Over the past few weeks I’ve read a lot about the church’s $100,000,000,000 they have (it looks so big when you write it out like that!)
I came across the following quotes that others have found, that I think shed some light on this situations
“The worst fear that I have about this people is that they will get rich in this country, forget God and his people, wax fat, and kick themselves out of the Church and go to hell. This people will stand mobbing, robbing, poverty, and all manner of persecution, and be true. But my greater fear for them is that they cannot stand wealth; and yet they have to be tried with riches, for they will become the richest people on this earth.”
Brigham Young, Brigham Young: The Man and His Work (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1936), pp. 126–28
BY predicted we would be the richest people on earth. Now we don’t know if the “people” he was referring to was individual people, and thus individual wealthy by the members, or the “people” was the collective church. If the latter, he was very prophetic, as it looks like the LDS church has become the “richest people on this earth“. So, are we the church, waxing fat? Is this $100,000,000,000 part of being “tried with riches”? If this is a trail, how are we doing?
Now another quote that I really like:
“…we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God.”
So, is the church still working towards the above goal? Will there be a day when they will not have to “ask you for one dollar’? The above quote was even repeated by Boyd K. Packer in 1990 in explaining why the church was able to do away with the ward budget donations. The church didn’t have near the money in 1990 as it does today, and yet was able to lighten the burden of members.
Does the phrase “except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord ” change anything? Are not all donations voluntary? Does the phrase imply that some donations are mandatory? Will the church ever do away with tithing as a requirement for temple attendance?
Do away with tithing as a temple recommend requirement? Don’t hold your breath. We can only hope for a more accurate definition of “increase” and an acknowledgement of “full tithe” as someone works their way out of debt and has no “increase”.
I’ve often cited this BY quote on the bloggernacle, I marvel that one of the main themes of the BOM (materialism), and BY’s primary concern for the saints as they made the desert blossom as a rose has slunk out of our preview as we’ve become wealthy beyond our pioneer ancestor’s wildest dreams.
Tithing should be, and scripturally always should have been, based on one’s increase. “Increase” is circumstantial.
Consider:
-retirement differences in costs for those who live in countries with strong social safety nets, those who work for a company with pension benefits, those who must plan young and carefully to adequately fund their own retirement, and so forth.
-Healthcare costs, again, country and job dependent. Premiums, expenses, rx costs, dme needs, and so forth.
-Housing costs also vary greatly by location (as well as by generation): rent, saving for a down payment, mortgage, maintenance, property tax.
-Education. An education (college or other training) provides means for supporting one’s self and family, as well as contributing to the community and collective knowledge. Some countries fund and value education better than other countries do. Earlier US generations could pay for a bachelors degree by working a summer job. Not so anymore.
-Food.
-Childcare costs.
-Taxes -you get it, vary by location.
-Transportation.
Perhaps if the church had defined tithing on one’s increase we may have more members (and Q15+) who recognize individual circumstances and are sympathetic and charitable for those with heavier life burdens. Hopefully we would be a more progressive-thinking people.
Probably we would not have amassed the horrid $124,000,000,000: we would have insightful and creative minds on the real meaning of money.
Tithing should be, and scripturally always should have been, based on one’s increase. “Increase” is circumstantial.
Consider:
-retirement differences in costs for those who live in countries with strong social safety nets, those who work for a company with pension benefits, those who must plan young and carefully to adequately fund their own retirement, and so forth.
-Healthcare costs, again, country and job dependent. Premiums, expenses, rx costs, dme needs, and so forth.
-Housing costs also vary greatly by location (as well as by generation): rent, saving for a down payment, mortgage, maintenance, property tax.
-Education. An education (college or other training) provides means for supporting one’s self and family, as well as contributing to the community and collective knowledge. Some countries fund and value education better than other countries do. Earlier US generations could pay for a bachelors degree by working a summer job. Not so anymore.
-Food.
-Childcare costs.
-Taxes -you get it, vary by location.
-Transportation.
Perhaps if the church had defined tithing on one’s increase we may have more members (and Q15+) who recognize individual circumstances and are sympathetic and charitable for those with heavier life burdens. Hopefully we would be a more progressive-thinking people.
Probably we would not have amassed the horrid $124,000,000,000: we would have insightful and creative minds on the real meaning of money.
“Will the church ever do away with tithing as a requirement for temple attendance?“
Someone recently pointed out to me it’s ironically the temple where tokens are sold for money.
Sasso, I agree, “increase” is circumstantial. The items you listed and others require interpretation which essentially propels us into the United Order. For example, why should my sibling not pay tithing b/c she bought a fancy Ivy League college degree when I only paid for a state school and therefore have significantly less debt? Does my neighbor, who owns a boat and jet skis, state of the art Xbox and home theater system, a cabin up the canyon, trendy house on the benches, wears name-brand clothes, takes fancy vacations, etc. but suffers from consumer debt be off the hook for tithing while a modest saint pays a widow’s mite? Most US families live in consumer debt, but I know a lds family who homesteaded on a corner of farmland (without running water) in order to dig out of debt. What is the expectation? The motivation?
Would tithing become the luxury of only of an ultra-modest and the uber-rich socioeconomic strata? What is an acceptable standard of living? Is it different in every country, from rural to urban, state to state? I think that people understand non-voluntary expenses like medical bills, but considering my home mortgage, should I have bought a piano (or jet ski) instead of paying a tithe? (Or for that matter, swimming lessons for the kids or music lessons?)
My point is that “circumstances” is difficult to define and when we consider circumstances, we move into UO territory.
Mortimer, very interesting points. The old calculations of tithing increase vs income would bankrupt widows in London and SF.
Some context that hasn’t been discussed for endowment sizes:
Harvard has a $40B endowment for 22K students.
Stanford’s is estimated in the 100s of billions (counting their real estate holdings) for 17K students.
The BYUs alone are 80K students against the 100B it’s a much lower endowment per student size… not counting the other operations of the church including 100K+ fulltime missionaries.
People often use extreme examples and dire consequences as distraction and to sow doubt. I included words like adequate and job training, which indicate using a reasonable standard.
I didn’t invent increase – it’s the scriptural standard.
And yes, when we have gross wealth and income disparity, tithing should be much higher for those on the great wealth, lower taxes policy the U.S. has chosen.
That’s one of the underlying messages in Christ’s teaching of the widow’s mite – that her tiny donation was large.
It’s a Pharisaical practice to insist we define what an increase might be. We can trust and empower individual tithe payers to come up with an appropriate amount.
It was disingenuous of the church to edit Lorenzo Snow’s statement on tithing in a way that completely alters his meaning. The church replaced three words, “who has means” with ellipses, so that the quote states “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.” The omission of those the words “who has means” substantially changes the meaning of President Snow’s message. Our current policy that shapes our practice of tithe paying is deeply regressive and might put us in the category of robbing God or dishonoring the widow’s mite.
Jesus said to him: The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
Mortimer–what about Mitt Romney’s IRA that is reportedly worth over $100,000,000? Our current policy seems to leave him off the hook for paying tithing on the money that sits in that fund until he withdraws it. I just can’t square that with the fact that we ask middle and lower income families to do without necessities when wealthy members are able to let their wealth grow in such an uninhibited manner over a lifetime. I don’t think this was Christ’s intent.
I am concerned that by suggesting that members pay tithing when they cannot even afford to buy food or other necessities for their children, the church is essentially condoning child neglect, which are least in the U.S. is a crime. That is a serious matter and something we need to address. We need to move back to the practice of tithing on our increase and trust the judgement of members to calculate what that might be. This recent emphasis on paying tithing even when one doesn’t have money to pay for food and shelter of a family’s children has bothered me (several conference talks in recent years). To find out that the church was preaching this while it was building up over $100,000,000,000 leaves me with feelings of dismay, heartbreak, and betrayal that I’m not sure I’ll be able to resolve.
At final judgement, I envision complete transparency – nothing hidden or shaded with nuance. Our deeds and, most importantly, the intents of our hearts will be “on display”.
Why can’t our own well considered and prayerfully confirmed judgement of what our “increase“ looks like be our standard here on earth? If we aren’t honest with ourselves and God, it will be revealed.
The expense of cancer treatment vs. a boat? One causes money to vaporize – no increase there. The other – I’ve traded a cash increase for an increase of tangible personal property. Like most “commandments”, the principle seems simple. How we live it may be a struggle, but it is a struggle we can take before God and come away with personal revelation.
Why can’t a member declare a full tithe when they’ve paid $0 because they’ve had no increase? The way it is now, God may be right with that – but they won’t get a temple recommend.
The “will a man rob God” story is not directed to the members. It was Malachi’s admonition to the priests who, having collected the people’s tithes and offerings, were hoarding them because times were tough and they were not distributing to the poor and needy. The priests wanted to make sure their portion would be there in the future.
This story should cause reflection by the brethren on how they are handling the tithes and offerings (and the other income that is derived therefrom) rather than be weaponized to shame people to pay tithing instead of rent or food. The opening of the windows of heaven in Malachi’s tale is a promise to the Church that if they distribute the tithes and offerings, taking care of the poor, there will be enough and to spare for the Church. It is not God’s promise of prosperity to individual members, i.e. The Lord’s Law of Finance.
The increasingly legalistic church forced me to seek my own understanding and spiritual confirmation of so many principles. In many instances, that means that the path I feel is right for me diverges from the brethren’s definition of the “covenant path”.
For me when my wife and I send off a tithing donation it is no longer our money but the Lord’s/ Church”s money and how it is used is no longer my concern. I believe the various prophets who said the Jesus Christ is actively directing the work of the Church. As far as tithes and offerings go, the adage ” where much is given, much is expected” applies and each of us will someday be held accountable the Lord
Tithing should be strictly on an honor system. Pass around a collection plate, or equivalent. Pay online. Have members mail in payments to the COB. Keep local leadership from knowing who pays how much. The COB can email or mail statements to tithe payers for tax purposes. No longer require answering to tithing payment in order to obtain a temple recommend, neither at tithing settlement, nor at the recommend interview.
As it stands idea that tithing payment is voluntary is questionable. Many members in Mormon-heavy areas face great pressure to pay. Tithing settlement can and does act as a pressure system. It shows that local leaders know how much you pay and makes it so you know that the bishopric and clerk knows how much you pay.
Furthermore, it places members in front of family members and children reporting a yes or a no to the question of whether or not you are a full tithe-payer. Feeling the need to say no can be detrimental to some relationships (on the ex-Mormon reddit page, I read story after story of tithing-related strain to marital couples). People should no longer feel pressure to pay tithing to obtain a temple recommend. They should no longer feel pressure to pay beyond what they can afford. They should no longer be put in any situations where they feel extreme guilt for not paying enough. They should no longer feel the need to pay on the gross (the leadership needs to specify that it is the increase on which tithing is to be paid, and that paying on the gross is too much). With a $100 billion, there is no more need for this pressure system, which does not exist in other churches, mind you.
I have lived in 3 continents and the “ interpretation” of what constitutes a tithe varies greatly no wonder given the inequity and huge variations in taxation throughout the world.
A close friend of mine in Europe who was paying over 70% managed to live as he worked for the church and had a car paid for Plus phone and internet ( he said that was the only reason he survived financially.) was
Another friend said in his country people only paid on net….
I was brought up on you pay on gross which in my country can be a very large amount eating into your wage and we can only claim 75% of our tithing ( which was a relatively new introduction after
it originally was 100% a few decades ago) and I think that will be under pressure to take it back to zero.
I always used to have a laugh as I read the BoM and the complaint there that the people were taxed I think 20% by king Noah and after the people’s captivity 50%…..many throughout the world would take either!
Many of the poor in our country are still asked to pay on the gross pension income which leaves the poor even poorer. I don’t think that tithing was ever meant to be instituted like this.
I was talking to my bishop recently at our tithing settlement and he said “ I notice that the younger people pay on net”……given that we have close to the highest home prices in the world it’s probably reasonable to them.
I always wondered if the modern interpretation of tithing was made in a poorer country “gross” would have been the first “interpretation “?.
Sasso & John W… agreed. A few years ago, paying tithing on gross or net began to bother me after I considered this scenario: Household income in Home A is $100,000, where lives a working husband and wife with part time job, 3 kids, 2 car payments, a mortgage, modest savings for 401k, average bills, student loan and credit card debt, etc. Next door, in Home B, 25 year old slacker lives in Mom’s basement eating Cheese Its and playing video games all day. Mom enables him by paying bills and giving credence to Junior’s empty promises to launch. One day the doorbell rings. Junior answers it to meet a lawyer informing him that his deceased uncle just left him $100,000. — Under the current “understanding” of tithing’s “increase” as “income,” the family in Home A, and the debtless slob in Home B both will have the exact same tithing. This makes no sense to me and cannot be what the Lord intends.
To put this another way, I find no support in the scriptures for the notion that the Lord seeks to tithe our existence, that is, our minimum level of support to just live in a reasonable manner in our allotted t
ime and place. If it were otherwise, if the Lord did intend to tithe–tax–our very existence, then those with no income would always owe tithing. But they don’t. Those with no income pay no tithing. I deduce from this that the Lord does not tithe/tax our existence even though all living souls consume some level of valuable resources. (Presumably those with “no income” still ate this year, wore clothing, enjoyed shelter, accepted rides, received dental and medical care, etc.)
Now, I believe the hourly or salaried worker’s labor is worth something–inherently. (How can labor not have an inherent, minimum value when it comprises consumption of food, lost opportunity cost, amortized training, education, and experience, etc., etc.) If this understanding it correct, then the portion of remuneration for that inherent, minimum value of one’s labor CANNOT be increase. Only the portion above that is increase.
In my view, pressuring hourly working or salaried members to pay on gross or even net wrongly tithes part of their income that ought to be left alone, the part that is not increase at all. Neither the farmer nor the business owner pays tithing on all revenue; much of it simply replenishes overhead. Likewise with the worker–he has non-tithable overhead, too.
I figure my wife and I have paid tithing well into the six figures over the last thirty years, just going on autopilot from church culture, habit, and pressure to pay on gross. But having thought this through, it now feels wrong and confiscatory. There were MANY years we couldn’t get ahead. When our kids were young and well into their tweens, we were one or two months’ away from being broke. And I had a professional, white collar income and great medical benefits. We were much like Home A, above.
To any objection that “increase” is difficult to calculate, or chaotic, or nonuniform, I say I don’t think so, really. Common sense and prayer goes a long way in making an acceptable offering. Besides, this decision ought to be left to free moral agents no matter the ease or difficulty of calculation.
thechair
The Chair
When I was Bishop Inwell remember the business man who ran a million dollar business and claimed everything possible on his business and I mean everything. He paid himself $200 a week and paid tithing ( gross) on the $200 ……there is terrible inequity in our churches system
I’ve never, ever paid tithing on gross income. Where did people get the idea they should?
I do remember once in Primary someone telling the kids they should pay tithing on birthday money. Really? And should they estimate the value of other presents so they can pay tithing on that too?
Lois, I know a family who did exactly that: Estimate the value of all gifts received and tithe them. The mind boggles. A lot of people couldn’t afford to receive gifts in that framing of the issue. But I guess they could.
In a First Presidency letter dated 19 March 1970 and quoted often since then, and I believe repeated in the Church Handbook of Instructions:
“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.”
While the law of tithing in the LDS Church has not always been understood this way by its leaders, we’re coming on nearly a half-century of instruction to stop telling anyone how to define “income” or to pay on “gross” rather than “net”. I wonder where any pressure after to pay on “gross” is coming from unless from unauthorized and unjustified LDS social culture or rogue or ignorant and unjustified local church leaders.
Regarding changes in Church leaders’ understanding of tithing, consider:
President Lorenzo Snow said “…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…” Annual Conference, volume 2, page 28, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1899. https://books.google.com/books…
and
“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 Latter-day Saints’ Millenial Star, Vol. IX, page 12, January 1847. Orson Hyde, editor) https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/MStar/id/552
I’m surprised that others are surprised that many tithe on gross. How does one suppose the Church got its EPA fund so well-endowed? Unfortunately, at least in Utah and nearby western U.S. states, there is an “unwritten order of things”(in Boyd K. Packer’s words) that allows and fosters these sorts of practices and cultural habits. For example, where did the intense expectation come from for priesthood holder to wear a white shirt? The Handbook doesn’t demand it. The Handbook only suggests that those administering the Sacrament wear a white shirt, but even that isn’t a requirement. Yet here we are in North America, at least, with most men appearing in a sea of white shirts. I once wore a colored shirt to Church on the day the new bishop was announced. By this clue, a fellow brother “knew” I would not be the new Bishop; I must have known I wouldn’t be Bishop if I were flouting expectations like that. As for the Handbook on tithing, the 1970 quote, the Lorenzo Snow and Orson Hyde quotes, and the like, I know and knew of all that. But here is what the Brethren teach today:
“President Nelson also said tithing can break cycles of poverty in poor nations and families.
“We preach tithing to the poor people of the world because the poor people of the world have had cycles of poverty, generation after generation,” he said. “That same poverty continues from one generation to another, until people pay their tithing.” (Pres. RMN, preaching to Saints in Kenya, reported in Deseret News, 4/16/18.)
“One of the first things a bishop must do to help the needy is ask them to pay their tithing. Like the widow, if a destitute family is faced with the decision of paying their tithing or eating, they should pay their tithing.” (Tithing—a Commandment Even for the Destitute, Lynn G. Robbins Of the First Quorum of the Seventy, Apr. 2005 Gen. Conf.)
“After some events related to a civil war in Central America, my father’s business went bankrupt. He went from about 200 full-time employees to fewer than five sewing operators who worked as needed in the garage of our home. One day during those difficult times, I heard my parents discussing whether they should pay tithing or buy food for the children.
“On Sunday, I followed my father to see what he was going to do. After our Church meetings, I saw him take an envelope and put his tithing in it. That was only part of the lesson. The question that remained for me was what we were going to eat” (The Language of the Gospel, Elder Valeri V. Cordón
Of the Seventy, Apr. 2017 Gen. Conf.)
If the needy and the destitute are instructed to pay tithing first–on their “income”–then it should come as little surprise that a number of North American middle class members pay on gross, (or perhaps on some robust form of after-tax net–I speculate, here.)I know this is a minority, but the practice seems significant enough amongst leadership families to be a real thing.
At any rate, I’ve reasoned myself out of this understanding on gross.. Yet right after my last post, guilt got the most of me as I paid tithing online for the whole year in one big chunk. Despite three decades of overpayment, still we paid. Primarily to remain eligible to enter the Temple to see our last child marry someday soon.
A final thought occurs to me. The home is at least as important as the Church, no? If so, then isn’t the domestic fisc as high a priority as the Church’s? After all, “home-centered, church-supported” isn’t limited to instruction, right?
thechair, It is not a surprise to me that some pay on “gross” (though except for wage or salary earners with no other income, it’s not clear how even “gross income” may or could be defined). Many of us have done so for years. Others have not. For decades in my ward the question has not been raised in connection with the authorized tithing settlement question whether one is a “full tithepayer.”
I merely wonder where the alleged pressure to do so comes from. Are there local leaders pushing it still? Where the pressure comes from is a different subject from paying on “income”, whatever that may be defined to be, with no one “justified” in defining it for anyone else.
“…we expect to see the day when we will not have to ask you for one dollar of donation for any purpose, except that which you volunteer to give of your own accord, because we will have tithes sufficient in the storehouse of the Lord to pay everything that is needful for the advancement of the kingdom of God.”
We will not have to, but we’re going to anyway, because it keeps you committed, it gives us another way to control temple admission and calling eligibility, and because (as any wealthy person will tell you) no matter how much we have, it is never enough.
thechair
Our labor does have inherent value. “Progressive Mormon Teachings” is a page on FaceBook. The creator often quotes the 1939 Melchizedek Priesthood manual. Before we embraced capitalism, we were warned of its ill effects. We were taught that a man’s labor is his capital. [I’m willing to assume they intended that in a gender neutral way.]
Copies of that manual are still floating around, often for ~$20usd.
JPV —that was interesting.
I am surprised that no one has noted how Brigham’s prophesy lines up with Moroni’s in Mormon Chapter 8. Moroni saw the same test that Brigham did and saw we would fail it . v37 ” you love money… more than you love the poor and needy ,the sick and the afflicted” as a result we have’ polluted the holy church of god”. Yea'” every church has become polluted.” Why do we not take seriously 2 prophetic statement by 2 prophets whose prophesy has been fulfilled before our very eyes.