Can we get clarification on early church Tithing statements

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
User avatar
AussieOi
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6137
Location: Sydney, Australia

Can we get clarification on early church Tithing statements

Post by AussieOi »

"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." (Aaron L. West, Sacred Transformations, December 2012)

If we are going to correctly observe God's law of tithing -and make no mistake, it is most certainly a law- perhaps it's time we clear our minds of the detritus that has accumulated from decades of secondhand information, and get the straight skinny directly from the Lord himself.

Question
DID, on December 7, 1836, Bishop Edward Partridge and his counselors officially defined tithing as 2 percent of the net worth of each member of the church, after deducting debts?
Apparently this money was put to covering the operating expenses of the Church, and it appears to have been adequate for a time.

DID?
When, Two years later, when the Church was eight years old, some 15,000 converts had already emigrated from their homes and gathered to Missouri, the new Zion. Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon, who constituted the First Presidency at the time, were spending all their time dealing with and settling this huge flow of immigrants, to the exclusion of being able to provide a living for their own families. Things were at a point where Joseph and Sidney must either be compensated for their time, or they were both going to have to stop what they were doing and go out and get a real job.

DID?
On May 12th the two men took the matter before the High Council of the Church. George W. Robinson recorded the minutes:
The Presidency laid before the High Council their situation as to maintaining their families in the situation and relation they stood to the Church, spending as they have for eight years their time, talents, and property in the service of the Church and now reduced as it were to absolute beggary and still were detained in the service of the Church. It now [had] become necessary that something should be done for their support, either by the Church or else they must do it themselves of their own labors. If the Church said, "Help yourselves," they would thank them and immediately do so, but if the Church said, "Serve us," then some provisions must be made for them. (Scott Faulring, An American Prophet's Record, Pg 182.)

DID?
The High Council voted eleven to one (George Hinkle vigorously opposed "a salaried ministry") to further contract the two men for their services, being careful to note that the money was "not for preaching or for receiving the word of God by revelation, neither for instructing the Saints in righteousness," but for work in the "printing establishment, in translating the ancient records, &c, &c." (ibid.)


Richard S. Van Wagoner, in his biography of Sidney Rigdon, explained:
After negotiations, they agreed to offer Rigdon and Smith an annual contract of $1,100 apiece, more than three times what the average worker of the day could earn. Ebenezer Robinson, the High Council's clerk, later wrote that "when it was noised abroad that the Council had taken such a step, the members of the Church, almost to a man, lifted their voices against it. The expression of disapprobation was so strong and emphatic that at the next meeting of the High Council, the resolution voting them a salary was rescinded." (Richard S. Van Wagoner, Sidney Rigdon, Pg 230.)

DID?
What the High Council did instead was offer the men 80 acres for their families to live on. So now Joseph and Sidney had some ground under them, but no walking around money


SO
The Church had been growing faster than anyone had anticipated, so it was past time to get the Lord's opinion on how to handle the financial end of things. Even though Bishop Partridge had declared tithing to be 2 percent of net, Partridge was not authorized to set doctrine; only God could do that.
So in July of 1838,

DID?
Joseph put the question to the Lord as to how all this was intended to work, and the answer is what we now know as the law of tithing?
This law consists of the entire chapter of D&C 119, and takes up all of seven short verses.

In the first verse, the Lord announces the first part of the tithe. It is for all the surplus property to be put into the hands of the bishop.

In Genesis 14 of the King James Version, we are left with the impression that Abram paid one tenth of all his possessions. That would have been a lot for Melchizedek to carry back, because Abram had a lot of posessions.

Yet in Joseph Smith's newer translation, we find that "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) Still a lot, but now we see it's not a tenth of everything. Abram gave only a tenth of his surplus.

God has never required his people to "pay him first," or to give to the Church before meeting the needs of our families. God's law has always been extremely fair.

DID?
Joseph Smith had not even been in his grave a month before the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles issued an edict declaring that instead of giving of their surplus, the Saints were to henceforth give "a tenth of all their property and money...and then let them continue to pay a tenth of their income from that time forth." There was no exemption for those who had already given all their surplus. The new rule was a tenth of everything right off the top.

DID?
The twelve didn't pretend this change represented a revelation from God; they just issued a decree to get it. They arbitrarily changed the definition of tithing just because they wanted to. Apparently some people don't understand the meaning of "a standing law forever."


DID?
By the time the Saints had settled in Utah, all talk of surplus had vanished from the dialogue. New converts were expected to turn over ten percent of all their property at the time of their baptism, then another ten percent upon arriving in Utah, and ten percent more every year thereafter. General authorities had either misread the Lord's words in Section 119, or were simply wrong when they taught that tithing was "one tenth of all we possess at the start, and then ever after one tenth..."

Webster defines "surplus" as "that which remains when use is satisfied; excess beyond what is prescribed or wanted."

Common sense would tell us that the suffixes "plus" in the words surplus and overplus would mean something like "in addition to," or "above and beyond,

We see in verse four of God's law of tithing that after giving this initial surplus, "those who have thus been tithed shall pay one tenth of all their interest annually." Well, that's an unusual word in that context, at least by modern standards. Not sure about the meaning of the term "interest" to the early Latter-day Saints? The pertinent definitions provided by Webster's 1828 inform us that it is a "share; portion; part; any surplus advantage." There's that word surplus again. It turns out that Interest is practically synonymous with surplus. As is also the meaning of increase.


NOW THIS, I think is the critical/ contentious part

Not sure what is meant by "surplus advantage"? For the definition of advantage we find "Benefit; gain; profit" also "Interest; increase;" and look, there's overplus again. But wait. Back up. Doesn't "gain" mean the same as earnings or wages? So in modern times when we are paid wages we have gain, right? Aren't we then supposed to tithe ten percent of our wages, since our wages represent a gain?

Nope. Not so fast. the meaning of Gain as it pertains to a person has always been akin to what profit would be to a business. The money coming in to a business might consist entirely of what it gets for selling its products, or sales revenue. But all that revenue does not give an accurate picture of how much money the business has actually gained, because a lot of that money has to go back out to cover expenses. What is left over after expenses constitutes how much money the business actually ends up with. That is the profit. Only when the business sees the profit left over has it experienced gain.

Similarly, your wages or earnings have always been defined as compensation for your time and labor. It is an even trade of value for value. It is not gain. There is no "gain" accrued when you receive your wages. You are simply being evenly compensated, which means given even value. Everything is still in equal balance when you got paid. You made an even exchange of your time in exchange for their money. There is no gain or overage involved in that transaction. There is no gain because there is no increase involved. Only after you have met your expenses can you enjoy your gain which is the money you get to use as you wish, to buy what you want, to save for some future purchase, or even to fritter away.

Still with me? Gain, Increase, and Interest are all synonymous with what you have left of your wages after providing for your needs. After you have provided for your needs, you get to use the rest of your money to satisfy your wants. (By the way, being able to tell the difference between what you need, and what you merely desire, is the mark of a mature adult. If you can honestly differentiate between the two, congratulations, you're all grown up.)

??

IS?
The law of tithing, as given to us by the Lord, is a simple law; it is only when we turn it into something difficult and complicated that we begin to see it as a challenge or a sacrifice

IS this actual?

First, the Church had overspent itself for some time. Wilford Woodruff, anxious to complete the Salt Lake Temple in his lifetime, had spent $1 million to complete the $4 million edifice in 1893. Educational and civic responsibilities also drained the budget. The Church was supporting Young College in Logan, Brigham Young Academy in Provo, and the Latter-day Saint College in Salt Lake. The national depression from 1893 through the latter half of the decade had increased the number of Saints in dire need of welfare. Furthermore, the Church invested heavily in local power, mining, sugar, and salt companies, trying to stimulate regional employment. According to Michael Quinn, the primary cause of the Church's indebtedness was "massive losses in the Church's interlocked mining, sugar, real estate, banking, and investment firms." As early as 1893, the Church began borrowing to meet its obligations, first from stake presidents and eventually from such "outside" institutions as Wells Fargo & Co., and National Union Bank.
Second, the Church maintained little fiscal supervision. Snow had been alarmed, on assuming the presidency, to discover that no budgetary controls existed. Decisions about using Church funds were made ad hoc on an as-needed basis. (Journal of Mormon History, Volume 20, No. 1, 1994)
Third, tithing receipts were down, and they had been down ever since the Quorum had changed the rules without authorization from God back in August 1844, when they announced the requirement of a tenth of all one's posessions at baptism, another tenth of all possessions upon arriving in Utah, and a perpetual tenth every year thereafter. Many members contributed only as much as they could afford, and a good number just gave up and stopped trying altogether. And of course, there was that little practice of the Brethren "borrowing" tithing funds for their personal use. The Church was in need of a tithing reformation, and Lorenzo Snow was the right guy at the right time.

Snow cancelled the requirement to give a tenth of one's property at baptism. Henceforth, tithing would consist of one tenth of one's annual income (and yes, everyone at the time knew what "income" was). Tithing receipts immediately and dramatically increased. He instituted strict controls and oversight to eliminate tithing being justified to increase allowances to members of the quorum.




Discussion Points?

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by ajax »

Love you Aussie, but give credit where credit is due: http://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2012/ ... thing.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

;)

Here are a few early statements:

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)

Orson Hyde:
"The celestial law requires one-tenth part of all a man's substance which he possesses at the time he comes into the church (See D&C 119:1), and one-tenth part of his annual increase ever after(See D&C 119:4). If it requires all man can earn to support himself and his family, he is not tithed at all. The celestial law does not take the mother's and children's bread, neither ought else which they really need for their comfort. The poor that have not of this world's good to spare, but serve and honor God according to the best of their abilities in every other way, shall have a celestial crown in the Eternal Kingdom of our Father." (The Millenial Star, 1847. Orson Hyde, editor)

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)

User avatar
Col. Flagg
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 16961
Location: Utah County

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by Col. Flagg »

So we've gone from 2% of our surplus to 10% of our surplus to 10% of our income before taxes... Seems to me something is rotten in Denmark... how can there be changes and discrepancies like this in a law that is so important and something that is commanded of the Lord that directly affects the lives of Saints? I know a lot of people who cannot afford to pay tithing at all because their incomes are so meager that if they paid 10% first to the church, they wouldn't have enough left to meet basic living expenses - I find it hard to believe that the Lord would expect someone or a family to sacrifice basic living expenses so that 10% can go to him first. What would the Lord prefer... that a person or family pay their living expenses first and then 10% of whatever is leftover goes to him or 10% of their income first goes to him and then whatever is left over hopefully is enough to meet their living expenses? Something stinks with what we're expected to do with regard to our payment of tithes because the law should never have changed if instituted correctly and divinely in the first place. And given the fact that we now have a church worth approx. $30 billion because of 'pay 10% of gross first before anything else', it sure makes you wonder. Did the Lord mean for his church to become a $30 billion behemoth to the point where we are now building luxury shopping malls with funds derived from investing tithing into Babylon? Seems to me that if we have billions laying around to throw at building malls that something is wrong.

AGStacker
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1270

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by AGStacker »

Thank you Aussie. :ymapplause:

I have tried counseling my wife that we should tithe on what we have extra every month. This is what I think the Lord intended. I am not saying to tithe after paying for the big screen, cable and vacation home (all of which we don't have) but to pay after paying for a modest home, electricity, water and so forth.

She isn't sold on the idea but hasn't given it much thought but I have convinced her to allow me to use ~20% of the tithing directly to helping the needy. I don't, don't want to be guilty of not helping the poor and for loving money more than they.

I do get a trip at every time I ask someone to quote to me the law of tithing they always, ALWAYS say "increase". Further more, it is between my wife and I and the Lord.
Last edited by AGStacker on March 6th, 2013, 9:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

embryopocket
captain of 100
Posts: 522

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by embryopocket »

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. - John 7:17
The Spirit has testified to me that paying 10% of our increase to the Church is one of His commandments. I pay my tithing and I receive spiritual strength from doing so.

This shouldn't even be an argument, if you look at the word tithing in all languages it comes from roots meaning 10 percent.

Example: Tithing in Spanish is DIEZMO ---> DIEZ = 10

After paying 10% of our increase to the LDS Church, we are encouraged to give generously to the poor. Paying tithing and helping the poor are both commandments of the Lord.

My mother comes from a family of 12 and they lived in poverty under Communist rule in Chile during the 50's and 60's. They joined the Church and paid their tithing even though my mom/aunts and uncles only had 1 piece of bread to eat each day. Because of their faithfulness, they were greatly blessed. Men tried to break in their house on several occasions, but could not open the flimsy screen door that had no lock whatsoever. Another time, 2 men tried to rape my aunt when a light came down from heaven and struck them dead where they stood. Against all financial odds, they always had enough to eat. The Lord provided for them just like He does for anyone that obeys His commandments. They now all live here in the USA with great families. Questioning this law based on financial hardship shows a lack of faith in the Lord's promises. I promise that if you pay with a desire to give to the Lord instead of paying because you "have to do it," you will be greatly blessed in many ways temporally and spiritually.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by ajax »

Nobody is suggesting to pay less than 10% embryo.

embryopocket
captain of 100
Posts: 522

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by embryopocket »

ajax wrote:Nobody is suggesting to pay less than 10% embryo.
I was just making sure ;)

AGStacker
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1270

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by AGStacker »

@ embry

There is no doubt that your family was protected and cared for by the Lord. He could do that whether one is paying tithing or not.

I don't think anyone has an issue about the 10%. We all agree it is 10% but the question is 10% of what?

embryopocket
captain of 100
Posts: 522

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by embryopocket »

AGStacker wrote:@ embry

There is no doubt that your family was protected and cared for by the Lord. He could do that whether one is paying tithing or not.

I don't think anyone has an issue about the 10%. We all agree it is 10% but the question is 10% of what?
https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/tithe ... g&letter=t" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here it says 10 percent of annual increase. Increase is up for debate I suppose, but I personally see increase as what is added to me. Which could be said as "after taxes."

And yes, the Lord could have done those things without them paying tithing but they received personal revelation that this was specifically because of their obedience to the law of tithing...I should have mentioned that in my original post. :)

natasha
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2184

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by natasha »

Some info on earlier times and now.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/05/tithing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
jnjnelson
captain of 100
Posts: 688
Location: Kearns, UT

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by jnjnelson »

natasha wrote:Some info on earlier times and now.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/05/tithing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I especially liked this:
Elder Oaks wrote:We do not pay tithing by contributing to our favorite charities. The contributions we should make to charities come from our own funds, not from the tithes we are commanded to pay to the storehouse of the Lord.

AGStacker
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1270

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by AGStacker »

@ embry

See, its funny that in your link the Church mentions the law of tithing in 119 but doesn't actually quote it.
Abraham gave tithes of all he possessed to Melchizedek: Gen. 14:18–20; ( Heb. 7:1–2, 9; Alma 13:15; )
All the tithe is the Lord’s: it is holy unto the Lord: Lev. 27:30–34;
Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase: Deut. 14:22, 28;
The tithe of all things brought they in abundantly: 2 Chr. 31:5;
Will a man rob God? Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings: Mal. 3:8–11; ( 3 Ne. 24:8–11; )
He that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming: D&C 64:23; ( D&C 85:3; )
The Lord’s house will be built by the tithing of his people: D&C 97:11–12;
The Lord revealed the law of tithing: D&C 119;
Tithing shall be disposed of by a council: D&C 120;
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.

User avatar
Col. Flagg
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 16961
Location: Utah County

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by Col. Flagg »

jnjnelson wrote:
natasha wrote:Some info on earlier times and now.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/05/tithing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I especially liked this:
Elder Oaks wrote:We do not pay tithing by contributing to our favorite charities. The contributions we should make to charities come from our own funds, not from the tithes we are commanded to pay to the storehouse of the Lord.
So when did the Lord sanction investing tithing in Babylon to earn interest income to earn even more money by using those funds to construct for-profit retail businesses? Sorry to come across as contentious, but I think the question needs to be asked.

Also, you have to admit... it is rather odd how our tithing commandment changed (if I recall correctly, it was President Lorenzo Snow that instituted 10% of our income) right after the church had gotten itself into debt that threatened to bring bankruptcy to the Lord's kingdom. Within a short period of time, the church was out of debt and the tithing, from that moment on, began rolling in like candy for the church and to this day has made us one of the wealthiest religions on the planet while many members struggle to pay for the basics in life or file bankruptcy themselves since they're paying 15-25% to the government and then another 10% of their income to the church. In Utah, the average household income is about $45,000/year and so if you're paying 15% in income taxes and 10% to the church, that's $11,250, leaving $33,750 and then you've got property taxes, sales taxes and all other forms of taxation that eventually add up to almost 45% of one's income, leaving the average family of 4 with $24,750 for the year to pay for food, a mortgage, two cars (since both Mom & Dad work), utilities, insurance, clothing, etc. Is it any wonder Utah leads the nation in personal bankruptcies? Is this what the Lord wants? Granted, some are living beyond their means, but many aren't.
Last edited by Col. Flagg on March 6th, 2013, 11:41 am, edited 2 times in total.

natasha
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2184

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by natasha »

Other thoughts from Brigham Young which are really wonderful. This indicates that the Saints knew about tithing (1/10) long before Pres. Snow's admonition. I hope everyone will read this.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?l ... 82620aRCRD" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

natasha
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2184

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by natasha »

Col. Flagg wrote:
jnjnelson wrote:
natasha wrote:Some info on earlier times and now.

http://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/05/tithing" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I especially liked this:
Elder Oaks wrote:We do not pay tithing by contributing to our favorite charities. The contributions we should make to charities come from our own funds, not from the tithes we are commanded to pay to the storehouse of the Lord.
So when did the Lord sanction investing tithing in Babylon to earn interest income to earn even more money by using those funds to construct for-profit retail businesses? Sorry to come across as contentious, but I think the question needs to be asked.
Flagg, why do you insist on turning every thread into either City Creek, polygamy, or 9/11? Can we discuss the law of tithing with all the blessings that we will receive for doing so?

User avatar
jnjnelson
captain of 100
Posts: 688
Location: Kearns, UT

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by jnjnelson »

Col. Flagg wrote:Sorry to come across as contentious …
No hard feelings. Thank you for the apology.

User avatar
Col. Flagg
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 16961
Location: Utah County

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by Col. Flagg »

natasha wrote:Flagg, why do you insist on turning every thread into either City Creek, polygamy, or 9/11? Can we discuss the law of tithing with all the blessings that we will receive for doing so?
I haven't said anything about City Creek here in this thread (or polygamy or 9/11). I've said my piece with regard to the law of tithing, so sure, let's discuss the blessings of paying tithing because I can say, without a doubt, that we have been blessed immensely for doing so over the years. I don't know how many times we were in a bind financially because of job loss or unforeseen expenses cropping up when someone would either offer us help financially or a check would arrive in the mail unexpectedly from some source that we were not expecting. There is no question the Lord blesses those who give. :)

User avatar
Col. Flagg
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 16961
Location: Utah County

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by Col. Flagg »

jnjnelson wrote:
Col. Flagg wrote:Sorry to come across as contentious …
No hard feelings. Thank you for the apology.
You bet. :ymhug:

User avatar
jnjnelson
captain of 100
Posts: 688
Location: Kearns, UT

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by jnjnelson »

Col. Flagg wrote:So when did the Lord sanction investing tithing in Babylon to earn interest income to earn even more money by using those funds to construct for-profit retail businesses?
Oh, I guess I should answer the question. The Lord never sanctioned investing in Babylon, and those who direct the Lord's Church have not invested in Babylon to my knowledge.

User avatar
jnjnelson
captain of 100
Posts: 688
Location: Kearns, UT

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by jnjnelson »

jnjnelson wrote:
Col. Flagg wrote:So when did the Lord sanction investing tithing in Babylon to earn interest income to earn even more money by using those funds to construct for-profit retail businesses?
Oh, I guess I should answer the question. The Lord never sanctioned investing tithing in Babylon, and those who direct the Lord's Church have not invested tithing in Babylon to my knowledge.
(This is just a clarification of what I meant.)
Last edited by jnjnelson on March 6th, 2013, 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

natasha
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2184

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by natasha »

Col. Flagg wrote:
natasha wrote:Flagg, why do you insist on turning every thread into either City Creek, polygamy, or 9/11? Can we discuss the law of tithing with all the blessings that we will receive for doing so?
I haven't said anything about City Creek here in this thread (or polygamy or 9/11). I've said my piece with regard to the law of tithing, so sure, let's discuss the blessings of paying tithing because I can say, without a doubt, that we have been blessed immensely for doing so over the years. I don't know how many times we were in a bind financially because of job loss or unforeseen expenses cropping up when someone would either offer us help financially or a check would arrive in the mail unexpectedly from some source that we were not expecting. There is no question the Lord blesses those who give. :)
Not specifically City Creek...but you have made mention of this in countless other threads regarding City Creek/Babylon. Please don't let honest discussions regarding a particular doctrine evolve into your pet-peeves....please?

User avatar
Col. Flagg
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 16961
Location: Utah County

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by Col. Flagg »

jnjnelson wrote:
Col. Flagg wrote:So when did the Lord sanction investing tithing in Babylon to earn interest income to earn even more money by using those funds to construct for-profit retail businesses?
Oh, I guess I should answer the question. The Lord never sanctioned investing in Babylon, and those who direct the Lord's Church have not invested in Babylon to my knowledge.
1963 - N. Eldon Tanner started investing tithing money into commercial real estate for the church and it has continued ever since - this is how and why the church is a $30 billion quazi-corporation today.
Last edited by Col. Flagg on March 6th, 2013, 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Col. Flagg
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 16961
Location: Utah County

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by Col. Flagg »

natasha wrote:
Col. Flagg wrote:
natasha wrote:Flagg, why do you insist on turning every thread into either City Creek, polygamy, or 9/11? Can we discuss the law of tithing with all the blessings that we will receive for doing so?
I haven't said anything about City Creek here in this thread (or polygamy or 9/11). I've said my piece with regard to the law of tithing, so sure, let's discuss the blessings of paying tithing because I can say, without a doubt, that we have been blessed immensely for doing so over the years. I don't know how many times we were in a bind financially because of job loss or unforeseen expenses cropping up when someone would either offer us help financially or a check would arrive in the mail unexpectedly from some source that we were not expecting. There is no question the Lord blesses those who give. :)
Not specifically City Creek...but you have made mention of this in countless other threads regarding City Creek/Babylon. Please don't let honest discussions regarding a particular doctrine evolve into your pet-peeves....please?
I'll try to refrain from it. :ymhug:

User avatar
jnjnelson
captain of 100
Posts: 688
Location: Kearns, UT

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by jnjnelson »

Col. Flagg wrote:1963 - N. Eldon Tanner started investing tithing money into commercial real estate for the church and it has continued ever since - this is how and why the church is a $30 billion quazi-corporation today.
Commercial real estate is not equal to "Babylon".

User avatar
jnjnelson
captain of 100
Posts: 688
Location: Kearns, UT

Re: Can we get clarification on early church Tithing stateme

Post by jnjnelson »

Col. Flagg wrote:
jnjnelson wrote:
Col. Flagg wrote:So when did the Lord sanction investing tithing in Babylon to earn interest income to earn even more money by using those funds to construct for-profit retail businesses?
Oh, I guess I should answer the question. The Lord never sanctioned investing in Babylon, and those who direct the Lord's Church have not invested in Babylon to my knowledge.
1963 - N. Eldon Tanner started investing tithing money into commercial real estate for the church and it has continued ever since - this is how and why the church is a $30 billion quazi-corporation today.
I understood that you meant "Babylon" to mean "A contemptuous or dismissive term for aspects of a society seen as degenerate or oppressive." Is that not correct? If that is what you mean, then I am completely confident that investment in commercial real estate does not fall under the category of "Babylon."

Post Reply