of their income.
Yet I think everything-is-free makes a great point that we would all justify paying less. Given the poverty levels I’ve seen in other countries, the poor in the US mostly don’t qualify by world standards, but I also think that’s unfair. Poverty may be relative to the economy one is a part of. Otherwise, while someone may be better off than people in an emerging economy, the poverty cycle still sucks them in, making it hard to escape multi-generational poverty.
Oops. Second quote is from Heber J. Grant, Gospel Standards, p.66
Hawk — so I can take three people making a W-2 income of $120K a year, or $10K a month. Brother A pays $1,000 a month in tithing. Brother B pays about $750 a month on his “take home pay.” And Brother C, after paying all his household expenses, including his cell phone bills, new car note, vacations, groceries, etc., pays $50 in tithing. That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard.
In 1838, the Law of Consecration, which had necessarily become inoperative as the Saints had been driven out of Jackson County, Missouri, to Far West in the same state, was replaced by the ancient law of tithing.3 Henceforth members of the Church were asked to give one-tenth of all their increase annually. This principle has been operative in the Church ever since, except for a brief period when the United Order was functioning in some settlements of the West. Tithing is not a tax, but a voluntary contribution paid in private by the member of the Church to his bishop. Except for the bishop, no one in the ward knows whether a person is a full, part, or non-tithe payer. Tithe paying is an affair between a wage earner and the Lord, with the bishop there as a father and counselor to represent the Lord. Tithing is interpreted as one-tenth of a man’s income. To a farmer or business man this means, of course, one-tenth of his net income, not of his gross income. A person on salary, or a wage earner, who uses all of his income for personal and family living, pays ten per cent of his salary or wages. Every wage earner, rich or poor, is asked to pay tithing, ten per cent of his income. Tithing, in other words, is not a graduated-income offering, but is to be paid by everyone on the same percentage basis. Even the poor and the widow give one-tenth of their meager income; but, if needed, they receive support from the Church.
Lowell L. Bennion, An Introduction to the Gospel, p.281, 282
One of the requirements which the Mormon missionaries make plain to every prospective convert is that of tithing. Every Mormon is expected to contribute 10% of his gross income to the church and another 2 or 3% to the upkeep of his local ward (parish). If he does not tithe he is not considered a member in good standing. He will not qualify to enter a Mormon temple to perform the sacred ordinances for the living and the dead. He may not be married for time and eternity in a temple.
Carl W. Buehner, BYU Speeches, March 2, 1965, p.4
The word “interest” should be kept in mind in all discussions of this question. Not understanding its bearing, some people insist that the gross income of an individual is to be tithed. On this point division of opinion takes place and needless controversy is the result. When people receive wages for their work it is very easy to understand what is their tithing. It is one-tenth of the money or other receipts for their labor. If a person’s wages amount to $100 in a year, he owes the Lord $10 for tithing. That is clear and simple. If he receives cash for his labors he pays cash for tithing. If he takes it in wheat or other produce he pays it in wheat or in kind that he receives. The tenth is easily computed.But suppose he is a farmer who employs other labor than his own; his yearly tithing will be the tenth of his “interest.” What is that interest? It is that which is the actual increment deducting, of course, his outlay from his gross returns. The seed put into the ground, the actual payments for other labor than his own, the cost of threshing, etc., are deducted from [p.457] the crop, and the returns from his farm are the interest and he pays the tenth of that into the Lord’s storehouse. Suppose he is a stock-raiser. The same principle applies in his case. But the question has been raised, if he has an increase of ten calves and pays one calf as tithing, then feeds the nine that are left a year and sells them at a profit, does he not owe the tenth of that profit as tithing? He owes simply the tenth of the interest on these animals. Whatever it costs him in feed, or labor other than his own, with their value at the first tithe, is to be deducted from the gross increase, and the tenth of the real interest which he receives is the tithing on that source of income. To illustrate: Suppose the stock-owner, having tithed his ten animals, increases their value by growth and feeding, so that by the time he settles his tithing again, the nine calves have brought him $100 more than their value a year before. Also that it has cost him $50 to make that increase. He owes $5 tithing on his $50 accrued “interest.” Examine this critically and its fairness and accuracy will be easily perceived.
It is just the same with a merchant who buys and sells goods. The original cost, the expense for rent of store, for clerk hire, etc., is deducted from the gross income in order to arrive at his year’s interest. The tenth of that interest is his tithing. Money put out at usury or invested in any financial, commercial or other enterprise which brings any amount of interest, is governed by the same rule; the tenth of the interest is the Lord’s.
This is to be computed annually, but paid when received. That is to say, tithe-payers should not wait until the end of the year before paying the tenth of that which they receive either from wages, or dividends, or profits of any kind. When income is obtained it should be tithed at the time of receipt, for it then becomes due to the Lord. Each year’s transactions stand on their own merits or demerits. Attention to this point will save people many doubts and queries. The principle of paying “in kind” should also be kept in mind. Produce, however, may be turned into cash for convenience, and the sum be handed to the bishop. But when cash is received, it is not right to substitute for its tithe something of less value.
Charles W. Penrose, Is This Plain Enough?, Handbook of the Restoration, p.456
Addresses wage earners, small businesses, and payment in kind
Another advantage of starting with the gross pay is that it is easier to see that the tithing should be based on gross pay. The authors did not really make an error inasmuch as they carefully explained that tithing should be based on the gross pay rather than take-home pay. Calculations, however, based on gross pay are easier to make.
Book Reviews, BYU Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, p.141
Why not keep things simple? Pay tithing on line 22 (total income) off of your 1040 tax form. That takes into account your taxable wages (presuming you’re a W-2) and “net income” of a small business.
I think it is tricky all the way around. Someone mentioned above living in Saudi Arabia with 0% income tax. Compare that with someone living in a highly socialized country in northern Europe where they pay a TON of taxes (but the government provides many services people in other countries have to pay for). So if the government takes out something like 75% and you are paying tithing on gross, then you are only taking home about 15% of your income is disposable after taxes and tithing.
I don’t think the church is going to clarify more than it has. It like the generally TBM feeling of “it should be paid on the gross amount”, but if it were to come out and say that more adamantly it would probably get some bad press. It has had enough of that lately. I also don’t think the church is out to ask the widow if she has anything more than the 2 mites she just gave.
Happy Hubby, well, one thought on the higher tax rate in some countries is that those taxes = benefits. IOW, the taxes are part of your compensation, at least when compared to a lower tax bracket country. Obviously, that opens a whole new can of worms in trying to determine the right amount to pay. Basically, staying out of defining it is probably best. It’s very complicated.
IDIAT, I’m not sure why you think I’ve advocated anything like the strawman you put out there in comment 15. Yes, it’s possible that individuals would pay as you stated since we each determine it for ourselves, but I didn’t advocate those specific approaches in any of my comments.
2 For the building of mine house, and for the laying of the foundation of Zion and for the priesthood, and for the debts of the Presidency of my Church.
These are the uses of tithing as laid out in section 119. I’d say the interpretation of 119 has clearly morphed over time, but I’m jaded at this point. It’s hard for me to reconcile the following quote with the Church using its funds to compete with other advertisers in Times Square or to pay for their employees pensions, second cars etc.:
After reading these scriptures together, Bishop Orellana looked at the new convert and said, “If paying tithing means that you can’t pay for water or electricity, pay tithing. If paying tithing means that you can’t pay your rent, pay tithing. Even if paying tithing means that you don’t have enough money to feed your family, pay tithing. The Lord will not abandon you.”
I don’t give tithing to the church cuz I think it’s the same as giving it to God. I give it to support the practical operations.
The Joseph Fielding Smith quote it the OP is taken out of context. President Smith was explaining the origins of tithing in the modern era, post consecration effort. See Note 5, Lesson One Hundred Five: Adam-Ondi-Ahman—The Law of Tithing, Joseph Fielding Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, Vol 3, p.120
Here are some other quotes by Joseph Fielding Smith:
..Some of us pay tithing, which is one-tenth of that which we receive, and some of us pay donations and call it tithing; some of us do not pay at all.
The paying of tithing is not hard for the man, fully converted to the Gospel, who pays his tenth on all that he receives.
No man is forced to pay one-tenth of that which he receives, but no man is entitled to the blessings of the celestial kingdom who refuses to pay his honest tithing, and who has tithing to pay.
Does any man think that he can violate the law of tithing—the paying of one-tenth of his increase or income, and do this year after year, and then be prepared to enter into the “united order” and accept the full law of consecration, when Christ comes? Verily no! If a man will not pay tithing he shall not have the Privilege of entering into the higher law which belongs to the celestial kingdom. (D.C. 64:23.)
When I was in a stake of Zion recently, a good brother asked me a question about paying tithing. He said, “I pay my tithing on that which I draw out of my business to live on. Is that right?” “Well,” I said, as I am able to read between the lines, “I would imagine that you have accumulated an estate worth at least a hundred or a hundred fifty thousand dollars.” He said, “You are right, Bishop.” I said, “And that to date is untithed. If you were to die tonight, would you like to pass that estate on to your wife and children knowing that you had never tithed it?” He said, “I never thought of it quite that way before.”
We have many inquiries at our office, constantly, about the matter of deducting taxes, income taxes, etc., before paying tithing, and we are told that in some cases the Saints are advised to do this, by their bishops. I think the bishops are being pretty liberal with the Lord’s money. Taxes are no different from what they have always been except in amount and manner of payment. We have never expected to pay our taxes out of the Lord’s tenth. That is what we are investing in the future security and freedom and liberty of the great nation in which we are privileged to live while our boys are out on the battlefield.
For some time I have felt that some farmers do not figure their tithing the way I think it should be figured. One good farmer said to me, “Bishop, I know just how to figure my tithing. I have a jar in my kitchen cabinet and every time I sell anything I put a tenth of it in the jar, then I pay it for tithing.” I said, “Is that all you pay?” He said, “Yes, isn’t that enough?” “Well,” I said, “your brother who lives up here a few miles earns a hundred dollars a month and pays ten dollars tithing; he buys his groceries, his milk, his meat, and his eggs with the money he has left after paying his tithing. Should a farmer not figure his tithing on all he consumes and his surplus and the gain of his land?”
LeGrand Richards, Conference Report, April 1944, p.45
In 1966, Thorpe B. Isaacson (Counselor in First Presidency) was addressing students and faculty at BYU, and mentioned how investing $2,500 towards a student’s education would be beneficial. At the close of his remarks, BYU President Ernest L. Wilkinson in conclusion then said:
President Isaacson also said, however—and I was happy to hear him say this—that he thought this was the best investment the Church is making. On that may I merely point out that statistics show that the additional income that the average college student will make in his lifetime, over and above the lifetime income of a high school student, is in excess of $200,000. Therefore, the return that the Church will receive on its investment of $2,500 per student in tithing alone will be approximately $20,000, in addition to the great service that each of you will render to your fellow men. I give you this figure to corroborate what President Isaacson has said as to the value of this investment.
In other words, tithing received on the lifetime income of $200K would be $20K – again, tithing paid on gross. Not “net income.” Not “surplus income.”
This whole tithing/proper calculation business makes me nauseous.
Questions:
-Who paid tithing pre-Jesus?
-Who paid post-Jesus? Where is the command in the NT? When did tithing finally show up in the early Christian church?
In my mind, this is it:
2 Corinth 9
6 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully.
7 Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.
Who is really keeping track to make sure their 401k $ is paid on? Or if on a ROTH that you track the exact increase and tithe it as you withdraw? Or paying tithing on the matching funds your employer gives in retirement?
I’d imagine most people who think they pay on gross are really paying a mixture (esp using Andrew’s example of employer added benefits paid on your behalf).
“Keeping track” is a letter of the law function. It turns us all into Pharisee’s, and quick.
Give, as purposeth in your heart, not grudgingly or of necessity.
Brigham Young:
“When the revelation which I have read was given in 1838, I was present, and recollect the feelings of the brethren. A number of revelations were given on the same day. The brethren wished me to go among the Churches, and find out what surplus property the people had, with which to forward the building of the Temple we were commencing at Far West. I accordingly went from place to place through the country. Before I started, I asked brother Joseph, “Who shall be the judge of what is surplus property?” Said he, “Let them be the judges themselves, for I care not if they do not give a single dime. So far as I am concerned, I do not want anything they have.” (JD, 2:306)
John Corrill:
“If a man gives for the benefit of the Church, it is considered a voluntary offering. Yet the law requires or enjoins a consecration of the overplus, after reserving for himself and family to carry on his business.” (A Brief History of the Church of Latter Day Saints, pg. 45)
Covenant of Tithing
On the evening of the 29th of November, I united in prayer with Brother Oliver for the continuance of blessings. After giving thanks for the relief which the Lord had lately sent us by opening the hearts of the brethren from the east, to loan us $430; after commencing and rejoicing before the Lord on this occasion, we agreed to enter into the following covenant with the Lord, viz:
That if the Lord will prosper us in our business and open the way before us that we may obtain means to pay our debts, that we be not troubled nor brought into disrepute before the world, nor His people; after that, of all that He shall give unto us, we will give a tenth to be bestowed upon the poor in His Church, or as He shall command; and that we will be faithful over that which he has entrusted to our care, that we may obtain much; and that our children after us shall remember to observe this sacred and holy covenant; and that our children, and our children’s children, may know of the same, we have subscribed our names with our own hands. (March 29, 1834.) DHC
2:174-175.
(Signed)
JOSEPH SMITH, JUN.,
OLIVER COWDERY.
TPJS page 70
Great article on tithing. Just a historical tidbit on tithing not really related to the article. Bishops were paid 10% of all tithing they collected up until the early twentieth century. They could share the profit with their counselors as they wished.
IDIAT: Your example in #25 confuses me. How did he buy the house if not through money he drew from his business? I would say that it is definitely part of his income if he bought a house with it. Unless he sleeps on a cot in his office, it was income. I’m not in that kind of situation because I’ve had a corporate income for over 20 years that is all money I paid tithing on (gross income), and that’s the money I’ve been using to start a business. Unlike the person in your example, all my money was tithed.
My former bishop (now in SP) is an entrepeneur, and my bishop also owns his own practice as a doctor. I know we are consistent with the way they’ve approached tithing, as they both shared their own stories with us.
Bill’s points in the OP are an interesting and valid historical view that are worth understanding. In a farming community, surplus was the rule of thumb. People didn’t have paychecks (let alone benefits and mortgages and 401Ks) like we do now. But your quotes add nicely to the discussion, so thanks for adding more recent context.
General Instructions on Tithing, December 1, 1899
1899—December 1—Original pamphlet, Church Historian’s Library,
Salt Lake City.
The Bishops will please remit monthly, to President Lorenzo Snow, Trustee-in-Trust, all cash received by them on tithing, as also the cash proceeds from sale of other kinds of tithes.
The Presidency and High Council of each Stake of Zion will please make a distribution of the 10 per cent allowed the Bishops for handling the tithes, which should he done not later than April 1st of each year, and submitted to the Presiding Bishopric for approval.
I’m not sure if I would call it “profit” or not but certainly there was incentive on the part of bishops to collect tithing from members. Much of the instructions deal with handling of in kind payments, putting values on things, etc. Perhaps this was the church’s way of compensating bishops for their time and effort spent trying to value crops and produce and animal stock that in turn was used in storehouses. Don’t know much about the practice. In 1900 the general instructions read:
BISHOP’S PERCENTAGE
James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.3, p.331
12. Respecting the 10 per cent which was authorized by the late President John Taylor, as compensation to the Bishops and Clerks, the Presidency and Bishops of each stake will please meet at the first convenient date in the new year, when a careful estimate should be made of the value of the services rendered by the Stake Tithing Clerk in compiling the annual Stake reports, which should be mutually agreed upon between the Stake Presidency and the Bishops. In making said allowance, no services should be considered other than for compiling the annual reports as stated above. After his salary has been determined upon, it should be deducted from the 10 per cent and the balance distributed to the Bishops according to the amount and value of the services rendered in handling the tithes of their respective wards. In making this distribution, consideration should be given as to the kinds of tithes received in each ward and the labor necessary to handle same to the best interests of the Church. It may be necessary to allow more than 10 per cent to wards remotely situated from a market or railways, which should be offset by a corresponding reduction in wards adjacent to a market or railway, or where the bulk of the tithing is cash.
Seems like there wasn’t always a “Bishop’s Percentage,” and the practice fell out of favor eventually. Would be interesting to know when the practice ended.
Bishops spent much of their time managing tithing. Most tithes were “in kind,” necessitating the creation of bishop’s storehouses, which included corrals for animals and bins for farm products. Tithing houses sometimes became commerce centers, serving as trading posts, banks issuing and receiving tithing scrip, wayside inns, and transportation and mail hubs. The Presiding Bishopric issued price valuations for donated and traded products, creating uniform prices for the territory. In the largely cashless pioneer economy, bishops used two-thirds of the local tithes to help the poor and to pay for public improvements. They forwarded one-third of the tithing commodities to Salt Lake City to pay laborers on the Salt Lake Temple and various public works projects. Bishops received a small percentage of the tithes to cover personal expenses incurred while managing the donations. By the mid-1850s, ward bishops had taken over the Presiding Bishopric’s task of conducting annual tithing settlements with members.
Encyclopedia of Mormonism, Vol.1, BISHOP, HISTORY OF THE OFFICE
Hawk – that’s Legrand Richards speaking. He was speaking of a businessman who owned a small business and paid himself a salary, allowing the rest of his profits to sit in the bank. That’s how he “accumulated” an estate of $100k – $150k. In other words, the man may have been paying himself $24k a year but was actually making say $40K a year. He wouldn’t pay tithing on the $16K difference, and allowed it to sit in a bank account. After a number of years, his “estate” value had grown considerably. Brother Richards made the point to the man that he should have been paying tithing on the full $40K. I’m a small businessman. I’m a sole proprietor, and I operate on a cash basis. I receive money all during the month, deduct my business expenses, then pay what’s left to me. My monthly income tracts what shows up on my Schedule C for federal tax purposes.
Hawk I think you’re equating “estate” to “house.” I think Richards is using the word estate in a legal sense of assets, not real estate.
IDIAT #36: Ah yes, I was. Thanks for clarifying.
So IDIAT, by all of the quotes you’re adding to the comments, are you making the argument that paying tithing on surplus only, if a person so chooses for him/herself, that that decision is less righteous or robbing God?
IDIAT,
These quotes are all helpful. My premise has never been to argue that Surplus is the only valid method, just one of several valid methods that members may prayerfully consider. Having quotes that support other methods actually agrees with my premise that there is support for multiple perspectives and that the surplus method is only one valid answer among many. By the way I honor The First Presidency’s doctrine on the matter and those who prayerfully come to their decision by not imposing my view of “what is a fair and honest tithe” on others and allowing each member without guilt or shame to prayerfully arrive at their own answer and pay it accordingly. Too bad others here don’t feel constrained to allow the same.
The other side of the point raised by everything_is_free is that while our natural tendency might be to always pay less, the Church’s tendency will always be to push us to pay more. Church leaders, by the fact that they have reached high positions, clearly completely buy into the idea that the Church is God’s one true chosen vehicle for saving humankind. Therefore, they think less of the needs of individual members and more of the needs of the institution to be built up.
I’m not saying that we should always go with the one or the other. I just wanted to point out that there’s pressure in the other direction too.
I’m curious what scriptural basis there is for the calendar year/annual determination of income/increase that everyone seems to take for granted. For example, what if my particular business has a two-year cycle and it is impossible to determine income or loss after 1 year?
@ IDIAT #26,
So the low tuition at BYU is seen as a way to increase the church’s income over time?
@ Fred,
I know of some very faithful relatives that pay double one year to knock down their tax bracket that year, then the following year they don’t pay any tithing nor do they take much out of their business.
So I think you can tell your bishop that and go on more of a 2 year cycle.
Bill Reel #39 – the surplus method is not, and never has been, a valid method for figuring tithing. I spared you the many quotes from prophets and apostles soundly condemning members who’ve tried to rationalize this approach. Apparently, since the law of tithing was re-instituted, members have made an effort to pay God last. To be blunt, they consistently say members who approach the paying of their tithing as you suggest are not worthy of the celestial kingdom. Those aren’t my words. Those are the words of prophets and apostles whom you claim to sustain. Do what you want with the information, but I didn’t want readers of W&T to believe for one minute that your position is supported by scripture or modern day revelation.
IDIAT – Again you seem to violate the council “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.”” and so do any leaders who go above and beyond the Doctrine. Again if only one quote I shared indicates a Leader saw tithing as surplus and we have no official binding teaching that condemns surplus. (to be doctrinal we must not have a leader here or leader there but rather all top 15 men unified…. then it is up for debate what are the valid seats at the table. Again providing a leader condemning it does no more to invalidate my view than any of my quotes prove Surplus is the only way. Unlike you I will say no more about what is a right and a wrong tithe than the official statement and will allow all their own answer. Lastly you seem to have been disningenuine then when you in your first comment said “Every man is left to be his own judge as to what he calls his tithing” as you seem all too ready to judge others rather than then focus on your own personal answer as only yours.
From the church’s website:
“The Bible indicates that God’s people followed the law of tithing anciently; through modern prophets, God restored this law once again to bless His children. To fulfill this commandment, Church members give one-tenth of their income to the Lord through His Church.”
Let’s see. That letter from the First Presidency came out in 1970, but the topic of tithing, and how to approach it, was freely discussed by prophets, seers and revelators prior to that time. I give you quotes (and I have plenty more) that reflect what church leaders had to say on the subject prior to 1970. Not a one of them condone your position. And now you feign offense and accuse me of judging you? Give me a break. The reason the first presidency issued that statement is the same reason mentioned by prior leaders. Members were continually asking their local leaders what they should or should not do in certain situations. More than once church leaders complained that bishops were being way to quick to excuse members from paying tithing on money earned. More than once they lamented the fact that people were entering into temples unworthily because of their failure to pay an honest tithe. And, as we drifted away from agriculture and payments in kind, church leaders figured members with the least bit of intelligence would understand what is meant by the word “income.” It is so straightforward we teach a child to give 1 penny for every 10 pennies he makes. We don’t tell the child “Here’s 10 pennies. Take out of few pennies first to pay for candy and sales tax, then pay tithing on the rest.” A commenter a couple of months back defended his surplus income approach, finally admitting that he adopted that position when he had personal financial struggles. How convenient. I’m not judging you or anyone else. You opened up the discussion by posting on it, not me. Don’t feign offense because 100 years’ worth of leaders have condemned your position. Your position is nothing new and has been soundly and consistently condemned by church leaders. Notice I didn’t direct any of the comments to you, personally. Judge yourself.
IDIAT: “I’m not judging anyone, but if you prayfully decide to pay tithing on surplus, you’re not worthy to have a temple recommend or to enter the Celestial Kingdom. But I’m not judging anyone.” Right.
Always find this interesting that I read from a book about President Moyle:
Ernest L. Wilkinson recorded in his diary: “I told Brother Moyle I thought it was very necessary for the Church that there be some authoritative definition of what constituted full tithing, particularly that it should be paid before the payment of taxes. He thoroughly agreed with my viewpoint, but said as long as President McKay and President Clark were in the First Presidency there was no chance to get any authoritative interpretation. He informed me also that President [Stephen L.] Richards, and he thought Bishop [Thorpe B.] Isaacson, only paid their tithing after the deduction of taxes and that there was not a chance at the present time to change that situation.” Wilkinson Diary, 11 May 1961.—Ed.
All if this would be easier if a Prophet’s name was Penrose, or any other BYU author, when it comes to them nailing down specifically what tithing is and how it should be paid. I loved the detail Penrose laid out – again, too bad he wasn’t a prophet.
Is it too much to ask that we receive and updated revelation, since everyone is hand-ringing over the language in D&C 119? I know, I know, if I have to ask, I obviously am not comitted to paying what we all know to be a full tithe. So sayeth the Preachy Preach who is quoating the odd Deseret Book, book.
I think how we decide what our tithing changes with changing circumstances, as others have said. When I was a wage earner I paid on my gross income, but I also bought property to help fund my retirement.
I now recieve a partial government pension (which Bishop tells me others pay tithing on, but I am not sure), and as I sell property, the surplus is put into the mortgage on the house I live in (which has a mortgage used as deposits on the other properties), this mortgage has a redraw facility.
Should I pay tithing on the pension? Should I pay tithing on anything I redraw? Did tithing when I had income, allow for tithing free retirement?
Bill,
From what I read from your post, you pay tithing based on the actual definition surplus, not the new definition of surplus. I fear you will soon get the invitation to meet with your bishop where he will claim you are telling people to not pay a full tithe. However, my question is how do you pull this off without getting the inquisition at some point? Do you pay directly to the Corporation of the President, do you just tell your bishop you pay a full tithe and assume he places scripture above handbooks?
I assume that 99% of bishops would look at a year’s worth of tithing based on surplus and be bemused by thought of giving that person a temple recommend.
Patrick, I base my interpretation on scripture and “some” leaders quotes. I pay directly to the Church through bill pay and my donations are kept confidential from local leaders. That said my local leaders are well aware of what I am doing and saying publicly. My surplus definitions is what I pay after the nessecities of life are paid. ( I am not including wants)I also donate $ to other causes such as the Liahona foundation. As of this present moment I have never gotten the feeling that Salt Lake has said anything to my local leaders in terms of reigning me in. I do Salt Lake knows of me and I am likely on a list or two that would prevent any future leadership positions that requires approval from Church HQ but as far as I can tell my local leaders have heard nothing from SLC in terms of what to do with Bill Reel. I feel I have safely remained on the right side of the line (whatever that line is)
“I do Salt Lake knows of me and I am likely on a list or two that would prevent any future leadership positions that requires approval from Church HQ”
The notion that HQ ‘keeps a list’ preventing leadership positions seems inconsistent with a doctrine of continual repentance and forgiveness. I hope it is not true.
In “A Companion to your Study of the Doctrine & Covenants” written by Ludlow, 1978, in the section marked 119 you will read the following:
“I require all their surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop” Let us consider for a moment this word ‘SURPLUS.’ What does it mean when applied to a man and his property?
SURPLUS CANNOT MEAN THAT WHICH IS INDISPENSABLY NECESSARY FOR ANY GIVEN PURPOSE, BUT WHAT REMAINS AFTER SUPPLYING WHAT IS NEEDED FOR THAT PURPOSE. Is not the first and most necessary use of a man’s property that he feed, clothe and provide a home for himself and family! . . . WAS NOT ‘SURPLUS PROPERTY,’ THAT WHICH WAS OVER AND ABOVE A COMFORTABLE AND NECESSARY SUBSTANCE?
In the light of what had transpired and of subsequent events, what else could it mean? CAN WE TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF IT WHEN WE CONSIDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT WAS GIVEN IN FAR WEST, IN JULY, 1838? “I have been unable in studying this subject to find any other definition of the term ‘SURPLUS,’ as used in this revelation, than the one I have just given. I find that it was so understood and recorded by the Bishops and people in those days, AS WELL AS BY THE PROPHET JOSEPH HIMSELF, WHO WAS UNQUESTIONABLY THE ABLEST AND BEST EXPONENT OF THIS REVELATION.”
(Emphasis added, Franklin D. Richards, Nov. 6, 1882. JD 23:313.)
President David O. McKay has this explanation of D&C 119:
The law of tithing as now understood and practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was given by revelation to the Prophet Joseph Smith in response to a prayer in which the Prophet sought the Lord to know “how much he required of the properties of the people for a tithing.” The Lord answered saying, the “beginning” of tithing consisted first of “all the surplus property,” and named the specific purposes for which this “surplus property” should be used. “After that” tithing consists “of one-tenth of all the interest annually; and this,” he continued, “shall be a standing law unto them forever.” (See D. & C. 119.)
James R. Clark, Messages of the First Presidency, Vol.6, p.199
My #55 reference should actually be “David O. McKay, Gospel Ideals, p.197.”
You want a prophet to declare the definition of tithing?
Howard W. Hunter
Burton, ed., We Believe, Tithing
The law is simply stated as “one-tenth of all their interest.” Interest means profit, compensation, increase. It is the wage of one employed, the profit from the operation of a business, the increase of one who grows or produces, or the income to a person from any other source. The Lord said it is a standing law “forever” as has been in the past. CR1964Apr:35
Thanks Bill, great article.
For those of us who don’t have much interest in what current or past church leaders have said but need to maintain some level of church participation, having these multiple definitions is quite helpful.
Fred – they do. Repentance seems to have little to do with it. It’s called strengthening the church members committee…
LDS Aussie:
Just out of curiosity, you know the Committee has a “list that would prevent any future leadership positions that require church HQ approvals” how?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strengthening_Church_Members_Committee
The Wikipedia piece does speak to the existence of the Committee of which I was aware but my question was directed to knowledge of the list they allegedly have. I didn’t see anything definite related to the list in there unless I missed it.
Everyone should pay what they feel is correct, whether that be gross, net, surplus, with extra cows, or whatever… But to me, the gross method is the one that does not compute, logically. It creates the potential for debt, it is skewed heavier against the poor and against larger families, and against families from countries with higher tax burdens, and it is not in harmony with several teachings about self-reliance, saving and investing, providing food storage, living within means, giving charitably, etc.
A person makes a gross income of $2,000 per month, and they have legitimate expenses (rent, car payment, food for family, utilities, medical expenses, etc.) of $1,900 per month. These are not unreasonable numbers for many lower-income and poverty-line families, or seniors on fixed incomes and single mothers and so forth. If they pay $200 tithing, they are now in debt for $100. They may have to short a landlord or a bill collector, or borrow from family or friends (often incurring strain and resentment over time), or take a handout from the Church. They have NOTHING left over to do anything else with and will likely have to repeat that scenario month after month.
Or, they can pay $10 tithing on the $100 that remains. Now, they are living responsibly within their means, and they have $90 left over from which they can give to a charity, put into food storage, go on a date as husband/wife, put into a college/mission fund, invest a little in a stock or business, put into an emergency fund or savings, etc. They are not incurring any debt or disfavor, and are not in danger of being evicted or having their power turned off, and they have a chance to lift and build themselves slowly towards something better (or just to enjoy and live comfortably where they are). The Church can give funds or resources that might have gone to bail them out to families whose income is *less* than their expenses, or who have *no* income, or who have experienced a severe hardship or medical crisis.
The latter of those two methods harmonizes with the broad spectrum of Church and scriptural teachings; to give charitably, to stay out of debt, to provide for your family, to save for education, etc.
Another example is family size. A family with one healthy child earns $70,000 a year. Another family has eight children, two of which are special needs, and also earns $70,000 a year. If both are paying on gross income, there is a disparity of fairness between the two families, with the latter having much less of their remaining funds available. Granted, the latter family may have chosen to have more children, but of course, that is another thing that our Church encourages; big families. By insisting that gross is the only proper method for tithing, we are penalizing that family, financially, for multiplying and replenishing the Earth.
I believe in and worship a God who is fair and just and whose yoke is light, and who does not put heavier burdens (beyond what they already bear) on the poor and on larger families. Certainly my above example does not apply to many of the wealthy families in the U.S., but they are free to pay on their gross income, if able and desiring to do so. However, the mere fact that paying on gross income *could* (and certainly does in some cases) cause that kind of debt and financial castration invalidates it to me.
Eric, your comment reminded me that growing up I had a Bishop who described that he and his family would estimate the value of gifts they received for Christmas and birthdays etc., and would tithe accordingly, in addition to tithing on gross income. I recall how horrified I felt hearing this. If such a thing was required my family would definitely have been in the category of not being able to afford to have people give us gifts.
I’ll go on record saying that I own a business, make a very good income. I paid on my gross income minus only employee expenses. That means I over pay on purpose. I don’t want to split hairs with the Lord. I don’t ask my accountant to go through the exercise of limiting my donations with a sharp pencil.
I don’t mind paying more than
Lorenzo Snow said in the 1899 Conference Address
“…I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child who has means shall pay one tenth of their income as a tithing…”
Conference Report Oct 1899 page 28 (3/5th way down column 2 on page 28) [http://archive.org/stream/conferencereport1899sa/conferencereport692chur#page/28/mode/2up
However, in the 2011 Lesson Manual, in Lesson 12- Tithing, the Church quote this talk as:
“….I plead with you in the name of the Lord, and I pray that every man, woman and child … shall pay one tenth of their income as a tithing….”
Teachings of Lorenzo Snow manual, page 160 [https://www.lds.org/manual/teachings-of-presidents-of-the-church-lorenzo-snow/chapter-12-tithing-a-law-for-our-protection-and-advancement?lang=eng]
I remember a F&T meeting when I was in college, wherein a girl bore a testimony of tithing, claiming that she paid tithes on all of her scholarships (keeping in mind this was an expensive, private non-religious university), and told a story about how she prayerfully wrestled with that decision, but ultimately decided to pay. It baffled me then, and still baffles me now.
When we are taught that the specifics of our tithing amounts are ultimately left up to our own decisions, it always seems to contain the hidden message that taking a short estimation is “robbing God” and that we would be better off if we erred on the side of paying more. I pay on the surplus as the original post suggests, but I still feel a little institutional guilt for not paying more, or at least for not rounding up to the nearest whole dollar.
here’s a treat. Ask an LDS friend to show where a single one of these LDS Cultural assumptions can be backed up by a single scripture.
That should be easy to do surely.
1. Tithing is the Lord’s money;
2. A tithe constitutes ten percent of our total earnings;
3. We must always make sure to pay tithing first before paying our bills;
4. Tithing money goes to help the poor and needy;
5. Paying a full tithe God promises to bless us individually;
6. Tithe paying is a commandment that every member of the church is expected to obey regardless of circumstances;
7. Tithing must be paid before anything else even if it means your children will go hungry.
Not one of those assumptions can be backed up by scripture and all of them are article of faith for LDS. As in “My husband lost his job but we are faithful tithe payers so we’ll be alright”
Ask them for One scripure
give them as long as they want
Jack, I know we often refer to that Malachi scripture about robbing God in relation to tithing, but that is referring to the people collecting the tithes and offerings, who were misappropriating them.
As far as guilt for not paying more, I think that should come (if it must) in consideration of charity. Tithing is important, for the upkeep of the church and the “debts of the First Presidency” and such, so just pay it, already, in whatever method you feel is right. As Metoday infers, though, there are very few mentions of tithing in scripture, and they are simple and matter-of-fact. But there are several scriptures that strongly encourage us to be charitable and give to the poor, and I believe that is where the difference is meant to be between paying an easy-to-bear tithing (i.e., surplus method) and giving a real sacrifice and offering to the Lord, financially.
Tithing requires us to do a little accounting and then fill out a slip with a check. Charitable giving requires more of a personal investment of choice and opportunity, and an active connection to our community and world. And charitable giving is not overseen and mandated like tithing, so is a truer measure of our hearts.
I’ll go on record saying that I pay on 10% of gross multiplied by a “stewardship” factor, which is the percentage of the contributions the Church receives each year that it openly reports upon the disposition and use thereof (i.e. how much cash was paid to leaders, how much cash was used to alleviate hunger, how much cash was loaned to Church-owned business operations, etc.).
Eric H. – I do think it is insightful that you mentioned that giving to the poor is really driven home in the scriptures, but paying tithing is casually mentioned a few times. That is one to think about.
Fred – Does the church actually disclose such information?
To Happy Hubby,
The church used to disclose it’s worldwide financial information, however they stopped disclosing U.S. financial data many years ago without (to my knowledge) explaining the reason. They continue to disclose financial information of foreign subsidiaries in certain countries where required by law, such as in the UK and Canada.
Why do I care? I care because I believe that if there is any organization on the face of the earth that should serve as an example of total honesty, transparency and good stewardship, it should be Christ’s restored church.
In the LDS community of my childhood, tithing one’s gross income was the assumed standard “..if you wanted celestial blessings”, and that mindset carried forward as an expectation for me and other active members. Further, during annual tithing settlement, I felt weight within the bishop’s question, “Is this a full and honest tith?”, sensing it was code-speak to tithing my gross income, not net; and his routine question was worded in that way to spare anyone who was less converted to the gospel from spiritual condemnation. I felt the pressure of God’s expectations upon me.
Add to this story that I was a precocious teen; and would ask my father (-and quorum leaders-) if I should tith any of the soft benefits that I get as an American kid attending publicly-funded school, attending a subsidized summer camp, riding my bicycle on paved streets funded through gasoline taxes, or playing sport in a public park. “Since I should tith my gross income”, I reasoned, “are these benefits part of my gross income?” I concluded that they are benefits to me, and realized that if tithed, would exceed all of my teenage wages by 100 fold. I felt stuck and somewhat depressed in the discovery. I only dug myself out as I reasoned that all kids run a “tithing deficit”, then later as adults, earn and tith on those prior benefits.
Now, in my 50s, I have a more practical idea about tithing. I don’t pay it ‘for blessings’ or the ‘expectations of others’ as much as under the realization that the Lord’s church needs money to cover its expenses; temples, chapels, missions, and many other costs.
Comments?
To Steve in Milcreek:
“Now, in my 50s, I have a more practical idea about tithing. I don’t pay it ‘for blessings’ or the ‘expectations of others’ as much as under the realization that the Lord’s church needs money to cover its expenses; temples, chapels, missions, and many other costs.”
Your post is interesting to me because it assumes that the Church has costs it cannot cover withhout your assistance. May I ask, given the total lack of financial disclosure, how you reached that conclusion? Also, may I ask that if you knew for a fact that the Church had more than sufficient funds to cover its expenses, say from the billions of dollars it earns in agribusiness alone, would you continue paying tithing?
I once told my uncle he was nickel and diming the Lord by paying on net. Boy have I changed. 🙂
Yes, my husband and I choose to pay on gross, but I don’t really care what other people do. Gross allowed us to not worry about paying on tax refunds – that was honestly a main component back when we were younger and typically got bigger tax refunds. When we were younger we didn’t have health insurance, life insurance, and retirement stuff automatically withdrawn from our paycheck, we paid it later. Once we started receiving those benefits, it just didn’t make sense to us to suddenly ignore that money when considering tithing (however, we don’t pay on the amount the employer contributes toward those benefits). We did not ever feel a need to pay tithing on scholarships, pell grants, student loans, student loan repayment awards or gift money. If it is employment or some sort of profit from a business venture, it makes sense to us to pay tithing. There were times in our lives we were dependant on student loans and government assistance for our livelihood. We didn’t pay any tithing those years and still felt very comfortable declaring to the bishop that we’d paid a full tithe.
My mom’s main source of income is retirement investments. A good portion of that money was already tithed back in the day, and she’d go crazy trying to sort it all out. I told her to pick a percentage that she was comfortable with designating as “un-tithed” and pay tithing on that. It works for her.
Eric H. your January 1st response is very, very well said and makes complete sense to me.
This article has really opened my eyes. I was born and raised in the church and was taught my whole life to pay on gross. Over the past couple of years I’ve really been questioning the validity of “pay on gross” because I could never find any scriptural basis for it, just opinions of modern LDS leaders.
I work in law enforcement and don’t make a lot of money. My wife has chosen to be a stay-at-home mother to raise our four children instead of shipping them off to a daycare. We will not sacrifice our children for another income like so many LDS parents do. We live in a very modest home, drive older vehicles, and definitely don’t have a lot to spare. Paying on gross always has put a burden on us since we’ve had to dip into our overdraft or credit card to make ends meet or when some legit need arises. In a sense, we go into debt to pay our tithing. I think this is so wrong on many levels. Some of my coworkers who are LDS have expressed this same concern.
From now on, I’m going to follow what the Lord himself stated in D&C 119 and pay on any amount over and above our basic needs have been met. This is not selfishness, but fulfilling a duty and stewardship. I truly believe he expects us to be self-sufficient and the charge for fathers to provide for their families is not be taken lightly. This will make me think about what is really a need or just a want. Not all my bills are basic needs and that will be taken into consideration when donating an honest tithe. Granted, if I had double the income or my wife worked, then I don’t think I would have a problem overpaying on tithing by paying on gross since we would have a lot more left over to use at our discretion.
Came across this post again in a search as I was preparing to cover the tithing chapter in the Pres. Hunter manual for EQ… I thought it was worth adding the recently discovered (and soon to be published in the JSPP) quote from Bishop Partridge about what the definition of D&C’s “interest” meant. Keep in mind that he was there when the revelation was given and was the church’s presiding bishop at the time.
He said that tithing should be calculated based on net worth, using a 6% interest rate (common at the time). So if your net worth is $1,000,000, 6% of that would be $60,000, and a tenth of that $6,000. Yes, a full and honest tithe for a net worth of $1,000,000 could be considered $6,000, per the “standing law forever” revelation of D&C 119, as understood and applied by the presiding bishop at the time.
Makes most surplus methods seem generous, no?
But this gets to a point I’ve made before about the 1970 statement, where it is said that “interest is understood to mean income.” How about “interest is understood to mean INTEREST”? Meaning, what is extra, like the interest paid to you in a savings account, or the interest you pay on a credit card bill. Turns out that’s exactly how it was understood and applied originally.
This is a great article. Only I am unsure about why so many comments consider things like netflix part of their necessary bills. it’s definitely surplus. i’d be looking at what bills i have to pay and even look at my standard of living – am i living beyond necessary means? then i better sit down and take the time to make complex calculations around what is my surplus and what is not. and if i don’t feel like it, then just pay 10% of your monthly check. no fuss.